Changes

== New Paper Published in Peer-Reviewed Highly Regarded Journal Critical of NLP ==  

== New Paper Published in Peer-Reviewed Highly Regarded Journal Critical of NLP ==  

    

    

  Devilly, Grant J. (2005) "Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2005; 39:437-445  

Devilly, Grant J. (2005) "Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2005; 39:437-445  

    

    

  '''ABSTRACT'''  

'''ABSTRACT'''  

    

    

  '''Objective''': Advocates of new therapies frequently make bold claims regarding therapeutic effectiveness, particularly in response to disorders which have been traditionally treatment-refractory. This paper reviews a collection of new therapies collectively self-termed 'The Power Therapies', outlining their proposed procedures and the evidence for and against their use. These therapies are then put to the test for pseudoscientific practice.  

'''Objective''': Advocates of new therapies frequently make bold claims regarding therapeutic effectiveness, particularly in response to disorders which have been traditionally treatment-refractory. This paper reviews a collection of new therapies collectively self-termed 'The Power Therapies', outlining their proposed procedures and the evidence for and against their use. These therapies are then put to the test for pseudoscientific practice.  

    

    

  '''Method''': Therapies were included which self-describe themselves as 'Power Therapies'. Published work searches were conducted on each therapy using Medline and PsychInfo databases for randomized controlled trials assessing their efficacy, except for the case of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing has more randomized controlled studies conducted on its efficacy than any other treatment for trauma and thus, previous meta-analyses were evaluated.  

'''Method''': Therapies were included which self-describe themselves as 'Power Therapies'. Published work searches were conducted on each therapy using Medline and PsychInfo databases for randomized controlled trials assessing their efficacy, except for the case of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing has more randomized controlled studies conducted on its efficacy than any other treatment for trauma and thus, previous meta-analyses were evaluated.  

    

    

  '''Results and conclusions''': It is concluded that these new therapies have offered no new scientifically valid theories of action, show only non-specific efficacy, show no evidence that they offer substantive improvements to extant psychiatric care, yet display many characteristics consistent with pseudoscience.  

'''Results and conclusions''': It is concluded that these new therapies have offered no new scientifically valid theories of action, show only non-specific efficacy, show no evidence that they offer substantive improvements to extant psychiatric care, yet display many characteristics consistent with pseudoscience.  

    

    

  This paper is significant for several reasons:  

This paper is significant for several reasons:  

  # It represents an answer to Figley's hyperbole on his Traumatic Stress Forum.  

# It represents an answer to Figley's hyperbole on his Traumatic Stress Forum.  

  # The existing criticisms and conclusions regarding NLP are re-iterated (this convergence is important in evaluating earlier research -- pro and con).  

# The existing criticisms and conclusions regarding NLP are re-iterated (this convergence is important in evaluating earlier research -- pro and con).  

  # NLP is characterised as pseudoscience and essentially a commercial venture.  

# NLP is characterised as pseudoscience and essentially a commercial venture.  

  # NLP's status as settled and not worthy of further research is reiterated and it is demonstrated that research has shifted towards the newer "Power Therapies" (EFT, TFT, EMDR, TAT and TIR), which are incidentally advocated and practised by many NLPers.  

# NLP's status as settled and not worthy of further research is reiterated and it is demonstrated that research has shifted towards the newer "Power Therapies" (EFT, TFT, EMDR, TAT and TIR), which are incidentally advocated and practised by many NLPers.  

  # It is concerned with efficacy, i.e. NLP (and the other Power Therapies) are assessed on their own terms.  

# It is concerned with efficacy, i.e. NLP (and the other Power Therapies) are assessed on their own terms.  

  # It is recent.  

# It is recent.  

  # It is in a mainstream professional journal.  

# It is in a mainstream professional journal.  

    

    

  This vindicates the position of the critical camp (myself, HeadleyDown, Camridge, DaveRight ''et al'') and it shows the position of Comaze and GreagA to be untenable and fundamentally disocciated from reality.  

