Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 4

message: NLP as a pseudoscience as criticism will depend on how it is framed.  Currently it seems to be very neutrally framed (a neutral scientific assessment of NLP due to no support from science, plus pseudo theory, plus criticism or no regards for scientific testing of NLP, plus trying to immunize against testing by claiming wholism and so on).  I believe it is just a neutral statement.DaveRight 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they talking about primary rep system or preferred rep system? Bandler (in Frogs) says that the primary rep systems are the VAK experiences (so of course they're in the same breath). I've been checking into it and PREFERRED rep system is the term used in the US army study, it's separate to the primary rep system. The Primary rep systems (now called "First Access" by Grinder) are certainly core to NLP and still taught. The "preferred rep system" as a single system ("I'm an auditory person") is not taught (see "strategies" as an example of multiple rep systems), instead a preferred rep system can be calibrated and reflected in short bursts of time (eg the sentence immediately following may match a previous sentence, but not longer term). We may do well to clarify this in the article. GregA 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: How did you satisfy the request? To answer whether to include it somewhere would require knowing what you're saying, right?  :) GregA 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: My god I've never heard anything like that... who suggested NLP become a religion? Madness. Interesting that you note France does not list NLP as a cult - have you got a specific source for us to use? GregA 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a reference, but can confirm what HeadleyDown is writing.  Around 2000, the French government was assembling a list of all movements that should be considered cults.  The French NLP association could refute the claims that NLP should be seen as a cult. I remember reading some articles (but they were in French). User:PatrickMerlevede 12:15, 1 November 2005 (GMT-1)
Greg, the evidence is in the research.  Do the research.  And please stop trying to NLP twist my words.  It is obvious and incriminates you as somebody who does not want to face facts.HeadleyDown 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not going to research each of your claims any more (if previous research had supported them, I would). If you have a claim to make, back it up, or drop the claim. Continuing to claim something without evidence and demanding that others prove you wrong is a pseudoscientific characteristic that you are well aware of. GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem I have with pseudoscience is that core NLP (and I mean the roots of the subject 1960 - 1980's, not whatever junk may have come into it in the last 10 years) seems credible. For example, I am not aware of any multinationals that use dynetics as a management coaching tool, or engrams to improve their staff effectiveness. I am aware of global corporations that use NLP technologies for these. I'm not aware of a major professional body of psychiatry that treats homeopathy as a serious means to heal, but I am aware that there are such colleges that treat the grinder-bandler derived ericksonian model in NLP as a serious methodology. There are sufficient concerns here over thepseudoscience label that I have one question: might part of the problem be, that NLP started out as one thing and over the years acquired other aspects that are less solidly founded and more pseudosciency? If so, perhaps that is how the article should approach it.  Can someone with more knowledge of the history of development of NLP comment? FT2 11:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please elaborate. A few weeks back you said that nominalisations had been disproved and I asked for more info and you gave none. Your above sentence lacks any meaning or purpose without some more info. GregA 23:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The nominalisation stuff is currently of interest to me and I am exploring - when you claimed there were articles disproving the effect etc I was interested as I haven't found them... if you can't find them that's fine. And no I haven't studied linguistic relativism per se, though I've studied the concepts behind it, largely through the cognitive science area (in contrast to linguistics, psychology, or NLP). I do see relationships to NLP mainly in the "map is not the territory" area, and the links to the premise that what goes on in our heads is important (ala Chomsky's critique of Skinner). For other readers - our language and limits of our language are theorised to affect our interaction and understanding of the world. Headley - I see no evidence of anything being debunked, it seems to still be an important part of cognitive linguistics . Stop mind reading and answer a question - what are you saying was debunked (and what are you saying Bandler/Grinder said?)?  GregA 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience

message: It seems that NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001/Laso, 2001 reference is incorrect. This source lists NLP under a subtitle  under the subtitle, "Dubious mental health related methods summarised", citing [Sorting out junk science (Raso et al  2001 http://acsh.org/publications/priorities/1301/coverstory.html] as the source, this article is not about NLP at all. I've removed the NCAHF statement. --Comaze 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NCAHF News, July/Aug 2001

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)
replies: text: Sure, the modeling word is confusing the way it is placed in the first line.  It is very arguable also.Bookmain 07:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said, I think there is a better way than the way it is placed in the first line. This, to me, implies we should look at a better way of saying it. Any suggestions (see mine below in 'suggested openings') GregA 21:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modeling

message: This was also reverted without discussion. It simple states the movements Grinder in recent years. I think it is appropriate for the Recent developments section.... "With the publishing of Whispering in the Wind in 2001, John Grinder and his partner Carmen Bostic St Clair made explicit their intention to set up the field of Neuro-linguistic Programming as a legimate field of human endeavour. The working title, Red Tail math promises to further explicate the epistemology of NLP, including refinements of cybernetic epistemology of Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979) using discrete dynamical systems (Malloy et al 2005) and the inclusion of ecology and emergence (Malloy, Grinder, Bostic, 2005)." --Comaze 00:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grinder's contributions since 2000

