Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 1

message: On a side, can someone have a go at cleaning up the various "principles" section?  The subsections probably overlap and could do with some review and neatening up. FT2 11:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
:I've noticed some overlap too. This might be a good place to make divergent streams of NLP apparent too. GregA 10:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of the article

message: This article began using American rather than British spelling but is now a hodgepodge.  I think it should be made consistent at the former; see discussion at Talk:Modelling (NLP). JamesMLane 22:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article could probably do with some cleanup and review, now it's more comprehensive, I agree. Volunteers? FT2 05:41, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you.  I've made the spelling consistent; as an added bonus, I've removed initial caps from the headings so as to comply with Wikipedia style.  Someone else will have to handle the substantive review, though. JamesMLane 23:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  American versus British spelling 

message: Incidentally I've removed the sentence Asking "why?" when gathering information is an advanced technique, reserved for special situations.  
It's not a 'principle' of NLP, nor strictly an accurate statement. The reason NLP discourages "why?" is pragmatic:  it will get beliefs about the problem, rather than operational information about the problem. "Why" can often be a red herring because it gets information which is not as relevant to actually understanding or changing a problem, so much as justifications why the problem needs to be there.
Often the more useful questions are "how?" and "what?" - how is it a problem, how do you experience it, what would you prefer to have happen? which in general help move towards resolving a problem. FT2 07:17, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
----
I removed the dmoz link for the reasons listed at Wikipedia talk:External links/temp#Against.  A search lists only about 1000 of the 430,000+ en.wikipedia articles having dmoz links to its 590,000+ categories, demonstrating that common practice does not currently support it. Zigger 14:30, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
I don't see a logic in "common practice does not currently support it". It not yet used widely. Conan 17:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Asking Why (vs. How or What) in NLP

message: There are some spammy external links about penis enlargement and the such (Note 1, Note 2, etc). Going to remove then (as i don't think NLP has something to do with these kind of things.
::NLP is used to sell a great many "services".  I believe to give a good representative sample of applications, it is important to encompass the whole range.  Take a look on the web.  NLP really is used for all kinds of things.
----
I noticed today quite a bit of external link spamming to NLP-related pages, all linking to nlpschedule.com.  I tagged the links-only pages with speedy deletions, but do not have the subject matter knowledge to judge the usefulness of links on other pages.  Would someone be willing to look through them and remove the ones that aren't useful or are otherwise inappropriate to Wikipedia?  You can find the list of affected articles on Talk:NLP map.  Also, they are on the talk pages for the posting anons: User talk:63.199.31.178 and User talk:69.109.178.79.  Thanks!
--JimCollaborator 21:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
: Thank you to Gadfium for the clean-up work he did with these link spams.  JimCollaborator\talk ~ 21:52, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
----
I have to say I was extremely disappointed with this article. It is certainly substandard. That first sentence is terrible. It needs a big overhaul; I learnt more from a ten-line article in my dictionary of psychology than from this twaddle. ZephyrAnycon 23:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. (The first paragraph is horrible - the bit that says: The field has grown in many directions since its beginnings in modeling successful psychotherapists makes no sense whatsoever. elpincha 12:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Spamming 

message: Apparently this page is being constantly bombarded by an NLP fanatic (username ChrisG?) who regards any revisions to his pro-NLP text as "vandalism". A reasonable compromise would for Chris to provide a SHORT version of his current text (which is already enormously over wikipedia's suggested length limit) while someone else provides another view - JC
:JC, while I found your entry quite funny and I don't dismiss your points, you can't delete the whole article and then write the following hyper critical text (2 paragraphs):
::Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) claims to be a field of human endeavor concerned with empirically studying and modeling human performance and excellence, with the goal of creating transferable skill sets. It specifically claims to be based on the idea that the unconscious mind can be "programmed" like a computer. However no evidence has ever been provided to show that this idea is true, and despite having charged millions of people thousands of dollars each for seminars on how to apply NLP to their lives, NLP practitioners are unable to show any evidence that NLP is effective at anything other than making NLP trainers richer. Many clinically trained psychiatrists have expressed their fears over NLP "experts" with minimum training treating people for phobias and other problems.
::While NLP claims (amongst many other things) to be a science of perfect communication, communication between its two founders is now carried on solely between their lawyers, as they compete for a share of the declining but still considerable revenues the NLP brand brings in.
:The article itself is not over Wikipedia article size limits, the 32K limit was first put in because of the limitations of some browsers. Most featured articles are well over 32k, and the only suggested ranges put forward (recently) were 32k to 55k, and that was considered too limiting and so never became part of the criteria.
:Obviously the article could do with work; but it does cover a difficult topic and so that is unsurprising. Deleting it all and starting again would not be a positive step. You should trust the wiki process: it will be a much better article in a year's time. Finally, I myself have contributed very little to the article itself, which you could have discovered by examining the article history. :ChrisG 07:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions to this page

message: Please don't put that Scientology nonsense in again without sourcing it.  And it should be well regarded as fact if it is included in the introduction (i.e., actual cites to Bandler, Grinder, etc.)The idea that a technology that involves the processing and manipulation of natural language somehow relates to that Scientology alien nonsense is absurd.  I am not sure if it is repeatedly added here to wrongfully give credit to Scientology for the discovery of NLP or to disparage NLP. Because NLP can be a very powerful manipulative tool, I can imagine a cult unethically abusing it to brainwash their followers. Maybe that's what your source says.--Agiantman 19:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology

message: ::Hello Randal.  It is clear that you are promoting NLP.  Your opinion is ok, but please stop posting these mindcrippling adverts.  I was involved in some NLP groups in the past, but no longer.  It really does not rely on science at all. It is totally dependent on misleading and disproved pseudoscience.  Everything from suppositions to metamodels are set up to soften the punter to buy into more of the same nonsense - until you start getting into the NLP concepts of magic and occult.  Then, if you are still sane, you will realize you have wasted your money on stuff you could have very easily have done without. I'll level with you. I'm ex forces myself.  You are a man, right?  Why should you learn this NLP underhand and dodgy stuff for doing something you are well entitled to by birth?  Be a man!  A.Turner 16:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, User:A.Turner, that you cannot distinguish between User::Agiantman and me.  I am not posting adverts.  I'm merely trying to set the record straight about NLP's origins (not pseudoscience) from some of the claims of people that are using it (to which I would agree is snake oil).  Unfortunately, when you paint the whole field with the snake-oil brush, you are denying the legitimate claims.  Sad.  But I have other battles to fight, so whatever misinformation remains here will have to be for someone else to correct. --Randal L. Schwartz 17:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience and magic