This vindicates the position of the critical camp (myself, HeadleyDown, Camridge, DaveRight ''et al'') and it shows the position of Comaze and GreagA to be untenable and fundamentally disocciated from reality.  

    

    

  This vindication should have an emboldening and encouraging effect on those that have struggled against the relentless spray of propaganda and the surreal "alternate world landscaping" efforts of GregA and Comaze on behalf of Inspiritive [http://www.inspiritive.com.au/] and Grinder.  

This vindication should have an emboldening and encouraging effect on those that have struggled against the relentless spray of propaganda and the surreal "alternate world landscaping" efforts of GregA and Comaze on behalf of Inspiritive [http://www.inspiritive.com.au/] and Grinder.  

    

    

  I will re-read the paper and add the paper as a reference.   

I will re-read the paper and add the paper as a reference.   

    

    

  PS:- For your amusement see http://sudotherapay.tripod.com/ It's telling of the status enjoyed by the "Power Therapies" (including NLP) that they are being lampooned in this manner. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)  

PS:- For your amusement see [http://sudotherapay.tripod.com]. It's telling of the status enjoyed by the "Power Therapies" (including NLP) that they are being lampooned in this manner. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=37522689]

Headly, please stop trying to dominate this talk page. Your last several edits have been demanding and confrontational, and ignoring users with differing opinions does nothing to help the further development of this page. Please try to edit constructively and join this mediation, for the good of the article. Swatjester 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Headly, please stop trying to dominate this talk page. Your last several edits have been demanding and confrontational, and ignoring users with differing opinions does nothing to help the further development of this page. Please try to edit constructively and join this mediation, for the good of the article. Swatjester 01:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester, this isn't a matter of aesthetics, we're not arguing about the "greatest band in the world". NLP makes specific claims about learning, memory, cognition, mental illness and neurology. These aren't unclaimed subject domains that are up for grabs. Scientific method is the best method that we have for learning about the universe and its inhabitants and scientific knowledge is the most accurate knowledge we have about the universe and its inhabitants (with regards to non-religious and non-ethical concerns). Until science is displaced by NLP as the means for investigating reality then the scientific view should prevail. This is non-negotiable. NLP is not peer of science and whereas science has a well-established method of inquiry, NLPs is entirely conjectural and because of the invalidity of the techniques it has generated most likely flawed. We're not going to be served a plate of shit and told its a delicious chicken dinner. flavius 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)  

Swatjester, this isn't a matter of aesthetics, we're not arguing about the "greatest band in the world". NLP makes specific claims about learning, memory, cognition, mental illness and neurology. These aren't unclaimed subject domains that are up for grabs. Scientific method is the best method that we have for learning about the universe and its inhabitants and scientific knowledge is the most accurate knowledge we have about the universe and its inhabitants (with regards to non-religious and non-ethical concerns). Until science is displaced by NLP as the means for investigating reality then the scientific view should prevail. This is non-negotiable. NLP is not peer of science and whereas science has a well-established method of inquiry, NLPs is entirely conjectural and because of the invalidity of the techniques it has generated most likely flawed. We're not going to be served a plate of shit and told its a delicious chicken dinner. flavius 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)  