message: I don't know where to post this so please move it if you need to ... I've added a link to the google print text of Lilienfield (2003), and fixed one of the attributes. The interesting point I want to make is that Lilienfield defines NLP as a unvalidated "therapeutic method" that claims to cure phobias in a few minutes. Firstly, therapy is just just one application of the NLP. And secondly empirical testing of a phobia reduction process without a well-formed outcome, or trance work or dealing with secondary gains is not fair testing. Thirdly, Lilienfield's definition of NLP is extremely biased toward apply mechanistic research methodology to natural systems. This goes back to the holism in science argument, and Gregory Bateson's influence on NLP. This is the problem with trying to test NLP with an outdated (but still popular in psyhcology) behavorism test. Bateson would be turning in his grave. Also note that Discrete Dynamic Systems (Malloy 2005) and other chaos/complexity theories and tools that John Grinder is now using, is argued by some mechanistic scientists to be pseudoscientific. Also, engram (although it is not common in NLP) is another example of attempting to import a mechanistic concept to test NLP, it is simply not part of NLP. Lashley, actually was instrumental in proposing distributed representation when he was not able to find an engrams (1957). The idea of distributed representation and emergence (Grinder, Bostic, Malloy, 2005) is more in line with NLP epistemology. --Comaze 04:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone else please check this revert by Bookmain .  The comment description does not match the changes made. --Comaze 05:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lilienfield (2003) 

message: : Bookmain, To be fair, a reply to why NLP (especially Grinder & Bandler) does not use mechanistic behaviorism is relevant POV. This will sort out alot the current disputes in one hit. I urge to actually read Bateson (1972) if you want critically review NLP. This relates to chomskyan revolution that sparked the creation of Transformational Grammar which had a huge influence on NLP foundations. For example, A guide to transformational Grammar, Grinder & Elgin, ~1972 really sets to foundations for NLP's first book Structure of Magic, which also has an introduction to Transformational Grammar. --Comaze 04:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanism

message: Also, your ref on TV NLP is irrelevant in relation to all the other research presented.  Firstly, if you can present that single study, then we will have to paste in all the other refs done by Platt.  Secondly, it is not a study conducted using people as therapists.  It uses TVs.  TVs do not do constant recallibration.Bookmain 04:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the peer-reviewed journal Bookman, the article is NLP application to TV marketing, not therapy. This is a separate POV. NLP application in marketing is everywhere, yet there are not many journals about it. But this may be outweighed by hundreds of non-academic books on the subject from reputable publishers. --Comaze 04:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevence of TV Marketing?

message: I am getting a little tired of Comaze's antagonism.  Please VoiceOfAll, tell me exactly whether you consider my actions vandalism.  Comaze has just placed one of these labels on my page:
<test4>
I just think things could be done with a little more respect for those willing to do actual good research, and perhaps just a little more control of those promoters who seem overanxious to delete facts and add add confusing hype and who seem unable to contribute anything clarifying or concise.HeadleyDown 07:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:HeadleyDown, I have a problem with this comment. Good science is, you say what you know, and make clear what is likely, possible or unknown fairly. Pseudoscience you make claims which are not in accordance with reality regardless. Thats the whole point being discussed. Your comment here is in that sense "pseudoscience". It is a threat or promise, that you have no jurisdiction over, no power to fully enforce, no place to make. It's a sham. It's hyperbole, not fact. Comaze may or may not post some things on a page, but you lack the authority to state that "the next time" he will or will not be "blocked from editing wikipeida". A system wide ban? You know that would take quite a bit more than one person's (especially your) upset. Ungrounded threats of that kind, are inappropriate on WP, and to that extent you too place yourself fully in the wrong. FT2 09:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put that we move this discussion to a personal talk page. --Comaze 11:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Headley, this is the text that you placed on Comaze's talk page: This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That is exactly the opposite of your later claim "I did not suggest that anyone be banned". FT2 12:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  FT2, I did warn formally HeadleyDown on his talk page. It is not cool to bring it up in a public discussion page. --Comaze 13:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (I have updated the section on principles and presuppositions. It's now factual, in the sense that 1/ it does not, so far as I am aware, claim anything that is not commonly understood to be the case, 2/ it describes NLP neutrally, 3/ No claims or statements are made that are unverifiable as far as I can tell, 4/ It explains both terms. Any criticisms please bring here, do not full-revert as I am unaware of anything controversial or disputed written in that section. FT2 16:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you VoiceOfAll.  That clears things up.  I would like to point out that Comaze broke the 3RR rule for weeks, and did so multiple times a day, and also made a statement of commitment to continue in this way until a Bandler/Grinder view only was presented on the article.  This is the main reason for intention to seek for banning of Comaze (because his behavior was persistent and entirely uncooperative).  As I said, today I made no suggestion to ban.  However, Comaze has been placing warning labels on any non promotional editor for weeks and not removing them dispite having zero evidence to support the posting.  He also "caps" edits that he likes with his own minor multiple edits whenever he possibly can in order to make it very hard for anyone else to make changes without reverting them.  It is irritating, although the only real solution is to ignore him and revert regardless of whether his edits are good or not.  I noticed that it has also been irritating other NLP promoters and has possibly led to different opinions there also.  I wish to keep things constructive, and Comaze is deliberately irritating.  How can anyone assume good faith in the face of months of this kind of nonsense several times a day?
Anyone editing an aspect of the article that is being debated in the talk should edit as a single, exclusive, edit, as opposed to mixing it with spelling corrections/ect...Also, edit summaries should mention such edits. Thank you.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to take your bait. Contact me on my talk page if you wish to resolve this.--Comaze 03:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HeadleyDown