message: Here is an extract from one of the related peer reviewed journals:  "Scientology and NLP are historically, psychologically and sociologically one in the same in that they: are based on hypnotism or command suggestion, they are generally thought to be religions or quasi-religious cults, they encourage dangerous dissociative delusions for “treatment”, they claim to make use of covert suggestion, they derive their beliefs from new age notions of superhuman potential and reincarnation, they infer the same lists of claimed benefits, they use hypnotic regression and past life regression, they refer to pseudo scientific principles (often long since debunked by science), they actively encourage occult notions of black magic through anecdotes by their founding authority figures, they both make liberal use of outlandish stories for indoctrination, and they suggest that people require re-programmed through clearing processes, they both use the 90% or 99% mind potential myth, and they both pay homage to misleading left/right brain myths".  
I will consolidate and integrate these facts with the article. D.Right 07:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pure wackiness and an extreme minority view from the same people who associate Halloween with Satan.  NLP is a set of psychological and linguistic tools that can be used to manipulate others by understanding how people process natural language.  NLP is not a cult.  There is no organization, no leader, and nothing to buy.  Scientology is a cult. I detest cults and cult-like organizations such as Scientology and EST.  I acknowledge that NLP can be used by those groups to manipulate and brainwash followers.  But NLP is also a cult fighter: once you know about NLP and brainwashing techniques, you can better guard against their use by a cult. But Scientology and EST had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of NLP and you will not be able to provide any evidence to support that.  I will be looking for your citations to primary sources.  I will revert nonsense.--Agiantman 11:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology

message: :BTW - You may not like the ladies, but others here may.  I recommend that anyone who wants to have better success with women to look into the works of the great Ross Jeffries, author of "How To Get The Women You Desire Into Bed," who teaches guys how to manipulate women into the sack with NLP.  Here is a Playboy article discussing Jeffries and NLP.http://www.seduction.com/playboy.asp  Please note the absence of references to Scientology, EST, "clearing," etc. in the article.  LOL!--Agiantman 11:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that d.right did not name his peer reviewed source.  It is "Conspiracy Theory Monthly."--Mr j galt 14:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ross Jeffries

message: The thought of some greasy talking Tony Robbins wannabe drooling NLP pick up lines to the women I know just makes me laugh.  I'm sure the world laughs with me.  Truly, you should dispense with the wikispam. This is not the place for Ross Jeffries psychic pickups or remote kahuna black magic NLP.  Here is at least one simple link you could follow that shows people do consider NLP to be programming, or mind programming, or command hypnosis.
  http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/Cults.htm
NLP has its gurus, as is evident by what you have admitted.  NLP originated as a new age based pseudoscientific (not real psychology) large group awareness sessions, just like EST, and uses hypnotic language, and pretend science just like Scientology. It pretends to be scientific, but has yet to show positive overall results.  That is fact. D.Right 14:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "NLP originated as a new age based pseudoscientific (not real psychology) large group awareness sessions ... That is a fact." - this shows you don't know enough about NLP to be editing this article with NPOV, because this is definitely not the case.  You've clearly not studied the literature.  You're also mixing up NLP (as a science, and yes, it was created by scientists Grinder and Bandler in their post-doc studies), with what 'some' people did with it afterwards.  Please stop lumping NLP in with everything else you are (perhaps irrationally) afraid of. --Randal L. Schwartz 14:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Age

message: According to the very structure of their writing, NLP is a new age concept.  Scientology was not the inspiration for NLP though.  However, it was a strong influence.  Wikipedia requires a certain amount of association with related subjects.  New age thinking and Scientology are valid in this respect. DoctorDog 15:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: New Age?  Do you think trying to get women into bed is a "new age" activity? And how is "new age"-- a term coined in the late 1980's-- applied to NLP-- which was created in the early 1970's, or even Scientology, which started in the 1950's? --Agiantman 20:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Age / Scientology

message: ::And DoctorDog, I am still waiting for the named source for your opinions.  Sergio Della Sala's book looks to be a credible source, but it is the only one you haven't quoted here so I am not sure that it stands for your proposition.  I have learned here that there are some people (probably not many) that misperceive NLP as a cult.  That is an interesting fact that I will include in the Criticism section when I redraft that part.--Agiantman 20:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I to assume that DoctorDog and D.Right are different individuals who share the same fringe views, have read the same obscure Sala book, and are familiar with the same "very good source" but refuse to name it?  LOL!  I guess I could pull the university library apart book by book searching for the "very good source," but I think it would be easier if one (or both of you) just told us what it is.--Agiantman 21:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP & Cult

message: ::Come on guys! Lets keep it civil!  As far as minority views are concerned, China and a large section of the Catholic and some of the larger Christian churches, especially in the US, recognise that NLP and Scientology are in the same category.  In the US, Scientology is considered a religion.  In Europe and the rest of the world Scientology is is a cult, and generally thought to have given rise to all the other large group awareness concerns of NLP, EST, Landmark Forums etc.  A lot of the German and Swiss sites are very concerned with these relations.  They often report NLP stemming from Scientology in this respect.  I am open to all views, but lets face it, NLP devotees are fairly likely to be extremely biased, considering the "new age religion" or  "mind power" nature of NLP books you get in the spirit section of the bookstore, and the evangelical large group NLP seminars that are sold.  JuneD 23:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! What happened to my favorite sockpuppet, D.Right?  This guy uses so many sockpuppet names, I can't keep track.  I am Catholic and I have never heard NLP mentioned in church or seen it mentioned in the diocese newspaper.  If you think your thoughts are mainstream, you are too involved in some fringe religious sect.  Again, NLP is a set of psychological and linguistic tools that can be used to manipulate others by understanding how people process natural language.  NLP is not a cult.  There is no organization, no leader, and nothing to buy.  I have never been to the spirit section of the bookstore.  On second thought, with the occult references here, should I believe that NLP is really Satan's toolbox and the power of NLP is testament to the power of the Lord of Darkness?  Has Ross Jeffries lured me unwittingly into devil worship?--Agiantman 00:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology, EST, Landmark, NLP

message: Now you are just being silly! NLP is considered a new age notion, and Bandler is considered a new age guru with a cult following according to many sources including these---The Bandler Method Clancy, Frank, Yorkshire, Heidi. Mother Jones. San Francisco: Feb 1989. Vol. 14.  The Times. London (UK): Sep 5, 2001.  pg. Creme.4.  Scientology case settled out of court; [CITY EDITION]  MARY CAROLAN. Irish Times. Dublin: Mar 14, 2003. pg. 4  Self-directed change in a well-balanced way; [Management Times Edition] Goh Chooi Chin. New Straits Times. Kuala Lumpur: Feb 27, 1996. pg. 11  "Money is just spiritual energy": Incorporating the new age Lisa Aldred. Journal of Popular Culture. Bowling Green: Spring 2002. Vol. 35,
I'm sure nobody is saying it is an evil or satanic cult.  Regards JuneD 00:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey those are some respected heavyweight peer reviewed sources!  LOL!  I just read the Mother Jones article "The Bandler Method." It is a fascinating read about one of the co-founders and good info for the Bandler page.  Contrary to your assertions though, the article specifically states, "Bandler was never a guru in any traditional sense" and there are zero references to Scientology, e-meters, EST, and "the occult."  The foreign article "Scientology case settled out of court" makes no mention to NLP, it is about Scientology. "Money is just spiritual energy: incorporating the New Age" also makes no reference to NLP.  So much for your silly "sources."--Agiantman 01:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Age Notion

message: Yes, these are some quick searches that anyone can do on the web using goggle.  Simply type in the related keywords and you will come up with facts about NLP gurus such as Bandler and Robbins being NEW AGE and SCIENTOLOGY involving MIND CONTROL etc.  The Bandler article is particularly interesting though. Lots of unethical persuasion going on there including claiming to be a Doctor, with no PhD.  I like this extra one by Dave Barry http://www.lynxfeather.net/nest/humor/2002/alteredstates.html These were simply to induce you to look up the rest of the close associations between NLP Scientology and other new age movements.  There are many, in many languages. Regards JuneD 06:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are those searches you are referring to? Can you spell the exact text of the search? Can you provide any direct links? The article by Dave Barry has nothing to do with NLP, it's not even mentioned there. Tony Robbins used to have a licence agreement with Richard Bandler somewhere in the 1980's or maybe 1990's, but it is definitely not the case in 2000's. You can go have a look at Tony's website, you will not find anything about NLP there. Robbins is just not an NLP guru. --Thecroaker 07:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Age, Scientology, Mind Control

message: Links to Neuro-Linguistic Programming from the Scientology and Dianetics and engrams articles have been thrown out. See Talk:Scientology. --Comaze 05:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Engrams, etc.