I'm not getting into the specifics of NLP, because I don't know, and I don't care. But we have to conform with NPOV, and right now it's not happening. Domination of this article will lead only to revert wars like the one that got this page locked. This is what we're trying to avoid here. Instead of being defensive, we need to be constructive and reach a compromise here. Swatjester 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the specifics of NLP, because I don't know, and I don't care. But we have to conform with NPOV, and right now it's not happening. Domination of this article will lead only to revert wars like the one that got this page locked. This is what we're trying to avoid here. Instead of being defensive, we need to be constructive and reach a compromise here. Swatjester 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oi mate! Swatjester I don't believe you have been here long enough to know. Headley is not dictating. He has consistently been the most cooperative, constructive, anti-propaganda editor on this article. He seems to be enforcing the "spirit" of NPOV policy better than you. The nonpromotional editors are constructive and cooperative. Now we have gained your attention, I think it is time to continue improving the article from its already advanced form - With NLP fanatics under a tighter state of apprehension. DaveRight 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oi mate! Swatjester I don't believe you have been here long enough to know. Headley is not dictating. He has consistently been the most cooperative, constructive, anti-propaganda editor on this article. He seems to be enforcing the "spirit" of NPOV policy better than you. The nonpromotional editors are constructive and cooperative. Now we have gained your attention, I think it is time to continue improving the article from its already advanced form - With NLP fanatics under a tighter state of apprehension. DaveRight 04:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester, NPOV conformity doesn't entail passing bullshit off as fact and privileging pseudocience such that it speaks as loud as science in the article. If it did then the half of the Earth article would be devoted to flat-earth theory. flavius 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester, NPOV conformity doesn't entail passing bullshit off as fact and privileging pseudocience such that it speaks as loud as science in the article. If it did then the half of the Earth article would be devoted to flat-earth theory. flavius 05:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=38422167]

*Your first and fourth items are inconsistent and you inadvertantly demonstrate that there is no NLP "mainstream". The notions of "first access", "F1/F2 transforms" occur only in the writings and seminars of Grinder and his disciples. Google scholar is only an indicator of how frequently a text is referenced by other texts it doesn't indicate credibility or authority.  

 

*The "acaedmic journals" and "highly-cited works" demolish NLP and you've been attempting to censor these references from the outset.  

 

*There is a plain connection between NLP and Dianetics and the engram concept does appear in NLP literature. Hence their inclusion is justified.  

*Combining "Classic Code" jargon with "New Code" jargon will confuse people that come to the article with no prior knowledge of NLP.  

*I don't think that the internecine conflicts of pseudoscients are worthy of inclusion within the article. Bandler contends on his nlpmp3.com interview that he is the one and only source of NLP knowledge. Shall we include this also? The arguments between pseudoscientists are gibberish and its inevitable that they will be at each other's throats because they're all crap merchants competing for clients.  

  *Your first and fourth items are inconsistent and you inadvertantly demonstrate that there is no NLP "mainstream". The notions of "first access", "F1/F2 transforms" occur only in the writings and seminars of Grinder and his disciples. Google scholar is only an indicator of how frequently a text is referenced by other texts it doesn't indicate credibility or authority.  

*Grouping "similar critics" isn't a conventional way to present expert opinion and some experts present multiple varied criticisms. Criticism should be grouped by theme ''not'' the background of the critic. There is no sense in grouping according to your arbitary categories.  

  *The "acaedmic journals" and "highly-cited works" demolish NLP and you've been attempting to censor these references from the outset.  

*I don't support confining criticism to sub-sections because this would open up a space for zealots to write advertising copy for NLP.  

  *There is a plain connection between NLP and Dianetics and the engram concept does appear in NLP literature. Hence their inclusion is justified.  

*The criticism pertains to those aspects of NLP that all schools share in common. There is no element that has been shown to be flawed that has been discarded. They all teach eye-accessing cues and PRS and matching and mirroring and there is no support for any of these techniques and principles.  

  *Combining "Classic Code" jargon with "New Code" jargon will confuse people that come to the article with no prior knowledge of NLP.  