message: Putting up "test4" tags when you are unable to block people generally should not be done unless perhaps, it is a vandal, and you want other admins to be able to see how many severe vandal actions the vandal comitted. Blocking people because you disagree with them is disgraceful, and his lead to the arbitration and de-adminship of SteveVertigo.
Both of you have put up threats that you cannot enforce against each other, in addition to the fact that noy only did nobody commit vandalism, but that punishment is not even appropriate for the first instance of vandalism(if there was any). I don't know who put up the first tag, but however put up the second one is not better than the first. Thoughtlessly mirroring other people remarks that you felt offensive/and or disagreed with is used by A)People who can't control their temper or B)Experienced trolls; so both of you are in the wrong here, as previously stated.
Unless their is true vandalism/trolling or 3RR violations, then admins will not block people. 
False "test" signs must be promptly removed.
Lets try to keep warning signs off the discussion page; and if you have a conduct issue, then tell me first.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 16:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you VoiceOfAll.  That clears things up.  I would like to point out that Comaze broke the 3RR rule for weeks, and did so multiple times a day, and also made a statement of commitment to continue in this way until a Bandler/Grinder view only was presented on the article.  This is the main reason for intention to seek for banning of Comaze (because his behavior was persistent and entirely uncooperative).  As I said, today I made no suggestion to ban.  However, Comaze has been placing warning labels on any non promotional editor for weeks and not removing them dispite having zero evidence to support the posting.  He also "caps" edits that he likes with his own minor multiple edits whenever he possibly can in order to make it very hard for anyone else to make changes without reverting them.  It is irritating, although the only real solution is to ignore him and revert regardless of whether his edits are good or not.  I noticed that it has also been irritating other NLP promoters and has possibly led to different opinions there also.  I wish to keep things constructive, and Comaze is deliberately irritating.  How can anyone assume good faith in the face of months of this kind of nonsense several times a day?
Anyone editing an aspect of the article that is being debated in the talk should edit as a single, exclusive, edit, as opposed to mixing it with spelling corrections/ect...Also, edit summaries should mention such edits. Thank you.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to take your bait. Contact me on my talk page if you wish to resolve this.--Comaze 03:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations

message: Hello non nlp promotional editors.  Progress has been good as regards mediation and they will continue to improve as long as we all stay cool.  
*Since the article has been well covered and cited, and those citations have been verified multiple times even in mediation, it is time to accept the facts.  The mediation requests have been satisfied as regards citations, and there are clearly more to come that can satisfy them further.  However, it is clear that some NLP promoters are using whatever tactic they can to antagonize even after statements from the mediator, they try to make it appear that questions have not been answered, to add hyperbole and jargon, and generally confuse conclusive scientific findings by adding minor single and irrelevant speculative NLP studies. They also seem to be attempting to break the 100Kilobite barrier on file size.  
*The solution is to stay cool, take a harder scientific line (exclude single minor speculative studies) and do not stand for any self-desctructive NLPpromotional behaivor.  NLP is about neuro, linguistics (neuro linguistics) and programming.  It uses scientific sounding jargon and misplaced concepts in a confusing way, and therefore must be clarified using scientific studies, neurology, psychology and other reliable and neutral sources.
*The solid evidence presented has indeed been covered in the archives multiple times.  If an NLP promoter insists that they have not had their question answered when it has been covered before, simply stay cool and refer them to the archives.  
*If an NLP promoter insists that the scientific studies are wrong, or that science is wrong in general, then they are using a pseudoscientific argument, and can be directed to the archives.
*If an NLP promoter makes multiple edits in order to make editing harder then simply revert.  If it is convenient, try not to delete any valid edits in the process, but if it is not convenient, simply revert the lot.  
*Do your best to help the mediator as NLP is deliberately very confusing.  Provide help with seperating obscurantist jargon from real neurology or psychology, and help with the identification of hype and pseudoscientific argument and NLP excuses. 
*Considering the rigor of the present article (though the 2000 section still needs checking and making concise) it is clear that further NPOV clarifying and brevifying can occur. Stay cool and use science and scientific terms and thinking to clarify and brevify.  Best regards JPLogan 04:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree if something has already been said, we should refer to what's said (from any POV). Unfortunately the archives are huge and saying "see archives" is a waste of time - I propose we simply cut the relevant quote from the archive as a response, keeping the date and who said it. This can avoid any misunderstanding of what someone has asked and what has already been said. GregA 20:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To non-promotional NLP editors