message: One editor here so desperately wants others to believe NLP is a "cult" (LOL), he makes up nonsense about the need to be "cleared" (obviously a Scientology reference) and the need to be reprogrammed.  Anyone who knows about NLP knows you don't need to be reprogrammed to use NLP techniques or be "cleared," whatever that means.  I will continue to revert that nonsense until he provides a legitimate source.--Agiantman 03:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When one uses NLP to pick-up women or sell goods (the most common uses of NLP), no one is cleared of trauma (or anything else).  No one is "reprogrammed."  The programming aspect of NLP is a reference to the cultural/linguistic programming and conditioning that we all subtlety receive as we grow up. NLP tools use the knowledge that people have been "programmed" by society to lead them.  People are not programmed (or reprogrammed) by some cult programmer.  Your strange opinions and paranoia about NLP are funny to me.  --Agiantman 14:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi Agiantman.  My view is that NLP doesn't work.  I have evidence from rigorous scientific reviews to support my view.  There are other views, which will also be heard.  I have read Ross Jeffries' and was quite concerned about his BJ patterns.  I have to say, I never got any desire to perform fellatio on him.  Why do you feel so compelled to obey his commands?  Using covert NLP commands in a feeble attempt to circumvent discerning females' consciousness is both impotent and unethical.  And when it falls flat, you must feel very insecure.  Why not just behave like a real man? D.Right 05:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's my understanding that Bandler and Grinder originally developed the idea of NLP because they wanted to determine why certain professionals, notably salespeople, were more successful than others. They were able to narrow down the reason to the communication techniques used by these successful salespeople. They identified many elements, including "embedded commands", "body language", "mimicking" and "pacing". Additional elements that are part of NLP are phonetic ambiguity, and choosing your wording so that not only the explicit and literal meaning of your words conveys your message, but also the tangential connotations help to reach the goal of your communication. NLP maintains that the meaning of your communication is the result (answer) you are getting.
We are not talking about a field that lends itself as easily to the scientific measurement POV as say, physics or chemistry or engineering would. Nevertheless, I'm sure many, many people will vouch that NLP techniques of one kind or another (since there are many - and they have evolved from the original work of Bandler and Grinder) are very useful to help them achieve their goals. From salespeople, to motivational speakers, to substance abuse counselors, and yes, even apparently for men wishing to improve the quality of their relationship with women, there are untold numbers who can vouch for the effectiveness and validity of NLP. NLP basically makes you aware that we communicate on several more levels than the merely verbal, and that if you wish to convey a powerful and congruent message that reaches your audience, and realizes the outcome you wish from the communication, it is wise to learn all these levels, or modes of communication. Intersofia 02:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology Terminology: Clearing and Re-Programming

message: * Dianetics & Scientology methods do not teach NLP meta model or inductive/deductive logic. Even if an NLP modeler found the best performing Scientologist or Dianetician and successfully modeled the individual patterns via discrete analysis, then coded them formally; this does not put NLP in the same class as Scientology or Dianetics. NLP remains a meta-discipline in that it can be used to model the patterns of individuals from any field (Dianetics, family therapy, physics, ...). --Comaze 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology / Dianetics does not meet NLP criteria (TG, logic or automata)

message: I'm not sure how to go about this. Obviously NLP is trained and approached in different ways by different groups that have branched off, and it would be useful to express that in some way. Should there be a separate section? Should it be integrated with various concepts?
For now, I'm working on some changes to "ecology", and splitting the "mind/body/spiritual" into "mind/body", and "spiritual". I'm also adding something very brief on trainings. I hope it's useful as a start, but I'm very aware that this is not the final way to do it! GregA 00:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences in Schools of NLP 

message: #[Donald: A psycholinguistic study of the patterns of persuasion used by successful salespeople. Dissertation Abstracts International 42(5), 2135-B University of Oregon, 271 pp. Order = 8123499, 1981.]
Altering quotes from academic sources to suit the NLP promotion is not persuasive at all.  It is called misrepresentation.  Why not evangelise the NLP promotion section instead?  After all, there seems to be enough hype in the NLP literature to blast Scientology off the stage anyday!D.Right 16:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persuasion research 

message: I reverted the article back to the prior information rich version, because a lot of recent changes look suspiciously like someone is trying to turn a criticism section into a promotion section. Here are some specific points:  Psychologist's ethical standards including openness and explication of method, writing that a statement is an "accusation" is pov, removing brief examples will reduce the clarity of the piece, and NLP, Dianetics, etc are not just marketed as tech - but the argument appears throughout the whole texts.  Now perhaps you would like to discuss these? Keeping it real Thaumaturge 04:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may, I believe I have a solution.  I have noticed that the whole article needs POV improvement work.  The statements about NLP in the above article are simply regurgitations from the promotinal books.  The style is very devotional to NLP, in a Tom Cruise kind of way.  Why not make them a little less android?  The only reason the criticism section has some extreme wording is because NLP fans keep deleting the facts and so neutral parties become anti-devotee.  The whole article is improving in the sense that more references are appearing.  But the delete/revert war is messing it up.  So just work on making your POV more acceptable to wiki, without making other's POV disappear! EBlack 13:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV, Criticism, Reversions, etc.

message: I am not convinced that NLP can be classified as LGAT. NLP is taught is many different formats. From outdoor "leadership" style courses, small groups to large groups, informal practice groups, one-on-one sessions, apprenticeships, as well as Anthony Robbins style seminars with thousands of participants. Some certifications are attendance based, others have competency assessment. The length of training ranges from hours for an introductory session to 40 days postgraduate study. Classification of all NLP training as LGAT is not accurate. --Comaze 22:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of NLP Training as LGAT or Large Group Awareness Training 

message: May I suggest that we should keep only basic factual information in the main article and move all the critique (for and against) to the discussion page for the time being till we reach a consensus. The article is a bit too long and is quite difficult to read. I think "Human Potential Movement" is a more neutral and precise term than "New Age".
Suggested Structure
*What is NLP
*History of NLP
**First Generation 1970s
**Second Generation 1980s-1990s
**Third Generation 1990s-Present Time
*Basic Assumptions of NLP
*NLP Models
*NLP Applications
--RichardCLeen 15:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me! When you say factual, do you mean actual history and research, or the promotional buzzwords and hype from the pseudo-academic NLP books by Bandler et al? D.Right 17:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd go for what NLP schools share in common, some brief info on the differences, followed by a criticism from psychology GregA 01:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of the article - Stick to Basics Please 

