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)

Those are not reliable sources for your opinion. They are reliable sources you based your opinion on. Read WP:OR. You need sources explicitly saying something like Its not fully embraced by mainstream psychology and not wholly rejected as a pseudoscience either.

For the question of whether NLP is pseudoscience, it is not relevant that there are trials about NLP going on. There are trials about homeopathy going on, and it is still pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hob - Even if there was a series of RCTs validating NLP therapeutic techniques in a variety of settings found their way into a systematic review in a high-ranking journal, it might justify reclassification as an evidence-based practise in clinical psychology but that's not going to make a science-based practise (see Rosen's work I cited above on EMDR and NLP). The point I was trying to make earlier was that ascientific NLP practitioners as Psychologist/NLP practitioner Bruce Grimley aptly noted (cited above), will continue to use their rapport-building techniques such as mirroring and matching to build rapport, the 12 language patterns of the meta model, etc. --Notgain (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So your point is in vain. The neutrality policy of Wikipedia favors the academic consensus. As Hob pointed out, editors can't do original research. Rodrigo IB (talk) 17:31, 1 May 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)

I am not a scientist in this field, I consider myself more a generalist and a philosophical thinker, so I'm going to answer from a kind of zoomed-out perspective here.

The modern-day science of chemistry has its roots in the pseudoscience of alchemy. Now, alchemy is by definition a pseudoscience, and I don't think it would be biased or controversial to claim that. But what if there is a future version of NLP which is scientific, which does take the connection between language, thought, and action seriously from a scientific point of view and establishes with strong evidence what those connections are, such that the input of language/thought (i.e. neurolinguistic programming) is linked, via these established processes, to desirable actions? Sure, it may not be possible to cure all illnesses or become an elite athlete with it - just like its not possible to turn lead into gold, like alchemists thought - but there is scientific potential in the field, the potential for a science to emerge from it.

Suppose "Wikipedia" existed in the year 1500, at the height of alchemical "science" - lets say in the form of some collaborative scrolls - and stated unequivocally, alchemy is a pseudoscience: it is not possible to create gold from lead, and all such attempts are foolish. Or rather, to use the language of the time, we would say it is blasphemy. Would this not involve a failure of the imagination, of all the possibilities of scientific chemistry? From that perspective, chemistry not having been invented yet, you would see no difference between chemistry and alchemy. It's all blasphemous, against God. And likewise, I'm saying, with this language of this article and the perspective it immediately stakes in the first sentence, it is like saying NLP blasphemes against the accepted practices of science. That establishes a limited perspective, since it is a new field and we don't know all the possibilities that are capable of being explored in it. So to be absolutely definitive that it is a pseudoscience is a biased position, the same as the 1500's churchmen would be biased not only against alchemy but also against legitimate chemistry.

So neutrality, in my view, requires more suspension of judgement with a new field that can be interpreted broadly and charitably in terms of its potential, whereas that same suspension of judgement may not be required for a historical field which has already been surpassed, like alchemy. Mhugman99 (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Love it, applaud your intellectual efforts. But i'm afraid the talking section purpose is not for an intellectual discussion around philosophy and what is and what is not science. More about Wikipedia's neutrality here:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Rodrigo IB (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue that questions of what is and is not science are inherently philosophical - see Philosophy of Science. But its fair to say that an internet philosopher's view doesn't in itself carry too much weight. So based on these guidelines, I will concur with Hob Gadling above: we would need sources saying something like "Its not fully embraced by mainstream psychology and not wholly rejected as a pseudoscience either." My comment was trying to introduce some ambiguity there, and I was reacting to the absolutely unambiguous statement at the beginning of the article ("NLP is a pseudoscientific approach") where I perceive there to be ambiguity, based on what I perceive the potential of this field could be from a philosophical lens, not so much what it actually is since I don't know enough about it to say. If a reliable source from philosophy of science were to be found arguing that actually there is some ambiguity about whether it is a pseudoscience, would that be enough to challenge the tone of the opening sentence, such that presenting NLP as unambiguously pseudoscientic would not be justified as a neutral point of view? Mhugman99 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are proposing a change to a wikipedia article, you need to stick to Wikipedia's guidelines, not to your personal views around a field.

The claims of a disagreeing group are not taken into consideration to change the academic consensus, which is mainly taken into consideration in controversies around a pseudoscientific field.

