View source for Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{American English}}
{{Article history|action1=FAC 
|action1date=12:53, 29 January 2006 
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive1 
|action1result=not promoted 
|action1oldid=37173548

|action2=PR 
|action2date=19:38, 17 May 2006 
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive1 
|action2result=reviewed 
|action2oldid=53459411

|action3=PR 
|action3date=20:25, 28 December 2006 
|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive2 
|action3result=reviewed 
|action3oldid=96983242

|action4=PR 
|action4date=20:51, 5 February 2007 
|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive3 
|action4result=reviewed 
|action4oldid=105758979

|action5=GAN 
|action5date=12 December 2007 
|action5result=not listed 
|action5oldid=177059328

|action6=PR
|action6date=18:39, 29 November 2012
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuro-linguistic programming/archive4
|action6result=reviewed
|action6oldid=525550741

|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views   |importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Low |NRM=yes |NRMImp=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low }}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=Low }}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=high |attention= }}
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|class=
}}
}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn 
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes 
}}

== Not to be confused with...  ==

I think you should replace the 'not to be confused with Natural language programming' to the NLP disambiguation page. [[Special:Contributions/124.150.139.62|124.150.139.62]] ([[User talk:124.150.139.62|talk]]) 14:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

:I meant to say to replace it with a link to the NLP disambiguation page. [[Special:Contributions/124.150.139.62|124.150.139.62]] ([[User talk:124.150.139.62|talk]]) 14:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::{{Done}}: Added [[NLP]] disambiguation page to the top header in addition to the one already there, because [[Natural language programming]] does have a similar name and it's possible someone might confuse the two terms.  '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">[[User:Askarion|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Askarion'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Askarion|<span style="color:#000000"><strong>✉</strong></span>]] 16:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:::How do you know that someone would confuse the two? Can you cite the Wikipedia policy that you are basing this decision on? [[Special:Contributions/124.150.139.36|124.150.139.36]] ([[User talk:124.150.139.36|talk]]) 03:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
:: On the [[NLP]] disambiguation page, it currently listed Neuro-linguistic programming under the 'Personal Development' subheading and is described as "a pseudoscientific method aimed at modifying human behaviour". According to Google n-gram, Neuro-linguistic programming and Natural Language Processing are the two most prominent uses of NLP. In comparision the others are minor. So the first two should be listed at the top of that page, the other others in alphabetical order. Also, it should not be labelled pseudoscientific here. It is customary for scientific disputes and criticism to be the body of the main article, not on the disambiguation page. ---[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 22:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

== Tony Robbins  ==

The contribution of NLP to personal development industry has been understated in this article. Tony Robbins acknowledges Bandler and grinder's NLP in every seminar and acknowledged it as a major influence on him personally. 


'The second most influential mentor in my life came to me when I was in my 20s. I met a man named John Grinder, who was the founder of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) — a communication approach that focuses on adapting a person’s neurological processes and behavioral patterns to achieve specific goals. John introduced me to the concept of modeling. He taught me that if you want to accelerate the tempo of mastery of any subject, you must find someone who is getting the results you want, study them, and do the same thing. Because “success leaves clues.” This has become the No. 1 secret in my life for anything. This is what I do, the curating of success and results, and it’s really the magic behind any great mentorship.' - https://www.tonyrobbins.com/mind-meaning/the-mentors-who-coached-me/

See also https://www.businessinsider.com/tony-robbins-money-book-carl-icahn-ray-dalio-2014-11 [[Special:Contributions/124.150.139.62|124.150.139.62]] ([[User talk:124.150.139.62|talk]]) 15:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Pending changes]] ==

May I suggest that the page is changed from semi protection to pending changes so that edits can be made by unregistered or new users? This page has been semi protected for a long time and those engaged in sockpuppetry or disrupted editing have likely moved on. [[Special:Contributions/124.150.139.36|124.150.139.36]] ([[User talk:124.150.139.36|talk]]) 03:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

:You can make a request for page unprotection [[WP:RFUP|here]] if you wish. Thank you! '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">[[User:Askarion|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Askarion'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Askarion|<span style="color:#000000"><strong>✉</strong></span>]] 16:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