message: Hello Comaze.  Your actions are consistent with your previous unjustified reversions.  This wikipedia article is not an NLP promotion venture.  It is an encyclopedia.  Your above argument is almost completely irrelevant.  We have an article, it must explain what NLP is.  You are clearly trying to remove balanced and well cited passages in order to hide the facts and blazenly promote NLP.  Turning a cited example in the critics section (boyfriend with knife and ethics) to a promotion of NLP "kindliness" it utterly futile and transparently deceptive.  You may be cunning, but you clearly are displaying Mr Bean cunning.  Your statements (eg From the beginning, Grinder & Bandler designed NLP to an epistemology) are both highly arguable and argumentative.  I noticed previously that people were correctly citing connections between NLP and scientology.  To appease the terminally insecure, those correct citations were adjusted to remove the scientology association.  There is absolutely nothing stopping those associations and links from coming back throughout the article.  They will also be in keeping with a balanced article.  If you continue with your Mr Bean act, I will replace those correct and quotable scientology cult links myself. EBlack 06:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Eblack.  The before version is far better and gives a much clearer balanced idea of exactly what NLP is about (the Oconnor stuff).  I reckon there is no point going through multiple edits (more than 3 per day) simply to get reverted because the direction of change is towards a promotion of NLP.  Basically, Comaze is bent on unbalancing the whole piece towards NLP promotion. I don't trust him either.  So it just gets reverted. Sorry!  16:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze. By anthropologists, historians, an encyclopedia editors, I am refering to the people who contribute here.  You are removing their views in favour of a single NLP promotional view.  "the difference that makes the difference" is an NLP promotion.  You may aswell write "Buy this, it will make you go beyond what you ever thought possible, NOW!".  I have no interest in you logical positivism argument, because it is simply a distraction technique you are using to delete and NLP  and NLP promote the rest of the page without having to discuss each point in turn. Therefore, your NLP sales promotion will be reverted!  The more you continue with distraction techniques, the more you adopt the image of untrustworthiness. HeadleyDown 08:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Balanced, Contextual Encyclopedic Definition

message: Created a new Discussion topic to keep the references conversation clean
:: Lee Lady's account of the history of NLP. Includes updated notes. See  Comaze
*Comaze, I'm curious that you've re-edited Bandler as a psychology student? Dilts & DeLozier(2003) and McClendon (The Wilds Days) both have him as a mathematics student. McClendon says "Richard graduated from Freemont High School and entered Foothills College in the Los Altos Hills. After two years he transferred to the university as Santa Cruz where he became a major in mathematics and computer science, later transferring his interest to the behavioural sciences." and "During his student days, Richard was parading around from class to class, taking philosophy, logic, computer science and mathematics." p4-5. I don't doubt his interest in therapy and in psychology but I have never seen him referred to as a 'psychology student' in any formal sense? (Nice article by Lee Lady but it is silent on this point.) --GreyHead 08:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Lee Lady, Grinder was experimenting with trances in a Linguistics 101 class, and was refused tenure by University of California, Santa Cruz. Does anyone have any other evidence to back up these claims? Robert Dilts told a story in the "Sleight of Mouth" seminar in 1987 that John Grinder taught the NLP meta-model to an introductory linguistics class. I would not be surprised if he also taught the milton model (Ericksonian Hypnosis) to the Linguistics 101 class after modeling Milton H. Erickson.--Comaze 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Anyone wonders why there is little mainstream academic recognition of NLP given that Dr. John Grinder was an associate professor at Santa Cruz should read Lee Lady's account of the history of NLP.
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/history-3.html
--RichardCLeen 16:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Lee Lady, Grinder was experimenting with trances in a Linguistics 101 class, and was refused tenure by University of California, Santa Cruz. Does anyone have any other evidence to back up these claims? Robert Dilts told a story in the "Sleight of Mouth" seminar in 1987 that John Grinder taught the NLP meta-model to an introductory linguistics class. I would not be surprised if he also taught the milton model (Ericksonian Hypnosis) to the Linguistics 101 class after modeling Milton H. Erickson.--Comaze 22:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Grinder's - Linguistics 101 Santa Cruz 

message: I've read the history over a few times now. I'm seriously not finding much info on the history of NLP there!
The first paragraph says that Korzybski was one of the earliest influences - which is fine - but the rest of the paragraph is about Korzybski and other things developed from his ideas (not about NLP). 
Then it talks about human potential seminars which the earliest models of NLP were involved in though it doesn't mention their relationship to NLP. It jumps straight into who studied NLP first, and says NLP seminars became popular because of a popular book. In the last few lines "NLP continues to be promoted ..." that sounds more like what it currently is, not the history.
As far as NLP history goes, it could almost be reduced to:
*One of the earliest influences on NLP was the work of Alfred Korzybski and the use of general semantics as a new perspective for looking at the world. The practice of NLP attracted mostly therapists at first, then sales (etc). Other people became involved and a book was written which attracted many people to their seminars". 
I'm not saying it should be reduced like that! Just that we need to differentiate "offshoots of Korzybski" from "NLP" (and decide what's useful), what influenced NLP and in what way, and include how NLP started. 
I'm interested in your thoughts - there'll obviously be some history to changes in this section. I'm happy to _start_ by simply making it clear that the "zeitgeist" (the mood of the time) was related to the Esalen Institute.
(oops, apologies - I have to get in the habit of adding my name and edit summary) GregA 23:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any history in "History of Neuro-linguistic programming"? 

message: Thanks for catching that 211.26.245.35. 
I wrote "Unfortunately, NLP is taught in different ways". Nice change removing the judgement, much better. GregA 01:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unfortunately" 

message: The opening paragraph doesn't say what NLP is. The second paragraph kind of does, but its reference to 'modeling' doesn't mean much to me. Also, what on earth does NLP have to do with Turing Machines?! (I know almost nothing about NLP but references such as this sound like pure cultish pseudo-science to me.) Ben Finn 12:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze! The page you keep reverting unjustifiably is unacceptable.  You are to tackle each point in turn in discussion.  I fully expect you will not though.  The OConnor paragraph is commonly acceptable and understandable and of encyclopedic standard.  Yours is not.  The outcomes information is not unique to nlp. Psychologists are only one party with criticisms about effectiveness, cults, etc.  The Bateson is irrelevant to new age because people do not consider him when they promote NLP new age associations.  You are still turning the knife example into a non criticism.  You cannon delete cited information on cults.  Scientists are not the only ones making criticisms about NLP not being scientific.  EBlack 01:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi! Comaze.  Wake up! Nobody trusts you any more!  Nobody here believes in psychic abilities.  but I have a whole load of refs that show NLPee being sold to do voodoo nonsense though.  You are deliberately misleading discussion.  You are also misusing primary sources.  They are not there to promote NLP.  You are indeed pittifully unconvincing! Everyone can see you are changing the whole article and then claiming it is because of one single point.  You are acting pittifully.  But I have no pitty for you:) D.Right 05:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi Comaze.  You have just admitted to rewriting the entire articles to match that of Bandler and Grinder.  EVERYBODY REMEMBER THAT!  Who are ALL OF the developers of NLP?  Should the developers be the critics?  You have crumby logic in both your actions and your statements.  Firstly we should have consensus on who are the primary sources. So before you make any changes or reversions. YOU MUST GET CONSENSUS FIRST! Fat chance! D.Right 06:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph

