Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 6

message: I noticed that you said that this was POV.  There does seem to be "significant" criticism and saying that is not the same as saying "everyone thingk it is wrong" or "NLP is garbage" or anything else construed as POV. Also, it was reworded far too hastily(sloppy syntax):
Criticism can be said as:
1A "There has been some/little/significant/much criticism of aspect Y of subject X" 
1B "Many X feel that Y is..." or anything similar...
2A "X said that Z is Y"
2B "according to X, Z is Y" or anything similar...
The problem with choice 2A is that using the name as the in-line MLA resource note looks somewhat strange and is very awkward when heavily used.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly agree with you here, especially point 1A. Much of the disputes over criticism could be resolved by attributing the criticism to a specific aspect of NLP. Rather than picking one flaw and overgeneralising. --Comaze 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor/seldom used aspects of NLP can get a some criticism in the body, but not too much there either. Major aspects can have more criticism, some of which can go in the intro. As I said on the arbitration page (which just got an accept vote by a committee member), the article is not an unabridged source of criticism or compliment.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. --Comaze 01:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The length is a problem. I think this is often a RESULT of our dispute - people adding more stuff to support the alternate POVs, repetition, etc. When you read the whole thing through the repetition (on the disagreements) is quite surprising. I'd like to request that the main (possibly only) brevifying we do is of repetition for now until we're clear on the way forward??? GregA 06:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the most effective way would to be to reduce the "how to" aspects of the article and to simply state eg NLP uses a concept called the metamodel -  and then write how people view it, and what scientists and linguists say about it.  The same with submodalities, vak and the others.  That would solve both the "hype within terminology" problem and the psychobabble problem by treating it scientifically.  AliceDeGrey 07:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hehe.. that's hilarious. The only mention of Hubbard, Parapragmatics (I should look that up, never heard of it), and submodalities is what Headley et al have added to the pseudoscience section, yet you make out it's something you object to :). I also think that we should probably have more "real NLP", in contrast to "real Psychology". Thanks for the chuckle :) GregA 10:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuelwagon's Edit 

message: Headley wrote "So why did you not rewrite it? Because you wish to see the back of it, just as you wish to see the back of reasonable mediation. HeadleyDown 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FuelWagon. You made most of these edits during a time when all the other editors were pulling away facts (as they continued to do even recently)  plus all of these edits have other attributable citations.  The fact is they are all the viewpoints of many people.  Most people do not want to read 10 plus citations on every line.  You made it seem that only one person had those views (that is the wish of the NLP fanatics here).  If a reader wants to verify the view, they just look up a single ref.  Placing a statement, and placing a name is completely reasonable.  All of the edits you made were represented incorrectly. Considering you have also deleted massive amounts of facts also, it shows clearly your intention.  You wish to promote NLP. HeadleyDown 01:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenient how you charge me with laziness in one sentence, telling me to rewrite "NLP is pseudoscience (Smith)" to "Smith states NLP is pseudoscience" on the one hand. And then when I give you cold hard facts (and I know how you love facts) that I did indeed do as you had so conveniently accused me of not doing, that suddenly "Why did you not rewrite it?" quickly becomes irrelevant and you tell me how you bore of hearing "citations". Nice that you get to decide which rules to apply and when. You have directly violated NPOV policy so many times I've lost count. In response, you charge me with deleting rather than fixing. When I show you literally a dozen examples where I fixed your NPOV violations rather than delete, you suddenly change focus again, and how I wish to "promote NLP". How convenient. It must be nice to decide arbitrarily what is and is not appropriate, rather than sticking to, say, wikipedia policy, for example, as I have. FuelWagon 03:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "The fact is they are all the viewpoints of many people." This is exactly the problem. Until you provide verifiable sources (and for someone who is so quick to charge others with laziness, I'll assume you have the vim and vigor to take it upon yourself to figure out what exactly wikipedia policy is on "verifiable sources", rather than simply rely on what you might think is verifiable. Here's a hint, I've told you numerous times that a name in parentehsis is not verifiable according to wikipedia) until you provide verifiable sources that says something is "the viewpoints of many people", you cannot, in fact, report that in the article.  FuelWagon 03:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Headley's helpful suggestion

message: Hello.
So the page has been protected. I must admit I haven't been watching what goes on on the main page... I've considered posting there pointless due to reversions. What is the way forward? Do we propose a modification here, get some discussion, and then have it merged by someone? I'm really not sure of "procedure" (and freezing seems a good idea). GregA 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The irony of the situation -- which clearly escapes you, Comaze and FT2 -- is that NLP master practitioners invariably promote themselves as experts in persuasion and belief modification.  Where then are the persuasion skills and belief modification techniques?  Why can't you magically disolve all objections?  Surely you three NLP super beings can shift the beliefs of a simpleton like me.  The inability of you, Comaze and FT2 to persuade in this instance is itself a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of NLP.  In the process of attempting to persuade others of the efficacy of NLP -- and in failing abysmally -- you have inadvertantly demonstrated its ineffectiveness.  Delicious irony. flavius 11:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please remind yourself with avoid personal remarks policy. Thanks. --Comaze 11:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Flavius, thats a straw man. Since Wikipedia isn't about coercion and persuasion but about neutrality, since NLP as I have found it isnt about unethical persuasion (ever read up on "ecology"?), and since Im not about changing people that way, I have no interest in playing games that way. So when you come along saying "You're intrerested in NLP so by the stereotype I have you ought to be trying to do magic and persuade me so why arent you", thats not the standard of mature discussion I look for from you. Why not try the other approach... that we are reasonable humans trying to work jointly on an encyclopedia, and take it from there, instead of insulting condescention? FT2 23:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The most obvious conclusion a scientist would draw from my failure to state that I am an "expert in persuasion" is that the null hypothesis "NLP master practitioners invariably promote themselves as experts in persuasion" is false. A good scientist would question that word "invariably" too, which you don't. Now turn the spotlight around: what term would you use to describe someone like Bookmain who gives an untrue credential to a source (Morgan) to bolster his own preferred view?  Or Headley who tries to retain the "scientific feel" of it anyhow even though he knows it's untrue, because it helps his case. Or JPLogan who removes the founders of the field's cited definition on the mind-boggling basis that it's "POV" to cite it? Just curious your view on those, while we're discuss editor integrity. FT2 00:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems that Mysekurity protected the page. While I would have tallies on what should be changed, there are likely too many sockpuppets. Unfortunetely, it looks like I am the only one here who can edit the page.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected page 

message: I think the search on the medline stuff is really illuminating of research. 