== Biased article alert ==

While informative and no doubt well-researched, there seems to be a bias on the part of the author toward the pseudoscientific aspect of NLP, as this shows up several times in the article, both in its own section and in the introduction. Perhaps a little more neutrality is in order, lest we run the risk of a polemic in the guise of an objective treatment. [[Special:Contributions/2601:643:4000:9070:3093:E204:A07A:21AD|2601:643:4000:9070:3093:E204:A07A:21AD]] ([[User talk:2601:643:4000:9070:3093:E204:A07A:21AD|talk]]) 19:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

:??? I recommend this wikipedia essay related to pseudoscientific believes: [[Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat]]
:This article '''does not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view.''' [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 19:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:Definitely reads that way to me, biased and negative. [[Special:Contributions/74.127.200.18|74.127.200.18]] ([[User talk:74.127.200.18|talk]]) 14:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
::Please, leave personal opinions and perspectives out of this, I don't want to start a "debate" down here if it's not for the purpose of improving the article. By the standards of the Wikipedia, most editors would tell you that this article doesn't violate any of them. The wikipedia doesn't follow the "neutrality" from popular opinion. Which more often than not is used to generate a false debate for fallacious reasoning, unscientific thesis, doctrines and so on. 
::If NLP wants to demonstrate it's supposed effectiveness, then the burden it's on their advocates. Until that day, no one is in the wrong when it calls NLP '''pseudoscience.''' [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 16:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
:::This is worse than bias, it's ridiculous.  Any source considering itself an encyclopedia that actually uses the authors of books like The Oak Island Mystery: The Secrets of the World's Greatest Treasure Hunt and you ignoring PsychCentral and the APA?!  Literally, the American Psychological Association isn't cutting it regarding an approach that is taught at most universities in this country and instead you include the people who wrote a book about a haunted island?  That isn't bias, that's moronic.  The best part?  Half of the bashing on this page, actually would be aimed at CBT considering the overlap is quite noticeable.  
:::Just as an aside, there's a world famous philosopher who Wikipedia has his views on a subject actually in reverse because editors literally don't understand that he was the editor of an anthology of positions he argues against.  The view of another thinker is what dominates his page and ascribed to him. This view is entirely contradictory in fact, because these 'editors' never looked at the table of contents (and to this day refuse to) much  less actually read the damn book.  
:::If Wikipedia was any worse it would be TMZ. [[Special:Contributions/2603:9000:77F0:7F60:84E7:FFEF:63D2:98B6|2603:9000:77F0:7F60:84E7:FFEF:63D2:98B6]] ([[User talk:2603:9000:77F0:7F60:84E7:FFEF:63D2:98B6|talk]]) 18:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
::::If you would like to suggest or make an edit to the article with reliable secondary sources in tow, you may. [[User:OverzealousAutocorrect|OverzealousAutocorrect]] ([[User talk:OverzealousAutocorrect|talk]]) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
::::This is so common. You are the one being "moronic" (im just using your words, don't complain). 
::::"Half of the bashing on this page, actually would be aimed at CBT considering the overlap is quite noticeable."
::::Ha!, no my lad. CBT and NLP are way more different than you seem to think or in the way which you deceviously portray it. 
::::First, NLP is constructivist, most of the influence done in this aspect is directly from General Semantics; so to clarify. The theory of Alfred Korzybski was considered since the beginning as a "crankish" work, Bertrand Russell showed his disdain to the conception Korzybski made of "aristotelianism", which, according to Korzybski, is the main cause of "semantic-issues", to which the array of problems caused by it,  can be solved thru "Non-aristotelian systems", even science can 'benefit' to this approach, because according to the count, "Science is ultimately verbal" (Science & Sanity p.10). I have read like just 600 pages of Science and Sanity and the problem is more than obvious, the point here being, that the soft-idealism of Korzybski, mainly based on linguistic constructivism (Even is worth pointing out that Neil Postman wrote about the similarities of Korzybski's linguistic notions and the work of Benjamin L. Whorf) affects negatively most of the theory made by Blander and Grinder because '''language doesn't influence thought in that form and degree, which some people don't seem to get'''. 
::::And no, modern CBT is not REBT, yeah psychologists and therapists acknowledge some of the work of Albert Ellis. But, its flaws just left it out of "mainstream" therapy. 
::::The funniest part for me is that even in the Institute of General Semantics, in the archive of articles there's a mention to the Structure of Magic (don't worry i uploaded it to the WebArchive :) ) and the similarities to GS. 
::::So no tho, you are trying to portray two things that are way different as equals, the efficacy of CBT has nothing to do with NLP. [[User:Rodrigo IB|Rodrigo IB]] ([[User talk:Rodrigo IB|talk]]) 03:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:Is there a non-pseudoscientific aspect of NLP? --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 14:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== Extremely biased introduction ==

As a first-time wikipedia contributor, this article struck me as so incredibly biased that I had to create an account to comment on it. 

