Talk:Methods of neuro-linguistic programming

Advocacy point of view
This describes what it is and claims, but appears to be written from an advocacy point of view - particularly the intro, which states NLP's claims as if they are facts. This is problematic given that not only is NLP documented to be a pseudoscience, but is one of the standard examples of a truly egregious pseudoscience (per the main article) - so an in-universe style will mislead the reader - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur. Do you want to have a go at changing it?  Snowded  TALK 04:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can help. I have rewritten the lead of the Representational_systems article to make it more objective. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Richard Bandler has said that NLP is more art than science. The quality of the results depends therefore not on "scientific studies" but on the skills and talents of those persons using the methods presented, much like an artist creating an image - photographer? charcoal? pen & ink? oil on canvas? All can create something amazing, if their skill level is high enough, and a hot mess if it isn't.
 * LOL 174.26.56.14 (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Request
I'm looking for the list of Sleight of Mouth patterns that used to be one here. It was a really useful reference and I've been coming back to this page for years to use it, but it's no longer here. Where might I find it? 98.237.252.162 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the Sleight of Mouth patterns that were here before someone deleted them. Please add them back in. It was highly useful information. Now it just says "There were 14 sleight of mouth patterns and then 14 more were developed." Well, at least a list of these 28 Sleight of Mouth patterns would be helpful! 73.53.49.12 (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Find a third party reliable source and propose something. Snowded  TALK 00:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The list of specific patterns may be copyright by Robert Dilts and others. If they are included it should be in a way that does not violate the copyrights. It may be better to include the patterns on the Covert hypnosis article as this article contains summaries of methods.


 * Related to this request is I'd done a search for 'Sleight of Mouth' on Wikipedia and found two articles:
 * Methods of neuro-linguistic programming which is this article which claims "The concept was devised by Robert Dilts ...".
 * Covert hypnosis which claims "it is also known as conversational hypnosis or sleight of mouth" with the term "sleight of mouth" linking back to this article. The Covert hypnosis article does not mention Robert Dilts at all other that twice in the references (once as Robert B. Dilts).
 * In other academic leaning articles I've seen evidence of contention between viewpoints and attempts to "correct" or "revise" the history of a topic. I suspect that's at play here though have not reviewed the edit histories.
 * For now, I've added a link, via Main from this article to the one on Covert hypnosis. However, it also appears there needs to be some consolidating/merging to balance out mentions of Robert Dilts and others involved in this topic. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 01:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Related to this is that I'm wondering if:
 * "Sleight of Mouth" is a formal phrase in NLP that should be capitalized. I know it's the title of a book by Robert Dilts.
 * Is sleight of mouth a sub-topic of NLP's state management field?
 * --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 01:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This seems like a concept that Robert Dilts made up to hang a book on. There is no support for the concept outside of his work and all references to it should probably just be deleted. Famous  dog   (c) 07:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No objection to deletion Snowded  TALK 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

recent advocacy edits
There is recent research that gives evidence contradicting the idea that NLP is pseudoscience. I attempted an edit that includes reference to this research. It is a meta-analysis performed in 2015 (after the talk above): -

Zaharia, C., Reiner, M., & Schütz, P. (2015). Evidence-based Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Psychiatria Danubina, 27(4), 355-363. -

From the abstract via PsycINFO:

Authors: Zaharia, Cătălin. Mind Master Association, Bucharest, Romania, catalin@nlpt.ro    Reiner, Melita. Croatian-Austrian Training Center for NLPt, Zagreb, Croatia Schütz, Peter. Oesterreichisches Training Zentrum fuer NLP&NLPt, Vienna, Austria Address: Zaharia, Cătălin, Mind Master Association, Bucharest, Romania, catalin@nlpt.ro Source: Psychiatria Danubina, Vol 27(4), 2015. pp. 355-363. NLM Title Abbreviation: Psychiatr Danub Page Count: 9 Publisher: Croatia : Medicinska Naklada ISSN: 0353-5053 (Print) Language: English Keywords: Neuro Linguistic Programming, systematic review, Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy, treatment effectiveness, meta analysis Abstract: Background: Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) Framework has enjoyed enormous popularity in the field of applied psychology. NLP has been used in business, education, law, medicine and psychotherapy to identify people’s patterns and alter their responses to stimuli, so they are better able to regulate their environment and themselves. NLP looks at achieving goals, creating stable relationships, eliminating barriers such as fears and phobias, building self-confidence, and self-esteem, and achieving peak performance. Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy (NLPt) encompasses NLP as framework and set of interventions in the treatment of individuals with different psychological and/or social problems. We aimed systematically to analyse the available data regarding the effectiveness of Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy (NLPt). Subjects and methods: The present work is a meta-analysis of studies, observational or randomized controlled trials, for evaluating the efficacy of Neuro Linguistic Programming in individuals with different psychological and/or social problems. The databases searched to identify studies in English and German language: 1. CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library; 2. PubMed; 3. ISI Web of Knowledge (include results also from Medline and the Web of Science); 4. PsycINFO (including PsycARTICLES); 5. Psyndex; 6. Deutschsprachige Diplomarbeiten der Psychologie (database of theses in Psychology in German language), 7. Social SciSearch; 8. National library of health and two NLP-specific research databases: one from the NLP Community (http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlprdb.cgi?action=res_entries) and one from the NLP Group (http://www.nlpgrup.com/bilimselarastirmalar/bilimsel-arastirmalar-4.html#Zweig154). Results: From a total number of 425 studies, 350 were removed and considered not relevant based on the title and abstract. Included, in the final analysis, are 12 studies with numbers of participants ranging between 12 and 115 subjects. The vast majority of studies were prospective observational. The actual paper represents the first meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of NLP therapy for individuals with social/psychological problems. The overall meta-analysis found that the NLP therapy may add an overall standardized mean difference of 0.54 with a confidence interval of CI = [0.20; 0.88]. Conclusion: Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy as a psychotherapeutic modality grounded in theoretical frameworks, methodologies and interventions scientifically developed, including models developed by NLP, shows results that can hold its ground in comparison with other psychotherapeutic methods. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) Document Type: Journal Article Subjects: *Intervention; *Neurolinguistic Programming; *Psychotherapy; Treatment Effectiveness Evaluation PsycINFO Classification: Psychotherapy & Psychotherapeutic Counseling (3310) Population: Human Methodology: Meta Analysis Format Covered: Print Publication Type: Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal Publication History: Accepted: Oct 5, 2015; Revised: Sep 28, 2015; First Submitted: Jul 23, 2015 Release Date: 20160125 Copyright: Medicinska naklada - Zagreb, Croatia. PMID: 26609647 Accession Number: 2015-54669-003 Number of Citations in Source: 39 Database: PsycINFO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcdani4 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC) -

