Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

first line

I work on leads a lot, and I edited the first sentence to make it describe the subject better. It's NPOV to say that NLP is "largely discredited" because our reliable sources say exactly that. NPOV means reporting what the RS's say without a POV distortion. The RSs say that it's largely discredited, if not entirely. Leadwind (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that 90% of reliable sources are not an experts in NLP, They are experts in other fields that are commenting on what they believe is NLP. Would you ask a farmer to fix your truck or would you ask a mechanic?

Has anyone noticed, that there is nothing about what NLP actually is in this article?

I am an expert in NLP and yet I'm getting stonewalled at every corner even though I'm following wikipedia protocal to best of my newbie knowledge. All I'm wanting to do is include what nlp is..not what people claim it can or can't do. Things like NLP well formed goal setting, eye accessing cues, rapport building and maybe a quick explanation of the NLP decision making process(meta model). I just want to say what it is.... nothing else. let people decide if it's useful or not. Instead I get NLP is a largely dicredited approach to..... let's forget about an explanation of what nlp is and just jump into the biased sources of non-nlp experts. The sources in the article are not porportionately balanced and represent only those 'anti nlp' views and from what I have experienced, every effort is being used to keep any positive nlp information from being included. Even most of the reliable sources in this article are from people who haven't even taken an NLP course.

The article is called 'Neuro Linguistic Programming' not Anti- Neuro Linguistic Programming. I'm a Christian and I can tell you I'm scared to death to look anything to do with my faith on wiki because of how totally biased and plagued with opinions wiki really is. Just an idea how about we all go old school and make 'neutral' neutral again. not just in this article but all of them and that would include making sure all sources are neutral or well balanced. Mike00764 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use colons to format your comments. You are understand a NLP practitioner? That means to a degree you have already taken a position. No attempt is being made to keep properly referenced material out, if you have some list it here and we can look at it. Otherwise the sources come from reputable sources, academics who have reviewed cases and the literature and formed conclusions. You don't have to take an NLP course to form an opinion on it, any more than you have to experience full emersion baptism to form an opinion on the validity of the Baptist Church. At the moment you keep arguing your opinion. That will get you nowhere. Sources please and argument based on those sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a horribly written article, especially the lead. Someone (Leadwind?) who does not like NLP has taken ownership of the article and has twisted the whole thing into an attack. To say that many of the critical readings of NLP are critical is as an obvious tautology as you can get. They are not neutral, so claiming that repeating them is NPOV is absurd. This kind of behaviour undermines Wikipedia and shows a very weak understanding of what an encyclopaedia article should be. Sleeping Turtle (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What a hornet's nest!

I know nothing about NLP. Only came to the page because someone in China wrote to say they just completed the first NLP course and found it of value. Knowing nothing about the course, I came here to learn. After reading this page, I still do not understand what NLP is about, only that the people who wrote the Wikipedia page are quite convinced that it is a discredited course that does not deliver on what it promises (or something to that effect).

Accordingly, this page reads more like a Medieval religious debate than an encyclopaedic article, with a clear bias that NLP is bad.

I recommend that it be completely rewritten:

1) Present a neutral description of what NLP is so that people who do not understand anything get a good overall understanding of what it is about.
2) Create a criticism section that flips back and forth from positive claim to negative rebuttal, but write both sides in a neutral, dispassionate way
3) Do not presume just because someone has written a debunking article that can be quoted that this is The Truth. Rather present the gist of the debunking article in a neutral way so readers can form their own opinion

Historia Errorem (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC) - - - -

Wikipedia works from reliable sources and the article reflects what those sources say. We are not required to be neutral between pro and anti-NLP groups, but to reflect those sources. Please read up on the five pillars of WIkipedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

- - - - I am familiar with the five pillars, including this one:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

The article is not neutral. As a neutral person coming to it to learn about something someone has attended, all I learn is that it has been discredited by people. I did not learn much about the subject, but only its opposition. Also, while I won't take the time to check it out, "authoritative" probably needs more support than in this article. Just because it is quoted, does not mean the sources are authoritative. Indeed even academics with degrees and prestigious chairs does not mean their work is authoritative; especially when they become judgemental.

Like Scientology, it obviously is a subject that has both believers and opponents, and it appears the opponents are vociferous and well represented on Wikipedia. But what if I was an anthropologist seeking to understand the belief systems? I would suspend judgement about the validity of those belief systems but this would not mean that I would not document them.