''"Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific approach to communication"''

Why is it starting off like this right off the bat? It's starting out as opinion on NLP instead of just explaining what it is to the reader. 

''"NLP asserts that there is a connection between neurological processes, language and acquired behavioral patterns, and that these can be changed to achieve specific goals in life. According to Bandler and Grinder, NLP can treat problems such as phobias, depression, tic disorders, psychosomatic illnesses, near-sightedness, allergy, the common cold, and learning disorders, often in a single session. They also claim that NLP can "model" the skills of exceptional people, allowing anyone to acquire them."''

These are distinct claims. Is there a connection between neurological processes, language, and behavioral patterns? Are there any scientists claiming there isn't one? This seems to me a very uncontroversial claim. The claim that NLP can treat all sorts of disorders including the common cold and allow you to acquire exceptional skills is a much, much stronger claim. The juxtaposition here is between an extremely weak and uncontroversial/plausible claim to start with, followed up by a ludicrously strong claim and the article is saying that this is what NLP is. Well as a reader of this article I would like to know more about the first claim. Is there any diversity in the field of NLP where some of it is making weaker, more plausible claims that are less pseudoscientific? 

It seems to me that the article is so biased that it wants to say no, there isn't, never was, and never could be any version of NLP which is not pseudoscience and therefore should be dismissed. That's fine if that's your opinion, but that is not why I go to Wikipedia, to inform myself about a subject and as a starting point to explore it. I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in an unbiased description of the subject that doesn't start right in the very first sentence expressing a dismissive attitude. 

''"There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by NLP advocates, and it has been called a pseudoscience.[11][12][13] Scientific reviews have shown that NLP is based on outdated metaphors of the brain's inner workings that are inconsistent with current neurological theory, and that NLP contains numerous factual errors.[10][14] Reviews also found that research that favored NLP contained significant methodological flaws, and that there were three times as many studies of a much higher quality that failed to reproduce the claims made by Bandler, Grinder, and other NLP practitioners.[12][1"''

"No scientific evidence" is an absolute claim and seems very implausible. Really, there is not one shred of evidence anywhere that there is a connection between neurological processes, language, and behavioral patterns? Doesn't that describe the entire field of psychology? The principle of charity states that even if your opponent is not making the best possible argument for their claim, it is your job as someone with intellectual integrity to create the most plausible version of their claim, and construct the strongest possible argument for it (even if that is not the one they themselves are making). I believe this is a requirement for a neutral point of view, which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that any neutral observer would agree, this article is violating. 

Instead of the article starting with the perspective that we should find everything wrong with NLP and ensure that the reader knows everything that is wrong about it, why not start with the perspective that yes, there may be parts of it - even large parts - which are pseudoscientific, but coming from a neutral point of view, these are some aspects of it which are more plausible and could mesh with a commonly held scientific worldview? 

I am not an expert on NLP and I cannot go into detail about scientific studies for and against. But I think that at the very least, the introduction to this article could set a tone which is less biased and more designed to be informative rather than prescribe a judgement on the topic at hand. [[User:Mhugman99|Mhugman99]] ([[User talk:Mhugman99|talk]]) 18:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