message: ===Primary sources (co-creators): NLP modeling/formal systems/epistemology===
*Richard Bandler*
*John Grinder*
===Primary sources (developers): new patterns, applications and testing===
*Richard Bandler*
*John Grinder*
*Robert Dilts
*Christina Hall
*Leslie Cameron-Bandler
*Judith DeLozier 
*Stephen Gilligan (left NLP group to do PhD Psych.)
*Steve and Connirae Andreas
*David Gordon
*Carmen Bostic St Clair
* ...
===Other intellectual antecedants===
*Noam Chomsky (see eg. Transformational-Generative Grammar and cognitive science).
*Gregory Bateson (systems theory and cybernetics. Bateson's take on these fields centers upon their relationship to epistemology)
*Milton H. Erickson (founding president of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis and a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychopathological Association)
*Jay Haley (see eg. family therapy and Milton H. Erickson)
*Alan Turing (see eg. automata, Turing Machines & finite state machines)
*George A. Miller (see eg. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two)
*Virginia Satir (see eg. Family therapy)
*Fritz Perls (see eg. Gestalt therapy)
*Bertrand Russell (see eg. Principia Mathematica & Type theory)
*George Lakoff (see eg. metaphors and cognitive science).
*William Ross Ashby (see eg. law of requisite variety, cybernetics, systems theory and, more recently, complex systems)
*Ronald Langacker (founder of cognitive linguistics movement and the creator of Cognitive Grammar, a type of construction grammar)
* ...
===Critics of NLP===
*Bleimeister, 1988 - german psychologist studied NLP eye accessing cues published (Magazine for clinical psychology, research and practice)
*Morgan, 1993 - Primarily studies PRS in NLP. (Journal of the National Council for Psychotherapy & Hypnotherapy Register, Spring 1993.)
*Platt, 2001 - see reply (Sue Knight) 
*Carroll, 2005 - 
*Platt, 2001
*Druckman & Swets, 1988
*Bertelsen, 1987
*Bradley & Biedermann, 1985
*von Bergen et al, 1997
*Hall & Belnap, 1999
*Shupe & Darnell, 2000
*Tippet, 1994
*Michael Langone, 1993
*Bleimeister, 1988
*Thaler Singer & Lalich, 1996
*Morgan, 1993
*Platt, 2001
*Bertelsen, 1987
*Druckman & Swets, 1988
* ...
===Internal Critics of NLP===
*Andreas & Faulkner, 1994*
*Grinder & Bostic, Whispering 2001* (criticism of Robert Dilts for modeling dead people (Jesus, Disney, Einstein) and for confusing "Dilts' Neuro-Logical levels", "Logical Levels" which is not to be confused with Logical Levels/Logical Types) (see Type theory or Mathematics Set theory).
===Discussion of References===
Oi Comaze.  Now you are dictating to us that we need to use primary sources.  Where does it state we need primary sources in the NPOV article?  Now you are promoting a fringe view of NPOV. You will never attain consensus that way. 
Anybody of sufficient repute, whether it be a critic or a promoter who states anything about NLP.  Cited articles from peer reviewed journal research will carry the greatest weight. :The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources" (according to NPOV guidelines) Promotional books that are concocted for the purpose of a marketing campaign by those trying to get rich by selling snakeoil (ie Grinder etc) will be taken as untrustworthy, and their comments can be used to infer they are hyping.  
D.Right 07:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  As I said; Nobody trusts you.  Because you have spent days changing and reverting large amounts of passages and quotes without sufficient discussion or consensus when requested. And because you clearly and obviously have an NLP promotion agenda. As the editors do not trust you and revert anything you write whether it is write or wrong (its mostly wrong), I suggest you adopt an incremental tiny tiny step approach to editing. One small step each day.  Otherwise the other editors will treat you as you have been treating them for days on end and they will completely ignore YOUR discussion and revert.  D.Right 08:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup! Looks better to me.  But I'm sure we will have to keep a steady eye when developments come in.  Cheers D.Right 04:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References / Reliable Primary sources for NLP (see [[NPOV]]) 

message: Oi Comaze.  Now you are dictating to us that we need to use primary sources.  Where does it state we need primary sources in the NPOV article?  Now you are promoting a fringe view of NPOV. You will never attain consensus that way. 
Anybody of sufficient repute, whether it be a critic or a promoter who states anything about NLP.  Cited articles from peer reviewed journal research will carry the greatest weight. :The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources" (according to NPOV guidelines) Promotional books that are concocted for the purpose of a marketing campaign by those trying to get rich by selling snakeoil (ie Grinder etc) will be taken as untrustworthy, and their comments can be used to infer they are hyping.  
D.Right 07:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  As I said; Nobody trusts you.  Because you have spent days changing and reverting large amounts of passages and quotes without sufficient discussion or consensus when requested. And because you clearly and obviously have an NLP promotion agenda. As the editors do not trust you and revert anything you write whether it is write or wrong (its mostly wrong), I suggest you adopt an incremental tiny tiny step approach to editing. One small step each day.  Otherwise the other editors will treat you as you have been treating them for days on end and they will completely ignore YOUR discussion and revert.  D.Right 08:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup! Looks better to me.  But I'm sure we will have to keep a steady eye when developments come in.  Cheers D.Right 04:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of References

message: === NLP epistemolgy: extremes of idealist and empiricism without appealing to mysticism ===
"...like my response to the notion of so-called psychic powers, I wouldn't bloody know because I have not yet refined my own sensory apparatus the five channels that I already know about. I have worlds upon worlds yet to discover within what I know to be available to me as part of my heritage as a human being." (John Grinder, (1986), Turtles all the way down, page 16) - Comaze
So he uses occult notions in his NLP seminars to say we have boundless potential and may be capable of magical amazing fluffy feats of mystery.  Yes I know! I wonder when he will start claiming it is all part of his NLP epistemology! D.Right 07:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze.  Your objections are unfounded.  The OConnor statement is exactly taken from his book.  Know what we know can be used and it will be included somewhere.  Your master Bateson worship shows in part your NLP promotion agenda.  Again, the line is quoted exactly and it is fitting with Dilt's logical levels.  The Dilts and Oconnor definitions are the most widely accepted (I do not wish to point this out to you again) and they come before your reference.  And again, your demand for primary resource is unfounded.  Go back to the NPOV page and re-read it.  Traumas and engrams are psychological labels and high level enough to allow readers to understand what NLP is about in psychology terms.  Again, they are exact quotes.  The claims to psychic abilities are not the editors' claims.  They are the claims of some NLP proponents.  They will be represented. Your questions are answered.  Now leave the introduction section alone, and leave the criticism section alone.  People do not trust you. You have only just finished your last reversionfest against discussion and against consensus.  Your questions have been answered, your agenda is clear.  Any interference by you to the introduction section or the criticism section will result in immediate reversion of the whole article by me or by other editors of this article. EBlack 03:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an epistemology, "the study of how we know what we know" (Grinder & Bandler et al) or "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (Dilts et al) with the primary focus on studying the difference between the average performers and high performers in the same niche (Grinder 2003). NLP is considered a meta-discipline (originally applied to psychotherapy) in that it can be used to model individuals via discrete analysis from any field, (business, sports, physics, ...). The co-founders, John Grinder and Richard Bandler intellectual antecedents include Noam Chomsky's transformational linguistics, Gregory Bateson, Milton H. Erickson, automata theory, Turing machine, and logic (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a) (Grinder & Bostic, 2001).--Comaze 04:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP an epistemology or "Study of the structure of subjective experience"

