Talk:Principles of NLP

Untitled
Archives:
 * 1) /Archive 1 Archived to 15 Feb 2006. Content -- POV warrior user:HeadleyDown and sockpuppets forcing discussion on deletion/merge.

General info: HeadleyDown, and about 14 sockpuppets blocked on similar article to this
This post is just for the record in case anyone here has had issues with the named editor or others editing similarly. The following editors are as of June 5 2006, blocked indefinitely under any name:
 * HeadleyDown editing as ""
 * HeadleyDown editing as ""
 * HeadleyDown editing as ""
 * HeadleyDown editing as ""
 * HeadleyDown editing as "".
 * Also identified as sockpuppets and indefinitely blocked: "", "", and 4 or so "single-use" sockpuppets.


 * Finally, "" was also blocked, for breach of multiple policies (not a sock of HeadleyDown, but repeated major conduct and editorship issues)

It is not confirmed whether other editors are also in the same sockpuppet/meatpuppet group. They may be. It may also help to be alert in general, to new editors and repeat behavior. Reversion of heavy duty POV editing and forged cites added over many months has been needed in cleaning up that article.

Please see Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming for more, including summary of reasons and behaviors related to this.

Formal ban and block documentation at Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming.

FT2 (Talk) 14:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Presuppositions are not Principles
I'm not sure how we can most make this clear, it's hugely complicated to explain... IMO. When a subject uses a presupposition, it indicates their belief. When an NLP Practitioner uses a presupposition, it either indicates their belief or it is intended to help the client make a change.

We say
 * Note: The principles of NLP are sometimes also described as "presuppositions". In this context both might be valid descriptions, because the NLP principles are also, functionally, presuppositions. However the latter term has a more specific meaning in NLP, as a part of the Metamodel, hence for the purposes of this article the underlying assumptions of NLP will be called "principles", to distinguish them from the metamodel linguistic pattern of the same name.

While it is true that NLP principles come across through the presuppositions used in NLP patterns, the presuppositions used in NLP patterns are not necessarily principles. When a practitioner says "I'm wondering if you are aware of the positive intent behind that behaviour", and the subject says "yes" or "no" - it presupposes that their IS a positive intent. In reality it MAY not be true... but the belief in a positive intent is considered useful for the change process (in this case it creates a useful reframe option - from the behaviour to the intent for the behaviour). Likewise, treating any failures as feedback is a useful reframe to subtly persuade a client that they are moving forwards - this can prevent them from giving up when they fail, and is certainly a useful presupposition for change. But not necessarily true.

Unfortunately, the easiest way for a practitioner to congruently instill these beliefs in a client is for the practitioner to believe them. Also, many NLP trainings involve the trainees as subjects and thus those beliefs are given to the trainees, even when it's explained that these aren't necessarily true but are certainly useful a trainee has no reason not to believe them.

How do we get that across clearly!? Greg 06:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Myth of 3rd Generation NLP
Having gotten rid of the Headley Down conglomeration, it seems this page has now come under the influence of someone who prefers Robert Dilts' so-called "3rd Generation NLP" to both classical AND New Code NLP.

Hence the nonsense about NLP modeling dead people (impossible - since there cannot be any direct observation one could only model other people's models), the several attempts to link NLP with topics of a "spiritual" nature (since when did NLP have anything to do with ESP or meditation?), and so on.

It occurs to me that one practical approach might be to divide up material so as to distinguish between classical code and New code and anything else. This would automatically limit what material could be placed on any particular page. And at the same time it would allow dissenting views to be presented without censorship - AS LONG AS they were kept to the appropriate pages.

JAT [[User:Andy Bradbury] 09:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)