message: : Ok, I checked up at the library. This puts the left/right dominance into historical perspective. The left/right eye movements actually originated from Milton Erickson and Baleen (The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, January, 1976, 18, 153-171.1969). Here is an example from section on Two-Level Communication and the Microdynamics of Trance and Suggestion, (Erickson & Rossi, 1976) "At such moments people experience the common everyday trance; they tend to gaze off—to the right or left, depending upon which cerebral hemisphere is most dominant (Baleen, 1969) — and get that 'faraway' or 'blank' look. (p.114)". Milton Erickson gave Grinder and Bandler full access to his work around 1975/1976. --Comaze 04:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additionally, the left/right lateralization and eye movements is still ongoing. A paper appeared in PubMed, just a couple of days ago, see . I've only read the abstract. --Comaze 05:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Even if the L/R sidedness (1977) is criticised in 2000, it still needs to be put in historical perspective and balanced.  --Comaze 06:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Left/Right domiance side from Milton Erickson

message: Comaze.  You need re-warning.  You have also not removed warnings to block from other people's talk pages.  You need re-warning again about that.  You continue to antagonize.  I wish to hilight this for everyone to see on this page because some NLPpromoters follow Comaze's "unconstructive and tedious" (VoiceOFAll 2005) antiNPOV example.JPLogan 04:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you just cite me :-)? Seriously, all of these warning need to go, as they are personal and anti-productive, and they all refer to vandalism, which no one has done so far. Lets try to actually comprimise the Comaze et al and the Headly et al version, as the result would likely be better than any  single POV; whether it is anti-NLP or pro-NLP.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Really VoA.  I believe I, and other non promoters are being extremely tolerant.  Comaze is still accusing me and has not provided any evidence to back up his claims.  I consider that my tolerant actions should be recognised as such, especially while Comaze keeps up his weeks or months of slur efforts.DaveRight 03:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: JLogan warns Comaze

message: Can we all start using notes where appropriate to clarify. I propose we use standard citation notes as per the tradition in NLP (eg. Structure of Magic Vol 1, other linguistics texts). I just posted a sample here: . --Comaze 23:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Comaze. At the top of the article it says how to use footnotes... and says "It is important to add footnotes in the right order in the list! "... I'm kinda worried that if we start doing that, there could be a few slip-ups with the ordering and well thought-out references could point to the wrong thing... which makes me think we should be overly verbose while lots of changes are happening, then simplify it once things start getting sorted out. Am I misreading something?GregA 13:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The references are automatically numbered. I do not think you need to put hem in any order. Just see my sample, above. --Comaze 14:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: :: A recent revert removed all these simple copyedits, grammar or simple corrections: 
* - copyedit: television (not TV).
* - copyedit: reduce ambiguity (especially overuse of it). minor content changes.
* -  grinder and bandler do not use the phrase 'psychic energy' in 1975 or 1979. They say energy (collateral) can be freed up by resolving inner conflict - there is a big difference.
* - Dilts neurological levels
*- minor changes: they, it, etc. resolved some ambiguity.
.  regards, --Comaze 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent copyedits  

message: Associating NLP with "New Age" whatever unduly colors its perception of being scientific or not. NLP might even be used to treat people who claim to have been abducted by UFO's, but listing UFO-Abductees clearly is intended to imply guilt-by-association on the part of NLP. If NLP is pseudoscientific, it is pseudoscientific based on how it is claimed to work versus objective studies of how it actually performs in producing results. Clearly, there are some strong anti-NLP editors on this article, but that doesn't give you carte blanche to modify this article to the point of such biased tactics. The article must remain neutral. FuelWagon 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this doesn't fly. Unless you're saying that all users of NLP ascribe their techniques as "new age", insert nice quackery description here, etc, then this is POV bias. If you wish to skewer NLP, that's your choice, but you will not do so by misrepresenting it in the article. FuelWagon 05:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi FuelWagon.  New age is not a skewer, its a neutral and categorical term widely used in science, anthropology, history, and other social sciences.  It is also a commercial term that NLP uses and advertises itself under.  NLP promoters choose to use the new age term to promote their products.  It is new age.AliceDeGrey 06:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  AliceDeGrey, You (and HeadleyDown, JPLogan) have continually made reference to "NLP promoters", who specifically are you referring to? --Comaze 06:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems that NLP applied to Business is twice a popular as applications to New Age Movement. Do a quick google test, or search amazon to check out the huge volume of books about NLP applied to business. NLP applied to sales training is alos more popular than the application to New Age. --Comaze 04:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, gathering specific information, noticing what is not said, or skimmed, or generalised, and so forth, is really valuable in requirements gathering. My company originally sent me on the NLP course for that purpose. Also a focus on how something is done, and for what purpose, is more useful than the historical reasons for a process. Never say never :)... your I.S. professor probably isn't aware of the metamodel patterns and how they can be used. GregA 06:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: JPLogan and DaveRight, On second thought, these are valid objections. NLP was not a "feature" of the IEEE conference, it was a minor part of one paper. I will rewrite it and resubmit. Thanks for your input. Also, here is another conference (2004) paper that proposes the use of Neuro-linguistic programming for teaching in computer science.  . --Comaze 03:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: uses of NLP

