Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.


Separation of NLP from Criticisms, reducing redundancy, etc

Oh joy, Christmas is on its way. I have just started removing early critters from the NLP bible and looking at making brief. I noticed that science still gets a great deal less air time and weight than the NLP section. I'm sure that will please the babblers. Whatever, lets see what we can do about condensing things. I removed the NLP for coppers section. It could be reduced to a line and placed somewhere else (perhaps in the outrageous claims section:). Cheers DaveRight 03:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is beginning to look more organized and encyclopedic. I removed some more criticisms from the upper section, and placed some of those into the criticism section. It can be made a lot more concise with a bit of work.Bookmain 04:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done chaps. Looks like we'll have it back in shape in no time. Gave it the once-over and nipped out some repeats. Keep up the good work. AliceDeGrey 09:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made some content preserving changes to the introduction and overview. Some of the grammar was poor and the expression awkward. Some attributions are required for the the material in the overview, eg. foundational assumptions, brain lateralization. Can the person that originally inserted that copy add some citations? flavius 15:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a thread on Whispering discussion about eye movements and brain contralateralisation, [1]. There are some references there. --Comaze 00:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Flavius. The content is worth preserving. When it is foreshortened it tends to be denied by NLP promoters: "they didn't say that!" and they delete. Looks fine to me. HeadleyDown 16:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is far better when seperated like it is. I don't wish to assume bad faith, but the history of this article shows extreme promotion by NLP people. On top of NLP blowing its own trumpet throughout the literature will make for a very promotional NLP section and there is not much we can do about that apart from point out the obvious bias of fans. NLP fans also seem to consider themselves persuasive, and they think they can reframe the article to suit themselves and do some kind of magic to make everything seem great. Of course the article will simply be balanced out using criticism. I don't think there will be a problem with that though, as long as mediators understand that the pro and con will definitely be quite a contrast. But it is a natural effect of NLP with its intrinsic hype, and the harsh words that science has to say about that (science doesn't like that sort of thing). As long as the article is kept within a reasonable size, and the NLP promoters keep the views open and do not whitewash, I think things will be a lot easier from now. JC

I have reworked the section titled 'Basic Tenets'. These were a mix of tenets and techniques so I renamed it 'Fundamentals' and re-cast the behavioral cues in terms of Dilts' B.A.G.E.L model. I think it reads clearer now. flavius 13:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Flavius. That is clear. I notice Dilt's BAGEL model is also used in literature with Bandler and others. Obviously it is about the most important and recognizable background model, or fundament as you quite clearly call it. It also points out the kind of conceptualizations they use throughout. Regards HeadleyDown 15:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Where is the discussion regarding the disputed protions of the 'Overview'. The foundational assumptions appear accurate (I scanned through some of my seminar manuals -- Sikes, James -- and was able to corroborate most of them. Perhaps the problem is that these largely implicit assumptions are not conventionally presented in this format. Admittedly, when the assumptions implicit in NLP are made explicit NLP comes to resemble Dianetics. I suspect that this is the source of any dispute. I can attempt to rework this section, presenting the foundational assumptions in a more NLP idiomatic manner and with citations. Shall I proceed? flavius 03:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Some minor fixes:

  • Left/right brain is often referenced, but not usually treated as "central". NLP tends to consider things central which can make a difference, such as VAK, or language. The physical structure of the brain doesn't usually get considered a central theme.
  • Removed "however". In this context it implies a POV.
  • The overview of NLP doesn't represent it clearly. Minor changes to the wording to clarify the significance of these.
  • Moved round wording in "goals". HOW something is done isnt a goal, so removed that bit. And "re-programming" --> "changing" (reporgramming is a POV term and not used within NLP, it's mainly associated with cults).

FT2 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reorganized a couple of sections - thus made "overview" a section including subsections for engram, brain lateralization, foundations, etc. I think it makes more sense that way when you read the contents. FT2 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi FT2. NLP does not receive wide support. Just because it is listed in some associations (alongside primal scream therapy, EFT and other such pseudos) it does not mean wide support. To prove wide support in this case you would probably need to conduct a poll. And the result would be "what's NLP?" or "you must be kidding" etc. Just to keep things equal and easy to handle, it was suggested that we keep a nice free space for NLP promotion, and a place for criticisms. Criticisms does not mean "mixed reviews". It means people do not like these bits about NLP. You already have the associations that support NLP in the promotional sections. If you want to avoid the problems you caused previously, I suggest you start acting cooperatively and just do your thing with writing dubious sections about cognitive awareness etc. HeadleyDown 14:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Headley, I guess FT2 still thinks NLP was conceived by Stephen Pinker and Susan Greenfield, with full benediction from George Lakoff:) If all you have is NLP books on your shelf its going to look like a big subject. Last week I asked a PhD psych and clinical therapist what they thought of NLP. They hadn't heard of it:) I told her it was advertised on the BPS and she said "well they'll advertise anything". FT2 seems to be working with a map generated from hype rather than fact. I liked Sharpley's veiled insult to NLP; It would be like psychoanalysis (a pseudoscience) but it failed the test:) Then he calls it a cult and a fad. Its was a demoted pseudoscience in the 80s. Then came the mass dumping, and now its just a joke certificate like "diploma in phrenology", "O'level in Dianetics Auditing" or "City and Guilds in Physiognomy". Cheers DaveRight 02:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I reworked the 'Foundational Assumptions' sub-section. It began "NLP authors tend to emphasize a focus on obtaining results rather than working with theory" and then proceeded to outline the rudiments of NLP theory. It was also contaiminated with elements of technique and objectives. The stuff about the Meta/Milton Model is redundant and in any event it doesn't belong in a subsection that is supposed to describe the foundational assumptions. Also I created a new section about NLP practitioners stated position on theory and put the relevant text (that was in 'Foundational Assumptions' in there. flavius 05:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've extended the 'Foundational Assumptions' into a set of basic premises that undergird and distinguish NLP. I don't think its complete and the last two don't appear right. GregA had some ideas about NLPs foundational core. GregA, what do you think? flavius 06:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Flavius. It looks much better that way. You may expect the NLP whitewashers will change it back though. I'm glad the article has become more manageable. It also makes it more obvious when FT2 and the other promoters run around in their whitewashing panic. Whatever happens though, there is still a lot more clarification for the criticisms section. I have just got through some interesting stuff from Europe criticising NLP. I'll add when I've more time. ATB AliceDeGrey 07:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: I'm still working on the 'Foundational Assumptions' sub-section. I'll complete the citations and extend the list of premises shortly. Bear with me. All premises will preferably be sourced from NLP primary texts and cited properly. flavius 22:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to expand the 'Stated Attitude to Theory' sub-section. Dilts et al (1980) devotes a few pages to distinguishing NLP as a 'model' and not a 'theory'. The terms 'model' and 'theory' are used by Ditls et al (1980) in an idiosyncratic manner entirely inconsistent with their usage within the domains from which they originate (namely science and philosophy of science). Their motivations for this idiosyncracy are a matter of conjecture and potentially POV but its existence is a matter of brute fact. I am considering including an authoritative definition of 'theory' and 'model' alongside Dilts et al's because this matter of NLP being purportedly atheoretical and hence somehow beyond the scope of scientific testing or even meta-theoretical analyses recurs in discussions, seminars and texts. Any opinions?

I propose that the references section be one monolithic (sorted) list for the following reasons: it would make redundancy easier to eliminate and it would prevent it in the future, references would be easier to locate and it is conventional practice. flavius 00:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Flavius, there don't seem to be any good reasons for Dilts to make the model/theory distinction. Model is often synonymous with theory, so it is dubious to say NLP does not have a theory/theories. Certainly it seems to be there as an excuse. Of course it doesn't work:) It got well and truly tested. I think it may be easy to relate to "asking how rather than why". Again, this is a great cop out. It basically turns every technique into a meaningless ritual. But of course, normal psychological models are there to explain and predict also (they answer why).
Yes, presently the refs are hard work. A simple alphabetical list will make it easier. Regards HeadleyDown 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ere is a list of my recent edits [2]. I've moved the criticism of application to underneath each application to make it easier to read. This section can be cut down alot and the tabloid journalism removed. --Comaze 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mind-body split

Hi Flavius. I think one thing to mention would be - mechanism of action . That is something that is left out of NLP. Of course it is just to get people to do what they say. Don't ask why! Some of it has been partially explained though. Dilts does write about left/right eye movement stuff and brain in his encyclopedia. Its still mind myths though. So simplistic! Anyway, both models and theories are supposed to explain mechanisms of action (or there should be literature to do that), but Dilts et al just come up with their false dichotomy because most folk don't know the difference. Actually most folk just hear a lot of jargon and psychobabble and give it a miss altogether. I have to admit though, they fooled me for a while (till I looked up NLP in an encyclopedia "a vaguely defined fringe therapy that proposes 10 minute cures". Cheers DaveRight 03:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Grinder (and I've heard Bandler agree) rejects Descartes "original sin -- the mind-body split" (eg. Turtles all the way down, J Grinder & J Delozier 1986 pp.xx,xxi; Whispering, J Grinder & C Bostic St Clair 2002 ch.3; see also, Proposed distinction for NLP articles by Grinder, Bostic St Calir and Robert Dilts) and similarly rejects Cartesian split (Whispering, Grinder J Grinder & C Bostic St Clair 2002 p.222; Steps to ecology of Mind 2005, T Malloy, J Grinder, C Bostic St Clair p.34). --Comaze 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Comaze. You saved me some work. flavius 09:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Comaze. I believe DaveRight's mention of lack of mechanism has nothing to do with mind/body split. The fact is, NLP doesn't satisfactorilly deal with mechanisms of action. Indeed the refusal to seperate factors can be considered a holistic notion. The mind/body split could be included in pseudoscience under mantra of holism, and it could also be mentioned under "new age therapies" because it is common with new age notions. Either way it is a simplistic or banal truism - the body influences the mind and mind influences the body. AliceDeGrey 06:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Alice, it's important to document the many (often implicit) assumptions the underlie NLP, even when they patently false or banal. flavius 09:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you are right Flavius. Certainly whitewash is not a good idea. We already have NPOV recommendations to write anything factual even if it is objectionable. HeadleyDown 12:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms are there to criticize and clarify

Comaze and all the other fanatics, (especially FT2). Adding little bits and pieces of non-criticism to the criticism section (actually they are rather large and leading the article towards the 100kb mark) in order to negate it somehow is completely transparently biased behaviour. You will simply get reverted doing so. Presently, the article is in the process of re-organization (within each respective section) and as such, we could do without all the sneaking around deleting conclusive criticisms and replacing them with brainless rambles from NLP excuse literature. Cited or not, those sort of dodgy edits will be booted off the article by me or anyone else with a brain. Just keep it in line with clarification, rather than deleting criticism, or muddying and clouding issues. I am not just picking on you Comaze (though you have spent months sneaking around like this). This also applies to the other desperately unconvincing NLP fanatics. DaveRight 03:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What definition of criticism are you using? It seems to be different to the typical definition used by wikipedians. Criticism is for critical analysis -- this should be neutral and show all points of view, even if are contradictory to your POV. Your recent reversions are not helpful and seems to expose a bias and selective quoting [3] and [4]. For example, HeadleyDown and DaveRight in unison remove this statement that is intended to clarify the various points of view about NLP use in cults (especially given that cult requires some comparison to orthodoxy). --Comaze 03:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No Comaze. I am using the proper definition of criticisms. You are using the fanatic's version (non criticism and then excuse). What we have here, is NLP (where all the literature is selfpromotional and full of obscurantisms designed to confuse people) and then we have actual criticisms cited by critics. The article is presently in need of adjustment for brevity, so your additional excuses are not helping at all. Considering your rather extreme history with this and related articles you are going to find it extremely hard for your edits to stick. People know your game, and they will simply revert because you have not changed from the multiple deletion per day for months Comaze. Only your promotion scheme has changed. It is extremely funny to watch your transparently zealous activities:) DaveRight 03:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
What exactly is your definition of criticisms? It seems to differ from the typical wikipedian. How do you explain the removal of a statement that clarifies this biased POV, "other christian ministers advocate the use of NLP (eg. use of sensory-based language [5]) in church services." Other citations were removed at the same time, without discussion or proper comment. --Comaze 03:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. You are past your 3revert a day limit. Regarding your edits: The Christian ministry edit is pure promotion, and as such it is not criticism. If you want to promote NLP as a religion, do so in the NLP section. Your edit on metamodel/linguistics is unrelated to what Levelt is talking about. So it should not be there. You also deleted Dave's edits with no proper explanation. AliceDeGrey 04:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Alice, To my knowledge, I have not exceeded 3RR. You response shows a complete disregard for the citations that I presented with page numbers and references. Please check the references, I'm sure you will find that they are directly related. --Comaze 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You are extremely biased, Comaze. I understand that some people can be biased and do neutrally minded editing, but you have just proven that your edits are biased. I looked up the references and you are presenting unrelated information in order to cloud the issues. The article should be concise and clear, and you are going the other way. What's more, Carroll does not even mention the word "universally". Carroll makes a specific statement, and you want to change it to make it mean something else. I do not care if you present 1000 citations with page numbers. Your extreme bias towards promotion is clearly highlighted by your today's devious actions. AliceDeGrey 04:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's get to the real issue here. You (HeadleyDown, Dave Right, AliceDeGrey) have removed statements exposing a systemic bias between this group of editors. Calling something a cult is pure POV so it needs to be covered from multiple points of view. Normally "cults" requires comparison between existing orthodox. According to wikipedia, scientists resolve this problem by referring to cults as "New Religious Movement" (NRM). The term cult is not well-defined or has multiple conflicting definition depending on who you ask. So if you take the definition of Christian Orthodox or other Orthodox religion then you can quote them. Some Christian ministers use NLP in their services and other apply it in Christian counselling -- these people do not consider NLP techniques to be cult-like. Some strict orthodox organisations may consider using sensory-based language, hypnotic language or other NLP techniques to be cult-like, I don't know -- if this is the case, cite your sources. An NLP modeler may be able to find many language patterns in sermons and christian counselling and maybe even the bible. All these views should be covered. Some proponents of hypnosis describe miracles and such in terms of hypnotic phenomena. You need to be careful when accusing an organisation of having cult characteristics because it depends on who you ask. So, we need to be able to balance the "Cult characteristics" section with a neutral description of all parties concerned. This will require some negotiation. --Comaze 05:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, it is much simpler than you make out. The fact is, you have spent months trying to mess up or delete the criticisms. And you have done so in the most surreptitous ways possible. You are going to have a very hard time trying to persuade people you are doing something beneficial to the article. It is just not happening. The criticisms section is for the criticisms. According to NPOV a criticism can be placed and cited, and that is how it is. You are changing cited statements to suit your own agenda. If you want to balance the cult characteristics that the critics say exist, then do so in the above NLP section (if there is any factual info available). Otherwise, leave the article alone. Bookmain 05:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Bookmain (AliceDeGrey/HeadleyDown/DaveRight), Well if you do not want me to edit the criticism section, you better start editing it to present all views fairly. An example of this group's bias can be found here and here (Bookmain/AliceDeGrey/HeadleyDown/DaveRight) is shown to support the views of a Christian opinion (watchman foundation) that states that "NLP is a cult" or "New Age" while not supporting a balancing statement that from a different Christian ministry that advocates the use of NLP techniques in counselling and sermons. Let's stick this to the issues. --Comaze 06:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Tidy Up

I have created a new criticism subsection titles 'Atheoretical Pretence' and I renamed the 'Overview' section 'NLP and Theory'. I removed the critical remark to the criticism section. Any feedback appreciated. flavius 06:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Flavius Vanillus and all. I am mostly happy to tidy up (I think its time now most of the waring is over). I think the Atheoretical Pretence section is fine and above board as long as it remains in the criticisms section (it is a criticism after all). Keep up the clarity! Camridge 06:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the waring is over. Today, I made a couple of simple POV clarifications and was shot down, and then reverted 4 times by the one group of editors. I will respect any cleanups that take place, but the article needs to be cleaned up for verification, and NPOV before any major clean-up work takes place. The --Comaze 06:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, it looks like you are the only warmonger left right now. AliceDeGrey 06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
That is completely unfair and below the belt. I explain why I thought your reversions were unfair and you (HeadleyDown, AliceDeGrey, and group) replied with a mix of personal remarks directed at me, reversions and comments that failed to address direct questions I raised addressing the issues of bias (specifically in representing both views held by Christians about use of NLP in sermons and christian counselling). Some consider it to be new age, or cult-like, some consider it to simply language patterns that can be used to enhance communications. I provided the references. Let me remind you again, NPOV means that all views should be represented, even if they contradict your POV or other POVs. My personal POV is that personal beliefs such as religion should not even enter this discussion, but it is there, so we have to address it in a neutral manner. --Comaze
I only know of a few Christian pastors (Baptist) that say they use NLP in the process of pastoral care or sermonizing and all are associated with Bobby Bodenhamer. Most Baptists regard NLP as akin to witchcraft (that is why Bodenhamer and Hall have penned papers arguing that NLP is not the work of the devil). The mainline churches (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant and Anglican) regard NLP as New Age and hence unchristian and nonbiblical. I'll see if I can find some references. If a minority of pastors use NLP then that doesn't offset or negate the wide condemnation of NLP by the Christian Church. By all means mention the religious application in the applications section but keep it out of the criticisms. The muliplicity of views can't be expressed in every paragraph. The balance will be achieved over the totality of the article not by tacking on, "But", "However", etc to every critical statement. Although the term "cult" is pejorative it is used and well-defined by cult experts such as Lifton. I have a few papers from the Cultic Studies Journal and (as the name would indicate) the word "cult" is defined and used liberally in the papers. flavius 08:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
This does support my argument that NLP can be use by cults and form cult thought reform. I did a quick search on that journal and found a ethics document that requires exit cousellors obtain written permission from clients before using neuro-linguistic programming or hypnosis for use in thought reform [6]. I wonder how they define NLP or hypnosis? --Comaze 02:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Flavius, yes the new section looks very clarifying and educational as wikipedia should be. It will need some direct association with actual criticisms made by critics. There are many starting with Singer, and I remember a few articles on the web stating the same kinds of things. I will have a good dig around for brief added critical support. ATB AliceDeGrey 06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
In relation to the list of references. We need some way to distinguish between journal articles, website references, books written by original developers, books written by outsiders. A simple alphabetical listing makes this very difficult to discern. --Comaze 07:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Comaze. In these kind of circumstances it is better to keep alphabetical. There have been a lot of arguments and accusations over whether something is a book or an article or both. Seperating into sections leaves the article open to biased headings, and even more needless battles and it makes it very hard to decide which section to add to and to search. I understand you would wish to see more opportunities for bias and disturbance, so I can see why you would suggest such an arrangement. Perhaps I should just ignore you for the sake of keeping the peace. Camridge 07:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Comaze. No I think it should be alphabetical. Locating a reference in a multitude of lists is difficult. Also, references are conventionally presented in alphabetic order in one block. flavius 08:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Camridge, Flavius, The issue regarding academic/non-academic sources is based on wikipedia policy. The references listed are in alphabetical order is fine. However, there needs to be notes or another way for the reader to discern the reputation of sources. --Comaze 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the subsections titled 'Goals' and 'View on Cognitive Understanding of Problems' (?). These were terribly written, redundant and lacked cohesion. I can add something about the problem insight. The NLP position can be stated in a sentence. I also trimmed down the presuppositions section. I'm still not happy with it. I also removed the reference some obscure British NLP trainers views on the presuppositions. I think Dilts and DeLozier's views on presuppositions are authoritative since they contributed to their formulation. I added a quote to the Extraordinary Claims section regarding the topic of genius. In light of this quote I think the defensive statement that in effect says "oh no, no one said we can make you an Einstein' should be re,oved. I don't like the list of NLP techniques. It's awful. It should be replaced by a succinct description of a few representative techniques. The Milton/Meta model section is also terrible. I'll rewrite it. At the risk of sounding provincial I get the impression that much of the prose that is awful was authored by those for which English is not a first language -- it reads like 'broken English'. Comaze and FT2 is English your first language? flavius 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Most posts I have to use Babelfish :) Jokes aside, I think the entire document needs to be copyedited with special attention to prose. With so many different editors, it would be nice to keep the same style throughout the entire document. --Comaze 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Comaze. I am just wondering what it would look like if you went through and "copyedited" the article. Somehow I think it would need some further adjustments:) I'm not psychic, I just have a powerful intuition about these matters! HeadleyDown 11:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks HeadleyDown, I keep strictly in line with Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit. The other option is to put a cleanup tag on the page to get another editor in to do it for us. --Comaze 13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Hello all. I decided to get more active and I added some lit by Yves Winkin, a world class anthropologist from the Sorbonne in France. He seems to be a highly quotable source. Camridge 03:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, how did you establish the reputation of Winkin? Does his reputation hold enough weight to be quoted 9 times without any attempt to balance it with a rebuttal from the proponents view? In this respect I think that your recent edits are biased. --Comaze 03:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, the article is currently pro and critic oriented and that has solved a great many problems associated with multiple deletions/attacks and so on. It has also encouraged a greater variety of editors to contribute now that things have settled down. NLP is extremely self-promotional and thus it is quite acceptable to have world view criticisms. You seem desperate to keep the views to a minimum. You are suggesting edits that go against the multiple view perspective of wikipedia policy. Are you anti NPOV or just anti French? Camridge 05:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC) PS. Winkin actually attended NLP workshops in California under Bandler in order to write this peer reviewed scholarly journal article. Camridge 05:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Camridge (with HansAntel) , I am stating directly that your recent edits [7] are biased and violate NPOV. These are staw man without providing proper context or rebuttal from NLP proponents. Can you please modify your contributions to take into account these objections. --Comaze 06:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, I have just been looking through your history over the past few months. You clearly have an agenda to promote NLP and delete all criticisms. This is entirely biased, and I understand you will probably always lobby for removal of fact. Considering you will never change this could make the situation hard to handle. Instead of treating you as a normal unbiased member I feel the best thing to do is not waste any more of my time, so I will simply ignore you. My edits are perfectly within wikipedia recommendations and I don't need you to tell me how to behave. Camridge 07:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I object to these edits by Camridge and HansAntel because they contain bias, overgeneralisation, give too much weight to one author, and fail to take into account other points of view (eg. reply or rebuttal). I request that we ask for comment from neutral third party, mediator or arbitration committee. --Comaze 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, mediators are generally very neutral. You won't like their judgment at all. You never did before.HeadleyDown 11:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, You were very quick to dismiss. It would in your best interest to attempt to resolve any content disputes with a neutral third party. --Comaze 22:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi All, there appears to be an arbitration page open for this article with space for requests and decisions. Are all involved editors aware of this?

Hello Faxx. Yes I think most people are aware. But nobody really is that bothered. Its mostly for proNLPers to list unreasonable complaints about edits that happened during confilicts. Most neutral editors are just getting on with editing and looking for brevity. The problems have mostly been solved already by dividing the sections more clearly. Regards HeadleyDown 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at those diffs, I would say that some of these statements do generalize far too hastily. If I think NLP is Z and I find person X with career Y who agrees that NLP is Z, I cannot just say "Y's believe that NLP is Z(citation of Y)" .Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. The author is well published, but some of the statements are misplaced according to agreement. I can find better places for them in addition to NPOVing. HeadleyDown 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll and Comaze. I reviewed some of the edits that Comaze is troubled by, namely, Cults and Winkin. The cults section I have to admit is tenuous. The only notable author cited is Singer. 'Vexen Crabtree' is a 'Punk/Goth' guy with a self-indulgent web site. I'm sure Vexen is a nice chap and he has his fashion worked out (judging by the images on his website) but I don't think his opinion counts for much. Also, the Watchman Expositor site is written from a an ultra orthodox Protestant/Baptist view. Any doctrine that isn't based on a literalist Biblical interpretation is deemed suspect by this group, including the two seminal branches of Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism). I have no problem with the cults section being trimmed down to only include Singers view until further (credible) views are sourced on this topic. I also read Camridge's edit based on Winkin and they look good, i.e. well sourced, but perhaps truncated. Expanding Winkin's position such that reasons are provided would eliminate the appearance of 'bad faith'. My concern though is that Comaze would then object to the coverage given to Winkin's view. This -- I think -- would indicate bad faith on Comaze's part. flavius 06:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Flavius, more coverage of Winkin will be useful. I have had a good read of his article and it does offer more insight. The cult section needs some brief clarification also. From my studies I have - Sharpley, Heap, Eisner, Langone, Singer, Winkin, Novopashin, Barrett, Christopher, Helish, Howell, and some others describing NLP as a cult. Perhaps just a simple list as I have just stated will suffice (eg "Sharpley, Heap, Eisner, Langone, Singer, Winkin, Novopashin, Barrett, Christopher, Helish, Howell, describe NLP as a cult) but supplying the appropriate years to the citation. Comaze has already proved he has bad faith - its called NLP:) Regards HeadleyDown 07:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
"Sharpley, Heap, Eisner, Langone, Singer, Winkin, Novopashin, Barrett, Christopher, Helish, Howell, describe NLP as a cult" with years added would be fine. flavius 01:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the scientific studies of NLP, critics, psycholinguists', neurologists', and psyschologists' opinions of NLP are enough for criticism. Lets not try to include every type of scientist, especially when such a claim does not have enough citations to be well supported.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 09:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello VoiceOfAll. My last edit was to create a more concise version of what was there, and I believe we can make simpler statements that include even more experts, but resulting in far more concise passages in general whilst keeping explanations clear. Certainly there are other authors to corroborate Winkin's statements and I will provide them soon. I believe the same can be achieved with the above non-critical NLP section, though perhaps I am not the one to do that (without extensive conflicts and reversions etc). Regards HeadleyDown 11:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Perls and Dianetics

I don't think this sentence accurately reflects Fritz Perls' involvement with Dianetics:

By the late 1960s, self-help organizations such as EST, Dianetics, and Scientology had become financially successful, receiving attention and promotion from human potential thinkers such as Fritz Perls who during this period, promoted and operated a Dianetics clinic (Clarkson and Mackewn 1993).

I can't find any other source indicating that Perls "promoted and operated a Dianetics clinic" at all, let alone in the late 1960s, and I question whether that statement is a fair representation of Clarkson and Mackewn.

I do not have a copy of that book, but neither the full-text search feature provided by Google ( nor the one provided by Amazon ( yield any results when searching on "Dianetics".

Perls did investigate Dianetics from 1949-50. He wrote the introduction to Winter's 1951 "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics". However, by that time, he had already come to conclusions that would seem to preclude him taking Dianetics up again in the last years of his life.

By October, 1950, I had come to the conclusion that I could not agree with all the tenets of dianetics as set forth by the Foundation. I could not, as previously mentioned, support Hubbard's claims regarding the state of "clear." I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics.

(from -- note: not a neutral site)

Considering how much critical material on Dianetics and Scientology is published on the Internet, I would expect to find many more references affirming Perls' alleged re-involvement in his later years.

In any case, I would like to suggest that this sentence, in the absence of more solid evidence, be struck from the article or otherwise edited to avoid misrepresenting Perls' investigations into Dianetics. For that matter, I fail to see how that sentence or the following portion of the paragraph that it appears in sheds any light on the nature of NLP.

I would be glad to work on this edit myself, but I'm not sure how -- aside from posting this section to "talk". I am a wikipedia newbie! Thanks. Shunpiker 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Dianetics was actually still in vogue during the 60s (or at least, some therapists (especially gestalt) still considered it a reasonable technique) and the gestalt theory of memory is pretty much identical to that of dianetics. Perls actually ran a dianetics clinic during the 50s and 60s, but he also introduced wierd new age zen ideas of awareness that he had picked up on his travels. Perl's dianetics background sheds a great deal of light on NLP. Firstly, they are both extremely similar in principle and form. They both use command hypnotics, Korzybsky's map territory, engrams, trauma change, belief in unlimited potential, use of metaphor, the use of ritual, they are both psuedoscientific and are often classified together according to many scientists, and the financial success of dianetics/scientology was a powerful motivator for all the more recent LGAT cults of the 70s 80s and 90s such as NLP, Tony Robbins, Landmark Forum, EST and so on. Basically most people who saw the beginning and end of the dianetics trend in psychotherapy tends to see NLP in the same light. A lot of the books and papers criticising NLP or classifying it as a fringe therapy also talks of dianetics in the same sense (pseudoscientific, scientifically unsupported). However, there is some evidence that places dianetics as less ineffective than NLP on the whole (stronger placebo effects with client/auditor). Anyway, the fact that Perls actively promoted and practiced dianetics is reason enough to place the fact in the article background. Regards HeadleyDown 06:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley, I understand that you believe that Perls promoted Dianetics and ran a Dianetics clinic, but what I'm looking for is documentation of those allegations.

As mentioned above, the footnote in the article (Clarkson and Mackewn, 1993) appears to be spurious. Furthermore there is documentation that Perls investigated Dianetics in 1949-1950, but publicly concluded that no "intelligent person" could or should practice it -- a rather peculiar form of advocacy, don't you think?

Since Perls was one of the "models" for NLP, he belongs in the article, but painting him as a Dianetics zealot doesn't fit with the facts, at least as I can discern or document them. If you can back up your assertions about Perls and Dianetics, please do so. I would definitely want to know if they were true, and the article would benefit from the substantiation. If those allegations can't be substantiated, however, I sustain that they do not belong.

Thanks, Shunpiker 08:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Shunpiker. Don't take Perl's comments individually. He was quite a contrary chap. Look at "Perls" (I can't remember the author), and most other of his biographies. His support of dianetics is documented there. I will provide more sources in time. He wasn't a zealot as such. He included a lot of other wierd new agey kind of ideas in his methods. Anyway, here is just one link I found just from a simple goodle search "Perls, a staunch supporter of dianetics" Regards HeadleyDown 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley,

Upon further investigation it appears to me that the quote I found from the "A Doctor's Report" -- "I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics." -- comes from J.A. Winter, not from Perls. My mistake. The source I was quoting includes the header "Introduction", but on re-inspection appears to skip over the actual body of the introduction. In any case that quote is attributed to Winter in the Dianetics article.

The Fischer paper calls Perls "a staunch adherent of dianetics", but provides no substantiation for that statement. To the contrary, it proceeds to quote Perls (from his introduction to Winter's book) as criticizing L. Ron Hubbard for the unscientific character of his work -- presumably Dianetics.

Please do find whatever evidence you can to support the link between Perls and Dianetics, but until that evidence is located, should Wikipedia be in the business of repeating the rather serious allegation that Perls advocated and practiced Dianetics? If Wikipedia is going to assert that, shouldn't it be recorded on the pages for Fritz Perls and Dianetics? Currently there is no mention of Dianetics on the Perls page and no mention of Perls on the Dianetics page. It strikes me odd that the NLP article is the only one to make note of this rather significant association.

Yours, Shunpiker 21:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Shunpiker, HD was the editor who originally posted this, later EBlack added this. JPLogan added the "and promotion" in this post. It seems that JPLogan was the first to post it here --Comaze 03:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yo Shunpiker. Serious allegation? Sounds like you really don't like Dianetics! Not biased at all are you? You should read what Tom Cruize says about Scientology. Anyway, from what I read, Perls was against Hubbard going for the religion idea in order to promote his ideas. Perls wanted to do clinical studies on his dianetics practice (with Hubbards funding). It didn't happen. Don't take wikipedia as a source. If this article was only run by the likes of Comaze and the other fanatics, there would be no criticism section at all (or it would end up promoting indirectly). Basically, go and do some library searches. The info is everywhere. DaveRight 02:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, I have warned you 5 times to avoid personal remarks. It is really not useful to call someone a fanatic. Do you want to get a neutral 3rd opinion on this? --Comaze 03:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It is useful, Comaze. Everybody should know you spent months deleting criticisms several times a day. Fanatic, zealot, censor, these are all words that describe your behaviour perfectly. The small edits you make in between are just a smokescreen. Your agenda is to promote NLP by removing criticisms and by whitewashing NLP by removing any new age or cultlike fact that places NLP as a fringe wierdo charlatan therapy. So warn me again, and I will go into more detail about your cultlike smear campaigns, and your sneaky edits. DaveRight 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Shunpiker. Here are some more links. They are direct and indirect. The gestalt psychology ones (a fringe therapy) show that it was influenced by dianetics anyway. Even without Perl's strong implication, gestalt therapy itself is influenced by dianetics. Remember that most of the psychology background of Bandler and co is gestalt.

Whatever, dianetics is everywhere in NLP. Not just in theory, but in practice. I'm not suggesting that you join or become an auditor:) but have a delve into auditing and you will see the embryo of NLP.

Here you can see Perls making the same kind of grandiose claims as NLPbrains

Whatever, Perls was a dianetics fan, and Bandler and Grinder wanted the same fame, adulation, and finances when they developed NLP - thats how EST developed also. History repeats! DaveRight 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, once again, Comaze reverts to his normal campaign agenda. Even after requests from mediator to provide such evidence, Comaze removes it. I resored the engram reference as it was indeed notable and from a certified NLPer. AliceDeGrey 03:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
AliceDeGrey, Anyone can post to Media13 so it is not verifiable. Even if it was published from a reputable publisher, who says that author is notable? If the source you post was allowed, anyone could write their own article submit it to media13 and use it as a reference. We need to stick to notable, verifiable sources. You know this already! --Comaze 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, Media13 actually has a vetting policy quite similar to that of a published paper journal. I suggest you are most definitely the most biased and zealous fanatic on this article. If anyone want's to join your ranks Comaze, they will definitely be labeled in the same way. Camridge 03:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we have any notable/verifiable sources as per Shunpiker's request? --Comaze 04:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

Thanks to DaveRight for gathering links about Perls and Dianetics and Comaze for clarifying the history of the Perls-Dianetics discussion in this article.

I agree with DaveRight that there is evidence that Perls was influenced by Dianetics. At least one of the links ("Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy") is Perls-friendly and says the same.

But influence is relative, and can't be read as uncritical support, nor can it be taken out of the context of other influences. Freud, Jung and modern dance are also listed among Perls' influences.

We're left still without proof that Perls can accurately be described as a "Dianetics proponent", or that he at any time operated a Dianetics clinic.

I don't want to get drawn into a debate of the merits or demerits or Dianetics, or of Perls for that matter. But yes, to my sensibility (we all have our biases) accusing Perls of promoting Dianetics and running a Dianetics clinic is serious. It would affect my opinion of him. Because of that, I want to verify whether or not those allegations are true.

I appreciate the efforts of editors on either side of the NLP debate to verify those claims.

Thanks, Shunpiker 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Shunpiker. I think framing some parts of the article may be in order. Certainly, gestalt therapy itself is not maintream at all. Freud and Jung include so much pseudoscience it is sometimes difficult to work out what has support and what doesn't, but the fact remains, NLP has used as many dubious sources as possible to form its rather conveniently saleable sets of notions. Modern dance just shows how fringe Perls was back in the 60s. From what I read about him, he seems to have spent the majority of his time at Esalen institute cavorting around naked, and smoking pot. I think anyone who has read a biography about Perls would come to the conclusion that he was surrounded by crackpots the whole time, and he himself did so many odd things in his life that made him somehow charismatic. The NLP lot could use any part of his life to claim all kinds of renegade magic. That is primarily what NLP is about: Inflated claims, but no delivery (according to scientific testing). They built NLP on a set of myths, and supported it with more popular myths as time went by, simply to create salespitch. Camridge 04:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few dispute tags to mark statments questioned by Shunpiker until we can verify the claims from reputable sources. The tags were removed :( --Comaze 07:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you seem to be very ready with those dubious tags. I noticed your use of tags to advocate the removal of multiple cited sources and even the removal of alleged sockpuppets. I will remove them on principle. According to your definition of dubious, NLP itself should have a dubious tag. Camridge 05:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you (Camridge) removed the dubious tags. We have not resolved the matter yet. Also, what do you mean by "even the removal of alleged sockpuppets"? --Comaze 07:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Comaze, I understand the points you are trying to make, and have clarified the article using the term - new age, and rituals. This makes the article far more consistent and in line with the facts that NLP is sci unsupported, pseudoscientific, connected with the occult, connected with other ritualistic therapies, and helps to explain the placebo aspects of NLP according to science. I will make the adjustments throughout to help clarify this point. This will also help triangulate facts better with Perls-Dianetics pseudoscience associations. Bookmain 06:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Bookmain, Shunpiker's asked a direct questions. Do we have any evidence that Perls was a proponent of Dianetics, or if he ran a clinic. A direct quote from Perls with page numbers from a reputable publisher would be proof positive. --Comaze 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze. You really are working to your promotional agenda in the most transparent way. The solution does not require the pasting of "dubious" on everything you do not like the look of. I can easily rephrase the line in order to solve the problem. Of course you do not want that. You simply wish to mark the fact as dubious, or remove it from the article altogether. Your agenda is blatantly obvious. I will ADD further facts to clarify due to your unreasonable insistence. Camridge 08:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Camridge. I still find it very difficult to agree with the recent diffs. Although, I find it alot easier when something is attributed to a source even when I am still not convinced that we have agreement on the accuracy, credibility (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) or even objectivity. I am not convinced we have taken into account the range of authoritative sources on the subject (eg. Perls himself, or authoritative books on Gestalt). Also assertions of fact should be objectively connected to authoritative sources. --Comaze 09:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, there are libraries in the world full of the information you claim to seek (but refuse to accept). Again you prove yourself to be here primarily as a censor of criticism. Your track record in that area is clear. Camridge 09:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Camridge, I'll accept it as long as it is on-topic, accurate, objective, authoritative and verifiable. And scholarly :) I'll check back in a few days. --Comaze 10:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oi Comaze. If you are looking for on topic, accurate, objective, authoritative etc, then why the hell do you keep deleting the new age label? It is all of those things, and most of all, it is a scholarly label. I think maybe you are just pretending to be neutral:) Or could I possibly be wrong? DaveRight 03:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight/Camridge - I think your recent edits are biased. Would you like to get a neutral third opinion to settle this? I will need your agreement that whatever the neutral third party says will be binding on all parties. --Comaze 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Comaze and DaveRight, and others. I haven't had a chance to be here or catch up yet. I notice NLP is described in the first sentence as a set of "New Age Rituals". The term new age is very broad and in the broadest sense NLP might be seen to fall under the umbrella (along with many other things), certainly as a method for anyone wishing to explore (model) something spiritual - though NLP is not spiritual in and of itself and can be applied to many other fields. Also, NLP has certainly modeled rituals, and behaviours which include rituals. However the description "New Age rituals" is vague and misleading. Could you (Dave or anyone else supporting this claim) tell me in what manner NLP is New Age, and what makes you say NLP is a set of rituals, rather than NLP has modeled some rituals? Thanks GregA 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I know of at least one credible source that mentions Perls as an advocate of Dianetics: 'A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientlogy, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed' by Jon Atack. According to Atack, "Fritz Perls, founder of Gestalt therapy, defended Hubbard's early work (though insisting that it needed scientific validation), and briefly received Dianetic counselling." (Ch. 2, [8]) flavius 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone retrieve the following, it's a prmary source:

PERLS, F. "Introduction." In Winter, J.A. A doctor’s report on dianetics: Theory and therapy.New York: Julian Press,1951. flavius 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Flavius, In "A Piece of Blue Sky", the only citation to Perls or Gestalt therapy in the bibliography is "PERLS, Fritz et al., Gestalt Therapy, Pelican, London, 1973." To my knowledge Perls does not defend Dianetics in Perls (1973). I also searched "Gestalt Therapy: History, Theory, and Practice"[9] and did not find any matches for dianetics. Can someone retrieve a quote from Perl's introduction (1951). --Comaze 04:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, look at the first page of chapter 2 of "A Piece of Blue Sky". Also, when Winter wrote "A Doctor's Report..." he was at that stage supportive of Dianetics and Perls' introduction I read described as supportive. User:Flavius 05:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze. Perl's fascination, promotion, and practice of dianetics is documented in both of these books. Author Clarkson, Petruska, 1947-

Title Fritz Perls / Petruska Clarkson, Jennifer Mackewn. Publisher London : Sage, 1993- and - Naranjo, Claudio. Gestalt therapy : the attitude & practice of an atheoretical experientialism / Claudio Naranjo. Publisher Carmarthen : Crown House Pub., 2000.Camridge 05:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks,

Thanks to Camridge (that was you, right?) for editing out the most egregious of the unsubstantiated statements about Perls -- that he operated a Dianetics clinic in the late 60s.

As was already mentioned in this discussion, the Clarkson and Mackewn book cannot be a source for any connection between Perls and Dianetics -- since it doesn't even contain the word "Dianetics". Again, both Google and Amazon offer the ability to search the complete text:

I am removing the footnote. If you can find any reason to reinstate it besides the fact that it once was part of this article, please speak up.

I am moving the other links so that they do not give the false impression of substantiating the proposition that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics.

The link to "Hubbard's Ladder" is the source for the following sentence about Hubbard's methodology providing "raw material" for Perls. It belongs with that sentence.

The link to "Co-counselling as Therapy" says that Perls was "influenced by the ideas and practice of Dianetics". This doesn't establish that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics, but it does indicate that it had his "attention". I'll move the link there.

The link in German probably doesn't belong unless someone is going to quote the relevant passage, translate it, and explain its relevance. As far as I can tell, it says that Perls was audited at some point by Hubbard. Since that assertion doesn't appear in the article, it should probably be removed. For now, I'll group it under "attention" with the previous link.

As for the other material which has been cited in "talk":

Flavius quotes, "A Piece of Blue Sky" where the author says that Perls "defended Hubbard's early work (though insisting that it needed scientific validation), and briefly received Dianetics counseling". This indicates that Perls had interest in Dianetics' beginnings. It doesn't establish a lasting influence, an interest in Dianetics as it evolved or that he practiced Dianetics. It doesn't show that he promoted Dianetics.

However -- it's the most clear citation to come to light yet that shows Perls taking a positive (although not uncritical) and public action in regards to Hubbard's work. Thanks, Flavius. How about instead of paraphrasing this or other unspecified sources, simply citing it directly?

The web-available excerpt from "A Doctor's Report...", on the other hand, is more critical than supportive of Dianetics. Consider Winter's conclusion: "I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics." Or the part quoted by Fischer where Perls accuses Hubbard of mixing "science and fiction" and of "unsubstatiated claims". If parts of that book which do not appear on the web imply something else, by all means cite them with the same precision with which Flavius quoted "A Piece of Blue Sky". The part that we have is, after all, taken from an anti-Scientology site.

I would love to see a citation from Naranjo's book illustrating Perls' relationship to Dianetics.

Thanks for your continuing efforts. Shunpiker 09:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, here are some revealing insights about gestalt therapy (rather than theory) and dianetics

One of Hubbard's closest associates in 1950, Dr. J. A. Winter, acted as a bridge between Scientology and the Gestalt cult (Winter 1951, 1962; Perls et al. 1951). Many psychological exercises in both Gestalt Therapy and Scientology train the patient's attention and awareness in abnormal ways. Both use techniques projecting the patient's consciousness into inanimate objects. Both use Freud's technique of getting patients to recall past traumatic experiences, but both demand extreme emotional involvement and made the patient imagine that the experience is happening now in present time. Through Dr. J. A. Winter and other channels, Scientology and Gestalt borrowed from each other. Esalen institute came into play quite a lot with Perl's association with prior pseudosciences. Notice its just up the hill from B and G's uni. This was a big meeting point for Satir, Erickson, BnG and others. Richard Feinman was appalled at the lack of scientific thought in these thinkers when he went to visit. This is more or less the hub of the modern new age.

Considering Perls adhered to dianetics in theory and practice, and gestalt therapy itself has dianetics as a major influence, I see no reason to state Perls as an advocate and promoter within the article, with or without citations. Regards HeadleyDown 10:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I think this gives an interesting perspective (food for thought).

It shows the connections between Perl's concepts and dianetics, EST (landmark forum) and other such pseudoscientific organizations/events.  I think it puts it in to some perspective.  Regards HeadleyDown 10:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, It's been almost a week since I posted the original request for verifiable citations demonstrating that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics. That evidence has not been provided.

