![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I too need to apologize for going directly for some changes in the introduction. From my perspective it was too slanted towards applications of NLP whereas I have heard both originators state that modeling is the core and that although there seems to be an abundance of applications (admittedly many of debatable quality), relatively few improvements have been made to the core modeling. If I can find some time I will do a more thorough review and provide further references. Panterom ( talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I made lots of changes without consultation. I just felt the intro was very turgid and too busy. I know very little about the subjects, but I just wanted page to be more understandable to people like me. I was bold in my editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.229.54 ( talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I added a section pertaining to CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, which uses NLP to "educate" its followers. Regardless of their intent, this ought not be hidden and they have 2x removed any notice of it here on the NLP listing. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdntcallr ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
should we add back the quotes psycholinguist Willem Levelt (1996) states "NLP is not informed about linguistics literature, it is based on vague insights that were out of date long ago, their linguistics concepts are not properly construed or are mere fabrications, and conclusions are based upon the wrong premises."... "NLP theory and practice has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights or linguistics, nor with informatics or theories of programming".[20][28] Cognitive neuroscience researcher Michael C Corballis (1999) agrees and says that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability."[29] ? as the article stands now, i don't think it's very clear that NLP is not really linguistics, and i think some quotes such as the aforementioned would serve to show this. Theserialcomma ( talk) 10:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an article new to the Knol which to my mind is well-referenced and, er, more objective than this one. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Adopting the approach which was reasonably successful in developing a neat and concise introduction to the Philosophy article.
An introduction should summarise the three or four most important things we would say about the subject. What are these, in the case of NLP?
As for the rest of the article, the order of sections should follow the order of ideas presented in the introduction (which the current article largely does, although the style could do with considerable polishing). How does that sound? Peter Damian ( talk) 08:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This section states "In contrast to mainstream psychotherapy, NLP does not concentrate on diagnosis, treatment and assessment of mental and behavioral disorders. Instead, it focuses on helping clients to overcome their own self-perceived, or subjective, problems." Do these two sentences not contradict one another?
The 'popular culture' section says that genuine NLP rejects the more spectacular and overstated claims of NLP. Is that true? Paul Mckenna's site says "I'd personally like to welcome you to my online store: Do you want to lose weight? Do you want to become rich? Do you want to become more confident? Do you want to improve your life?" This may possibly be an example of pseudo-NLP masquerading as real NLP, but then there is an endorsement on the same site by Bandler: "There is a difference between learning about NLP and learning to do NLP. When I got together with Paul McKenna back in 1994, I decided that one of the most important benefits that we could bring to people who are interested to teach them how to do NLP as I originally intended it to be used - to create more love and freedom for every human being on the planet". (Richard Bandler). The history of NLP suggests that the founders were involved in it as a profitable business from the very beginning. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Comaze, you have changed the sentence about Grinder's ideas on transformational grammar being 'superseded' to one that now looks somewhat disconnected, and doesn't use the word 'supersede'. Why did you do this? There was an important idea being communicated by the use of 'supersede'. Could you explain why, please? Peter Damian ( talk) 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In the Bandler and Grinder studies, a close scrutiny of the work of Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson, and others (Davis & Davis, 1982) from a linguistics and language metaphor (e.g., transformational grammar) led to a new qualitative research method connected with the transformational grammar tradition, but different, and to a different therapy model which embraced some of the Satir-Erickson style of clinical practice, but added some interesting meta-communicative distinctions. The research method was presented as a formal notational system in The Structure of Magic II: A Book about Communication & Change (Grinder & Bandler, 1976, pp. 164-193), but was never fully realized as a distinct research approach, partly due to Bandler's and Grinder's emphasis on their therapy model.
[...]
I have done some reading around the subject (I last studied linguistics in 1986). Textbooks of TG published before 1980 present what is essentially the Chomsky's Standard Theory. Presumably Grinder's ideas are based on this? In the 1970's it was demonstrated that standard TG was so enormously powerful that it could, in principle, describe anything which could be described at all - potentially catastrophic, since the whole point of a theory of grammar is to tell us what is possible in languages and what is not possible.
Chomsky responded to all this in the early 1970s by introducing a number of changes to his framework known as the Extended Standard Theory, later revised to the Revised Extended Standard Theory, or REST. In 1981 Chomsky published Lectures on Government and Binding which swept away much of the apparatus of the earlier transformational theories in favour of a dramatically different approach (Government-and Binding Theory). Because of this discontinuity the name 'transformational grammar' is not usually applied to the later successors of TG.
Thus, is it fair to say that the linguistic work that NLP was based on has largely been superseded?
Also, what actually is the connection between NLP and TG, and in which of the early NLP works is this laid out? Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"To say that our communication, our language, is a system is to say that it has a structure, that there is some set of rules which identify which sequences of words will make sense, will represent a model of our experience. In other words, our behavior when creating a representation or when communicating is rule-governed behavior. Even though we are not normally aware of the structure in the process of representation and communication, that structure, the structure of language, can be understood in terms of regular patterns.
Fortunately, there is a group of academicians who have made the discovery and explicit statement of these patterns the subject of their discipline - transformational grammar. In fact, transformational grammarians have developed the most complete and sophisticated explicit model of human, rule-governed behavior. The notion of human, rule-governed behavior is the key to understanding the way in which we as humans use our language."
...[Then there's a short excerpt from Slobin, Psycholinguistics, Scott, Foreman & Co., 1971, p.55 which I have not included here]...
"The linguist's objective is to develop a grammar - a set of rules - which states what the well-formed patterns for any particular language are. This discipline is based on the brilliant work of Noam Chomsky who initially developed a methodology and set of formal models for natural language. *footnote(We provide an appendix, which presents the transformational model more thoroughly, and a selective, annotated bibliography for those who wish to further examine the transformational model of language.) As a result of the work of Chomsky and other transformationalists, it has been possible to develop a formal model for describing the regular patterns in the way we communicate our model of our experience. We use language to represent and communicate our experience - language is a model of our world. What transformational grammarians have done is to develop a formal model of our language, a model of our model of our world, or, simply, a Meta-model."
I'm far from an expert but I did take some linguistics, cognitive science and artificial intelligence classes last session. I'm also taking cognition/perception and psychological research methods this session. It seems that majority of what NLP imported from transformational is still taught in linguistics today - mainly syntax. My uni's linguistics department is very much in line with Chomsky. Few linguists will openly acknowledge that NLP is the most commercially successful enterprise to come from transformational-generative grammar (or perhaps linguistics in general). Deep structure/ surface structure is still an important distinction and it has parallels with elements of Chomsky's performance/ linguistic competence distinction which is part of the minimalist program. Interestingly, Chomsky is now encouraging convergence of linguistics, brain science and biology [1]. There are some other minor differences. The main texts about transformational grammar cited by Grinder & Bandler in 1975 follow (from selected bibliography.
Syntactic structures is probably the most important of those texts but it is a very dense book. Bandler and Grinder note that Chomsky's "Language and mind" is much simpler to read ---- Action potential t c 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are some quotes about transformational grammar in the context of NLP. Notice that "The Qualitative Report" is over-represented in this list. This is by no means complete and it is biased because I specifically search for "Transformational grammar + NLP". Collapsed for brevity: |
---|
Action potential t c 04:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
It may or may be worth noting, but Chomsky's ideas of deep structures has been disproved in Neuro-science by the work of Deacon (The Symbolic Species) and others. Its simply not how the human brain works (although it can explain some aspects~). This is an additional science based challenge to anything (like NLP) being dependent on it. I can also imagine that any academic linguist would resist acknowledging NLP as while it may be commercially successful it is popular in all the worst sense of that word. -- Snowded TALK 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quotes AP but they are vague enough that I don't see any connection. What I am really looking for is source material that says NLP says X and Chomsky said Y in such a way that the connection between X and Y is crystal clear and immediately apparent to the average Wikipedia reader (or to myself). At the moment the X and Y don't seem to have any logical connection. Which specific bits of TG are connected to which specific bits of NLP? If we can't find anything, we will just have to put something suitably vague like 'NLP claims to be based on the work of ...' or similar. What we have right now won't do at all. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
For example:
By "raw sensory data", the author means "direct experience" or what Chomsky calls "intuition". See the introduction to Syntactic structures where Chomsky describes the difference between grammatical and non-grammatical judgments. This is central to linguistics. There are the two assumptions we're looking at:
I'm sorry but this is a long way away from 'Chomsky says that X' and 'NLP says that Y' in such a way that there is a clear and evident and relevant connection between the X and the Y. We have
Can you show me the clear evident logical connection between the two ideas? That's all you have to do. And please don't refer me to any NLP literature. That's for you. The burden of proof is for you to produce reliable sources to back up claims that can eventually go into the article. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Right now the intro says: It is claimed by the originators that it draws from aspects of neurology ("neuro-"), linguistics and computer science ("programming"). There is no citation for this.