More on this

WP:POV

WP:OR

Please, read carefully. Rodrigo IB (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Rodrigo. 97% of the experts Norcross surveyed in 2006 (cited in article) were phd level psychologists in the United States. It was no a randomised sample so limited in what you can infer about the population of academic consensus. Do you have a reliable source on this ‘academic consensus’? —21:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Which is one of the surveys done in academic consensus. That sole survey is not the whole picture in respect to the academic consensus, which is clear in the article and that's why its not the only one cited.

To this point, adding this study [6] Is even more worthy than the poorly suggested changes that have been put on the table recently... Rodrigo IB (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Passmore et al say NLP for coaching was poorly supported, not wholly rejected by psychological research. Like it or not, NLP is identified as preferred system of change for a large chunk of coaches registered with ICF. There are a number systematic reviews or comparative analyses in organisational change and HRD[7][8], and a review of evidence on NLP for anxiety[9]. How does that compare to the source you suggested in terms of weight? —00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"NLP is identified as preferred system of change for a large chunk of coaches registered with ICF."

Which is not a psychological association.

"There are a number systematic reviews or comparative analyses in organisational change and HRD"

I really hope tho, and im not kidding. That you didn't just picked the first results that appear in google schoolar.

My concern about the 3 papers that you link is that they don't support your point. Like, the first link [7] is a really small meta-analysis (which is more comparable to the study made by Passmore & Rowson).

" The literature search yielded 952 titles from which seven studies met all of the inclusion criteria. Findings indicate that NLP can be effective for improving a wide range of work-related psychological outcomes including self-esteem and occupational stress."

Yes, the abstract says that: "findings indicate that NLP can be effective for improving a wide range of work-related psychological outcomes".

But then the authors remark the fact that: "there were concerns regarding methodological rigor." Which makes the analysis non-conclusive.

The second study says something similar: "more rigorous research and universal regulations of practice are needed for NLP to move onto the next level of acceptance.", again, nonconclusive.

The last study lacks methodological rigor, if you don't believe me, the paper itself in the tenth page remarks: "This study has a diverse population so that biased factors occur, so further research is needed to find a uniform population".

So no, until NLP advocates and academics provide sufficient evidence for their claims and methods. NLP will still remain in the realm of pseudoscience. Independently of which "side" we are.

Wikipedia is not responsible to settle such debate. More on this here: WP:FLAT Rodrigo IB (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Just let the evidence speak for itself. I just searched for reviews of research since

Witkowski’s in 2012 as we have heavily cited it in this article. Do you have any recent reviews other than the ones I mentioned? —-Notgain (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's why i suggested the one of Passmore and Rowson which was done in 2019. Rodrigo IB (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This one is more recent but focussed on nlp and anxiety. I’m not sure about the ranking of that journal but the journal that Witkowski was low ranking anyway so I do not know how to assess [10] —Notgain (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

polish psych bulletin has hindex of 18 and KnE Life Sciences of 11. Both considered moderate impact depending on field. What’s your opinion? —Notgain (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The polish psychological bulletin is a reliable source. It doesn't violate the WP:V

If you have concerns in respect to that, then clarify them.

Independently of how reliable the 'British Journal of Guidance & Counselling' is. The study you present doesn't say that scientific consensus around NLP has changed. Other editors have said this, you cannot make conclusions based on a few studies. Because it violates Wikipedia's No original research policy.

Neither a survey can serve as an excuse; when is not the whole picture of academic consensus (neither the article suggests such point, because it cites meta-analysis which show the lack of scientific evidence around NLP). Rodrigo IB (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no issue with discussing sources to arrive at a consensus on the talk page, in fact it should be encouraged. I was referring to the "Effect of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) on Anxiety: A Systematic Literature Review"[11] that was published in "KnE Life Sciences" (that has a similar impact factor / h-index as the polish psychological bulletin). It was published after Passmore and Rowson (as it cites those authors). However, it focussed on just the application of the evaluation of NLP for the treatment of anxiety disorders. The focus was also on papers in the 5 years prior to the paper was published (2015-2020) e.g. [12][13][14] I must apologise as I cannot read Indonesian so cannot read those papers. The systematic review concluded that "The results showed that there was an effect of NLP on anxiety. NLP can improve knowledge, skills and attitudes, communication skills, self-management, mental health, reduce work stress, and self-efficacy. The biggest role of NLP therapy is to help humans communicate better with themselves, reduce unexplained fear, control negative emotions, and anxiety." --Notgain (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"There is no issue with discussing sources to arrive at a consensus on the talk page", in respect of what the article should contain, not of what we can conclude of a few studies. Which violates the forever mentioned WP:OR.