Headley, I can see that you believe that Dianetics was a "major" influence on Gestalt Therapy, and that Perls practiced and promoted Dianetics. The problem is that neither you nor anyone else has been able to back up those statements with sources.

There are sources that says Dianetics was an influence on Gestalt Therapy, but they list many other influences and do not give Dianetics pre-eminence. To the contrary, the word "Dianetics "doesn't even appear in at least one book on Perls' life and work (Clarkson and Mackewn), nor do the editors of the entries on Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy mention it.

There is one source that says that Perls "defended Hubbard's early work (though insisting that it needed scientific validation)". That is as close as anyone has come to sourcing the assertion that Perls "promoted" Dianetics. If you think it's relevant, you could use that quote. But it's not equivalent to say that he promoted Dianetics, or was a "proponent".

No one has been able to come up with any source for the assertion that Perls practiced Dianetics. Someone -- I think it was Camridge, thanks -- at least edited down the statement from its original form, where it said that Perls operated a Dianetics clinic in the late 60s.

I'm going to give this another day. After that, and in the absence of any emerging evidence, I'm going to feel free to remove the statements that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics.

Yours, Shunpiker 19:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi all. I added criticism of energy as promoted in some NLP texts. Physics does not recognize energy as moving or existing in the positive/negative states that are commonly stated in NLP texts. This is a common new age myth and can be further clarified in the article. It may also be related to other pseudosciences such as energy therapies, EMDR, and other such pseudos. I also noticed there is another common misconception in NLP that considers energy as something that exists out of the body in a kind of aura-chi-directable entity. As far as it has been measured, no energy exists past the skin of the body. I think this also needs a mention somewhere. Camridge 08:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Epistemology and NLP

I have expanded the subsection 'Atheoretical Pretence'. In view of Grinder's grandiose amateur philosophising and the NLP mantra about theory that extends right back to the early literature I have brought some results from epistemology and philosophy of science to bear on the matter. Bandler and Grinder have been using Fictionlism (a type of Instrumentalism, which is in turn a type of Antirealism) as an evasive tactic since NLPs inception. B&G make explicit appeals to Fictionalism in their liberal quotations from Vaihinger and in there numerous paraphrasings of Fictionalist doctrine. Hence, the philosophical critiques of Fictionalism (and Instrumentalism) are entirely relevant. For those of you with some understanding of epistemology or an interest in the subject this will hopefully be informative. flavius 14:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, Your recent contributions need to take into account other point of views: Neutrality. You also seem to make assertions of fact, rather than attributing the assertion to a source (objectivity). --Comaze 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, I disagree. My recent addition does take into account other points of view: Vaihinger is cited. Vaihinger is not only cited by B&G but his name is most often associated with Fictionalism. Vaihinger is considered canonical on the matter of Fictionalism since he's one of the founders of the doctrine. The citations I have provided (eg. Bunge) do present the Fictionalist case. I have looked through all of the early NLP literature and some of the more recent literature and can find no answer to the damning rebuttals that Fictionalism has received. Further, Fictionalism has been consigned to garbage bin of bad ideas. Fictionalism survives only amongst a relatively small group of Economists that subscribe to Milton Friedman's Fictionalist conception of economic research methodology. Within economics Friedman's essay "The Methodology of Positive Economics" has received a savaging. What would comprise a "neutral" presentation of dead epistemological theory that hasn't recovered from the criticisms it has received? Also, I don't make assertions, all of my premises are well-sourced and my conclusion is a re-iteration of what is established -- in substance -- in the 'Pseudocience' section of the artcle. B&G ignored or misunderstood the basic tenets of Fictionalism. Fictionalist's have a strong commitment to empirical testing and/or explanatory power. Friedman -- for example -- proposes the criterion of value of any theory that is obtained from 'As If'ing to be predictive power, i.e. can the theory predict the behavior of one or more variables in relation to another. This is a demanding test of a theoretical formulation. Some Fictionalists justify a theory on the basis of explanatory power or problem resolution capacity where problem resolution is determined using empirical testing in the form of the scientific method. B&G assume all of the speculative freedoms of Fictionalism without also accpeting the responisbilities. B&G generally do not attempt to formulate predictive models, when they do formulate predictive models (eg. eye accessing cues) they do not subject them to rigorous empirical testing, and they are not concerned with explanation. B&G ostensibly claim 'utility' as the sole arbiter of theoretical value yet they are averse to testing their prescriptions to determine whether they are actually meeting their self-imposed criterion. B&G are properly not even Fictionalists since their theorising remains dissociated from reality, the criterion of utility that they initially appeal to is never honoured in that utility ("that it works") is not established using the best means known of hypothesis testing, namely the scientific method. I have actually been kind to B&G, a much stronger -- and neutral -- conclusion is possible. If you contend that I am being biased and unobjective in this instance then you will need to demonstrate that I have misprepresented Fictionalism and B&Gs appeal to it. flavius 00:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, I commenced my involvement with this article with the presumption of good faith by all parties concerned. You are quick to admonish editors for personally oriented behavior yet your behavior reeks of bad faith, your behaviour is intemperate and it can only be addressed at the personal level. You appear to be engaged in what I can only describe as the Wikipedia version of vexatious litigation. You reflexively cry "POV", "biased", "not objective" even after we have arrived at a consensus view that there would be a separate criticisms section. This is out of order and redirects editorial labour away from improving artcile quality to placating your petulant demeanour. I have more than adequately conveyed the NLP position regarding epistemological theory both in the 'Foundational Assumptions' section and in the 'Atheoretical Pretence' subsection. I've quoted directly in most cases. The NLP position on this matter can't be expanded any further because their is nothing further to add. B&G and Dilts take it for granted that Fictionalism serves as a sound basis for method. Grinder -- in Whispering -- does the same thing yet in a covert manner. Grinder and Bostic-St Clair actually smuggle Fictionalism in to their epistemological ruminations, making no explicit mention of it yet relying on it. Grinder and Bostic-St Clair's folly does not end there: in Whispering they demonstrate an ignorance of inferential statistics and its relationship to the scientific method and collapse statistical methods (inferential and descriptive) into descriptive statistics and proceeed to pretend to demonstrate the irrelevance of statistical hypothesis testing by way of challenging the relevance of the descritive statistical concept of the mean (which is actually only one type of measure of central tendency rather than definitive of it, which suggests an ignorance even of elementary descriptive statistics). Given the poverty of such arguments you can't cry foul when no one in the NLP community has bolstered them and they can be refuted simply by juxtaposing factual evidence or fundamental results from established disciplines. Is there a sound and cogent argument for NLPs rejection of probabilistic hypothesis testing that I have overlooked? Is there a sound and cogent argument for Fictionalism (actually bastardised Fictionalism) that answers the criticisms that have discredited Fictionalism within established disciplines from the NLP granfalloon that I have overlooked? No, there are no such arguments, so what then shall I present that will render my recent additions NPOV and objective. Your predicament is that you have imbibed a doctrine that is entirely without foundation, internally inconsistent and speculative -- which is entirely consistent with post-modernist thought and actually considered a virtue amongst post-modernists -- yet you somehow expect the presentation of (non-existant) emprirical evidence and philosophical justification that will somehow balance a doctrine that is essentially antagonistic to empirical testing and justification. Your position is untenable. You are in an epistemological limbo. The only way out that I can see for you -- that will preserve your commitment to NLP and allow you to remain ecelectic and speculative -- is to adopt a strong antirealist position not unlike Robert Anton Wilson, a person familiar to Bandler and many NLPers. All NLP roads eventually lead to antirealism/constructivism/mysticism: Bandler and Robert Anton Wilson, Grinder and Castaneda, Tad James and Huna, Kenrick Cleveland and Santeria,Ross Jeffries and Magick etc. This is not coincidental. flavius 01:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Flavius, You present a very strong argument, I need some time to check my sources, review and respond point by point. Firstly, can you comment on Grinder's argument that NLP modeling uses discrete mathematics, "discrete analysis of individual systems" and that this type of mathematics excludes the use of probability. I think that this may be the argument that you have overlooked. --Comaze 03:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I havevn't overlooked that, I didn't mention it because it is a plain matter that discrete systems are analysed probabilistically in several fields. Can you give me a reference where Grinder presents that argument so that I can respond to it directly? If Grinder were correct then the branch of electronics engineering/computer systems engineering of computer system performance analysis would not exist. Computer systems are exemplars of discrete systems and yes discrete and finite math is used to analyse, model, verify and describe some of their behaviour but continuous and probabilistic methods are used to analyse, model, verify and describe other aspects of their behavior. Virtual memory system performance and CPU cache performance -- for example -- is determined using probabilistic methods. The probability distribution called the Poisson Distribution lets us answer such questions as 'What is the likelihood that web server X will receive 100 concurrent requests at time T?'. Probabilistic methods are used to determine the probability of contention within a computer system for a resource. Expected time to failure of components and systems is derived from probabilitic methods. Queuing Theory is used analyse computer network performance, this method is probabilistic and continuous. Queuing Theory is also used to predict computer system performance. I can give more examples if you want/need them. NLP modeling doesn't use discrete maths, it merely expresses banalities as formalisms (predicate logic, automata theory, syntax diagrams, set theory) borrowed from discrete maths to present the aura of depth and sophistication. flavius 06:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Flavius, I just skimmed Whispering in the Wind and found a few relevant paragraphs relevant to Grinder argument against using statistical probability for certain classes of contexts and possible usefulness in other contexts (eg. for predicting eye movement patterns in groups eg. marketing), see p.78,80,96. I'll look up the rest later tonight. --Comaze 23:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, with respect, I don't think anyone here has overlooked that point. The linguistic and clinical hypnosis view both state that the use of mathematical proof is completely inappropriate for explaining NLP. It does' however emphasize the pseudoscientific basis of VAKOG within NLP. That can be emphasized in the article with brief explanation. So, mathematical proofs can be mentioned within the pseudoscience section, and as further criticism for the pseudoscientific nature of NLP. In fact, this may even allow for further connection with other pseudoscientific subjects such as energy therapy. Camridge 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say VAKOG are you referring to the 4-tuple presented Structure of Magic (1975)? --Comaze 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No Comaze, I am talking more specifically about the inappropriatness of presenting NLP as a mathematically supported subject such as physics. The whole background of NLP is scientifically unsupported, and it has also has proven ineffectiveness (NLP has been falsified quite thoroughly through empirical testing). Hypnotists and others have criticised NLP for trying to look more convincing by talking about 4tuples and other such pseudoscientific sidetracks. Hubbard used to do the same kind of thing with his Dianetics subject. Anything that looks or sounds scientific is easy game for such pretenders. But it does nothing for wikipedia articles and requires clear thinking and good criticism to clarify the fog that it creates. Camridge 06:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

PS. I might add that this kind of mathematical "proof" does also put NLP on a par with astrology and numerology, plus other elements of magic such as in Rosicrucian pseudoscience that also makes use of geometrical and mathematical associations of early astronomy. Camridge 05:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing Comaze's whitewash

Comaze. You have been working against NPOV with a breathtaking impertinence:o

  • Parapragmatics were mentioned by Singer 1999 in her book Crazy Therapies, and they do exist in the literature.
  • NLP does use rituals according to many sources and technically speaking in psychology terms, they are rituals.
  • NLP has spoken about the magical results of supposted magicians from the very beginning.
  • The NLP phobia treatment is called a cure in the majority of cases and critics also use that term. Your censorship there is pure whitewash.
  • Your own POV is that there is disagreement about energy. Why do you want to keep writing this in the article? You are as bad as FT2 and his inconsistency fallacy nonsense.
  • If skeptical debunkers is not POV I don't know what is.
  • YOU removed a whole paragraph of direct quotes from NLP literature about energy because YOU DON"T LIKE IT. It is completely representitive.
  • You removed the Sala information about scientists also.
  • You are seriously in breach of NPOV guidelines and the only thing to do is to revert your comments and reinforce the information with further corroborating evidence. This does not suit your agenda to promote NLP at all, but you have left me with no option whatsoever. I cannot believe you can still be allowed to edit here. Your main purpose is to lobby for the removal of fact, and when that does not work you just snip it off anyway. I suggest you start editing somewhere else. I am so utterly furious with your beastly behaviour I am starting to look like a sunburned and boiled lobster. I am developing a large high bloodpressure vein across my forehead - its big and pulsating and its getting bigger. I will revert all your antiNPOV edits. DaveRight 04:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
As a wikipedian I do not care about NLP. I just want it represented accurately. My aim is to keep strictly in line with Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards so we can eventually have this page peer reviewed by fellow wikipedians. --Comaze 04:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Now Comaze, you are not being completely honest there are you! I mean, there is something about those months of umpteen criticism deletes a day and even your recent whitewash, that may give the impression you don't really give a toss about wikipeida policy. Or am I just imagining NLP article history and your stated commitment to promoting an exclusively Bandler Grinder viewpoint throughout the article? That commitment is still in evidence today. DaveRight 04:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I might be an expert in the subject, having trained in all major schools of NLP, but that does not exclude me from thinking critically and stepping into the role of a wikipedian where I can be neutral. If you feel it is going to get personal, then you may contact me via my talk page or email. --Comaze 06:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I must remind you that your so called qualifications will only establish your purpose to that of antiNPOV. The evidence is clear from the majority of your edits that you are unwilling to balance and only want to remove clarifying facts. Here is a solution: Admit that NLP is postmodern antiscience and stop trying to narrow the views to that of the most obscurantist. Camridge 06:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Chill out!

Fellas, ladies, and children of all ages, please calm down! I don't want to lock this page, but if I'm given no choice, I will, without hesistation. I emplore you all to be CIVIL, and refrain from using personal attacks (that means all of you...). In all honesty, some editors are acting childish, and if need be, an RfC can and will be filed, so please just relax and stay cool. Might a wikibreak help anyone? I promise to keep close watch over this thing. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 04:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Myusekurity. No worries, the only person asking for a locked page is Comaze and thats because nobody allows him to cut facts any more. I noticed that people are being a lot more civil since the page is divided more clearly, and any silliness seems to be more humour than anything else. People have made efforts to cut the size of the page, and when people such as Comaze stop pushing to delete important facts, then they can be reduced (the full quotes will be less necessary, and extra supporting evidence will be unnecessary also). Anyway, the page seems to be in better order with better explanations, and certainly my goal is to get the article to below 50kb fairly soon. Cheers Camridge 04:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think an RfC could be helpful in soliciting the input of people with more diverse interests -- not least of all, those who are disinterested in this topic. Until there is a quorum of editors contributing to the article who are not identified with the either the pro- or anti-NLP positions, I wouldn't expect improvement in the quality of the article or the civility of the discussion around it. Thanks, Shunpiker 05:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Shunpiker, have you ever gone to a bookstore in search of a non-fiction book on topic X, deliberately looking for book that states on the back-cover blurb "John Smith has no expertise in X or special interest he just wrote this book to pass some idle hours he had last summer."? If you found such a book and you wanted to know about X why would you read it? Who would publish such a book? In all of the encyclopedias I have (general and specialist) each of the constituent articles on a topic is authored by one or more topic experts. Why would anyone want to read an article written by a dilettante? An encyplopedia that is comprised of the superficial knowledge of dilettanti is useless for reference purposes. Your editorial philosophy is harmful to the credibility of Wikipedia. The damning reviews of Wikipedia in 'The Register' were at least partly made with reference to the thoughtless egalitarianism that you are advocating. Anyone that is disinterested in a topic shouldn't be writing about it or even reviewing articles about that topic. The only people that should alter the content of the article (as opposed to the form) should be either "pro" or "anti" -- they should have a position. Having an opinion is not indicative of knowledge but knowledge leads to the assuming of an opinion. Having an opinion per se is not a vice and not everyone can make a worthwhile (content) contribution to any article. flavius 09:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Flavius, I don't believe I am advocating "thoughtless egalitarianism". I'm just sick of seeing this article controlled by extremists. As long as the article is written by people who want to promote or impugn NLP more than they want to write an encyclopedia, the article will only serve the interests of whichever POV choir predominates in the editorial tug-of-war.
The principle of Wikipedia:No Original Research, at least as I understand it, implies that you don't have to be a content expert to contribute to an article -- just a competent researcher and writer. I quote: "experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia". That editorial philosophy is controversial, but it is deliberate and longstanding. If "The Register" or anyone else finds it harmful, they are free to either try to influence it, or to find other projects with other philosophies. Yours, Shunpiker 19:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A good test for a neutral editor would be that someone would not be able idenitify from your writing if you are writing for or against a topic. So really, every edit should contain views from all sides. I also want to implement Wikipedia:Footnotes in this article so that other editors can easily check facts. --Comaze 05:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Shunpiker. Regarding solutions, I believe all editors here will be seen as either pro or anti in a very short time after joining. NLP is a very muddy subject that can be clarified using scientific thought/evidence, and good clear writing. There will always be the problem of NLPers wanting to promote, because the NLP cult is set up that way: The effort is towards propaganda and whitewash rather than balance or acceptance, and NLP is confusingly claiming to be science, art, technology, psychology and anything else that sells. The pressure from proNLPers towards deletion rather than balance is still in evidence and I don't think that will go away ever. The simplest solution would be for the cult of NLP to accept that it is anti-science and anti-realistic post modernism, and then the criticisms would be properly framed. However, the denial is clear, and the proNLPers pressure to make NLP sound like respectable and widely accepted psychology remains. Comaze is still playing the same game as ever, and just trying to wind people up on their own userpages, making baseless objections to mediators/arbs whilst deleting as much as he can here in the process. Efforts to keep a sense of humour are a must. I don't see any problem with getting outside help, though I think things are actually improving as they are on the whole. I would say simple encouragement towards balance and concise writing will be more appropriate. All the solutions so far have been from editors labeled antiNLP - compromise, organization, provision of facts and extra corroborating facts. I am sure you will get plenty of cooperation from the so-called anti-NLPers as always. Cheers Camridge 06:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh change the record Headley you ----------- Krishsingh1066 14:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my KrishSing1066, this just isn't done. Your comments are a direct provocation and clearly designed to get the article locked. Clearly a fanatical way of doing things and I doubt if it will work to any successful extent. I'll do the honours and boot your petty offence off this discussion page. DaveRight 03:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
No worries, Dave. Its pretty unclear who the attack was addressed to. Camridge 03:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This definitely needs to go to RfC. I know nothing of NLP, but I do know there seems to be a great deal of animosity between users. I feel, whatever your beliefs, labling something a "pseudo-science" is not NPOV, and I will remove that. What would be acceptable, is to state that some consider it to be a pseduo-science, and list quotes and such that support that, as well as others that refute the pseudo-science claim, thus making it NPOV. I honestly think this needs to go to RfC, and if this warring/incivility continues, I will not hesitate to protect the page and block users. Those here are doubly reminded that Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are grounds for immediate blocking, and forbidden from voting and discussion. Any sock or meatpuppet caught will be blocked on sight. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 05:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mysekurity, I cannot see any instance of NLP being labeled by editors as pseudoscience. All statements to this effect are attributed to scientists and other authors. There seems to have been a great deal of effort directed to this activity. Although there is also a lot of pressure from proNLPers to remove such thoroughly cited facts. I don't see how RfC can help in this matter. What did you have in mind? Camridge 06:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Mysekurity, your commentary is perplexing. Firstly, at this stage the animosity is between Comaze and everyone else, your characterization of the conflict as general and widespread is inaccurate. This recent conflict between KrishSing1066 and HeadleyDown looks contrived. I'm going out on a limb here but I suspect that HeadleyDown and KrishSingh1066 are one and the same person -- the stylistic similarities of prose are too many to be coincidental. Secondly, what you "feel" about the term pseudo-science is entirely irrelevant. Your sujective disposition towards a term is no more relevant or authoritative than anyone elses. The article contains no naked assertions that NLP is a pseudoscience, NLPs pseudoscientific status is communicated with reference to numerous authorities. Also there are no refutations of the arguments and evidence of the experts that NLP is a pseudoscience -- none exists. Unless you are advocating the inclusion of mere assertion to the effect that NLP is not a pseudoscience then you will have to accept the coverage of this matter as balanced and complete. Furthermore, how would you justify the inclusion of mere assertion? flavius 08:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello again Flavius. How can you say no refutation exists? Some books comment that NLP is more an art than a science which is a refutation (not of pseudoscience, but of science). Some trainers comment that NLP is an epistemology (rather than science) which is a refutation. The methodology of NLP (particularly modeling) clearly does not include the scientific method, but it is a systematic study... so the definition of science comes in here too. There has been much discussion on what NLP is and is not - the key thing here is that there are some scientists who"
  1. perceive NLP to be claiming to be a science, but
  2. they say it's not following the principles of science - hence a pseudoscience.
The related problem is that although some NLPers make extravagent claims, the field as a whole is inconsistent due to no central control. There are pro-science NLPers who don't make extravagent claims, but they are expected to defend against claims other NLPers make. If the above sounds confusing I think it's largely because it is a bit of a muddle... expressing it clearly is a challenge worth doing in the article GregA 23:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi GregA. An assertion that NLP is not a pseudoscience does not constitute a refutation. Similarly, the assertion that "NLP is more an art than a science" is not a refutation of anything, it is an assertion, a declaration or decree. The statement that "NLP is an epistemology (rather than a science)" is meaningless and even if it were meaningful it would amount to no more than another assertion. There is no refutation of the criticisms levelled against NLP. I re-read Ch. 3 of Whispering and Grinder's attempt to answer criticisms regarding method and verification are insincere and still-born. Either Grinder doesn't understand the criticisms or chooses not to. A refutation of Grinder's position on method and verification would require a lengthy essay to cover because it is replete with so many fallacies, assertions, suppressed premises, hidden metaphysical baggage, misunderstandings and sophistry. There are no genuine pro-science NLPers -- that is an entirely mythical beast. Grinder, Dilts and Hall have scientific pretensions and they ignore or misunderstand fundamental issues of method that define scientific inquiry. The "muddle" that you describe is the thoroughly post-modern flavor of NLP. NLP has nothing to do with science, inquiry, verification, consistency, evidence and reality and it never will. Post-modernists don't refute arguments or present evidence to the contrary. Instead they declare that reality, truth, and objectivity are fictions and that all "discourses" are equal, that subjectivity is all we have and need. This is the very ethos of NLP, it runs through all of the early NLP texts and even in Whispering. There is no NLP refutation of critique because the very legitimacy of the activity of critique is disputed. NLPers don't think there is any case to answer. Fictionalism stripped of the need for empirical test -- or in Grinder's case redefined such that subjectivity is made equivalent to empirical test -- is the epistemological basis of NLP. This is the license for untrammeled speculation, overvaluation of subjective experience, disregard of intellectual heritage and cult-like insularity. flavius 04:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Certainly the conflict is all Comaze, Flavius. He's been groundlessly badgering me on my own page for some time. I agree with the term pseudoscience or pseudoscientific being perfectly neutral. If some people do not like it then perhaps they should read more modern anthropology. Its also used very neutrally there also. I doubt if Krish is Headley though. The name KrishSingh popped up on the complaints section of the last arbitration. The proNLPers were claiming that there was some kind of conspiracy coming from a skeptics newsgroup and KrishSing1066 was the main character bringing it up on that newsgroup. I suspect that a proNLPer has just taken the name for themselves to mess the editors around. I can't see why a skeptic would be offensive to Headley. Headley is a skeptic by and large. And Headley has never asked for an article lock. In fact it looks like an attack from a prior editor here called Lee. But that's just me going out on a limb also:) It is all quite irelevant to the fact that the article has been improving and clarifying issues for the past week or so. ATB Bookmain 10:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Bookmain. Check this: Slabs of this document were/are to be found in the current article and were contributed by HeadleyDown. Either one is copying from the other or its the same person. The writing style of HeadleyDown in the discussion section is the same as that of Krish Singh in the above essay. My money is on they being the same person. I'm not suggesting that the person that made the remark against HeadleyDown is the real Krish Singh. I'm suggesting that because they are the same person it is unlikely that Headley/Krish would insult himself. flavius 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Flavius. Actually I think Headley and Comaze have very similar writing styles, but I don't think they are the same person:) Cheers DaveRight 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Welcome, the real Krish. Impersonation is a serious offense so I think that Krishsing1066 wikiaccount should be deleted fairly soon. I reckon it was Lee. He is always using that particular attack. How come Headley gets all the really juicy insults? Actually one of the reasons I stick around is because the subject is interesting in social psychology terms, but the cult side seems to be in very real evidence on the discussion pages. Flavius mentioned vexatious litigation (indicating Comaze) and in fact this is exactly what the other cults do. Scientology uses exactly the same kind of strategies in order to warn people off, and get their own way. In fact, Comaze's strategies seem to go a bit deeper, perhaps more into the realms of sociopathic tendency. To be fair, a lot of the other NLP promoters did also. And there are some things about NLP that add some special tweaks to it. For example, the claim that questions have not been answered; this is a common NLP unwritten strategy that comes as a consequence of the unfounded belief in the metamodel. Its supposed to be an attention directer, but it just sets up excuses. Throughout, the proNLPers have asked (actually demanded or else delete) questions and extra source material to back up criticisms. The whole discussion archives are full of the stuff. I cannot remember any time when a neutral editor demanded the same from a proNLPer. But the result is always the same- the claim that the question has not been asked, or the claim that extra sources are not enough. Denial of evidence from NLP literature is another strategy. The mediator asked whether certain things exist in the NLP literature - proNLPers obviously will provide no evidence to show that the books are full of new age concepts, occult practices, and empirically falsified rituals. The books are full of diagrams with goggle eyes, but not one proNLPer provided evidence of recent use of PRS (it is in every book). But they do deny it exists, and they do demand many multiple citations from neutral editors in order to have it on the article. I digress, Comaze (after his reversionfest a month or two ago and his written committment to promote a Bandler Grinder view, and his insistence that the article be full of primary sources only(he claimed Bandler and Grinder only were primary)). Deep breath -- Comaze decides to get formal and begs the mediators to turn up, and has a go on his own version of an article (total promotion). Of course mediators are moderate, so Comaze (and FT2 and the other cult members) hates their decisions. The next thing is to become officious (or at least sound like it). His strategy is to get all scientology and post sockpuppet labels on any non promotional editor's page, and to keep on accusing them of making attacks at him. All the time he makes demanding questions of other editors and these are answered. Comaze denies that questions have been answered and goes on pushing for deletion of facts and so on. He keeps pushing for lines of framing that are completely unreasonable to any other neutral editor. The accusations of attack continue, and he does his best to make it look like neutral editors are all rotten. However, the only actual personal attacks come from proNLPers towards Headley. I think you are probably starting to see a certain pattern here. Anyway, I find it really interesting, though it probably doesn't do much for the article itself. One thing I find about wikipedia itself is that when you set out to be neutral, you can still look like you are posting propaganda. The deeper you go into NLP the more nasties you find. So it is inevitable that you are going to look anti-NLP next to the NLP zealots. But its the zealots that end up showing that they are acting in bad faith, recruiting vandals from newsgroups, acting officously but doing it to simply slur or to provoke attack in order to claim the higher ground, making straight personal attacks, denying commonly accepted facts(dishonesty) and so on. The solution here may be to accept that proNLPers will do this and to simply ignore them most of the time. They take up far too much time to answer their questions (that will be denied anyway) so just keep going with the article instead. They do seem to have dwindled in number due to this (and perhaps because some of them seem to be beginning to understand that you can't successfully promote NLP on wikipedia). Cheers DaveRight 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Flavius. Actually I am Krish ( not HeadleyDown. The material on my site was given to me by another skeptic and I thought it so good I posted it up. Judging by the advances here I have some changes to make:) Someone else is impersonating me, and it looks like someone anti-HeadleyDown. I've been watching this article for a while though I don't have an account. I think its fairly clear that NLP proponents are trying their damnedest to remove criticism. How do you remain so tolerant? I'd be breaking monitors by now! Sincerely 01:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Krish. My apologies to you and HeadleyDown. I am not familiar with the political terrain of Wikipedia. My conjecture was based largely on the commonality of text posted on your website and that posted here by HeadleyDown. On the face of it it looked suspicious. I am somewhat befuddled by the many designations of users as impersonators/sockpuppets of HeadleyDown. flavius 03:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it Flavius. It is confusing, but everyone here is really tolerant, except Comaze who will accuse people of attacking him when in fact they are simply pointing out his uncooperative activities. He has changed from posting sockpuppet labels to posting completely unhelpful accusations on people's pages in order to slow things down or gain sympathy from misguided mediators. Pretty sad really. Camridge 04:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, Anyone can create a tripod site so it is not reliable evidence. We know for sure that whoever posted the message from the fake "krishsingh1066" was trying to distract this discussion. Let's ignore the personal attacks, trolling techniques, etc. and focus on improving the notes and citations on the artcle. --Comaze 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, point taken. Bookmain is designated a suspected puppet of HeadleyDown. Is the designation made on the basis of mere allegation or has a link been established on the basis of source IP address? flavius 03:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius. Yes Comaze posted the label on my page and I am waiting for him to remove it. I think he has posted at least 9 such labels on other nonpromoter's pages. He has always accused without foundation and he continues to do it as you probably have noticed on your own page. He wants you to look like the miscreant, when all you have done is provide clear explanations - lots of work, and all he does is waste people's time. The best thing to do is ignore him. He tries to act all official but in fact he has committed months of flagrant antiNPOV activities. Most of his focus is on nuisance now though. Just try to shrug it off. Bookmain 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A request has been made to the arbitration committee to check IP address of that username. Other evidence will be presented before the committee meets to workshop this matter. See [10] --Comaze 04:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question Comaze. You placed the sockpuppet labels as if you are some kind of official. They were placed there purely on the basis of your own desire to see critics banned from wikipedia or to gain some kind of control. Camridge 04:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


While researching for my reply to flavius, I added a whole bunch of citations to the page. While I was doing this I noticed that there is a lack of citations from NLP in the criticism section. It seems that there is a general lack of connection of the criticism to specific aspect of NLP. The "Atheoretic" section in criticism is an excellent counter-example to this. This is the sort of quality I'd like to see throughout the entire document. Wherever possible I have used the earliest references to each fact. Please feel free to check them and provide earlier or more reputable/verifiable/authoratative references when you can find them. --Comaze 11:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Jolly good show Comaze. Its nice to see you have suddenly stopped deleting facts after all. I wonder how long you can keep this up! DaveRight 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I gather that if we improve the references, citations and notes (verifiability) then we can get neutral wikipedian editors to check the facts and weigh in on consensus. Let's all work together to find the highest quality sources available. --Comaze 04:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, if that means you doing your thing of trying to chuck out references on the basis that they do not promote NLP or that they contain evidence that places NLP as a fringe new age pseudopsychological fad, then I think you are on the wrong path. Clearly you seem to think there is something very wrong with the references that have been provided at your own insistance. Currently, the article needs to clarify NLP far more for what it is, and to do it more briefly. I don't see any unverifiable references in the article as it stands. Camridge 06:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I made no such suggestion. Let's keep it balanced. The arbitration committee must be meeting soon, I'm sure their recommendations will assist the article. --Comaze 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze! You have made many many many many many such suggestions. Just take a look through the archives. You generally delete or object to the words "fringe, new age, pseudo, ritual etc" on sight even though they are used as classifications within psychology manuals, especially in reference to NLP and other such unvalidated pseudosciences. DaveRight 02:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
DaveRight, If you feel this is getting personal plesae send me a private message or use my talk page. Just a reminder, you were the one who added "quasi-spiritual new age rituals" to the first sentence of NLP; I reverted it. Hopefully we can sort this out through RfC or current arbitration committee. --Comaze 02:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen Comaze, there is no way you are going to get away without someone pointing out your uncooperative behaviour. You have demanded so much, but you continue to deny the facts. These are not personal attacks. Truly the only personal attacks are the ones made by the promoters you work with towards nonpromotional editors, and I will repeat what the mediator VoiceOfAll has stated about you; "YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS TEDIOUS AND UNPRODUCTIVE". Camridge 03:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, RELEVANCY CHALLENGE: How is what you just said getting us to our agreed objectives as wikipedians? --Comaze 03:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, look, judging by your history, I believe you are never going to cooperate. So whenever you ask tedious or uncooperative questions I will simply point out what you are doing for the sake of other editors who may be under the false impression that you are trying to do something constructive. Other people are carefully pointing out what you are trying to do, and that is a constructive thing to do, because it will lead to a better understanding of your nuisance. These pointers are not attacks, but they show exactly where the hazards are on this discussion article in order to facilitate constant forward movement. ----- I noticed you have just posted something irelevant on the article about someone in the 70s saying NLP is worthy. That is completely out of date and irrelevant to the opening, so I will remove it. Camridge 04:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS TEDIOUS AND UNPRODUCTIVE". Camridge, how did you know I made that statement? While I did say that, that is like three or four archives ago, your name was not even around then.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi VoiceOFAll. I've been lurking for ages, even before HeadleyDown turned up. I started writing a report on NLP for my Master degree, and got swept up with the discussion. Why? Do you want to post a meatpuppet label on my personal page together with Comaze's many unreasonable objections? Camridge 04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is just odd...among other paralles, such as writing style/opinions. If this is an alternate account, then I simply encourage you to stick to the main account; I only use sockpuppet labels for trolls or vandals.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


There has been great speculation as to whether or not two or three users are alike or the same. While writing styles are very similar, I do not believe we are dealing with sockpuppets, but only meatpuppets (See their respective pages). What we mostly have here are users pushing their POV and getting friends involved, so nothing illegal, just not very nice. I honestly think this could use an RfC, as this page just seems to be serving as a smack-talking battlegroun. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 02:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mysekurity, there is evidence of this on some NLP newsgroups. For example, NLP-mind (egroups) and Mindlist (egroups) both have had friends working together and have tried to recruit more from their own groups - Greg Alexander (GregA) and Andy Bradbury an NLP author (who also vandalized Headley's page) have clearly been working together. Notice also the only people to vote together are all NLP fanatics (certified and currently practicing with clear vested financial interests in promotion) and they all voted in order to treat the non promotional editors as a single entity or to have them banned. The amount of blanket deletions these proNLPers have made is scary. This was always the danger of having a criticisms section - someone is going to come along and delete the whole thing. But thankfully it is quite easy to resore. Cheers DaveRight 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur. The NLPpromoters are all self admittedly registered or trained NLPers. They all have an agenda to delete facts about NLP. Not just criticisms, but facts about NLP's occult/new aga/pop psychology/pseudoscience characteristics. Considering they are all part of the same small circle of pseudoscientists, I would say they most definitely fit the bill for meatpuppetry. Furthermore, they all ganged up to vote for mediation (though they were completely unco-operative during mediation) and they all ganged up for arbitration (in order to remove non-promoters). If wikipedia is to be consistent in this matter, they should be very wary in the face of such persistent pressure for restriction and censorship from such cults. Bookmain 05:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight, do you agree that if we got an RfC that you'd agree to adhere to the decision? Let's resolve these content disputes without making it personal. --Comaze 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, the only reason you want to bring in people from the outside is because they havn't been fortunate enough to witness the farce of your months of antagonistic activities, slurs, unreasonable demands, blanket deletes after mediation, and so on. Presently, the article is coming along fine. Your only role here seems to be to retard editing activities and generally anoy editors who are good enough to explain things carefully to you, though your only response is to ignore or deny. Your smokescreens and subterfuges to direct attention away from your unreasonable behaviour are simply not working. You want RfC to treat you as a new entity, you want to lock the page to slow things down, you post many objections on other editors pages simply to be objectionable. You don't fool anyone. [...] You will be ignored. DaveRight 03:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I definitely see nothing that constitutes any sort of trolling here...not yet at least. Perhaps both sides are rallying/have a few copy accounts, but it is hard to see this as a possible issue on only one side. As Mysekurity said, we must avoid personal attack, this is true even if you think you are right.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes perhaps trolling is inappropriate. But Comaze is certainly living upto his agenda to unreasonably accuse, deny and retard progress. Camridge 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

New Age Rituals, Quasi-Spiritual

Hello all. NLP uses rituals rather than techniques. Evidence:

Ritual A stylised sequence of activity designed to anchor and elicit a particular state or series of states in the participants, with reference to the leader's beliefs and values. Eg the use of coloured pens, mind mapping and slow music to elicit optimal learning states is a ritual expression of the pattern of learning in all three main representational systems.

here is an excerpt from NLP the new technology of achievement about Robert Dilts

Robert draws them out. He helps them divide their disappointments from their dreams and rekindle what first brought them together. He then assists them in literally separating themselves from old co-dependent patterns and gaining a new sense of wholeness in and for themselves. Finally, he invites them to participate in a healing ritual in which they bring the fullness and you stay there for a long time, perhaps for hours. And that you have your own little rituals (environmental and internal anchors) that can put you back into that state at the snap of a finger. Many 204

There was a good deal of literature posted in the archives on the new age nature of NLP. I cannot be bothered to dig it up just to have Comaze deny it, but it basically said that all the NLP principles are related to the new age concepts, and NLP is marketed under the new age label. NLP IS NEW AGE!

NLP is a quasi-spiritual method as explained by a body of medical practitioners :

It is completely NPOV acceptable to call NLP new age, ritualistic, and quasi-spiritual. In addition to this, it is totally correct to call it pseudo-scientific with or without citations. The only reason to have citations is to stop overzealous deleters from deleting it. Camridge 04:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Camridge's take on NLPs proper classification. NLP isn't a science and it isn't based on science. NLP isn't an art in that it neither produces aesthetic works (eg. sculpture) nor is it a skill based on a mixture of knowledge (assumptions and falsities don't comprise knowledge) and experience (eg. cookery). It isn't a craft (eg. carpentry) because it doesn't involve manual dexterity. It can't be conceived of as a skill because it doesn't work (the evidence tells us this). If someone claimed that he could fly by flapping his arms we wouldn't deem that person as posessing the skill to fly. It can't be classified as a technology because by definition technology is applied science, it is the application of science to the resolution of practical problems. Since NLP is not based on science it can't be a technology. Is it an epistemology? This question implies an unconventional understanding of the word epistemology. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the scope, limits, nature and basis of human knowledge. Saying "an epistemology" implies that there are a multitude of epistemologies. There are a multitude of epistemological theories (eg. Realism, Constructivism, Instrumentalism, Idealism, Representationalism) but there is only one epistemology, i.e. the branch of philosophy. So NLP can't be "an epistemology" in the same sense that something can't be "an archeology" (when we say "an archeology of Egypt" we are not referring to some special species of Egyptian archeology we are referring to archeological knowledge pertaining to Egypt). Is there an epistemological theory embedded within NLP? Yes, certainly (see my earlier discussion on this) but this is unremarkable. There is an epistemological theory embedded even in everyday experience (eg. the inductive logic we employ when we say "lemons are sour"). Saying "NLP is an epistemology" is a linguistic trick that enables NLPers to smuggle in specific epistemological theory whilst maintaining the pretence that they "don't do theory" and simultaneously avoiding the need for justification of the details of those specific epistemological theories. Within specific sciences and branches of technology the word "model" has a well-defined meaning even though usage of the term may vary between various disciplines (eg. a structural engineers notion of a model is different from a physicists). Outside of these technical contexts the term model is ambiguous. What exctly does it mean to say that "NLP is a model"? NLP is not predictive. NLP is not concerned with explanation. NLP is not a simulation. NLP does not engage in hypothesis testing (such that it yields limited gerneralisations en route to producing laws). All of the standard understandings of "model" have been exhausted. Hence NLP can't be described as a model. By a process of elimination the only domain of human experience that we have left is religiosity. Tye (1994) argues that NLP produces a "psycho shaman effect" (p.4) which is described as a combination of "cognitive dissonance, placebo effect, and therapist charisma" (p.5). Thus the NLP practitioner/therapist is like a shaman. The aspects of religiosity within NLP extend further than this. It is essentially faith based, tenets are validated in the same way as many religions, namely, with reference solely to subjective experience. NLP promotes the notion of unlimited personal possibility and potential: all that separates me from Albert Einstein (a figure often mentioned but usually misunderstood in NLP literature and seminars) is that we have different "strategies" i.e. sequences of sensory based represnetations. NLP also promotes the idea that all behavior is learnt (this notion is incidentally inconsistent with Chomskyan linguistics). Taken together these two premises form a conception of "human nature" -- this too is a facet of religiosity. The ethical system of the quasi-religion is supplied by the notion of ecology. The techniques of NLP -- having being demonstrated to have no real effect -- comprise ritual and ceremony. Deification is distributed between the "all powerfull unconscious" (the source of all power) and the upper echelons of the training industry pyramid (who as shamans know the secrets of the unconscious). The demons of NLP are suggestions, linguistic ambiguities and embedded commands that threaten to enter our unconscious mind and manifest some harmful reality (see [11]). NLP supplies the incantations and rituals necessary to repel or exorcise these demons. NLP defines sinful behavior: Meta-Model violations or failure to honour the presuppositions attracts censure. The most dramatic ritual is of course the Fast Phobia Cure, this is NLPs equivalent of Christian charismatic healing or perhaps an exorcism. flavius 17:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've overlooked a major assumption in NLP that is based on Transformational grammar: Language is rule-governed (Syntactic Structures Chomsky 1957), Grinder & Bandler (1975) extend this to assert "all human behavior is rule-governed"(p.1 1975a) (Grinder & Bandler 1975a pp.1-37,108; Grinder & Bostic-St Clair 2002 p.71; Dilts & Deloizer 2000 p.1470). According to Grinder (2002) Historically the deep structure / surface structure theory is still significant in the development of NLP (see also [12]) --Comaze 22:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No I haven't overlooked that assumption -- I make no mention of it because it's irrelevant. How does asserting that "all behavior is rule-governed" alter the fact that NLP is theoretically deficient, lacking in empirical support and ineffective (save placebo and nonspecific factors)? Scientology assumes that human behavior is influenced by adhesive "body thetans" that Xenu brought to Earth in a space craft. Does this assumption render it any less quasi-religious? Quite the contrary, a blanket assertion such as "all human behavior is rule-governed" is characteristic of pseudoscientific, religious, and quasi-religious discourse. Specifically regarding Chomsky's TG, NLP is discordant even on this matter. NLP is predicated on the idea that all behavior is learnt, a product of acquired representational codings. This idea is antithetical to Chomskyan linguistics which is innatist [13]. Furthermore, Chomsky has long since abandoned the TG he proposed in Syntactic Structures. TG is actually two intellectual epochs removed from his current theorising: TG was abandoned in favor of Universal Grammar (UG), UG was abandoned for his so-called "Minimalist Program" [14]. flavius 02:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Mathison & Tossey (2003) note that the "there seems to be a relationship between NLP and Vygotsky's learning theory[15]. I think Mathison was the first PhD in Neuro-linguistic programming. To say that "all behaviour is learnt" is misleading and out of context -- some behaviours are governed by genetics. If it is useful in the learning process, an NLP modeler could adopt a belief that "all behaviour is learnt". Flavius you misquoted B&G, it should read "all human behavior is rule-governed"(p.1 1975a). Basically, a complex human behaviour can be grossly reduced to a set of simple rules (hence the 4-tuple, 6-tuple, finite state automata, and the recent work with Discrete Dynamical Systems). More recently, Grinder & Malloy have modeled the NLP/Bateson epistemology in Boolean systems (Kauffman) and use E42 to test and refine it. Prof. Tom Malloy (with Grinder & Bostic) (Psych., University of Utah) has adopted this as part of an overarching framework [16]. --Comaze 23:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, Mathison and Tosey's brief paper are minor, speculative, non-empirical, and simply an overdefensive reply to someone elses criticisms (criticisms born out of NLP's ineffectiveness). Just another burdensome can of worms for you to open for the article. Your bias has been noted. JPLogan 03:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
JPLogan, From memory Mathison and Tosey won an award for best conference paper with that paper. --Comaze 02:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Yoohoo Comaze. Conference competitions are neither here nor there. I read Tosey and they didn't even vaguely tackle the problem that only a minority of learners are pragmatic learners. It is a paper that tries to position NLP theoretically. It opposes many many other papers that put the theory somewhere other than Bateson epist. Most of the articles on our article put NLP as theoretical junk - pseudoscience in theory, principle and so on. Craft (2001) also is in opposition to Tosey. Your Tosey paper is fringe. DaveRight 03:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
We can probably include Craft(2001) in the article. I think that Tosey is significant given the number of citations and he is "Director of research project `Neuro-linguistic Programming: Theory and Applications for Teachers and Learners' at University of Surrey." [17] Do you have a reference for your criticism of this paper? --Comaze 03:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze. I have both Craft (2001) and Tosey & Mathison (2003). None of the authors -- Craft included -- are significant. Craft (2001) raises some signficant issues -- as JPLogan and DaveRight have already remarked -- which go unanswered by Tosey & Mathison (2003). Tosey & Mathison (2003) devote most of their article to selling NLP. In the process of so-doing they demonstrate the post-modern basis of NLP. Tosey & Mathison (2003) propose -- in thoroughly post-modern fashion that internal choherence is not necessary for a theory and then proceed to characterize Craft (2001) as a "modernist" as if were a term of abuse: "However, does a theory need to be internally consistent in order to be valid? This seems a modernist more than a post-modern view." (p.376) This is amusing because it appeals to the dominance of post-modernism in many North American university humanities and social science departments. We are -- afterall -- all supposed to be post-modernists now. Tosey & Mathison agree with Craft (2001) that NLP is Social Constructivist in broad theoretical identity. In case the consequences of this aren't obvious to you Tosey & Mathison (2003) positions NLP as antirealist -- Social Constructivism is a species of antirealism. Tosey & Mathison grope in the dark trying to specify the type of antirealism that NLP is based upon, they use the same quote that from Frogs that I used in 'Atheoretical Pretences'. They allude to a form of instrumentalism in vague terms and don't manage to establish the link between the informal description of fictionalism delivered in the seminar that Frogs transcribes and B&Gs explicit references to Vaihinger in Magic I. The irony of this is that they chastise Craft for not referencing the primary works. Craft's critique could have been stronger even as a purely theoretically oriented essay. Tosey & Mathison's response is largely vacuous as is most post-modernist discourse. The inclusion of Tosey & Mathison (2003) in the article will have the unintended (for you) consequence of substantiating the characterisation of NLP is post-modern, anti-realist, social constructivist tripe. An irony which escaped Tosey and Mathison is that on the one hand they lament the lack of interest from academe in researching NLP yet they make no attempt to answer the mass of expert criticism levelled against NLP nor even do they acknowledge a need on the part of the NLP community to answer these criticisms. The matter of empirical validation remains off the NLP agena. Surrealy, Tosey & Mathison opine, "Academe appears relatively untouched by NLP. There has been a modicum of research interest from experimental psychology, consisting mainly of studies that examined NLP’s ‘eye movement’ model (e.g. Baddeley and Predebon, 1991; Buckner et al., 1987; Dorn et al., 1983; Farmer et al., 1985;Poffel and Cross, 1985; Wertheimet al., 1986). These studies, many of which are summarized by Bolstad (1997), found no basis for acceptance of the model. It seems unlikely that a handful of unfavourable experimental studies accounts for this lack of academic interest." Correct, it isn't "a handful of unfavourable experimental studies" that have produced this disinterest from the academy. It's the piles of expert criticism and empirical results in journals and books that demonstrate NLPs ineffectivenss and theoretical unsoundness and the absence of any demonstration of the effectiveness of NLP or theoretical superiority by NLP promoters that has produced this disinterest. Besides being ill-informed about the research on NLP, Tosey & Mathison attempt to shift the burden of proof for NLP upon the academy. However, when the academy does engage in research into NLP, unfavourable findings and conclusions are ignored or dismissed by NLP proponents (they cite Bolstad's selective summary of NLP research at as providing a summary of pertinent research on the matter, need I comment). Tosey & Mathison (2003) is more NLP junk research, include it at your own peril. flavius 10:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The assumption that all behavior is learned is stated explicitly in Dilts et al (1980) which I have cited. Consider, "This information [sensory information] is then transformed through innternal processing strategies that each individual has learned...Both macrobehavior and microbehavior are, of course, programmed through our neurological systems" (p4. italics added). Also, "Individuals change their behavior through the establishment of personal reference experiences and cognitive maps" [18]. This position precludes any biological and genetic influences on behaviour. Further, the notion that some behaviors have genetic origins is anthithetical to the personal empowerment ethos that NLP is infused with. NLP presumes that all human behavior is learned and that it is rule governed -- the two are not mutually exclusive.flavius 03:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, I've indulged you by taking another look at Malloy's website (since you mentioned it again). My aesthetic response to the site is that it's ugly, gauche and camp. My intellectual response is to ask what is the question that Malloy is attempting to answer? What is the question a set of Java applets and Flash Animations, quotations and tiled pictures (including time/date stamp presumably from Malloy's digital camera) answers, and who asked the question? Isn't this just gauche post-modern art masquerading as intellectual discourse? flavius 12:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Flavius, I appreciate your questions and checking that site. As far as I am aware Malloy is a well-repected Professor at University of Utah, Psychology Department. What is important on that site is that Prof. T Malloy outlines his overarching framework for the study of perception and human knowledge at the University of Utah. Recently published papers are linked with catations, and a demonstration of E42 Java tools. Malloy and his colleagues are using E42 to test and refine Batesonian epistemololgy. Recently published papers (2003-2005) cite Whispering in the Wind (NLP) as part of the overarching framework, together with Bateson (Cybernetic epistemology) and Kaufmann (Boolean Systems). Can we include a short paraphrase of Malloy's POV in the article? --Comaze 02:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't seen anything of relevance or even value on Malloy's site. My questions are genuine. What is the relevance of the sparse content on Malloy's site? More broadly, what is its significance and meaning? I am unable to locate a thesis and an argument. It reminds me of the pseudoscientific post-modernist writings of Jacques Lacan and Luce Irigaray. Malloy isn't much published in any reputable journals. I don't think a "well-respected" person -- of any vocation -- would associate with Bandit or Grifter ;-) flavius