*The response in ''Whispering'' mis-represents the research. Grinder claims that half of the research is supportive of eye accessing cues and half is non-supportive: "Indeed, eye movements have been the subject of dozens of Master's and Doctoral studies in US and European universities over the last quarter of a century. Given the failure on the part of the researchers' to appreciate the methodological point we are developing here, these studies are typically flawed with about half of them demonstrating the validity of the eye movements and about half suggesting that there is no such pattern" (Ch. 3, Pt. I). This is a lie. Sharply (1984) states that "although there are several specific findings that provide support for NLP, the majority are either nonsupportive (17/29) or uncertainn (3/29), with only nine of these findings (i.e., less than one third) in support of NLP on this issue of PRS and its use" (p.246) Grinder's response also betrays a profound ignorance of inferential statistics and scientific method. For reasons of moral turpitude, misinformation, and pedagogy Grinder and St Clair's "response" should not be included. NLP survives in an atmosphere of lies and deceit -- the role of Wikipedia is not to maintain NLP by sustaining the lies. For the sake of the integrity of Wikipedia and the moral imperative to not spread lies and deceit I strongly object to the inclusion of Grinder's "response".  

  *I don't think that the internecine conflicts of pseudoscients are worthy of inclusion within the article. Bandler contends on his nlpmp3.com interview that he is the one and only source of NLP knowledge. Shall we include this also? The arguments between pseudoscientists are gibberish and its inevitable that they will be at each other's throats because they're all crap merchants competing for clients.  

*This epistemology stuff from Grinder is sophistry. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 13:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=38915163]

  *Grouping "similar critics" isn't a conventional way to present expert opinion and some experts present multiple varied criticisms. Criticism should be grouped by theme ''not'' the background of the critic. There is no sense in grouping according to your arbitary categories.  

  *I don't support confining criticism to sub-sections because this would open up a space for zealots to write advertising copy for NLP.  

  *The criticism pertains to those aspects of NLP that all schools share in common. There is no element that has been shown to be flawed that has been discarded. They all teach eye-accessing cues and PRS and matching and mirroring and there is no support for any of these techniques and principles.  

  *The response in ''Whispering'' mis-represents the research. Grinder claims that half of the research is supportive of eye accessing cues and half is non-supportive: "Indeed, eye movements have been the subject of dozens of Master's and Doctoral studies in US and European universities over the last quarter of a century. Given the failure on the part of the researchers' to appreciate the methodological point we are developing here, these studies are typically flawed with about half of them demonstrating the validity of the eye movements and about half suggesting that there is no such pattern" (Ch. 3, Pt. I). This is a lie. Sharply (1984) states that "although there are several specific findings that provide support for NLP, the majority are either nonsupportive (17/29) or uncertainn (3/29), with only nine of these findings (i.e., less than one third) in support of NLP on this issue of PRS and its use" (p.246) Grinder's response also betrays a profound ignorance of inferential statistics and scientific method. For reasons of moral turpitude, misinformation, and pedagogy Grinder and St Clair's "response" should not be included. NLP survives in an atmosphere of lies and deceit -- the role of Wikipedia is not to maintain NLP by sustaining the lies. For the sake of the integrity of Wikipedia and the moral imperative to not spread lies and deceit I strongly object to the inclusion of Grinder's "response".  

  *This epistemology stuff from Grinder is sophistry. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 13:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)  

== Principles of NLP Should Be Deleted ==  

== Principles of NLP Should Be Deleted ==  

   The ''raison d'etre'' of this article is to subvert editorial efforts towards NPOV and scientific rigour. The content of the article overlaps with the NLP article -- minus any critical opinion -- and it is not far removed from an instructional manual on NLP. The sprawling NLP sub-articles should be pruned back. Despite marketing propaganda that suggests otherwise, NLP is simple and it can be covered in one article. NLP isn't an academic subject, it's a commercial product and it has been discredited by scientific experimentation and review. Hence there should be no NLP project. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 09:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)  

   The ''raison d'etre'' of this article is to subvert editorial efforts towards NPOV and scientific rigour. The content of the article overlaps with the NLP article -- minus any critical opinion -- and it is not far removed from an instructional manual on NLP. The sprawling NLP sub-articles should be pruned back. Despite marketing propaganda that suggests otherwise, NLP is simple and it can be covered in one article. NLP isn't an academic subject, it's a commercial product and it has been discredited by scientific experimentation and review. Hence there should be no NLP project. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 09:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)