"must apologise as I cannot read Indonesian so cannot read those papers." So you are citing sources which you don't have a clear conclusion.

And also the 14 link is broken. Rodrigo IB (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I corrected that link (above). If I understand you correctly, you are asking us to resist the urge to make claims extending beyond the explicit findings of the "Effect of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) on Anxiety: A Systematic Literature Review"[15]. Citing the conclusion of a systematic review or the papers within it would not be WP:OR. Please clarify what you meant. --Notgain (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That a study is not enough to change the scientific consensus around NLP. A few studies cannot be taken into consideration to say that NLP is on a gray area, which me and other editors have been repeating to you many times. Rodrigo IB (talk) 06:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am a scientist at heart. I made a proposed change as a new section so we can ground discussion to an actual change to the article. I agree with what you said, a single Systematic Review would not change scientific consensus per se. Except perhaps if it was a Cochrane review but the results of the RCTs I published earlier have not been released and certainly not part of any review that I have seen. --Notgain (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"Except perhaps if it was a Cochrane review but the results of the RCTs I published earlier have not been released and certainly not part of any review that I have seen."

Which part of no original research you don't understand? Rodrigo IB (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I meant ‘linked above’ (not published). You said that a single study cannot change consensus so I gave you the counter example of how Cochrane Review which is the bastion of scientific consensus. —-Notgain (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I said a few studies too.

Just to clarify. Are you suggesting to edit the article using as a source a chunk of research or a systematic review done by yourself? Rodrigo IB (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If I did publish a systematic review in a reputable journal then it would be best if someone else cites it on Wikipedia. But if it was a Cochrane Review it probably wouldn’t matter if I was an author on it or a paper reviewed by it, the peer review process is so rigorous. —-Notgain (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to your review. Rodrigo IB (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There are a couple paragraphs in this[16] which would be relevant for this article to the historical roots of NLP and the influence of the Palo Alto group, MRI and Gregory Bateson on its model. —Notgain (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to flag that the International Journal of Communication has a strong reputation (h-index of 61). That paper I linked has some good background information in early development section of the current article. Actually, I'd propose to change "Early development" to "Origins and Influences", and use this paper as a key source. --Notgain (talk) 03:43, 3 May 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)

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)

Proposed Change to "Psychotherapeutic" Section / Scientific Criticisms

1. Proposed text (at end of Psychotherapeutic section): "Recent research suggests potential benefits of NLP techniques in managing anxiety. A 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome, 2021) found that NLP might improve communication, reduce fears, control emotions, and support overall anxiety management."--Notgain (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Proposed Text (Scientific criticisms, Add after the part discussing meta-analyses that found no evidence for NLP's assumptions): "However, ongoing research investigates specific applications of NLP techniques. For example, a 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome, 2021) suggested that NLP techniques could aid in communication, emotional regulation, and fear reduction, potentially supporting anxiety management. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore the limits of NLP's therapeutic use."--Notgain (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   Why you didn't add the study by Passmore and Rowson?, It's relatively recent in the academic world in respect to NLP. There are a few studies, i don't see a reason to kept it out.

   Also, the studies you have put on the table have methodological issues, small population samples or inconclusive results. Which means that there is no such "ambiguity" to the academic consensus around NLP.

   Which according to WP:V and WP:NOR policies, means that the changes you ask for, cannot be done. Rodrigo IB (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   Passmore and Rowson’s critical review was cited in Nompo et al’s systematic review. Passmore was interested in the psychological research on NLP related to the new field of evidence based coaching psychology. Nompo was more narrowly focused validation of NLP techniques for reducing anxiety. —-19:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   I suggest the study made by the University of Reading, because if the changes you want to put forward are done just like you present them; then it would be an unbalanced 'picture' in respect to recent research. The title of the topic that you suggested involves scientific criticisms too, so it's a wider scale to just the studies done about the supposed benefits of NLP on anxiety. Rodrigo IB (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   On what basis? —-Notgain (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   On the already mentioned Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Even if was the case (which is not) that there was an ongoing debate in which the pseudoscientific status of NLP was in doubt. The policy of neutrality in that particular case, dictates that both "sides" should be presented proportionately, for that a reliable source such as the University of Reading could be an excellent addition to the article. Rodrigo IB (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   Can you propose alternative to what I proposed so it is grounded in changes to the article? —-21:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Notgain (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   Taking what the studies you put on the table say at face value, the changes would be: "Recent research around NLP has provided mixed results in the use and practice of its techniques in different approaches. A 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome. 2021) found that NLP might improve communication, reduce fears, control emotions, and support overall anxiety management.