"The present work is a meta-analysis of studies, observational or randomized controlled trials, for evaluating the efficacy of Neuro Linguistic Programming in individuals with different psychological and/or social problems. The databases searched to identify studies in English and German language: 1. CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library; 2. PubMed; 3. ISI Web of Knowledge (include results also from Medline and the Web of Science); 4. PsycINFO (including PsycARTICLES); 5. Psyndex; 6. Deutschsprachige Diplomarbeiten der Psychologie (database of theses in Psychology in German language), 7. Social SciSearch; 8. National library of health and two NLP-specific research databases: one from the NLP Community (http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlprdb.cgi?action=res_entries) and one from the NLP Group (http://www.nlpgrup.com/bilimselarastirmalar/bilimsel-arastirmalar-4.html#Zweig154). Results: From a total number of 425 studies, 350 were removed and considered not relevant based on the title and abstract. Included, in the final analysis, are 12 studies with numbers of participants ranging between 12 and 115 subjects. The vast majority of studies were prospective observational. The actual paper represents the first meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of NLP therapy for individuals with social/psychological problems. The overall meta-analysis found that the NLP therapy may add an overall standardized mean difference of 0.54 with a confidence interval of CI = [0.20; 0.88]. Conclusion: Neuro-Linguistic Psychotherapy as a psychotherapeutic modality grounded in theoretical frameworks, methodologies and interventions scientifically developed, including models developed by NLP, shows results that can hold its ground in comparison with other psychotherapeutic methods. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)" -

I plan on editing the article in the following ways

1. While some may imply that NLP is a pseudoscience, this is one perspective and not an objective fact to be stated as such (as it is actively refuted in peer reviewed research). I plan to edit the article to reflect this.

2. In doing so, I plan to refer to the meta-analysis mentioned above. -

If another editor feels my prose is poor and needs revising, that's fine. However, the content (especially the introduction) needs a more well rounded perspective. Bmcdani4 (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)bmcdani4


 * I suggest running it past Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming - considering the mountains of evidence, one study in a subarticle is probably not a good place to start advocacy - David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is my first foray into Wikipedia editing, so forgive me. I'll start in the talk in the main article. Bmcdani4 (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)bmcdani4


 * NLP is about and inside of the study of subjective experience. There are no facts, just how people experience in a subjective way so it's not about science.  Any attempt to objectively prove subjective experience is a major issue for science, philosophy, and for wikipedia to deal with so you won't get far with what you're up to.  NLP is objectively unprovable.
 * -- That Guy, From That Show! 19:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues banner
Regarding the recent removal of the multiple issues banner (added by myself), lets hold the discussion here as it affects both articles. Famous dog   (c) 11:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Famousdog, it is fine for you to dispute the pseudoscience mentions regarding NLP, but if you want to continue to promote NLP as science, you'll need far more than just adding banners to the article. It's fine to dispute, but here on wikipedia we want more evidence than that to prove your beliefs about NLP as being true.
 * -- That Guy, From That Show! 13:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that the WikiProject tag is unrelated to the in-article issues-tags. Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about, That Guy. I'm not promoting anything, certainly not NLP. Also, you clearly missed the bit where I said "let's hold the discussion here." Famous  dog   (c) 11:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Methods of neuro-linguistic programming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610030957/http://www.sidjacobson.com/institute/history.html to http://sidjacobson.com/institute/history.html
 * Added tag to http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309037921/html/133.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Annotations Currently Crippling Readability.
Of course, it is very important to communicate clearly that NLP is not science. However, as a wikipedian aware of this fact, the repeated skeptical annotations accompanying what appears to be a majority of the footnotes, impedes my ability to read the article. Instead of noting "source may be unreliable" and "clarification needed" at every possible point, could we take another approach? For example, could a banner be placed atop the article that says something like:..

"Neuro-Linguistic Programming is not an accepted scientific field. Skepticism should be applied liberally and sources examined for reliability."

...then we could remove the redundant footnote-annotations? I suggest this merely as to attack an issue of readability. While I am indeed currently interested in to read about Neuro-Linguistic Programming, I have no interest whatsoever in spreading support or condemnation of the idea. I only wish to help see that the information available in this article is readable by whoever seeks it out. I understand why a person may feel passionately about clarifying that NLP is not science and is promoted frequently by dubious charlatans but I believe the number of people who would argue against the idea "NLP is not science" is next to nought.

Is there a way to favour readability while not taking lightly the level of skepticism necessary for a person introducing themselves to NLP to do so safely?

Thank you. Harlequence (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)