When an anthropologist is told "witches fly to the full moon on a broomstick", do they begin by saying "what utter nonsense, don't be absurd. No one flies on broomsticks?" Well, actually the bad anthropologists do say exactly that, but the best ones don't. Instead they say "OK, I accept what you say, now let me work out how they do that since it is outside my scope of reality." That anthropologist sees that before the witch flies she has a big cauldron with a witches brew that she stirs with a broomstick. The anthropologist observes the witch putting in deadly nightshade into the pot, which on chemical analysis shows bella donna, a powerful mind altering drug. Then the witch puts the broomstick between her legs (not wearing underpants) where the drug penetrates the skin at the right rate... enough to induce hallucinations, but not enough to poison the body. Now curious, and being a bold scientist, the anthropologist tries the drug and has a mind-blowing "trip" where everything seems absolutely real, except their assistant video taping shows the anthropologist never left the room. It all was in the mind, but the drug set the mind on a dream as real as daily life. So the answer comes clear. Yes, the witch does fly, but not in the physical world, but the world inside her mind. Of course the next step is to ask if that other world is real, but the anthropologist steps back, because in academia, there is a clear line over which one steps into religion. That is dispassionate science. It explains rather than judges.

So I would like to have a dispassionate explanation of NLP first, before it is trashed with scholarly quoted judgement.

However, I won't do it, because frankly, I have more important things to do in my life. I added this comment just to help save Wikipedia from bad reporting. Historia Errorem (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Its a common mistake to thing that NPOV means balanced between all points of view. It does't, it means neutral in representing what reliable sources say. As to the example, may be the anthropologist should leap off a cliff with the broom to be authentic? The Anthropologist is in an event carrying out primary research. That is not our task here, we summarise in an encyclopaedic way what the sources say, and they says its discredited. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Proper methodology

Have all the cited studies been done double blind, placebo controlled ,and with exact methodological reproducibility? If not i suggest you remove them or mention this lack of credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.59.138 (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

if you think any of the sources fail WP:RS then raise it. It's not our place to criticise the methodologies used. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually " neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." There is a definitive lack of "all significant views" that are published by "reliable" sources in this article. Mike00764 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Then come up with some sources that you think should be represented and we can look at it. But use the talk page first please, your edit warring is going to get you blocked if you carry on ----Snowded ^TALK 14:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"a largely discredited approach"

In the lead sentence of the lead paragraph of the lead in the article ... such a POV statement needs a citation, not SYN. htom (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

lede summarises the article, it not normal for there to be citations. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The leading paragraph has seven citations. Add another for that phrase, or I'll have to remove it as SYN. htom (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Might be better to remove the other references, they don't belong in a lede. Lets see what other editors think, so far attempts to remove it have been reverted by several different editors so you are in a minority and would be edit warring abainst consensus (again) ----Snowded ^TALK 06:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The current version looks representative. Htom, I can have a search through the newer literature on the subject. Did you have the particular request?

The current citation at the end of the lede states neuro-linguistic programming to be "certainly discredited". An alternative could just be simply; discredited. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone actually saying "largely discredited approach" would be appropriate. Another alternative would be to leave the name-calling adjectives for later in the paragraph. htom (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"a largely discredited approach" This statement is vague and unquantifiable. I believe this falls under the weasel words category. I am shocked no one has questioned the neutrality of this article maybe some one can help me I'm new to this side of Wikipedia.

I questioned it and consequently read it. Its fine. "a largely discredited approach" might be inferior to "discredited" though. Karbinski (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the best response would be to name the number of qualified academics who claim nlp to be discredited. something along the lines of "according to..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.59.138 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the sentence wouldn't have to open with "according to".