New Issues

This page has evolved quite a bit. What things would people still like to see fixed?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

VoiceOfAll. Your edits to the section "Atheorethical Pretence" amounted to the removal of the explanation of why NLP is a speculative concern and the retention only of the conclusion. Clearly, you did not understand the material you removed or its significance as a criciism. Your edits didn't improve the subsection -- they degraded it so I reinstated my original copy retaining only your elimination of the adjectice "vicious". flavius 07:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
VoiceOfAll. I have edited the section which you previously butchered such that it is shorter yet it retains its content, cohesion and intelligebility. flavius 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks VoiceOfAll. I am quite happy to make clearer, more concise and more organized. Camridge 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I put that we...

  1. connect the criticism to specific aspects of NLP (eg. move the criticism of NLP Applications to a subheadline under each application).
  2. add {{fact}} to the assertions that would be enhanced with citations
  3. adopt standard notation style of that used in NLP (and linguistics) to enhance current citations / references.
  4. all agree to meet the Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards and work towards a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check or work towards feature article nomination.
  5. Replace all occurances of "NLP proponents" or promoters with a proper attribution to specific person or group.
  6. Get an RfC on engrams. I am still not convinced that this is part of NLP. I happy to put this to the side for the moment.
  7. Paraphrase Craft (2001) position and reply.
  8. Discuss the inclusion of "Neurolinguistic programming as an adjunct to other psychotherapeutic/hypnotherapeutic interventions." [19]
  9. Add citations from science and academic sources for the theory, epistemology, and NLP applications.
  10. Add a section on NLP epistemology
  11. Restore intellectual antecedants section
  12. fact and reference check
  13. restore comprimse about engram, diffs, or even better reduce engram to one or two sentences.
  14. Vote on a section called, "Neuro in Neuro-linguistic programming" to replace "Engram", get neutral editors in to weigh in on consensus
  15. Paraphrase "Putting neuro back in NLP" Bolstad 2003 and Malloy et al 2005) and other majority views on this topic
  16. Restore a neutral description of common applications and merge with criticism of applications
  17. Remove "The National Council Against Health Fraud (Loma 2001) classify NLP is a "dubious therapy"." This is actually just a summary of David Barrett's article. NCAHF does not have any official position on this matter.
  18. Add counter-examples and qualification of to Cult characteristsics (meta model violations).
  19. Restore quotes from Grinder about "uncritical important of energy" in discussion of language and thinking
  20. Restore definition of collateral energy
  21. Add differences between major schools of NLP
  22. Add universities that current are hold courses or topics in Neuro-linguistic programming
  23. Add counter-examples to argument that NLP is New Age or a has some cult characteristics. eg. Meta model is designed to get sensory based evidence which cuts out alot of the New age, marketing claims,etc.
  24. Frame exagerated claims with problem with marketing
  25. Restore applications of NLP, and merge with criticism of applications
  26. Provide a summary of popular books written about NLP and applications
  27. Rewrite the description of NLP modeling
  28. Add a section call "Personality typing" proviude a short summary of enneagrams, meta programs, MBTI, and also show that Grinder does not consider this typing to be part of NLP
  29. Rewrite the entire introduction section. The definition of NLP is current not accurate.
  30. Add framing, backtrack, outcome, etc.
  31. Merge Bagel section with eye accessing cues section, and connect it with the criticism
  32. Restore core NLP techniques rapport and swish, and other references or citations (Andreas, etc.) removed by HeadleyDown, see diffs
  33. Remove engram image -- gives engram (a minority view) too much emphasis in the article
  34. restore examples of meta and milton model.
  35. There is still 8 repeats of Dianetics and 4 repeats of Scientology --Comaze

Actually there could also be more coverage of new age/occult aspects of NLP. Those themes are present throughout NLP literature. So far all we have had is deletions and denials from promoters, despite their presence throughout literature and within the very presuppositions of NLP. It would clarify things immensely especially as NLP is moving more towards those aspects as mainstream therapy shuns it all the more. Camridge 07:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the criticism of NLP applications to the corresponding application. The next thing I'd like to do is create a section call Ethics or Ecology and move the "unethical use" to a subsection under that. PS. the change was marked as minor, but I don't know if it was minor. Please let me know if there are any objections to this. --Comaze 00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. It may be a good idea to move the distinct elements of NLP into similar distinct articles and to only provide links to the new pages in the main article, as it was done for example in the german article on this topic | Neurolinguistische_Programmierung. This way the critics regarding effectivity or scientific foundation could be associated to the corresponding elements ( e.G. a study on eye accesing cues to the corresponding article ) while shortening the main article and providing space for a more detailed explanation at the same time. Blauregen 12:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the character of the recent spate of edits. The NPOV policy in connection with psuedoscience states that, "If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." The article is losing this balance as the majority (scientific) view is being diluted with the minority view. There is no substantial division of opinion amongst linguists, neurologists, social psychologists, cognitive psychologists, clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists and philosophers. The majority view within each of these professions is that NLP is pseudoscientific, quasi-religious, cultic, ineffective, without empirical evidence, fraudulent, quackery, obscurantist, theoretically and methodologically flawed, obscurantist and akin to shamanism. This view is not being reflected in the overall balance of the article. The opening description of NLP should reflect the majority (scientific) view -- it doesn't. It should be edited to read "NLP is an agglomeration of disparate principles, techniques and speculations promoted as a means of studying subjective experience, modifying behavior and codifying and reproducing human 'excellence'. NLP is New Age and quasi-religious, incorporating a faith in unlimited human potential, a commitment to empowerment, an antirealist epistemology and a revolutionary pretence". Or words to that effect and of course appropriately cited. This would reflect the majority view. flavius 08:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

flavius, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of NPOV. Would you like to get a neutral third opinion on this matter of policy? --Comaze 12:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree Flavius. The ONLY reason minority is given more weight in this case at the moment is in order to appease the biased NLP promoters to reduce conflict. Though it feels nonsensical to a large degree it has worked, and now the only conflict is that of Comaze, and it is so insignificant and unsubstantial that it is being ignored to a large extent (though Comaze is trying hard to stir his conflict up look like a war). Science will get far more weight in time, and of course now that is the direction of movement. To reduce further conflict from the cultists/devotees it should be done in an incremental way (in my opinion). This is in order to ignore the large amount of unreasonable objections, but also to catch any reasonable questions from mediators and sensible comments from the passing helpful editors who seem to have been helping tidy up after the last war. The current movement towards clarity, science, and reason is encouraging, and I am sure we can remove/clarify the fog created by NLPers in good time. Cheers DaveRight 03:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have said science takes precedence. We do have to make that are criticism is scientific and that we not just putting in as much as we can. Good wording, compound sentences, and abridgement should. I believe that Cambridge and I have trimmed quite a bit of fat lately, so things seem to be going in the tight direction for now. I will though the article again.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, I don't think we need any arbitration on this matter. The NPOV position re pseudoscience is clear. I propose that we change the opening paragraph to read, "NLP is an agglomeration of disparate principles, techniques and speculations promoted as a means of studying subjective experience, modifying behavior and codifying and reproducing human 'excellence'. NLP is New Age and quasi-religious, incorporating a faith in unlimited human potential, a commitment to empowerment, an antirealist epistemology and a revolutionary pretence". This succinctly states the majority/science view which is supposed to take precedence. Science does after all undergird Western civilisation. No science. No Wikipedia. It would be ultimately incongruous to denigrate science -- by promoting New Age -- on a medium made possible by science. Don't you agree? flavius

Yus Flafius. Other dictionary definitions include; NLP is a vaguely defined fringe therapy that promotes 10 minute phobia cures; a quasi-spiritual change treatment that deals with past lives; a pseudoscientific self help development in the same mould as dianetics and est. Whenever definitions use 'the study of structure of....' the always say NLP CLAIMS to be. Because the pretence to being a "study" is an outrageous claim, as is the claim to being "THE" study, and of "the STRUCTURE of subjective experience". Whatever structure exists in subjective experience, NLPers have completely missed it to the point that they have never studied it. Your definition above is perfectly clarifying and it most definitely is the scientific explanation of things. The article will get there, especially when clearer explanation is presented in the article. Cheers DaveRight 02:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yay VoA. It is indeed a good thing, and there is much rejoicing in this coincidentally merry time of year. I have noticed there is a great deal more explaining to do in science terms, and judging by the summarizing power of editors here, I am sure it can all be done within reasonable file size. Cheers DaveRight 03:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, your request for RfC on engrams and other such facts is consistent with your complete lack of good faith that you have exhibited throughout the editing and discussion. You have already removed references that support such facts. To request for RfC now, on such matters is simply part of your strategy to remove fact that promotes bias towards NLP, as is clear from your agenda. Camridge 07:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NLPers trying to sanitize NLP again

I noticed a couple of bits of sanitization of NLP again. Comaze and another proNLP editor stated that NLP was not used in the same way as Dianetics and that NLP is not used in the field. There is also the convenient changing of the title from engrams (even though engrams are all over the passage) to the memory trace. Lets just take a good look at NLP and start pasting more of the commonly new age concepts back in there without trying to whitewash. It may be objectionable to NLPers who deny that their subject is flakey but it is a fact after all. Camridge 08:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In your recent edit you removed this statement which was already agreed upon, "Barrett (2003) says that NLP is not an organisation, but as a philosophy has some characteristics of a religion (p 431)". see diffs. I think needs to go back in. I'd appreciate it if you discussed controversial edits like this before committing them. Let's avoid any "edit wars". --Comaze 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement ignored. Brevity and relevance is priority. Camridge 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to ask for a neutral third opinion on this? --Comaze 06:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Nagging statement ignored. Camridge 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Anonymous Commentary

I've been involved in NLP since 1992, and have trained with both co-founders of the field. I've also interacted with a wide range of the biggest names in the field, and I found little in this entire article which bears any resemblance to what a dictionary definition of what NLP is. There is an entire encyclopedia of NLP written by Robert Dilts, who is perhaps the least controversial figure among the different sides within NLP. It's located here [20]. Whole sections of this article cover things I've never even heard discussed in connection to NLP including the cult activities, etc. As someone who's read 80% of the primary scientific research on NLP, the jury is still out, and the research is relatively thin. Only a few of the main topics have been given any experimental study, and even in the case of eye-accessing cues, which most of the research has been devoted to, some studies say it works, and some don't, and in most cases methodology is likely to be the cause of the results, not the theory. This article shouldn't be pro-Bander or pro-Grinder, or pro-NLP, or pro-the critics of NLP. It should simply be a factually accurate article which isn't organized for the purpose of bias, and this I'm afraid sadly is.

I moved your anonymous slab of text from the top of the page to the bottom where it belongs. It would be useful if you honoured Wikipedia convention by adding new subsections to the bottom and by signing your contribution using four consecutive tildes [~]. On to the content of your post. Firstly, if you had actually read the article and referred to the citations you'd see that Dilts and DeLoziers Encuclopedia is referenced extensively (especially by me). Secondly, there is no "dictionary definition" of what NLP is and if there were what would its relevance be? Are you suggesting that we know what "art" is and nothing more can be said about aesthetics because it is defined in a dictionary? Can I rebut a social constructivist by stating that there is a definition of "reality" in the dictionary? I don't follow what the connection is between your totally unpersuasive boasting (because most of the editors don't esteem Bandler, Grinder, Baffa, La Valle etc.) about being a long-standing and enmeshed member of the NLP granfalloon and what you would find in a hypotherical dictionary definition. I suspect that you are attempting to communicate that your experience of NLP is inconsistent with the content of the article. If so then you are attempting to persuade us not with evidence and argumentation but rather with your putative authority and anecdotage. How then would we reconcile your assertions with contrary assertions? Thirdly, what exactly is the signficance of what you personally have and haven't "heard discussed in connection to NLP". Are you proposing that we adopt your knowledge as the criterion for determining truth? All of the descriptions of NLP are accompanied by citations from primary NLP sources and NLP websites. Your criticism is vague and general. What aspect of NLP or expert opinion in the article is mischaracterised, misinterpreted or fabricated? Fourthly, your're not in a position to declare that "the jury is still out". Heap (1988), Sharpley (1984), Sharpley (1987), Lilienfeld (2003), Singer & Lalich (1999), Eisner (2000), Lilienfeld et al (2003), Helisch (2004), Williams (2000), Drenth (2003), Salerno (2005), Bertelsen (1987), Druckman and Swets (1988), Beyerstein (1997), Winkin’s (1990), Levelt (1995), Bordlein (2001), Sala et al (1999), Morgan (1993) suggest otherwise. By what mechanism does your opining negate these expert conclusions? Fourthly, it is not the case that "the research is relatively thin". Most of the citations refer to literature reviews that present comprehensive reviews (eg. Shaprpley, 1984, 1987; Druckman & Swets, 1988). What is "thin" is studies that have found support for NLP. Fifthly, you write that "even in the case of eye-accessing cues, which most of the research has been devoted to, some studies say it works, and some don't, and in most cases methodology is likely to be the cause of the results, not the theory". Eye accessing cues and PRS have been well investigated and found to be unsupported (Sharpley, 1984; Sharpley, 1987). It is plainly false to say "some studies say it works, and some don't". Other areas of NLP have also been investigated and also found to be unsupported by evidence (Druckman & Swets, 1988; Dixon et al, 1986; Baddeley, 1989; Elich et al, 1985; Melvin & Miller, 1988). On what basis can you claim that "in most cases methodology is likely to be the cause of the results, not the theory"? So you have a priori knowledge that NLP-predicted eye movements are true and any study which shows otherwise must be methodologically flawed because it conflicts with your a priori knowledge. The truth of eye accessing cues then is a matter of faith for you. In any event this is merely for your education. Experts that know more about cognition, linguistics, psycholinguistics, neurology, and social psychology have conducted studies and reviewed them and decided that NLP is bunkum. Sixthly, you aren't actually after a "factually accurate article". You have an a priori conception of NLP as theoretically sound and effective. For you -- as made evident by your remark regarding eye accessing cues -- that NLP is sound and true is axiomatic, it is "first principle". If an emprical test fails to substantiate an NLP hypothesis that study must -- by logical implication since the correctness of NLP is axiomatic -- be flawed. If NLP fails a meta-theoretic analysis that analysis -- by logical implication -- must be based on a misundersatnding. You have a faith based position, NLP satisfies at least a component of your religiosity, it is one of the constants that forms your Weltenschaung, like God for faith-based theists. flavius 03:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Anon. Welcome to comment. I think if you go to various NLP newsgroups, you will find Dilts to be quite controversial. He says all kinds of strange things that NLPers don't like, including adding the logical levels and spirit stuff. There is also a huge lot of pseudoscience in the encyclopedia he wrote, so he is enormously odd according to scientists. His description of neurological phenomena is largely erroneous. There are a great many views about NLP and Wikipedia is designed to include all significant views. There are things that NLP newsgroups tend not to talk about. Remember that NLP is very promotional. So they won't mention NLP cults or cults using NLP because it is generally bad press. They also will not mention the court cases and litigation from advertising standards bodies. All cults deny that they are cults, including the likes of Dianetics and other such pseudoscietific psychocults. They are pretty bad at looking in the mirror though. The research on NLP shows that it is many things; scientifically unsupported, ineffective, pseudoscientific, principally erroneous and so on according to the literature. This NLP article reports those findings. I understand you would want to advocate your own "knowledge" of NLP but really there has been a great deal of research done on this matter by a number of thorough researchers here. There are people such as yourself who deny the facts, but the facts have been verified many times and corroborated by other research and other researchers such as Platt (2002) who has appeared and given his account of the state of NLP. If you require further evidence please check out the references yourself. You will find they are indeed solidly factual. NLP is in fact pseudoscientific in principle, in theory, in practice, and in excuse. Cheers DaveRight 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi anonymous. It has been said that NLPers are generally unable to countenance scientific reviews of NLP because they are negative overall. The more recent reviews show that the supporting studies are fatally flawed, and the studies showing NLP is wrong or ineffective are rigorous, well done, and published to a higher standard. Mind myths are quite elusive things, and it is so easy to swallow pleasant concepts of empowerment, but quite hard to face reality sometimes. I understand you are probably up against some very hard facts. Thats life, and if you just keep moving forward you can lose the cumbersome baggage quite easily. There are good rigorous methods and research in clinical psychology, and some very well supported methods such as CBT. Best go and seek out the golden nuggets of fact and lose the NLP dross. You sound well intentioned to me. Best regards Camridge 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Avoid Comaze's Persistent Antagonism and Conflict Promotion: Remove his groundless objections, and stay cool

Hello all. This is not a personal attack, it is advice for reduction of conflict in order the article be further improved. I must point out that Comaze is deliberately stiring up trouble. He has stopped posting sockpuppet labels on editor's pages (though he refuses to remove them), but his strategy now is to find any excuse to accuse editors of making personal attacks on him and makes multiple complaints on multiple personal pages. Comaze has just tried to mix criticism with the above NLP section even though the criticisms were seperated from the NLP claims section in order to reduce conflict. Therefore, Comaze's agenda is to create conflict through antagonism and vexatious litigation. Solution: Remove his objections from your personal pages, ignore his persistent nagging, revert his conflict stiring actions, and just stay cool. Cheers DaveRight 02:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for a reply. I have already asked you if you want to get an RfC to resolve our content disputes. If you think it is getting too personal send me a email or private message. --Comaze 03:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Its good advice Dave. Comaze is as persistently damaging as anyone could be to any editor's state of mind. Lets all just be reasonable, chill out and get on with research/editing. Camridge 03:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This comment from Camridge, "Comaze is as persistently damaging [...] to any editor's state of mind." is the type of comment against me that I have subjected to by (HeadleyDown, AliceDeGrey, JPLogan, DaveRight, D.Right, and group) for months. I posted requests on their talk pages to stop only to be ignored. I'm surpirsed that this continues even after the request for arbitration was accepted. I feel that this group of editors are trying to "own" the article and talk page. I really want this to work so I'm still open to negotiation. Please contact me by private message if you want to discuss privately. --Comaze 00:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, considering your history and persistent troublesome antics, the effort to point out your desire to mess things up for editors is entirely justified. Ignoring your persistent "tedious and uncooperative" behavior is about the healthiest attitude an editor can adopt. Briefly pointing out your nuisance is also an option. I believe it would actually be helpful for editors on this article to have standard replies that people could simply paste to you, such as "your unreasonable objection has been ignored" and so on. This would at least save time. You have asked so many deliberately obtuse repeat questions, and made so many repeat demands against reason that you take up a considerable portion of the effort wasting parts of the archives. You certainly don't deserve such careful replies. JPLogan 02:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze! You have reverted to your surreptitious mixing of edits in order to make them harder to correct/revert so you can push your agenda, and even when our mediator VoiceOfAll told you not to do so. If you do it again, I do not care how seemingly constructive some of the edits seem, I will simply revert your surreptitious editing. It is completely reasonable for any other editor to revert your nonsense as such. Your persistent nuisance has been noted. JPLogan 03:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
JPlogan, I actually asked direct questions about RfC and asked if the editors would accept the opinion of a third party as binding. We need to resolve content disputes if we are going to get a Fact and Reference check. --Comaze 12:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Yo Comaze. Throughout mediation facts have been checked, and it turns out that they were placed in good faith and checked out according to mediators and editors and outside parties. You continue to find fault in the references because you act in bad faith constantly. (apart from what I just said) I suggest you be ignored. DaveRight 03:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Perls and Dianetics, continued

Dave Right,

Please justify your reversion ([21] to my edit to the article, re: Perls and Dianetics.

In the week since I proposed that edit, no one came forth with a verifiable source for the assertion that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics.

No one objected when I said I was going forward with the edit, and now that you have reverted it, you have left an insufficent explanation: "the Perls facts are well substantiated both here and on the discussion page". No, they have not been -- so you need to explain yourself.

I understand that you and some of the other editors believe that Dianetics and Perls' work shares any number of characteristics. That may be true. But you can't infer that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics on the basis of that similarity.

It's one thing to play fast and loose with impersonal facts, but its another thing altogether when by doing so, you may be libeling someone. Consider the controversy over John Siegenthaler if you need further evidence of how this can hurt Wikipedia.

I won't be bullied out of a simple correction of fact. Prove that Perls promoted or practiced Dianetics, and I'll be happy as -- well -- a clam. Otherwise, let someone who you might not agree with edit the page for once.

Just FYI: I don't have any stake in Perls. It's just that I never heard of him promoting or practicing Dianetics before I came to upon this article and this discussion. And to this day, I still haven't seen that case made anywhere else.

Sincerely, Shunpiker 06:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Shunpiker. I still see no libel in stating that Perls was a dianetics supporter especially with the evidence provided. You seem to want to censor on the basis that dianetics is currently out of vogue. I have seen several compelling links and and refs here and a lot of explanation power in the inclusion of Perl's background in dianetics. It needs to be explained somewhere why dianetics is often classed with NLP, and why a lot of people who have encountered dianetics are reminded of it when they hear of NLP. The Perls connection is very clarifying. Simply removing it on the basis of your spurious claim to libel is entirely against clear editing. Your action positively screams of bias and coverup. Editors here provided you with plenty of evidence in order that you would not remove the fact. You have indeed seen it mentioned elsewhere that Perls was a dianetics supporter (in the links provided on this discussion page). You also have seen that his baby - gestalt therapy - is partly derived from dianetics(also in the links). That evidence already speaks volumes about the nature and background of NLP both in theory and in promotion. Your action is very similar to other promoters of NLP on this article who deny the evidence even after it is provided, and who simply remove the whole fact regardless of substantial support for the fact. Your claim to neutrality is seriously in doubt. Camridge 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


This isn't about whether *you* see no problem in making arbitrary statements. Wikipedia isn't about what you think or what I think. Your experiences and my experience constitute original research, and Wikipedia forbids that.

Asking the authors of a controversial statement to provide verifiable sources is not censorship. It's Wikipedia's Verifiability policy.

No verifiable source has been produced to demonstrate that Perls 1) promoted or 2) practiced Dianetics. It's not enough to find sources that say that Gestalt Therapy is like Dianetics or that Fritz Perls gave L. Ron Hubbard long back massages in the sauna at Esalen. If you're going to put forward the statement that Perls promoted and practiced Dianetics, you need sources that say just that.

Don't you think it's funny that Wikipedia is the only place on the Internet where these assertions are being made? Don't you think it's funny that even on Wikipedia, they don't appear in the Perls article? Nor in the Dianetics article.

Sincerely, Shunpiker 09:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be nitpicking, but shouldn't the assumed roots of Gestalt Therapy be in the appropriate article Gestalt Therapy, instead of ths one? After all, even if we assumed your source to be valid it would be only a derived (via Perls) influence on NLP. Blauregen 09:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen guys, NLP developers make the claim to Perls, and there is a reason for that. If you want to remove the fact that he promoted dianetics, I think you are rather removing the background influences of NLP. There are far more links about Perls and NLP and dianetics/Hubbard also. Perhaps I should start putting those in to emphasize the fact! Did you even bother to check the biographies and Gestalt therapy books that state Perls promoted and practiced dianetics? Judging by your pressure towards censorship, it looks like you don't even want to. NLP is so confusing, any explanatory facts such as background can only be helpful. If you never read the fact that Perls was a dianetics fan, then I suggest you have been reading selectively to look for support for your belief in NLP. The fact is clear that Perls supported dianetics. If you want to rephrase it, go ahead. But to me it looks like you just want to remove the fact of the face of the article. Another way to go would be to look at the direct comparison between dianetics and NLP. The list is amazing: Pseudoscientific, Jargon ridden, Korzybski, command hypnotics, general semantics, reluctance to test, trauma removal, unconsciousness misconceptions and engrams, links with EST/Landmark forum, cultlike, faddy and applied to therapy, new age, occult connections, human potential movement, past lives therapy, claims to magic, and many more. Camridge 10:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries Camridge. They just want it completely deleted. Reversion is perfectly acceptable considering the sources. Sounds like you have a good grasp of the background to NLP and the new age. Some of your above explanations could be turned into a line or two for the article and all within NPOV policey regs. Cheers DaveRight 02:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really. While i appreciate your efforts to caution the public about the effectiveness of NLP and most other speech therapies, the fact that Hubbard and Perls may have exchanged ideas, or that Perls may have tested Hubbards ideas simply bears no relevance for an article on the subject of NLP. Even if Perls gestalt therapy would have been strongly influenced by dianetics, it would be something that belongs into the gestalt therapy article, not into the NLP article. Similar, the notion that Hubbard was influenced by Crowleys writings would belong into the dianetics article, not the gestalt therapy article. Further on the NLP founders claim to have 'modeled' the method of Perls communication to his clients, not the theoretical background of gestalt therapy. It is clear that at least Bandler was influenced by it though, given he ran his own gestalt therapy group, however he himself was as far as i know never associated to any practice of dianetics. Nor was Grinder. As for a direct and comprehensive comparision of NLP to dianetics: If you provided one i must have overlooked it. Could you please provide it again? Blauregen 09:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Blauregen. The effort is towards clarification rather than warning. Education is an important aspect of Wikipedia. NLP is classed together with other pseudosciences, especially that of Dianetics. When writing about the background influences of NLP, one must research thoroughly. Its no good looking through NLP books because they will claim Einstein, Alan Turing, Chomsky, Bateson and anyone else who sounds like a great authority figure. And any similarities between NLP theory and those great minds is entirely erroneous and spurious according to the critical and scientific literature. NLP was dreamt up around Esalen institute at the begining of the new new age (when new age became popular). This is the height of the human potential movement and was influenced strongly by Hubbard. It was also a time when people were making a lot of money out of cults. EST, Scientology and so on all made people very rich, and of course, plenty of other pseudo - therapies were cashing in. So BnG put together a set of very inticing candies and easy to swallow pseudoscientific notions, with a belief system and pseudoterminology structure taken straight from Hubbard. Chronologically, philosophically, anthropologically, socially, NLP and dianetics/scientology are inextricably linked. Perls is but one strong link, who followed Hubbard in practice and in principle. Perls was disagreable, deliberately strange, followed (claimed to follow) eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Zen, practiced dianetics, promoted dianetics, and used all the same pseudoscientific notions of subconscious programming that Hubbard used. I'm sure we only need a line or two to explain this. It is an accurate placing of NLP within 20th century pseudoscientific new age/human potential movement and cult following. It explains to some extent why NLP is so pseudoscientific. Camridge 10:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Camridge. The notion that someone classes NLP together with "other pseudosciences" bears no relevance to the proposed link to Hubbards 'tech'. Neither does a claim to have modeled Perls therapeutic approach make NLP a derivation of gestalt therapy. In the same way that a claim to have modeled the communication strategies of Jesus or the problem solving strategies of Einstein does not link NLP to christianity or physics. So even if your claim that Perls followed Hubbard in principle and practice were true, it would not constitute a link. If you believe that NLP bears a similarity to dianetics please either provide a reputable source that documents a direct development from dianetics to NLP or a similar source that shows similiraties between NLP and dianetics. I was unable to find either, so it would be helpful if you would support this particular notion with more than a few fuzzy associations concerning new age, name dropping and the alleged common use of a term like engram.--Blauregen 09:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Engrams - enneagrams

Akulkis. Take a look at the literature. The use of the engram is abundant within NLP, as you can see by following the references. It is intellectually completely correct to place facts that have been verified, even under mediation as is the case here. In addition, NLP is a new age development that has drawn deeply from the pseudoscience of dianetics as so much of the human potential industry has.

Enneagram is also used within NLP, but that is a different matter. Enneagram is a kind of geometrical pseudoscience similar to biorhythms and astrology. It can be mentioned, but on different sections. Your understanding of the subject is flawed, and I suggest you look further into the development of new age developments of the 60s and 70s. Camridge 07:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I will present this as evidence in the arbitration request. A simple search on google proves my point... NLP+engram (440) v. NLP+enneagram (60,000). DaveRight/HeadleyDown/Camridge/AliceDeGrey have engaged in a co-ordinated effort to revert to keep engram in the article. Essentially attempting to "own" the article and provide spurious links to Dianetics. Here is a copy of a private message that I sent to DaveRight after persistant reverts to add engrams to the article.
"I don't want to clutter up the discussion page with items that have already been discussed at length. I don't know where you get this idea of engram from, maybe you are confusiong engram with enneagram (a personality typing system)? A simple search on google proves my point... NLP+engram (440) v. NLP+enneagram (60,000) [1]. For NLP+engram, HeadleyDown's talk page is No.1 result. Don't you think that it is very interesting? If you want to take this matter to arbitration that's fine. But let's try and sort this out first. Also, when you say, "Computationalism also recognises the engram concept." What is your source for this? My sources state that the connectionists who research memory traces (ie. engrams) in mental activity choose to ignore cogitivists idea of computationalism that the mind is essentially a Turing Machine. --Comaze 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)"
After many requests, not one authorative or reputable reference has been provided that connects engram to NLP, except for Sinclair's self-published book that does not have enough citiations to warrant inclusion in the article --- Sinclair does not provide one reference for his claim, nor is Sinclair an authoritative figure in NLP, and Drenth (2003) is the same -- Drenth (2003) does not have any known citations nor does it provide any reference for the claim that engram is connected to NLP. If such evidence exists then present it. Given that there is no evidence that Bandler, Grinder, Malloy, Cameron-Bandler, Connirae Andreas, Dilts, Delozier, O'Connor have ever mentioned engram, I find it very difficult to accept that this could be anything other than original research. From memory the closest I've found is a mention of Hebb theory related to memory storage and neural networks in NLP literature. Ofcourse this would all change if someone provided some primary sources. --Comaze 08:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This truly is a great example of Comaze's bad faith. After nagging for more and more references to support the fact that engrams are a concept used in NLP, plus explanations as to the use of the concept implicitly throughout ALL the NLP books by ALL authors (VAK, KVA, circuits etc) WITH diagrams, Comaze continues to deny them. Currently we have many solid references that place engrams in NLP. Comaze has surreptitiously tried to remove them all at some point, but they are there. It is indeed extremely churlish and antagonistic to demand so many references and deny the fact after such information has been provided. Comaze, you deserved to be ignored. Bookmain 09:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Bookmain, Since we have been unable to reach agreement after such a long period -- let's leave it up to arbitration to make a decision that will be binding either way. I have contacted experts from different schools of NLP and they have confirmed that engram is not, and never has been connected to NLP. Let me remind you that nobody has yet provided ANY authoritative references to connect engram to NLP. The quick google test confirms it. The only reason it is included in the article is to provide confusions --- engram is a key concept in Dianetics, and Scientoloy. The current inclusion of engram in this article violates Wikipedia:No_original_research --Comaze 10:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, your denial borders on delusion. We have links to encyclopedias, NLP proponents, promoters, and NLP authors. Dilts, Bandler, Grinder all use the VAK circuit in the context of the subconscious and the brain. Just like Hubbard. Your objection is as unreasonable as always. Camridge 10:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? I suggest that you prepare a response to arbitration because from your response I do not think you have any grounds to include engrams or Dianetics in the article at all. Dilts, Bandler, Grinder don't even use subconscious. Their definitions of conscious/unconscious are imported from the work of Milton H. Erickson and George A. Miller's (7+/-2 chunks) see the references provided in Structure 1&2 (1975), Patterns 1&2 (1976, 1977), etc. --Comaze 10:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

PS, concerning Akulkis's rather obtuse edits, I think we can also add some information about enneagrams in the pseudoscience or dubious applications section. Bookmain 09:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The only use of enneagram was imported from Virginia Satir categories (Distractor, Computer, etc) personality types published in Structure of Magic Vol.2 (1975b). As far as I am aware this has been dropped from NLP. Do you have evidence to prove otherwise? --Comaze 10:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Comaze, there are whole books written about NLP and enneagrams. Look them up. Camridge 10:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, it seems that latest is "The Enneagram and NLP" (1994), it has two known citations on google scholar. A quick google scholar test also prove to be fruitful for the argument the engram is not part of Neuro-linguistic programming. Two pages of results of "Neuro-linguistic Programming+Enneagram" (mostly related to Neuro-linguistic Programming) and no results for "Neuro-linguistic Programming"+engram or NLP+engram. It is not looking good for your group's argument. I strongly suggest that you offer a comprimise because I will not engage in an edit war over this, and it would look better for all parties if we resolved this. --Comaze 10:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze there are loads of books on NLP enneagrams [22]. And as you already know, engrams are intrinsic to NLP as stated by Drenth, Levelt, Singleton, Baeart and many others. The only reason you deny now, is because you have another fanatic to support your erroneous thinking. Your bias has indeed been very much noted. DaveRight 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, the early NLP literature CLEARLY shows the use of the term "enneagram", and there is NONE using the term "engram". You're the one making the assertion to the contrary (that the term is engram, not enneagram), therefore the burden of proof is on you. There is no burden to prove a negative (the absence of the use of the term by credible NLP writers). Uncle Joe's NLP Web Page, sprinkled with engram and Dianetics references does not count as a credible source, as in all likelihood, it will have been created by you, or one of DRight's sockpuppets. -- Akulkis Dec 13 22:03:21 UTC 2005.
Akulkis-- Let's see if we can negotiate this. We do not want to create an edit war or revert way over this. Drenth and Sinclair do use engram to describe aspects of NLP. My argument is that these authors are not authoratitive and that primary NLP sources do not and never have used engram. NLP prefers the T.O.T.E. (Miller, Galanter & Pribram, 1960) to describe the neurological and linguistic transforms (see "Putty the Neuro back into NLP" Dr. Bolstad 2003). TOTE can be traced back to the very beginning of NLP (Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, Cameron-Bandler, Delozier 1980; Dilts & Delozier 2000 p.1434; Tosey & Mathison - Curriculum Journal, 2003). --Comaze 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This is hilarious. I know NLP gives people a kind of brain damage, but I didn't realise it was this bad. A diet of pseudoscience doesn't help the braincells at all. ---OK according to VoiceOfAll our mediator, the requirements for verifiable evidence has been fulfilled for the engram fact. Under mediation, even though many refs have been provided, including those of professors of psychology and linguistics that state the term - engrams, further evidence was provided and sealed the deal on engrams in NLP. Comaze, we already solved the edit war over this, and it generally involved telling you to stop deleting things several times a day. If there is ANY evidence showing that detractors use the term engram instead of enneagram, then post it up. But there is none. If Aaron Kulkis wants to spread his Mindlist cult diatribe on wikipedia I think we should realise he is as biased as any other NLP fanatic. And judging by his edits, he will need correcting every step of the way. I would get annoyed by having to correct such erroneous thinking, but instead I will take pity and simply revert. I actually enjoyed watching dumb and dumber, so I shouldn't really complain too much. DaveRight 01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, DaveRigth, it appears that YOU are the one in a cult--specifically, you're part of the "NLP is Dianetics & Scientology & whatever-scary-cult-I-think-of-next-all-of-them-at-the-same-time" cult. I'm an engineer, and very "hard-science" grounded. I'm very much used to testing things, because, hey, as an engineer, if your test results are wrong -- PEOPLE DIE. I have personally tested NLP, and it works. In fact, it works FAR better than I could have ever imagined ... for example, improving my marksmanship scores in annual M-16 qualifications in the army. As for your accusation that NLP is a cult--that doesn't even pass the laugh test. I was once involved with an ACTUAL cult back in my college days, "The Way International" to be specific. Fortunately, my introduction to these people was shortly before the end of the spring semester, and their house-organ/propaganda magazine had some flaky articles (like, "What to do if your parents send you to reprogrammers"), which caught my mothers' attention...and so after talking about it, I cut off all association with that organization. NLP is nothing more than a method for observing and duplicating the behavior of others. NOTHING MORE THAN THAT. NOBODY in the NLP community attempts to use coercive methods, or any form of brainwashing to seperate people learning NLP away from their friends, families, and the rest of their environment, while replacing all, or as much as possible, of their their social contacts with "fellow believers" which is how ACTUAL cults operate. Bandler, Grinder, Dilts, etc, aren't out amassing a mob of people who turn over all of their earthly wealth and posessions to "the organization" the way ACTUAL cults operate. On the other hand, through my study of the methods of mental control which the NLP community uncovered, I now FULLY UNDERSTAND exactly the methods used by "The Way", in terms of both brainwashing, and coercive methods. To call a bunch of people selling some books, and teaching APPLIED psychology a *cult* is not only nonsense, but defamation. --Aaron's bluster Pt I
Aaron/Akaulkis given that you earlier described engineering as science -- something an engineer wouldn't assert -- I don't believe you are an engineer,i.e. you don't possess any sort of qualification and/or experience that would permit you to join any of the professional engineers societies such as IEEE. Perhaps you are a technician. Did you fix things (vehicles, radio equipment, weaponry) in the US Army? If you are a "fix-it" man in the army then you are a technician. Engineers don't repair broken equipment, they design it to specification. You have an almost farcical grasp of the concepts of evidence and emprical testing so I doubt you have grounding in "hard-science". I don't think you even know what science is. Earlier you confused science with technology. Again, if you are a technician for the Army -- which I strongly suspect you are (the alternative is you are just a nutter) -- then you won't have a scientific education beyond that of a high-school graduate (at least in my part of the world). Being a techy in the army is honourable I'm not bagging you for that. I'm bagging you because you are talking out of school. flavius 06:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
That must be why I have a Bachelor of Science of Engineering, and yes, I design things in the civilian world. In fact, I'm currently working on securing a patent for a new device for cooling computer systems. Is Thermodynamics and Electrical Engineering "hard science" enough for you? Now shut about things you don't have a fucking clue about, you asshat. Akulkis
I don't think you have a degree in anything: you can't spell, you can't reason from premises to a valid conclusion, you have no grasp of the concept of evidence, you can't differentiate science from technology, your thinking lacks precision (a trait common in engineers), you exhibit no understanding of the methods of science, you are unfamiliar with the history of science, you repeatedly present anecdote as if it were substantive evidence, you over-value your subjective experience, you appear to make no distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. You bring nothing to the article or to the discussion. The totality of your postings can be summarised as (a) NLP works because drill sergeants told me they use NLP; (b) NLP works because in my personal experience it appears to have worked; (c) any study that shows NLP doesn't work is false because of (a) and (b); (d) studies that show that NLP doesn't work are the product of malevolent psychologists that have conspired as a group to discredit NLP and conceal it from an unsuspecting public. These thoughts can come only from a disturbed and disordered mind. You're a poor liar. The degree is called a "Bachelor of Science in [Chemical|Civil|Mechanical|Electrical|Electronics|..] Engineering". No one that has studied for years towards a degree would mis-state their qualification and there is no such thing as generic engineering. Electrical engineering isn't science, it's applied science any engineeer would know that. Electrical engineering syllabi do not include units on thermodynamics. Thermodynamics are irrelevant to electrical and computer engineering only mechanical and aeronautical engineering have any use for thermodynamics. Cooling systems -- even on computers -- are the province of mechanical engineers not electrical engineers. Your ignorance has betrayed you. flavius 13:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
No, thermodynamics is NOT required to design computers. But the Deans of engineering insisted that I include thermo on my plan of study -- because I basically pursued a "design your own" engineering degree,

and their opinion was that (I wasn't pursuing a EE degree, nor have I ever claimed such), that I should study Thermo, and that they would not approve my plan of study unless I could provide a valid reason for excluding it. So, as much as I hated the class, and the reasons for it, I took it. And, it seems, it might end up being the most important engineering course (out of approx 80 cr. hours of engineering courses). Now, enough of this nonsense about my education, and your IGNORANT BULLSHIT LIES about the lack of same.