*7 studies pre 1987 all antiNLP, but all testing representation systems (testing in a way NLP people often say was not effective)
*7 studies post 1987 all proNLP, only one testing a small aspect of rep systems (testing in a way Flavius says does not prove that NLP was the cause of the successful treatments, since controls and placebos were not used enough*). 
There are many more experiments, but Flavius says that Medline really identifies the better research. 
Now we know that Druckman & Swets (88) and Heap (89) reviewed existing NLP research (39 and 70? articles respectively?)... and the were evaluating representation systems, specifically PREFERRED rep systems. Druckman also says that Bandler met with them and said that preferred rep systems was no longer an important component (though rep systems remains in NLP). This gives us the basis for discussing the research of NLP.
*Druckman & Swets, and Heap, were very good reviews. 
*I don't know of any other reviews of their calibre. Platt summarised 70 abstracts from a website and the skeptics dictionary (and these were all Rep System studies!), and Morgan cited Heap. 
Remaining recent sources that review NLP negatively are pretty well summarised by your line summaries. "Writings by Eisner (2000), Lilienfeld et al (2003), Helisch (2004), Williams (2000), and Drenth (2003) also state that NLP is a pseudoscience."
*Eisner - "The death of psychotherapy: From Freud to alien abductions.", 
*Lilienfeld - "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology", 
*Helisch - a single article on business and NLP, 
*Williams - "Encyclopedia of pseudoscience", 
*Drenth - "Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science" (paper in Studia Psychologica which Medline didn't index for some reason).
Most of these references I would call biased, and I think that together they represent one viewpoint which is probably shared by Flavius* on science+NLP. The other viewpoint being all post 1987 medline research on NLP, plus the 20 or so recommendations for NLP in medline texts, plus all the research on FT2's Research subpage.
I'm interested in comments on this. I wrote something similar to this a month back on the "alternate" page, but with less references to back it up  but maybe this is a way of representing it all. Thoughts? GregA 12:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Greg. My thoughts are that you have just labeled these refs as biased.  Of course you wish yourself or any other NLPpromoter will remove them from the article asap, or write lines saying they are clearly biased.  That just about sums up your attitude.  Don't state NLP books as biased, but place bodies of independent researchers and psychotherapists as clearly biased.  All you have presented is your desire to boost NLP and demote science.  HeadleyDown 02:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Research pre 1987 vs Research post 1987

message: Now there are many indicators of a pseudoscience, and Lilienfeld do say science differs from pseudoscience in DEGREE, not in kind, with fuzzy boundaries ( pg 5). So a quick look at Lilienfelds classifications of a pseudoscience (which I'll discuss with reference to NLP):
*An overuse of ad hoc hypotheses designed to immunize claims from falsification.
Note the word "overuse". Naturally it's not our job to analyse the research and whether the NLP response to Rep System studies is correct or not... so I'll simply say we can only represent what they say (if they're correct it's a justified ad hoc response, if they're making excuses it isn't). Lilienfeld note that such responses should enhance the theory.
*Absence of self-correction
This isn't listed on our page, I assume headley et al see that NLP does self correct (eg Bandler changed the teaching of PRS/Rep Systems in 86, as he said to Druckman&Swets). Also self correction is a fundamental principle of NLP ("if what you're doing isn't working, do something -anything- different")
*Evasion of Peer Review
(If claims were true, why were they not properly documented and presented to the scientific community? - Eisner 2000). A good question. For one, the rep system claims were documented but misread by many in the scientific community, part of that is probably the focus on live teaching vs books (or transcripts of seminars)... either way not good! Secondly, they're doing peer review in their own way... the NLP focus is on modeling and working with individuals on patterns of excellence, teaching people new patterns and getting feedback from practitioners - However NLP clearly does not teach the scientific method, and with regards to peer review of the applicability of processes they modeled it is lacking. Note also the goal is to duplicate an expert's patterns not to validate the expert's way of doing something. I tend to agree with this criticism of NLP's reaction to research on rep system processes (as distinct from NLP)... I think many users don't care, generalise all the research as incorrect when some will have gotten it totally right (NLP should make those clear, even when they disprove!).
*Emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation
Our page says "eg reliance on asking how rather than why", which seems to be quite different to this pseudoscience characteristic as it's unrelated to trying to disprove or confirm something. A principle of NLP modeling is getting all the elements of a pattern, and then removing each and every element to determine which elements actually affect the performance (ie part of the pattern) and which elements are unnecessary. This is a different approach to psychology, but has a similar goal. I agree that many NLP practitioners don't bother with questioning a processes' research backing, though again practitioners look at what they're doing during a process for evidence that they should do something different (rather than assuming it's working)
*Reversed burden of proof
NLP used their own version of proof, and I agree they should have responded better to the psychological testing of NLP processes by doing their own research (which some did). The lack of communication between NLP proponents and Psychologists to do research that both agreed was correct has hobbled psychological acceptance of NLP.
*Absence of connectivity (inventing somethign new instead of developing on well-established stuff
NLP builds on the shoulders of others by modeling an expert in a field. It's a different approach to psychology and both have value. An NLP process is often connected LATER to existing theory. If it was connected before modeling then it wouldn't be NLP. 
*Over-reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence.
NLP modeling does measure things on a personal/qualitative level, and it measures against a single model (which statistical analysis can't do). Once again the modeled process can be tested but NLP vs Psychology methodology and training has been an issue. I think this criticism of NLP processes applied to therapy is a fair one from a scientific viewpoint - and is true of many psychotherapies.
*Use of obscurantist language (our page says: eg meta programs, parapragmatics, sub-modalities etc)
Never heard of parapragmatics... try a google search :). Any field will make terms where necessary for what they are teaching, the criticism is if they're overused. Some NLP terms are taken from linguistics and other areas. Anchoring is different to conditioning. I'm not sure what else you'd call sub-modalities (can anyone help there?). Metaprograms I'm not trained in but perhaps they could be called personality traits. Anyway, most NLP terms are descriptive and defined.
*An absence of boundary conditions
Lilienfeld says: "Most scientific theories are clear on the contexts of application (where pseudosciences say it works over an exceedingly wide range of conditions)". Headley has been pushing the idea that NLP says it is "universally applicable"... perhaps this is related. An NLP process is context specific (and Grinder requests that any NLP model description include context descriptions), though modeling can be applied to many contexts, and NLP communication processes can be applied to communication (which is in many contexts). NLP also teaches to alter the process used depending on the context and feedback from a subject (ie a process is not universally applicable), and this is one NLP criticism of PRS studies which ignore the context and don't allow the use of a different process for subjects not responsive to rep systems).
*The mantra of holism
Now, in my answer to "absence of boundary conditions" my statement along the lines of "NLP is about calibrating whether something is working, and if it isn't working use something different", may sound like the 'mantra of holism'. I agree. It's also one of the criticisms of psychologists in the field to the control exerted by research psychologists. I'm not sure how to present this here, I do know that the scientist-practitioner gap is an issue (see page 2 (1st paragraph on the gap), and page 3 (1st full paragraph) of Lilienfelds book online ). The criticism includes psychologists, it is a generic problem with research on psychotherapies. GregA 23:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Greg, it doesn't matter how much essay writing you do, the fact is, many scientists and profs have classed NLP as a pseudoscience.  HeadleyDown 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "many scientists"... see WP:WEASEL. The problem is, we don't know if that "many" is representative, or accurate. It could be many, and many not. or many, but including many that are inaccurate. What we do know is, reviews of literature keep including that awkward comment that it isnt proven, but it isnt disproven. It's still "jury out". FT2 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hello FT2.  "Many" is not what I wrote in the article.  It is a fact though.  I can and will specifically state that all the scientists or experts mentioned (eg Drenth and 20 or so others) state that NLP is pseudoscience.  And I will explain, as per wikipedia policy, why they think that.  Now, I would like to keep the article brief and only have to write a couple of refs to back up the fact that an increasingly significant scientific view is that NLP is pseudoscience.  However, your constant harassment will lead to many many references being cited in order to satisfy your ridiculous objection.  It doesn't have to be like this, but you will push things in that direction.  Then of course you will complain again.  I am sure most neutrally minded editors here will just have to accept that, and tolerate your unreasonable whinges with a due sense of humour.  HeadleyDown 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes Greg.  There are many pseudoscientific characteristics of NLP.  I would like to hilight those in the article to enhance the educational and consumer protection value of Wikipedia. HeadleyDown 06:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscientific characteristics

message: I mentioned 7 research papers in medline supporting NLP (there were many more review and tutorial papers in support). There were also 7 papers NOT supporting NLP and all were Rep System papers. Anyway, I realise most people won't have read everything Flavius posted, so these are the supporting papers with Flavius's and my comments:
;31 Psychotherapy impact on effectiveness of in-hospital physical rehabilitation in patients with acute coronary syndrome
Sumin AN, Khairedinova OP, Sumina LIu, Variushkina EV, Doronin DV,
Galimzianov DM, Masin AN, Gol'dberg GA. 
Klin Med (Mosk). 2000;78(6):16-20. Russian. 
PMID: 10900863 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
ABSTRACT: Of 103 patients with acute coronary syndrome (mean age 51.6 +/- 0.9 years) 47 patients participated in 5 group psychotherapeutic sessions added to conversional 
rehabilitation program. Psychotherapy included progressive muscular relaxation, 
neurolinguistic programming, eriksonian hypnosis, therapeutic metaphora. Psychotherapy 
decreased the hear rate, number of ventricular extrasystoles, stimulated tonicity of 
the parasympathetic nervous system. Compared to the controls, the test patients 
developed higher exercise tolerance and lower reactivity of the central hemodynamics 
in all the exercise tests.
COMMENTS Flavius: Findings confounded by the administration of multiple, simultaneous
psychotherapies.
COMMENTS Greg: Yes - they used muscular relaxing, NLP, hypnosis, and metaphors. The thing is that physiology (muscles), ericksonian hypnosis (erickson was NLP's 3rd model!), and metaphors are all standard part of NLP too.