message: Various computer science journals (eg. IEEE) and conferenes (eg. ICCI'03) have featured some applications of Neuro-linguistic Programming, including Sensory Representational Systems (Slater & Osho 1994; Craft 2001) and other communication tools such as the meta-model (Grinder & Bandler 1975) to enhance communication between people and machines (Janvier & Ghaoui, 2004; Janvier, 2005). Other projects include applications to enhance virtual reality (Slater & Usoh 1994) and requirements engineering (Goetz & Rupp 2003; Rupp 2005). E42 a set of Java tools developed for testing complex systems (Malloy & Jensen ) have also been used to test and refine Batesonian epistemology (Malloy 2005).
;External Links
*E42 a set of Java tools for Discrete Dynamical Systems (University of Utah)
;References
* W A Janvier. Can Human Interaction make the Computer more effective?  (Annual Postgraduate Research Conference, 2005). (cites Craft,2001)
* W A Janvier & Claude Ghaoui, journal: Interactive Technology & Smart Education (2004) 1: 55–66 
* Suzanne Robertson. "Learning from Other Disciplines," IEEE Software, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 54-56, May/June, 2005. 
* Rolf Goetz, Chris Rupp. "Psychotherapy for System Requirements," icci, p. 75, Second IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI'03), 2003. 
*Chris Rupp. Linguistic methods of Requirements Engineering (NLP). SOPHIST GmbH, Nürnberg. 2002 
*Slater M., Usoh M. (1994) NLP and Virtual Reality, NLP World, 1(2), pp23-32. 
Hello all.  I reverted this section after reading the articles last night.  None of them actually say anything about whether NLP is used in AI, virtual reality, or in systems development.  I am assured by and information system's professor that NLP is never used in requirements elicitation for building computers or systems.  The articles are completely discussional and speculative, and do nothing to talk of actual effectiveness of NLP.  They are produced for minor (grade d) conferences and the mention of NLP is a minor part of the majority of the papers.  In fact one might suspect that they mention the term NLP simply to make their paper sound like natural language processing (I don's suspect that because I am really generous:).  Anyway, it is a large piece of writing with refs in the middle of it, and seems to be virtually unrelated to the field of NLP.JPLogan 02:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, gathering specific information, noticing what is not said, or skimmed, or generalised, and so forth, is really valuable in requirements gathering. My company originally sent me on the NLP course for that purpose. Also a focus on how something is done, and for what purpose, is more useful than the historical reasons for a process. Never say never :)... your I.S. professor probably isn't aware of the metamodel patterns and how they can be used. GregA 06:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: JPLogan and DaveRight, On second thought, these are valid objections. NLP was not a "feature" of the IEEE conference, it was a minor part of one paper. I will rewrite it and resubmit. Thanks for your input. Also, here is another conference (2004) paper that proposes the use of Neuro-linguistic programming for teaching in computer science.  . --Comaze 03:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer Industry

message: What in the world does this sentence mean?
:The developers claim that NLP is based primarily on the communication patterns of three psychotherapists(Bandler and Grinder 1975 I).
Does it mean that someone studied the way three particular psychotherapists communicated, noted their patterns, and then based NLP of of those patterns? Sort of like studying the language and communication patterns of chimpanzees? Please do not reinsert this without rewording it into something that makes sense. FuelWagon 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Communication patterns

message: One other thing, the article seems sprinkled liberally with "sources" that consist of someone's name. This is useless for purposes of actually verifying that the source said what the article says they said, unless a URL is provided, or a book title and page number is referenced, or something. Given how POV this article currently is, I can't take any of these sorts of "references" unquestioned, nor does it help me ascertain whether you're describing the pro-NLP point of view using the words of a NLP critic or NLP supporter. If you're attempting to describe a pro-NLP point of view using a critic's words, you are failing to follow NPOV policy. If at all possible, please provide URL's so that others can verify your sources. FuelWagon 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FuelWagon, I'm adding URLs as I found them. Some of the sources I've checked have been misrepresented. See for example what appeared before my recent changes  based on checking  which is really a summary of a paper by Raso, 2000. NCAHF is just added for impact (and is a violation of cite your sources policy). Lilienfield is also being mispresented but my changes to fix this have been reverted. --Comaze 03:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can someone please check this post . It has been reverted twice now (including the removal of the URL  of source article).  --Comaze 04:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've checked another URL, it also seems a little dodgy.  Can someone else please check this. Apart from making false statements about NLP being about "body language" and "percentages" of communication (verbal/non-verbal/tonal ) this is NOT NLP, this is some pop-psyhcology non-sense. I think this reference is invalid...  --Comaze 06:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is the same author Headley agreed to remove a few weeks back. The quote then was along the lines of "the unethical use of NLP can increase personal power to the point of evil", or something along those lines. It's a newspaper article and seems to have little basis in fact. headley accepts it because it's a negative review. I'm not sure if this is the same article or a new one by the same author... GregA 07:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please check this edit, IMO the text is misleading:  --Comaze 11:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Comaze, you are your own worst foe.  I was trying to be soft.  The category is actually "mental help procedure to avoid".  I will make the necessary adjustments.  I have a long list of sources who believe the same thing also.HeadleyDown 11:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a note about sources

