Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/NLP and science (Wikipedia) - Revision history

Ockham at 09:23, 13 December 2008

2008-12-13T09:23:23Z

Ockham at 09:22, 13 December 2008

2008-12-13T09:22:45Z

Ockham at 09:21, 13 December 2008

2008-12-13T09:21:35Z

Ockham at 13:06, 12 December 2008

2008-12-12T13:06:17Z

Ockham: /* Heap 1989 */

2008-12-12T13:04:58Z

Heap 1989

Ockham: /* Heap 1988b */

2008-12-12T13:01:29Z

Heap 1988b

Ockham: /* Heap 1989 */

2008-12-12T12:57:11Z

Heap 1989

Ockham at 12:53, 12 December 2008

2008-12-12T12:53:59Z

Ockham at 12:53, 12 December 2008

2008-12-12T12:53:09Z

Ockham at 12:46, 12 December 2008

2008-12-12T12:46:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:23, 13 December 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:
	: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. <ref>From [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903 this] version of the article. FT2 first makes the claim that NLP does not lend itself to the scientific method [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=57297568&oldid=57297295 here], then wrongly attributes this to Heap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=58474416&oldid=58456398 here]</ref>.		: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. <ref>From [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903 this] version of the article. FT2 first makes the claim that NLP does not lend itself to the scientific method [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=57297568&oldid=57297295 here], then wrongly attributes this to Heap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=58474416&oldid=58456398 here]</ref>.

−	~~This~~ is grossly misleading~~, in suggesting~~ that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Michael Heap]]. The reverse is true. Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature. He says that, in fact, many of [NLP's] assumptions and predications are easily testable by objective procedures and several such studies have now appeared in the literature. After reviewing these, he concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."	+	It is grossly misleading to suggest that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Michael Heap]]. The reverse is true. Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature. He says that, in fact, many of [NLP's] assumptions and predications are easily testable by objective procedures and several such studies have now appeared in the literature. After reviewing these, he concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :Due to its inherent preference for pragmatism over theory, its lack of formal and theoretical structure, and its lack of controls over usage, NLP doesn't always lend itself well to the scientific method. Equally (as scientific researchers have pointed out), attempts have also been greatly obfusticated by other factors, not least of which are poor scientific appreciation of the subject being researched, failure to fully consider, control and understand all key variables, unrealistic claims by some practitioners, and often, lack of high quality experimental design.
-: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903] <ref>FT2 first makes the claim that NLP does not lend itself to the scientific method [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=57297568&oldid=57297295 here], then wrongly attributes this to Heap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=58474416&oldid=58456398 here]</ref>.
+: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated.  <ref>From [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903 this] version of the article.  FT2 first makes the claim that NLP does not lend itself to the scientific method [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=57297568&oldid=57297295 here], then wrongly attributes this to Heap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=58474416&oldid=58456398 here]</ref>.
 This is grossly misleading, in suggesting that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Michael Heap]].  The reverse is true.  Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature.  He says that, in fact, many of [NLP's] assumptions and predications are easily testable by objective procedures and several such studies have now appeared in the literature.  After reviewing these, he concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :Due to its inherent preference for pragmatism over theory, its lack of formal and theoretical structure, and its lack of controls over usage, NLP doesn't always lend itself well to the scientific method. Equally (as scientific researchers have pointed out), attempts have also been greatly obfusticated by other factors, not least of which are poor scientific appreciation of the subject being researched, failure to fully consider, control and understand all key variables, unrealistic claims by some practitioners, and often, lack of high quality experimental design.
-: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903]
+: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903] <ref>FT2 first makes the claim that NLP does not lend itself to the scientific method [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=57297568&oldid=57297295 here], then wrongly attributes this to Heap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=58474416&oldid=58456398 here]</ref>.
 This is grossly misleading, in suggesting that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Michael Heap]].  The reverse is true.  Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature.  He says that, in fact, many of [NLP's] assumptions and predications are easily testable by objective procedures and several such studies have now appeared in the literature.  After reviewing these, he concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."
@@ Line 34: / Line 35: @@
 Conclusion: "It ought to be the case that writers refrain from, and editors of books and journals disallow, the presentation of such allegations as though they were well-established scientific facts rather than a series of unsubstantiated speculations about how the human mind operates. These conclusions, and the failure of investigators to convincingly demonstrate the alleged benefits of predicate matching seriously question the role of such a procedure in counselling."
 == References ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLP_and_science NLP and science] was begun by the Wikipedia administrator [[FT2]] in June 2006, and was largely complete by the version of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903 13 June 2006].
-It begins:
+The introduction reads:
 :Due to its inherent preference for pragmatism over theory, its lack of formal and theoretical structure, and its lack of controls over usage, NLP doesn't always lend itself well to the scientific method. Equally (as scientific researchers have pointed out), attempts have also been greatly obfusticated by other factors, not least of which are poor scientific appreciation of the subject being researched, failure to fully consider, control and understand all key variables, unrealistic claims by some practitioners, and often, lack of high quality experimental design.
 : This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903]
-This is grossly misleading, in suggesting that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Michael Heap]].  The reverse is true.  Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature.  He concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."
+This is grossly misleading, in suggesting that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Michael Heap]].  The reverse is true.  Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature.  He says that, in fact, many of [NLP's] assumptions and predications are easily testable by objective procedures and several such studies have now appeared in the literature.  After reviewing these, he concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 == Heap 1989 ==
-"It ought to be the case that writers refrain from, and editors of books and journals disallow, the presentation of such allegations as though they were well-established scientific facts rather than a series of unsubstantiated speculations about how the human mind operates. These conclusions, and the failure of investigators to convincingly demonstrate the alleged benefits of predicate matching seriously question the role of such a procedure in counselling."
+Introduction: "Fortunately, many of [NLP's] assumptions and predications are easily testable by objective procedures and several such studies have now appeared in the literature.  These will be reviewed and some tentative conclusions will be drawn."
 == References ==