;36 Treatment outcome in tobacco dependence after nicotine replacement therapy and group therapy
Gorecka D, Borak J, Goljan A, Gorzelak K, Mankowski M, Zgierska A. 
Pneumonol Alergol Pol. 1999;67(3-4):95-102. Polish. 
PMID: 10497441 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
ABSTRACT: The deletorious (sic) health effects of smoking are generally known. 
In spite of that, great numbers of people still smoke tobacco in the whole world. 
It is primarily due to the addictive properties of nicotine. Cigarette smoking is also 
dependent on various social and psychologic factors making quitting very difficult. 
Among various treatment modalities for tobacco dependence we aimed to assess the 
efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) vs group therapy. 325 subjects 
smoking at least 15 cigarettes/day for more than 3 years were studied. They were 
allocated to group therapy (neurolinguistic programming) or NRT (gum or patch) at 
their will. Non-smoking was validated at each of follow-up visits, at 1 and 2 
weeks 1, 3, 6, 12 months by measuring CO in expired air. All groups were matched 
in age, smoking history and nicotine dependence. The best quit rate was observed 
as a result of group therapy (41% at 1 year, p. < 0.001) as compared to nicotine 
patch (2%) and nicotine gum (9%).
COMMENT Flavius:  No control (no treatment) or placebo group.
COMMENT Greg: They compared against a nicotine patch and found NLP Group Therapy far more effective. Agreed they did not compare against non-NLP group therapy.
;37 Impact of the application of neurolinguistic programming to mothers of children enrolled in a day care center of a shantytown.
de Miranda CT, de Paula CS, Palma D, da Silva EM, Martin D, de Nobrega FJ. 
Sao Paulo Med J. 1999 Mar 4;117(2):63-71. 
PMID: 10488603 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
ABSTRACT:
CONTEXT: Of the members of a family, the mother is without doubt the most important one, 
which provides justification for including an evaluation of her mental health as one of 
the variables to be considered as determining factors in each child's level of development. 
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the application of Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) 
on child development, home environment and maternal mental health. DESIGN: Randomised 
controlled trial. SETTING: The study included children enrolled in the municipal day 
care center of a shantytown in the City of Sao Paulo. PARTICIPANTS: 45 pairs of mothers 
and respective children between 18 and 36 months of age. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Children's 
development (Bayley scales); home environment variation (HOME); and maternal mental health 
(SRQ). Comparison between before and after the intervention was made in terms of children's 
psychomotor development, home environment and maternal mental health. INTERVENTION: Application 
of the NLP technique to the experimental group and comparison with a control group. 
1--Experimental (EG), consisting of 23 children submitted to intervention by NLP; and 
2--Control (CG), with 22 children with no intervention. Length of intervention: 
15 sessions of NLP. RESULTS: 37 children remained in the study (EG = 10, CG = 27). 
Variations in mental development (OR 1.21, IC 95% 0.0 to 23.08) in their home environment 
(Wilcoxon): p = 0.96 (before) and p = 0.09 (after); in maternal mental health: p = 0.26, 2 df. 
CONCLUSIONS: There was a trend that indicated positive effects on the home environment 
from the intervention.
COMMENT Flavius: Randomized control trial with an apparently sound design.  The design incorporated
a control group with no intervention but no placebo group.  The study tells us that something
is better than nothing but it fails to tell us if NLP was better than placebo.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed. It shows that an NLP intervention helped them, but it doesn't say whether just chatting would have helped (would "just chatting" be a placebo? How exactly do you do a placebo in this context?)
;39 Social anxiety and training in neurolinguistic programming.
Konefal J, Duncan RC. 
Psychol Rep. 1998 Dec;83(3 Pt 1):1115-22. 
PMID: 9923190 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
ABSTRACT: The Liebowitz Social Phobia Scale measured the effect of training on social 
anxiety responses of 28 adults prior to and following a 21-day residential training, 
and at 6 mo. follow-up. Significant reductions posttraining and at follow-up were evident 
in the mean self-reported global scale scores on fear and avoidance behavior in social 
situations. The item scores, aggregated to reflect the situational domains of formal 
and informal speaking, being observed by others, and assertion, showed significant and 
continuing reduction from posttraining through follow-up. These findings are consistent 
with the hypothesis that this training may be associated with reduced responses to 
social anxiety, but as there was no formal control group, pretest scores from another 
study were used. Interpretation is limited.
COMMENT Flavius: No control group.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed. NLP was used and even after 6 months the social phobia was far reduced from initial scores, but doesn't compare social phobia changes after no treatment.
;43 Neurolinguistic programming training, trait anxiety, and locus of control.
Konefal J, Duncan RC, Reese MA. 
Psychol Rep. 1992 Jun;70(3 Pt 1):819-32. 
PMID: 1620774 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
ABSTRACT: Training in the neurolinguistic programming techniques of shifting perceptual 
position, visual-kinesthetic dissociation, timelines, and change-history, all based on 
experiential cognitive processing of remembered events, leads to an increased awareness 
of behavioral contingencies and a more sensitive recognition of environmental cues which 
could serve to lower trait anxiety and increase the sense of internal control. This study 
reports on within-person and between-group changes in trait anxiety and locus of control 
as measured on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Wallston, Wallston, 
and DeVallis' Multiple Health Locus of Control immediately following a 21-day residential 
training in neurolinguistic programming. Significant with-in-person decreases in 
trait-anxiety scores and increases in internal locus of control scores were observed as 
predicted. Chance and powerful other locus of control scores were unchanged. Significant 
differences were noted on trait anxiety and locus of control scores between European and 
U.S. participants, although change scores were similar for the two groups. These findings 
are consistent with the hypothesis that this training may lower trait-anxiety scores and 
increase internal locus of control scores. A matched control group was not available, and 
follow-up was unfortunately not possible.