There is no requirement to do that, unless and until you can produce some real sources to support a contrary view. Todate you and the latest cluster are all making the same general statements with no supporting evidence. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening section

I'm sorry but this whole first section hardly says anything on what NLP actually is. It seems like it was written only by people who are trying to prove that it is discredited. If people want to use Proper unbiased evidence that's fine but not at the expense of understanding of what NLP is or is supposed to be. If you look at pages related to Freudian subjects they don't seem to have the same burden. What is going on in those pages that prevents them looking like this page? If anybody can provide me with a specific answer I'd be much obliged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.59.138 (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate that NLP contains numerous factual errors,[10][12] where in these 2 articles does it say that there are factual errors? Facts are what is, NLP deals with outcomes and ideas to help attain them The only facts you will need are the distinctions that you could make by using NLP skills, otherwise you are dealing with a sophisticated linguistics device. either way the claim that there are "factual errors" is not demonstrated here and if it is an offshoot from that link you should provide the correct link or change the article to 'articulate' more closely the authors opinion. Enemesis (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Its not for editors to evaluate a reliable source but to summarise what it says. If you think that has not been done give examples. If you have other reliable sources then raise them. Your comments on "the only facts you need" fail to understand the nature of editing for an encyclopaedia. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I read those 2 articles and they in no way reflect factual errors. maybe you misunderstand fair interpretation of an article. read those links again there is no such allusion to "factual errors" 10 refers to the fact that they have not researched the topic enough, "paucity of data". the other does not mention NLP and if it does refer to NLP it does allude to the fact that the content is unbalanced but that will depend on the institutions you go to learn and what applications you would like to learn it for. "Concentrating primarily on techniques with strong claims for enhancing performance, the committee found little support for some (e.g., sleep learning, meditation, parapsychological techniques, hypnosis, total quality management)" who made these claims? are they relevant to this article? what is total quality management? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychological "The Parapsychological Association regards the results of parapsychologists' experiments as having demonstrated the existence of some forms of psychic abilities,[12] and proponents of parapsychology have seen it as an "embryo science",[13] a "frontier science of the mind",[14] and a "frontier discipline for advancing knowledge".[15] NLP to me has never said that there was an element of being psychic (that is reading someones thoughts from thinking about someone or seemingly from thin air), The founders do claim that your senses can become so attuned to distinctions ie. micro muscle and facial color changes that this is a pattern to observe and note to gauge the clients mood and his /her emotional associations from these distinctions and that from these distinctions that you may appear as if psychic but being "Psychic" is not the claim. other wise provide the link that says the founders have said that NLP is a way to become psychic otherwise either you or your source may have been confused as to what the claim actually means. Enemesis (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems you aren't reading the full articles. Ref 10 states quite directly, "NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors." (p 290) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Further: "Where controlled studies have been performed attempting to test NLP hypothese...they consistently have failed to do so.... NLP is limited by a lack of supportive empirical evidence and is too simplistic to account for verbal behavior adequately....'ther is little or no evidence to date to support either NLP assumptions or NLP effectiveness.'" - SummerPhD (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowded said : "Its not for editors to evaluate a reliable source but to summarise what it says." what? the whole process is evaluating what the article says. What the subject matter is about and how it relates to the NLP article. You will now have to provide samples of claims about Parapsychology in NLP, sleep learning in NLP, meditation and total quality management to qualify the article as being a reliable resource. and by saying that you are saying what you have said it is not a reliable resource.Enemesis (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Once we have determined that a source is a "reliable source", we do not evaluate whether or not the source is "correct". Rather, we work on the basis of verifiability: We report what reliable sources say. We are not in the business of arguing that this, that or the other source is correct. How could we? There are people in this world who believe that we live on the inner surface of a hollow Earth, with the Sun and stars in the center, others believe most U.S. presidents were/are actually lizardmen from the Draco star system, some believe humans are meant to eat only fruit (as vegetables are "murdered" for vegetarian diets), etc. If we are to say X is true and Y is false, we will never be able to write anything. Rather, we report that "X says..." or, in this case, "Reviews of empirical research on NLP indicate..." If X is a reliable source, we report what it says. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you would live on the planet Draco? How do you know what a reliable source is if you cannot even debate if it is reliable source? You will need to provide much more here to show that 1. claim x is the common consensus on the topic by the community 2. the professionals have gotten a common consensus on the topic on claim x with some form of scientific research. 3. They are in a position to comment on the general consensus on topic x 4. It is worthy of being a resource on wikipedia if all its counter claims are shown against community claims and not individual claims. x could be absolutely anybody and the source could be from anywhere and totally incohere the total article toward an NPOV result. Also if your article tackles an entirely different result or any subject matter not expressed by the community that you can argue, you can consider it void. also Use ur tilds for chris sakes. you look amatuer. Enemesis (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You can argue that a source is not reliable, but that is about the journal itself, not your opinion as to the content of an article in a journal. If you want to change the editing rules for Wikipedia then raise it elsewhere, not an individual article. If you have reliable sources which make counter claims then list them. For the moment you are simply opining, which will get you no where.----Snowded ^TALK 05:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You would also need to show that the research was emirical as was noted by me to be word that headleydown would use when editing the article. Enemesis (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do not need to show anything about the research. That would be us evaluating the source's conclusions. We must show that the peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source. Please see WP:MEDRS. "Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." - SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec):And you made all sorts of silly accusations about headleydown back in February when you arrived from no where as a SPA parroting material on NLP web sites which are obvious examples of soliciting meat puppets. You promised then to report your evidence of various wild accusations about sock puppets to the appropriate authorities (along with other bluster) but did nothing. You've had the rules explained to you before; you are wasting people's time. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do not need to show anything about the research. That would be us evaluating the source's conclusions. We must show that the peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source. Please see WP:MEDRS. "Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." For this particular claim, the sources being cited are Human Resource Development Quarterly and Journal of Applied Social Psychology. The first is a good source. The second is, IMO, an excellent academic journal, published by a widely respected publisher (Wiley-Blackwell). I cannot say I can see a way that this would be supplanted. If other reliable sources say something contrary to JASPs conclusions, I would expect that both would be discussed. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, it's simple. Tell me where anyone said NLP made people psychic. Enemesis (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