Here's a direct quote from NLP Volume 1:
"Neuro" (derived from the Greek neuron for nerve) stands for the fundamental tenet that all behavior is the result of neurological processes. "Linguistic" (derived from the Latin lingua for language) indicates that neural processes are represented, ordered, and sequenced into models and strategies through language and communication systems. "Programming" refers to the process of organizing the components of a system (sensory representation in this case) to achieve specific outcomes.
— Dilts, Grinder, Delozier, and Bandler, 1980.
How about we use this as the citation and change the statement to reflect what is said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublime01 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
These go too far, you dumbing down references to legitimate and citable criticisms of NLP. Specifically paragraphs beginning "The reception of NLP has been highly controversial...", "Tension exists between several divergent groups within NLP ..." and "NLP has enjoyed little support within the psychological profession following research reviewed in the Journal of Counseling Psychology in the early 1980s. [2] This led some skeptics and psychologists to dismiss NLP as a pseudoscientific or New Age .." Some of the insertions and additional material make sense but given the whole scale changes I have reverted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I do not see how that article can be defended as a separate article from the main article on NLP--except to the extent that it contains extensive quotations and impressionistic lists that don't belong anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm proposing a merge. Just as Principles of NLP was merged to the present article, so should this one. A good deal of the content is duplicative. DGG (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I ran across a pdf – "Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis techniques in His Speeches" which I suspect may be of interest in connection with Wikipedia's coverage of NLP. I'll let others be the judge of that though. __ meco ( talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
There has been concern by some people that there has been undue weight on the pro side and that to be balanced statements like "claimed" need to be included. This article should be about the facts of what people in the field of NLP say that NLP is. Whether what these people say is true or not doesn't matter for the article. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. To state an opinion is POV, but to state that a person has stated an opinion would be NPOV, because it is a fact that that person has stated that opinion. So if I were to say "NLP correctly asserts that the map is not the territory" that would be a pro-NLP POV, and if I said "NLP claims that the map is not the territory" that would be an anti-NLP POV. The correct NPOV way to say it is that "One of the principles of NLP is the map is not the territory." is a fact and does not constitute an endorsement in any way. The facts of what NLP critics have said should also be included in the article, but let the facts speak for themselves. Inserting statements like "NLP claims that..." asserts an opinion where there shouldn't be one. As far as I can tell there isn't anywhere in the article where it says "NLP is correct in the assertion that..." or anything similar, unless someone wants to read through again and search for specific examples.-- Sublime01 ( talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to discuss where the article current is and what is required to bring it up to good article standards. Which sections are good? Which sections need to be improved? How can it be improved overall? ---- Action potential t c 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the criteria for inclusion of links to associations? Most of the listed associations are not government recognised. Many of them are affiliated with individual trainers and training providers. It is getting hairy. ---- Action potential t c 06:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything to be said about NLP3 that could be included into the article? __ meco ( talk) 10:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1. The overview section currently says of the founders of NLP, Bandler, Grinder, and Bateson: "The authors stated, in contravention of the professional wisdom of that time, that the internal human experience demonstrated itself in people's behaviors, and could be worked with directly given an appropriate mindset ..."
Are we saying that, before NLP, the professional wisdom was that people's mental lives were not reflected in their behavior, or that mental states could not be worked with directly, or what? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm having difficulty fully understanding this sentence in the lead: "The originators emphasized modeling of excellence as the core methodology, that is, the observational and information gathering methods they developed to define and produce the models of exceptional communicators." The sources don't seem to say that, but there are no page numbers or quotes offered in the footnotes, so maybe I'm missing something ( footnotes 6-9). Can anyone help to decipher it? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made some changes, restoring the article to something more like its previous state. I have moved up the history section, and removed a long rambling section which is eccentrically written. There remains the problem of the introduction but intend to deal with that in the near future. Can these changes be discussed here first, thanks. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose changing the whole introduction to the one drafted here. I need to do a bit more work on adding sources to each sentence of the introduction - most of it is taken from Michael Heap's excellent series of papers. But as this is such a substantial change, and because this is such a controversial article, I thought I would give ample warning here. Suggestions for changes or additions are welcome. Peter Damian ( talk) 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, and thank you for those suggestions. I have changed User:Peter Damian/NLP to accommodate these. Again, I have leant heavily on Heap. I have left a space for a section on management science applications. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could fill this in. I am going to stick with 'presented' however, as the early books were no more than transcripts of seminars, and I cannot find yet anything so clear and coherent as a definition. If anyone can provide me with a quote from Structure of Magic or Frogs into Princes that resembles a definition, then let's have it. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I am still struggling to find a source for the original name of the theory. The title Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming by John Grinder, Richard Bandler (1979) suggests the term was in use by then. Who invented it? Peter Damian ( talk) 10:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The headline "scientific verdict" would only be acceptable if a consensus had been established and published in a reputable publication. I've changed it to "Empirical research" which more accurately describes the section. ---- Action potential t c 10:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) It been since been renamed to "Scientific criticism" which is fine with me. ---- Action potential t c 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The organisation of this is a mess. There is an article NLP and science, and there is a section in the main article, which are virtual copies of each other. I have put these in the sandbox here and here. I propose going through to eliminate duplicated material, then combine into a single article NLP and science. I will then write a separate summary for the main NLP article - draft User:Peter_Damian/NLP#NLP_and_Science. Finally I will write a new introduction for the NLP and science article. The current introduction contains the most blatant miscitation I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Complete rewrite of the main article, plus consolidation of the sections on science in NLP and science. I have tried to represent both sides of the case as fairly as possible, while being faithful to the principle that Wikipedia must represent scientific consensus. Happy 2009 Peter Damian ( talk) 11:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems with this sentence. 1. It is unclear if Bandler and Grinder use Neuro-linguistic in the same way as Kendig. Bandler and Grinder did cite Korzybski's work which was influenced by Kendig. 2. The claim that Bandler coined the term is disputed. Normally Bandler and Grinder are identified as the co-creators or the field (and the term). The correct authors for Changing with Families was Bandler, Grinder and Satir. The citation for NLP vol1 was incorrect. The main authors was Dilts. Bandler's book is not an appropriate source as it has not been cited in any reputable third party sources. The current citation is incorrect, it was not published in "Health communications" magazine. ---- Action potential t c 01:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The changes just made by 'ActionPotential' to the current introduction are not acceptable. They are unnecessarily verbose and threatens to return the article to the rambling and ungrammatical state it was in before I tidied it up. It also veers solidly towards the promotion of NLP, rather than reflecting 'mainstream scientific thought'.
For example, I wrote "It was originally promoted by its founders in the 1970's, Richard Bandler and John Grinder as an extraordinarily effective and rapid form of psychological therapy[5], capable of addressing the full range of problems which psychologists are likely to encounter, such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, learning disorders." which closely reflects Heap. This has been changed to ":NLP was originally presented by its founders in the 1970s, Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder as an explicit model of human experience, interpersonal communication as well as a set of tools and principles that could be applied to make changes rapidly and with minimal effort.[5][6]"
This is wrong. It is clear from the citation I provided, now deleted, that the over-promotion originated with the founders (rather than being from certain wayward extremists in the NLP camp). The sentence "Proponents reported that the using NLP principles and techniques helped reduce unpleasant feelings " has been added, which is blatantly promotional. The term "explicit model of human experience" is almost meaningless.
I wrote “Because of the absence of any firm empirical evidence supporting its sometimes extravagant claims, NLP has enjoyed little or no support from the scientific community.” This has been changed to. “Proponents of NLP often relied on anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Skeptics highlight the absence of firm empirical support for the extravagant claims of efficacy made by proponents.” No. If reliable sources say that there is little or no firm empirical evidence for the claims made by NLP. Then we should say this. We shouldn’t say ‘sceptics say that’ or even ‘scientists say that’. If reliable sources say that p, we say that p.
Similarly, we should write "It continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology" not "Heap says that ...". Heap is a reliable source. If RS says that p, say p. Peter Damian ( talk) 09:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you please supply exact quotes, as follows:
1. What was said on p.II [sic] of Frogs into Princes. What did the preceding para actually say? When was the foreword written? 2. In what way was p6 of SoM misrepresented? 3. I have no reliable evidence that Bandler coined NLP except the OED, which is usually accepted as RS in the absence of any strong countercliam (see Bishonen above). 4. Were the extravagant claims made in the transcribed client demonstrations actually made by the founders or not? If not, were they implicitly endorsed by the founders by being quoted in their book? Peter Damian ( talk) 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have altered the citation to include OED 2003. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll reply to the other points later. I address 3 first: 3.Please read what Bishonen said more closely. According to Bishonen (OED), the term NLP was coined in Bandler et al. "Changing with Families". It does not say in Changing with Families that Richard came up with the term. Notice that Bishonen said "NLP was coined in" not "NLP was coined by RB". Bandler and Grinder were using the term NLP in seminars before they published "Changing with Families" with Virginia. There is no evidence to say who first used the term. I think Bandler and Grinder probably came up with it together. Please make the change to your proposed introduction. Furthermore, the quote from Bandler (2008) is a metaphor which should not be taken literally. ---- Action potential t c 12:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I was tempted to a set of reversals this morning. Far too many weasel words introduced. A section on criticism with a critical comment does not need a qualification on the comment. The last two NPOV tags are questionable. If there is a positive response in the literature then it should be proposed. It hasn't been todate. Can you think again Action potential? -- Snowded TALK 09:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted (to an earlier version by Action Potential - some of the changes were good). The rest were ridiculous. For example:
"It continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology" to "According to Michael Heap (1988) NLP made no impact on mainstream academic psychology". "However, it has some influence among private psychotherapists" to "Heap claims that NLP has some influence among private psychotherapist" "NLP pretends to be a science, but is really pseudoscience, for its claims are not based on the scientific method. Its very name is a pretence to a legitimate discipline like neuroscience, neurolinguistics, and psychology. " to "Some proponents of NLP claim that NLP is or promises to become a scientific based discipline, but critics argue that it exhibits characteristics of pseudoscience, for its claims are not based on the scientific method."