Hello Flavius. It is common with NLPers to "reframe" their status. Akulkis could be a sanitory engineer (toilet attendant). Camridge 07:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Spot the ad hominem attack. You don't need 4 semesters of calculus, nor classes in descrete & continous systems and signals analysis, or finite mathematics, nor 10 credit hours of physics to be a toilet attendant. Now, Mr.Has-to-hide-behind-a-pseudonym, apologize and retract your idiotic comment. Akulkis
No, you don't need all that study to be a toilet attendant. So you're admitting that you are a toilet attendant? The phrase "ad hominem attack" is both meaningless and misplaced. Ad Hominem in the context of debate is a contraction of Ad Hominem Argumentum, ie. "argument against the man". So it doesn't make sense to say "ad hominem attack", it's redundant. More importantly, an insult does not equate to Ad Hominem. An insult is just an insult. Ad Hominem describes a broad category of logical fallacies in which the proponent of an argument is attacked rather than his/her arguments. Rather than address the substance of the argument, the person committing Ad Hominem criticises the proponent. Your posts are Ad Hominem par excellence. Rather than address the substance of the papers critical of NLP you instead impute selfish and malevolent motives to the researchers (and you do so without any evidence). You response to all arguments has been Ad Hominem: the critical editors have ulterior motives, researchers have ulterior motives, the critical editors are ignorant ad nauseum. This is a vacuous position and I can't determine how you will sustain it. flavius 14:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There you go, just making up shit again. Flavius, either grow up, or fuck off. You keep resorting to Ad Hominem against me because you can't refute my arguments that what you, and the HeadleyDown & his collection of sockpuppets are trying to insert into the page. Instead of discussing ME and my education,

how about you discuss THE SUBJECT OF THE PAGE... Either that, or you put your credentials on the table, and we can discuss those... are you up for that? For example, let's start with YOUR REAL NAME. Akulkis 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So, Dave, what is it -- are you a traditional psychologist who is THREATENED by a superior form of psychology which makes the psychoanalysis method (with it's years-on-end of counseling sessions which are always "making progress" but never actually RESOLVE any clients problem)...or what... just what stake do YOU have in attempting to discredit a field of study which is nothing more than amassing verifiable observations, and putting them into a pile with a sign on top that reads "*these* methods are useful." -- Akulkis Dec 13 22:03:21 UTC 2005.
Akulkis/Aaron, you are ill-informed about science in general and psychology in particular. Freudian psychoanalysis is dead in both psychology and psychiatry in the English-speaking world and it has been so for many years. Since the 1960s clinical psychology has been dominated by the cognitive and behavioral therapies, neither of which are concerned with patient history and are typically delivered as several 45-minute sessions including progress tracking and follow-up. Academic and research psychology also has had little connection with Freudian psychoanalysis since the 1950s. Modern psychology is "Experimental Psychology" as advanced by Hans Eysenck and Cyril Burt. Freudian psychoanalysis has a stronger association with psychiatry and its heavy influence upon psychiatry continued until the late 1970s when advances were made in neurology and pharmacology. Since that time pscyhiatry has been moving towards a bilogical model of mental illness discarding its psychoanalytic roots. Most psychiatrists today have a biological orientation in the treatment of mental illness. Your concept of psychology and psychiatry is outdated by at least 30 years. NLP -- like all of the other fringe therapies of the era such Gestalt, Primal Scream, TA -- was a response to the "shrink culture" in the North America of the 1960s and 1970s. That is the context of Bandler's tired pun "Sickman Fraud" and his assuming of a german accented English when he talks about psychology and psychiatry in his early seminars. Unfortunately Bandler is stuck somewhere in the 1970s and even in his recent seminars he still talks as if Freudian psychoanalysis is the dominant model of mind within psychology and psychiatry. Uneducated people like you then pick up on this and repeat it as you are doing. Some of NLPs hypothesis are testable and those that have been tested have been found false and useless. That is the brutal truth you are vehemently opposing using anecdote. flavius 05:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You do have an interesting background Aaron. It is clear that you didn't learn properly the first time. This is an encyclopedia. If umpteen authorities state that NLP is a cult, then it is a significant fact. That is the case. Of course dianetics people refuse to admit to being a cult, and they will swear on their mothers that they are doing applied psychology. I am a neuroscientist by education, and I like to read science, but I also have an interest in the more fringe areas. I have studied NLP, from an anthropological and neurological perspective. NLP is a pseudoscientific psychocult according to scientists. If you don't like science, that is fine. Wikipedia does. I am also starting to take pity on you. I took a good look at the mindlist egroup last week, and all you have is the support of charlatan pseudoscientists. It is not a good perspective for a wikipedian. I noticed you stated that NLP has better methods of verification than science. You also use the "provocative therapy" method of addressing people using expletives and insults liberally. Of course you are simply using cult authority/provocation control. You are allowed to do this by the mediator, and he seems to encourage it. I noticed also that dissenters are booted. That does not happen here, it is an encyclopedia. If you want to make a contribution here, I suggest to take yourself completely out of that frame of thinking. According to the literature, and with corroboration from the actual NLP literature, NLP makes hypotheses and extraordinary claims, these claims were tested and failed according to science, and NLPers did not move on. They continue to claim that NLP is far more powerful or way ahead of science. Science has moved on and NLP has been relegated since the 80s. Only the cult aspects of NLP keep it going. Pseudoscience in business studies, therapy and other such popular misconceptions allow NLP promoters to sell their psychotechnology. Dianetics operates in the same way. The most popular NLP version is TRobbins LGAT seminars and lots of chanting and cheering. I cannot change what scientists report, and I cannot change the fact that NLP is a self help development in the same mould as dianetics. It's a fact. DaveRight 04:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I find it amazing that the majority of authorities who come out against NLP are those who are threatened directly with financial loss by widespread understanding of methods which eliminated the need for YEARS of weekly, ineffective, $150/hour counseling. And now, you admit that you, too, are in a group that is threatened financially by the spread of NLP. And a lot of others whose authority would be incredibly damaged if the psych departments at most universities were exposed as charghing thousands upon thousands of dollars for "knowledge" which is mostly ineffectual, if not harmful. Loss of prestige is a very powerful motivator to disparage a competing line of study, especially if the originators of that path of study weren't even in your own profession, but instead, a couple of LINGUISTS. Thanks for admitting that my hunch about you was correct.
Akulkis\Aaron, you are becoming feverish with fanaticism and fervour. You've spent a few paragraphs emphatically asserting that NLP has nothing to do with Dianetics and Scientology yet you are now drawing on a line of argument that originated from within the CoS. This condemnation of "psychs" executed recently with drama by Tom Cruise on TV is "old hat". It is standard CoS propaganda. It is ironic that you are telling us how NLP is not related -- in any way -- to Scientology yet you are using standard anti-"psych" CoS propaganada. Also, Grinder is the linguist, Bandler studied philosophy and psychology. Also, Levelt is a pre-eminent linguist, he is huge in the field of linguistics and he wrote a devastating critique of NLP. You keep asserting that NLP is effective and superior to everything else yet you present no evidence to substantiate your claim. If NLP is as effective as you claim it is then why are you having so much difficulty (a) communicating you point clearly; and (b) persuading us that your view is the correct one? Is this also not ironic ? flavius 05:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Flavius, Eric Berne, who was IN THE PROFESSION made the same charges in 1948 in his book, The Games People Play. Just because some people are nuts doesnt' make EVERYTHING they say a lie. In fact, selected truths are used in all elaborate deceptions. The Nazi's based their propaganda on various well-known and accepted truths concerning the Treaty of Versaille, and social turmoil in Europe. All "big lies" are built on a foundation of truth, so it's not surprising that the CoS would make truthful statements about the ineffectiveness of the psych profession as a lure. The fact that you are unaware of the propensity of elaborate lies to be built upon truths reflects badly on your education and understanding of history. And might I remind you of the well-known observation that "even a stopped clock is correct twice each day." Akulkis
Aaron, that doesn't answer my concern and it's a question begging response, ie. you have assumed what you need to demonstrate in order to substantiate your assertion. You need to use your vaunted persuasion skills and superior intellect to demonstrate that (actual rather than some simulacra of your own invention) pscyhology and psychiatry are flawed theoretically and/or ineffective. You have not done this, you have taken for granted that which you need to demonstrate for your argument to be valid. You don't actually engage with anyones arguments you invent your own simulacra and engage with those with a bizarre complacency. I didn't state that everything the CoS says is a lie and that matter is irrelevant to my point. In common with the CoS you are condemning "psychs" without any evidence for their institutionalised malevolence, without any evidence for the complete ineffectivness of psychology and psychiatry (which would be easy to find if it were true because you claim is universal) and without any evidence for the effectiveness and superiority of the methods and theories you are proposing as replacements. You are offering nothing more than hollow rhetoric. Your personal experiences do not count as evidence for the effectiveness of NLP -- you don't seem to understand this. If I realise that I scored >90% on all those exams that I undertook whilst wearing my blue Blazer T-shirt have I discovered that blue Blazer T-shirts cause exam results greater than 90%. According to the "logic" you have presented regarding your testing of NLP I would have to answer "Yes!". Clearly this is junk logic, if you can't comprehend the graveness of this error then perhaps it would be best to ignore you. flavius 14:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
It explains fully now, your interest in this that you are so keen to muddy the waters by the tactic of including blatant lies about NLP on the Wikipedia page. ANYBODY can test NLP for themselves. There is ZERO equipment to buy, and the basics can be learned off the internet (which is precisely how I did it). I not only have used NLP successfully (even getting job offers for postions I was unqualified for -- not to get the job, which would get me fired, but JUST TO SEE IF, using ***ONLY*** hypnosis and anchoring, to see if I could get a job offer, even though I also made it clear that I was unqualified for the position). I've also been on the recieving end of wide range of NLP methodologies -- US Army basic training. We're talking about the most successful fighting organization on the entire planet. IF NLP doesn't work, then an NLP-drenched basic training program should be producing poorly trained, unmotivated recruits. In fact, when I completed Basic Training in 1990, having entered as a laid-back, skitterish, borderline hippie, I emerged as an extremely confident young man whose newly developed courage could overcome nearly any fear (even those which I was not desensitised to at Fort Jackson) and was practically itching for a war to start, just to have the satisfaction of being able to do what I was trained to do. That doesn't happen by accident, and I can write endlessly about the various NLP-derived methods which were used to accomplish this transformation not only on myself, but over 95% of the other men (from split-training high-school students up to college graduates such as myself). NLP is not "pseudoscience to scientists" is pseudoscience to SOME scientists.... just like global warming is pseudoscience to SOME scientists. Until you start disproving results achieved with NLP.....ALL of them, then your charge of pseudoscience is without merit.... and, hey, Dave, I am QUITE familiar with the scientific method, and how to apply it ... because not only do I do it for a living -- but, working in the auto industry, MILLIONS of lives can be affected by the evaluations I make of the tests which I conduct. So stop with your holier than thou shit, and admit that your primary prejudice here is financially motivated, and that what really has your undies in a bunch is your FEAR of reduced income and/or professional prestige, if something SO obvious had been missed for so long by those whose entier life has been studying the mind (mostly due to blindly pursuing the goofy theories of an Austrian coke-head).
Just because YOU are a neuroscientist does NOT invalidate my own personal tests and observations of the use and effectiveness of NLP methods....NOR ANYONE ELSE's. That is the truly beautiful thing about NLP -- ANYBODY can test it. The barrier to entry is almost zero (as opposed to my professional field of computer systems engineering, with all of the electrical engineering needed to be truly competant in the field). [User:Akulkis|Akulkis]] Thu Dec 15 05:12:50 UTC 2005
Akulkis, so NLP made you the a**ehole that you are today? You're a great endoresement. How do you know that your NLP legerdemain got you the job offer -- that is what you need to demonstrate. Do you install video cards and hard-disks in people's computer's? flavius 07:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Flavius, I can design all the way down to the transistor level if I need to. Your pathetic suggestion Playing Legos with PCI and AGP cards in motherboard slots is a test of competance would be laughable if not for the fact that you're actually serious.. I was was programming Unix systems when 16 MHz was considered fast, 16 MB of main memory was not only considered huge but cost $150,000, and a 750 MB in a disk drive that was smaller than a washing machine was still a novelty.....and this was a REPLACEMENT for our 1MHz, 1MB Dual-VAX 11/780 (hand-wire-wrapped backplanes). But enough about far, all we know about your education is that you consistantly display faulty logic, but ONLY when doing so is beneficial to your anti-NLP POV. 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Flavius, I"m only an asshole towards pathological liars such as your and your little cabal here. Akulkis
No, you are an asshole that runs off at the mouth/keyboard. You appear to have promoted your subjective experiences to the status of "reality" and you expect others to participate in your subjective experience as if were something they shared with you. When you are presented with report that doesn't concur with your subjective experience you accuse the reporter of lying. You are absolutely convinced that your subjective experience represents the world as it is. Even from within an NLP perspective your position is untenable. In general semantic terms you are in effect declaring that your' map is the territory. If I report that in my experience NLP techniques don't work on what grounds do you reject my subjective experience. By what means do you privilege your subjectivity over mine? Your position is nonsensical within both a realist and antirealist framework. Your position is incomprehensible whichever way you slice it. That is why I characterise your posts as nothing more than bluster and blather. You are noisy and voluble but at bottom all you are doing is giving written form to your emoting. flavius 15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
More ad hominem attack in lieu of substantive argument against my comments on the various lies which you and your cohorts have been repeatedly editing back into this page. Don't worry, Flavius, like all assholes.

I do not think that AKulkis edits were accurate. Engram and enneagram have nothing in common except for being similar words. Given that we have been unable to come to agreement on this after negotiation, and mediation; are you willing to present your case to arbitration? --Comaze 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
However, they DID call attention to the fact that Camridge, DaveRight, and the sockpuppets have all been deliberately sowing confusion and false association between NLP and actual cults through the exploitation of an unfortunate coincidence -- Akulkis Dec 13 22:03:21 UTC 2005.

whoever heard of Drinth and Sinclair?
Who references them??? NOBODY!
When you have authors who NOBODY refers to, then their writings are fringe at best, and not representative of NLP thought and theory. Akulkis Wed Dec 14 17:01:41 UTC 2005

AKulkis. There are many NLPers that use the term engram and Sinclair is only one of them, and all NLPers use the concept. Look up engram in a good neuroscience book. You will notice that NLPers use the concept throughout the literature. Drenth is a professor of psychology and organizational studies. He is an expert on the subject and he is a scientist. His view carries a great deal of weight. NLP is fringe, and science is not. Science gets the weight in wikipedia, especially over pseudoscience. DaveRight 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Many apparently being defined in DaveWrong world as "a number that can be counted using only the fingers on one hand." But as used by the vast majority of other English speakers, over hundreds of years, the word "many" means "a large, or very large number of." One, or possibly two authors who are on the extreme periphery of NLP does NOT count as "many NLPers" Akulkis

Comaze, stop with the backtracking. Your attempt to constantly vex editors by making multiple unreasobable requests is quite clearly a nuisance. Camridge 02:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Akulkis. Actually I think we could explain a little, as you were not part of the mediated discussion on engrams beforehand. Engrams are central to NLP. Realise that wikipedia uses science as a priority over pseudoscience. Engram is the most accurate term to describe what NLPers are talking about whenever they mention the "neuro" of NLP. It involves the neural paths of the senses, and of the engram traces in neurology. But that is just the explanation aspect. The fact is, this is corroborated by the use of the engram term by NLP theorists for example, Sinclair, and Hollander. There are not many self admitting theorists in NLP, but those who do talk neurology theory refer to engrams directly according to book refs, article refs, and links. Again, as science is priority and adds a great deal of clarity here, it can only be a benefit to the article. Google searches come up with the term engram and NLP, in all european languages. I suggest you use Google in a more world/encyclopedic way. I understand you are an NLP fan and proponents tend to stick to their own view within the deliberately confusing field of NLP. Wikipedia must take into account all views, but with science over pseudoscience. This is even more important with the obscurantist subject of NLP. The article is moving forward well, becoming more concise and clear, and it is possible to add further facts within reason. But those must be verified facts (adding your own conjecture over scientists confusing engram with enneagram is not a fact, it is just your point of view). Camridge 02:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Apparently, camridge believes that I am completely unable to read the archived discussions.
2 By whe way, Camridge, since when did the NLP'ers declare themselves to be part of the NEUROSCIENCE community, and announce that they were using neuroscience terminology, but with Dianetics meanings and connotations? Oh that's right...NEVER!
The only person who you're fooling is yourself. Now quite behaving like a disengenious scoundrel. Akulkis Thu Dec 15 05:12:50 UTC 2005
Hello Akulkis. Dilts makes claims to neuroscience, as do many other NLPers. I believe you have read some of the archives, but decided to ignore any factual verification. Engrams are a central aspect of neuroscience and NLP makes explicit and implicit use of the concept throughout NLP. And yes, they do it very pseudoscientifically according to the facts presented and authorities who get priority weighting (scientists). I really like the term scoundrel. Its probably not allowed on wikipedia discussion though. I don't persobally find you threatening or even vaguely offensive. I do see that you have some confusion over the nature of wikipedia and scientific verification. Take a look at the NPOV article on wikipedia. Camridge 06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
And Dilts uses the term engram WHERE, exactly? And furthermore, Dilts uses the term engram WITH DIANETICS CONNOTATIONS ****WHERE****, exactly? NEUTRAL point of view does NOT mean filling up an entry with your own prejudices, and hair-brained, illogical connections which are supported by ZERO EVIDENCE other than a couple of obscure fringe goofballs who NOBODY references other than propagandists such as yourself.
Failure to provide a reference for Dilts using the term engram is duly noted Akulkis.

Camridge, look, "engrams" comes with a LOT of negative-"guilt-by-association"-baggage. If you want to write about the term "engrams", then feel free to do so in the APPROPRIATE place...which would be an entry on Dianetics. NOBODY in the NLP community uses the term engram, so what gives YOU the right to import terminology which has not other purpose than to misinform, confuse, and propagandize the reader?

Really Akulkis, NLP is a pseudoscience and it is not my doing. They saw the success of other pseudos such as dianetics, and followed suit. Dianetics is pseudoscientific and so is NLP. Many people use the term. I realise you may be using the more US terms, but take a world view, and you will find that Europeans/Asians, and Slavonics are far more comfortable and keen to promote neuroscientific terms such as engrams in NLP than you. Of course in the US the cult of NLP will definitely be more keen to dissociate from the cult of dianetics. They are still trying to sell their notions as a kind of science of business communication. That could do with more clarification and it will end up in the article sometime. Camridge 06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
And yet, when I test it...IT WORKS. The 1990-91 war with Iraq was also a test of it -- because just prior to that is when the majority of recruits were being trained usind methods that were DELIBERATELY developed out of NLP. A raw, not-battle-tested army whipped a seasoned, battle tested army in a matter of days. And note that those battle-tested veteran enemy soldiers had survived the first (and only) chemical warfare war since WW1. Any general will tell you that good equipment only goes so far...and that inferior equipment in the hands of soldiers with superior training will win far more often than not. Akulkis

Engram is a neutral science term, and it is actually the most persistent research stream in neuroscience. NLP uses it in a pseudoscientific way though. DaveRight 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
DaveWrong, if you insist that Engram is a neutral science term, then the reason which you and Camridge INSIST on including it with the same sentance with Dianetics is for WHAT REASON, EXACTLY? HMMM?? You've already admitted that your professional credibility and/or financial situation is threatened by widespread knowledge of NLP.
NLP is fringe and relies only on anecdote and pseudoscientific pretence for promotion. Those have consistently been promoted by NLP promoters/sellers on the article. Wikispam is not allowed. A Wikipeidan should take a scientific stance over psuedoscience according to NPOV policy. Science is independent and neutral, and is under no threat by NLP. The effort here is towards clarity, and NLP has been consistently classed with dianetics as a dubious pseudoscientific therapy/method. That is a clarifying fact and helps the article. It is a perfectly neutral fact. Camridge 07:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Camridge, the fact is, when used by people who both study NLP techniques AND make an effort to actually get results WILL GET THE DESIRED RESULTS. I can sabotage any number of tests in an effort to "disprove" and slander a field of study which threatens my own. But that wouldn't prove a damn thing now, would it. Any psych researcher who fails to get demonstrated results using NLP is DELIBERATELY FAILING....because the only way the NLP techniques even get incorporated into the "bag of tricks" is by first VERIFYING THAT THE WORK IN THE FIRS PLACE. This is completley OPPOSITE of the mainstream psych community, in which grad students are encouraged to buy into one school of thought or another about how the mind works, and then spend the rest of their careers trying to prove that THEIR school of thought on psych is the one true version.... (and of course, do selective omissions of data, both supporting other ideas, and

that which doesn't support their own, so as to maintain their quasi-religious belief in Rolfism, Jungism, or whatever other sort of psychobabble-ism they bought into before they were really exposed to ANY data or evidence on which to make such a decision). -- More of Aaron's bluster.

"Any psych researcher who fails to get demonstrated results using NLP is DELIBERATELY FAILING....because the only way the NLP techniques even get incorporated into the "bag of tricks" is by first VERIFYING THAT THE WORK IN THE FIRS PLACE." This statement is foaming at the mouth and should be put down. You failed to consider that the psychologist's (scientific) notion of an emprical test (well-sampled, single-blind, placebo controlled, statistical testing) is fundamentally different from the NLPers (psuedoscientific) notion of emprirical test (sample size=1, no placebo control, no statistical analysis of results). You have no idea about modern psychology, absolutely none. Do you have any evidence that university psychology departments encourage students to "buy into one school of though or another about how the mind works"? There are no such grand theories in modern experimental psychology. This is more fantasy. flavius 06:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me if the truth offends you. Anything which contradicts the opinions of a "true believer" such as yourself is going to sound like "foaming at the mouth." As for psychologists ... most of them couldn't conduct a proper scientific experiment if their lives depended on it. Their papers are far below the standards of experimentalists -- for example, discussions of possible sources of error, and exactly how those sources of error would effect the results (from minor effect to extremely misleading) are rarely part of the experimental writeups in the field of psychology. And to rig a test against NLP, all it requires is that those subjects the NLP methods me improperly trained...and VOILA!, you can publish your paper saying "NLP doesn't work." The mainstream psych commmunity has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Anybody with a clue can see that, because developments of methods

from some LINGUISTS immediately invokes the "Not Invented Here" syndrome, plus the widespread embarassment that results when people outside of the field are producing more significant results than those who have been in it for a lifetime. A friend of mine, Dan Judd, was studying for his PhD in CS at Michigan State University, and in a class on Genetic Algorithms, solved several problems which both the professor, and the text books authors claimed were difficult, and so-far unsolved problems. For solving these problems...was he held in high regard?? HELL NO. He wasn't in the artificial intelligence (AI) community, and for solving one of their problems, which they had failed to solve, they treated him with disdain -- HOW DARE YOU upstage us in our own field of endeavor?!?!!?" Something VERY similar is at work with regards to NLP and the mainstream psych professions.

By the way, Camridge, what exactly is YOUR interest in polluting this page with nonsensical, and guilt-by-association links to Dianetics and other rediculous nonsense WHICH YOU KNOW DAMN WELL has nothing to do with NLP (all of your pathetic, and childish eeping and hand-waving nonsense aside)? What axe are you trying to grind here? And don't you DARE reply that you're just interested in the truth, because your prior edits and arguments here have already demonstrated that academic honesty and truth have NOTHING to do with your behavior, and are merely a (pathetically transparent) rationalization for your various slanders. If NLP comes to be widely understood by the general public....what is it that YOU will lose? Akulkis Thu Dec 15 10:39:45 UTC 2005

Ok. Here's a comprimise, diffs. I've renamed the section from "Engrams" to "Neuro in NLP". I propose that we rewrite that section describing the different explaination of the "Neuro in NLP". I think this would settle alot of the problems. I've added a short paragraph about TOTES. There are other explainations offered by scientists, linguists, etc. --Comaze 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you are placing pseudoscience above science again. Science takes priority. Neuroscience does not include TOTE and TOTE is not used to explain nerve circuits. TOTE etc can briefly be included in the modeling section. Camridge 05:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC) the name of SCIENCE, please present us with evidence of "engram" being used by the creators of NLP and/or the main body of authoritative authors on the subject. Fringe writers who use terminology which is at odds with the rest of the community is NOT good research, but it is good propaganda for those who have an axe to grind. Now.... quit acting like a partisan jackass. Akulkis Wed Dec 14 17:01:41 UTC 2005
Akulkis, many NLPers, including Dilts, Grinder and others refer to Hebb's rule when explaining various aspects of VK VAK notations and rituals etc, as has also been provided in diagrams on the article. In psychology and in neuroscience, the Hebb rule refers only to engrams. Hebb only ever dealt with engrams, and only mentioned his theory in relation to engrams. As VoiceofAll has stated, this has been dealt with ad nausium more than three times, with abundant evidence presented in the archives. You seem to be denying it simply because it is not on the present discusion page. That was also a strategy of the other NLP promoters. You seem to be presenting a particularly unconvincing claim to neutrality. Camridge 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Camridge, NOBODY in the NLP community uses the term engram, other than one lone writer who refers to or otherwise pays any attention to. And yet, you persist to push this LIE. Why is that, exactly? Akulkis 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

AKulkis. You are using the erroneous objection that only Bandler/Grinder/Dilts and other developers are the only primary sources allowable. Primary source does not mean NLP developer, it means any literature that is not second hand opinion. Also, your view of fringe has much to be desired. NLPers views are fringe at best, and your opinion is not relevant to the article. NLP is a deliberately confusing pseudoscientific subject that needs science in order to clarify it. Your attacks and objections are relevant to discussion, and so far they have supported the fact that NLP is a cult. You offer nothing but restricted views and pseudoscientific excuses. DaveRight 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are violating wikipedia policy by selectively using references that only to support your argument. Drenth and Sinclair do not have enough citations to warrant inclusion in the article, except in a minor way (maybe one statement). Grinder, Dilts, Bandler, O'Connor have 100 times the number of citations. Do a quick check on Google scholar. Structure Vol.1 (1975) is by far the most cited followed by Frogs (1979). This same logic can be used to exclude alot of your of minority views. I think you are diliberately trying to provide confusions in the article -- let's present both cases to arbitration so we can sort this out. --Comaze 04:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Akulkis and Comaze. Refer to our mediator, VoiceOFAll's comment that this has been resolved through mediation several times over. You may support the cult of NLP but you will never be able to censor verified fact. Camridge 07:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Again with the slurs in place of substantial argument. Akulkis Thu Dec 15 10:24:08 UTC 2005
By the way, Camridge, why is it that most of YOUR "facts" about NLP = dianetics turn out to be not only unverified, but products of nothing other than your and HeadleyDowns' imaginations???? Akulkis 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice to

Please cease and desist from your surreptitious edits.

The addition of your take on the philsopsophy of science to the 'Atheoretical Pretence' section was embarassing. The subsection already stated that science routinely offers laws and models in the absence of explanatory theory and the classical example of Newton's Law was offered. Did you miss this before you added your contribution? You missed the central point of the subsection. Theoretical physicists don't engage in free speculation, their models are evaluated with respect to predictive capacity and/or explanatory capacity. A theoretical physicists models are empirically tested and/or tested to determine if they yield more or better explanations. This is a basic tenet of Fictionalist epistemology. NLP models are neither subject to empirical test and they aren't offered as possessing superior explanatory power over existing models. There is no parallel between the free speculation engaged in by Bandler and Grinder and the activitites of theoretical physicist. Mentioning Feynman is more NLPesque sophistry as per mentioning Einstein, Tesla etc. That sort of garabge won't fool anyone here. It does nothing for the NLP case. If you have a genuine concern about this matter read-on, else note that I reverted your edits because they were junk (detailed explanation follows).

The structure of the argument presented in 'Atheoretical Pretence' is not merely to assert that fictionalism is false. Rather, NLPs fidelity to fictionalism is questioned and the absence of a defence of fictionalism prior to its use is noted. Most physical scientists are epistemologically classified as "Scientific Realists", even theoretical physicists. Fictionalism is not a widespread epistemological basis of method of any established discipline even economics where it had an influential advocate in Milton Friedman. NLP is predicated on fictionalism -- nay a bastardised version of the theory. Even according to Vaihinger (which B&G quote from liberally) the fruits of any 'As If' based inquiry are to be subjected to empirical test. NLP is ostensibly concerned with "what works", hence its fictionalist inquiry must be justified with emprical testing of its findings else its findings are not the product of method but of free speculation. When B&G proposed the "Fast Phobia Cure" which followed a series of "As If" proposals concerning neurology, language, cognition etc. we are nevertheless left with a proposed therapeutic technique that can and should be tested as per other psyhcotherapies. We must test the proposed technique to determine if it is more effective than placebo, and we have established means of undertaking such tests. A fictionalist form of inquiry does not alter the universe such that nonspecific factors in psychotherapy cease to exist or be relevant. NLP undertakes no rigorous empirical test of the claims derived from 'As If' based inquiry. Hence, it pays lip-service only to fictionalism. Economists and theoretical physicists with fictionalist leanings subject their models to stringent testing. Fictionalist economists require predictive power. Theoretical physicists require either predictive power and/or explanatory power. Both the fictionalist economist and physicist employ rigorous empirical tests that are designed to ensure that their results are not due to chance, artifacts of the method of inquiry or other extraneous factors. The NLPer exercises no such discipline. Nonspecific factors in therapuetic intervention are conveniently ignored, the peculiar natural history of specific mental illness is ignored, follow-up is ignored, pre-therapeutic disease states are not objectively determined and neither are therapeutic outcomes. There is only ritual followed by subjective report of well-being.

Thus there is no parallel -- absolutely none -- between the method of inquiry prescribed by some theoretical physicists and the activities of B&G that produced NLP. On this basis I have deleted your edits. flavius 02:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, you'll need to find some references for your claims about fictionalism. It appears to be original research. --Comaze 06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I have, there's a list of them in the article. You'll have to explain how it constitutes original research. The comments regarding fictionalism are not mine they are paraphrased from the cited authors. flavius 08:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius, as pointed out by someone else about 2-3 months ago, you are once again one of those confusing theory with technique. Engineering is a science. Architecture is an art. But architecture USES Engineering. Similarly, counseling can USE NLP. But a counseling method is no more NLP than architecture is engineering. Learn to distinquish between the INVESTIGATION of something, and the ART of using the knowledge which springs forth from investigation. They are NOT the same. Akulkis Wed Dec 14 17:47:52 UTC 2005
No so. I appreciate the distinction NLP modelling and NLP applications. The distinction doesn't help you, it doesn't magically erase the need for empirical test, make existing emprical tests invalid or irrelevant nor does it make any meta-theoretic critique misplaced. Both NLP modelling and NLP applications are laden with theory and they both have generated hypothesis many of which can be (and have been tested). There is no confusion in my head between theory and technique, judging from your remarks any confusion belongs to you. Engineering is not a science it is applied science, engineering uses science. Chemical engineering is based on chemistry and physics, electrical engineering is based largely on physics, civil engineering is also based largely on physics. Architecture is not an art, it is a design discipline that draws on art and engineering (structural, civil, materials). Yes, counselling can use NLP i.e. NLP application, as can sales, teaching, coaching etc. Where exactly did I suggest or imply otherwise. I'm the one that added Grinder's distinction between NLP applications and NLP modelling in the article. I also contributed the foundational assumptions -- which relate to NLP modelling -- section. Rather than offer me advice about what I need to learn why don't you read more closely? My concern with fictionalism relates to NLP modelling or "INVESTIGATION" as you put it. My remarks concerning empirical testing above are with reference to NLP applications or the "ART" as you put it. The article itself is cognizant of this distinction. The empirical studies cited in the article discredit various NLP applications. It would be sufficinet merely by demonstrating the ineffectiveness of NLP applications to demonstrate that NLP modelling (the source of these applications or patterns) is also ineffective. This would be a form of "black-box" inquiry. However, the article is making steps towards including research that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the NLP modelling itself. flavius 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
flavius, I don't understand how you made the leap of logic from Batesonian Cybernetic epistemology to fictionalism. --Comaze 11:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Tosey and Mathison, in agreement with Craft, theoretically position NLP as social constructivist. Vygotsky was a social constructivist par excellence. However, social constructivism is a broad theoretical position, specifying general premises about the nature of reality (an artifact of human activity), knowledge (made not discovered) and learning (a social process). The specifics of reality, knowledge and learning -- as they are conceived within a social constructivist framework -- are supplied by other ontological, epistemological, metaphysical and psychological theories. This is why Tosey and Mathison allude to the instrumentalist epistemology evident in NLP. Instrumentalism is consistent with a social constructivist framework. Fictionalism can be undertood as a type of instrumentalism. Instrumentalism is agnostic about unobservables, theory is assessed purely with reference to its explanatory and/or predictive power, there is no claim about the truth. Fictionalism shares instrumentalism's disposition towards theory but also contends that unobservables are non-existent, that they are fictions. NLPs underlying epistemology is fictionalist. I have supplied numerous quotes that demonstrate this. There is no "Cybernetic Epistemology" in the early NLP texts, there is only fictionalism quoted directly from Vaihinger. Cybernetic epistemology isn't a widely recognised epistemological theory or method of inquiry. It's a post-modernist pastiche that incorporates representationalism and numerous post-modern paradoxes that post-modernists revel in. Like Korzybski's General Semantics it is fundamentally a type of representationalism. So in answer to your question I made no such leap. Tosey and Mathison mention cybernetic epistemology but describe only instrumentalism. No leap is required to demonstrate that NLP is fictionalist, no argument is even needed. You need only read the first chapter of Magic I. I hope I've answered your question. flavius 06:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

AKulkis. NLP developers make wild claims and hypothesese. These are tested and turn out to be false according to independent scientific empiricism. Yet NLPers still claim that they work. NLP is a pseudoscience. Your confusion and claim to engineering are both pseudoscientific ploys to attach importance to NLP nonsense. NLP is pseudo in theory (yes they do theorize and hypothesize, though they claim they don't), it is ineffective according to tests, and it is pseudo in excuses. Your excuses are those of a committed pseudoscientist. DaveRight 04:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people in various professions make wild claims and hypothesese. The medical profession for one. Therefore, Dave, you are arguing that the existance of quacks invalidates medical science. Sorry, but I"m not willing to dismiss medical science just because there are quacks among them. And, so far, you have not indicated that you are, either. Therefore, Dave, stop being a hypocrite. Akulkis Thu Dec 15 05:12:50 UTC 2005
Akulkis. That's a strange reading of DaveRight's argument. The point is plain: NLP is invalidated not by the existence of quacks but because of its failure to meet the rigours of empirical testing. When NLPs hypotheses have been subject to scientific scrutiny that have been found to be false. flavius 06:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Then how do you explain the EXCELLANT results which the US Army gets by using techniques which are talked about in NLP literature? If it's a bunch of hogwash, then the TRADOC's results should be in shambles. Instead, we have the most successful, motivated force on the planet. Hell, you even see soldiers who lost one or both legs not only driving successfully through physical rehab -- but volountarily and EAGERLY GOING BACK INTO THE FIGHT IN IRAQ WITH ARTIFICIAL LEGS. How in the world can you argue against THOSE results -- because I sure as hell don't see ANY civilian employer getting such motivation out of their employees -- especially severely injured employees who qualify for significant disability compensation. You CLAIM that there are no results. I argue that the proof is evident for anyone is open enough to making the observation, rather than subscribing to what is essentially a religious belief such as you are Akulkis Thu Dec 15 08:50:36 UTC 2005
I don't comprehend the significance of your apparently random capitalisation. When you randomnly capitalise and mis-spell you come across as unhinged. I don't need to explain your claim anymore than I need to explain the existence of gnomes. The use of NLP in the US Army is a figment of your imagination or the imagination of one of your NLP mentors. The US Army conducted extensive research into a range of human performance technologies that may be of use to the army. NLP was included in the investigation. The researchers even interviewed Bandler. The US Army unequivocally rejected NLP on the grounds that there is no evidence that it works. Refer Druckman, D. & Swets, J. (1988). Enhancing Human Performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. and Swets, J. & Bjork R. (1990) Enhancing human performance. An evaluation of "new age" techniques considered by the U.S. Army. Psychological Science, 1,, 85-96. The apparent efficacy of NLP techniques on stage, in seminars and in some clinical situations is explained by a "psycho shaman effect" proposed by Tye (1994): "the psycho shaman effect is a collection of already-existing, well understood and accepted ideas. Specifically, it has three components: cognitive dissonance, placebo effect and therapist charisma". It is you that is exhibiting religious fervour. There is no evidence that NLP works yet you fervently announce your faith. "I argue that the proof is evident for anyone is open enough to making the observation", you say. Well this isn't an argument it's an assertion, it's a verbalisation of your emoting. What are we to do with it? If the "proof is evident" then why is it that NLP has failed most empirical testing it has been subjected to? Are you suggesting that Sharpley (1997), Swets & Bjork (1990), Dixon et al (1986), Baddeley (1989), Ellich et al (1985) and Melvin & Miller (1988) would have obtained confirmatory results if only they were more "open"? How so? One of the weaknesses of human reasoning is that it is vulnerable to a confirmation bias (Gilovich, 1993): you will look for and overvalue what confirms your beliefs and simultaneously ignore and undervalue anything that contradicts those beliefs. You can't prove that all swans are white simply by seeking white swans. You must instead seek black swans. Are you then looking only for the white swans of NLP? Confirmation is not the basis of knowledge acquisition, falsification is. If I find 100 smokers that are older than 80 years have I demonstrated that smoking will enable you to live beyond the average life expectancy? Your logic would suggest so. flavius 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Flavius, since you're unable to understand the concept of using capitalization for EMPHASIS, I guess it's not surprising that NLP is "pseudoscience" to you. And, by the way, typo-flames went out in the 1970's. Sharpley, Swets & Bjork, Dixon et al, Baddely, Ellech et all, and Melvin & Miller have all dedicated their careers to other schools of thought about how the mind works. Therefore, for any of them publishing a paper which essentially says, "Hey, I was full of shit, and everything I've been supporting for years pales in comparison to this" is tantamount to academic suicide, massive loss of professional and social prestige, and quite possible, severe curtailment of research funds and other monies from the sources of funds whom they are used to dealing with. Thus, there is VERY strong motivation for all of them to merely "go through the motions," of conducting and experiment, while subtly sandbagging NLP.
This is an interesting conspiracy theory that complements well your fruitcake conception of evidence and your faith in NLP. If scientific opinion is as entrenched as you believe it is then how do you explain progress in science where models and theories are discarded in favor of those have demonstrated greater predictive or explanatory power? Your nutty worldview must at least account for the present state of affairs. flavius 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Flavius, instead of relying on "experts" who have an axe to grind, have YOU ever conducted a test of anchoring, and what result did you get? Akulkis Thu Dec 15 19:07:51 UTC 2005
This is typical pseudoscience blather. If I tell you that I did personally experiment with anchoring and found that it didn't work as promised you will retort that I didn't run the pattern correctly. The only acceptable answer to you would be anchoring works. You are proposing an unfalsifiable proposition, their is no way for you be possibly wrong (in your warped private universe): either anchoring works or the person testing it hasn't mastered the technique. We've heard it all before and we can hear it also from Scientologists, Freudian psychoanalysts, psychics, channelers, Reiki healers etc. flavius 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Akulkis. The only empirical evidence we have is that the US army ditched NLP as a concept many years ago (in the 80s). The article already shows that the director of that research states that lots of evidence shows that it does not work. We work with facts here, not the hearsay of pseudoscientists. Camridge 09:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And yet, the techniques are STILL BEING USED by the drill sergeants. I know this, because I know some drill sergeants, and specifically asked them about it less than 5 years ago. You're making shit up again, Camridge. Akulkis Thu Dec 15 10:24:08 UTC 2005
You're making a fool of yourself. You are presenting hearsay evidence, it's no good in court and it's no good here. Worse yet, your hearsay amounts to an argument from authority ("a drill sergeant said so therefore it must be true"). Before accusing Camridge of "making shit up" why don't you read Swets & Bjork (1990) or Druckmand & Swets (1988) the latter is online. We'll assume that "some drill sergeants" do use NLP, what would be the significance of this discovery? If we look hard enough we will find drill sergeants that use Scientology, Magick, Santeria and Voodoo. John Travolta and Tom Cruise claim that they use Scientology in their professional and private lives. Does this mean that because Travolta and Cruise are successful actors Scientology works and that their success is attributable to Scientology. Even if the drill sergeants you allegedly spoke to were highly effective, the connection between their success and their use of NLP has not been demonstrated. At best the connection is speculative. You are again making a faith-based declaration. Your concept of evidence, causality and correlation is aberrant. flavius 11:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Look, moron, i'm IN the damned army, and direct testimony from primary participants is NOT hearsay evidence. Deny all you want, but regardless of what someone in an office far removed from the training grounds tells you, drill sergeants learn from other drill sergeants. For example, a great many techniques are used for inducing trance. Marksmanship training is drenched with NLP training methods. So is the bayonette drill, used to anchor an extremely aggressive state to the act of mounting a bayonette on a rifle. Even rations are anchored. Those who went to basic training before the introduction of the MRE are not wild about it, prefering the inferior C-ration. Soldiers routinely comment that, in the field, they enjoy food which, in civilian settings, they can't stand. This is direct evidence of anchoring satisfaction with food to the conditions of presentation of rations in the field (both MRE's and hot meals delivered in mermites). Regardless of whether TRADOC has officially removed NLP methodology, NLP-precepts ARE still being used by the drill sergeants. And that's what really matters. Akulkis Thu Dec 15 19:07:51 UTC 2005
So what if you're in the army? What you are presenting remains hearsay. In any event what you are describing is classical or Pavlovian conditioning not NLP. Just because NLP has taken an idea from behaviorist psychology and renamed it "anchoring" doesn't make it an NLP technique. Your concept of evidence is to be blunt, "f***ed". What chain of reasoning took you from soldiers routinely commenting that they enjoy food in the field that they normally wouldn't consume to the proposition that there is a form of anchoring in effect? You're full of bluster but not much else. flavius 02:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Akulkis, I have no evidence that says NLP is used in TRADOC. I search their web site and there are no results. It would be great to have a source for that. I do have evidence that NLP is used by CIA interviews and in US state police forces. I cannot confirm this yet but I think Al Gore and a bunch of senior US army generals were training in NLP by John Alexander 1983. There was a paper written in the late 80s that recommended against using NLP in the US army because it was not emirically tested, I'm sure one of the other editors will remind you of the year and authors. It is interested that NLP co-founder John Grinder was a captain in the US special forces before he did his PhD in linguistics. On a similar topic of law enforcement have you heard of the Booklyn Program pdf; Neuro-linguistic programming is also used in USA correctional facilities --Comaze 10:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