   Another systematic review by the University of reading (Passmore et al. 2019) found no evidence to the multiple claims of NLP benefitis on coaching. The authors advice practioners and people interested in the field, to avoid NLP in favor of models or techniques with a clear empirical basis." Rodrigo IB (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   “However, ongoing research investigates specific applications of NLP techniques. For example, a 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome, 2021) suggested that NLP techniques could aid in communication, emotional regulation, and fear reduction, potentially supporting anxiety management. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore the limits of NLP’s therapeutic use.”…”Additionally, Passmore and Rowson’s critical review (2019) raised questions about the empirical support for multiple NLP claims in coaching and it emphasizes the need for coaching psychologists and individuals interested in the field of coaching to consider evidence-based models or techniques.” —-Notgain (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

   “However, ongoing research investigates specific applications of NLP techniques."

   Not a neutral tone. You are implying that all the research before is not valid or "not enough" to sustain that NLP is a pseudoscience. Even when we take a face value the studies you present (assuming no methodological issues or other factors that make those sources reliable); the same studies don't support the changes you propose to the article.

   "For example, a 2021 systematic literature review (Nompo, Pragholapati, Thome, 2021) suggested that NLP techniques could aid in communication, emotional regulation, and fear reduction, potentially supporting anxiety management" Just, eliminate the "For example".

   " Passmore and Rowson’s critical review (2019) raised questions about the empirical support for multiple NLP claims in coaching and it emphasizes the need for coaching psychologists and individuals interested in the field of coaching to consider evidence-based models or techniques.”

   The "raised questions about the empirical support for multiple NLP claims in coaching" is not something that the authors left unclear, since the lack of empirical evidence it's a conclusion clearly stated in the paper. "emphasizes the need for coaching psychologists and individuals interested in the field of coaching to consider evidence-based models or techniques.", in that part, the authors advice against the use of NLP due to their findings, which i think that is preferable to remark as a guidance.

   You can write for the different papers that you present: "researchers suggest the need for further investigation". Which is more neutral language, so there is no confusion if it's a personal conclusion or something clearly stated by the sources (which many editors, including me, don't allow). Rodrigo IB (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

   Another way to not overstate Nompo et al 2021 systematic review would be to mention its limitations (the focus on anxiety, only including papers in five years prior to study, 2015-2020, or the small number of studies). Passmore and Rowson 2019 was a more comprehensive critical review as it also critiques the previous research across domain such as counseling psychology, education, etc. --Notgain (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

corrections: Satir, Perls

The article currently says that Bandler and Grinder [modeled] "Virginia Satir so they could produce what they termed the Meta-Model". This is not consistent with what Bandler and Grinder claimed, and is at odds with the scholarly sources. Virginia Satir was the co-founder of the Mental Research Institute and was a prominent member of the Palo Alto Group. (see Wilder, 1979) as cited in [17] and they later co-authored a book together with her titled "Changing with families" (ISBN 0-8314-0051-X) published by Science and Behavior Books in 1976. However, according to Bandler and Grinder, the Meta-Model was modelled from Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapy) in addition to Virginia Satir, and the Milton-Model was "modeled" from Milton Erickson. Amit Pinchevski (2022)[18] citing Dr Robert S. Spitzer, a Prominent American Psychiatrist and former Chair of American Psychiatric Association's DSM taskforce, states that "In fact, NLP was conceived after Bandler (a university student at the time) was hired to record and transcribe both a month long workshop that Satir conducted in Canada and teaching films featuring the psychiatrist Fritz Perls. Bandler spent several months listening meticulously to the recordings, eventually adopting many of the two’s voice patterns and mannerisms (see Spitzer, 1992). Karen Stollznow who is also cited in the same paragraph in her book also acknowledges that Meta-Model was modeled from Perls and Milton-Model from Erickson (See p.236 of Stollznow 2014 book 'Language Myths, Mysteries and Magic). Stollznow asserts that these models do not accurately represent those individuals. --Notgain (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)