As argued above, we don't have to say 'critics argue that'. We say that NLP is a pseudoscience, and cite a reliable source, as was done here. We don't say that the reliable sources are 'critics' or that they 'argue that'.
"The scientific sounding title gives the appearance of legitimate discipline "The scientific sounding title gives the appearance of scientific discipline ". As though scientific methodology (taken in the widest sense) is only one of many methods (revelation, Bandler's personal opinion, popularity) conferring legitimacy.
"NLP has enjoyed little or no support from the scientific community" to "NLP has enjoyed little or no support from the psychological literature" with the bizarre comment "There is no statement of consensus from scientific community". Neither is there a statement of consensus from the scientific community that the earth is not flat. The scientific community simiply ignores the view that the earth is not flat, just as it ignores the views of the NLP industry. Please avoid the 'reverse burden of proof' fallacy. The correct process for proponents of pseudoscience on Wikipedia is to provide reliable sources that there is a scientific consensus for X. Those representing NPOV do not have to prove that there is no scientific consensus for X. The fact is that NLP makes no impact on mainstream psychology. Period. Those who Google for NLP and find Wikipedia the #1 hit, followed by hundreds of NLP promotional links should be able go to Wikipedia first and get reliable information - such as the fact that NLP is not supported by mainstream science.
Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for flaky business interests. It is an encyclopedia. Please stop edit-warring, or we take to RFC or similar. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 10:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
OK if there is a tag, then there should be explanation of why with illustrations here so that we can resolve it. WIthout that it can be deleted. Over to you AP. -- Snowded TALK 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The tag was applied because I believe the section was in contravention of fundamental wikipedia policies. The main issues are that conflicting perspectives are not fairly represented. Equal validity must be give to all views (WP:NPOV). There are also some problems with other fundamental wikipedia policies: "WP:Verifiability" and it seems to be WP:SYNTH style " original research". The most obvious issue is that the opinions of individual researchers are not properly ascribed to the author. Here is a summary of the issues:
If we can use the best available sources to organise the article and fairly represent the conflicting perspectives then I think we're moving in right direction toward good article criteria. ---- Action potential t c 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. Here are mine, point for point.
1. "Opinions of individual researchers should be ascribed to the authors" Read carefully the whole section of WP:NPOV that you cite. The policy clearly allows us to assert facts. We do not need to say 'X says that Plato was a philosopher'. We just say 'Plato was a philosopher'. If the reliable sources says that p, we simply assert that p.
2. "An argument has been advanced but the synthesis is not attributed to a source that is directly related to the topic of NLP. ...Some of the sources used are criticisms of pseudoscience in general and only make passing comments about NLP". I didn't follow this argument at all. Are you saying that an article which is about fallacious theories in general, and which mentions the flat earth theory 'in passing' cannot be cited in Wikipedia because it is not 'directly related' to the flat-earth theory. You have to be joking.
3. "The experimental methodology, procedures, participants, results of experimental studies from which the conclusions where draw are omitted. " I really don't think we need to go into that amount of detail, in the case of something which is generally agreed to be the very paradigm of a pseudoscience.
3a "See List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming for some studies that were supportive of NLP, even tentatively." I reviewed this list carefully some time ago, and found that many of the studies do not support NLP at all. E.g. a study by Cheek supposedly "demonstrated that NLP Milton Model language use is capable of reaching and influencing the unconscious mind ", However this refers to a study by Cheek that the unconscious patients are capable of responding to hand signals. It is not a demonstration of the Milton model per se, as the paper does not appear to refer to the "Milton model". This would be like referencing a paper showing that the sky was blue, as supporting the flat earth theory, on the assumption that the flat earth theory also asserts that the sky is blue. Otherwise the studies are from journals like Multimind, which is an NLP promotional publication. This would be like citing the journal "Flat Earth". My proposal here is to place the burden of proof upon NLP. If you can go through these 'studies' one by one and show clearly that they are reliable i.e. independent sources, and that they clearly reference NLP by name, then they will be accepted. Is that reasonable?
4. "The opinions of hard line skeptics are not clearly distinguished from scientific conclusions based on experimental evidence. " Are you saying a hard-line skeptic is anyone who disagrees with NLP? Or do you mean someone who insists on rigorous application of scientific method?
5. "Essentially the "NLP and science" section advances an argument that claims NLP exhibits characteristics of pseudoscience. This is a matter of opinion and must be clearly ascribed to a source." Two sources were given. I have more.
6. "The quote attributed to Corballis is a passing comment ". See my passing comment about passing commments above.
7. "The statements attributed to Devilly are taken from an article not directly related to NLP. " Same fallacy. An article about fallacious theories which mentions the flat earth theory, is clearly referencing the flat-earth theory, as well as fallacious theories in general.
8. "Lilienfeld's article and book is on pseudoscience in clinical psychology. It only makes passing comments about NLP and is not acceptable as a source." Same fallacy again.
9. "From memory Beyerstein does present an argument about NLP. However, the majority of the article is not directly related to NLP. I'd like to reconsider whether this is acceptable source." And again!!
10. "Outdated source for research reviews: The review by Heap (1988) is now outdated. " Heap has just published a new article which he has sent me, and which is in print. This confirms the 1988 findings. In any case, NLP is now so thoroughly discredited that it is hard to find any scientific literature on it. Also "There is no reliable source for the statement that flat-earthism has entirely been ignored in reliable sources" seems like a catch-22.
10a " Is [Tosey and Mathison] an acceptable source to bring the research up to date?" As I said, I am suspicious of including these authors, as they seem to be NLP promoters. Can you get us an actual copy, please.
Best
Peter Damian (
talk)
10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a request on the arbcom noticeboard about when to ascribe sources. I used Heap in the introduction as well as Devilly as examples which have been reverted several times now. [9] ---- Action potential t c 11:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added some quotes from Tosey and Mathison 2007 to the 'NLP and Science' section, hopefully these will make it more balanced (they are both trained in NLP). Again, the 3 criticisms in that section are all qualified by the remark that they are 'criticisms', I feel the POV tag should be removed. I have also been in touch with Tosey by email, who has been more than helpful. I asked him for his comments on the article. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like pseudoscience, smells like pseudoscience, feels like pseudoscience, but where is the pseudoscience box? NLP seems to be treated rather seriously for the outrageously vague introduction. A communicational technique that can help people "have better, fuller, and richer lives"? I had no idea what it actually IS until finding examples of NLP techniques elsewhere and it could all be called "negotiation techniques" instead. There's nothing "neurolinguistic" about it and it's certainly not a form of hypnosis. That statements are accepted more unquestioningly if you bombard someone with tautologies first is nothing new and it's certainly not "NLP".
While some of the concepts may be sound there's still no reason to give it a pretentious name that has nothing to do with what it does. Except for instant credibility, like all pseudosciences do it. -- 88.153.36.82 ( talk) 08:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that there is much research that can be done into NLP and I don't see it as pseudo-science. When you say words like "fuck", "shit", "Jesus Christ", people have anchored an emotional response to these words and will react emotionally to them. If you embed certain words in sentences, you could anchor different emotional responses and that is what NLP is to me. I believe that this is an interesting field to be investigated, I don't understand why wikipedia sees this as a pseudoscience. Please explain this to me.
-- RichardT
Hi all. I would guess that this article could somewhere refer to
Dianetics (scientology), which is quite familiar with it. Any idea where to establish connection and how?
Konikula (
talk)
23:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I moved this text from the notes in the article here: "It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia, and can even cure a common cold (op.cit., p 174)…..(Also, op.cit., p 169) Bandler and Grinder make the claim that by combining NLP methods with hypnotic regression, a person can be not only effectively cured of a problem, but also rendered amnesic for the fact that they had the problem in the first place. Thus, after a session of therapy, smokers may deny that they smoked before, even when their family and friends insist otherwise, and they are unable to account for such evidence as nicotine stains’.". This was a resposne to a single question in a seminar. It cannot be taken as a statement of fact. This might have a place if it is discussed in reputable secondary source such as a peer-reviewed paper. ---- Action potential t c 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Recent changes: Please consider my recent changes carefully and move to talk page any disputed parts. ---- Action potential t c 01:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I added this text to the definition of programming in NLP: "which they believed could be oriented to achieve specific goals ('programming')." This was part of Dilts et al. definition. This highlights their constructivist position. ie. a past memory is no more real or unchangeable than a future goal. ---- Action potential t c 02:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Heap (1988) states, "How widespread or popular NLP has become in practice is difficult to say with precision, though. As an indication the number of people to have been trained to `Practitioner’ level in the UK since NLP’s inception seems likely to number at least 50,000. Trainings in NLP are found across the world, principally in countries where English is the first language, but including Norway, Spain and Brazil. There is no unified structure to the NLP practitioner community. Probably in common with other emergent fields there is diversity in both practice and organisation, and there are resulting tensions".