All one has to to is talk to drill sergeants about their training methods, and it soon becomes apparent that it is rife with NLP methods, REGARDLESS of what some officer sitting in Washington DC says is a foundational theory of what is being used or not. I'm talking about what IS being used, not the party line. Hell the use of uniforms and other appearance standards is both for rapport (look at the friction between "normal" police/soldier leaders, and those who are undercover officers or special forces, and their "rag bag" appearance), and as a form of anchoring...there are so many anchors in a soldier's uniform that it's rediculous. Similarly, there are other anchors attached to unit mottos, crests, badges, unit patches, etc. All of that symbolism HAS A PURPOSE, which, regardless of whether TRADOC says they are using it or not...THEY ARE IN FACT using the benefits of anchors tied to symbols. This isn't just within TRADOC's areas, this is rife throughout all of the American military. This is immediately observable when visiting ANY military installation in the United States. -- [User:Akulkis|Akulkis]] Thu Dec 15 23:25:08 UTC 2005
Akulkis, you need less bluster and more thought when you write it will improve the quality of your contributions or at the least your spelling. So what you are suggesting is that prior to the invention of NLP by Bandit and Grifter in the 1970s military culture was incomprehensible, it was a complete mystery until B&G renamed Pavlovian conditioning "anchoring" and proposed numerous methods of gaining interpersonal rapport derived by observing Satir and Erickson? Are you claiming that the concepts of anchoring and rapport explain the main features of military culture? Aren't you like the five year old with a hammer -- everything looks like a nail? flavius 02:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The anchoring formats in NLP is not simple Pavlovian stimulus->response conditioning. NLP anchoring has elements of timing or intensity and calibration of state in self and other people. Training people to detect state shifts (breathing changes, skin color changes, etc.) and anchor with a unique stimulus (such as unique voice tone, gesture, body movement, etc.) is a key topic in sensory acuity training. Anchoring is currently not in the article at all? How did we miss this? This is probably one of the key features that makes NLP unique. Are you aware of any precedants? I would be very interested in this. --Comaze 05:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
And this DIRECTLY supports my assertion that the US Army still uses NLP. For example, the drill is done as a unit, and is conducted in a large open space. The instructor gives a long, somewhat random series of commands (preferably with a bullhorn) which are related to combat with a rifle-mounted bayonete, such as "butt-stroke to the groin, move" or "thrust to the chest, move", all of which are carried out synchronously by the group. Just like group physical-training in synchronization is structurally trance inducing, so are the commands and movements of the bayonet drill. Interspersed are questions (to which the answers have been previously provided), such that call-and-response format is used (e.g. instructor: "What is the spirit of the bayonet? trainees: "To Kill! To Kill! To Kill without mercy!" or instructor:"What makes the grass grow?" trainees: "Blood! Blood! Blood makes the grass grow!"). The movements, coupled with the nature of the call-and-response questions and answers induces a state of violent aggressiveness which is close to murderous. This part of the drill goes on for many minutes, while other instructors walk through the formation, so as to assure that all trainees have reached the desired state. Once it is determined that all trainees have reached the desired states, then, AND ONLY THEN, is the command "mount bayonets" given, so as to anchor the state to the act of mounting the bayonet on the rifle. The drill may then continues for another 10-15 minutes, to get the soldiers accustomed to the change in balance and handling of the weapon when the bayonet is hanging off of the muzzle, but the most important part of the drill, anchoring the state of extreme aggressiveness to the act of mounting the bayonet has already been accomplished. It is precisely because this state is anchored to the act of mounting the bayonet that, while they allow soldiers to carry ANY other knife in the field, the US Army PROHIBITS personnel from carrying bayonets in the field without permission -- so as to eliminate the sorts of accidents that will happen when a soldier triggers the anchor by mounting a bayonette on his rifle. In addition, the Army also protects the anchor: during the drill, once a state of trance has been reached, the instructor issues a command to the trainees to recite: "I will not mount a bayonet on my rifle unless ordered to do so." This is quite obviously a post-hypnotic suggestion. I have discussed this drill with drill sergeants who know hypnosis and trance, and they have confirmed that the drill is still done in this way, as when I went through basic training in 1989. This is why I say that, even though TRADOC may say that they're not using NLP any more, the drill sergeants ARE using NLP-based methods (whether these methods were developed independantly, or even prior to Bandler and Grinder's work is immaterial -- the training methods in use by the US Army are completely consistent with what would be advised by anyone knowledgeable of NLP-derived methods for teaching, training, belief-system change, and behavior modification. Akulkis Fri Dec 16 14:34:04 UTC 2005
Thankyou Comaze. The timing aspect of anchoring is supported by the engram concept. It is the basis of the Hebb rule. NLP proponents such as Dilts, handle it pseudoscientifically. It will clarify the habit of NLPers to attach pseudoscience to every ritual in their books. Camridge 06:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Riiiiiiiiight, Camridge. Anchoring is handled in such a pseudo-scientific manner that after I first became aware of the concept, and how to do it, it worked better, and more profoundly than I would have ever imagined. I was out at a nightclub, drawing a portrait of a woman about 22-23 years old. I used a linguistic pattern to guide her into a state, and then anchored the state by lightly squeezing her wrist. Thereafter, every time I squeezed her wrist, regardless of what she was doing, not only did her face return to the identical expression as when I set the anchor (even her mouth!), but she even returned her head to the same position. And I had NEVER even tried using or even setting anchors before (other than, as it turns out, talking, since language is nothing more than a collection of anchors, individually known as "words") Yes, results such as that are even BETTER than "advertised" is entirely consistant with the sort of pseudoscience that the detractors claim it to be.....NOT!
As I said before, any academic researcher who claims that his experiments show no effectiveness of NLP foundation-level methods is either incompetant, sabotaging the experiment in some way, or flat out lying, and committing academic fraud, if only to please collegues who, it seems, are equally fanatical in their desire to make NLP "just go away" for fear of the impact it will have on their own income, career, and academic and/or professional prestige. Akulkis Fri Dec 16 14:34:04 UTC 2005
Lack of response from opponents is duly noted Akulkis 12:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Neuro in Neuro-linguistic programming

And then describing the different points of view on that topic. Let's discuss the different views from scientists, linguists, NLP developers, etc. I offered a comprimise -- I'll ask again -- is there any objection to renaming the engram section to "neuro in neuro-linguistic programming" and then providing a description of all the major views? I've added dubious tags to the engram section. --Comaze 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, Comaze, I will revert to the original name - engrams. Neuro is best covered elsewhere (pseudoscience section especially). Camridge 06:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

...because you have an axe to grind. Enough said.

Well the only person calling it dubious is you, Comaze. It has been verified already according to mediation. Your addition of dubious tags is only ever in accordance with your nasty little agenda to narrow views to bandler and grinder, and to slow down progress towards clarification. I suggest that the automatic removal of your nonsense is the most productive way forward. DaveRight 03:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

DaveRight. You know very well that engram is disputed becaues you and your group has engaged in a co-ordinated effort to revert. I have evidence dating back months. Given that you have rejected comprimise, ignored negotiation and mediation -- I will present the evidence to arbitration. Their decision will be binding. Can someone else please comment on DaveRight's recent reversion. --Comaze 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, please refer to the prior mediation that finished with VoiceOfAll stating that engrams must stay in the article. Evidence for engrams is abundant. You have persistently advocated the removal of verified fact, and you yourself have removed it on multiple occasions regardless of mediation or citation. Everybody realizes exactly how antagonistic, unproductive, tedious, and anti-NPOV policy your activities are. It is clear that your agenda is one of a narrow minded NLP zealot, and your activities go against multiple-view neutrally oriented clarification. You have constantly sought to cloud issues and present the narrowest and most whitewashed version of NLP available. Wikipedia is not a whitewash machine. It is here to clarify and elucidate. Solution: you are to be ignored. DaveRight 04:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you are the one making persistent and unreasonable objections;

  • demanding excess explanations,
  • demanding excess citations,
  • demanding mediation,
  • demanding arbitration,
  • advocating pseudoscience over science
  • deliberately clouding issues
  • ganging up with verifiable NLP sellers to push for arb/mediation
  • AND deleting facts repetitively regardless of the outcome of the above.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that a reasonable person will believe that you will not remove facts after arbitration. NO promise you make can ever be trusted. Your background and history has created a severe lack of trust. Your agenda has always been to tediously vex progress on this article. YOU have created your own ridiculous situation through unreasonable demands and actions. In the interests of progress - you are most certainly only here to be ignored. Camridge 05:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, demanding citations when you and your cohorts make ludicrous claims like your NLP<-->engrams<-->Dianetics connections is not demanding EXCESS citations...seeing how you have yet to provide even ONE citation that holds up under scrutiny by neutral 3rd parties, your claim that we are demanding "excessive" anything is utterly ludicrous. I suggest you leave your little "flat-earth" society and get a clue. 12:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, Arbitration is binding on all parties --- even new editors. --Comaze 05:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, that makes no difference to me. Your tedious assertion is ignored. Camridge 05:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation: I, Camridge, am going to stomp my wee little feet and hold my breath until I get my way." Hey, Camridge, grow up, and accept learn to accept reality Akulkis Fri Dec 16 14:34:04 UTC 2005


The wording I inserted was "which some NLP practitioners..." with respect to engrams. enneagram is clearly used way more and the article must reflect that. Engrams are mentioned by two pretty serious authors, but it is likely that that is just their take on NLP. NLP is pretty variant, unorganized, and often unverified, so author's adding in their own concepts is no surprise. As long as engrams aren't overmentioned or made out to be the majority view, then its fine for the article.

I am currently working on a new Magic:The Gathering Wiki, pushing semi-protection, and trying to close AFDs and reverted vandals, so I don't have time for this same issue to re-hash for a forth time. Lets move on.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Good grief, no wonder this article is in trouble when it's being edited by someone so ignorant of the subject that they apparently don't know the difference between "enneagram" and "engram" - which are essentially unrelated, of course. Maybe VOAL should tell us what background knowledge an aeronautics engineer has of NLP?

VoiceOfAll, Your edit did not go far enough. I've reduced the length of the paragraph, diffs. I added a qualifier that states it is not a majority view within NLP based on the lack of citations from authoritative sources. --Comaze 06:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, VoiceOfAll. Effort towards clarify and brevity are at the forefront of my mind. I would say that Enneagrams are a lesser part of NLP though in comparison with engrams. Engrams are part of every part of NLP according to VAK, VK KAV, and every other aspect of internal engram sense circuits as has been explicitly explained by many NLP proponents, and as is implicitly indicated by all NLP texts according to the neuroscience explanation. Regards Camridge 05:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, What is VAK, VK, KAV? --Comaze 06:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, look through Dilts et al 1980. All those pseudomathematical notations are about those 4tuples, and they all explain the same kind of thing as the new diagram in the article. They all explain sense perceptions via engrams. But of course, you know that already, so I should just simply ignore your agenda to confuse and spread ignorance. Camridge 06:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This IS a joke, isn't it? Another one who can't tell the difference between "enneagrams" and "engrams" and thinks the 4-tuple notations are "pseudo-science"!

1. Neither enneagrams NOR engrams are part of NLP - though it is certainly true that some NLPers dabble in enneagrams as well. But playing hockey and flying airoplanes doesn't mean that you have to be a pilot to play hockey!

2. The 4-tuple notation has nothing to do with science, any more than musical notation on a stave, or notation for ballet dancers, or Pitman's shorthand has anything to do with "pseudo-science". It is simply a form of shorthand which the writer uses to keep track of which perceptual system the writer thinks a client is accessing. Which again has NOTHING TO DO with engrams. It is the ignorance illustrated by comments such as those made by Cambridge which demonstrate the true mentality of the people who keep slagging off NLP and are clearly determined to present a totally unbalanced, highly negative POV. If the administrators of Wikipedia have any genuine concern for the integrity of their site then their action to halt this travesty is LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG overdue.

Hi, mmm whoeverthisis. Read up on some neuroscience. If you are not completely averse to science or proper scientific research (as a lot of NLP fanatics are) you will quickly see that NLP uses the engram concept throughout the literature, including the original magic books. HeadleyDown 15:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, Headleydown also falsely cited NLP Vol.1... but that's not going to fool me because I've read Neuro-linguistic Programming: Vol.1 (Dilts et al) and have it right here. There is no reference to engram. A page number or a quote would end all of this. I'll say this -- in all the transcripts of seminars, books, tapes, CDs, interviews available of Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, Cameron-Bandler, or Delozier have NEVER used the engram concept. Are you saying that 4-tuple/6-tuple/primary experience/first access/F1-F2 transforms/Neurological transforms/linguistic transforms can all be explained with engrams? I doubt it. At the moment, you are indulging in original research. If one of the original developers of NLP used engram, then it would be very easy for you to provide citations from one of the original developers (authoratitive source). It seems that you are going to great lengths to promote one POV. I would really like to move on, but if my recent comprimise is reverted, I will definitely escalate this matter. --Comaze 06:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've just checked and yes, Camridge has reverted within minutes of posting my comprimise (again -- without discussion), see diffs. I was careful to not change any meaning in my paraphrase, except to add that engram is not a majority view in NLP. I'm confident that Camridge and DaveRight are working together to "own" the article. This is not wikipedian. I seeked to negotiate, mediate, and comprimise and my efforts have been largely ignored. --Comaze 06:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze's objection ignored on account of facts being correctly cited, repeatedly verified, scientific, and on account of Comaze's clear determination to antagonize helpful editors, obscure issues and halt/retard progress.Camridge 07:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, let me remind you, that you are the one trying to add a minority view and make it seem that it is majority! The way you are intentionally mixing the definition of engram used by Dianetics with the definition used by scientists is misleading and confusing. It can only be explained as original research. Ok ---- we must agree to disagree on this matter. Will you agree to present your case to arbitration so we can get on with it? I'll be arguing that we restrict engram to one or two sentences at most, and that it be framed as a minority view. --Comaze 07:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, NLP is fringe, and you are a fringe devotee. You are minority, and NLP is minority next to science. NLP is pseudoscientific, and pseudoscientists love to namedrop and make associations to neuroscience. Bandler and Grinder and all the others do that. But they don't explain how it fits with neurology, and the excuse is; its not science its epistemology, or technology, or we don't do theory. Those are pseudoscientific assertions and they make articles very unclear. Some NLPers do actually like to do theory. They state that neuro in NLP is explained using the engram concept. Science corroborates part of this theory, and clarifies further (Drenth, Levelt) by stating that they do it psuedoscientifically. The article WILL include engrams as that is a clarification of neuro, plus scienctists and critics view of engrams as explained by modern neuroscience (briefly as it is). That is what was agreed through mediation before, and as I have found over 20 references already to backup the mention of engram in NLP books, websites, and academic papers, then it will remain as the majority (scientific thinking to clarify pseudoscientific thinking) in the article. Camridge 08:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Be careful with your website references. The first result when you search NLP+engram use to be HeadleyDown's page. It is growing in number because this wikipedia is mirrored on other sites. I'm considering reporting this issue to the Neologisms crew. My difficulty is that you (and your group of editors) have reverted attempts to provide NPOV in order to make it engram appear to be a majority view, when it is not. Saying that Sinclair uses engrams and then criticising the entire field for Sinclair using engram is an example of straw man argument. Drenth and Levelt's papers are more credible, but do not have any citations on citeseer or google scholar. Counter example must be represented such as a paraphrase of Dr. Bolstad's paper, "Putting the 'Neuro back into NLP" --- I'll also argue that Sinclair can be deleted completely. If you are allowed to cite Sinclair then anyone can come in and cite books that apply NLP to many different fields such as a management, sales training, sports, requirements engineering, computer science, artificial intelligence. There are hundreds of books on NLP listed on amazon. --Comaze 09:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze I am referring to books from library searches in addition to web sources. I tend not to rely on Google's search engine for proof. There is no straw man argument anywhere on this article. The arguments used are strictly adherent to the literature. You have consistently promoted a pseudoscience (NLP) that makes wild claims throughout its promotion, throughout its principles, and throughout its literature. To remove such claims is simply whitewash, censorship, and dishonesty. You have been found guilty of all those anti-NPOV crimes, and the evidence is written all over your history. Camridge 10:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine - so where did you read the Dutch text of Drenth's article? Or do you have an English language translation?

PS, Amazon text searches are not satisfactory. A huge percentage of those books do not have searchable texts. Camridge 10:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm neutral here Camridge. I do have expert knowledge of the field so I know when someone makes false claims or staw man arguments. The entire criticism section is full of straw man argument. Engram is a good example of this. Pick a minority group that uses a pseudoscientific argument (engram) and then use that poor argument to criticise the entire field. I'm documenting many other such examples. Let's both document it and then present it as evidence for aribtration. This will probably stop the circular arguments. --Comaze 10:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze. I don't understand your indignation regarding engrams. The concept does appear explicitly in some NLP literature [23] [24] [25] and it appears in Bandler's seminars as "holographic memory" [26] [27] ("Pragmagraphics" -- Wow!)flavius 13:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem, Flavius, is that like most of the criticisms of NLP, the sources are either misquoted, or not from genuine authorities. In other words - blatant quote mining. Of the three references you offer, the first does make reference to engrams - but as the term has been used in psychology. There is NO claim that engrams are part of NLP. The second quote is from an author whose book on NLP is self-published and has more mistakes than I've had hot dinners. He offers NO support for his use of engrams within NLP. The third quote is also from a non-authoritative source who gives no support for his use of the term with in NLP. In addition to this - having failed to legitimately place engrams within NLP practice, the self-styled "critics" then claim that the use of engrams within NLP is similar to their use in Scientology. Since you have NO GENUINE EVIDENCE that engrams have ever been part of NLP, how on earth can anyone justify such an opinion?

Like most of the article, this is a pack of lies by a group of people obsessed, for some reason they are unwilling to state openly, with bad mouthing NLP, no matter how many lies and half truths it takes to do it. That the administrators of Wikipedia have allowed this travesty to continue throws the worst possible light on Wikipedia as a source of RELIABLE information.

My comments above provide prima facie evidence of this criticism.

Comaze, how about the notion of "holographic memory" which recurs in Bandler's seminars and is mentioned in two of the links I provided. "Holographic memory" or "memory as a hologram" is essentially the engram idea. I have Bandler crap on about holographic memory more than once and I'm sure you have also. Doesn't the "Pragmagraphics" article count as evidence for the existence of the engram within NLP theorising? flavius 02:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Flavius. I concur, the hologram description is just another way to say engram. The internal sense circuits NLP refers to all throughout their literature (every book to my knowledge) describes the engram concept perfectly. In practice it is the same.

There is no difference between a dianetics auditor telling a preclear to focus on a trauma and remove the sound several times over, and an NLP practitioner telling a client to use their submodalities to remove their trauma in the same way. They are identical and the concepts are the same: pseudoscientific adaptations of scientific terms.

The more scientifically read authors (Such as Sinclair, Hollander, and the French chap) use the term engrams, because engram is a more accurate description (nerve circuits on a holistic rather than micro level). The Hebb rule, that Dilts and others like to mention is correct to some extent, but some of the terms are out of place. And of course, Hebb only ever mentioned his rule in the context of the engram and the brain, not the unconscious/subconscious. Regards HeadleyDown 03:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So basically, Headless, you're admitting that the NLP writers who have used the term engram have done so in a manner which is consistant with the neuroscientists, and in a way which CONTRADICTS that of the Dianetics/Scientology people whom you have been trying to link to NLP. Thank you for playing, now move along, before you make more dishonest edits to the page and force me to once again point out that you're intellectualy dishonest Akulkis Fri Dec 16 14:34:04 UTC 2005

Hello all, and merry tidings. Nice to see things advancing as they do. I wish to point out that VoiceOfAll is indeed a fine mediator, and has experience of the Dianetics article. So he knows a pseudoscience when he sees it:) Wikipedia is based on fact. So far we have successfully explained basic neuroscience to the effect that engrams are central to neuroscience and NLP. The only difference is neuroscience treats the engram concept scientifically, and NLP most often handles engrams pseudoscientifically. But NLP handles most things pretty strangely, as does dianetics. Its funny that this discussion should come back, but it is also predictable that fanatically promotional NLP editors would want to deny that engrams are a part of NLP both implicitly and explicitly. Engrams are here to stay as they are quoted explicitly, and they are an intrinsic part of neuro in any subject, especially NLP. Lets be fair; at least some NLPers handle engrams correctly, even if they are used to support a pseudoscience. Best regards HeadleyDown 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We organised an RfC over at the engram article and this was the response... "I found "engram" used in a number of neuroscience journals. A Google search returned mainly references to Scientology (apart from a sports-person named "Engram"), and I think the Scientology use should be kept distinguished from the neuroscience use; the meaning is not the same. The term is not used in the original books about NLP, but it would be accurate to say that some writers about NLP have used the term. A search of usenet:alt.psychology.nlp did produce a very few occasional uses of the term in the very large amount of discussion there. --Enlad 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)" --Comaze 06:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Neuro in NLP?

Vote -- Rename the "Engram" section to "Neuro in neuro-linguistic programming" and then provide a paraphrase of all the major views and minor views on this subtopic Provide your vote below:

  • Support --Comaze 23:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Akulkis Thu Dec 15 23:25:08 UTC 2005


Comaze, ganging up with meatpuppets is certainly not ok. This has been discussed many times over. Stop your tedious and unconstructive behaviour. Akulkis, just read the archives properly, and read some science for a change. HeadleyDown 02:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

HeadleyDown, the question was put in the spirit of wikipedia to resolve disputes and reach consensus. If you do not agree, then sign it with "object". --Comaze 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Akulkis, I made a minor change to the wording of the question after you voted. Changes: providing to provide, and changed description to paraphrase which is more precise. --Comaze 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Our mediator suggests that a poll will only work if we get other wikipedian editors in to vote. Otherwise, it will just be ignored by groups of editors who do not agree with the tally. --Comaze 05:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze's Image

Comaze, your antagonism goes beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour. Stop or face the consequences!

Camridge, What consequences? When you make contributions to wikipedia you need to expect that someone will edit it to improve it. Let me remind you that nobody owns this article. Some people can get a little possessive of edits or images they post -- get use to it. You need to accept this as part of everyday life on wikipedia. Let's all work together. Do you need a wiki break? --Comaze 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Spot the CRANK! Hey, Camridge, do you need a handle for that? WE all know how WIDELY RECOGNIZED Alain...uh...what the hell is his name again? ... is regarded throughout the entire NLP community. Akulkis Thu Dec 15 10:39:45 UTC 2005
Actually Akulkis, I do understand your perspective. I also used to be in the forces and I took to self help afterwards (trying to improve myself). NLP played a large part of that. Luckily I am not prone to confirmation bias. I realised it doesn't work beyond short term placebo. So I enroled in a uni degree in neuroscience. Lots of empirical stuff, tons of social psych and bucketloads of cognitive studies. I tried it out (in an applied psych way) It works. It works long term also. Not only does empirical or clinical psychology work, but it works according to empirical science. So the placebo is even stronger:) I am more effective, efficient, powerful in communication, and better at picking up skills. Not surprising though, all those undergrad psych books are full of logic, they use authorities such as science and great thinkers, and they do so in a factual way (not just NLP namedropping). I realize you will not just dump NLP and take up empirical thought and logic. But over the next few weeks keep it in mind. I notice you like an argument. If you spend a few months swotting up on empirically supported psychology and neuroscience, and use the empirical FACTS from this article, and go back into mindlist, you can rip their pseudoscientific arguments to shreds, and get ejected for presenting them with facts (they are a cult after all). Use effective empirically supported psychological techniques, ditch the cult of NLP and change your metamodel filter to one that is not based on pseudoscience (use critical science from a science perspective). It works. Cheers DaveRight 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps your assertion is reasonable Dave. I noticed other NLP fanatics lost their bluster after discovering that they were practicing second-hand dianetics rituals and justifying it using purely pseudoscientific excuses. For sure, if Akulkis does find time and purpose to read a science book or two, he would be less likely to humiliate himself in front of the other editors. Camridge 07:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Camridge, there you go ASS-uming again. The number of science books which I have read COVER TO COVER would fill a respectably sized private library (and that doesn't count the number of history books which I have read cover to cover). I was reading astronomy books when I was 7, and moved into astrophysics by the time I was 10. I'm not a fanatic, but I detest seeing liars such as yourself get away with the shit you're trying to pull. As I happen to be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, and noticed GROSS errors in the page, I've been keeping tabs on the progress. I finally got sick of the slow progress rate, and that you and your little cabal keep re-iontroducing deliberate distortions.
By the way, I don't do any "rituals." Basically, I use NLP for expanding my ability to communicate with others, particularly in the areas of persuasion and behavior modification. It's just a method of accomplishing a task, in the same way as, for soldiers, firing a rifle is just one of many means to accomplishing his task. By your arguments, marksmanship is "pseudoscience" because *some* people make claims that are beyond their abilities. I'll give you an example. A couple years ago, a bunch of us reservists were mobilized for a border security mission. We all had to be qualified in the M9 pistol. There were several people who, despite repeated attempts, failed to qualify. The range NCO asked for volounteers to coach these soldiers who had repeatedly failed to qualify so that we could get them qualified and pack up for the day. So, I was matched up with a female soldier -- she had shot 4 times and still wasn't qualified, using the course of fire described here: <>, which means that 4 times, she had failed to achieve a score of 80 out of 200 possible points. I told her to ignore the instructions from the range NCO -- I would pay attention to those instructions, and pass on only those that required her to act on them. I then used a combination of trance inductions, visualization, and anchoring to prepare her for this next attempt. Between magazines, I kept having her visualize the proper sight picture, and having a perfectly steady sight picture throughout the entire trigger squeeze. The improvement was SUBSTANTIAL -- she scored 153. Not only did she score higher than me, but she missed the score for EXPERT (the highest qualification) by a mere 7 points. Now, Camridge, since you decided to make up yet another ludicrous statement, please explain for all of us how guiding this soldier through a trance induction, visualization, and anchoring is "practicing 2nd-hand Dianetics rituals". Ritual implies repetition. What I did was a "one-off" sort of thing (if you're familiar with computer progrmming jargon), something I just made up, on the spot, using the techniques which I have learned from the NLP community. No... NLP couldn't possibly be effective. It just WORKS with concrete, tangible results whenever I use it.Akulkis Fri Dec 16 08:30:13 UTC 2005

Well Akulkis if you can offer any clarifying facts with citations that are not the proclamations of pseudoscientists, then perhaps you could be of use. Otherwise your addition of useless and uncited POV excuses will simply be reverted. Camridge 09:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

When will you start providing citations from members of outside of academic disciplines which (1) are notoriously inept at any matter of scientific investigation, (2) has demonstrably low standards in regards to research, especially in attention to error analysis, and (3) has a very strong vested interest (in terms of funding and academic credibility) in maintaining the status quo and (4) is called "soft science" for the very fact that their work is generally sloppy, and more "science-like" than actually scientific. Merely running numbers through statistical functions does not make one a competent researcher. Akulkis Fri Dec 16 14:34:04 UTC 2005

Yes well it suits Comaze because it means he can change images from a seperate page surreptitiously, and it will not appear on the article as a change. Comaze's little game is as consistent as his desire to whitewash. Never mind, just revert his little nonsense and spend energy clarifying the article. HeadleyDown 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, I looked at the change-record you jackass. You're not fooling anyone. Akulkis Thu Dec 15 19:07:51 UTC 2005
Akulkis, I did change the image but I thought I was making factual corrections. The original image that HeadleyDown(Camridge) posted was based on some phrenology pseduoscience and I think was desined to disrupt the article. I will present it and the reaction to an attempt to correct it as evidence to arbitration that HeadleyDown's group of editors are trying to "own" the article.. --Comaze 00:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze and Akulkis. Surreptitious changes to the page are generally noticable after a short time, even though they do not show on watchlists and summaries. That sort of "Mr Bean" cunning will backfire every time. Comaze, you are a surreptitious editor. Your lack of success to promote NLP here is due to your blatantly obvious zealous promotion of NLP, and your name has become a beacon for fanatical behaviour. Wikipedia is a neutrally oriented organization of facts. You have been working against Wikipedia on a daily basis. Your agenda is clear. HeadleyDown 02:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How can it be "sereptitious" when all changes are logged, ya moron! Now, CEASE AND DESIST from your pathetic reversions to including slanderous linkages to Dianetics -- IT IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST to attempt to link NLP to DIANETICS ..... and you fucking know it. Now quite being a goddamned shithead, you dishonorable, dishonest slimeball. Akulkis
Akulkis. The term surreptitious (as far as I can see) refers to Comaze's method of making edits that will definitely be reverted, and then placing multiple minor edits on top (to deter people from changing his first edit). It is sneaky behaviour and results in automatic reversion. I think that is what the mr bean metaphor refers to. The image trick is surreptitious because it allows Comaze to make changes to the image (which is on its own article) without any changes appearing on logs on this article. So it seems as if you have directed the personal attacks (moron, intellectually dishonest, and all the rest) in the wrong direction. Camridge 07:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
You just fully described what HeadlessDown did this afternoon. Akulkis Fri Dec 16 08:30:13 UTC 2005

Comaze, your goofy smiling image was reverted on the grounds that it is lacking a great deal of information that the six head image has. I cannot see why you would want to remove the businesslike image already presented. I can only conclude that you are here for nuisance alone. HeadleyDown 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Weighting more towards science

We gave the NLP fanatics a great deal of slack with the allowance of more weight plus primacy. Now I think it is time to give science weight over pseudoscience in the opening and the article, but we can still allow NLP primacy (as is conventional). So NLP should be described as scientists describe it, rather than just how NLPers want to describe it, using primarily scientific descriptions, and then the scientific critics can have their say as is already written. NLP really will take a great deal of clarification. Its such a murky subject. Regards HeadleyDown 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody can test NLP....because there are no barriers to entry. Why is it that the vast majority of people who are calling it pseudoscience are people who will suffer some specific loss (in either income, academic authority, or prestige, if NLP methods become well-known and utilized...but NOBODY ELSE???? Headley, YOU, DaveRight, and Camridge have been caught in NUMEROUS lies about this subject. Now CEASE AND DESIST. Akulkis Thu Dec 15 19:07:51 UTC 2005
Akulkis, your willingness to refuse to accept cited fact has been noted. Whether it is due to NLP induced delusion, or blatant desire for fanatical censorship, your objections are not to be taken seriously. HeadleyDown 02:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Akulkis, this is another figment of your imagination that fails to consider the history of science. If the institution of science is as petty, parochial, vain and fossilized as you'd like to pretend it is then how do you explain that last 500 years of scientific progress? Scientific discovery eventually leads to the discarding of existing theories and models -- that has been the pattern since the project of science was commenced -- how could this invalidation of then current knowledge occur if scientists are pre-occupied with "income, authority, or prestige" to the exclusion of even truth and accuracy when benefit is tied to the theories and models that are going to be torn asunder? You have no evidence that science operates this way now or that it has ever operated this way, in general or specifically with regard to NLP. This is just more bluster from you. flavius 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Not only did I study a scientific discipline (Engineering), but I have 9 credit hours of the History of Science and Technology. Now quit patronizing me with your constant insinuations that i'm not intelligent enough to understand what is being discussed here and how. In fact, it's more than just probable that my intelligence exceeds yours, so I suggest that you stop with the intellectual equivalent of "your dick is small" comments...because I don't have to make a fool of you, all I have to do is expose where you've already done it yourself. Akulkis Fri Dec 16 14:34:04 UTC 2005
Rather than assert how intelligent you are why don't you answer the question I raised above. Even if you are a genius your assertions aren't worth a shit. Your paranoic worldview cannot account for the last 500 years of science. Since you studied History of Science you should have no problem explaining the contradiction your fantastic delusion introduces. flavius 04:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I think we've got a few editors here attempting to "own" this talk page and article. Let's break this up by using Requests for Comment, votes, and polls to get neutral editors in to weigh in on consensus. --Comaze 00:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Detractors simultaneously WITHIN THE SAME SECTION argue that NLP is pseudoscientific, and at the same time, claim that is successfully used by cults to control those within the cult, and that in the business community, it is used coercively. Exactly how can NLP be used to coerce someone if, by the claims that it is "pseudoscience" it doesn't work. This is equivalent to saying, "guns don't work AND the people who have them are killing people with them." You people (HeadlessDown, DaveWrong, and Camridge) are all over the fucking map. Pick an internally-consistant argument and stick with it.

Akulkis, this has been dealt with before. Cults use dianetics and drinking urine to obtain compliance. They have no measurable worth, and just like NLP are ineffective for their sold purpose. There is nothing inconsistent about NLP's ineffectiveness and NLP's use by the wrong headed and the cults of the world. HeadleyDown 02:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, you're being a two-faced liar again. Either NLP is ineffective and fails when used for purposes of influence and control, or it can be used for influence and control becuase it is effective. There is NO way to mix & match this. How can INFLUENCE techniques be labelled ineffective, and simultaneously be used SUCCESSFULLY to influence people to the degree of having CONTROL over them? That assertion makes absolutely NO sense, AND YOU KNOW IT. Do you have ANYTHING the slightest be logical or factual to contribute here -- because everything you're insisting on is either a logical flaw (as pointed out here), or out and out invention and falsification (such as your repeated pollution with the Dianetics/Engram bullshit. Why don't you just admit that your only purpose is to pollute the page with misinformation, because it's obvious that you'll grasp at any straw if you think it will portray NLP in a negative life, no matter how ludicrous the claim. And go enroll in Philosophy 101, Introduction to Logic while you're at it. Akulkis Fri Dec 16 14:34:04 UTC 2005

Akulkis! Ignoring your personal attacks, your illogic is fatally unfounded. If you wish to accept that dianetics is effective in misleading people and that NLP is equally effective, then I agree. If you wish to promote NLP as a technology of achievement, you will feel the weight of several football stadiums full of scientists in white coats with all their bodies of knowledge against you. Not only are you erroneously promoting an ineffective set of rituals, but you are promoting a set of misdirecting new age concepts that are suspended using only a set of dubious pre-socratic pseudoscientific notions. There is hardly any need to answer your nonsense. I cannot see how you can present such a tissue of whoppers without noticing the mass of rational people who ARE laughing at your puny and ridiculous attempts at support. With nothing but Comaze and fanatical rhetoric to shore you up, you look about as sure footed as a rollerskating giraffe. In effect you are gobbing ineffectively into a gale-force wind. HeadleyDown 16:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Akulkis and Comaze. Both of you are being deliberately destructive. Comaze with your support of a highly abusive editor (Akulkis), and Akulkis, with your siding with a persistently (months of obtuse reverts) destructive editor (Comaze). You both deserve the same treatment (automatic reversion (and possible blocking according to authority decision)). HeadleyDown 02:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, you have just stated that you attempt to "own" the article by reverting editors that are not part of your "group". I urge you to retract this statement because it would violate wikipedia policy. --Comaze 03:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, loooky looky, over at the Talk:Engram#visual_patterns_stored_in_the_brain page....Someone spews off a bunch of Dianetics/Scientology BS about what the "real" meaning of engram is, and our favorite kook-in-residence, HeadleyDown, is asking the guy for more information, because he says that the D/S explanation is "interesting." Excuse me, HeadlessDown, but this is the EXACT SORT OF PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC nonsense that you claim to be arguing against, and, most interestingly, that is ****NOT***** in NLP. Akulkis Thu Dec 15 23:25:08 UTC 2005

Akulkis, your tantrum is noted, as is your abuse. To deny a fact that has been cited many times over, and discussed through mediation, is indeed a kind of delusion. HeadleyDown 03:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Awwwwwwwwww, poor Headley got caught buying into the same Dianetics/Scientology nonsense that he's been trying to attach to NLP to then use to discredit NLP.
By the way, I just looked at ... Just like the criticisms section, it simultaneously claims that NLP is inneffective AND that what makes NLP dangerously cult-like in that it IS effective. No reasonable person can abide by the inclusion of a self-refuting reference. (Personally, I know for a fact from my own personal experience in the military that the US Army does use NLP effectively, and for among other things, changing core-beliefs.) Akulkis Fri Dec 16 04:30:38 UTC 2005
To All: Lets keep this civil please. Thank you.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Settle down guys! The poll is designed to resolve the conflicts! Not create it. If this works we can use similar polls to resolve any other content disputes. There is no need to make personal remarks -- that is for both sides! See Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks and Wikipedia:Civility--Comaze 03:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The poll has two votes, so it will be ignored as any such poll would. However, I already changed the title. We dont need a poll for this. In fact no polls will be useful here.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
VoiceOfAll, I was reading through the wikipedia dispute resolution and it recommends using polls to reach consensus and to help avoid people from owning an article. It also suggests that we should encourage other neutral editors to weigh in on such polls, and with RfC. Can you expand your reasons why polls are not useful here? --Comaze 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Polls are abominable, as the article implies. They are the kneejerk of meatpuppets such as you, Akulkis, and all the other NLP zealots such as FT2, GregA, and co. They are all certified NLP fanatics and should be treated in the same group. You all push psuedoscientific arguments, all use selective editing, and all disrupt by persistent badgering. Your promotional ploys are pathetic. Is fun to watch though:) Keep up the foolish work. DaveRight 04:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So, according to you, DaveRight, since you have already discovered my LONG LONG LONG trail of USENET writings, and thus know that I am a genuine person, your theory is that long ago, I invented the identity of Comaze....but now have decided to enter the fray under my own identity after taking so much time to conceal my identity behind then name of Comaze ???? I didn't realize that the neuroscience schools were letting in people who are as illogical and prone to obtuse rationalization as what they let into psych and sociology schoools. Live and learn, I guess Akulkis Fri Dec 16 04:30:38 UTC 2005

Akulkis, I understand you can be considered a meatpuppet. Your bias is clear, as is your willingness to attack. I did notice your dissociation with the more "spiritual technologists" though. That's why I mentioned you should try ditching NLP in favour of science for a while. You will be far more persuasive and effective that way. With serious studies to back you up, you will be unbeatable. I could be wrong but you may yet be capable of ditching the sticky pseudoscience of NLP. Cheers DaveRight 04:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's so rediculous that it seriously calls your judgement into question, as it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS YOUR OWN FINDINGS of who I am. What university is teaching neuroscientists that ANY slander is acceptable if it helps you get your own way???? Once again, you're demonstrating that you are NOT interested in truth in this discussion, only in propagating lies. You, HeadleyDown, and Camridge, and Flavius have ALL been caught inserting lies into this page, and putting deliberate distortions in.....and you have the gall to start accusing ME of chickanery? Fuck you, you lying piece of shit FriAkulkis Fri Dec 16 14:34:04 UTC 2005.
Listen guys, if you want to get personal do so in the personal talk page. This here is for discussion the merits of differnet points of view and how much weight can be given to each POV and how it can be represented neutrally. We're not arguing about personal points of views but views what prominent people state about NLP. The more reputable, verifiable the better. Mixing personal attacks with general discussion is not wikipedian. If you want argue and throw around personal attacks go back to alt.psychology.nlp. --Comaze 05:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze your accusations of personal attack are misdirected. The ONLY editors throwing direct personal attacks and abusive language are proNLPers. You are part of that group, and instead of direct attack you resort to unreasonable accusation. Your agenda to slur has been identified by many neutrally oriented editors. Camridge 06:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello VoiceofAll. With regards conciseness, the best way forward is to give science it's due weight over pseudoscience. Pseudoscience will promote using as much confusing and misattributed namedropping as it can. The criticisms by scientists do need to refer clearly to NLP's claims. If NLP's claims are posted first then repeated in the criticisms, that causes redundancy, and I would really like to see more concise writing, and more room for brief scientific explanations. Therefore, I will now start making the article more concise using science as weight over pseudoscience. NLP can still retain primacy, but clarification is all important here, and science should get the weight. Camridge 05:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Camridge, The way you use engram is not science. The meaning of engram as used in neuroscience is different to that use in dianetics. Yet, you are diliberately trying to confuse the two so you connect NLP to Dianetics. This is not consistent. Is Sinclair using the Dianetics definition or the neuroscience definition -- it is unclear. I should add that I agree that we need to add more scientific references for both the definitions of NLP and connected criticism. We can spare the staw man claims about cults and new age "energy" nonsense. --Comaze 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, I have made no jump from engrams to dianetics to NLP. Multiple citations place NLP with dianetics, and that requires brief explanation. The fact is corroborated by facts about pseudoscience, occult, cult characteristics, quick fix schemes and so on within NLP. Your objection is as unreasonable as your agenda. Camridge 06:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually since engrams are on layer of abraction far lower than the rest of NLP, NLP engrams aren't seriously related to Neuroscience or Dianetics. Some NLP practitioners say NLP and its idea of engrams are related to Neurology, so that is was the article will mention. The relation is nevertheless vague and trite, but not wrong.
Enneagrams should also be mentioned breifly somewhere though.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 06:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, VOA, they are mentioned in the dubious/new age/occult section. They can be explained briefly in the method section also though. I'll see what I can find. Camridge 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi VOA. Yes engrams are a theoretical abstraction, and they are presented by Dilts (Hebb rule) and by Sinclaire amongst others in a pseudoscientific way. Encyclopedias explicitly place the engram as core (neuro). Drenth and Levelt amongst others criticise NLPers for doing it pseudoscientifically (trite is a good way of putting it also). Enneagrams confirm NLP's new age background. Camridge 06:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


If many outsiders came in, and not brand new accounts either, and voted, polls would work. Otherwise, everyone is just split into the same two groups, so the other side ignores the poll and calls "meatpuppets". We need a more rough concesus, as opposed to tallying.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 03:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello VoiceOfAll. Polling is always the last and nastiest option. I am against it in principle. There are so many reasonable editors around, but the meatpuppet NLPfanatics have tried polling/ganging up so many times before. It doesn't work and they show bad faith every time, ignoring compromise, and ignoring decisions of mediators. Your edits have been OK as far as I see. If you do make any deletions that remove important fact, a reasonable editor will place it back in brief adjusted form. Thats worked well so far. Cheers DaveRight 10:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the point that VoA was making other more experienced wikipedians would need to participate in a poll for it to work. We don't really want a factional caucus to decide the outcome of a poll beforehand. Are there ways to advertise polls on wikipedia? --Comaze 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

--Comaze 03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)==To HeadlyDown, Would you consider clean up this article please?== I had a bit of trouble reading the article. I was trying to moving the criticism under introduction section into the criticism haeding. I have not removed any lines from the article. I am sorry if this upsets you. If you feel that the article should not be changed at all, may be you should consider getting this article locked out. From an outsider point of view looking for a quick introduction on NLP and a quick list of pros and cons, I find the present layout quite confusing.--RichardCLeen 13:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Richard. Sorry if I seemed a little brusque. I am indeed working on cleaning things up. There was an agreement to give NLP more primacy, and the NLPthencriticisms format should stay for now. Clean is indeed what I have planned. I am merging various aspects of applications in order to reduce redundancy and reduce the file size. I'll be only 10-20 minutes. Any suggestions are welcome. Regards. HeadleyDown 13:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For sure, cleanup is a relevant issue now. There has been so much pressure from NLP wierdos to provide excessive evidence and explanation for the article that cleaning things up took less priority over brevifying and restoring facts that had been unreasonably censored. Now that the conflict is minimal (or at least very easy to deal with) I think a tidy article will be a good goal from now on. Of course, keeping things brief will help. I suggest general deletion of any undue NLP excuses (uncited) or excess promotional verbiage will be a good way to edit. Regards HeadleyDown 13:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation: I, HeadleyDown, refuse to agree to an NPOV, and instead, regard those who have called me out on my rediculous slanders, lies, and half-truths as "weirdos" because, rather than argue on substance, I, HeadleyDown, can only reply with ad hominem attacks, and pigheaded stubborness.
I am stubborn in some sense. I will see NLP explained in an encyclopedic fashion. No nonsense, no bluster, no excuses. Just helpful, reasonable explanation. I have the support of rational humanity behind me. And I am completely aware of the Wikipedians here who will not stand for the deliberate obscuring of factual knowledge. HeadleyDown 16:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see that DaveRight has ONCE AGAIN INCLUDED THE DIANETICS SLANDER AGAINST PERLS. Dave, your side has ALREADY FAILED to produce the slightest bit of evidence that Perls was promoting, or even using Dianetics. You know, you guys are just something else. I'm hardly and expert in this field, and yet, I'm catching you in deliberate lies left, right and center. The Perls/Dianetics reference is being REMOVED ... and it shall STAY THAT WAY until you can produce evidence for your claim. Akulkis Sat Dec 17 01:39:36 UTC 2005

Akulkis, the fact is well supported. Mediation resulted in it remaining in the article. Your constant removal of fact is bad faith, and shows you to be an NLP zealot bent on censorship. The fact is clear from books on Gestalt, from dianetics books, and from some of his biographies. My recent reversion of your's and Comaze's confounding minor cap edits is due to the fact that it has all been dealt with in the archives. Either discuss and edit using facts and in good faith, or do not edit at all. HeadleyDown 02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

HeadlessClown, please explain your revert of changing this:

  • Visual: upward eye movement; shallow breathing; muscle tension in neck; high pitched/nasal voice tone; phrases such as “I can imagine that idea clearly
  • Auditory: horizontal eye movement; even breathing from diaphragm; even or rhythmic muscle tension; clear midrange voice tone, sometimes tapping or whistling; phrases such as “I hear what you are saying
  • Kinesthetic: eyes down to right; belly breathing and sighing; relaxed musculature; slow voice tone with long pauses; phrases such as “I feel that have a firm grasp of it“
  • Auditory internal dialogue (or natural language); phrases such as “I say to myself x“
  • Direction: The direction left or right together with temporal predicates informs if an image or sound was recalled or constructed

Back to this:

  • Visual: eyes up to left or right according to dominant hemisphere access; high or shallow breathing; muscle tension in neck; high pitched/nasal voice tone; phrases such as “I see”.
  • Auditory: eyes left or right; even breathing from diaphragm; even or rhythmic muscle tension; clear midrange voice tone, sometimes tapping or whistling; phrases such as “I hear what you are saying”.
  • Kinesthetic: eyes down left or right; belly breathing and sighing; relaxed musculature; slow voice tone with long pauses; phrases such as “I have a strange feeling about this”.