COMMENT Flavius: No control group.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed just like above. They found significant changes from a 21 day course but didn't compare that against people who didn't do a course.
;49 Effect of neurolinguistic programming training on self-actualization as
measured by the Personal Orientation Inventory.
Duncan RC, Konefal J, Spechler MM. 
Psychol Rep. 1990 Jun;66(3 Pt 2):1323-30. 
PMID: 2385721 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming training is based on principles that should 
enable the trainee to be more "present"-oriented, inner-directed, flexible, 
self-aware, and responsive to others, that is, more self-actualized. This study 
reports within-person changes on self-actualization measures of the Personal 
Orientation Inventory following a 24-day residential training in neurolinguistic 
programming. Significant positive mean changes were found for 18 master 
practitioners on nine of the 12 scales and for 36 practitioners on 10 of the 12 
scales. Findings are consistent with the hypothesis that training increases 
individual self-actualization scores.
COMMENT Flavius: No control group.
COMMENT Greg: Yes it showed 24 day NLP training significantly changed self actualisation, but didn't compare against people who didn't do any course.
;51 Comparison for aphasic and control subjects of eye movements hypothesized in neurolinguistic programming.
Dooley KO, Farmer A. 
Percept Mot Skills. 1988 Aug;67(1):233-4. 
PMID: 3211676 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
ABSTRACT: Neurolinguistic programming's hypothesized eye movements were measured 
independently using videotapes of 10 nonfluent aphasic and 10 control subjects 
matched for age and sex. Chi-squared analysis indicated that eye-position responses 
were significantly different for the groups. Although earlier research has not 
supported the hypothesized eye positions for normal subjects, the present findings 
support the contention that eye-position responses may differ between neurologically 
normal and aphasic individuals.
COMMENT Flavius: Weak conclusion, doesn't demonstrate the validity of eye accessing cues.
COMMENT Greg: Agreed. It shows differences between aphasic and control and the abstract doesn't say whether there were consistent directions etc.
;In summary....
There was much research on NLP considered of sufficient quality to report in medline indexed journals but that lacked some of the controls and placebos that can make research that much more definitive. These findings are still significant, the treatments did help people, and doing the NLP as described will make a positive difference - we just can't say how it fairs in terms of other choices. This is important to represent. Note still the absence of any non-supportive findings in Medline research other than representation systems research (6 studies pre 87, one post 87)
GregA 06:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eisner's summary:  These kind of studies are fatally flawed.(Eisner 2000).  Lilienfeld says the evidence is overwhelmingly unsupportive of NLP (Lilienfeld 2003) and many others are similar or more harsh.  It doesn't matter what research you do, the fact is, the view is that NLP is scientifically unsupported.  Moreover, many of these scientists say that NLP is ineffective or does not work.  Plus, many business scientists and sociologists and business people in general say NLP does not work.  I can see now that by phrasing "NLP is scientifically unsupported" will simply lead to FT2 claiming that "we don't know yet".  Whereas the fact is a very significant view is that NLP does not work.  Perhaps it should be stated that way in order to clarify things for editors such as FT2 who will make any desperate language contortion in order to promote his beloved NLP.  HeadleyDown 06:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Medline supporting research

message: Sure, when you try to explain NLP to people they are often highly suspicious.  All that pseudospeak sounds too much like a sales line.  Actually here is something for the weekend:
http://www.lynxfeather.net/nest/humor/2002/alteredstates.html
Dave Barry attended a Tony Robbins seminar.  Pretty funny and a fairly common attitude.  Regards HeadleyDown 10:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Skeptics dictionary http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html says, 'Robbins is probably the most successful "graduate" of NLP"'. Question about wikipedia policy: Given that this statement is not referenced, nor does the author provide any evidence for the statement -- are we to assume that this is a personal opinion of the author? If so, is it relevant? Just as an example, what factors determine the weight given to this reference? --Comaze 12:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, I can't find anything on the Robbin's link that says he is an actual proponent of NLP. Wikipedia can report that "skeptics dictionary describes Robbins as a successful graduate of NLP", but we would have to report Robbins point of view if he does not associate himself with NLP. The skeptics dictionary article on NLP varies between neutral reporting of facts to editorializing and advocating against NLP, so it should be treated as a disputed source, meaning any statements that we report from them should clearly be attributed to them. The way the playing field around NLP looks, I think that's pretty much the standard rule. people either love it or hate it, so any statements about NLP needs to be attributed to the source it came from (regardless of how "boring" some might find the citations). FuelWagon 15:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi FuelWagon. I'm with you that Robbins doesn't associate himself with NLP. We know he applies NLP to his work and that he's very popular, but most people don't realise that. He's also not representative of NLP. Perhaps we need to clearly explain Robbins as a subsection, he's used as an NLP example in several places (including wild claims) and I think equating him with NLP confuses this article. GregA 22:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Greg. Again in response to your point.  Robbins still talks about NLP and I have evidence that he still works in cooperation with Grinder.  