There seems to have been considerable activity on this article. How much has been changed? Re the point above about "a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia, and can even cure a common cold" this was one of a series of citations given by Michael Heap. It can easily be sourced with another. AP, why are you persisting in these changes? Peter Damian ( talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Action potential t c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: "capable of addressing the full range of problems which psychologists are likely to encounter"
Reason: Clear distinction between statements of claims and claims made in seminars.
Action potential
t
c
00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: "It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis..."
Action potential
t
c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)(close/cancel)----
Action potential
t
c
11:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Action potential t c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: "It claims that people can use these principles and techniques to represent their world better, learn and communicate better, and ultimately have better, fuller, and richer lives."
Source: existing source, just added actual quote.
Action potential
t
c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)(change made - closed)----
Action potential
t
c
09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Action potential t c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a theory of language, communication and thought together with an associated therapeutic method
Action potential
t
c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)(change made /closed)----
Action potential
t
c
09:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: "which holds that people can improve the way they interact with the world by means of certain principles and techniques concerned with their use of language"
Action potential
t
c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)(closed/changed)----
Action potential
t
c
10:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Action potential t c 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
NO!!!! We have already been through this! Since this is one of three points which are explicitly presented as 'criticism' there is no reason to repeat this. Peter Damian ( talk) 09:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [edit] Read the introduction to the section: "There are three main criticisms of NLP." These of course would be presented by critics, wouldn't they? Peter Damian ( talk) 09:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is a list of changes made in this diff. The other changes are not important at this stage. My intention was to clarify what Bandler and Grinder actually did based on the reports of Robert Spitzer who should be quite reputable (he is a well-respected professor in the field of psychiatry) and what has been reported in about the founding and history of NLP. diffs
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. It's been a while since I've been here. Fear of the old NLP wars where it was continual reversions. The science section here seems to have some omissions that I'm wondering how to add (and don't want to step on toes - so posting here before trying).
Any thoughts? Greg ( talk) 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
A think the NLP & Science article itself is fine.
Oh, a long time ago, I once wrote this:
User:GregA/NLP_Overview#Science.2C_Psychology.2C_and_Reviews. Doesn't include the outcome research though.
Greg (
talk)
00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Snowded. Yes NLP makes scientific claims and shouldn't (IMO), but it doesn't claim the scientific method in anything I've ever seen. I'll look at a suggestion shortly, hopefully today time permitting. ps. What's the challenge to CBT you're referring to?
Disclosure: I did Psych at Uni, am trained in NLP, telephone counselling, & Ericksonian hypnosis, and work as a volunteer counsellor as well as paid Domestic Violence telephone counsellor. I am registered as an associate member of the "Association of Solution Oriented Counsellors and Hypnotherapists Australia" meaning my training is considered acceptable for Psychotherapy work in Australia. I see occassional private clients, but if anything am reducing that not growing that at present (this may change). I find much of what I learned through NLP very useful but NLP is varied and my training doesn't fit with some of the things I've heard about other NLP trainings - and I believe the lack of a common thread of "what is NLP" is probably its biggest problem - as well as a huge challenge for this article. Greg ( talk) 02:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, harder than I thought - so all I've done is rearranged what we've already said, so far. I believe nearly everything is there (except opening paragraph). Every dot-point is what was already written, with my bold heading summarising the detailed information.
(Note there are reference errors in the science area of the main page (no closing / in a ref name reference which hides following chunks of text till it finds a /ref), which I have corrected here.) Greg ( talk) 23:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
SO what are you proposing? Lots of referenced criticisms (I have not had time to check them against the originals), but then the key problems seems a rather loose (and uncited) commentary? The main text is refreshing in that it is not an apologia but I'm unclear what you propose. -- Snowded ( talk) 02:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Some NLP trainers and authors refer to NLP as a science or technology, yet there is little recent supporting research and much early research on "NLP" which found the premises lacking. This lack of basis to the claim of "science" has resulted in some branding NLP a pseudoscience - though there is considerable criticism of both the early controlled research against NLP and the lack of adequate controls in more recent outcome-based studies which supported NLP. The results are contested, and the research not extensive enough, to say NLP has scientific support.
The principle of Modeling is fundamental to NLP. Modeling requires that the practitioner not form a theory of what or why something is done which might filter the perception of what's actually occurring - just be open to learning through observation. From this a "model" of how to do something can be formed. Forming this 'theory' of how the model does what they do is avoided for as long as possible, and avoids any underlying reasons why the subject of the modeling does it their way. The scientific method requires the opposite - form a theory of what's going on and then test it to see if it fits the observations.
Basic conclusion:
Key problems in the scientific summary
This should be the last section, if not then move it down.
Sharpley 1987
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bandler & Grinder 1975a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Heap 1988
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Tosey and Mathison 2007 note
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bandler & Grinder 1979
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sharpley 1984
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Druckman & Swets 1988
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Druckman 2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Grinder & Bostic St Clair 2001
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Devilly 2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I've made a major revision to the NLP and science article. Its looking more like an article and less but would appreciate some input and assistance in getting it right. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 12:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I've created four subsections in the section title "NLP and science" on this article. This is what I think needs to be covered in that section: 2 NLP and science
This section is intended to be a summary of what would be on the NLP and science article which still needs attention.
Action potential discuss contribs 10:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
There was an inclusion that involved a tv show. Of course it was inappropriate. I removed it. I also added the more recent research that indicates that neurolinguistic programming has a very high level of discredite according to both academic researchers and psychology practitioners. ISBNation ( talk) 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statements attributed to Norcross et al (Norcross, JC, Garofalo.A, Koocher.G. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests; A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology; Research and Practice. vol37. No 5. 515-522) were recently inserted without discussion. Please provide the conclusions that directly related to NLP and exactly what results these were based on. I read this article and there was no analysis of the results concerning NLP as a treatment for drug abuse and no conclusions or discussion concerning NLP. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I once read that the CIA had a secret program for neuro-linguistic programming. I'm not entirely sure about this, but it could be of some documentary value if we could determine whether such secretive programs ever took place. ADM ( talk) 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed we have not got a section for the rewind technique. I think it should probably added to the list of common NLP techniques. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 03:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to get some estimation of how many people are trained in NLP. The size of the industry, demographics, etc.
Action potential discuss contribs 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I made quite a few changes to the "NLP and Science" section that I need some feedback on. Can you please take a close look at my changes and make some suggestions for improvement. The more eyes the better. We also need some feedback from the more scientific minded editors here. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Re [15]:
The article currently opens in the following way:
Apart from this wording being essentially a WP:IAR override of WP:CLAIM, the chief problem with this wording is that it is false if, as appears, "claims to be" is taken implicitly to mean something like, "purports to be, but might actually not be". NLP doesn't "claim" to be "a model of interpersonal communication"; it is "a model of interpersonal communication". It may be a disputed model. It may even be a false model. But neither its popularity nor its veracity has anything to do with its definition. If I declare that the Moon is made of green cheese, I haven't "claimed" to have made an assertion; I have made an assertion. It may be a false, strange, or completely delusional assertion, but it is as much an assertion as NLP is a communication model/therapy system. Further, it doesn't "claim" that it "seeks to educate people" about its tenets; it rather does seek to provide this sort of education. If I go chasing a rainbow in search of a pot of gold, the fact that the gold may not be there does not reduce my chase to a "claim to have chased". NLP is a model/system that seeks to educate. The notion that its existence or its endeavours are misguided is important, but it doesn't simply "claim" to exist (i.e., to be a model/system), and it doesn't simply "claim" to endeavour (i.e., to seek to educate); it rather does exist, and it does seek to educate. The ideal way for the article to open would be, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is 'a model of interpersonal communication..." because--for better or for worse--that's what it is; that's what is right there, on the table, up for critical debate. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I've moved a lot of the content around and cut a lot of detail that can be linked to subarticles. this is much closer to a possible good article candidate. Any suggestions to improve it?---- Action potential discuss contribs 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I think by moving the controversies and criticisms to a section titled controversies and criticisms allows for a sustained discussion. At the moment these topics are spread throughout the article in history and other areas. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 04:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I also think the "1 History and founding" section can be merged with "early models". ---- Action potential discuss contribs 04:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I too need to apologize for going directly for some changes in the introduction. From my perspective it was too slanted towards applications of NLP whereas I have heard both originators state that modeling is the core and that although there seems to be an abundance of applications (admittedly many of debatable quality), relatively few improvements have been made to the core modeling. If I can find some time I will do a more thorough review and provide further references. Panterom ( talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I made lots of changes without consultation. I just felt the intro was very turgid and too busy. I know very little about the subjects, but I just wanted page to be more understandable to people like me. I was bold in my editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.229.54 ( talk) 23:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I added a section pertaining to CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, which uses NLP to "educate" its followers. Regardless of their intent, this ought not be hidden and they have 2x removed any notice of it here on the NLP listing. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdntcallr ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
should we add back the quotes psycholinguist Willem Levelt (1996) states "NLP is not informed about linguistics literature, it is based on vague insights that were out of date long ago, their linguistics concepts are not properly construed or are mere fabrications, and conclusions are based upon the wrong premises."... "NLP theory and practice has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights or linguistics, nor with informatics or theories of programming".[20][28] Cognitive neuroscience researcher Michael C Corballis (1999) agrees and says that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability."[29] ? as the article stands now, i don't think it's very clear that NLP is not really linguistics, and i think some quotes such as the aforementioned would serve to show this. Theserialcomma ( talk) 10:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an article new to the Knol which to my mind is well-referenced and, er, more objective than this one. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Adopting the approach which was reasonably successful in developing a neat and concise introduction to the Philosophy article.
