Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

Not to be confused with...

I think you should replace the 'not to be confused with Natural language programming' to the NLP disambiguation page. 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. 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. 〜 Askarion ✉ 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? 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 comparison 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. ---Notgain (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that the two most common use of NLP, are Natural Language Processing and Neuro-linguistic programming (also, Neurolinguistic programming). I've updated the disambiguation page to reflect that. I determined that by searching on Google Scholar: "NLP + ("neuro-linguistic programming" OR "neurolinguistic programming" OR bandler OR grinder)". Neuro-linguistic programming has 17,000 results v. 303,000 results. The other uses are very small by comparison, E.g. NLP + ("natural law party") has less than 100 results. So Natural Language Processing is definitely the number one result. In academia, Natural Language Processing is certainly the most prevalent. However, in wider society I suspect the use of NLP to refer to Neuro-linguistic programming would be more prevalent. Just saying to answer this question, you'd definitely use Natural Language Processing! --Notgain (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "scientific dispute". NLP is far outside of science. Read the article and the sources linked there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2024 (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. 124.150.139.36 (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You can make a request for page unprotection here if you wish. Thank you! 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Those of us who have been around a long time know that they keep coming back and there is also past evidence of meat puppetry. -----Snowded ^TALK 04:43, 30 April 2024 (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. 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 -----Snowded ^TALK 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. 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 United Kingdom's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). ---Notgain (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

External link: Gatekeeping in Science: Lessons from the Case of Psychology and Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Taylor & Francis); courtesy link. 〜 Askarion ✉ 23:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

See also Rosen's paperRevisiting 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. ---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 controversy, it reflects the weight of third party reliable sources. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure - they would probably in the first of the three types of NLPers identified by the authors: (1) Science-Minded NLP-ers (Seek scientific validation of NLP through research and theoretical development; recognize its limitations and the need for improvement), (2) Ascientific NLP-ers (View NLP as a practical tool without a strong scientific basis; focus on personal experience and anecdotal evidence), (3) NLP-Bullshitters (Promote NLP with exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims for commercial gain; often engage in pseudoscientific practices). You could probably identify different perspectives too. For example, Rosen believes that scientific inquiry should focus on investigating principles for changes, not trademarked or proprietary systems. I've personally held the view that those in the first category should just drop the name altogether. I don't know why I'm here. ---02:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notgain (talk • contribs)

replace "pseudoscientific" with "controversial" Read WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Skeptics may want to frame NLP solely as pseudoscience. However, NLP sits in this grey area. Its not fully embraced by mainstream psychology and not wholly rejected as a pseudoscience either. Wikipedia requires even fringe theories to be described fairly, including areas where the theory functions on some level (e.g., some NLP rapport-building techniques have common ground with established communication practices). --Notgain (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for your opinion? --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There are still high quality trials being registered/conducted on NLP techniques in medicine so it has not been wholly rejected eg. [1][2][3][4][5] Or are you asking for reliable sources that show rapport building techniques from NLP have common ground in established communication practises? —Notgain (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The text book on Persuasion by Gass (see below for link) is a mainstream. Do you have access to it? —05:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"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."

In fact, there is just one, the much stronger claims are based (specifically in NLP) on the supposed strong connection between language and thinking. By my knowledge around NLP, most of this approach is based on general semantics and other different sources that are not worthy to discuss down here.

"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.[...]I'm interested in an unbiased description of the subject that doesn't start right in the very first sentence expressing a dismissive attitude.[...]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? 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

The principle of charity never states that. For logical reasons, the principle of charity has limits.

You cannot create an argument in favor of your opponent or interlocutor(?), because you are subjecting their claims to a distorsion, a favorable one, yes, but a distorsion nonetheless.

Even you fall into a strawman, because you accuse the authors of the article with a supposed bias against NLP.

Wikipedia can claim something is a pseudoscience when there is scientific consensus around it. And still don't violate it's neutrality.

More on this subject here: Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat

NLP is a pseudoscientific approach, and a few studies don't change that. Rodrigo IB (talk) 23:04, 30 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 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. 〜 Askarion ✉ 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? --- Notgain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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 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. ---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. --Notgain (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I've created a stub for The Structure of Magic series. These books have over 4000 citations in Google Scholar when combined with the different versions. It is currently just a stab so I'll leave it to you to expand it based on reliable third party sources. --Notgain (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added wikilinks to those two books in the main article. --Notgain (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added some links and book reviews to get you started. But it is still a stub. I'll leave it with you. --Notgain (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Section on Persuasion ?

While NLP not been widely embraced by psychologists, it has been popular on the motivational and sales speaking circuit. This is yet covered in the current article. The following text book on persuasion could serve as a starting reference: Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2022). Persuasion: Social influence and compliance gaining. Routledge. —-Notgain (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Expert consensus on discredit

There are two expert opinion surveys in the article. The first one in 2006 surveyed 100 PhD-level psychologists on their opinions of various potentially discredited interventions. "NLP for mental/behavioural disorders" was rated between possibly and probably discredited. Psychologists who identified from a CBT perspective, ratings on NLP were higher then those who identified as Humanistic. The other poll by Norcross et al in 2010 surveyed experts in Addiction Medicine and "NLP for drug and alcohol dependence" was rated as certainly discredited by the experts polled. All experts were in the United States. Has there been any change since 2006/2010? I could not find any more recently polls. --Notgain (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)