:Wikipedia reflects what is in third party reliabe sources.  Your opinions (and mine) are irrelevant.  If you want to propose changes then please be specific and supply sources -----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
::My comment refers to the manner in which the article reflects third party sources, specifically the tone and demeanor of the introductory paragraph, which in my view is not neutral. What processes does Wikipedia use to ensure that the way in which Wikipedia reflects third party sources is neutral, unbiased, and fair? Do we have to cite a third party source on how to cite a third party source, and does that not lead to infinite regress? It seems to me that authors of this article, rather than being accountable for their approach, are hiding their bias by presenting themselves as not authors at all, but merely transparent reflectors of other sources, which is scientifically impossible and in itself pseudoscientific. If this is the approach which is endorsed by the Wikipedia community, then so be it, but realize that it reflects poorly on its supposed image of neutrality it tries to project. [[User:Mhugman99|Mhugman99]] ([[User talk:Mhugman99|talk]]) 19:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
::: Perhaps you could consider less strongly-worded alternatives to heighten neutrality. For example, replace "pseudoscientific" with "controversial" or "lacking scientific support." Instead of "has been called a pseudoscience," consider "has been criticized as a pseudoscience.". I was thinking that this article might also cover the topic of what Prof Katherine Dormandy and Psychologist Bruce Grimley referred to as gatekeeping as they discussed in their recent paper "Gatekeeping in Science: Lessons from the Case of Psychology and Neuro-Linguistic Programming". They discuss the EMDR an NLP controversy. EMDR was once dismissed as a pseudoscience and is now considered a legitimate intervention according to [https://www.cochrane.org/CD003388/DEPRESSN_psychological-therapies-chronic-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd-adults United Kingdom's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).]  ---[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 22:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::::{{courtesy external|https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2024.2326828|Gatekeeping in Science: Lessons from the Case of Psychology and Neuro-Linguistic Programming}} (Taylor & Francis); courtesy link. '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">[[User:Askarion|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Askarion'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Askarion|<span style="color:#000000"><strong>✉</strong></span>]] 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: See also Rosen's paper[https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10879-023-09582-x.pdf Revisiting the Origins of EMDR] where he discusses the controversy about the possible source of the core pattern used in EDMR without citing sources in the NLP Community. Note that Shapiro denied this. ---[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 02:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::THe phrase "Prominent NLP-representatives reject this verdict" in the Gatekeeping article makes the point.  Wikipedia is not balanced in a contriversity, it reflects the weight or third party reliable sources. -----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 07:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

== "Intellectual property disputes" section seems poorly sourced ==

This section contains several citations marked as permanent dead links and I can't find record of a lawsuit called ''Not Ltd. v. Unlimited Ltd., et al.''. There's another lawsuit, ''Bandler v. Hall'', that I could [https://www.anylaw.com/case/bandler-v-hall/california-court-of-appeal/06-22-2003/zqOsR2YBTlTomsSB9AI4 find online] that seems to tell a slightly different story about the dispute that took place between Bandler and Grinder in or around 1981. I think this section is in need of a cleanup. Does anyone here have any decent sources to offer on that topic? Or would most of these sources be offline? The Wikipedia Library is returning nothing useful from my search. '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">[[User:Askarion|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Askarion'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Askarion|<span style="color:#000000"><strong>✉</strong></span>]] 23:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

:I suggest that you change the heading on currently "Intellectual Property Disputes" to "Legal Disputes" with the following introduction: "Neuro-Linguistic Programming was the subject of a series of contentious legal disputes, primarily between its co-founders, Richard Bandler and John Grinder. These disputes, spanning several decades, centered on intellectual property claims, allegations of breach of contract, and broader issues of commercial rights related to NLP." Then you can add some reliable sources to substantiate that. I also suggest adding something about the impact of these disputes. Something like: "The various lawsuits and their outcomes had a significant impact on the trajectory of NLP. The lack of a single, undisputed owner of NLP's intellectual property contributed to the unregulated and diverse nature of NLP training and certification practices." That could be in the following section. I do have an issue with neutrality with the term 'Granfalloons' in the section that follows. So my question is, how do we find a neutral alternative to "granfalloons" that still conveys the issue of potential meaninglessness of some certifications? --- [[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 22:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Frogs into princes and structure of magic, etc. ==

I've noticed that there is currently missing discussion on the foundational books in NLP. May I suggest that you create separate articles for each of the early or foundational books related to Neuro-linguistic programming to fill in the gaps. For example, [[Frogs into Princes]] has been cited over 1800 according to Google Scholar. The Structure of Magic Vol 1 has a [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3688582065774755993&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en similar number of citations]. Neither of these books have their own wikipedia article when those number of citation would more than justify it. You could then include critical discussion and scientitic testing or lack thereof alongside those article. You can then link to those articles from this one. ---[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 23:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:: I created a stub for a new [[Frogs into Princes]] article. I'll leave it to you to flesh it out. --[[User:Notgain|Notgain]] ([[User talk:Notgain|talk]]) 03:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)