An introduction should summarise the three or four most important things we would say about the subject. What are these, in the case of NLP?
As for the rest of the article, the order of sections should follow the order of ideas presented in the introduction (which the current article largely does, although the style could do with considerable polishing). How does that sound? Peter Damian ( talk) 08:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This section states "In contrast to mainstream psychotherapy, NLP does not concentrate on diagnosis, treatment and assessment of mental and behavioral disorders. Instead, it focuses on helping clients to overcome their own self-perceived, or subjective, problems." Do these two sentences not contradict one another?
The 'popular culture' section says that genuine NLP rejects the more spectacular and overstated claims of NLP. Is that true? Paul Mckenna's site says "I'd personally like to welcome you to my online store: Do you want to lose weight? Do you want to become rich? Do you want to become more confident? Do you want to improve your life?" This may possibly be an example of pseudo-NLP masquerading as real NLP, but then there is an endorsement on the same site by Bandler: "There is a difference between learning about NLP and learning to do NLP. When I got together with Paul McKenna back in 1994, I decided that one of the most important benefits that we could bring to people who are interested to teach them how to do NLP as I originally intended it to be used - to create more love and freedom for every human being on the planet". (Richard Bandler). The history of NLP suggests that the founders were involved in it as a profitable business from the very beginning. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Comaze, you have changed the sentence about Grinder's ideas on transformational grammar being 'superseded' to one that now looks somewhat disconnected, and doesn't use the word 'supersede'. Why did you do this? There was an important idea being communicated by the use of 'supersede'. Could you explain why, please? Peter Damian ( talk) 17:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In the Bandler and Grinder studies, a close scrutiny of the work of Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson, and others (Davis & Davis, 1982) from a linguistics and language metaphor (e.g., transformational grammar) led to a new qualitative research method connected with the transformational grammar tradition, but different, and to a different therapy model which embraced some of the Satir-Erickson style of clinical practice, but added some interesting meta-communicative distinctions. The research method was presented as a formal notational system in The Structure of Magic II: A Book about Communication & Change (Grinder & Bandler, 1976, pp. 164-193), but was never fully realized as a distinct research approach, partly due to Bandler's and Grinder's emphasis on their therapy model.
[...]
I have done some reading around the subject (I last studied linguistics in 1986). Textbooks of TG published before 1980 present what is essentially the Chomsky's Standard Theory. Presumably Grinder's ideas are based on this? In the 1970's it was demonstrated that standard TG was so enormously powerful that it could, in principle, describe anything which could be described at all - potentially catastrophic, since the whole point of a theory of grammar is to tell us what is possible in languages and what is not possible.
Chomsky responded to all this in the early 1970s by introducing a number of changes to his framework known as the Extended Standard Theory, later revised to the Revised Extended Standard Theory, or REST. In 1981 Chomsky published Lectures on Government and Binding which swept away much of the apparatus of the earlier transformational theories in favour of a dramatically different approach (Government-and Binding Theory). Because of this discontinuity the name 'transformational grammar' is not usually applied to the later successors of TG.
Thus, is it fair to say that the linguistic work that NLP was based on has largely been superseded?
Also, what actually is the connection between NLP and TG, and in which of the early NLP works is this laid out? Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"To say that our communication, our language, is a system is to say that it has a structure, that there is some set of rules which identify which sequences of words will make sense, will represent a model of our experience. In other words, our behavior when creating a representation or when communicating is rule-governed behavior. Even though we are not normally aware of the structure in the process of representation and communication, that structure, the structure of language, can be understood in terms of regular patterns.
Fortunately, there is a group of academicians who have made the discovery and explicit statement of these patterns the subject of their discipline - transformational grammar. In fact, transformational grammarians have developed the most complete and sophisticated explicit model of human, rule-governed behavior. The notion of human, rule-governed behavior is the key to understanding the way in which we as humans use our language."
...[Then there's a short excerpt from Slobin, Psycholinguistics, Scott, Foreman & Co., 1971, p.55 which I have not included here]...
"The linguist's objective is to develop a grammar - a set of rules - which states what the well-formed patterns for any particular language are. This discipline is based on the brilliant work of Noam Chomsky who initially developed a methodology and set of formal models for natural language. *footnote(We provide an appendix, which presents the transformational model more thoroughly, and a selective, annotated bibliography for those who wish to further examine the transformational model of language.) As a result of the work of Chomsky and other transformationalists, it has been possible to develop a formal model for describing the regular patterns in the way we communicate our model of our experience. We use language to represent and communicate our experience - language is a model of our world. What transformational grammarians have done is to develop a formal model of our language, a model of our model of our world, or, simply, a Meta-model."
I'm far from an expert but I did take some linguistics, cognitive science and artificial intelligence classes last session. I'm also taking cognition/perception and psychological research methods this session. It seems that majority of what NLP imported from transformational is still taught in linguistics today - mainly syntax. My uni's linguistics department is very much in line with Chomsky. Few linguists will openly acknowledge that NLP is the most commercially successful enterprise to come from transformational-generative grammar (or perhaps linguistics in general). Deep structure/ surface structure is still an important distinction and it has parallels with elements of Chomsky's performance/ linguistic competence distinction which is part of the minimalist program. Interestingly, Chomsky is now encouraging convergence of linguistics, brain science and biology [1]. There are some other minor differences. The main texts about transformational grammar cited by Grinder & Bandler in 1975 follow (from selected bibliography.
Syntactic structures is probably the most important of those texts but it is a very dense book. Bandler and Grinder note that Chomsky's "Language and mind" is much simpler to read ---- Action potential t c 14:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are some quotes about transformational grammar in the context of NLP. Notice that "The Qualitative Report" is over-represented in this list. This is by no means complete and it is biased because I specifically search for "Transformational grammar + NLP". Collapsed for brevity: |
---|
Action potential t c 04:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
It may or may be worth noting, but Chomsky's ideas of deep structures has been disproved in Neuro-science by the work of Deacon (The Symbolic Species) and others. Its simply not how the human brain works (although it can explain some aspects~). This is an additional science based challenge to anything (like NLP) being dependent on it. I can also imagine that any academic linguist would resist acknowledging NLP as while it may be commercially successful it is popular in all the worst sense of that word. -- Snowded TALK 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quotes AP but they are vague enough that I don't see any connection. What I am really looking for is source material that says NLP says X and Chomsky said Y in such a way that the connection between X and Y is crystal clear and immediately apparent to the average Wikipedia reader (or to myself). At the moment the X and Y don't seem to have any logical connection. Which specific bits of TG are connected to which specific bits of NLP? If we can't find anything, we will just have to put something suitably vague like 'NLP claims to be based on the work of ...' or similar. What we have right now won't do at all. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
For example:
By "raw sensory data", the author means "direct experience" or what Chomsky calls "intuition". See the introduction to Syntactic structures where Chomsky describes the difference between grammatical and non-grammatical judgments. This is central to linguistics. There are the two assumptions we're looking at:
I'm sorry but this is a long way away from 'Chomsky says that X' and 'NLP says that Y' in such a way that there is a clear and evident and relevant connection between the X and the Y. We have
Can you show me the clear evident logical connection between the two ideas? That's all you have to do. And please don't refer me to any NLP literature. That's for you. The burden of proof is for you to produce reliable sources to back up claims that can eventually go into the article. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Right now the intro says: It is claimed by the originators that it draws from aspects of neurology ("neuro-"), linguistics and computer science ("programming"). There is no citation for this.
Here's a direct quote from NLP Volume 1:
"Neuro" (derived from the Greek neuron for nerve) stands for the fundamental tenet that all behavior is the result of neurological processes. "Linguistic" (derived from the Latin lingua for language) indicates that neural processes are represented, ordered, and sequenced into models and strategies through language and communication systems. "Programming" refers to the process of organizing the components of a system (sensory representation in this case) to achieve specific outcomes.