NLP makes testable claims about human functioning. It falls under WP:MEDRS. Reliable sources say point blank that it's bunk, but a small number of people continue to claim it damned-near makes people psychic. This is a fringe claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because of wikis no reveals you're protected snowded. Other than that you are wasting peoples time here including mine which was resolved some 7 years ago. get the hell out, this subject is not neutral territory for you. provide the source Summer or it's nothing. Enemesis (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make a sock puppet report Enemesis please do. I'll happily co-operate and a checkuser can investigate your claim. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not sock puppetry I'm interested in Snowded, It's a conflict of interest that concerns me. provide the source Summer or it's not much at all, the community does not support this and neither do I . It's rather a niche opinion and has very little relevance to mainstream unless you would like to describe it as so in the NLP article on wikipedia. Enemesis (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Given up on that have you Enemesis? Then why mention headleydown? Your predecessors tried the COI claim as well without success. Try and focus on understanding how wikipedia works, and then suggest edits within those constraints please. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Enemesis is claiming. Am I supposed to be Snowed, i.e. a sockpuppet? Or is one of us supposedly editing on the other's behalf (a "meatpuppet")? It can't just be that we agree... Snowed started editing Wikipedia in August 2006 and I got here just a few months earlier. If we are socks, we're really, really, really patient, waiting around 6 years before striking. (I'm guessing we must have run across each other at some point over the years, but I can't say I recall.) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Me or Snowed? Who am I supposed to be now? (I am and "academic", but my field is very distantly related (at best) to psychology. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because its part of the whole sordid story with you and it makes sense to me. You are going to get all sorts of crazy claims from various NLPer's whether you chose the mainstream will depict this article. if you chose one or two and decide to have a general opinon and then let that be the general consensus then Im going to step in. make sure your opinions are consolidated upon the NLPer's consolidated opinions and claims or you are just being horribly manipulative. Enemesis (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can honestly say I have no idea what you are trying to say here. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It can't just be that we agree... Snowed started editing Wikipedia in August 2006 and I got here just a few months earlier. If we are socks, we're really, really, really patient, waiting around 6 years before striking. (I'm guessing we must have run across each other at some point over the years, but I can't say I recall.)