He used to be a close partner with Grinder and still has business connections.  But the most telling evidence is in Robbin's books and in how Robbins is represented in articles about him.  Authors, journalists, scientists and others relate him directly to NLP and attribute his success to NLP. He is still the biggest representitive/promoter of NLP in the world (according to lots of recent literature).  Regards HeadleyDown 09:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, can someone please take a look at Dave Barry's website and show me how Dave's assessment of a Tony Robbins seminar has any relevance from the wikipedia requirement that sources be "notable"? The guy is a humorist, not a journalist. His page announces on the very front "if you leave this webpage, I will kill this defenseless toilet". All this talk about "facts" and "science" and whatnot, and suddenly we're taking advice from a guy who is the newspaper equivalent of Gallagher and his smashing watermelon shtick. Barry may qualify for a subsection at the end of teh article titled "public opinion" but that's about it. Science indeed. This has been a mud slinging contest from the beginning, and enlisting the likes of Dave Barry is only more proof of that. FuelWagon 15:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: In response to your numerous allegations, I repeat what I said about Barry earlier: " Barry may qualify for a subsection at the end of teh article titled "public opinion" but that's about it." If you see a violation of policy, please let me know. Your sudden appeal to humor, that I'm just "working by numbers", falls flat given all the imaginary policy violations you continue to accuse me of. You accuse me of being lazy for not fixing your NPOV violations. When I show a dozen diffs that prove your accusation wrong, you don't apologize, or retract, you come at me with a new accusation. Sorry, but I do not find you funny at all. FuelWagon 16:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Headley, whatever the rights and wrongs of FuelWagon may be, these are yours:  You are (apparently and judging you by your multiple posts on Wikipedia NLP) incapable of scientific self-criticism, unable to master the idea of neutrality, and lacking in respect for authority of formal policies. You seem (again judging you by your editing) to have a belief that somehow rules do not apply to you, you are rude, hostile, you are an amateur gamesman who uses rhetoric instead of honest debate when questioned, and you are a fanatic and a vandal. Such attitudes have no place in editing an encyclopedia, because an encyclopedia is neutral. Their place is on an opinion ebsite, such as a skeptics forum, discussing with others how much evidence can be found regardless of provenance and quality, so long as someone can be quoted saying words that support the desired view, and preening on one's mastery of the subject and clear sightedness. In truth, judging you by your time here, my view is that you are not clear sighted. My opinion is that you are tunnel visioned. Or, as you would doubtless phrase it, you are tunnel visioned (eg FT2, 2005) FT2 21:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The accusation made ("If all you want to do is work by numbers, you are not doing the work of an encyclopedist."), a quote to disprove ("Barry may qualify for a subsection at the end of teh article"), and a response that changes the subject ("keep your insecurities and biases under closer raps"). Oh, I've got perspective all right, I can see right through you. Now it's my turn for a suggestion: I suggest you keep your accusations to yourself. FuelWagon 16:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Barry's article never mentions NLP. By itself, it is off topic. FuelWagon 17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Robbins

message: Hello Greg.  Firstly, you will have to state exactly what is not a science, and who says NLP is not a science.  As it stands, NLP presents itself as a science and that is how it is sold according to the literature. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: NLP and Psychology have different approaches to people. When working with subjects, psychologists wish to ensure that any interventions have been researched and validated to ensure appropriate use and application (regardless of how the intervention was created). In contrast, NLP processes are taught as modeled on effective therapists, with the principle of constantly communicating with a client and adjusting what is being done to ensure appropriate use and application. These approaches can be combined (eg: NLP could model a process from an effective therapist, train multiple therapists, and Psychology could research whether the new process is effective), but the training and background of a Psychologist is quite different to an NLP practitioner's - and research has suffered. 
Further differences exist between NLP Modeling and Psychological reseach - including:
#NLP attempts to avoid having any beliefs or expectations (a priori knowledge) during the initial stages of modeling (or while working with a subject). Psychological research uses the scientific method which includes making a hypothesis - which is a proposed explanation to be researched to determine its validity - and NLP classifies this as a filter on our experience, something which may mask or distort what is being studied.
#NLP models individuals to study the way they do what they do (to find individual examples of excellent processes), Psychological research uses representative sample groups combined with statistical analyses to determine overall effects and their significance.
Many Psychotherapies lack research support and there is a strong argument from the Psychology community to only use researched and validated techniques. Many therapists argue that the strict controlling manner in which psychologists study a therapy actually negates the therapies effectiveness (by isolating 1 or 2 variables of the therapy from all other associated factors).
;NLP is not a type of Psychology
NLP can model a therapist, but it can also model a golf pro (for instance). NLP would model the golf pro, teach the new "golf" process to multiple people - and THEN the new golfer's performance can be measured (by playing multiple games).