It is now OBVIOUS that when you say your are "correcting" things, that all you're doing is mass-reverting by just going back to a previous checkpoint, and blindly undoing ALL changes, without even fucking looking at the page -- which is both intellectually and academically dishonest, and indicative that you are NOT interested in cooperating with anyone, but merely here to OWN the page. Sorry, Headless, but if you hate NLP so much, then set up your own webpage, and write all your slanders there. I'll even support putting a link to your scribblings in the links section. Akulkis


Akulkis, I've already spent the last 3 weeks warning a group of users to cease with the personal attacks. We don't want to give them any fuel to start back up again. Intentionally misspelling someone's handle or providing personal remarks in edit comments is against wikipedia policy. I realise that you are just new to wikipedia so it will take a little while to get use to it. Just ignore any personal remark and reply to the merits of an argument (or not at all). --Comaze 03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. I did some checking, and your definition of personal attack is incorrect. Editor's clear description of your extremely biased editing, devious manouvers, and descriptions of your denial of fact is not a personal attack. In addition, Akulkis should simply be blocked from editing wikipedia. Personal attacks using deliberate misrepresentation of usernames, and abundant expletives is completely unacceptable, and has only served to paint NLP promoters as uncooperative anti-NPOV deviants. I have noticed that is a common characteristic of NLP promoters. The trend is clear. RomanX 04:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Akulkis is only a new user here so we must assume good faith. For example, your edit contains an attack, implying that an editor is a NLP promoter implies that the editor is not neutral, which is technically a violation of Wikipedia:assume good faith. I agree that personal remarks in edit comments should be avoided. In Wikipedia technically any personal remark is a personal attack; this includes staw man arguments. Pointing out bias in specific edits is fine but this should be accompanied with a link to the diffs in question rather than making accusation about "promotion". It is then important to other neutral wikipedians in to weigh in on consensus. Any personal remarks directed at specific users, rather than arguing about the merits is a violation of wikipedian policy. The policy states if you think things are getting personal then send a private message or work it out via email. The discussion page is designed for people to work together to reach consensus on a neutral point of view. --Comaze 06:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, the only people being uncivil here are Akulkis for Fing and Blinding at people, and you for making officious statements while conducting a concerted agenda to remove cited facts. HeadleyDown 03:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Quit behaving like a pathological liar, and I'll quit treating you as such. Akulkis 12:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bandler's Profession

Bandler is described in the introduction as a mathematician. He has no degree in mathematics and he never worked as a mathematician so in what sense is he a mathematician? Bandler has a BA in psychology and philosophy and an MA is psychology. Unlike Grinder, Bandler never held a job outside of teaching and practicing NLP since his graduation. NLP is all he's ever done. At the time NLP was conceived Bandler can only be described as a "psychology graduate" flavius 15:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Flavius. Maybe you are right. Reports are confusing and sometimes completely erroneous though. Some call him DR Bandler:) Now that's funny! HeadleyDown 16:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We had a commment on this over at the Talk:Richard Bandler, "Bandler does not have a real doctorate. He has a BA and an MA. He was awarded an honourary doctorate from a continental European university. However, references to Richard Bandler as 'Dr Bandler' predate his honourary award and by convention honourary PhD holders are not to use the title 'Doctor' (especially not for commercial promotion). 02:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)" --Comaze 22:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
note: According to Grinder when they met Bandler was a 4th year undergraduate psychology student at University of California (Santa Cruz campus). --Comaze 23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
That was me Comaze before I created an account, I point that out below for the sake of transparency. In one of his seminars Bandler claimed he submitted a doctoral thesis at the USF and was an awarded a PhD from their. He said that we had difficulty finding where to submit his dissertation because he had cut soe many classes. This sent alarm bells ringing in my head -- any one that knows anything about postgraduate study knows that the amount of classes fall the higher you progress. There are classes when you undertsake a PhD, there are only occassional meetings with your supervisor. So I wrote an email to the USF Alumni Society to ask them if a they had ever awarded a doctorate -- honorary or earned -- to a Richard Wayne Bandler. The officer replied that they had no such record. I then went to Proquest\UMI dissertation index -- I found Grinder, he did submit a thesis titled "On Deletion Phenomena" IIRC and he was awarded a doctorate. Bandler does not appear in the Proquest\UMI dissertation index. The email counts as original research and although I can supply the response complete with headers to anyone that's interested it's not suitable for Wikipedia verification puproses. A link to the Proquest\UMI dissertation index -- which I have included in the Bandler article -- should be ok. If Bandler has a doctorate it is neither from a North American university nor is it earned. I could no detail about Bandler's honrary doctorate except rumour that t came from a Continetal European university. Any attempt to solicit detail on alt.psychology.nlp is met with an avalanche of abusive replies. Attempting to verify any of Bandler's claims is strictly verboten -- the worshippers don't like their idols being tarnished. Regarding Bandler's undergraduate and graduate qualification IIRC he attempted to submit the manuscript of Magic I to the psychology department of USC as his master's thesis. It was rejected because it wasn't entirely his work. He re-worked it and submitted it and was awarded an MA in "Theoretical Psychology". The marketing angle that B&G pursued in promoting NLP wasn't compatible with one of the inventors being a psychology graduate since NLP was touted as a revolutionary breakthrough something altogether different that came from outside of psychology by two people that supposedly knew nothing of the fields. In his early seminars I have heard Bandler refer to himself as a physicist, an information scientist, a computer programmer, and a mathematician. In "Bandler Doing Bandler" I think he's an "information scientist", in one of his NHR recordings he's physicist (with a special interest in optics, which is the leadin to his pontifications about holographic memoey) and in one of his DHE recordings (IIRC) he's a computer programmer. Can we remove the reference to him as being a mathematician, he is no such thing and their is no evidence that he even took a single unit in math at university. flavius 04:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed "mathematcian" to "psychology graduate". According to Lee Lady Bandler was a linguistics graduate refer [28][29]. I'll continue investigating this. flavius 04:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Flavius. Unless we can obtain better evidence, we should provide only titles that we know for sure. Bandler's shamanic role is common knowledge. I did hear that he minored in psychology, but he was either a computer scientist or a math nerd. Either way, we need to clarify things regarding his quals. Dr is certainly not one of his qualifications. Bandler is most certainly not a psychologist now. RomanX 04:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou flavius. I think Lee Lady is probably one of the more reliable sources on the history of NLP -- but it is not published so I don't know about how much weight we can give it. There is another book on the history of NLP by McClendon (The Wild Days) -- I don't know how reliable this is. Whispering in the Wind also has a section on the history of NLP but that is probably from Grinder's point of view. Checking with the university directly is the best way to check this out -- thankyou for doing this. American Pacific university is a non-accredited university[30] that has issued PhD[31] to some NLP trainers, this needs to be checked out also. see Matt James, Tad James. I don't know of any reliable sources for the history of NLP because of the mix between fact, marketing and "change personal history". My next question is about weight. Given that Bandler does not have a PhD is he to be given less academic weight? It could be considered staw man to take a weak argument from someone who does not have proper qualifications and then use it to criticise the entire field. Then again, Bandler is considered the NLP 'guru' so I don't know how this effects things. We may need to separate "academic NLP" from "non-academic NLP". Separate the wild marketing claims from the actually published scholarly work. --Comaze 06:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, I have been able to confirm the following details:
Richard W. Bandler
DOB: 24th February 1950
UCSC College: Kresge College
UCSC 1st Degree, Major and Class Year: BA, 1973, Psychology, UCSC
No further qualifications listed.
again like the private correspondence between myself and the officer of the USF Alumnus Association (which I am willing to share via email) this source isn't directly citable in Wikipedia. It does however confirm Grinder's report and the MJ article. I suggest we use Grinder's account in Whispering and the bio details in MJ as citations for the description of Bandler as a "psychology graduate". The official record lists Bandler as having a BA in Psychology so I think it's fair to describe him as a"psychology graduate". He isn't a psychologist because that requires further qualifications and professional licensing. flavius 07:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, I can understand Kresge College awarding Bandler an MA in "Theoretical Psychology" for a version of Magic I. Kresge encouraged this sort of transdisciplinary, avante-garde, unorthodox research. flavius
Thankyou, could you please email the correspondence to me, Special:Emailuser/Comaze. Is there any way to confirm or deny Bateson's involvement in Bandler's MA? Bateson wrote the foreword for Magic I, signed, 'Gregory Bateson, Kresge College, UCSC'. --Comaze 08:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, I emailed you as requested. Lee Lady mentions Grinder as Bandler's MA thesis supervisor. B&G met Bateson -- as opposed to Grinder becoming acquainted with him earlier -- at the Alba Road commune. I can't find an exact date when B&G moved to Alba Road. If we can establish a chronology of events we may be able to determine the likelihood of particular events. FWIW I don't think Bateson actively helped Bandler with his MA thesis -- there aren't any Batesonian ideas in Magic I at least not in the core of the thesis. When Bateson was at Kresge Grinder had only a passing acquaintance with Bateson (as a person) which he talks about in Whispering, so it is unlikely that Bandler knew him well enough while at Kresge to get his assistance. I'll look this up. flavius 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze. I'll responf to your question raised in the last part of the post above here. You say, "My next question is about weight. Given that Bandler does not have a PhD is he to be given less academic weight? It could be considered staw man to take a weak argument from someone who does not have proper qualifications and then use it to criticise the entire field. Then again, Bandler is considered the NLP 'guru' so I don't know how this effects things. We may need to separate "academic NLP" from "non-academic NLP". Separate the wild marketing claims from the actually published scholarly work.". I don't think anyone is proposing an argument to undermine NLP on the basis of Bandler's lies. That incidentally would be a form of Ad Hominem not "straw man". NLP -- like everyhing else -- can only be assessed on its own merits and that is what the cited critical literature does. Bandler's qualifications and lies about the same are relevant as subordinate concerns to the 'NLP as pseudoscience' and 'NLP as charlatnry' topics. As you mentioned earlier there are many NLP trainers with diploma mill PhD (or in Bandler's case not even a cheap bit of parchment). The fake academic qualifucations are part of the semiotic arsenal of the con-artist. When Bandler says he has a PhD and calls imself Dr Bandler and says he is a physicist, computer scientists etc he is trying to misappropriate some of the prestige that the much of the public invests in its scientists. Carmine Baffa, Tad James and his son engage in the same sort of seedy behaviour. So from a social psychological, sociological and anthropological perspective the fake degrees are of interest. Any analysis of the con would need to mention the fake degrees. It is also significant because Bandler, James and Baffa are not obscure trainers, they occupy the uppermost echlons of NLP. flavius 07:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I would need to see over 10 references that verified Bandler's qualification. NLP fanatics demanded over 10 refs for the engram fact and those references were provided. Comaze, you must provide that level of verification if you wish to hold an MA graduation party for Bandler. HeadleyDown 12:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, I am confident only that Bandler has a BA in psychology from UCSC whicg he gained in 1973. I can only find one source (the MJ article) that mentions the MA. Regardless, I think it's appropriate and accurate to describe Bandler as a "psychology graduate". Even if he doesn't have an MA in psychology "psychology graduate" remains an accurate description of Bandler at the time of the formulation of NLP. I am also confident that he is not a mathematician or a computer scientist, computer programmer or "information scientists" because Kresge doesn't and never has had these departments ([32]. Kresge is primarily a humanities and social sciences college and it is heavily influenced by post-modernism ([33]). flavius 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
RomanX, the Mother Jones artcile describes Bandler as having a an MA in "Theoretical Psychology". Lee Lady says that Bandler's MA was in linguistics. Grinder describes Bandler as a psychology graduate. Remember he sumitted a form of Magic I as his masters thesis. He wouldn't have been able to submit that at the Maths or Computing departments at UCSC. Also, Lee Lady tells us that Grinder supervised Bandler's MA thesis. Grinder was at the time attached to the linguistics department of UCSC. There is no evidence -- absolutely none -- that Bandler took any units in mathematics or computing. I agree he never was a psychologist and he definitely isn't a psychologist now. "Psychology Graduate" is not equivalent to "Psychologist". If a version of Magic I was his MA thesis and Grinder supervised him then we know he isn't a maths or computing graduate because Grinder was part not employed in either the math or computing departments and Magic I is about neither topics. Magic I is heavily influenced by TG (at least in a broad conceptual way), which a linguistic theory current at the time Bandler was at USC. Also, it was Grinder's area of expertise as a linguist (he wrote a tutorial on the topic). However, given that Magic I is not about linguistics but incorporates concepts from linguistic theory I doubt that it would have been acceptable to the linguistics department. Magic I -- whatever its merits -- is concerned with psychology (it approaches psychology using a framework from linguistics). I think Magic I would have been accpetable to a psychology department that fosters "avante-garde" approaches and UCSC psychology department was one such faculty. For this reason I think the MJ account and Grinder's account are correct. I think it is accurate to describe Bandler as "psychology graduate". This isn't the same as saying he is or was a psychologist. flavius 06:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you, Flavius. Roles and titles are important, prior and present. Self help guru, is a term that covers both presently. One important fact that does need briefly explaining more clearly in the main body is that neither of them is a scientist or a psychologist. This could perhaps be placed in the pseudoscience section briefly. This is the view of Singer and Lalich, amongst others. Regards HeadleyDown 08:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley. Yes, an undergraduate degree in New Age psychology (Gestalt, TA, Primal Scream) from a thoroughly post-modern college does not a psychologist or a scientist make. Similarly a PhD in TG -- a lingustics fashion from the 1970s -- does not make one a psychologist or a scientist. Neither B&G have training in experimental psychology or science in general. I don't think either have taken even a 101 level course in statistics and experiment design. Grinder's account of the function of statistics in empirical testing in Whispering is risible. Similarly Bandler has only a minor in philosophy and Grinder may have the same (he too has a BA majoring in psychology). This accounts for their naive philosophising. flavius 06:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Flavius. I believe your account of BnG's background will be very useful and clarifying for the article, as you have focused on cross-verifying the research. Unlike Comaze and co, you have also acted in good faith throughout whilst providing lucid explanations of the facts. I don't think you need any more evidence to place those clarifying facts on the article in some brief form. Regards HeadleyDown 07:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello RomanX and welcome. This is a tricky one. BnG allow as many myths about them as people want to create. I think we would need to rely more on recent history to label them. They have made impacts into the self help industry and that seems to have been their greatest contribution (the spread of pseudoscience and mind myths). Salerno gives journalistic coverage of these facts. Really though, in a way NLP is not the product of the originators. It is simply an extension of the new age human potential movement. Hubbard instigated this through prompts from Aleister Crowley, and the occult aspects remain within millenial NLP new age developments. Indeed not a week goes by without some new spiritual technology appearing and most with some association with NLP. I will need some more conclusive evidence in order to make a decision. As people here realise, NLP is deliberately confusing and obscurantic. HeadleyDown 12:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Akulkis Sat Dec 17 03:31:25 UTC 2005 Salerno is HIMSELF of dubious authority. A large number of reviewers on cite faulty logic, assertions without evidence, and outright fabrication and mischaracterization. See here: for Sham : How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless by Steve Salerno

Akulkis, I don't know how reliable the Amazon is for reviews because anyone can publish there anonymously. Is there any links to magazines or more reputable publicatons that criticise Salerno? I have to go out now, but I'll check later. I appreciate your pointer. Thanks. --Comaze 03:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
You're a clown Akulkis\Aaron. If you have a real degree from a real university (as opposed to a piece of paper from a diploma mill that you paid $100 for) then I'm Elvis Presley. Since when were reviews on authoritative and citable. People like you can contribute reviews to amazon, you don't even have to have bought the book from Amazon to post a review. People that haven't even read the book can post a review. So on the basis of "a large number of reviews" that assert that Salerno is a dubious authority he must therefore be a dubious authority. The popularity of an opinion then establishes its truth. In my part of the world we mock that logical fallacy by saying, "Eat shit, 50 million flies can't be wrong". Communism must then have been a sound economic and political theory since the USSR was full of communists. Wahabist Islam must be the way to go huh? We can ask all of the mullahs and imams to confirm that. You are embarassing Comaze and yourself. flavius 06:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Flavius, when people who are SYMPATHETIC to the author's point-of-view (Specifically, the book "SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless", and LARGE NUMBERS OF SYMPATHETIC READERS WHO PURCHASED THE BOOK disagree with the author's conclusion... that tells you something. When an author can't even convince most of the people who are predisposed to believe in his thesis, then he's most likely full of shit. And this must be the first time anyone has referred to a Big-10 University's schools of engineering as a "diploma mills"
As I've stated before. You -- like all WWW Kooks -- have an aberrant concept of evidence and this distorted notion of evidence not only renders you unable to actually debate a matter but also creates and sustains your paranoid worldview. Regarding your degree, I don't think you have a real degree. I looked at many of your posts on a range of topics. At best you're are hack second-rate Unix administrator (you actually detract from the Unix and Linux forums you participate in, you have shared nothing that marks you as remarkable as an IT technician) with a jaundiced view of the world that leads a socially isolated and misanthropic life. flavius 06:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Akulkis and Comaze. Having had a good read through both of your many objections, I would consider your efforts a concerted whitewash of NLP. If you wish to edit on this article, I suggest you do a few years of trust recovery first. If you wish to present facts on the article, you would also do well to take a scientific/anthropological/historical perspective. Your current perspective is taken from that of pseudoscience. Sorry, Akulkis and Comaze. You have been rumbled and that is due to your own exposure of your strongly antagonistic agenda. The only way I can see to deal with your misdirecting and unreason is to write briefly that you are in error, or are simply here to cause trouble, and to revert your obscuring of the facts. RomanX 04:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh look, Another one of Headley's flat-Earther friends who hides behind a pseudonym.Akulkis
RomanX, I pointed out my objections quite clearly. I've asked for a third party comment to avoid any accusation of bias. Since you are just new to wikipedia I have no way to judge if your opinion is neutral or not. Rather than shooting the messenger, why not address the specific objections to Loma, Raso, Barrett and NCAHF directly? Notice that I have questioned Akulkis comments, and I have send a private message asking him to not make personal remarks in edit comments. Everyone on wikipedia is welcome to make contributions. --Comaze 06:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV / on-topic

Comaze, your whitewashing of your own anti-NPOV activities is also hillariously transparent. Many neutrally oriented editors here have written in depth and at length about your months of fact deletions, your sneaky moves, and your certified NLPpromoter meatpuppetry. Your agenda is clear, and you are to be ingored and reverted. HeadleyDown 07:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, I will not respond to you here. It is off-topic. A reply can be found here. --Comaze 07:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, your reply was deleted as it was simply part of the persistently unreasonable harassment you have been guilty of conducting towards the neutrally oriented editors on this article. Deleting, ignoring, or reverting Comaze's persistently unreasonable agenda is perfectly acceptable. HeadleyDown 08:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
HeadleyDown, if you insist on neutrality editors on this page, then you must recuse yourself IMMEDIATELY -- in less than two weeks, I myself have caught you inserting numerous lies in this page. And when it is shown that you have perpetrated a lie, you STILL insist on re-inserting it. I don't mind criticism of NLP -- but you're a zealot of the flat-earth-believing variety.... either that, or a psychological counselor who can barely afford to pay the rent for his office, and is utterly terror-stricken over your clients getting wind of better ways to solve their problems than whatever it is that you are doing...not for them, but for yourself and your bank account. Akulkis Sun Dec 18 20:49:23 UTC 2005

Barrett, Raso, Loma, NCAHF and Quackwatch

The misrepresentation of criticism is not limited to the Dianetics / engram stuff. The opening line to "Dubious applications" contains this statement ....

"Dr Barrett, the organizer of Quackwatch, describes NLP as a therapy to avoid[22], and The National Council Against Health Fraud (Loma 2001) classify NLP is a "dubious therapy".


  • Quackwatch (Barrett) cites Druckman and Swets (1980) so this should be cited directly
  • NCAHF does not cite Loma, it cites an article by Jack Raso in Priorities for Health magazine. An opinion which is already quoted elsewhere in the article as Raso (1994).
  • NCAHF is not a well-known organisation, Barrett is the administrator of the web site and main editor. It has a very low Alexa rank.
  • Quackwatch and NCAHF.ORG are operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D. (based on whois search).
  • I assume that Loma (2001) is "Loma Linda University" and not a person! see here -- I am not able to find any information about Linda Loma on the internet so we currently have no evidence to suggest that Linda Loma is a notable author on the topic.
  • This is really silly guys Loma Linda is the name of the town....[34]
The National Council against Health Fraud, Inc.
Post Office Box 1276
Loma Linda, CA 92354

The rules at most universities state that you should whenever possible cite the original research. Quoting Barrett and NCAHF in this manner is not acceptable. There are many similar examples in the criticism section. Other citations need to be checked for misrepresentation and overgeneralisation. I am not impressed with the accuracy of the current document - both in definitions and criticism of NLP. Can someone neutral please check it and make necessary corrections starting with statements attributed to NCAHF and Dr. Barrett. I am making notes on the various areas with that need a fact and reference check. Normal the fact and reference check team will only go to work on a page that is fairly stable (ie. with no edit wars). If Loma exist and is notable a simple google search could prove the point. At the moment we have no verifiable evidence that Loma exists, or is notable. I think the author was created or a simple error. Unless evidence is found, I will remove all references and statements attributed to Loma 2001. I'll give you until tomorrow and then I'll delete all text attributed to Loma (2001). There is a town in california called: Loma Linda, CA --Comaze 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation in this citation:
* The extent of the "dubious therapy" label in the original context is applied to "mental health" whereas we have broadened the scope to be just a generally dubious therapy in all applications.
Irrespective of this, I second that Quackwatch and NCAHF citations should be removed. They are not notable. In fact, wikipedians already had this debate over at the Chiropractic article. Quackwatch lists taking vitamins, eating fresh fruit, chiropractic, vegetarian diets and meditation all as quackery. This is far from both standard scientific viewpoints and the weight of public opinion. Barrett has landed quite a lot of legal attention as a result. Best to simply avoid him and his websites in favour of more notable sources.
I am also in favour of extending this discussion of misrepresentation of facts. Eisner has been misrepresented, as has the Watchman Fellowship. Both topics for future discussion. (n.b. I've read the archive. You're a busy bunch.) Peace. --Metta Bubble 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Metta Bubble. There are many sources who state NLP is dubious, and some of them also call it devious, banal, a cult and so on. I have added their corroborating view to that of NCAFH, who does have weight as a consumer awareness body. It is the view of a significant body of authors. Regards HeadleyDown 03:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley. Did you know that if you type NCAFH into google, four of the top five matches are links questioning the NCAFH's credibility? Wikipedia itself doesn't cite NCAFH's credibility except in this article. What's more, NCAFH is clearly synonymous with QuackWatch (both run by the same person to promote the same viewpoints). This kind of doubling up of dubious citations is rife in this article (with Eisner and Sharpleys views doubled also). If you look to a truly respected international body you find The World Health Organisation is employing a Master NLP Practitioner to manage their UNAIDS awareness campaigns. Why? Because it's dubious, banal and cultish? Or more likely because the World Health Organisation thinks NLP works and will get the results they need. Or should we ask the self-proclaimed "Quackwatcher", long retired and long disputed ex-doctor from North America as you suggest. I've read all the logs and I'm satisfied this discussion is worth raising here now. Peace. --Metta Bubble 10:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Metta Bubble. I know if you type various stuff into Google, various magical things happen. However, the NCAFH has been around a while, and has accrued a fair amount of litigation because the US is a highly litigous society. Consider why they would want to class NLP as a dubious therapy. What evidence do they have that NLP is a dubious therapy? I suspect it is because they have the same evidence that is presented on this article; that of empirical science. NLP is pseudoscientific in principle theories, ineffective in practice, and pseudoscientific in excuse. What could be more dubious than claiming your "therapy" is a kind of theraputic magic? NLP was, is, and will continue to be dubious. Reason is important here. If you are disputing that NLP is not a dubious therapy (or that is not the view of some people) then I think you are in the wrong place. Regards HeadleyDown 13:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Metta Bubble. I think your logic is flawed. You are attempting to infer the efficacy of NLP because UNAIDS employs an NLP practitioner. How can you possibly bridge this yawning chasm? Numerous organsiations have been hijacked, infiltrated and contaminated by "dubious, banal and cultish" groups and doctrines. See for example [35][36]. You and Akulkis appear to believe that truth is somehow connected to consensus. If we could establish truth by consensus then could dispense with science and just have polls on all matters. It is of no significance that an arm of the WHO employed an NLP practitioner or that some drill sergeants use NLP or than some police departments use it. There was a point in time in the history of Western medicine when bloodletting was a standard treatment for numerous illnesses [37][38]. George Washington himself was fond of bloodletting, so much so that it eventually killed him. Why did 19th centuey North Americans practice bloodletting? Because they believed it gave them "the results they need[ed]". Efficacy cannot be established with reference to belief and this is what you appear to be advocating. The question which you are not concerning yourself with is "Does NLP actually provide the results UNAIDS needs?". It was this sort of question that eventually led to discontinuation of numerous medical practices that we now consider bizarre or barbaric. flavius 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I notice that, once again, HeadleyDown is talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time -- arguing that NLP is both ineffect AND that it is dangerous. Anything which is ineffective is, by definition, something which has NO effect. That which has no effect CANNOT BE DANGEROUS for the same reason that it cannot be beneficial -- because it does nothing. By characterizing NLP dangerous, HeadleyDown is actually admitting that it is NOT ineffective. To HeadlyDown, what makes NLP dangerous is that if most of the public gets wind of it, HeadleyDown will suffer a severe decrease in authority and billable hours, and hence, income. Akulkis Sun Dec 18 20:49:23 UTC 2005
This is more of your dick head logic. How about car brakes that don't work, are they not dangerous? How about the fraudulent pharmaceutical manufacturer that sells ampoules of saline solution as adrenaline, are these not dangerous (this actually happened in India: a patient undergoing cardiac arrest was injected with saline solution -- twice -- with no effect, he of course died)? How about a an air traffic control radar system that doesn't work, isn't that dangerous? What about fake night-vision goggles, would these be safe? What about a pacemaker that was just an empty box, this would be safe would it? What about a geiger counter that made random clicking sounds, this would be safe to use would it? What about a radiation suit that was just made of plastic, would this not be dangerous? What about a vaccine for rabies that was inert, if this were used in a rabies prone region of the world would this not be dangerous? What about a parachute the size of tea towel, it would be ineffective, would it also be safe to use? What about a dry suit made out of rice paper, it would have no effect as far as insulation goes, would it safe to dive icy waters using it? What about a parachute that didn't deploy, would it be safe? How did you manage to equate ineffectivess with safety. There is no connection between the two. Something can be ineffective and safe eg. wearing a copper bracelet to relieve arthritis, ineffective and dangerous eg. injecting saline solution into a patient in cardiac arrest when you should be injecting adrenaline or getting a coffee enema to "detoxify" your liver, effective and safe eg. using an ice pack or elevating a limb to reduce swelling and effective and dangerous eg. using Rauwolfia serpentina to treat hypertension or Podophyllum peltatum to treat constipation. As I said earlier if you have a real BSc in EE from a real university then I'm Elvis Presley. flavius 03:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well then, toots, better start strumming your guitar. Akulkis Tue Dec 20 09:44:16 UTC 2005

I replied to HeadleyDown via private message. regards --Comaze 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed Comaze's sociopathic objections. HeadleyDown 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's let the evidence speak for itself... The "Loma" and NCAHF reference was originally added by HeadleyDown, [39]. I tried to correct it[40] so did Fuelwagon[41] a number of times, but HeadleyDown teamed up with DaveRight to blindly revert to keep this error in the article[42][43]. --Comaze 11:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello not Comaze. I discovered the Loma reference on a scholarly journal Proquest search database. It comes from a scholarly source, and it places NLP as a dubious therapy. I believe this does need more clarification within the article. The science and pseudoscience section can be expanded to explain this fact further. I am not responding to Comaze, but to the reasonable editors who want to see clarity in contrast with Comaz and his desire to obscure the facts. HeadleyDown 13:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I just checked proquest multiple databases. The Loma ref is there. It also places NLP with Dianetics. It seems the ref is indeed verifiable. DaveRight 04:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, I have also found the Loma ref on the proquest database. It is a valid fact, and it does also have Dianetics as a companion in that category of dubious therapies. The term dubious is used by many authors to describe NLP, and therefore, your efforts at censorship are pointless. Bookmain 08:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I doubt it DaveRight/Bookmain/JPlogan/Camridge/HeadleyDown. If this Loma person existed you could give me a link to prove that he/she is notable. As far as I am concerned we can now removed all references to Loma 2001 and attributed statements. NCAHF can also be removed. --Comaze 01:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley. NLP is clearly supported by as many scientists as not. Even a cursory review of Medline shows this. There is no accord of any kind in the medical or scientific community. Notwithstanding this, it should be made clear in our article that therapuetic applications are only a small part of NLP. Hence criticisms thereof should be scaled down accordingly. NLP is now government accredited in many countries. And so too, NLP has a fascinating history full of controversy. NLP's history should be used to enrich our article, instead of trying to paint a black and white picture. Peace. Metta Bubble 02:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Metta Bubble, we have been through this ad nausium. Refer to the archives, and refer to overviews and reviews of the research. HeadleyDown 03:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mettabubble, your own research is not allowed here. Your efforts seem to be geared to quadrupling the size of the article against the efforts of mediators, and neutrally minded editors. Your efforts also seem to be revealing a certain anti-NPOV agenda. I could be wrong, but I think you fancy NLP, or perhaps even Akulkis and Comaze. DaveRight 04:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Editors. Quackwatch is not only un-notable to the scientific community, but also unaccepted by government bodies and unaccepted by the wider public. There has not been a counter argument anywhere in this talk page or in the archives. Quackwatch and NCAHF was booed off the chiropractic article many times in our own wikipedia. The NCAHF's poor credibility is renowned: [[|California Appeals Court BLUDGEONS Quackbusters]]; is a controversial organization. There isn't a single notable source for stating that NCAHF or Quackwatch counts for anything. I have read our talk archives here and this issue is current and worthwhile. The "dubious therapy" references in our article are poorly quoted on two counts as the context has been changed and no longer refers to Mental Help; and the content has been changed as the citation doesn't even use the phrase we've used -- "dubious therapy". It is also poorly cited as quackwatch has a widely publicised poor credibility. All statements in the article saying NLP is a dubious therapy should be deleted or tamed into a context where we don't distort the original authors intention. Our talk archive includes many citations indicating NLP is a widely accepted and high repute field, including references on Medline [44] and the World Health Organisation for starters. If you insist the article needs to be so streamlined as to not represent these facts in its body, we should be not be representing the opposing views either. Peace. Metta Bubble 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Metta Bubble. I tried to follow the URLs you supplied and both appear dead.
[Correct link is here [[]] Akulkis 12:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC) ]

I don't understand the basis upon which you assert that "Quackwatch is not only un-notable to the scientific community, but also unaccepted by government bodies and unaccepted by the wider public". Who is the "wider public" and how did you assess their opinions vis-a-vis Quakwatch? Medical[45][46], scientific[47] and journalistic[48] sites refer their readers to Quackwatch (that it appears on the top of a Google search for "Quackwatch" indicates that it is widely referred to). Barrett received an honorary lifetime membership in the American Diabetic Association for his contribution to combatting quackery in the field of nutrition[49]. In STEPHEN BARRETT, M.D. (Plaintiff) v. DARLENE SHERRELL and PHILLIP HEGGEN (Defendants) the District Judge in his conclusion stated that "The court finds plaintiff's testimony as to his involvement in fighting what he calls health fraud and quackery to be credible...[b]ecause plaintiff has extensively and voluntarily involved himself in the public controversy of health fraud, the court concludes that he is a limited public figure."[50]. You say, "our talk archive includes many citations indicating NLP is a widely accepted and high repute field, including references on Medline". I've done a search on both Medline and PsycInfo and most of the research papers fall on the side of anti-NLP and those papers that do conclude in favour of NLP have been subsequently shown to be invalidated by various methodological defects. This matter has been gone over before -- check the archives, you will find that I list all of the Medline papers. I also did the same search on PsycInfo but decided not to publish the larger list because it was distracting some of the pro-NLP editors like GregA. NLP is neither "widely accepted" or of "high repute". It is on the margins of some fields, off the page on most and perceived by notable psychologists, linguists and neurologists to be pseudoscience, junk science, New Age, fraudulent and a sham (see references in article). Chiropractic is in the same category as NLP -- it is a form of shamanistic ritual. I don't think anyone -- other than other chiropractors -- cares what chiropractors think, they are pseudoscientist/shamans. flavius 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Read this and weep, Flavius/Camridge/HeadleyDown/DaveRight....

Calm down Kookla. Since we all one person only one of us need read it ;-) flavius 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

QUACKWATCH is now officially discredited.

Kookla, I read NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC. v. KING BIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; FRANK J. KING, JR.; and DOES 1-50[] and the appellate court ruling[] and you are misprepresnting the courts finds. Neither proceeding makes a general judgement against the NCAHF. How could it? That was never at issue. The remarks regarding the credibility of Messrs Sampson and Barrett relate specifically to their capacity as expert witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff viz. NCAFH given their close affiliation with said organisation and unambiguous hostility towards homeopathy. Neither judgement relates to the NCAHF or Barrett in general. flavius 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Barrett has lost his license, and is under criminal prosecution for the activities carried out under the auspices of Quackwatch. He, and others in the organization have been INDICTED on the following charges:

Kookla, you made this up. I have seen no evience that Barrett lost his license and as usual you have failed to present any. flavius 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
De-licensed MD Stephen Barrett (and several of his henchmen) got sued last Monday, July 23, 2001 in Alameda Superior Court in California. The quackbusters were charged, among other things, with Racketeering (RICO), Violation of Civil Rights, Abuse of Process, and Malicious Prosecution.


Kookla, you are paraphrasing an entirely unsubstantiated opinion piece. Where are the details of this alleged indictment? flavius 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC), that pretty much wraps up Quackwatch, and all Barret references for lack of credibility.

Kookla, it does no such thing. NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC. v. KING BIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC was poorly executed (by the plaintiff's laywers) and ambitious litigation that was aimed at reversing the burdern of proof for claims of false advertising in California. It failed and it was still-born. The NCAHF should have had King Bio's homeopathic remedies independently tested and they should have used expert testimony outside of the NCAHF -- there is no shortage of it. The case has no wider significance in relation to NCAHF or Barrett. If you disagree show me where in the judgements it states otherwise. Don't just rant and rave like you've been doing in your 25,000+ Usenet posts and don't tell me about your imaginary military career or imaginary BSE where you studied thermodynamics even though EE and CSE syllabi don't include thermodynamics (because it's completely irrelevant). Calm yourself -- using NLP if you must -- and with reference to the case documents show me how I'm wrong. flavius 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

2 Also, regarding the associated organization, NCAHF -- they were taken over by Barrett, and their website has been taken down.

Kookla you are hallucinating. Click here [51]. Note that it says "Most recent update: December 21, 2005" flavius 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Barrett sued the guy who runs for defamation and libel in Pennsylvania court (Barrett's home state). The judge ruled that since the writings about Barrett in Quackpotwatch were true, and therefore failed the legal test for both defamation and libel. Therefore, Quackpotwatch IS a credible source concerning Barret -- so says a judge Pennsylvania who was asked to rule ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE of whether Quackpotwatch is credible in regards to the content regarding Barrett. So solly! Akulkis 13:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Kookla, take your Diazepam and apply a ice pack to your heated brow. The article that you reference below states that "Barrett, a long-time nemesis of chiropractic, filed the lawsuit because of Koren’s publication that Barrett was ‘licensed’ and in trouble because of a $10 million lawsuit and because Barrett was called a ‘Quackpot’." It wasn't the case that Koren stated that Barrett is the devil incarnate and resorting to the defence of truth Koren prevailed. You can only conclude about Barrett that which Koren defended in the libel case. Also, Kookla for your edification, libel and slander are both types of defamation. flavius 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
A similar source is here:
Perhaps you should read it again. flavius 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam.
This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training.
The most damming testimony before the jury, under the intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial.
During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

Nonwithstanding further evidence it seems indeed that Dr. Barrett, quackwatch and NCAHF are disputable as sources for a serious evaluation of NLP. So how do we deal we this? We could either add to the Barrett-sources that they must be considered unreliable ( analogous to the Perl-dianetics-promoter-gig ),with links to the court findings, or discard sources related to him as unreliable and get rid of them. Any further ideas how to resolve this? Blauregen 14:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Blauregen, Aaron 'Kookla' Kuklis' "evidence" is bluster. No court case has estblished what you are concluding, namely that "quackwatch and NCAHF are disputable as sources for a serious evaluation of NLP". flavius 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Dr. Barrett seemingly provided expert testimony as a psychiatrist, without being actually qualified to do so. Furthermore it seems he presented as a legal expert, without having any legal training. This strongly indicates a degree of dishonesty that disqualifies him as a credible scientific source. Furthermore it seems to me that Dr. Barrett was publicly criticed in his capacity as a 'debunker' and filed defamation suits against his critics, which so far are either still open or already refuted. I think this qualifies as disputable. Blauregen 08:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is strong evidence against your proposal, Blauregen. The website is still in existence, Barrett is still practicing and publishing, and your links do not work. It is still in play. Plus, even if your erroneous assertions were true, the view is corroborated. Sorry, you are the same as Comaze. You now have a history of unreasonable pressure to delete facts. HeadleyDown 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Interresting the link works here. That the site is online and that Barrett may or not continue to publish or to practice litigations has no influence on his credibility though. And i am afraid his credibility is heavily damaged, which disqualifies him as a reputable source. Alas, it seems we have another point for mediation then. That you are sorry for your opinion about me is duely noted. Blauregen 16:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
How can Barret be "still practicing" when he's been retired for over a decade??? CAUGHT YOU IN YET ANOTHER GODDAMNED FUCKING LIE!!!! -Kookla bluster segment (a)
Dear, dear. Nowhere did Hedley say that Barrett is practicing as a psychiatrist. Barrett is continuing to practice as a debunker/consumer advocate/web master/author/sceptic. The remark was a response to your assertion that Barrett and Quakwatch had been shutdown. flavius 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
And yes, Headley, the links DO work....I copy/paste-ed the link I posted directly out of the URL address bar, and checked Blauregen's just out of curiousity. As far as Barrett's credibility... why would FEDERAL PROSECUTORS have dragged his sorry ass into court and hit him with multiple felony counts SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO TO TELLING LIES AND GIVING FALSE TESIMONY against those in the medical field who are not aligned with him. -Kookla bluster segment (b)
If you want this allegation to be taken seriously (and even if it were true it remains an allegation until he has his day in court) then you'll need to provide substantiation. Give us the details of the prosecution so that one one us can attempt to retrieve the court documents. flavius 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Why would a FEDERAL PROSECUTING ATTORNEY waste his time, and his staff's time on a guy who is sooooooooooooooo credible? Face it, Headley, you've been grasping at straws for months now, and, one by one, they are giving way to truth when subjected to close scrutiny. Akulkis 16:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC) -Kookla bluster segment (c)
You tell us Kookla why would they? We'll just accept what you assert as Truth and disregard your crazed Usenet postings and give you a forum to espouse your demented Worldview, abuse everyone that dares ask for substantiation from you and refuses to accept your acedotes about (drill sergeants, picking up women, engineering,..., everything?) as evidence. flavius 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we tone down the accusations --- that's everyone. Ok, I've removed the Loma(2001) references and NCAHF. We could probably find less controversial references to Barrett. --Comaze 22:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I must point out that the Church of Scientology has the same litigous strategy against those wishing to point out their misdeeds. The proclamations of Akulkis, Blauregen, Comaze and Metta Bubble, seem only to indicate that they are part of a the NLP cult, and are similarly willing to misquote court findings. I will restore the fact appropriately. Camridge 05:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I must point out that the defamation suits against almost 40 people across the country - assuming the truthfulness of my source - were apparently filed by Dr. Barrett, and seemingly all either refuted or still in process. Such an amount of litigation certainly bears reminders to the purported strategy of the church of scientology, but i assure you that i do not plan to side with Dr. Barret.Blauregen 08:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Blauregen. Barrett has not been discredited specifically in his relation to debunking NLP. Also, Barrett does not equal the organizations he works with. As the Barrett ref is strongly supported by scientific judgments, and questioned only by the litigation of pseudoscientists, Barrett (and organisations he works for) gets weight. Science gets weight over pseudoscience according to NPOV policy. Camridge 08:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Camridge. Barrett has not been discredited specifically but in general as apparently dishonest and not qualified to provide expertise as stated above. Blauregen 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions about article

I tried to read this article again. I have a few questions. 1) Is NLP useful? 2) Can you make NLP useful? 3) Is NLP dangerous? 4) Can you make NLP not dangerous? 5) If NLP is unscientific, is there any value studying and researching into NLP? --RichardCLeen 21:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Richard. I think the question should be - what does the weight of independent science think of these questions, and then what do NLPers think. So far the questions have been answered on the article, although science needs more weight than is been represented so far. HeadleyDown 03:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to ask whether NLP is so dangerous that it should be banned? --RichardCLeen 12:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see. No, NLP is considered potentially dangerous, together with primal scream therapy, and other subjects. It is also considered potentially dangerous in its association with cult activities and LGATS. On of the dangers is that it gives people status without expertise. One case is of LGAT activities of NLP that involve activities that put them into a hyperventilation situation. Another is the use of pseudoscience and breathing, nutrition, "cleansing" and the use of extreme confrontation a la Perls/Farrelly/Bandler/PaulMckenna where litigation has ensued. Clinical psychologists do not want this kind of dubious and potentially traumatic "therapy" to be used within their profession. Your question is totally reasonable. Regards HeadleyDown 12:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Potentially dangerous" is a canard. "Potentially" means "has not been shown to be". By comparison, water is considered to be not merely potentially dangerous, but ACTUALLY dangerous (water poisoning, steam burns, drowning, avalanches, blunt-object-trauma caused by falling ice, etc.). Likewise, oxygen is dangerous.
Dear, dear. I think you need a Valium and lie down and an education Akulkis. flavius 01:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Same old routine -- can't defeat the argument, so attack the person presenting it. By doing so, you've pretty much admitted that you've LOST the argument, as you have no factual counter-argument to respond with, and can only resort to namecalling. It must suck being you, being unable to beat someone who you claim to be both uneducated and stupid. You remind me of the Democrats...who, on one hand, contend that George Bush is a drunken retard, and then, within the same breath, decry how horribly he's run circles around them in every single policy debate. Akulkis Tue Dec 20 09:44:16 UTC 2005
Kookla, I have addressed your vestigial argument and there I chose to maintain a long-practiced WWW tradition of mocking you and having fun at your expense. I can do both as I'll demonstrate below. "It must suck" having to force the force plurarlistic democracy through the artificial binary sieve of Democrat vs. Republican. "It must suck" having to arrogate credit to yourself for something which you haven't accomplished (or at least only acomplished in your aberrant private universe). flavius 06:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I also notice that, once again, HeadleyDown is talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time -- arguing that NLP is both ineffect AND that it is dangerous. Anything which is ineffective is, by definition, something which has NO effect. That which has no effect CANNOT BE DANGEROUS for the same reason that it cannot be beneficial -- because it does nothing. By characterizing NLP dangerous, HeadleyDown is actually admitting that it is NOT ineffective. To HeadlyDown, what makes NLP dangerous is that if most of the public gets wind of it, HeadleyDown will suffer a severe decrease in authority and billable hours, and hence, income. Akulkis Sun Dec 18 20:49:23 UTC 2005
Aaron, I'll give you a counter-example that shows the error in your logic. What if a patient with an undiagnosed brain tumour (a low-grade malignant glioma) that's in its early stages presents to a homeopath with headaches that are worse in the morning but improve during the course of the day, vomitting and nausea, drowsiness and minor cognitive impairment. The homeopath prescribes what is basically distilled water. The patient continues with the homeopathic "treatment" for eight weeks. The patient's symptoms worsen rather than improve since the glioma has grown -- the patient now also reports blurred vision and her speech has started to slur. Homeopathic remedies are inert -- they are either lactose tablets or distilled water -- yet given certain circumstances they can be very dangerous. flavius 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, you are completely UNAWARE of the medical destinction between causing harm, and ineffective treatment which allows the subject's condition to worsen. The second is NOT regarded as causing harm -- it is merely INEFFECTIVE ... i.e. it is not a treatment which benefits. Ineffective and harmful are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE terms.
Here's an example, since you seem unable to grasp the difference
Carbon monoxide is poisonous to mammals -- breathing it CAUSES HARM.
In contrast, Carbon dioxide is NOT poisonous to mammals. While a pure-carbon-dioxide atmosphere does not provide the respiratory system what it requires (oxygen) NEITHER DOES IT HARM THE ORGANISM... if one is

stuck in a pure-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere for 60 seconds, it will be uncomfortable, but there is no lasting soon as oxygen is re-introduced into the lungs, the organism can resume as if nothing happened. This is NOT true for carbon monoxide. This is why carbon monoxide is dangerous, and carbon dioxide is not.