I have got to say you guys are rather paranoid and for no real reason. Enemesis (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Paranoid? I don't particularly feel persecuted, so I don't know what you mean. You mentioned a conflict of interest. Was that me or Snowed who you feel has a COI? Can you elaborate: who or what do you think one/both of us has a close connection to? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I have not given up on the idea. You are a sockpuppet of headleydown who was run out of here in disgrace seeing as he could not be taken seriously on wikipedia altho had much fun with the damage that he had caused he could not stay away, you have returned on a more beuraucratic level . There are things that give it away your tone is very similar as is your content, links and bulldog attitude to doing things. I do understand now, the motives seem to be the same otherwise I would not understand the persistence on the article. Summer it is and always has been snowded who has a COI. I could provide documentation of proof but it would go against wikipedia policy which sucks. Now while I go on about this stuff you guys have managed to avoid the obvious questions above please address them accordingly or it is an admittance that you are not doing the right thing. Enemesis (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Read up on NPA. That repeated false accusation pretty much links you to the meat puppet farm. Put up or shut up on your claims for evidence. Continue like this and it's probably time to treat you as a disruptive SPA ----Snowded ^TALK 10:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's more than enough talking about other editors. If you have concerns about the sources provided, which I have quoted above, please explain. Do you believe they are not reliable sources? We can certainly take them to the noticeboard. If you do not believe it says what I have quoted it as saying, please explain how this is possible. If you have other concerns, please explain. In my opinion, the sources very clearly support the statement in the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What kind of evidence do you need to describe a topic as "largely discredited"? It seems that there are academics who would disagree with that. In this book chapter[1], under "What is NLP?", Tosey describes it as "an emergent, contested approach". Is it clear that a debate about its credibility continues? --58.107.228.205 (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And Tosey is also an NLP Practitioner and even his summary is qualified. There is an argument that NLP has largely withdrawn from the arena it originally sought to contest and is now focused on its management coaching and training programmes. Some of that could be reflected. However Tosey (and others) have fallen back to arguing that any NLP claim has to be phenomenological and that is itself problematic. Oh, and the usual question to yet another IP emerging from Sydney - have you edited under another ID before? Linked to Scott? ----Snowded ^TALK 15:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think they argued that NLP contributes to phenomenological research, for exploring inner subjective experience. They encouraged researches to pursue multiple methodologies to investigate NLP further. The important point is that the debate continues about its credibility and that research continues into the efficacy of NLP (in therapy). Richard Gray, who is Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, Fairleigh Dickinson University is currently running studies into NLP and PTSD. In a recent comparison study by Simpson and Dryden (2011), there was no difference between NLP technique (VKD) and REBT in the treatment of PTSD[2] Dryden is very well respected in the field of CBT. Research continues.[http ://nlprandr.org/projects/nlp-and-ptsd-the-visual-kinesthetic-dissociation-protocol/] --58.107.228.205 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing, as you (or someone very like you) has argued before from individual research projects to general conclusions. We've been through this one so many times, in so many guises. Now please answer the question. There is a long term pattern of IP addresses linked to two past editors all emanating from Sydney. Have you edited before either under another IP or as a named editor. No problem if you have but you need to declare it. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean about general conclusions - .we need strong sources for the opening section. The ongoing research would be mention briefly in the opening. But my IP address or location has nothing to do with this discussion. There was a review paper cited by Simpson and Dryden (2011): Dietrich, A.M. (2000). A review of visual/kinesthetic disassociation in the treatment of posttraumatic disorders: Theory, efficacy and practice recommendations. Traumatology. VI(2), Article 3 (August). [3]. Here is a more recent case study by professor Gray that also suggests further research[4] You could justify a subsection on NLP techniques including VKD. --58.107.228.205 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You have not addressed the issue. Have you edited under other IPs and/or names? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely asking for my name and IP addresses is against wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Harassment. --58.107.228.205 (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Same line you took last time Scott (I assume its you again) and a similar patter of response. Its serial name changes. I'll pull the references together and put them at check user. Also the meat puppetry evidence ----Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a line of studies on NLP/VKD that I cited above including a review[5]. That research is not cited in this article at present. You might not like that but please don't shoot the messenger. --58.107.228.205 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that said messenger keeps coming back periodically, supporting or supported by a small flock of newly created SPAs and using a new ID each time. On the content issue you are still attempting synthesis ----Snowded ^TALK 23:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it only a synthesis when you imply something not supported by the sources? What new conclusions did I imply? See WP:SYN - I don't think I am suggesting anything against this policy - can you give an example? I'm just saying that this particular research into NLP's rewind technique (VK/D) is missing from the current article and may be a notable addition. As I understand it, it is not a synthesis if the sources are closely paraphrased and you don't combine them to imply new conclusions not supported by the sources. I'll just write up a brief summary for discussion which could be included in this article, the methods subarticle or a separate topic article. --58.107.228.205 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