=====Comments=====
Greg, you have to take into account that NLP claims that many things are models, and therefore NLP modeling is vaguely defined.  For example it states that the SMART goals setting standard is a model.  If so, then NLP modeling claims to be far more than the method you describe.  Quite frankly, the less you mention about NLP modeling, the better for you.  Otherwise, there is plenty of criticism that can make your lines look really stupid.  HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Headley. I had no idea you didn't understand NLP's definition of modeling. 6 weeks back there was a criticism on the site implying that NLP models were of low quality and referencing Michie's info on Psychological models .. but it totally misunderstood NLP modeling. I wrote a section at the time, but JP criticised it (iirc) as irrelevant to NLP modeling (which it was), so it was removed. If there is still this confusion perhaps something must be said.  GregA 11:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP and Psychology

message: Greg, you have to take into account that NLP claims that many things are models, and therefore NLP modeling is vaguely defined.  For example it states that the SMART goals setting standard is a model.  If so, then NLP modeling claims to be far more than the method you describe.  Quite frankly, the less you mention about NLP modeling, the better for you.  Otherwise, there is plenty of criticism that can make your lines look really stupid.  HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Headley. I had no idea you didn't understand NLP's definition of modeling. 6 weeks back there was a criticism on the site implying that NLP models were of low quality and referencing Michie's info on Psychological models .. but it totally misunderstood NLP modeling. I wrote a section at the time, but JP criticised it (iirc) as irrelevant to NLP modeling (which it was), so it was removed. If there is still this confusion perhaps something must be said.  GregA 11:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Sorry, Greg, but as we have many requests for exact quotes and citations, the line will read, NLP is scientifically unsupported, it's principles are unsupported, its's effectiveness is unsupported, and it is considered ineffective by Mr, blah blah etc.HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Prior to 1987, most research of NLP focussed on the primary representation systems (VAKGO)- particularly the theory that we have a Preferred Representation System (PRS - a system used in preference to all others). These studies have mostly failed to find any evidence to support the existence of a preferred system, and have also rarely found a correlation between the words used with an eye movement (eg: saying "It looked promising" should correspond to a unique eye movement, often up to the left) - (Reviews include Druckman & Swets, 1988; Heap, 1989). Platt (2003) cites 1/3 of studies supporting representation systems theories.
Druckman & Swets (1988) note that Richard Bandler (NLP co-creator) approached them during the government review and said that the Preferred Representation System was no longer an important component of NLP. It is not stated whether this came about through internal NLP development or was the result of the psychological research results.
=====Comments=====
Greg, here you are editing selectively.  We have a great deal of views that state after 1990 that NLP modeling is highly suspect, if not pseudoscientific.  HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. This section is on Rep System Research. BTW, since you aren't clear on modeling which do you mean here? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah Einspruch is one criticism. Andy Bradbury is another. More than either of them though is Druckman & Swets comments on problems in all the PRS studies. (Yes, ALL). GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Representation System Research

message: Greg, here you are editing selectively.  We have a great deal of views that state after 1990 that NLP modeling is highly suspect, if not pseudoscientific.  HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. This section is on Rep System Research. BTW, since you aren't clear on modeling which do you mean here? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Greg, again, you are delving into discussion.  If you want to do this, the article will be far bigger than necessary, and I notice that there is far more negative than positive in Druckman's paper (look at the section on the background concepts for instance).  You will be wise to keep it breif. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Greg, here you are overrepresenting a paper (Einspruch, that has since then been completely found to be wrong, including the addition of further empirical evidence. With further corroborating triangulation with recent authors. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah Einspruch is one criticism. Andy Bradbury is another. More than either of them though is Druckman & Swets comments on problems in all the PRS studies. (Yes, ALL). GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: NLP contains many different processes for change work, though the great majority of research is on the Representation Systems. The first and principle NLP process is the metamodel (a pattern for linguistic intervention) and there is little research on the metamodel at all.
There is other minor research supporting various processes - V/K Synaesthesia patterns, Spelling strategies, Rapport, submodalities, swish pattern, and metaprograms . Platt (2001) cites 9 studies of the phobia reduction process, of which 5 supported the process. No research on individual patterns is published in journals indexed by Medline, whether supporting or not supporting their efficacy.
(this section needs fleshing out considerably, and correction. There are multiple studies on specific processes though none indexed in Medline. I'm also assuming there will be some studies which show no support for various patterns. I'd like to identify these). I'd say the Research subpage also has more which I'll add asap (if someone else doesn't first)
=====Comments=====
Greg.  It does not matter how much you flesh it out.  The conclusions will make the whole circular extremely stupid looking.  Again, the wise move would be to keep it brief. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping you would provide some counter  to the Research subpage stuff. I'm clear on PRS studies but this less so. GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Greg, I have done some more work on the research you presented (the small positive support).  I can find at least double the amount of research that looks at those NLP areas and shows negative findings, plus it points to the above research as being flawed or explainable by other means (not NLP).  Now, I believe I am quite a mild reviewer and I generally pass PhD candidates on the first review as long as the hypotheses and arguments are sound, and pass conference papers on the first or second round after corrections.  But to present your own research to this article is strictly against NPOV and you will end up with wars over each and every paper you present.  That is going to be extremely antagonistic to the goals of wikipedia. Just picture the amount of dispute that you and other proNLPers have given others over the reviews, and apply that to each of the single research papers you present.  That's going to be totally against normal wikipedia policy and convention, and a complete waste of time for all.  Regards HeadleyDown 04:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's excellent, you've found lots I assume you have some links? I don't want to make this section big but I do want to read your proof that you're not making up stuff GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Research on other NLP processes

message: Greg.  It does not matter how much you flesh it out.  The conclusions will make the whole circular extremely stupid looking.  Again, the wise move would be to keep it brief. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping you would provide some counter  to the Research subpage stuff. I'm clear on PRS studies but this less so. GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Greg, I have done some more work on the research you presented (the small positive support).  I can find at least double the amount of research that looks at those NLP areas and shows negative findings, plus it points to the above research as being flawed or explainable by other means (not NLP).  Now, I believe I am quite a mild reviewer and I generally pass PhD candidates on the first review as long as the hypotheses and arguments are sound, and pass conference papers on the first or second round after corrections.  But to present your own research to this article is strictly against NPOV and you will end up with wars over each and every paper you present.  That is going to be extremely antagonistic to the goals of wikipedia. Just picture the amount of dispute that you and other proNLPers have given others over the reviews, and apply that to each of the single research papers you present.  That's going to be totally against normal wikipedia policy and convention, and a complete waste of time for all.  Regards HeadleyDown 04:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's excellent, you've found lots I assume you have some links? I don't want to make this section big but I do want to read your proof that you're not making up stuff GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Once again... this needs more info.. anyone want to fill in some more?