message: "...like my response to the notion of so-called psychic powers, I wouldn't bloody know because I have not yet refined my own sensory apparatus the five channels that I already know about. I have worlds upon worlds yet to discover within what I know to be available to me as part of my heritage as a human being." (John Grinder, (1986), Turtles all the way down, page 16) - Comaze
So he uses occult notions in his NLP seminars to say we have boundless potential and may be capable of magical amazing fluffy feats of mystery.  Yes I know! I wonder when he will start claiming it is all part of his NLP epistemology! D.Right 07:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLP epistemolgy: extremes of idealist and empiricism without appealing to mysticism 

message: OConnor is quoting directly from Grinder.  That is completely acceptible.  Dilts etal includes Bandler and Grinder.  That is quotable and the book is entitled, the structure of subjective experience.  
* Dilts book you are referring to titled "Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I (The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience)". Agreed?
You have an extremely narrow view.  It is unacceptable for the first paragraph! EBlack 07:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze.  Your objections are unfounded.  The OConnor statement is exactly taken from his book.  Know what we know can be used and it will be included somewhere.  Your master Bateson worship shows in part your NLP promotion agenda.  Again, the line is quoted exactly and it is fitting with Dilt's logical levels.  The Dilts and Oconnor definitions are the most widely accepted (I do not wish to point this out to you again) and they come before your reference.  And again, your demand for primary resource is unfounded.  Go back to the NPOV page and re-read it.  Traumas and engrams are psychological labels and high level enough to allow readers to understand what NLP is about in psychology terms.  Again, they are exact quotes.  The claims to psychic abilities are not the editors' claims.  They are the claims of some NLP proponents.  They will be represented. Your questions are answered.  Now leave the introduction section alone, and leave the criticism section alone.  People do not trust you. You have only just finished your last reversionfest against discussion and against consensus.  Your questions have been answered, your agenda is clear.  Any interference by you to the introduction section or the criticism section will result in immediate reversion of the whole article by me or by other editors of this article. EBlack 03:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an epistemology, "the study of how we know what we know" (Grinder & Bandler et al) or "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (Dilts et al) with the primary focus on studying the difference between the average performers and high performers in the same niche (Grinder 2003). NLP is considered a meta-discipline (originally applied to psychotherapy) in that it can be used to model individuals via discrete analysis from any field, (business, sports, physics, ...). The co-founders, John Grinder and Richard Bandler intellectual antecedents include Noam Chomsky's transformational linguistics, Gregory Bateson, Milton H. Erickson, automata theory, Turing machine, and logic (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a) (Grinder & Bostic, 2001).--Comaze 04:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph: references to epistemology or not

message: "NLP is claimed to be a study of the structure of subjective experience. How do we do what we do? How do we think? How do we learn? And how do we connect with each other and our world on a physical and spiritual level? (O'Connor & McDermott, 1996) (Dilts et al 1980)(Milliner 1988). NLP teachings state that the mind is programmed, and that we all tend to be mis-programmed by negative input in some way. The methods of neurolinguistic programing involve reprogramming, processes of removing traumas (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994) and treating engrams (Bandler & Grinder, 1975). NLP has expanded to include applications to a variety of contexts including psychotherapy, business, sports performance, and the development of psychic abilities, and covert seduction techniques."
"line 2: How do we do what we do?"
* line 2: This actually should be, "How do we know what we know". 
"And how do we connect with each other and our world on a physical and spiritual level?" 
* I can hear Gregory Bateson shouting, "Shoddy epistemology!". Mysticism, connection, spirituality is to be studied separate from epistemology.
* The sources (O'Connor & McDermott, 1996) (Dilts et al 1980)(Milliner 1988) are not primary sources for defining NLP. Grinder & Bandler are the primary sources for defining NLP. (O'Connor & McDermott, 1996) (Dilts et al 1980) have made modifications.
"line 4: NLP teachings state that the mind is programmed, and that we all tend to be mis-programmed by negative input in some way."
*line 4: What teaching state this? What is the source for this comment? 
This idea of our mind is "mis-programmed by negative input in some way" is vague, and poorly written.
* line 6: (Andreas & Faulkner, 1994) is not a primary source
* line 6: "reducing" traumas is just one application of NLP.
* line 6: "treating engrams" is a term from Scientology, not NLP.
* line 7: Psychotherapy, business, sports, and relationships are all popular applications of NLP. These applications of must be made distinct from NLP epistemology. What psychic abilities, specifically? And how do you know that they are psychic? What is your evidence for making these claims? Keep in mind that NLP models must be backed by formal systems. Otherwise they are not NLP.
Hello Comaze!  The first paragraph must be understandable, and must reflect the wider views of the whole page.  Your behavior will simply cause the page to be reverted. Your version is blinkered and seems more fitting for marketing speel. DoctorDog 00:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze.  Your objections are unfounded.  The OConnor statement is exactly taken from his book.  Know what we know can be used and it will be included somewhere.  Your master Bateson worship shows in part your NLP promotion agenda.  Again, the line is quoted exactly and it is fitting with Dilt's logical levels.  The Dilts and Oconnor definitions are the most widely accepted (I do not wish to point this out to you again) and they come before your reference.  And again, your demand for primary resource is unfounded.  Go back to the NPOV page and re-read it.  Traumas and engrams are psychological labels and high level enough to allow readers to understand what NLP is about in psychology terms.  Again, they are exact quotes.  The claims to psychic abilities are not the editors' claims.  They are the claims of some NLP proponents.  They will be represented. Your questions are answered.  Now leave the introduction section alone, and leave the criticism section alone.  People do not trust you. You have only just finished your last reversionfest against discussion and against consensus.  Your questions have been answered, your agenda is clear.  Any interference by you to the introduction section or the criticism section will result in immediate reversion of the whole article by me or by other editors of this article. EBlack 03:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comaze's objections first paragraph 

message: I'm re-opening this discussing because I have found some earlier references by Dilts that support that NLP was designed to be an epistemology from the beginning. In Roots of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Dilts, 1976) the definitions of NLP is outlined and this includes (a) the forms of experience and (b) the structure of physiological and behavioral epistemology. Dilts considers Meta Models and Epistemologies to be at the same logical level (pp.14-19, Dilts, 1976). This use of the epistemology and associated terms allows us to work alongside other wikipedia editors. --Comaze 04:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an epistemology, "the study of how we know what we know" (Grinder & Bandler et al) or "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (Dilts et al) with the primary focus on studying the difference between the average performers and high performers in the same niche (Grinder 2003). NLP is considered a meta-discipline (originally applied to psychotherapy) in that it can be used to model individuals via discrete analysis from any field, (business, sports, physics, ...). The co-founders, John Grinder and Richard Bandler intellectual antecedents include Noam Chomsky's transformational linguistics, Gregory Bateson, Milton H. Erickson, automata theory, Turing machine, and logic (Grinder & Bandler, 1975a) (Grinder & Bostic, 2001).--Comaze 04:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comaze's proposed introduction: in epistemology terms

message: Hi all.  I decided the NLP page needed to be a bit clearer in terms of description.  I feel it will be better if the page actually tells people what it is about rather than bang on about high fallutin' epistemologies etc. Best regardsOliver Y 13:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity and illustration