Along the same lines, while not doing anything, homeopathic treatment CAN NOT interfere with other medical treatment, because it's nothing but water. That which does nothing CAN NOT CAUSE HARM.
Similarly, if you argue that NLP is inneffective, then you are arguing that it does nothing, and if it does nothing, THEN IT CAN NOT CAUSE HARM.
So, make a it ineffective, or harmful. IT CAN NOT BE BOTH.
Your harmless/ineffective dichotomy is false. It is nothing more than artifice. You failed to respond to my numerous counter-examples and -- in prototypical Kook fashion -- you then accused me of not providing a counter-argument. Your conceptualisation of harmless/ineffective rules out the possibility of deception causing harm -- which is a patently false notion. If I sell you an AtroPen Auto Injector that contains distilled water instead of atropine sulfate and you use your Injector after exposure to a nerve agent and subsequently die have I not done you harm? You will most likely reply the nerve agent killed you and not the Injector. Yes, in toxicological terms that is the case but that is the end of the matter. Your decision to place yourself in a situation where you could be exposed to a nerve agent was at least partially based on subjective mitigation of risk exposure based upon having a ready treatment for nerve agent poisoning. If you didn't have an atropine injector you may have decided not engage in a particular behaviour, you may have stayed in your chemical suit. Similarly, if I tell you that it is safe to walk over the dried leaves when the dried leaves conceal a pit filled with punji sticks and you subsequently fall into the pit and bleed to death, have I not done you harm? Will you argue that it was the punji sticks that killed you and I bear no responsibility? Deliberately providing ineffective treatment to an ill person the consequences of which the person's condition worsens is deemed to be causing harm both in law and according to medical practice guidelines (in my locale and I conjecture your's also)-- it would be deemd gross negligence and if the person died it would be deemed manslughter. Thus if you present to an oncologist with testicular cancer (assuming you have balls) and he is cognizant of your malignant tumour but send you home and tells you not to worry about the lump and you later die, the doctor would be considered to be grossly negligent and would most likely be charged with manslaughter. You are legally and ethically more culpabale if you administer fake treatment than if you merely ignore the person or refuse treatment because you are influencing the person to cease seeking medical attention by your administration of fake medicine. Your conceptualisation would make many types of manslaughter impossible as well as eliminating many torts. Something (or someone) that "does nothing" can certainly cause harm, if not directly, by influencing a course of action -- that otherwise wouldn't have been taken -- that was intended to ameliorate or avoid the harm but instead increased the harm. You harmless/ineffective dichotomy is inconsistent with common law (criminal and civil), with conventional notions of morality and culpability and with conventional notions of causality. Your argument is a kind of sophistry. Using your pseudologic the legal notion of culpability can be eliminated: John Doe didn't kill Mr Victim it was the bullet that that killed him; the supermarket's management didn't cause the paraplegia of Mrs Victim when she slipped on the leaking cooking oil it was due to the floor and the oil; Dr Incompetent's loss of Ms Victims pap smear results didn't cause her to develop cervical cancer and die it was the cancer that killed her; Mr Fakepharmaceutical didn't cause the death of hundreds due to antiobiotic resistant tuberculosis by selling quarter dose antibiotics as full dose it was the bacillus that killed them. Hey presto, culpability disappears! No choice between effective/harmful and ineffective/harmless is needed because it's a false dichotomy. As I explained earlier -- which you conveniently ignored -- effectiveness and harm are independent of each other. Something can be be both ineffective and harmful, a fortiori somethings harfulness can be a consequence of its ineffectiveness. When you accept distilled water as homeopathic treatment for cancer you haven't merely obtained distilled water from the homeopath -- you have obtained information in either implicit or explicit form. This information -- which is insepareble from the homeopathic remedy -- will cause you to alter your behavior such that you don't obtain a psysician's examination, you don't then obtain an oncologists examination, you don't undergo surgery...and eventually you may die. NLP is both ineffective and harmful for many reasons: (a) many neurological disorders present as mental illness, whether they admit it or not NLP clinicians do engage in a dignostic process. The misdiagnosis of a neurological disorder can not only perpetuate the patients suffering but it may allow the illness to progress possibly beyond conventional help; (b) many mental illnesses have a biological origin (eg. post-natal depression) so in these cases no amount of reframing, swishing, anchoring, provocation, voodoo will help, the patient in these cases is being abused by the NLPer; (c) there is no evidence in the form of single-blind, randomised, placebo controlled research -- let alone clinical trials -- that demonstrates th effectiveness of NLP techniques as treatments for mental illness. Subjecting suffering people to NLP (which hasn't been demonstrated to be more effective than placebo or even doing nothing) and charging them is doubly unethical; (d) charging people thousands of dollars for useless NLP tuition and certification robs people of other opportunities -- costly and useless NLP training has an opportunity cost in terms of time and money (I have first-hand experience of this); (e) NLP is a part of a tradition that is antithetical to science and technology -- which on balance have provided much more good than bad -- hence anything that denigrates science and technology and seeks to suppplant it with superstition is societally and culturally harmful. NLP is yet another mite gnawing on the body of Western civilisation; (e) NLP fosters guru worship, this is deindividuating and disempowering; (f) NLP promotes irrationalism, the over-valuation of subjective experience, muddle-headed thinking, obfuscation, obscurantism and even narcissism this is all instrinsically bad but it also dovetails into New Age and Magick which are themselves blights on Western civilisation. flavius 07:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Flavius. I will do my best to distil your argument down to a line or two to help clearly explain the scholarly views of those scientists/experts in the article. Camridge 08:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's some more examples for your to ponder Aaron. Any device or substance marketed as being curative of cancer which has no therapeutic effect is dangerous. How about a device which is marketed as being able to predict natural disasters but is nothing more than an aluminium box with quartz crystals in it. Surely this would be a dangerous device for anyone that based their decision to evacuate their place of residence based on its "vibrations". How about the once popular Philipino psychic surgeons that used $2 false thumbs to conceal chicken entrails that they produced as psychically excised "tumours". Surely for someone with a malignant cancer "psychic surgery" would be dangerous. Thinking isn't one of your strong points is it Mr Fake Electrical Engineer? You're just an abusive, big-mouthed, small-minded, uneducated punk. flavius 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. In our system, something marketed as curative which has no effect is ineffective. To be castigated as "dangerous" it must make the condition WORSE than if the subject was not treated with it. That is the standard used law, and is a very BIG distinction in things such as medical malpractice cases and medical liability cases. Having no beneficial effect is VERY different from CAUSING harm, both logically and legally. As for me supposedly being an abusive, big-mouthed, small-minded, uneducated punk ... one, i never claimed to be an Electrical Engineer... I have a BSE, not BSEE, your moron. You can't even fucking read. And since when do Big-10 universities graduate non-athletes from their engineering schools without making sure that the student HAS been educated? You're just bitter because I'm whipping your ass in the logic department (let alone the fact that I've been calling attention to all of the blatant lies that you and your cohorts have inserted into the page)
See my lengthy response above. Your understanding of law and morality is as aberrant as your understanding of the concept of evidence. The legal (and moral) notion of negligence -- which is understood as a failure to exercise due care or the omission of some behaviour -- is an obvious response to your bluster. See above for a more detailed coverage of the matter. There's no point arguing about whether you have a BA, BS, BE or whatever -- it is apparent from the content of your voluminous posting history that you have no higher-learning. You're an obnoxious, opinionated, blustering, paranoid, ignoramus that has never argued (ie. engaged in rational discourse) ever. Your posts here and throughout the WWW are just blather. A person can only be beaten at chess if they (a) agree to play a game of chess; and (b) abide by the rules of the game. You steadfastly refuse to answer the actual criticisms made against your hate-filled verbiage. Your paranoid little mind instead invents simulacra of the criticisms that you pour scorn and vitriol over and then proceed to rejoice in a bizarre ritual paper-thin self-affirmation. I've never been classified as a Kook nor have I been mocked by by a multitude of special interest groups. That distinction is solely yours and it's highly unlikely that everyone that tells you your're a dickhead nutcase is a Marxist isn't it? This perverse attitude is a feature of your paranoid worldview ("everyone except me is stupid/Marxist/evil etc"). You are as far removed from logic as all the other Kooks on the WWW, you wouldn't recognise it if you encountered it (you in fact haven't). The only thing that you're whipping is the saliva running out the side of your rabid, frothy mouth. Don't start jerking off just yet. Put your cock back in your pants and answer my arguments concerning your false dichotomy re ineffective/harmless (not a simulacra, but the actual argument) and its inconsistency with law, morality and everyday notions of causality. What you've been consistently "calling attention to" is your psychopathology. Not content with your 25,000+ insane posts you chosen to augment your "corpus" via Wikipedia. You've become an artist of sorts, a performance artist smearing your virtual excrement on the virtual walls of the WWW with designs which you believe warrant your recognition and celebration as a genius. When the public tells you "it's just shit" you erupt into a fit of moral indignation and spew pages of vitriol and scorn mixed with compensatory self-affirmation (which is entirely irrelevant and its irrelevance betrays its true function: "I'm in the army", "I'm an engineer", "I'm working on a patent" blah blah blah). Even if it were true how is it relevant and who gives a toss? Have you found anyone that has recognised you as a genius that isn't himself/herself mad (like you)? Has anyone proclaimed your shitty glyphs works of art? flavius 08:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Cult characteristics

The online referenced sources Tippet, Singer, Eisner, Novopashin seem to agree that methods found in NLP are used effectively in various cultlike groups. Shupe & Darnell list NLP in a glossary without referencing it as a cult. None of them refers to NLP as a cult though, and using principles and methods from a discipline does not create equality to it. The contributors may have misread this. Should the sources that aren't available online indeed classify NLP as a cultlike movement it may be helpful to clarify this. Blauregen 12:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I've covered this before, but there are some notable counter-examples to the claim that NLP is used by cults. Prof. Charles Figley (Florida State University Traumatology) states that Steven Hassan uses method similar to VK/D and change personal history to help people recover from cult mind control (Figley, Brief Treatments for the Traumatized: A Project of the Green Cross Foundation 2002 p.96). Hassan (1988) himself writes that he studies the original models of NLP (Erickson, Perls, Satir) to help him build a model of how people enter and exit cults successfully. Hassan did some training with Grinder and Bandler in 1980, and actually moved to Santa Cruz to learn directly from John Grinder. He finished this training early to get married and persue a career at helping people leave and recover from cults. Since that time Hassan has developed his own model, how much of his current work is based on NLP is unknown. --Comaze 00:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Comaze, it is an unknown. You are not here to invent facts. HeadleyDown 03:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, your little 1988 (pre-debunking) quote is not at all a counter example. If anything it verifies that NLP has cult characteristics. DaveRight 04:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

but we can quote Figley (2000) verbatim. Figley's reputation and tenureship is beyond refute. AND, Hassan latest book (2000) also supports that argument that NLP can be used for cult entry or exit. The use depends entirely on the ethics of the practitioner. --Comaze 04:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Blauregen. To my knowledge and notes, there is a significant body of scientists who state NLP is a cult or cult-like. Novopashin regards NLP as a psycho-cult, Singer has explained further that NLP is used by mild and destructive cults, and they do not say that NLP is effective. Singer reiterates that NLP is ineffective. Please feel free to clarify this by rigorous searches of the literature. You will find that there is indeed a significant view that NLP is a cult. Regards HeadleyDown 12:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello HeadleyDown. Correction partly taken. Sources Tippet, Singer, Eisner, Novopashin seem to agree that methods found in NLP are used regardless of effectivity in various cultlike groups then. Even Novopashin classes NLP in the only referenced source (.. We are also talking about the so-called "psychocults," the ones that have sect-tinged pseudo-psychological training, like "Life Spring," "Violet," neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) groups... as a pseudo-psychological training, not as a cult in itself. The notion that according to User:HeadleyDown a significant but unreferenced body of scientists state that NLP is a cult, without further references is a opinion of HeadleyDown, and hardly bears the so often cited 'weight of science'. For the sake of clarification there should be either a supporting source, or the paragraph should be rephrased to reflect the actual stance of the cited sources.Blauregen 01:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Blauregen. As you know there is more to the article than what you have cited. You are working against brevity on this article. The source states "amoral psychocult". If you wish to post pseudo-psychological training and so on, you will actually do very little good for your agenda. It still looks like a cult. More specifically a psychocult. And there are further negative points that can be posted. I cannot see how you can benefit any editor, either the NLP zealots, or the editors who are trying to get this article cleaned up and in concise shape. HeadleyDown 02:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi HeadleyDown. The cited statement however is the only one in the source that references NLP at all, and in this context it isn't referenced as a cult. Novopashin does not mention a specific cult or a recognizable group based on NLP as a view of life, but refers to 'nlp groups' in the sense of groups that have a 'sect-tinged pseudo-psychological training'. Wether this is a correct characterisation of NLP is as irrelevant for the question wether your sources support your assertion, as i how it 'looks to you', or what effects it will have on my supposed 'agenda'. Again. Please either rephrase the section - if you deem it needed at all - or reference an actual source that supports the notion that NLP is a psychocult. Blauregen 05:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Significant" being defined as "anyone who agrees with HeadleyDown -- no matter how much conflict of interest exists between their statements and their other professional and academic work."

Hello editors. Eisner's (notable?) opinions have been distorted in our article. Should they be removed? We say he thinks NLP is a cult, but in fact he makes no such assertion. On p.158 Eisner says, "Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult ..." So he's merely citing someone else? Right. Furthermore, a citability issue. Eisner's speciality is law and ethics and he runs a malpractice law firm suing psychotherapists from any and all fields. He makes it clear he would have sued Freud if given the chance. I think we should be really hesitant to use him as an authority on any kind of therapeutic opinion. Peace Metta Bubble 02:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Metta Bubble. Eisner is a fully qualified clinical psychotherapist. He also has the expertise to write books about therapy and conduct legal cases agains malpractice as an expert in psychotherapy. He successfuly holds two professional roles. He also refers to empirical science throughout his literature, and supports the view that NLP is a cult. To remove his view would be to remove clarification. HeadleyDown 03:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Meta Bubble. Some due dilligence on your part would be useful. A Google search would have revealed that Eisner has a doctorate in psychology, is a licensed psychologist and has a JD and practices law [52]. Eisner is not only citable he is eminently citable. flavius 04:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi again "bordering-uncivil" editors. Eisner does not support the clinical view that NLP is a cult. This is a distortion of fact. Eisner is not citable and he is not an eminent psychotherapist. What's more is that a psychotherapeutic viewpoint (PSYCHO-POV?) has nothing to do with an intelligent approach to critiquing NLP. The point again is our single quote for Eisners opinion (Eisner 2000, p.158), "Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult ..." The fact is Eisner does not say NLP is a cult. Read that quote again. We have used a completely distorted version of Esiner's opinion and this in unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I also have a copy of Eisner here, Meta Bubble, and your assessment is as erroneous as your last statement that Flavius dealt with. Compared to the views of NLP authors, Eisner has enormous credibility. The whole paragraph (that you decided to ommit from quoting here) positively screams that Eisner views NLP's excuses and failure to research as cult like. This corroborates all the other scientific views that NLP is a cult. Eisner (PhD Psych and qual psych) goes further, stating that NLP is psychopablum, that the various claims of NLPers are grossly misleading, and that the few confirming studies that NLP has drawn upon are fatally flawed. This corroborates Lilienfeld, Sharpley and Beyerstein, who know good research when they see it, and state that supporting NLP studies can be explained using other factors than NLP (thus those few supporting studies are flawed). He states that what remains are guru and placebo effects (that would be weeded out using controlled studies). He says that NLP authors present a mystical and magical new theory for positive expectations, but only anecdotes are offered. The factors that Eisner states are all factors showing cult characteristics. You are reading far too selectively, and similar to FT2 and all the other NLP fans, you are trying your best to remove verified facts. You are onto a non starter. Sorry, I also suspect you are a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. Bookmain 08:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Direct quote from Steven Hassan (p.33 Combating cult mind control, 1988) "[Hassan] studied the foundational models of NLP (Bateson, Satir, Perls). This enabled him to create a model of how people successfully enter and exit from cult mind control ." --Comaze 04:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a quote from Hassan's new book (2000) called 'Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves'... "Although I am aware of several cult leaders specifically studying Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), I suspect that most cult groups use informal hypnotic techniques to induce trance states. They tend to use what are called "naturalistic" hypnotic techniques. Practicing meditation to shut down thinking, chanting a phrase repetitively for hours, or reciting affirmations are all powerful ways to promote spiritual growth. But they can also be used unethically, as methods for mind control indoctrination." [53] --Comaze 06:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh great. So now we need a section on NLP's uses for exiting cults? This is too funny. Let's just ditch the cult section. It's borderline outside of wikipedia policy anyway. It's certainly against guidelines. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Metta Bubble. I agree there. It should be either ditched completely or, should it have any educational value, be made into a distinct article. It certainly would help the brevity of the core article. Blauregen 01:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Blauregen. NLP is a fringe practice that requires no more than an article. The view of NLP as a cult is considerable, especially as there are factually existing NLP cults on cult lists. Your desire to delete seems to derive from a view-restricting anti-NPOV agenda. HeadleyDown 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
HeadleyDown. It seems to ignite enough controversy to warrant a deeper discussion even in an encyclopedia. Since we already have distinct articles on various methods and assumptions associated with NLP (see: [54]), an additional article on the usage of NLP in connection with quasi-religious groups seems only appropriate. This would help the brevity of the core article, since we could replace this section with a link to a more concise discussion of this aspect. As for your 'factually existing NLP cults': I am aware that NLP seems to be used in various quasi-religious groups, but i am not aware of any quasi-religious group that actually has NLP as a central part of their view of life. Could you please elaborate what entries on what cult list you are referring to? Blauregen 05:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just trying to point out that it can be used by both. Some of the editors do not understand the different between a technology and its uses. The ethical or unethical use of NLP is entirely in the hands of the practitioner. --Comaze 00:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi All. I noticed that the source [55] in section cult characteristics lists only one organisation with the Letters 'N','L' and 'P' in this order. The source seems to be largely a list of alleged 'totalitarian sects'. A google search for NLP Rekaunt did not reveal any clarifying information, so i can't decide wether this source is relevant for the article at all. After all wikipedia alone lists 6 articles as a disambiguation for the abbreviation 'NLP'. Could someone who is fluent in the language of the document please verify wether this organisation is in any way connected to neuro-linguistic programming at all? Thanks in advance. Blauregen 11:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Undue pressure to delete cited facts

Hello all. This article has been supported by months of research by hard working professional researchers. A great deal of extra research was provided because certain NLP promoters demanded inordinate amounts of further evidence. That was provided, and NLP promoters overreated by adding extreme confusion and excuse to the article. This led to a very large article. The effort is to bring the article to a size that is representitive of NLP (a fringe subject that does not deserve more than an article of explanation). This also means that some of the refs have been cut. Just because a view only has one or two references supporting it, that does not mean that those are the only two people in the universe supporting the view. The views of scientists and experts represented in this article are generally cross-corroborating. I, and others who have edited here for a while, have a large collection of evidence to draw upon for supporting the views presented. There is no point in attacking views of scientists and similar experts just because only a few refs support those views. Science gets weight. Rather than waste everybody's time demanding extra explanations, just go and look up the reasoning for the view, learn it, accept it and go and do something useful. If you are here simply to cause trouble, have tantrums, and remove cited facts, just go away and don't come back. That includes you Comaze and Akulkis. HeadleyDown 08:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's worth removing all unnotable sources and misrepresented citations. See my reply in the on-topic Quackwatch section above. Peace. --Metta Bubble 11:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Metta Bubble. The focus should not be on removing facts. All views should be represented here in due sequence of priority. The views of scientists and significant experts and bodies should be verified and citations provided. If NLP fanatics will stop trying to remove those views perhaps life would be simpler. Right now it seems that in order for the views to be supported, the file size of the article will have to grow. Are you seeking concise editing, or fussy overzealous verification? Regards HeadleyDown 13:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it VERY interesting that HeadleyDown insists on the inclusion of disputed anti-NLP references, etc. but at the same time, anything which is NOT anti-NLP which is disputed, he insists must be removed. You're still behaving like hypocrite, and as a person who thinks that this page should personally belong to himself. There are many things which I find distasteful on this page, but they are properly phrase ("it is the opinion of X that Y") as composed to much of what Headley writes ("...X is Z" without acknowledging that the opinion is not universally supported, nor acknowledging that many of the detractors have conflict-of-interest problems with respect to NLP, and especially widespread public understanding of it, and the methods, especially communications and propagands methods, which have developed from it.). Furthermore, it is interesting that he hides behind a pseudonym, especially since even non-experts such as myself have caught him perpetrating numerous lies on this page. At this point, I believe that the only remedy is some method of revoking his editing privileges on the NLP page until such time that he demonstrates the ability to behave in some way other than a religious fanatic Akulkis Sun Dec 18 20:49:23 UTC 2005

Aaron. Congratulations! I didn't know that someone that had won "Usenet Kook of the Month" twice (December 1999 and January 2000) [56] and has been immortalised on "The Official Alt.Usenet.Kooks Funny Farm" was esteeming us with his presence. Bravo! flavius 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep...The name "Kook Award" best describes those who bestow it, not those who win it. The Kooks who do this each month target anyone who conspicously violated Political Correctness....because that's the one thing in common with ALL of those who have been named as "Kook of the month"...their supposed kookiness is nothing more than not being rabid Marxists like those Kooks who give out their "award"
So you perceive yourself as hero fighting against PC, maligned by Marxists. It's the announcement of delusional self-concepts like this that has earnt you the two awards. Many of the Kooks have serious mental illness (eg. George Hammond is schizophrenic) and exhibit no insight into their behaviour. Your 25,000+ Usenet posts -- disregarding their content -- are prima facie evidence of mental disorder. Does that volume of posting not strike you as aberrant or at least unusual? An examination of your posts content confirms the prima facie impression and demonstrates the extent of your pathology. Anyone that disputes your foundationless assertions you label "Marxist", "Communist", "Liberal", "Democrat", "Liar", "Corrupt Psychologist" and other such epithets. This labelling is yet another feature of your paranoid worldview. A paranoid worldview has a form of sustaining logic and this categorisation and exclusion of opinion based on simplistic schemata provides part of this sustaining logic. You know the Truth about psychology, politics, ESP, UFOs, aliens, sceptics, the economy and anyone that disagrees with you has a hidden subversive agenda that you will expose. Your critics must have an evil ulterior motive since you are telling the Truth. You're telling the Truth therefore any contrary opinion must -- by logical implication -- be a lie. The task then becomes one of uncovering the motivations for the lie. Ready explanations are to be found for the lie in modern day "bogey man" mythologies popular in North American culture: Communists, Marxists, Liberals, Demoncrats, Evil Psychologists and Psychiatrists etc. Aaron, you and your paranoia are banal and trite. Your're a prototypical WWW Kook. If you were experiencing your mental disorder in a time before the WWW you have spent your time penning and sending letters to TV stations, newspapers and members of legislatures (like the nutcases of yore). flavius 13:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I percieve myself as a person who simply speaks the truth. If you call that heroic, then more power to ya! As for 25,000+ posts...yes, at one point, I realized that I would encounter more people...such as you....who would attempt to mine my postings for ....who the fuck knows what....and I decided that if a few postings are good, then thousands upon thousands of postings would be even better. And by the way, Flavious, when have I called you a Marxist, Communist, Liberal, or (gasp) Democrat???? as to ESP... I don't know shit about it... it might be possible, but probably isn't. UFO's...who the fuck knows...I've seen no credible evidence. Aliens? See UFOs. Sceptics...*I* am a skeptic (see previous topics)....I see no need to continue .. again, you're failing to provide arguments of substance in favor of ad hominem attacks. As for Psychologists and Psychiatrists...the American public schools are a perfect example of what happens when you allow these (non-theistic) religious fanatics any significant measure of influence on policy and procedure. Akulkis 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Aaron, your apparent lack of insight into your behaviour is troubling. In the same paragraph that you castigate me for "ad hominem attacks" (I've already explained why this is the wrong use of Ad Hominem) you commit the fallacy Ad Hominem in relation to psychologists and psychiatrists. You claim to be a carrier of "the truth" yet you make the intemperate generalisation that all(?)/most(?) psychologists and psychiatrists are atheists and then you follow this with the Ad Hominem fallacy. The volume and frequency of your posts is indicative of obsessive-compulsive disorder which precludes any decision on your part. flavius 16:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course, flavius, again, you can't attack my arguments, so instead, you go for the ad hominem attack. And as we all know, the only people who ignore refuting the argument in favor of using ad hominem are those who HAVE NO COUNTER-ARGUMENT which stands up to even passing scrutiny. Akulkis 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I attack your assertions masquerading as arguments (which you ignore as per Kook form) and I attack you also like the many hundreds before me. Rational discourse has no place in your paranoid worldview. Your talk of argument and counter-argument is meaningless. Spewing your rancorous paranoid conception of the world and your ugly misanthropy with a trailing assertion does not comprise an argument. Let's review your "evidence" and "argument" presented thus far in favour of NLP:
(1) Drill sergeants told me they use NLP;
(2) The US Army uses anchoring in its training;
(3) Using NLP I have experienced performance improvments in various activities;
(4) I used anchoring in a nightclub with success;
(5) I used NLP in a job interview with success;
(6) The US Army is the best army in the world, they use NLP, therefore NLP makes them the best army in the world;
(7) Because of (1) to (6) I conclude that NLP is effective.
(8) Because of (7) any scientific evidence which shows that NLP is ineffectice is incorrect and fraudulent.
This is a textbook case of a self-referential, unfalsifiable, subjectively based paranoid worldview. Your premises (1) to (6) are unfounded, irrelevant, or inconsequential therefore your conclusion is invalid. Your secondary conclusion (8) is a manifestation of your psychopathology, you present no evidence for this nor do do you provide a cogent explanation for how this could possibly be true. Statements (1) to (8) are shit. On the basis of this shit -- as if you've advanced some devastating thesis -- you're being abusive, presumptuous and voluble. flavius 13:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
And when CLAIMS that NLP is not effective contradict DIRECT EXPERIENCE IN TESTING IT, then it leads me to believe that those who are claiming it to be non-effective are deliberately sandbagging it for some reason (protection of grant money and/or academic and professional prestige which would be lost if "outsiders" were getting usable results in less time, with less education, then our UTTERLY ineffective professional psychologists. Your typical hypnotist resolves emotional problems in 1-3 months....which is utterly unheard of among those psychologists who don't use hypnosis. This alone demonstrates that a large number of psychologists are ignoring effective treatment and counseling methods ... AT THE EXPENSE OF WHOEVER IS PAYING the office-hours bills. Sources which have severe conflicts of interest are, by definition, NOT CREDIBLE. Akulkis 03:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Aaron, your confidence in your "DIRECT EXPERIENCE" is ill-founded. Human reasoning and memory have numerous well-known weaknesses. Memory is subject to the "Seven Sins" of transcience, absent-mindedness, blocking, suggestibility, bias, persistence and misattribution (Schacter, 2001). Reasoning is vulnerable to the clustering illusion, non-regressive predictions, the regression fallacy, failure to distinguish between necessary and sufficient evidence, confirmation bias, the effect of bias on the interpretation of ambiguous information, the Barnum effect, self-serving bias, distortion, the false consensus effect and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (Gilovich, 1991). The raison d'etre of experiment design and inferential statistics is the elimination or reduction of the influence of these human frailties on pursuit of truth. I raised this matter earlier and you conveniently ignored it so you could later accuse me of not addressing your arguments (cum assertions) and so you could blather about outwitting me. Why do you privilege your personal subjective experience so highly? On what basis? If direct experience alone were sufficient as method for determining truth then the scientific method would never have developed. Your first premise then is without foundation. Your caricutare of psychologists and psychiatrists as rapacious, selfish, vain and malevolent is merely that a caricature. You present no evidence that a significant number of psychologists and psychiatrists are as you imply. Your second premise is also insubstantial. You don't present any evidence that professional psychologists are "UTTERLY ineffective" you merely assert it. This premise too is invalid. Incidentally there is at least one licensed clinical psychologist (Eisner) that argues a persuasive case that all forms of psychotherapy -- including NLP -- are ineffective. Hans Eyesenck was a research psychologist that made the same criticism about psychotherpay almost 50 years ago. How do you explain that some of the most truculuent critics of psychotherapy (eg. Eysenck, Skinner, Eisner) are/were themselves psychologists? Eysenck's entire career was spent in academe as a research psychologist. How do you explain his scathing critiques of all of the form of psychotherpay that were common in the 1950s and 60s? This gross inconsistency and absence of supporting evidence undermines your third premise. Your claim about hypnosis and its supposed efficacy is yet more assertion. Can you substantiate your claim that a "typical hypnotist resolves emotional problems in 1-3 months"? I've seen no such evidence. Without evidence this is assertion (you do understand this don't you?). Thus your fourth premise is invalid. Given the ivalidity of your premises your conclusion that this "demonstrates that a large number of psychologists are ignoring effective treatment and counseling methods" is also invalid. You argument has been demonstrated to be false. You add, "Sources which have severe conflicts of interest are, by definition, NOT CREDIBLE". If we accept the truth of this statement then we must also apply it to NLP promoters. Surely, Bandler, Grinder, La Valle, James, Hall as NLP trainers and therapists have a conflict of interests when they advocate and defend NLP. Most of the pro-NLP camp here (eg. Comaze, GregA, FT2) draw an income from the provision of NLP services. On the basis of your principle then they are "NOT CREDIBLE". I have spent big bucks on NLP seminars, books, DVDs, videos and CDs -- my level of cognitive dissonance is high. My profession has no connection to psychology or psychiatry -- my employment, income and status are unaffected by the status of NLP. My reasoned opinion must -- by imlication given my dissonance and absence of conflict of interest -- be more credible than the professional NLPers here since you imply that they are "NOT CREDIBLE". flavius 17:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Aaron. Someone also once a created a Usenet group in your honour:[57] How esteemed you are and how esteemed we are to have you here. flavius 05:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
So, am I somehow responsible for some sorry cretin's creation in the un-regulated alt. hierarchy? Or is the fact that you bring this up merely a sign that, having failed to defeat my arguments, you're grasping at straws in an attempt to defame and otherwise discredit me (vainly, I might add) ass the "kook award" people. Akulkis 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Your're the inspiration for its creation. Your aberrant behaviour provides grist for the humour mill. Your argument for NLP is comprised of premises and conclusions (1) to (8). You've merely asserted premises (1) to (6) and proceeded to draw the (invalid) conclusions (7) and (8). There is nothing to defeat. (1) to (5) is anecdote (some of it apocryphal). (6) is an informal logical fallacy ("Ferraris go fast because they are red."). (7) is an invalid conclusion because the premises are false. (8) is unadulterated paranoia. Your claim that NLP must be either ineffective and harmless or effective and harmful is a false dichotomy (refer my detailed exposition). Your claim regarding Barrett and Quakwatch is a misrepresntation of a court case. I I've said earlier you offer nothing other than blather and bluster. flavius 13:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, flavius, I admit it...before you, others who are also unable to deal with reality have also become frustrated with my superior use of reason, logic, and facts to make them look like the fools that they are....and that they, just like you, then went into an infantile rage and started all sorts of ad hominem attacks. And your point is what, exactly? Akulkis 04:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Aaron. You were also nominee for the 2004 Usenet Kook of The Year Awards [58]. I'm really impressed. flavius 05:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Now, if you check the USENET archives, you'll notice that I didn't even post on USENET in fact, I haven't posted on USENET since 2002, which just goes to show how the REAL kooks are those running around naming others as recipients of their silly award. Akulkis 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Aaron, you've not only been lying about habing a BS in EE but also about being in the US Army[59] flavius 05:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, really. I better inform my first sergeant that he can't demand that I show up on time for first formation, and I'd better inform the Department of the Army and the Department of Defence that all of those pretty medals they've awarded me, with accompanying citations in nice green folders that...they're utterly mistaken, that I was never in the army, and I was never did those actions cited, in the locations cited in the citations. Or, we can just recognize that YOU are just a troll, and you're upset by the fact that someone of superior intellect is fucking up your little game here. Akulkis 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Your successful military career is a figment of your imagination. Not content with simply lying about being in the army, in true Kook fashion you've stretched the lie to breaking point by making yourself a decorated soldier. Since your first sergeant is in your head I don't think it matters what you "tell" him. Your proposed disjunction is as insubstantial as the rest of your verbiage. The most elegant explanation that is consistent with all of the evidence about you on Usenet is that you are disordered and disturbed. flavius 13:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
And you checked with the U.S. Department of Defence when, exactly?
I guess I'd better round up all of those citations signed by Colonels and Generals and send them back to the Pentagon as forgeries. You, know, flavius, if it wasn't for you, I never would have realized how big the conspiracy is...I mean...I was enlisted by a FAKE recruiter...and then I went to basic training at a FAKE Fort Jackson, where HUNDREDS of other co-conspirators pretended to be new enlistees or prior-service with a break in service enlistees, and others played the parts of US Army drill sergeants.... then, for years, I was part of a FAKE Air Defence Artillery unit, apparently outfitted with millions of dollars in stolen equipment, and at which other co-conspirators also worked, always keeping up the facade that I was in the military....and...whoah, then there was that year in Saudi Arabia, where the conspiracy expended even greater amounts of money, not only to fly me to Saudi Arabia and Back, and processing me through, what I know realize was a FAKE Fort Dix, but actually managed to convince LT GEN Pagonis to become part of the conspiracy, and admit me as the "representative" of my (fake) unit, 22nd Ordnance Battalion (Provisional) and when called, to give briefings on the (fake) Ordnance unit's operations in the theater to visiting flag officers and civilian dignitaries....oh, but...alas THEY WERE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY, TOO...and not only did LTGEN Pagonis admit me as a fake member of his actual briefing team, but, so clever was The Conspiracy, that he even had me over to dinner at his house, with the rest of the briefing team..... and then, in 1996, I went to the Atlanta Olympics...and again, THE CONSPIRACY not only fooled me into thinking I was part of the army, but even made sure that I enjoyed all of the privileges and benefits enjoyed by army and other defence department personnel who were part of the security teams at the Olympics....Wait...those weren't the REAL Olympics in Atlanta...THE CONSPIRACY actually built another city, again JUST TO FOOL ME into thinking I was part of the army, and participating in the security operation.....Then, in 2002, The Conspiracy...ah, this one took some REAL doing....not only did they AGAIN smuggle me into a real army base, Fort McCoy (or, failing that, spent several hundred million dollars creating a fake one,) all for the illusion of making me THINK I was in the army...but then got not only the other people in the conspiracy to get Customs and INS to go along with the Charade....and ordered me to work at the Port of Entry at the vehicle crossing points between Windsor and Detroit.
MY GOD, FLAVIUS/HeadleyDown...if it wasn't for YOU helping me see the light, I would STILL think I'm in the army....but I finally realize that the Geneva Conventions ID card I am holding in my hand right now is an utter fake...a very GOOD it was made using the equipment and resources of the Identification Section at US Army Tank and Automotive Command,

but a fake, nevertheless. But, considering how they always pay me money, and all the other guys...the ACTORS who are all part of the they all like the money they're getting...I think I'll keep doing it....I mean, after all, why should I shut the whole show down NOW...after all these years? Some of those actors who are part of the conspiracy to fool me into thinking I'm in the army...they NEED the paycheck.

So, I guess now, it leaves me an ethical question....I mean, considering how, thanks to your insight, I now see that I"m actually in some sort of fake-army instead of the real

army......Flavius, if it were you, would you quit, and throw out all of those actors, some of whom REALLY NEED THE MONEY that they earn playing their various roles in this giant charade to keep me fooled into thinking that I'm in the army when I never was? I mean... well, considering how much money The Conspiracy must have, if they can go to all the expense that they have so far, just to fool a nobody like me into thinking I'm in the army when I'm not...well then....yeah, I guess I'll just pretend like I don't know what they're up to.....I mean, after all, with the economy so lousy here in Detroit, the last thing we need in this area is a couple hundred actors all put out of work at once. Akulkis 04:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, your an absolute nutcase! There are 19,000 Usenet posts associated with only one of your email addresses and most of them are characterised by rancour, bitterness, anger and social alienation[60]. There are many threads in many groups where you are mocked and ridculed in response to your lies, paranoid worldview, weak reality testing, aberrant concept of evidence and raw emoting[61]. This thread is a good primer on Aaron Kulkis: [62].

flavius 06:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ho hum. Flavius is still avoiding addressing my arguments, and completely focused on rumor, innuendo, and slander. Why is that? Akulkis 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Akulkis. Your comments today are unhelpful and unproductive as usual. They are all ignored. HeadleyDown 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Gee, Headley, how many fortune cookies did you have to eat before you found that one.
Translation: I, HeadleyDown, and attempting to own the page for my particular NON-NPOV, and resent anyone who objects, and when faced with rational criticism, I, HeadleyDown, solidly stick my fingers in my years while yelling, "Nyaah-Nyaah-Nyaah I can't hear you". Why don't you quit acting like a child and Grow the fuck up. User:Akulkis:Akulkis Tue Dec 20 09:44:16 UTC 2005

I agree that a lot of NLPers are quite sloppy with regard to scientific research and a lot of NLP practice is not as effective as it claims to be. However I find that the criticism of cultism in this article borders on sensationalism and tabloid journalism. Therefore I have nominated this article for NPOV. --Dejakitty 22:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dejakitty. You seem to wish to remove stated facts of scientists and experts. The view of NLP as a cult is widespread and holds the weight of science and anthropology amongst other expert views. HeadleyDown 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Headley. Judging by Dejakitty's "credentials" he/she seems to be a meatpuppet/sockpuppet of Comaze or Akulkis. Don't waste your time. Lets just get on with the clarifications. Metabubble seems to be a little more convincing, but nevertheless has teamed up with a 10 times a day fact deleting certified NLP fanatic (Comaze), and a tourette's ridden pseudoscientist (Akulkis). Either way, their efforts to remove cited fact are as doomed to failure as the last bunch of psychoshaman wannabes. Cheers DaveRight 04:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of sock-puppets, how come this conversation is unique in the number of people on the 'anti' side who ALL use the term "whitewashing"... rather strange that ALL would choose the exact same terminology for editing out UNSUPPORTED and/or FALSELY CITED DISPARAGING REMARKS.
Thus, we can conclude that HeadleyDown is also:
Now you all have have fun with that. Akulkis 15:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Clearly you're a genius, your forensic skills are exemplary. You've outsmarted me. My real name cannot be written in English (or any human language). I am an intergalactic visitor. It appears that your tin foil hat has prevented my alien rays penetrating your brain and creating the illusion that I am many people. I am also Bookmain, HeadleyDown and everyone who will disagree with you in the future. I am also Comaze, FT2, GregA and everyone else representing the proNLP view and I just argue with myself to stir up conflict on Earth -- the end of the Earth will commence with a conflict on Wikipedia. I do not pretend to be HelenDeGrey (yet), we can pretend that she is AliceDeGrey's sister. The entire discussion has really been between you and me all along. Of course you are right about NLP. Who could possibly dispute that two second-rate scholars from a second-rate university that between them have snorted acres of Coca tree leaves, fell-out with each other, one of which is diabetic, periodically obese, wears dentures, has been bankrupted twice, lies about having a PhD and sued his co-inventor twice, haven't subjected their theorising to any empirical testing, borrowed numerous ideas that were popular in the early 1970s are the last word on matters of psychology, human performance, neurology, mental illness, accelerated learning, persuasion and rapport? How could anyone possibly deny that NLP is the "dog's bollocks". Anyone that says otherwise is a a liar. flavius 14:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, asshole, if similar outlook is all it takes to define a sockpuppet, then the use of particular and peculiar terminology is a smoking gun. If you're going to call everyone who doesen't agree with you a sockpuppet of me or Comaze, then likewise, You, Camridge, DaveRight/DRight, HelenDeGrey and HeadleyDown ARE ALL THE SAME PERSON. Or do you know admit that the supposed logic used to accuse me of making up a sockpuppet named DejaKitty is utterly fucked up and without basis or merit. Akulkis Akulkis 03:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a well-documented sordid WWW history. It would not be discordant for someone that has made over 25,000 usenet posts and has been recognised a Kook to use sockpuppets and to recruit meatpuppets. There is evidence that you have been herding meatpuppets. Given the factual evidence the inductive step that you are sockpuppeting is reasonable. It's taken you much effort and time to establish yourself as a Kook. Your status as a Kook will influence others perception of you. Kooks do all manner of bizarre, unethical and spiteful things. Sockpuppeting is a part of the WWW Kooks toolbox. As a celebrated Kook I'm confident that you've resorted to the sockpuppet during your distinguished career as a WWW Kook. Do you list your WWW Kook awards and nominations in your CV? flavius 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, your anti-NPOV agenda is clear from your history. I have also noticed that RichardCleen and Blauregen are similarly credential-less. Looks to me like they are all meatpuppets of yours, or are siding with you in your long march to delete/obscure facts on Wikipedia. Camridge 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Camridge. As the saying goes. "That you are paranoid does not mean they aren't after you", so keep up your distrust about people who disagree with you. Otherwise you have only my word that i am not associated with Comaze. As for my credentials. I admit that i have neither a formal qualification in psychology or neurology, nor did i receive any formal training in NLP. Therefore i have to rely on common sense and the evaluation of the cited sources in helping to clarify this article. With all the apparent misquotation due to seemingly sloppy interpretation of sources this may take some time, but i am sure we can achieve an article that is at least factually correct over time. Blauregen 01:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is siding with anybody. Let's restore some civility in this discussion. Ignore the personal remarks, and accept that uncivil behaviour is unfortunately a part of everyday life on wikipedia. Use strikethroughs to remove personal attacks and remarks. We've got an open arbitration evidence page so I suggest that everyone submit their evidence there so we can air our disputes and get on with it. Let's support each other as wikipedians regardless of content disputes. New users are welcome here and sometimes we need to point them in the direction of wikipedia policy so they can understand the wikipedia philosophy, and assume good faith. A reminder that this is not usenet -- we are here to work together and discuss to come to a consensus about what is Neutral point of view. I've sent private messages to people who have engaged in personal attacks against anyone here. I will do whatever it takes to restore civility on this page. --Comaze 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you have given your bestest efforts to irritate people into conflict by posting unreasonable (in the light of your activities and history) objections here and on their personal pages. But it has stopped working. Relative civility has been achieved primarily by ignoring/reverting you and your co-NLPfanatic meatpuppets. DaveRight 06:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, if you were interested in resoring civility, you would stop posting unfounded complaints on nonNLPpromotional editor's personal pages. You would also stop advocating for the removal of sited fact and the views of qualified science. Your pretence at neutrality is as likely to create conflict as Akulkis' personal attacks. Solution for restoring civility: Ignore Comaze's ridiculous assertions, ignore his unfounded objections and his meatpuppets, and just continue to make the article more clear. Camridge 06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

:::Comaze, nobody is fooled by your whitewash. Though I suspect some find it amusing. Bookmain 08:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze's edits

Hi Bookmain, I noticed you tried to revert the image back to normal after comaze butchered it yet again. A copy and paste is required, and of course, Comaze is going to be reported with all his history laid bare, and I will probably post it on his own personal page for all to laugh at also.Camridge 09:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, your whitewash is noted as is your slur campaign. You are certainly to be ignored, and I feel great satisfaction in deleting your trashy harrassment from my personal page. Camridge 09:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze's comments and edits have been consistent from his arrival; Consistently tedious, uncooperative, unproductive, antagonistic, anti-NPOV, anti-brevity, anti-mediation, anti-clarity, anti-science, and he is best ignored. Camridge 09:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you make of the following remark in Background? Sarcasm? "...because he could not resolve the dispute through the use of NLP."