message: Alright, I don't know what is going on here, but it would appear that there are multiple people who are entirely clueless about NPOV policy. That or they are disregarding NPOV policy in order to advocate against NLP. 
First of all, the article should be presenting the NLP point of view using language from a pro-NLP source or website, not using some NLP critic's version of what NLP claims to be, but using what NLP supporters actually claim it to be. I don't know anything about NLP, but it is abundantly clear that the pro-NLP poitn of view in the article was written by a vehement critic of NLP. That the article started out saying "NLP is a pseudoscientific concept" when I first came to this article is a red flag that NPOV has been completely subverted, trashed, and bulldozed by POV warriors.
Secondly, your sources suck. A name in parenthesis is useless. Start finding some URL's. If the source of your information is a book, give the title and author and page number. You can not simply say "NLP is garbage (Smith)" and expect that to fly in any way. It is a joke version of "citing your sources". I don't care if "Smith" or whoever did say something, you can't just give their name. You have to give the name of the book they said it in, the URL that contains the quote, the newspaper article that contains the quote, etc. Just saying "Smith" is useless for anyone to verify. Do the work, or it doesn't qualify.
Thirdly, start quoting your sources the more disputed and biased the terminology becomes. Paraphrasing "nonsense" or "pseudoscience" or "psychobabble" won't cut it. If someone uses that biased of a term, it needs to be reported in a verbatim quote. This is sloppy editing throughout. And it is some of the most biased editing I've read. 
Fourthly, if you are an anti-NLP editor, and if you have no muscle around the idea of "writing for the enemy" (and it would appear that there are no anti-NLP editors here who actually are familiar with the concept of "writing for the enemy"), then you will have to recuse yourself from editing any pro-NLP section. This goes back to my first point, that the pro-NLP point of view must be written from NLP supporters, but it must also be written from their "best foot forward" or whatever you want to call it. When you are writing the pro-NLP section you must essentially write as a pro-NLP advocate, using their words to present their poitn of view. Then when you report the anti-NLP point of view, you basically write as an advocate for the anti-NLP point of view, using their words and their "best foot forward". If you cannot do this for both views, then you should only be editing the views that you can edit and report the view's "best foot forward", whatever side that may be.
My knowledge of NLP is nill, but reading this article tells me nothing about what NLP claims to be. That right there is a red flag that the article is not doing its job as part of an encyclopedia. I don't care what agreements you came to before, I don't care what negotiations you've had before, I don't care what you've done prior to this point, one thing is abundantly clear:
:this article sucks. It is blatantly POV. It blatantly advocates against a topic. It fails to present the point of view of supporters of the topic with their best foot forward. And it appears that a number of editors have hijacked this article to make sure that happens.
Now, if someone threatens arbitration, this will be the first thing that shows up. And I'll make bloody sure that this is the first thing to show up. If you're a POV warrior using Wikipedia to advocate against something, you need to find a different encyclopdia to edit. FuelWagon 23:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing