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 == Heap 1988b ==
-There is ... another growing market, namely those wishing to learn the skills of therapy... Indeed, in Britain at least, it is usually more lucrative to teach therapy than to actually do it with patients.... With this more attractive market in mind, therefore, the product has to be created and presented to appeal first and foremost to the learner - i.e. the would-be therapis - rather than the patient.  I contend that NLP and Ericksonian therapies have been created very much in this mould.  Firstly observe, as I mentioned earlier, how the product itself is advertised.  We are told that by learning to use NLP we will be well-nigh capable of performing miracles on our clients. Note, also, how there is always something new on the market, some workshop coming up offering us YET EVEN MORE ADVANCED TECHNIQUES, or some book that gives the very latest word in Milton Erickson.  Secondly, observe how the authors or trainers are advertised - wonderful, gifted individuals, sometimes even described, as noted earlier, as 'magicians' or 'wizards'.  'Knew Milton Erickson' or 'worked with Richard Bandler and John Grinder' appear to be strong selling points.  Finally, notice now NLP training is offered to such a wide range of people, unlike hypnosis which traditionally has been jealously guarded as the property of the few.  Why this difference? A cynic might say that if your product has been designed for patients, then you will want to restrict those who have been trained to dispense that product, so reducing competition.  But if your product has been designed to be taught, then you don't want to limit your market by only offering it to restricted groups.
+"There is ... another growing market, namely those wishing to learn the skills of therapy... Indeed, in Britain at least, it is usually more lucrative to teach therapy than to actually do it with patients.... With this more attractive market in mind, therefore, the product has to be created and presented to appeal first and foremost to the learner - i.e. the would-be therapis - rather than the patient.  I contend that NLP and Ericksonian therapies have been created very much in this mould.  Firstly observe, as I mentioned earlier, how the product itself is advertised.  We are told that by learning to use NLP we will be well-nigh capable of performing miracles on our clients. Note, also, how there is always something new on the market, some workshop coming up offering us YET EVEN MORE ADVANCED TECHNIQUES, or some book that gives the very latest word in Milton Erickson.  Secondly, observe how the authors or trainers are advertised - wonderful, gifted individuals, sometimes even described, as noted earlier, as 'magicians' or 'wizards'.  'Knew Milton Erickson' or 'worked with Richard Bandler and John Grinder' appear to be strong selling points.  Finally, notice now NLP training is offered to such a wide range of people, unlike hypnosis which traditionally has been jealously guarded as the property of the few.  Why this difference? A cynic might say that if your product has been designed for patients, then you will want to restrict those who have been trained to dispense that product, so reducing competition.  But if your product has been designed to be taught, then you don't want to limit your market by only offering it to restricted groups."
 == References ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:53, 12 December 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:
	: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903]		: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903]

−	This is grossly misleading, in suggesting that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[~~Micheal~~ Heap]]. The reverse is true. Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature. He concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."	+	This is grossly misleading, in suggesting that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Michael Heap]]. The reverse is true. Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature. He concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 : This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903]
-The antecedent of the pronoun "this finding", which apparently refers to the findings of Heap and Druckman, does not agree well with the views of [[Michael Heap]], who is very much a sceptic about NLP, and who actually writes:
+The antecedent of the pronoun "this finding", which apparently refers to the findings of Heap and Druckman, does not agree well with the views of [[Michael Heap]], who is very much a sceptic about NLP.
-:There is ... another growing market, namely those wishing to learn the skills of therapy... Indeed, in Britain at least, it is usually more lucrative to teach therapy than to actually do it with patients.... With this more attractive market in mind, therefore, the product has to be created and presented to appeal first and foremost to the learner - i.e. the would-be therapis - rather than the patient.  I contend that NLP and Ericksonian therapies have been created very much in this mould.  Firstly observe, as I mentioned earlier, how the product itself is advertised.  We are told that by learning to use NLP we will be well-nigh capable of performing miracles on our clients. Note, also, how there is always something new on the market, some workshop coming up offering us YET EVEN MORE ADVANCED TECHNIQUES, or some book that gives the very latest word in Milton Erickson.  Secondly, observe how the authors or trainers are advertised - wonderful, gifted individuals, sometimes even described, as noted earlier, as 'magicians' or 'wizards'.  'Knew Milton Erickson' or 'worked with Richard Bandler and John Grinder' appear to be strong selling points.  Finally, notice now NLP training is offered to such a wide range of people, unlike hypnosis which traditionally has been jealously guarded as the property of the few.  Why this difference? A cynic might say that if your product has been designed for patients, then you will want to restrict those who have been trained to dispense that product, so reducing competition.  But if your product has been designed to be taught, then you don't want to limit your market by only offering it to restricted groups.