— Dilts, Grinder, Delozier, and Bandler, 1980.
How about we use this as the citation and change the statement to reflect what is said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sublime01 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
These go too far, you dumbing down references to legitimate and citable criticisms of NLP. Specifically paragraphs beginning "The reception of NLP has been highly controversial...", "Tension exists between several divergent groups within NLP ..." and "NLP has enjoyed little support within the psychological profession following research reviewed in the Journal of Counseling Psychology in the early 1980s. [2] This led some skeptics and psychologists to dismiss NLP as a pseudoscientific or New Age .." Some of the insertions and additional material make sense but given the whole scale changes I have reverted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I do not see how that article can be defended as a separate article from the main article on NLP--except to the extent that it contains extensive quotations and impressionistic lists that don't belong anywhere in Wikipedia. I'm proposing a merge. Just as Principles of NLP was merged to the present article, so should this one. A good deal of the content is duplicative. DGG (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I ran across a pdf – "Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis techniques in His Speeches" which I suspect may be of interest in connection with Wikipedia's coverage of NLP. I'll let others be the judge of that though. __ meco ( talk) 21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
There has been concern by some people that there has been undue weight on the pro side and that to be balanced statements like "claimed" need to be included. This article should be about the facts of what people in the field of NLP say that NLP is. Whether what these people say is true or not doesn't matter for the article. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. To state an opinion is POV, but to state that a person has stated an opinion would be NPOV, because it is a fact that that person has stated that opinion. So if I were to say "NLP correctly asserts that the map is not the territory" that would be a pro-NLP POV, and if I said "NLP claims that the map is not the territory" that would be an anti-NLP POV. The correct NPOV way to say it is that "One of the principles of NLP is the map is not the territory." is a fact and does not constitute an endorsement in any way. The facts of what NLP critics have said should also be included in the article, but let the facts speak for themselves. Inserting statements like "NLP claims that..." asserts an opinion where there shouldn't be one. As far as I can tell there isn't anywhere in the article where it says "NLP is correct in the assertion that..." or anything similar, unless someone wants to read through again and search for specific examples.-- Sublime01 ( talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to discuss where the article current is and what is required to bring it up to good article standards. Which sections are good? Which sections need to be improved? How can it be improved overall? ---- Action potential t c 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the criteria for inclusion of links to associations? Most of the listed associations are not government recognised. Many of them are affiliated with individual trainers and training providers. It is getting hairy. ---- Action potential t c 06:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything to be said about NLP3 that could be included into the article? __ meco ( talk) 10:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1. The overview section currently says of the founders of NLP, Bandler, Grinder, and Bateson: "The authors stated, in contravention of the professional wisdom of that time, that the internal human experience demonstrated itself in people's behaviors, and could be worked with directly given an appropriate mindset ..."
Are we saying that, before NLP, the professional wisdom was that people's mental lives were not reflected in their behavior, or that mental states could not be worked with directly, or what? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm having difficulty fully understanding this sentence in the lead: "The originators emphasized modeling of excellence as the core methodology, that is, the observational and information gathering methods they developed to define and produce the models of exceptional communicators." The sources don't seem to say that, but there are no page numbers or quotes offered in the footnotes, so maybe I'm missing something ( footnotes 6-9). Can anyone help to decipher it? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made some changes, restoring the article to something more like its previous state. I have moved up the history section, and removed a long rambling section which is eccentrically written. There remains the problem of the introduction but intend to deal with that in the near future. Can these changes be discussed here first, thanks. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I propose changing the whole introduction to the one drafted here. I need to do a bit more work on adding sources to each sentence of the introduction - most of it is taken from Michael Heap's excellent series of papers. But as this is such a substantial change, and because this is such a controversial article, I thought I would give ample warning here. Suggestions for changes or additions are welcome. Peter Damian ( talk) 18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, and thank you for those suggestions. I have changed User:Peter Damian/NLP to accommodate these. Again, I have leant heavily on Heap. I have left a space for a section on management science applications. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could fill this in. I am going to stick with 'presented' however, as the early books were no more than transcripts of seminars, and I cannot find yet anything so clear and coherent as a definition. If anyone can provide me with a quote from Structure of Magic or Frogs into Princes that resembles a definition, then let's have it. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I am still struggling to find a source for the original name of the theory. The title Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming by John Grinder, Richard Bandler (1979) suggests the term was in use by then. Who invented it? Peter Damian ( talk) 10:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The headline "scientific verdict" would only be acceptable if a consensus had been established and published in a reputable publication. I've changed it to "Empirical research" which more accurately describes the section. ---- Action potential t c 10:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC) It been since been renamed to "Scientific criticism" which is fine with me. ---- Action potential t c 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The organisation of this is a mess. There is an article NLP and science, and there is a section in the main article, which are virtual copies of each other. I have put these in the sandbox here and here. I propose going through to eliminate duplicated material, then combine into a single article NLP and science. I will then write a separate summary for the main NLP article - draft User:Peter_Damian/NLP#NLP_and_Science. Finally I will write a new introduction for the NLP and science article. The current introduction contains the most blatant miscitation I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Complete rewrite of the main article, plus consolidation of the sections on science in NLP and science. I have tried to represent both sides of the case as fairly as possible, while being faithful to the principle that Wikipedia must represent scientific consensus. Happy 2009 Peter Damian ( talk) 11:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems with this sentence. 1. It is unclear if Bandler and Grinder use Neuro-linguistic in the same way as Kendig. Bandler and Grinder did cite Korzybski's work which was influenced by Kendig. 2. The claim that Bandler coined the term is disputed. Normally Bandler and Grinder are identified as the co-creators or the field (and the term). The correct authors for Changing with Families was Bandler, Grinder and Satir. The citation for NLP vol1 was incorrect. The main authors was Dilts. Bandler's book is not an appropriate source as it has not been cited in any reputable third party sources. The current citation is incorrect, it was not published in "Health communications" magazine. ---- Action potential t c 01:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The changes just made by 'ActionPotential' to the current introduction are not acceptable. They are unnecessarily verbose and threatens to return the article to the rambling and ungrammatical state it was in before I tidied it up. It also veers solidly towards the promotion of NLP, rather than reflecting 'mainstream scientific thought'.
For example, I wrote "It was originally promoted by its founders in the 1970's, Richard Bandler and John Grinder as an extraordinarily effective and rapid form of psychological therapy[5], capable of addressing the full range of problems which psychologists are likely to encounter, such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, learning disorders." which closely reflects Heap. This has been changed to ":NLP was originally presented by its founders in the 1970s, Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder as an explicit model of human experience, interpersonal communication as well as a set of tools and principles that could be applied to make changes rapidly and with minimal effort.[5][6]"
This is wrong. It is clear from the citation I provided, now deleted, that the over-promotion originated with the founders (rather than being from certain wayward extremists in the NLP camp). The sentence "Proponents reported that the using NLP principles and techniques helped reduce unpleasant feelings " has been added, which is blatantly promotional. The term "explicit model of human experience" is almost meaningless.
I wrote “Because of the absence of any firm empirical evidence supporting its sometimes extravagant claims, NLP has enjoyed little or no support from the scientific community.” This has been changed to. “Proponents of NLP often relied on anecdotal evidence and personal experience. Skeptics highlight the absence of firm empirical support for the extravagant claims of efficacy made by proponents.” No. If reliable sources say that there is little or no firm empirical evidence for the claims made by NLP. Then we should say this. We shouldn’t say ‘sceptics say that’ or even ‘scientists say that’. If reliable sources say that p, we say that p.
Similarly, we should write "It continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology" not "Heap says that ...". Heap is a reliable source. If RS says that p, say p. Peter Damian ( talk) 09:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you please supply exact quotes, as follows:
1. What was said on p.II [sic] of Frogs into Princes. What did the preceding para actually say? When was the foreword written? 2. In what way was p6 of SoM misrepresented? 3. I have no reliable evidence that Bandler coined NLP except the OED, which is usually accepted as RS in the absence of any strong countercliam (see Bishonen above). 4. Were the extravagant claims made in the transcribed client demonstrations actually made by the founders or not? If not, were they implicitly endorsed by the founders by being quoted in their book? Peter Damian ( talk) 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have altered the citation to include OED 2003. Peter Damian ( talk) 10:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll reply to the other points later. I address 3 first: 3.Please read what Bishonen said more closely. According to Bishonen (OED), the term NLP was coined in Bandler et al. "Changing with Families". It does not say in Changing with Families that Richard came up with the term. Notice that Bishonen said "NLP was coined in" not "NLP was coined by RB". Bandler and Grinder were using the term NLP in seminars before they published "Changing with Families" with Virginia. There is no evidence to say who first used the term. I think Bandler and Grinder probably came up with it together. Please make the change to your proposed introduction. Furthermore, the quote from Bandler (2008) is a metaphor which should not be taken literally. ---- Action potential t c 12:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I was tempted to a set of reversals this morning. Far too many weasel words introduced. A section on criticism with a critical comment does not need a qualification on the comment. The last two NPOV tags are questionable. If there is a positive response in the literature then it should be proposed. It hasn't been todate. Can you think again Action potential? -- Snowded TALK 09:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted (to an earlier version by Action Potential - some of the changes were good). The rest were ridiculous. For example:
"It continues to make no impact on mainstream academic psychology" to "According to Michael Heap (1988) NLP made no impact on mainstream academic psychology". "However, it has some influence among private psychotherapists" to "Heap claims that NLP has some influence among private psychotherapist" "NLP pretends to be a science, but is really pseudoscience, for its claims are not based on the scientific method. Its very name is a pretence to a legitimate discipline like neuroscience, neurolinguistics, and psychology. " to "Some proponents of NLP claim that NLP is or promises to become a scientific based discipline, but critics argue that it exhibits characteristics of pseudoscience, for its claims are not based on the scientific method."