message: :The NPOV policy appears to be the most misunderstood policy. Here are some good excerpts:
::"fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct."  
::"unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them."  " Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them." 
::"If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject," 
::"Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source." 
::"the policy does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity, a "view from nowhere" such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true" 
::Pseudoscience: "represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view" "(some editors) believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" "explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." 
Fuelwagon.  You are misrepresenting NPOV policy.  NPOV does not give equal weight to all views.  It says that some feel wikipedia should be fully science standpoint.  But wikipedia should have science as the greatest weight and pseudoscience as a minor weight.  Why?  Because Dilts, Bandler and Grinder et al want to turn the universe into something out of Star Wars.  Science will bring it back to reality.JPLogan 01:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition of what is "fact" about NLP is a poitn of view. That NLP is pseudoscientific is someone's point of view, and it is a view not held by all sources involved with NLP. SPecifically, the people who support NLP don't view it as such. Therefore NPOV policy requires that you report who says it is pseudoscientific adn report it as their poitn of view, rather than report it as undisputed fact. It is disputed by NLP supporters, people who wrote NLP books, etc. So it cannot be reported as undisputed fact. That is NPOV policy. FuelWagon 02:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would only ask that you tweak "NLP is most often regarded by Psychologist and Psycholinguists as pseudoscientific." so that it has some indication of how many view it as pseudoscience. Has there been some sort of poll you could cite? Otherwise, "often regarded" is a little too fuzzy. Perhaps there is some psychologist/psychotherapist organization that has come out saying that NLP is pseudoscience, and you can report that? FuelWagon 02:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean "all psychologists" or do you mean "all the psychologists whose names are on a list somewhere as specifically calling NLP pseudoscientific"? As for the British organization, that's fine. To report that in the article, it would say "The British SoP states that NLP is pseudoscientific (URL)". Do you understand how that is fundamentally different from the article saying "NLP is pseudoscientific." ??? FuelWagon 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The words written on the main page are "The British Psychological Society classes NLP as "quintessential charlatanry" (Parker 1999) ." I have searched the British Psych Society pages and found nothing on NLP (except for one training 2 or 3 years ago), and Parker doesn't say where he got this info specifically from. I found one other mention of NLP and British Psych Society, which was the British Psych Society awarding accreditation of a new psychometric test based on cognitive psychology and NLP  (they also say the test underwent several years of rigorous empirical testing). Hope that helps GregA 07:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, I found another British Psych Society reference to NLP  pointing to an NLP review in a newsletter for postgraduate psychologists within the BPS  - I've only glanced at the review opening but it seems positive on NLP (and positive or not, it helps us clarify the BPS position on NLP!). Not sure where Parker got his info, maybe it's just dated?. GregA 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You may find it funny, all I have searched on is British Psychological Society, which SOUNDS like a great source of yours, and I find no support of what you say. Now the pseudoscientific response to me finding this evidence should be to make an excuse for it, rephrase what was said, divert attention, and continue on your merry path... but you discourage pseudoscience right? I would you like to address the evidence that the British Psych Society is not so negative on NLP, may even be positive. Which do you choose? GregA 10:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry FuelWagon.  Perhaps I have been a little brusque.  I didn't realise that you are a newbie to NLP.  We have some very knowledgable editors here and NLP is confusing.  It tries to look like neuroscience but its certainly not.  The terms, concepts and assertions are erroneous and pseudoscientific.  Grab a good book on neuroscience and another good book on psychology from your library.  Read through the concepts on the brain and mind.  Also read up on scientific verification.  Then compare with NLP assertions.  You will discover for yourself how pseudoscientific NLP is. I hope this helps.  Actually its an interesting study. DaveRight 03:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi again. Just to clarify.  NLP is very good at picking up on popular misconceptions about the mind and brain.  These are typically used in order to market their products.  The left right brain simplicity is one myth, and there are many others, especially concerning creativity, eye movements (the eyes have it, and a picture is worth a thousand words) and other such attractive confections.  These are all pseudoscientific notions.  NLP was built on these kind of notions from the beginning and it continues.  The new age and spiritual side of NLP does not help at all, and it really enhances the use of pseudoscientific thinking within  and surrounding NLP.  Best regards DaveRight 03:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current intro with the scientific studies leading to the term "pseudoscientific" seems to work pretty well.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 04:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I wonder whether it's fair to say that NLP picks popular misconceptions - or rather that pop-psychology mags have grabbed alot of NLP stuff and used it (from their own understanding). I've seen NLP articles saying "the eyes have it" - but they're articles from the mainstream press about NLP. Same goes for spiritual stuff. Does NLP encourage anything spiritual at all (I've never seen it do it) - but the opposite, can someone with a spiritual yearning use NLP to find something for themselves... sure.  GregA 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Voice of All - if you could assist in a discussion and NPOV presentation of science I would appreciate it. Check out the (temp) page  for exactly the same "facts" presented in a different way.... the contrast is a good starting point for POV improvements. GregA 07:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Policy