message: Oliver Y, I've rewritten the eye accessing cues and merged it with a description of the sensory system model that is in line with NLP "representation systems" use and definitions. Also, what is the source for the current eye accessing cues image? It seems to be different to what is taught in NLP (See p.24 Frogs into princes). regards, Comaze.
EBlack revered my changes to the eye accessing cues / representation system paragraph without justification. This was properly researched and referenced. I have restored this but will need support if this happens again. --Comaze 11:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye Accessing Cues / Representational Systems

message: I'm digging up references for research into the supporting eye Accessing cues and representational systems. This is a start,
#Eye Tracking (cognitive science), 
#[Lee F.: An investigation of eye movements and representational systems. Dissertation Abstracts International 38(10), 4992-B Ball State University, 158 pp. Order = 7803828, 197]
#[M . J.: Stability and inter rater reliability of visual accessing cues. Winteler, A. UnivBW Fak SOWI, Dissertation, 1983.]
#There has been some studies of Eye Accessing Cues using PET technology. Can someone find the sources?
#Robert Dilts did EEG research on Eye Accessing Cues at University of California, Santa Cruz. 
#In 1983, Krim found that Eye Accessing cues does have statistical significance (for visual and auditory) but, kinesthetic was not found to be significant, see abstract... (Krim, M . J.: Stability and inter rater reliability of visual accessing cues. Winteler, A. UnivBW Fak SOWI, Dissertation, 1983.)
#Another study tested sensory predicate matching using electromyography (Yapko. M., "The Effects of Matching Primary Representational System Predicates on Hypnotic Relaxation." in the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 23, p169-175, 1981)
# research of Eye Accessing Cues using PET technology?
# 
Yes, I have sources, and they are reviews and overviews of the research.  They indicate that eye accessing cues is not effective and tells you nothing useful.D.Right 16:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye Accessing / Eye Tracking Research 

message: User EBlack just added this sentance, "Humans communicate by taking in information through the senses, but they also give out communication as energy, and this can be considered the spiritual side of communication." In NLP we refer to collatoral energy (each cell has its own energy source that is powered by our breakfast). According to John Grinder, energy has no significance in communication, for example, it breaks the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy)...
"The first law of thermodynamics says that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system." src: energy --Comaze 11:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Age concept of "communication energy" breaks first law of thermodynamics

message: The following paragraph needs to be rewritten. I will remove it for now. For example it claims that "[people] give out communication as energy, and this can be considered the spiritual side of communication." Apart from being false, misleading and lacking in evidence; this is outside the domain of NLP. See for example Bateson's criteria of mental process (p.92, Mind and Nature, Gregory Bateson, 1979). --Comaze 01:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with you, EBlack and DocDog.  Comaze is just the most ridiculously transparent NLPee-er and he is bent.  Bent on narrowing the scope of NLP to that of a single promoter (grinder).  He really doesn't like people to know that friz Perls was ran a dianetics clinic in the 50s and promoted the whole cult, that Virginia Satir was really into occult, and that Bandler and Grinder got most of everything from them.  The other guys (erickson) etc had just about no time for them.  Satir also contributed to the positive-negative energies BS that they sucked up and wrote about.  The "energy therapists" that have been debunked also use other pseudosciences such as NLP within energy therapy because it has the same background--unwarranted BS!  Therefore, we have consensus on keeping the present page.  I doubt whether Comaze will ever be able to keep his hand off the revert button long enough to recover any trust.  Looks like he is in for immediate reversion no matter what. D.Right 15:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind, body and spirit paragraph to be rewritten NOT REMOVED. 

message: * DoctorDog, Firstly the paragraph, "[people] give out communication as energy" above is the one that was removed. EBlack added it again, and now D.Right, immediately, and you accuse me of being uncooperative?  Please be more specific with which points you are referring to. I have researched, discussed and referenced every major change that I have made.  --Comaze 12:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Communication Energy, New Age, Spiritual Energy, Mystical Energy, energy (physics) 

message: 300px|thumbnail|right|HeadleyDown/Oliver Y version 
(JPLogan, HeadleyDown), you have again added a factually incorrect image of "Eye Accessing Cues" that includes a "Kinesthetic construct". This is not correct. What is your source for this information? I checked p.24 of Frogs into Princes, it should be "Aid" or natural language.
Comaze.  You are simply being restrictive in order to paste in your very unclear catface diagram.  The multiface diagram is correct according to most of the sources (which are admittedly inconsistent) and it is very clear.  HeadleyDown 07:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye Accessing Cues - Image

message: I've just completed a major cleanup of the talk page. This involved mainly fixing up the headlines and moving topics to bring them under the correct headlines. It still needs some work. It took me a while so I hope it is appreciated. Hopefully this will help get some external editors in to help clean up some of our factual disputes. --Comaze 12:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of talk page. 

message: What organisations falsely claims to be registered as universities in their own right? I am only aware of one non-accredited university that offers degrees in hypnosis (not NLP), that is American Pacific University.
* Also there are some NLP trainers who claim to have a Ph.D from this university. See paragraph in question below...
===Dubious Courses and Accreditation===
  
The sale of private courses is unlikely to change until the subject is taught more widely in more publicly accessible venues, and until the innovators decide inventing gratuitous terminology is superfluous. There are only a few training establishments offering properly accredited courses in NLP, but a large percentage of these claim falsely to be registered as universities in their own right.
The paragraph is not at all questionable.  Claimed NLP universities are very questionable: eg 
http://www.imagineit.org/
 "Michael Bennett is like an enlightened angel who speaks with intuitive grace and imparts wisdom in a way that's just damn fun!" or -  NLP Master Practitioner, Clinical Hypnotherapist, Certified Life Coach and Reiki
Practitioner.
"Where miracles happen & dreams come true". 
Now that is a dubious university! HeadleyDown 05:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable paragraph Dubious courses 

message: The sale of private courses is unlikely to change until the subject is taught more widely in more publicly accessible venues, and until the innovators decide inventing gratuitous terminology is superfluous. There are only a few training establishments offering properly accredited courses in NLP, but a large percentage of these claim falsely to be registered as universities in their own right.
The paragraph is not at all questionable.  Claimed NLP universities are very questionable: eg 
http://www.imagineit.org/
 "Michael Bennett is like an enlightened angel who speaks with intuitive grace and imparts wisdom in a way that's just damn fun!" or -  NLP Master Practitioner, Clinical Hypnotherapist, Certified Life Coach and Reiki
Practitioner.
"Where miracles happen & dreams come true". 
Now that is a dubious university! HeadleyDown 05:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious Courses and Accreditation

message: Hello all. I've been reading this discussion with interest - I use wikipedia regularly but haven't gone 'behind the scenes' before. My first thought is I have to commend you all for putting together a good informative page! It's obviously continuing to evolve, and infact reflects some of the disagreements throughout the whole NLP 'community'. Like everyone, I have both an understanding through, and preference towards, the branch I trained with (in my case New Code), so a page like this helps widen that view. Naturally I do not want NLP to be defined as my 'branch' defines it - the branches do have different approaches and accuracy requires that reflection. I must say that I haven't found ANY resource ANYWHERE that helps someone get a grasp of the basic similarities and differences in the branches of NLP. Maybe one of you does? So I'm reading partially from that angle - how does someone work out not only what NLP is generally, but also some of the substantial differences in approach that have developed from its beginnings (and through this find out which approach they would value and what holds little interest). I don't know if you think that would be useful!? (would it encapsulate the opinions expressed here too?). Anyway I'll read more with interest - I don't understand the editing process etc yet - and hope to be involved in some way. Thanks :) GregA 01:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences in NLP