There are several quality outcome-based studies, which don't define which NLP processes are used or in what combination, but study NLP practitioners in real world situations (actual clients), to achieve a given outcome. 
Of the 6 outcome based studies cited in Medline, all showed a significant positive effect for the NLP test cases. Other outcome based studies show similar support for the NLP processes as a whole. Studies show results such as more effective physical rehabilitation for patients, greater success in quitting smoking, positive effects on the home environment, reductions in social anxiety, and increased self actualisation.
These studies are criticised for their lack of controls and/or placebo treatment. Although positive changes were found in the NLP treatment, the research mostly leaves some room to attribute the changes to something other than NLP specifically (Eisner 2000). For instance, the change may have occurred over time anyway, or be related to subject expectations or some other aspect of the therapy (eg just meeting and talking). 
The positive results, while not conclusive, have been noticed by the business and government sector, with endorsements for NLP training in police and law enforcement, many management and staff training programs, and by various health services.
=====Comments=====
::Greg, there is no outcome based research that supercedes the empirical results of controlled pre-clinical experiments.  You need to get back into those research tomes and start to look into issues of academic rigour. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, GregA!..... You do seem to be proposing all out war.  Your suggestions go against every neutral editor including VoiceOfAll's suggestion that redundancy be reduced.  Furthermore, your suggestion would lead to disputes on all of those articles plus the only way we could properly represent the arrangement is by presenting a 500 kb article of mostly negative articles and by stating "GregA states that these particular articles are really cool, but Drenth, Lilienfeld, Heap, Sharpley, Eisner, Singer and all the others have used their expert judgment to conclude that the evidence shows NLP is unsupported and/or ineffective or erroneously based and pseudoscientific and so on".  I believe your suggestion will lead to long and difficult editing trouble plus all the flaming you could take. JPLogan 07:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry Headley and JPLogan. Are you both saying you have no outcome based research that shows NLP to be ineffective? It is not our place to judge whether Outcome based research is applicable - there are certainly those who say it's the ONLY thing that matters, and there are empirical researchers who want to control all variables. Medline considered these studies to be valid. So back to the point - do you have ANY outcome based research counter-examples? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome based Research

message: ::Greg, there is no outcome based research that supercedes the empirical results of controlled pre-clinical experiments.  You need to get back into those research tomes and start to look into issues of academic rigour. HeadleyDown 17:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, GregA!..... You do seem to be proposing all out war.  Your suggestions go against every neutral editor including VoiceOfAll's suggestion that redundancy be reduced.  Furthermore, your suggestion would lead to disputes on all of those articles plus the only way we could properly represent the arrangement is by presenting a 500 kb article of mostly negative articles and by stating "GregA states that these particular articles are really cool, but Drenth, Lilienfeld, Heap, Sharpley, Eisner, Singer and all the others have used their expert judgment to conclude that the evidence shows NLP is unsupported and/or ineffective or erroneously based and pseudoscientific and so on".  I believe your suggestion will lead to long and difficult editing trouble plus all the flaming you could take. JPLogan 07:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry Headley and JPLogan. Are you both saying you have no outcome based research that shows NLP to be ineffective? It is not our place to judge whether Outcome based research is applicable - there are certainly those who say it's the ONLY thing that matters, and there are empirical researchers who want to control all variables. Medline considered these studies to be valid. So back to the point - do you have ANY outcome based research counter-examples? GregA 11:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I was looking through the reviews of research again, and noticed that the scientific papers are really very critical of NLP.  They use words such as - cult, banal, fad, trite, infantile (they use these in a neutral "citation" fashion) in addition to their findings that the results show prior studies were simply a statistical illusion, and can be explained by factors other than NLP, and so on.
Anyway as those papers are so damningly critical, it does seem to be a bit of a nonsense to have 2 criticism sections.  I think it was GregA who said, why don't we change the criticism section to "more criticisms".  That is a valid point.  I notice also that a lot of other  pseudoscience articles have the same format.  - criticisms, the overall scientific findings, and further ramifications of the pseudoscience with critique from other sources.  
Clearly that would also put the pseudoscience section within the criticism section also.  
This would solve a great many problems and be beneficial for both scientists and proNLPers.  It would also be both "sides" complying cooperatively with VoiceOfAll's recommendations;  
*the scientific results should show less redundancy in the article
*the NLP can have more chance to show it's promotion without the science dismissing NLP immediately.
It would also be easier to briefly add more research (without the constant reverts) within that whole seperate criticism section.  Additionally, the proNLPers would benefit from a good deal of primacy within the article to explain NLP using NLP terms (which are on the whole promotional terms).  Yet, the scientists would be able to make the appropriate scientific clarifications within the criticism section just as in other similar articles.
From a reader perspective, I know there are a lot of NLP fans who want to look up NLP.  It would be presented in its own top section so as not to shake the NLP fan's beliefs or views (they can simply ignore the criticism section).  NLP fans look down on criticism in general because they are generally new agers.  The scientific minded would be able to  check out the actual scientific findings for themselves out of sight in the lower section.  
This would lead to NLP being presented much more fairly, and brevifying would be far easier for all.  
VoiceOfAll, would there be any other benefits you could envision with this arrangement?  Regards HeadleyDown 04:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Presentation of Criticism