message: Here are two definitions from Wiki:
Pseudoscience
"Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific."
Science is both:
*"The investigation or study of nature through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding out the truth; and
*The organized body of knowledge we have gained by such investigation."
These imply that it would violate NPOV to say "NLP is pseudoscience". If you note, the line I put in the intro(I don't know if it is still there) was like "NLP is most often regarded by Psychologist and Psycholinguists as pseudoscientific." This is how "pseudoscience" needs to me mentioned here per NPOV. It leaves open at least the possibility of defending aspects of NLP, and since we are not the final arbiters of everything, we must agknowledge this by presenting criticism as the word of critics and not a definite fact.
 Also, note that "The Bohr model of the atom, like many ideas in the history of science, was at first prompted by and later partially disproved by experimentation." So while science clearly is more credible than what people consider pseudo, it is not the final correct answer. On the other hand pseudo=/=wrong; however, this title("pseudo") still dismissed all of NLP in one fell swoop.
By the way, it was an IP who told me to "go away" :-).Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 02:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only ask that you tweak "NLP is most often regarded by Psychologist and Psycholinguists as pseudoscientific." so that it has some indication of how many view it as pseudoscience. Has there been some sort of poll you could cite? Otherwise, "often regarded" is a little too fuzzy. Perhaps there is some psychologist/psychotherapist organization that has come out saying that NLP is pseudoscience, and you can report that? FuelWagon 02:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean "all psychologists" or do you mean "all the psychologists whose names are on a list somewhere as specifically calling NLP pseudoscientific"? As for the British organization, that's fine. To report that in the article, it would say "The British SoP states that NLP is pseudoscientific (URL)". Do you understand how that is fundamentally different from the article saying "NLP is pseudoscientific." ??? FuelWagon 02:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The words written on the main page are "The British Psychological Society classes NLP as "quintessential charlatanry" (Parker 1999) ." I have searched the British Psych Society pages and found nothing on NLP (except for one training 2 or 3 years ago), and Parker doesn't say where he got this info specifically from. I found one other mention of NLP and British Psych Society, which was the British Psych Society awarding accreditation of a new psychometric test based on cognitive psychology and NLP  (they also say the test underwent several years of rigorous empirical testing). Hope that helps GregA 07:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, I found another British Psych Society reference to NLP  pointing to an NLP review in a newsletter for postgraduate psychologists within the BPS  - I've only glanced at the review opening but it seems positive on NLP (and positive or not, it helps us clarify the BPS position on NLP!). Not sure where Parker got his info, maybe it's just dated?. GregA 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You may find it funny, all I have searched on is British Psychological Society, which SOUNDS like a great source of yours, and I find no support of what you say. Now the pseudoscientific response to me finding this evidence should be to make an excuse for it, rephrase what was said, divert attention, and continue on your merry path... but you discourage pseudoscience right? I would you like to address the evidence that the British Psych Society is not so negative on NLP, may even be positive. Which do you choose? GregA 10:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry FuelWagon.  Perhaps I have been a little brusque.  I didn't realise that you are a newbie to NLP.  We have some very knowledgable editors here and NLP is confusing.  It tries to look like neuroscience but its certainly not.  The terms, concepts and assertions are erroneous and pseudoscientific.  Grab a good book on neuroscience and another good book on psychology from your library.  Read through the concepts on the brain and mind.  Also read up on scientific verification.  Then compare with NLP assertions.  You will discover for yourself how pseudoscientific NLP is. I hope this helps.  Actually its an interesting study. DaveRight 03:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi again. Just to clarify.  NLP is very good at picking up on popular misconceptions about the mind and brain.  These are typically used in order to market their products.  The left right brain simplicity is one myth, and there are many others, especially concerning creativity, eye movements (the eyes have it, and a picture is worth a thousand words) and other such attractive confections.  These are all pseudoscientific notions.  NLP was built on these kind of notions from the beginning and it continues.  The new age and spiritual side of NLP does not help at all, and it really enhances the use of pseudoscientific thinking within  and surrounding NLP.  Best regards DaveRight 03:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current intro with the scientific studies leading to the term "pseudoscientific" seems to work pretty well.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 04:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I wonder whether it's fair to say that NLP picks popular misconceptions - or rather that pop-psychology mags have grabbed alot of NLP stuff and used it (from their own understanding). I've seen NLP articles saying "the eyes have it" - but they're articles from the mainstream press about NLP. Same goes for spiritual stuff. Does NLP encourage anything spiritual at all (I've never seen it do it) - but the opposite, can someone with a spiritual yearning use NLP to find something for themselves... sure.  GregA 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Voice of All - if you could assist in a discussion and NPOV presentation of science I would appreciate it. Check out the (temp) page  for exactly the same "facts" presented in a different way.... the contrast is a good starting point for POV improvements. GregA 07:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims vs. statements of fact

message: Let's keep this civil  :)
Splendid decision, Comaze.  Hope you can keep it up.  Actually, does that involve recognising facts that have been presented and verified many times before?  HeadleyDown 12:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Civility]] 

message: Comaze!  It is not my role to block people from editing wikipedia.  But you have just committed vandalism on the article.  Not only have you been accusing others including myself of vandalism with absolutely no basis, but you have been committing it yourself in addition to all the other antagonistic behaviour and uncooperation.  It is noted!  HeadleyDown 14:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A direct quote should be in parenthesis ("). --Comaze 07:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Alice, What exactly are you referring to? Please use my talk page if it is personal. --Comaze 09:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism: Studies failed to test NLP?

message: Hello VoiceOfAll.  I have a way to resolve the recent use of PRS/RS.  Would you like some recent refs for proof?  Best regards DaveRight 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution to PRS/RS

message: So, I fix a number of different POV issues. Explain each one on the talk page, and they get blanket reverted  by the anti-NLP pushers on the article. FuelWagon 03:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: blanket POV reverts

message: Hi Fuelwagon. Sorry it takes more than a minute for me to type a para.  In Bandler and Grinder 75 they say that they developed NLP based on 3 psychotherapists (actually it was one new age family therapist, a dianetics auditor, and an anthropologist).  Bandler was a mathematician, and Grinder was a linguist.  Please do some background reading before making edits.  This article has been extremely well researched.  Note that Comaze likes to change quotes to change the meaning.  His changes are indeed extremely bad and are generally reverted.  Please do not follow his bad example.  Best regards DaveRight 03:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article has been extremely well researched." The article is also extremely biased. The original sentence doesn't make sense saying that NLP is based off the communication patterns of 3 psychotherapists. I apologize for getting the three names wrong, but the sentence rewrite, minus the names, makes it more understandable. FuelWagon 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, if only you could realize that the "scientific view" you speak of is in the article in the form of factual assertions, which violates NPOV. You must report who is asserting these "scientific views" that call NLP pseudoscience. You cannot simply state as fact that NLP is pseudoscience, with a name (Smith) in parenthesis at the end. You must say that "Smith states that NLP is pseudoscience". It is a fundamental difference. FuelWagon 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Three Psychotherapists?