As argued above, we don't have to say 'critics argue that'. We say that NLP is a pseudoscience, and cite a reliable source, as was done here. We don't say that the reliable sources are 'critics' or that they 'argue that'.
"The scientific sounding title gives the appearance of legitimate discipline "The scientific sounding title gives the appearance of scientific discipline ". As though scientific methodology (taken in the widest sense) is only one of many methods (revelation, Bandler's personal opinion, popularity) conferring legitimacy.
"NLP has enjoyed little or no support from the scientific community" to "NLP has enjoyed little or no support from the psychological literature" with the bizarre comment "There is no statement of consensus from scientific community". Neither is there a statement of consensus from the scientific community that the earth is not flat. The scientific community simiply ignores the view that the earth is not flat, just as it ignores the views of the NLP industry. Please avoid the 'reverse burden of proof' fallacy. The correct process for proponents of pseudoscience on Wikipedia is to provide reliable sources that there is a scientific consensus for X. Those representing NPOV do not have to prove that there is no scientific consensus for X. The fact is that NLP makes no impact on mainstream psychology. Period. Those who Google for NLP and find Wikipedia the #1 hit, followed by hundreds of NLP promotional links should be able go to Wikipedia first and get reliable information - such as the fact that NLP is not supported by mainstream science.
Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for flaky business interests. It is an encyclopedia. Please stop edit-warring, or we take to RFC or similar. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 10:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
OK if there is a tag, then there should be explanation of why with illustrations here so that we can resolve it. WIthout that it can be deleted. Over to you AP. -- Snowded TALK 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The tag was applied because I believe the section was in contravention of fundamental wikipedia policies. The main issues are that conflicting perspectives are not fairly represented. Equal validity must be give to all views (WP:NPOV). There are also some problems with other fundamental wikipedia policies: "WP:Verifiability" and it seems to be WP:SYNTH style " original research". The most obvious issue is that the opinions of individual researchers are not properly ascribed to the author. Here is a summary of the issues:
If we can use the best available sources to organise the article and fairly represent the conflicting perspectives then I think we're moving in right direction toward good article criteria. ---- Action potential t c 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. Here are mine, point for point.
1. "Opinions of individual researchers should be ascribed to the authors" Read carefully the whole section of WP:NPOV that you cite. The policy clearly allows us to assert facts. We do not need to say 'X says that Plato was a philosopher'. We just say 'Plato was a philosopher'. If the reliable sources says that p, we simply assert that p.
2. "An argument has been advanced but the synthesis is not attributed to a source that is directly related to the topic of NLP. ...Some of the sources used are criticisms of pseudoscience in general and only make passing comments about NLP". I didn't follow this argument at all. Are you saying that an article which is about fallacious theories in general, and which mentions the flat earth theory 'in passing' cannot be cited in Wikipedia because it is not 'directly related' to the flat-earth theory. You have to be joking.
3. "The experimental methodology, procedures, participants, results of experimental studies from which the conclusions where draw are omitted. " I really don't think we need to go into that amount of detail, in the case of something which is generally agreed to be the very paradigm of a pseudoscience.
3a "See List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming for some studies that were supportive of NLP, even tentatively." I reviewed this list carefully some time ago, and found that many of the studies do not support NLP at all. E.g. a study by Cheek supposedly "demonstrated that NLP Milton Model language use is capable of reaching and influencing the unconscious mind ", However this refers to a study by Cheek that the unconscious patients are capable of responding to hand signals. It is not a demonstration of the Milton model per se, as the paper does not appear to refer to the "Milton model". This would be like referencing a paper showing that the sky was blue, as supporting the flat earth theory, on the assumption that the flat earth theory also asserts that the sky is blue. Otherwise the studies are from journals like Multimind, which is an NLP promotional publication. This would be like citing the journal "Flat Earth". My proposal here is to place the burden of proof upon NLP. If you can go through these 'studies' one by one and show clearly that they are reliable i.e. independent sources, and that they clearly reference NLP by name, then they will be accepted. Is that reasonable?
4. "The opinions of hard line skeptics are not clearly distinguished from scientific conclusions based on experimental evidence. " Are you saying a hard-line skeptic is anyone who disagrees with NLP? Or do you mean someone who insists on rigorous application of scientific method?
5. "Essentially the "NLP and science" section advances an argument that claims NLP exhibits characteristics of pseudoscience. This is a matter of opinion and must be clearly ascribed to a source." Two sources were given. I have more.
6. "The quote attributed to Corballis is a passing comment ". See my passing comment about passing commments above.
7. "The statements attributed to Devilly are taken from an article not directly related to NLP. " Same fallacy. An article about fallacious theories which mentions the flat earth theory, is clearly referencing the flat-earth theory, as well as fallacious theories in general.
8. "Lilienfeld's article and book is on pseudoscience in clinical psychology. It only makes passing comments about NLP and is not acceptable as a source." Same fallacy again.
9. "From memory Beyerstein does present an argument about NLP. However, the majority of the article is not directly related to NLP. I'd like to reconsider whether this is acceptable source." And again!!
10. "Outdated source for research reviews: The review by Heap (1988) is now outdated. " Heap has just published a new article which he has sent me, and which is in print. This confirms the 1988 findings. In any case, NLP is now so thoroughly discredited that it is hard to find any scientific literature on it. Also "There is no reliable source for the statement that flat-earthism has entirely been ignored in reliable sources" seems like a catch-22.
10a " Is [Tosey and Mathison] an acceptable source to bring the research up to date?" As I said, I am suspicious of including these authors, as they seem to be NLP promoters. Can you get us an actual copy, please.
Best
Peter Damian (
talk)
10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a request on the arbcom noticeboard about when to ascribe sources. I used Heap in the introduction as well as Devilly as examples which have been reverted several times now. [9] ---- Action potential t c 11:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added some quotes from Tosey and Mathison 2007 to the 'NLP and Science' section, hopefully these will make it more balanced (they are both trained in NLP). Again, the 3 criticisms in that section are all qualified by the remark that they are 'criticisms', I feel the POV tag should be removed. I have also been in touch with Tosey by email, who has been more than helpful. I asked him for his comments on the article. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like pseudoscience, smells like pseudoscience, feels like pseudoscience, but where is the pseudoscience box? NLP seems to be treated rather seriously for the outrageously vague introduction. A communicational technique that can help people "have better, fuller, and richer lives"? I had no idea what it actually IS until finding examples of NLP techniques elsewhere and it could all be called "negotiation techniques" instead. There's nothing "neurolinguistic" about it and it's certainly not a form of hypnosis. That statements are accepted more unquestioningly if you bombard someone with tautologies first is nothing new and it's certainly not "NLP".
While some of the concepts may be sound there's still no reason to give it a pretentious name that has nothing to do with what it does. Except for instant credibility, like all pseudosciences do it. -- 88.153.36.82 ( talk) 08:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that there is much research that can be done into NLP and I don't see it as pseudo-science. When you say words like "fuck", "shit", "Jesus Christ", people have anchored an emotional response to these words and will react emotionally to them. If you embed certain words in sentences, you could anchor different emotional responses and that is what NLP is to me. I believe that this is an interesting field to be investigated, I don't understand why wikipedia sees this as a pseudoscience. Please explain this to me.
-- RichardT
Hi all. I would guess that this article could somewhere refer to
Dianetics (scientology), which is quite familiar with it. Any idea where to establish connection and how?