Criticism of NLP Application

At the moment there is a problem with the criticism not being connected to any specific aspects of NLP. One solution is to connect the criticism of applications to the application section. I want to move all the criticism of NLP application underneath each application. See here for an example . --Comaze 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientology of achievement

Also is there any objection to changing the sarcastic "Scientology of Acheivement" image with this one? The question is does anyone have any specific objections to moving the criticism of application to the appropriate section, or to using the second image? I think it is more neutral because it removed the Scientology bias and some of the sarcasm. I think the caption could read, "Don't ask why, ask how" but that can be negotiated. --Comaze 08:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as i can see it's only function aside from optical disaggregation of the page is building an association from NLP to scientology. Since there was no supporting evidence for such a connection,and the only slightly related claims lately refered to Perls and dianetics it does not seem to bring any clarification or new information to the page. This would be equally true for your new version, so it may be best to remove it altogether. Blauregen 10:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Blauregen. You seem to be in mortal danger of close association with a rather extreme fanatic. Your suggestions are similar to that of Comaze. Sorry if that is insulting to you, but that is your behaviour. HeadleyDown 11:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually the fact that i cannot find any valuable information or clarification in this image does not seem to pose a mortal threat to my health. Maybe i should clarify something. I am not interrested in playing a kind of intellectual 'capture-the-flag' with either of you, nor do i find the dramaqueening of certain users here over every edit especially amusing. I initially came to the subject of NLP because i was interrested in Bandler & Grinders analyisis of the therapeutic techniques of Milton H. Erickson, and extended my knowledge from there. After watching this article for a few weeks i am honestly fed up with the fact that i can't refer anyone to it, because some of you seem to mistake wikipedia for a kind of intellectual quake-map. Myself i am neither pro- nor counter-NLP, so please forgive if i side with neither of you, but simply try to correct factual errors, obvious misinterpretations and unneeded slur. At the moment, while trying to do this, i find myself mostly in agreement with Comaze. This may or may not change when if find time to go over the pro-nlp-parts of the article. Blauregen 12:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Blauregen. I am unaquainted with your game metaphors. What is a quakemap? I am neither quaking nor do I use maps for my reality. I prefer views. Metaphors aside, your pressure is towards Comaze's sort of whitewash. And your efforts promise to be as futile as the last set of NLPfans. You cannot remove views that are supported by multiple sources. HeadleyDown 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


::This is amazing. Not only has Comaze had to resort to mass slurs on personal pages, but he has tried to doctor images in a way that makes them meaningless. I don't really know Comaze (and really would rather not) but his sort of obsessive censorship behaviour is really freaky and wierdo. You do get some strange people here. DaveRight 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, you are clearly trying to cover up your anti-NPOV behaviour. Your slurs and doctoring of images has been noted, as has your history of coverup. Camridge 08:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well. Since no one pointed out any informational or clarifying value of the image, aside from an alleged but unsupported association of Scientology and NLP, i am going to remove it for the sake of brevity. Blauregen 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert Comaze's conflict prompting edits

Hello all. Comaze has been trying to provoke people into conflict for months. He has posted unreasonable objections on multiple editors personal pages for months, has made repeat queries to issues that have been dealt with for months, and places criticisms in areas where they will be hard to deal with without conflict. Any provocation from long term antagonist Comaze is best dealt with by reversion, or by deleting his irritation on your personal pages. Keeping conflict to a minimum is important on this article. HeadleyDown 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Headley. Nice to see things improving. Yes, Comaze has clearly been trying to confound editing here for a long time. Since his months long 10*perday reversionfest, stated commitment to a bandler/grinder only viewpoint, and his use of mediation/arbitration to slow things down, he has resorted to the constant accusation of attacks on him, and the repeated denial that questions have been answered. I think he has stopped making any impact at all. Ignoring him seems to be working, and the article is in better shape. Of course, that also means that his meatpuppets get the same treatment. Such is life. ATB JPLogan 02:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, your objections hold no weight. Your agenda is clear from your history (deletion of science and critical facts, persistent harrassment, and general NLP-zealot behaviour). You, and co-antagonists will simply be ignored. Camridge 05:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, your question has been answered already. Your objection/suggestion is as unreasonable as your months of unsuccessful attempts to delete scientifically based criticism. Camridge 05:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange how all of the unsupported LIES and other erroneous inclusions are come from HeadleyDown , and Camridge, but not Comaze. If he's such a liar, then how come it is YOU guys who are doing all of the lying? As stated before, I'm hardly an expert on the subject of NLP, but I've caught BOTH of you red-handed, REPEATEDLY, inserting outright lies (let alone assertions with extremely dubious support) into this page. Akulkis Tue Dec 20 09:44:16 UTC 2005

Senses, input output, programming metaphor, rituals

Just to help with explanations, I noticed that the sense based notion of human behaviour that NLP uses is extremely convenient (albeit groundless). If the assumption is taken on, then all you need to do to change behaviour is to alter those internal representations. It is perfect for use in cults, and for development of hypochondriach/paranoia ritual development. I noticed this is also connected with NLP assertions that "your mind does not know the difference between real and imagined happenings" and the that this can somehow be transferred to the use of language/magic words, and so on. I suspect that this can be useful as a line of explanation in the pseudoscience section. Any further associated suggetions? Camridge 06:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, I don't see how this post, 'For example, NLP assumes that all human behaviour is neurological, and all human behaviour is based on the 5 senses, rather than "attitudes" "reason" "emotions" "mind" "morals" or "ego".' add any value to the article. It is not referenced and adds no value to the article. Actually I think the information is false. I don't know of notable author in NLP who says that "all behaviour is neurological" that would be insane. --Comaze 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeh, Camridge. I reckon a bit of comparison and contrast is in order. NLP doesn't even bother to find out stuff about the unconscious even though it goes on about unconscious stuff in the lit. A lot of this could be handled in the pseudo section, but also in the cult section (in comparison with cults for clarificn). Comparison with other pseudos has been achieved to a certain extent, but contrast with clinical psych and other scientifically rigorous methods may be helpful. CHeers DaveRight 06:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
DaveRight, your recent post has misleading edit comments. You actually remove important information about transformational syntax. --Comaze 07:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


For page that does not have conduct issues and significant content disputes then refactoring would be an option. I'm going to go through my lightly refactor my posts in an attempt to stop the circular arguments. I think that detractors would just get in the way. If we were all getting along then we could refactor any off-topic or repeated contentto help us keep the talk page clean, see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Imagine how good this page would be if we had on topic, minimalistic replies :) Now that is a desired future. I am however going to check all my mosts and remove any personal remarks that I have made, if you see any, please let me know. A simple strikethrough can be used to remove personal remarks or attacks made at anyone. I strongly encouage everyone to go through your posts and refactor and remove any personal attacks. On wikipedia, no personal attacks and avoid personal remarks can be used interchangeably. In fact, any personal comments should also be avoided. Personal attacks can and will be removed, and any attack should brought to the attention of the author. Although it is better if someone else removes it for you or somebody else defends you when being attacked. Let's start supporting each other regardless of content disputes. This discussion page is to discuss weight of various points of view with the aim of presenting a neutral point of view. It is not a place for pushing POV or shouting at each other. I'm going to become less involved in the editing of this page while arbitration is open so as to reduce disputes or chance of any new conflicts arising. --Comaze 09:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:Yes, Comaze, you go ahead and do some more whitewash, and we can go ahead and ignore you some more. DaveRight 06:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, editors here will point out your tedious and unproductive behaviour as long as you continue with your tedious and unproductive behaviour. Camridge 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, your definition of personal attack does not comply with that of the rational thinking world. Your accusations of personal attack are simply due to your desire to accuse and slur. Camridge 09:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Comaze, your intense antagonism and tedious, unconstructive nuisance is once again noted. Camridge 09:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Camridge. Actually the image with the craniology map did not contain more information related to the subject. Without the additional unrelated lines it is easier to interpret and therefore enhances the comprehensibility. What advantages did you perceive in the old image over the new one? Blauregen 11:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mr um, Mr um... I believe you have missed a few versions of that image already. Indeed it does look better without the brainmatter, but Comaze has been doing far more censorious editing with that and other images. He is into removing important information (check the eye accessing image versions). He removed the information about breathing and head position, I believe because although it is mentioned in core NLP books, it is some of the more obvious twaddle in NLP. HeadleyDown 11:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies HeadleyDown. The above post was mine. I have no problem with the current picture regarding eye accessing cues. From the archives it seems Bandler no longer considers it an important part of NLP. Bandler & Grinder themselves do not mention specific breathing and head position in this context if i remember correctly, but i understood Dilts did. Since Dilts can be counted as an authoritative source for NLP, and the PRS is still taught in newer books on the subject - although the initial distinction between lead system, representational system and referential system seems to be often disregarded - both can probably be viewed as canonical and should in my opinion stay. Blauregen 11:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Blauregen. It may seem that B and G don't consider something important any more, however, that is just more evidence for their pseudoscientific flim flam. But as you say, the info is all over the recent literature despite the gurubabbling excuses. Camridge 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
LIkewise, neither are electrons attached to nuclei by springs considered "something important" in atomic physics any more...I gues that's just "more evidence" that atomic physics is just "pseudoscientific flim flam." Akulkis 03:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

COMAZE IS A TROLL; His antagonistic activity requires blocking

Not only is Comaze using every sociopathic method he can to cause extra work, conflict, and ungrounded slurs, but he is doing it in an organized way. His cutting of important information on the images presented that comes directly from NLP books is obviously part of his agenda to whitewash NLP, and his multiple revert habit is simply being focused on adjoining supporting articles to this. He cannot get his way with deleting facts, so he focusses more on creating conflict. His activities have been 100% focused towards view-narrowing, fact deleting, anti-NPOV activity, and I strongly believe he should be blocked. Camridge 09:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Spot the REAL troll. Just like many other accusations, those who point fingers have three others pointing back at themselves. Akulkis 15:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Mr Camridge, I have no interest in engaging you on this level. If you want to resolve conflict please respond to my invitation to engage a neutral third opinion. --Comaze 10:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Its extremely unlikely that any mediator or arb will block Comaze. They havn't so far, even though he has cause a ridiculous amount of extra work on this article (reverting his deletions, and explaining easy to grasp concepts over and over again). Comaze does respond to punishment though, and whenever he posts his unreasonable comments(slur campaign) on your personal page, or deletes something factual from the article, or from one of the images, just stay cool, take your time reverting his censorship/whitewash, and add some more criticism to the article. There has been a lot taken away already, yet the criticisms could be far harsher and all within NPOV policy. I found that has already helped to train Comaze to stop his multiple reversion per hour compulsion, and in general it does clarify things on the article also. It may lead to a bit of extra text, but you could always delete anything that looks like NLPpromotion, in the article, or in the links. Certainly don't waste time engaging Comaze in lengthy textual explanations. Do not feed the troll! Just stay cool and add your clarifications. Regards HeadleyDown 10:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Headly, but you're wrong...I came to this page originally as a disinterested observer. But found the actions and activities of you and your ilk absolutely beyond the pale. And every other 3rd partydisinterested observer which has come along (Voice of All, MySekurity, etc.) have all noted that you and your cohorts are the ones who consistantly have your facts WRONG, while those who oppose you have been only been corrected on phrasing and placement, but NO errors in factual matters. I guess that makes YOU the the rediculous one who deserves punishment. What are you going to do... stomp your wee little feet and hold your breath until your face turns bluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuue??? 15:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, whoeverthisis. Your comment does nothing for your agenda to remove cited fact. Wikipedia is about clarifying facts, and the facts present in the article comply with wikipedia policy. That is why they have remained for so many months during mediation and arbitration. Those facts clarify the state of NLP. It doesn't matter if all sane people leave the article for 6 months and only drooling morons run the article during the intervening periond of temporary insanity. Any facts that comply with NPOV policy will either remain or return. Your comments are as futile as any fact deleting actions you wish to persue. And there are more facts to come:) Merry Christmas HeadleyDown 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Um HeadleyDown, cited LIES are not cited facts. So Solly! Akulkis 16:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Akulkis' flaccid accusation is duly ignored. HeadleyDown 16:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because YOU ignore the fact that you have been REPEATEDLY caught inserting outright lies into the page doesn't mean mean a thing. The rest of us are onto you you. When you quit behaving like a pathetic psychopath, I will quit treating you as one. But not a moment before! Akulkis 16:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've joined the Harmonious editing club. I agree with most of their ideas on how to resolve conflict, prevent edit wars and engage the wider community of wikipedians. I urge you all to check it out. --Comaze 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I urge you all to check out the discussion page. It has a small report on Comaze's many multiple misdeeds. And a Christmas greeting. DaveRight 04:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever, sockpuppet. Akulkis 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

misleading statements

There are so many misleading statements in the Criticism section, here is another one that can probably be removed entirely...

Curent statement: "NLP is highly suggestive-that suggestion plays a leading role in the promotion of alleged memories of childhood sex abuse" .
This is what the source actually says: "Those who believe in recovered memory therapy (RMT) believe that abreaction of the emotions accompanying the alleged sex abuse experiences is necessary for cure. During this process there is often an aggressive use of hypnosis, including age regression, sodium amytal interviews, guided imagery and suggestive dream interpretation. Most patients undergoing such treatment attend group therapy for survivors of childhood sex abuse and read books about and by survivors. Sometimes unconventional techniques such as psychodrama, channeling and neurolinguistic programming-even primal-scream therapy-are used. Opponents of RMT (recovered memory therapy) believe that such techniques are highly suggestive-that suggestion plays a leading role in the promotion of these alleged memories of childhood sex abuse."[63]

--Comaze 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Comaze there. the cited statement was misleading and should stay out. Blauregen 08:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, your effort to supersize the article has been noted. HeadleyDown 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

have no interest in "supersizing" any article. I was just pointing out that this is a misleading statement that needs to be corrected or removed. There are many more but I'm just going to do one at a time, discuss it then make the appropriate changes if necessary. --Comaze 04:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have trimmed that subsection and cut out the nonesense/off-tangents/needless details.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

restoration of NPOV and cleanup tags

Hello Editors. This article has been correctly marked as a NPOV dispute for many many months. Edit warring occurs daily and many people reach their 3 revert limit regularly. It is a gross show of bad faith to remove the NPOV tag until issues have been resolved. It's a gross show of bad faith to remove these tags at the best of times, yet that this removal occured by editors that are currently under arbitration is even worse. I concur with Dejakitty and many others in the archives that this article needs both cleaning up and a more balanced perspective. The debate on the talk page is a meat factory and will clearly benefit from some strict arbitration impositions. Peace. Metta Bubble 23:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the current state of affairs we might have to wait until after arbitration for a peer review (fact and reference check) as it will only occur if the page is stable with no edit warring. I'm going to become less involved in editing the article which should reduce conflict and the chance of new conflicts popping up. I think the only way to move forward on this page is to get wikipedians who are uninterested in NLP one way or the other to begin to edit the page. --Comaze 01:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Editors. The cleanup tag is appropriate because the article is confusing. It's is arguing cases out of both sides of the mouth, and then some. The article makes cases that NLP is useful and good and then it argues that NLP is ineffective and dangerous; that's four incongruent arguments. The difficulty of presenting the disagreement about NLP in the greater community and in the scientific community is not even introduced in the article, let alone addressed in more detail. The structure of the article does not allow for this.
A good number of citations in the article are misrepresented (see recent and earlier discussions) and some sections were created on the basis that these citations were in fact correct. Now that the citations are teetering it seems the sections themselves should be removed. We've already seen the debate about enneagrams over this issue and more and more of these issues are coming out of the woodwork. With the cult section teetering and poorly cited as well as the dubious applications list, many of the section titles in the criticism section are POV and some are borderline hysterical prose (dubious applications, Extraordinary Claims, ethical concerns, cult characteristics).
The ultra simple "PRO versus CONS" structure of this article is an ineffective way to address the topic of NLP. It may well be a useful way to move forward given the current heated environment in the edit room, but that is a different issue and might possibly be resolved by more appropriate means, such as the pending arbitration decision. It has been acknowledged even early in the archives here that the current structure is considered temporary (by all sides of the debate) until the issues can be resolved and the article streamlined. That alone suggests the need for the cleanup tag.
I hope this clears up any questions. Peace. Metta Bubble 02:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi all. The present situation has been excellent for reducing confusion and conflict. I has also led to a far more concise article. It is also very much a convention on many articles. The effort to change this arrangement can only be considered an effort to cause conflict and extra work for those wishing to clarify the article. Also remember that arbitration was agreed upon only for the purpose of checking activities. Content is not an issue. HeadleyDown 03:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The present situation is one of a considerably biased and partly poorly researched or deliberately misleading ( especially in the critics-section ) article, that needs close scrutinity and rework to become useful. I will be happy to provide help in achieving this goal in the coming weeks. Blauregen 12:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The complaint at arbitration includes both user conduct and content disputes (NPOV issues). --Comaze 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, arbitrators can only arbitrate on issues they have agreed to. Only your anti-NPOV behaviour is under scrutiny. DaveRight 04:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
With the amount of criticisms appearing outside of the criticism section of the article, the structure ("pros versus cons") can be seen to have failed. For this, combined with my reasons above, I have reinstated the cleanup tag again. I am open to discussion on this. Nonetheless, obviously there is still considerable agreement that the article is POV and has been for many months, so I have restored the npov tags in good faith also. Peace. Metta Bubble 12:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Metta Bubble. The pro-con arrangement is a loosely followed organization in order primarily to reduce conflict. That arrangement itself does nothing but help. It has succeeded in stabilizing the article and your objections are the same as objections made by other retired NLP fanatics (therefore, you can be considered as one with them). Your addition of tags can only be seen as disappointment in the advancement of the article. Those tags do no good at all when the only conflicts are just the same old broken record of prior NLP fans. They are unconstructively placed at present, and the article is better off without them. HeadleyDown 13:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

With the current state of the article i have to agree with Metta Bubble. The tags are restored. Blauregen 14:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Blauregen, vague assertions are unconvincing under the circumstances. Thus, your anti-mediation action is inevitably reverted. HeadleyDown 14:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I can agree regarding the cleanup-tag. The vast amount of disputed points on the talk page show that this article does not conform to NPOV though. Blauregen 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Blauregen. And inevitably your focus is on criticism. Well, its all very predictable. VoiceOfAll is perfectly capable of making clear decisions on such matters. He has been here far longer than you. The NPOV sticker/call to war will have to be removed as usual. HeadleyDown 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi HeadleyDown. As the mediator of this article VoiceOfAll will probably support Wikipedias NPOV-standard. The NPOV-Sticker describes the state of this article accurately. But we can continue this tomorrow. I noticed that you also blankly reverted my removal of the "Scientology_of_Achievment"-image. I would have expected a preacher of brevity like you to welcome the removal of bad jokes. Since the suggested similiraty between scientology and NLP is, as your edit-tag states "the same old nonsense" that plagues this article for months now i am a little suprised by this action. Did you see any informational value in this image?
As for my alleged focus on criticism. I agree. At the moment the criticism is the section of the article that needs scrutiny. As we have seen the last few days some of the sources there are improperly presented, misquoted or not relevant for the topic. I assure you that, should i find similar methodical errors in other sections of the article, i will try to correct them the same way. Blauregen 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Doublecheck on refs

I am going to double check some refs. I do warn people though, that may result in concise writing, but also in tons more verification/triangulation of NLP's more harsh critics. That is the history of this article; Editors provide facts, NLP fanatics such as FT2, Metabubble, and Comaze demand more, and more harsh criticism ends up on the article. Wow, we have removed so much also, and that is destined to come back in briefer, punchier form. NLP zealots are their own worst enemy. Cheers DaveRight 05:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello all and Merry Xmas. Its fine to see the struggle against fanatical censorship is succeeding in producing a clear yet concise article at last. I checked the romanised Russian NLP Rekaunt status, and it is indeed classed as a destructive cult due to the occurrance of mass suicides in that NLP group. I can resore the ref concisely. Chiao. AliceDeGrey 06:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And a rough translation of the original source indicates that said group associates itself indeed with neuro-linguistic programming. So no objections from my side to the reference in it's current form. Blauregen 08:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Having been in Russia a couple of times, take anything said by either their government, OR their press(*), take with an entire BOX of salt.
(*)(which is 100% government controlled -- every newspaper, television station and radio station in the country is literally owned by people in the government).
Akulkis 03:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The difference between the US and Russia; The US is just as corrupt as Russia, but the US has more bullshit (The Russia House(Le Carre)).

Persistent deletion of psychopablum article

Psychopablum is a commonly used word in psychotherapy circles and appears in dictionaries. Someone (I suspect Comaze) keeps deleting the article. I just wish to point this out as a lot of sneaky deletions/image buggery have been going on by NLP fanatics. It is simple enough to restore the highly educational psychopablum article. All facts can be restored, and more are to come. The censorship behaviour of NLP fanatics is pathetically and predictably futile and impotent. Camridge 07:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A google search on the word does not indicate widespread use. Anyway it seems to be more suited for an entry in wiktionary than in wikipedia if at all. And i don't think it has any relevance to the topic of NLP, so why do you try to discuss it here? Blauregen 09:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Blauregen. Your (and to be fair, other NLP fan's) objections have not added anything new to the discussion. It has all been handled before, hence the removal of NPOV tags (which generally create more conflict than anything). Please go more carefully through the archives. The article is becoming far more concise and clear. Regards HeadleyDown 12:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The articles was AFDed and deleted. Restoring material deleted by an AFD might get you in trouble with other admins.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thats really funny. I guess they don't like new words:) Perhaps it could be placed in the pseudoscience or psychobabble article. Cheers DaveRight 00:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the further demonstration that DaveRight is a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown, and that HeadleyDown is attempting to own the page with his own personal point of view, in defiance of the NEUTRAL point of view policy.

Tags and a new section

This article has gotten so much better than before. I dont mind sectional tags, then I know what to look at. But global tags on a long article I keep looking over is a bit bothersome.

A section on the lack of a clear consensus on NLP methods might be useful and has been created.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure VoA. That gives me another few things to check over in the lit. Cheers DaveRight 01:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. The neuro concept is used throughout NLP. So I think that could go back into the main theory section. NLP uses the engram concept of neural pathways throught the senses and the brain circuits. Thats an engram according to science and as such should get weight. Also, NLP is new age historically and philosophically. So the section in varying concepts could read; Specific occult application, or something like that. Cheers DaveRight 01:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspected meatpuppets of Akulkis

Just so we know who we are dealing with:

It has come to my attention that Akulkis has been recruiting meatpuppets from the Mindmastery Essentialskills yahoo group. Here is the subject area of the said group:

Amazing Power of REAL Mind Control, ancient teachings, Modern teachings scientifically researched. For YOU to GAIN ADVANTAGES & POWER in Secret, Hidden and Lost disciplines: Mind-Power, Mental Magic, Invisible Body, Miracles, Secret Prayers, Mental Atmosphere, Remote Influence, Mental Suggestion, Psychic Attack, Psychic Self-Defense, Mental Healing, Abundance, Mental Power, Psychotronic Power, Mentation, Subtle Body, Seduction, Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), hypnosis, Self-Hypnosis, Mesmerism, Mind Control, Remote Viewing, Manifestation, Invisibility, Orgone Energy Generators, Time Lines, Brain Waves, Psychic Influence, Astral Travel, Fluidic Body, Mental Plane, Psychic Powers, Mental Influence, Zipping Protection, Energy Healing, Martial Arts, Qi Kong, Remote Viewing Past, Controlling Future, Manifesting, Dream Control, Dream Invader, Cloud Bursting, Magick, Kahuna, Huna, Secret Technologies, Pranic Energy, Psychokinetic Phenomena, Mental Radio, Voodoo, The "God" Spot, Aura Shielding, Meridians, Magnets, Psychic Mind Control, Demons, Psychic Functioning, Prophecy, Black Magick, Precognition, Dream Precognition, Time Distortion, Size Distortion, Auto-Suggestion, White Magick, Brain Training, Pendulum, Depossession, Out-of-Body, Luck, Psychic Laws, Ha Prayer Ritual, Secret Banishing, Mana Charging, Diagnostic Methods, Intuition, ESP Brain Wave Secrets, Distance Influence, Alpha Brain Wave, L-Rods, Guarding Mana, Theta Training, Secret Door to Delta, Accessing the High Self Consciously, Bio-Plasma, Bio-Energy, Psi Secrets, Suggestology, Eyeless Sight, Radionics, Supernatural, Psionics Generators, Evil Eye, Dowsing, Mind Expansion, Levitation, Life Readings, Intercepting Telepathy, Dream Secret School, Pyramid Energy, Radiesthesia, Spiritualism, Spontaneous Telepathy, Telepathic Hypnosis, Thought Power, Odic Force, Orgone Energy, Aura of Energy, Mind Clarity, Subconscious Mind hookup, and much, much more."

Here is Aaron's message to the group (dated 15th Dec):

From: Aaron Kulkis <akulkis@...> Date: Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:31 pm Subject: NLP on Wikipedia akulkis2 Offline Send Email

Morons have polluting the Wikipedia page, trying to link NLP to Dianetics and Scientology, because obviously enneagrams = engrams....(even though nobody in NLP uses the term engram, other than some fringe loser author who absolutely nobody references except for these cranks -- who, it seems, have some financial and/or professional-status motivation to slander the NLP community.\ ams

It's time to bring some people more knowledgeable than myself into this.

Plus, 10 people can pick apart the arguments of these cranks better than one.


According to the NLP article history, Metta Bubble, DejaKitty, and Blauregen joined soon after the message was sent. There were also some anonymous IPs that also joined in the fact deletions and advocacy thereof.

I'm sure Wikipedia has nothing against someone's belief in remote influence, Kahuna sect, or Ha Prayer Rituals, and of course it is a free world mostly and one should not be banned or persecuted for remote viewing, telepathic hypnosis, or pyramid energy development as they wish. However, that background may cause a slight bias towards pseudoscientific thinking.

I will post the appropriate meatpuppet messages. Bookmain 02:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And if the page on the Earth was being vandalized by a bunch of morons from the Flat-Earth Society, or a page on WW2 was being distorted by a bunch of Holocaust Deniers, bringing in others to repel the onslaught, that would be bad in what way, exactly?

So then, you admit that these others are OTHER GENUINE PEOPLE. So, now, your objection to GREATER PARTICIPATION is what, exactly?
Most of what is on the mindlist 'subject' page is never talked about... why it's even there, I have no freaking clue. But that's beside the point....
If you've ever participated in the mindlist mailing list, you would also know that the NUMBER ONE RULE on the list is -- no bandying about idle musings and other idiotic theorizing... talk about what you have tried, and what the results other words, STICK TO THE FACTS...which, sad but true, is a far higher standard than the psych departments at most universities. Akulkis 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Akulkis, I'm sorry, but what you are describing as "facts" is actually pseudoscience. Scientific facts are not derived from trying out magic rituals, and then giving your perceptions. Scientific fact is derived from rigorous studies in order to seperate the reality from the imagined. Science identifies reality. Your method identifies whatever you imagine. Camridge 05:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Camridge, trying out "magic rituals" and analyzing THOSE WHICH HAVE AN EFFECT to discover what sorts of suggestions, placebo effects, trance inductions and post-hypnotic suggestion, and underlying belief-systems are the REAL reason they work VERY useful to anybody with a clue. For example, by studying such things, you can learn how cults (and some political movements as well) gain and keep control of their members. It also helps one to spot propaganda, and to more easily find the weak points in the arguments (strong arguments don't need mind-control techniques, where as weak arguments ALWAYS need mind-control techniques to win over those who should know better. Akulkis 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Bookmain. Now promise not to laugh! The Essentialskills group messages cover a lot of occult NLP ground. There was a fine chap the other week talking about using remote NLP influence on policemen who pulled him over for driving erratically. The method involved NLP submodalities, and reaching into the policeman's chest cavity using a combination of remote viewing and remote influence and crushing the heart of the policeman. Apparently, it resulted in severe discomfort for the alleged victim. There was much rejoicing. The "moderator" there keeps a fairly tight ship (no Hubbard parallel intended). He boots out anyone questioning his "scientifically supported" assertions, and burns their effigy for days afterwards in order to keep order. Threat of Kahuna death voodoo is all over the place, as is every pseudoscience known to man. They sell; speed hitting manuals, inner demon destroyer rituals, TFT (tapping meridians and reciting NLP incantations), amongst other occult stuff. As you say, they are welcome to it, and it is not my place to call them freakin paranoid wierdos. Aaron makes regular contributions and is on good terms with the moderator as he has managed to master the art of adulation. Oh, they also have an inner circle and multiple "secrets". Anyway, it all makes the world an "interesting" place to be in. Many cheers. DaveRight 03:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes,.... but that's not the essential-skills group, that's essentialskills-mindmastery. You'll notice that I've not participated in that group for months. I was familiar with the moderator's name on other lists.... and signed up to see what he was talking about on his list. The most-fitting word to describe the list you're talking about: "Underwhelming." A lot of fanciful talk, but nothing that I can test with tangible indicators of success or failure. Like you, I think they're a bunch of self-deluded morons, led by a guy who is willing to sell them their own belief system back to them.
Hi Aaron. So you mean the scientifically researched "manifestation magick, remote viewing, remote influence, and the completely supported evil eye, and psionic generators" research? I think perhaps you should visit a psych department at a university sometime. I rather suspect your map and reality do not quite match up. DaveRight 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I'm quite skeptical myself of most of those claims. I have no evidence to verify them...and so, I IGNORE THEM. If that's the prices of also coming across some useful information within the realm of reproducability, then so be it. In fact, I MYSELF have attacked a lot of nonsense claims on those lists. Psionic genertors, orgone energy generators and other rubbish.... I once had a debate for about a week with some moron and his mindless repetition about "mobious coils" ... which, is, basically, a coil of normal wire which ***LOOKS**** like an inductor (but isn't)'s made by taking the wire, and folding it in half at the mid point, and then twisted before forming into a coil shape (the ironic thing about this is, contrary to the claim of this being a SUPER-coil of some sort, the inter-twisting of the two leads, and the counter-current (current flowing both in and out along nearly identical paths) actually CANCELS any and all electrical properties (self-inductance, and inductive voltage creation) for which a normal coil. REAL inductors rely on the fact that all of the current flow is in parallel. In the "mobious inductor" fully one half of the cross-section has anti-parallel current (path is parallel, but flowing in the opposite direction), which completely destroys the B-> (magnetic) field associated with wires and real inductors which have current flowing in them. And the twisting of the wire...this is a time-honored and well-known, and ELEGANT method of cancelling noise in long circuits which would otherwise be prone to picking up noise due to a large enclosed cross section (say, 1 cm by several hundred meters = one very large loop antenna. So, yes, there IS some nonsense on some lists...and a BUNCH of nonsense on a few others. However, I also notice tht in the Comp.os hierarchy, the typical MS Windows user writes 10x more nonsense by himself in a single day than what is on, say, mindlist, or the essential-skills list (which is NOT to be confused with LaTourette's essentialskills-mindmastery -- when I asked MERE QUESTIONS about some nonsense, I got a bunch of answers that were more akin to religious dogma than rational, or even irrational explanations). La Tourette talks about a lot of stuff that is way OUTSIDE of Bandler & Grinder and Dilts.....and then claims that anyone who isn't teaching his entire cloud of delusion isn't teaching "real" NLP. He and his group fail the credibility test for me.
Remote Viewing....a special case. I have never had direct evidence of it working for myself or people whom I know. HOWEVER...Stanford Research Institute, a defence research contractor (through DARPA, Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency), initiated and managed a remote viewing intel program, which was then WHOLLY taken over by the Army (all partipants were inducted into the Army, as either enlisted men or commissioned officers), and used, with varying results (some of them quite startling) all the way up until the Ronald Reagan's 2nd term. (And I don't think ANYONE here is in a position to question the authority, legitimacy, nor credibility of either Stanford University, nor SRI). Akulkis 04:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
So Aaron, you have been recruiting vandals from the Mindlist as well? I'll have to take a look at that one. I checked the mindmastery essentialskills group, and Bookmain is correct. There you are recruiting meatpuppets. Well, its all very predictable. Akulkis, your view is indeed ....remote. Camridge 04:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The term "meatpuppet" applied to EVERYONE who opposes your extremely slanted, paranoid, and fanatically RELIGIOUS dogma is a slander, and is intolerable. Akulkis 08:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Akulkis. You cannot tolerate the consequences of your own behaviour. No wonder you should feel so ignored as to rant and whinge so embarrasingly. Camridge 08:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
RELEVANCY CHALLENGE: This is not a newsgroup, this discussion page is for arguing the merits and weight of different points of view so we can achieve a Neutral Point of View. I fail to see how this thread is getting us closer to our outcomes as wikipedians. --Comaze 05:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comaze, this is relevant to the sudden appearance of anti-mediation, anti-NPOV meatpuppets such as Metta Bubble, Blauregen, and Akulkis. Considering you are as biased as they, I believe you can be considered as one with them. Of course you object. That is all you ever do. Camridge 06:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation: How dare these interlopers who aren't members of the Flat Earth Society come edit the Geography page....we would have got away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!!!
Camridge, admit it, years ago, you used to do the voices for various villains in the Scooby Doo cartoons Akulkis 08:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Comaze, when people can't win a debate on facts and the logic, then they work overtime inventing all sorts of red herrings. Akulkis 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What a fascinating idea. :) Ok. For the records: I hereby state that i am neither associated with Akulkis, nor with Metta Bubble, DejaKitty or Comaze. In addition. I agree that with Comaze that the current mud-slinging here bears no relevance for the topic of the article. Blauregen 09:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Very predictable Blauregen. The activities of NLP fanatics has always been futile and ultimately insignificant. It doesn't matter what you say. HeadleyDown 10:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with meatpuppets of Akulkis

Metta Bubble. Your edits are as erroneous as all NLPpromoters have come before you. Your comment "some schools" in ethical concerns is simply your POV. Tell me where in the literature it says "some schools". Your edits follow the same pattern as Comaze's; they are wrong, and they betray a desire to delete facts from the article or change the meaning of those facts. Furthermore, they confirm your appearance as a meatpuppet of Akulkis. Camridge 07:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Camridge, fact is not determined by YOUR opinion alone. Akulkis 07:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Akulkis. I use cited facts. You advocate your delusions. I guess you must be used to getting ignored by now. Camridge 08:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Metta Bubble. Your actions are completely futile and inappropriate considering you have worked tiresomly towards removing or changing the meaning of facts, and your appearance has been congruent with Akulkis' recruited meatpuppets. Camridge 07:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Camridge. No one has asserted that all schools of NLP are maniuplative. In fact, John Grinder has asserted the same ethical concerns that are raised in the article. It's a worthwhile topic. But it's currently POV. My diffs convincingly reveal that I am not a meatpuppet. In fact, I've already contributed to a more diverse wikipedia than you have in many month. Losing to a camridge/bookmain tag-team revert on my edits should also convince everyone I am not a meatpuppet. If I was a meatpuppet I'd be able to call on a friend and get my page reverted, like you did. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You are clearly not reading the literature, Metta Bubble. Your "some schools" POV is wrong. THe literature reads "NLP is....". BookMain can do what he likes, and considering your recent activities in combination with abusive and fact deleting NLPfanatics, his actions are completely understandable. Camridge 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
MBubble's accusations are as puny as Akulkis. Don't worry about it. Just ignore their antagonism, revert, and keep going with the editing. Its still moving forward, and NLP fanatics have never managed to make a dent on the facts. Bookmain 08:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Camridge, by your logic, the existance of quacks with MD's who still hold their medical licences and are in good standing with their state Medical Board is sufficient proof that ALL of medicine is pseudo-science. But we know that medicine is not a pseudo-science. Therefore, we can conclude that the existance of liars within a community is NOT sufficient proof to discredit the entire community.
On the other hand, YOU PERSONALLY have been caught red-handed inserting KNOWN LIES into this page...repeatedly, no less. Therefore, on the basis of your own arguments, YOU are unqualified to edit this page. Akulkis 07:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

LIES, LIES, all LIES! Very funny Akulkis! I will take you seriously when you remote view something other than pop psych pseudoscience. Camridge 07:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Metta Bubble, If you will not discuss this on your own discussion page, then we will discuss on the main NLP discussion page. Your appearance (12th) coincides (within a few days) with Akulkis' appeal for help from more NLP fanatics and he does not have to appeal through public postings. Of course he asked more people for help. He is doing abysmally here on his own. Bookmain 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Really Metabubble. Your addition of labels was just as general as placing a global label. Instead of a single one, you took pleasure in posting 3 or 4. You then took to reverting without discussion. You are only here to cause trouble, and that is clear from your meatpuppetry behaviour. You will have to do a lot better than that. We have had a lot of fanatics to deal with over the months, and they all show their fanaticism all too clearly. Camridge 08:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

About the criticism section.

Hi All.

Since the non-criticism-part of the article seems already either neutral or contains criticism too we can probably get rid of a few subsections of criticism.

Ethical concerns: This subsection does not apply to the article overall. NLP itself as a collection of methods and principles has no ethical dimension. No sane wikipedian would even think about for example editing the article about nuclear physics with a section "Ethical concerns: Physicists in this field were widely criticised for their contribution to the development of nuclear weapons .... " A hypothetical section on NLP-based therapy, NLP-based coaching or NLP-based sales tactics might have an ethical dimension. I suggest to discard this subsection and to place the relevant parts under the appropriate subsections of Applications of NLP again, as it is done for example in the article about hypnosis.

Questionable Applications: Can be completely merged with the Applications part. The new age and occult-nonsense from applications could be extracted together with the cult-references into a new section "New Age and religious connotations of NLP".

Cult Characteristics: Since the large majority of sources only mention the use of techniques from NLP together with techniques from hypnotism and similar areas in cult recruiting, and only solitary sources state the opinion that the promotion of NLP itself has characteristics akin to a cult this seems a little ridiculous. You could as well enter a similar section in the article about chemistry stating it is closely related to terrorism because methods and principles of chemistry are used in the construction of bombs. I propose to add a subsection under Applications instead that mentions this. The opinion that NLP itself has cult characteristics could be either placed under a section "Promotion".

Extraordinary Claims: You get whackos that tell flat lies or phantasize in every kind of sales pitch. This could be summed up under "Promotion" as well.

Pseudoscience/claims to science: Actually there is an article about Pseudoscience. Instead of listing all it's alleged traits here again we can as well leave it at a link to this page and mention that

 states that NLP is pseudoscientific. And that some proponents of NLP claim a scientific background.

This way we could shorten the article considerably, achieve a proper grouping of criticism to the criticised elements and avoid redundancy.

Any Objections? [[User:Blauregen|Blauregen]] 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes Blauregen. Any objection.  [[User:HeadleyDown|HeadleyDown]] 12:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC).  OK I should explain:  Go through the archives. Your suggestions are unreasonable [[User:HeadleyDown|HeadleyDown]] 12:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:I should add that NPOV would be a lot easier to achieve if we break the disputed content and wording down into manageable, thematically grouped sections. [[User:Blauregen|Blauregen]] 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

::Blauregen.  Your breaking things down involves regressing the article back to editwars.  The article is improving well.  Your insistence smacks of desperation.  The article is not in any danger of anything.  The facts are secure.  [[User:HeadleyDown|HeadleyDown]] 16:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

:::I would have expected that among mature adults a consent is easier to achieve on small and specific subjects than on largely unspecific assertions. I agree though that the premise that i am dealing here with mature adults is a little bit adventurous. As a sidenote: Please stop reinserting the "Scientology_of_Achivement"-Image. It does nothing for the article but carrying a erronous association and taking place. This was discussed days ago and so far no one came up with a believable source for the alleged connection between NLP and Scientology. [[User:Blauregen|Blauregen]] 17:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

==Gary Phillips

I find the NLP article to essentially pejorative rather than an attempt to define and explain NLP. I have already corrected a few simple errors of fact, but the article needs to be just replaced. It is like an article on evolution written by a creationism - the only point is to destroy the topic, not to explain it. Yes, there are individuals who have taken NLP in the direction of cultism, and there are no doubt some errors and dependence on out dated information. But the article does not address the real positives of NLP. It is essentially anew way of thinking about human competencies, of breaking down fluffy concepts like "thinking" and "excellent performance" into specific sensory based components that can and must be observed in sensory terms and then worked with in verifiable ways. When I can I will assemble a rebuttal to the pseudoscience section, but it does not belong in the article. While not beyond criticism, NLP is a major intellectual contribution to mankind. It is a disservice to wikapedia users not to offer an explanation of it rather than a diatribe against it.

Creative Commons License