message: Hello Comaze.  Now I'm going to be polite.  Please stop with the large section changes.  People are going to see it as a distraction or confusion tactic.  If you want to make changes, simply do it incrementally, leaving time for people to assess your first proposed change.  Nobody has had a chance to comment on it yet.  It is easily accessible from the history page.  Personally I will say that it is biased towards Grinder, and it should not have the scientific description of its methods removed.  Basically do not remove facts.  Keep them there, and work cooperatively.HeadleyDown 04:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's cooperatively keep the changes incremental so other editors have a chance to assess them

message: The alternate version is not complete yet. I'll ask for comments and opinions from neutral parties and it will be copyedited before an arbitrator is called. --Comaze 05:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate version

message: : HeadleyDown, May I suggest that you put your attention towards cleaning up your version by removing POV and commentary, and I'll incorporate any high quality changes in the alternate version, an external arbitrator will be called to settle and resolve any NPOV disputes, and replace or merge the two versions. RfCs can also be called as part of a mediation process before arbitration. --Comaze 05:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Version: [[Neuro-linguistic programming(Temp)]]

message: Hell Andy Bradbury.  I have to say, you exhibit the most pseudoscientific thinking I have ever seen.  You say:  "For many people, one of the most attractive features of the genuine
NLP techniques, is their essentially pragmatic nature. That is to
say, the various techniques are only there because they have worked
for someone at some time in the past, and not because someone has
theorised that any particular technique ought to work.
By the same token, it is recognised that no technique will work every
time, or under all circumstances, or for everyone.
"On that basis, firstly it has to be said that this just one of many
models in the NLP toolkit. Even if it turned out that the eye
accessing cues model is entirely wrong (and there is no evidence to
support that assertion), it really wouldn't affect the validity of
any other model or technique, or of NLP itself."
This begs the question of what would falsify the validity of NLP?
Apparently nothing can according to you. If NLP cannot be falsified then you have just
placed it outside the realm of science into pseudoscience because to be scientific, an
idea must be testable and falsifiable. According to what you state
here, there is no way to do this because they can just come up with
another "pragmatic" idea.  However, it is testable, because it has been tested (with negative results).
Another big problem here is with the NLP "modeling" procedure itself.
You generalize directly from observations without actually doing
scientific studies using statistical methods to really see if you
have "modeled" correctly. In the case of eye movements, studies
showed that their observations did not stand up to the test of
properly controlled research.
And yes, you do reverse the burden of proof. If you think this
study was so flawed, this still doesn't address the issue of why NLP
proponents have not done studies that they would consider fair tests
and then submit them to peer reviewed journals.
There is also a dwelling on minutae that are irrelevant to the
criticism of the study (e.g., saying that the author used the NLP
jargon incorrectly in calling eye accessing cues a "state"). This is
a tactic I've seen often used by proponents of pseudoscientific
practices. In short, you are a pseudoscientific thinker.  If it were up to you to write this article, you would probably end up convincing nobody but Tom Cruise (and the other NLP idiots who constantly try to use their rotten NLPeeing weaselyness to twist the facts to their map of unreality).RWilkinson 10:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Andy.  Let me explain:  You write a book stating stuff like "NLP is one of the most powerful tools ever made available to the biz community", you say people are categorized as V,A or K in their thinking styles, using scientific sounding terms, you say it is about the brain and neurology, and you say NLP ignores science.  Now, I know that NLP uses as much behavioural science as it does cognitive (eg anchoring).  I know that you criticise single experiments on PRS using ad hoc hypotheses after the findings in order to explain them away.  You use negative results in order to promote nlp.  Your view is a pseudoscientific view, and you have demonstrated all the hallmarks of pseudoscientific thinking and argument.  There is a significantly represented view that also says nlp is pseudoscientific.  These views come from health specialists, scientists, ex NLPers, cult exit people etc.  Perhaps communication is the result you get.  You explained very clearly and gave a crystal clear image of your pseudoscientific view.  So, your arguments place you together with Ron Hubbard and his dianetics concerns. That is not just my view, and I can quote my sources. This is not a posterboard for "NLP the science, technology, attitude, unfair advantage" etc.  This is an encylopedia and will follow NPOV policy.  I suggest you read up on NPOV.CarlOxford 03:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Andy.  You have some points here, but they are only part of the array of the points of view of all.  By NPOV standards the article needs to follow NPOV policy.   Some people have stated that NLP is pseudoscientific, and those people are scientists.  The general view of scientist who know the subject of NLP is that NLP is pseudoscientific, and that must be represented on the page. There is an explanation of that also on the page, with a list of pseudoscientific factors presented.  Subjects do not have to claim to be science to be called pseudoscientific.  All they need to do is make claims for efficacy etc. Besides, some NLP people do claim that it is a science.  NLP is a confusing subject because of the claims people make about it, and the conflicting ideas internal to it.  Presently the article does a good job of organizing those claims and ideas within an encyclpedic format.  It will continue to improve and add verifiable fact from diverse sources.  RegardsHeadleyDown 01:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  GregA. NLP does not study subjective experience. NLP studies the structure of "language & behaviour". Any idiosyncratic beliefs are filtered out in the process of modeling. Therefore there is no mystical beliefs in NLP. --Comaze 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: For details on the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Due dates for submission have not been set. This will probably take some time because the alternate Neuro-linguistic programming(Temp) still needs a major cleanup. We are in the process of checking references. --Comaze 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Science, Pseudo-science and Non-science

message: "Shaman, philosophers, and prophets alike have intuitively known and used the power of metaphor. From Plato's allegory of the cave right through to Valitaire's Zagdig, from the teaching of Jesus and Buddha to the teachings of Don Juan Matus, metaphor is ever present as a tool for changing ideas and effectiing behavior." (Richard Bandler, foreward - p.xi, Therapeutic Metaphor, David Gordon, 1978).
It is quite obvious from this quote that Bandler uses Shamanism as a metaphor. --Comaze 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  GregA. NLP does not study subjective experience. NLP studies the structure of "language & behaviour". Any idiosyncratic beliefs are filtered out in the process of modeling. Therefore there is no mystical beliefs in NLP. --Comaze 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote from Bandler re: spiritual, paganism, etc.

message: Hang on!  Comaze, what is the supposed timeline for this arbitration business?  Like, when did it start, what is supposed to go on, and when is the deadline etc? Also, when are they going to chuck you out for spending over a month deleting well researched facts and qualified points of view in favour of Bandler and Grinder doctrine:)? CheersHeadleyDown 14:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For details on the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Due dates for submission have not been set. This will probably take some time because the alternate Neuro-linguistic programming(Temp) still needs a major cleanup. We are in the process of checking references. --Comaze 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates for submission/arbitration

message: Hello all. I have added a crucial link to an experiential proponent of state change--Dave Barry.  Have a nice weekend.HeadleyDown 14:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dave Barry NLP Expert