Konikula (
talk)
23:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I moved this text from the notes in the article here: "It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia, and can even cure a common cold (op.cit., p 174)…..(Also, op.cit., p 169) Bandler and Grinder make the claim that by combining NLP methods with hypnotic regression, a person can be not only effectively cured of a problem, but also rendered amnesic for the fact that they had the problem in the first place. Thus, after a session of therapy, smokers may deny that they smoked before, even when their family and friends insist otherwise, and they are unable to account for such evidence as nicotine stains’.". This was a resposne to a single question in a seminar. It cannot be taken as a statement of fact. This might have a place if it is discussed in reputable secondary source such as a peer-reviewed paper. ---- Action potential t c 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Recent changes: Please consider my recent changes carefully and move to talk page any disputed parts. ---- Action potential t c 01:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I added this text to the definition of programming in NLP: "which they believed could be oriented to achieve specific goals ('programming')." This was part of Dilts et al. definition. This highlights their constructivist position. ie. a past memory is no more real or unchangeable than a future goal. ---- Action potential t c 02:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Heap (1988) states, "How widespread or popular NLP has become in practice is difficult to say with precision, though. As an indication the number of people to have been trained to `Practitioner’ level in the UK since NLP’s inception seems likely to number at least 50,000. Trainings in NLP are found across the world, principally in countries where English is the first language, but including Norway, Spain and Brazil. There is no unified structure to the NLP practitioner community. Probably in common with other emergent fields there is diversity in both practice and organisation, and there are resulting tensions".
There seems to have been considerable activity on this article. How much has been changed? Re the point above about "a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia, and can even cure a common cold" this was one of a series of citations given by Michael Heap. It can easily be sourced with another. AP, why are you persisting in these changes? Peter Damian ( talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Action potential t c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: "capable of addressing the full range of problems which psychologists are likely to encounter"
Reason: Clear distinction between statements of claims and claims made in seminars.
Action potential
t
c
00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: "It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis..."
Action potential
t
c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)(close/cancel)----
Action potential
t
c
11:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Action potential t c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: "It claims that people can use these principles and techniques to represent their world better, learn and communicate better, and ultimately have better, fuller, and richer lives."
Source: existing source, just added actual quote.
Action potential
t
c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)(change made - closed)----
Action potential
t
c
09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Action potential t c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a theory of language, communication and thought together with an associated therapeutic method
Action potential
t
c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)(change made /closed)----
Action potential
t
c
09:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
*From: "which holds that people can improve the way they interact with the world by means of certain principles and techniques concerned with their use of language"
Action potential
t
c 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)(closed/changed)----
Action potential
t
c
10:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Action potential t c 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
NO!!!! We have already been through this! Since this is one of three points which are explicitly presented as 'criticism' there is no reason to repeat this. Peter Damian ( talk) 09:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [edit] Read the introduction to the section: "There are three main criticisms of NLP." These of course would be presented by critics, wouldn't they? Peter Damian ( talk) 09:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is a list of changes made in this diff. The other changes are not important at this stage. My intention was to clarify what Bandler and Grinder actually did based on the reports of Robert Spitzer who should be quite reputable (he is a well-respected professor in the field of psychiatry) and what has been reported in about the founding and history of NLP. diffs
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Action potential discuss contribs 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. It's been a while since I've been here. Fear of the old NLP wars where it was continual reversions. The science section here seems to have some omissions that I'm wondering how to add (and don't want to step on toes - so posting here before trying).
Any thoughts? Greg ( talk) 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
A think the NLP & Science article itself is fine.
Oh, a long time ago, I once wrote this:
User:GregA/NLP_Overview#Science.2C_Psychology.2C_and_Reviews. Doesn't include the outcome research though.
Greg (
talk)
00:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Snowded. Yes NLP makes scientific claims and shouldn't (IMO), but it doesn't claim the scientific method in anything I've ever seen. I'll look at a suggestion shortly, hopefully today time permitting. ps. What's the challenge to CBT you're referring to?
Disclosure: I did Psych at Uni, am trained in NLP, telephone counselling, & Ericksonian hypnosis, and work as a volunteer counsellor as well as paid Domestic Violence telephone counsellor. I am registered as an associate member of the "Association of Solution Oriented Counsellors and Hypnotherapists Australia" meaning my training is considered acceptable for Psychotherapy work in Australia. I see occassional private clients, but if anything am reducing that not growing that at present (this may change). I find much of what I learned through NLP very useful but NLP is varied and my training doesn't fit with some of the things I've heard about other NLP trainings - and I believe the lack of a common thread of "what is NLP" is probably its biggest problem - as well as a huge challenge for this article. Greg ( talk) 02:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, harder than I thought - so all I've done is rearranged what we've already said, so far. I believe nearly everything is there (except opening paragraph). Every dot-point is what was already written, with my bold heading summarising the detailed information.
(Note there are reference errors in the science area of the main page (no closing / in a ref name reference which hides following chunks of text till it finds a /ref), which I have corrected here.) Greg ( talk) 23:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
SO what are you proposing? Lots of referenced criticisms (I have not had time to check them against the originals), but then the key problems seems a rather loose (and uncited) commentary? The main text is refreshing in that it is not an apologia but I'm unclear what you propose. -- Snowded ( talk) 02:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Some NLP trainers and authors refer to NLP as a science or technology, yet there is little recent supporting research and much early research on "NLP" which found the premises lacking. This lack of basis to the claim of "science" has resulted in some branding NLP a pseudoscience - though there is considerable criticism of both the early controlled research against NLP and the lack of adequate controls in more recent outcome-based studies which supported NLP. The results are contested, and the research not extensive enough, to say NLP has scientific support.
The principle of Modeling is fundamental to NLP. Modeling requires that the practitioner not form a theory of what or why something is done which might filter the perception of what's actually occurring - just be open to learning through observation. From this a "model" of how to do something can be formed. Forming this 'theory' of how the model does what they do is avoided for as long as possible, and avoids any underlying reasons why the subject of the modeling does it their way. The scientific method requires the opposite - form a theory of what's going on and then test it to see if it fits the observations.
Basic conclusion:
Key problems in the scientific summary
This should be the last section, if not then move it down.
Sharpley 1987
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bandler & Grinder 1975a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Heap 1988
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Tosey and Mathison 2007 note
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bandler & Grinder 1979
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sharpley 1984
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Druckman & Swets 1988
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Druckman 2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Grinder & Bostic St Clair 2001
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Devilly 2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I've made a major revision to the NLP and science article. Its looking more like an article and less but would appreciate some input and assistance in getting it right. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 12:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I've created four subsections in the section title "NLP and science" on this article. This is what I think needs to be covered in that section: 2 NLP and science
This section is intended to be a summary of what would be on the NLP and science article which still needs attention.
Action potential discuss contribs 10:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
There was an inclusion that involved a tv show. Of course it was inappropriate. I removed it. I also added the more recent research that indicates that neurolinguistic programming has a very high level of discredite according to both academic researchers and psychology practitioners. ISBNation ( talk) 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Statements attributed to Norcross et al (Norcross, JC, Garofalo.A, Koocher.G. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests; A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology; Research and Practice. vol37. No 5. 515-522) were recently inserted without discussion. Please provide the conclusions that directly related to NLP and exactly what results these were based on. I read this article and there was no analysis of the results concerning NLP as a treatment for drug abuse and no conclusions or discussion concerning NLP. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I once read that the CIA had a secret program for neuro-linguistic programming. I'm not entirely sure about this, but it could be of some documentary value if we could determine whether such secretive programs ever took place. ADM ( talk) 04:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed we have not got a section for the rewind technique. I think it should probably added to the list of common NLP techniques. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 03:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to get some estimation of how many people are trained in NLP. The size of the industry, demographics, etc.
Action potential discuss contribs 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I made quite a few changes to the "NLP and Science" section that I need some feedback on. Can you please take a close look at my changes and make some suggestions for improvement. The more eyes the better. We also need some feedback from the more scientific minded editors here. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Re [15]:
The article currently opens in the following way:
Apart from this wording being essentially a WP:IAR override of WP:CLAIM, the chief problem with this wording is that it is false if, as appears, "claims to be" is taken implicitly to mean something like, "purports to be, but might actually not be". NLP doesn't "claim" to be "a model of interpersonal communication"; it is "a model of interpersonal communication". It may be a disputed model. It may even be a false model. But neither its popularity nor its veracity has anything to do with its definition. If I declare that the Moon is made of green cheese, I haven't "claimed" to have made an assertion; I have made an assertion. It may be a false, strange, or completely delusional assertion, but it is as much an assertion as NLP is a communication model/therapy system. Further, it doesn't "claim" that it "seeks to educate people" about its tenets; it rather does seek to provide this sort of education. If I go chasing a rainbow in search of a pot of gold, the fact that the gold may not be there does not reduce my chase to a "claim to have chased". NLP is a model/system that seeks to educate. The notion that its existence or its endeavours are misguided is important, but it doesn't simply "claim" to exist (i.e., to be a model/system), and it doesn't simply "claim" to endeavour (i.e., to seek to educate); it rather does exist, and it does seek to educate. The ideal way for the article to open would be, "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is 'a model of interpersonal communication..." because--for better or for worse--that's what it is; that's what is right there, on the table, up for critical debate. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I've moved a lot of the content around and cut a lot of detail that can be linked to subarticles. this is much closer to a possible good article candidate. Any suggestions to improve it?---- Action potential discuss contribs 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I think by moving the controversies and criticisms to a section titled controversies and criticisms allows for a sustained discussion. At the moment these topics are spread throughout the article in history and other areas. ---- Action potential discuss contribs 04:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I also think the "1 History and founding" section can be merged with "early models". ---- Action potential discuss contribs 04:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)