eye lie detection myth

There is a recent article which tested the myth that eye movements can detect lies: "The Eyes Don’t Have It: Lie Detection and Neuro-Linguistic Programming". The authors established that this lie detection myth is still quite prevalent on the internet (based on youtube and google searches). They found that eye movements failed to predict lies. Can this be covered in the current article or should it be covered in the representation system subarticle under the subtitle "lie detection myth" or something like that? --58.107.228.205 (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

lol, who in the NLP commounity is making that claim? as far as I know the teachings are that there are habits formed from eye accessing cues. http://www.nlp-practitioners.com/interactive/nlp-eye-access-cues-game.php . as in this example or there is another which refutes the lie detection myth. Lie detection myth as explained by Nlpers in England In essence you are writing about fringe claims. Please tackle the mainstream. Enemesis (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll just quote the article I cited above: "Although the originators of NLP didn’t view ‘constructed’ thoughts as lies, this notion has become commonplace, leading many NLP practitioners to claim that it is possible to gain a useful insight into whether someone is lying from their eye-movements". --58.107.228.205 (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

http://coachingleaders.emotional-climate.com/another-nlp-claim-debunked-but-was-anyone-claiming-it/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.59.138 (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

tbh mate I have never read that, infact the literature is usually the same summary of eye accessing cues. The idea that you could detect lies with NLP is considerred bad practice and is not existent in mainstream NLP literature. common ideas on eye accessing cues . The idea that you can detect lies seems more like a weak hook to gain clientelle by fringe Practitioners an opinion on eye accessing cues not found in mainstream or the creators intent. infact it further states in the first article and in regards to mind reading abilities or being psychic as referred to by article reference 10,12 it states "Learning to read eye-accessing cues will not make you a mind reader but will give you a clue to the way the other person is thinking." This directly debunks those articles claims of what the creators have said NLP can do in terms of developing "psychic" powers or and I have to ask. What is sleep learning? I've never heard of this tbh. Visually constructed eye accessing cues are primarily to see someone become imaginitive usually with outcomes in mind this is a very pleasurable experience of viewing and constructing a future or seeing how they would feel with new emotional resources. You would then layer it with audio constructed resources that will build congruency in the feeling and the momentum of the new action and mindset that will take place with the client. This is never really explained however it becomes part of the outcome of learning eye accessing cues. the reason it is not highlighted as the outcome I guess is because you take the tools and make the connections between each part yourself that is making the neural connections within your mind takes a deeper hold and a great reference point for putting a system of parts together in which the world is full of systems to be explored found and improved upon. That is just my opinion. Enemesis (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Using eye movements, state shifts and calibration to allegedly detect lies is often traced to NLP. It was not a claim made by the originators but it has been claimed by other proponents of NLP according to the study. I really think it should be included in this article supported by the study by professor Wiseman and other points of view if covered by reputable sources. "Proponents of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) have long claimed that it is possible to tell whether a person is lying from their eye movements. Research published July 11 in the journal PLoS ONE reveals that this claim is unfounded, with the authors calling on the public and organisations to abandon this approach to lie detection."[6] --58.107.228.205 (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Discredited citations

Although the last two citations use the term "discredited" they refer to specific interventions and probably don't belong in the opening section. Anyway, they don't offer any evidence for NLP (bieng discredited) as a whole. I'm sure there are people who would have a problem if positive results were posted for specific areas of intervention in the opening section. As far as the other two sources that use the term "discredited" the first one is based on the delphi method which has been "discredited" itself - "The most extensive critique of the Delphi method was made by Sackman (1974) who criticizes the method as being unscientific and Armstrong (1978) who has written critically of its accuracy." One systematic analysis based on a hand full of studies can hardly be conclusive. regardless even if you include both studies how can one claim scientific consensus based on these. They are a drop in the bucket compared to the field(s) of therapy intervention and most importantly experimental psychology. I thought I read the burden of proof is on the editor to prove the veracity of their clams. A small number of studies is just fringe research compared to the discerning whole of the field(s) of psychology.

p.s. Just out of curiosity who thinks Deep structure constitutes a pseudoscience term, And if so, can you explain it in the both the NLP and linguistic aspects? (this question is bieng asked for direct and civil answers only)

Sock puppetry case

A suck puppetry case has been opened concerning some of the editing in this article. Interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enemesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Anonomous

iI just want to go on record as anything that I have not yet edited wikipedia. and I have not yet associated with any one here (knowingly). I'm sure you can tell this by my i.p. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.47.79 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)