Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
Line 2,722:
:: Earlier I asked you to comment on the Principles page that your version has. The interpretations of what positive intention means has no basis, nor failure is feedback. Perhaps you can comment on that section and justify your versions take... or that could be a good one to start merging? [[User:GregA|GregA]] 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
No worries chaps. Considering the deletions that Comaze has predictably tried to make during the last few edits, not much damage has been done. I believe we can continue to edit slowly over the next few days. I also believe you are trying to make "scientifically unsupported" into "don't know", which in the light of scientific understanding is totally wrong. NLP is scientifically unsupported full stop! A lay term would be "doesn't work". I believe editors are being kind by being scientific. Unsupported is exactly right and that is the conclusion. I do have texts of other reviewers who explicitly conclude that it doesn't work. Unfortunately they are extremely damning to NLP. Lets try to merge things without the surreptitious deletions, ok?.[[User:HeadleyDown|HeadleyDown]] 11:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
::Hey comaze... why move "Modeling" before "principles"? In the parallel page it's after principles, Headley wants it after principles... lets leave it eh?
::Headley - repeating something is different to justifying it. I asked several questions of you higher up in this section regarding the articles you cite as evidence for no-scientific support. I look forward to your response! :) [[User:GregA|GregA]] 12:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
===Ok I've summarised JPL's objections, let's cleanup these issue so we can get moving (my comments are in brackets)===
Line 2,747 ⟶ 2,753:
==Undisputed sections to merge==
H.Down, GregA, and everyone. Are there any sections on [[Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp)]],not in dispute, that can be merged now? I've merged in the 'NLP modeling' section. --[[User:Comaze|Comaze]] 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
==Encouraging good NPOV==
Hello Greg Alexander from Oz. A registered NLP promoter.
Just to keep things on the up and up, here is something that someone emailed me about your recruitment program. I understand what you are trying to do, but I believe your efforts to get people to change the page on behalf of you are quite futile. The fact is, I have added very little to the article myself. I have simply allowed other researchers to find what is relevant and scientific to the artilcle, whilst removing confusing hype and chatter from NLP promoters. At present the article is moving towards an information rich and focussed summary of the mess that is NLP. Anyway, here is some more info:
From: Greg Alexander <galexand@...>
Date: Sun Oct 2, 2005 6:45 pm
Subject: re: The Evil Cult-Creating Power of NLP!!! gregalexander72
Offline
Send Email
>> Here is another bit of info that seems to have the same search:
>> http://www.angelfire.com/art3/inextricablylinked/NLP.htm
>> Tell me what you think
>
> Not bad. The anonymous author seems to have put a lot of work into
> it.
This is copied off the currently 'contentious' wikipedia NLP article.
Mainly a guy identifying himself as HeadleyDown, who in my opinion
has a strange understanding of "Neutral Point of View". Plus a couple
of other helpers. Note that they say my view is not Neutral.
There are currently 2 alternative pages for NLP. We are about to go
to mediation on them, followed by arbitration if agreement is not
reached. If anyone can help in improving the page (particularly in
this time of disagreement) please do!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming for the one
copied on angelfire.
(at the top of the page it points to the "alternative page").
You can make a change to the page directly, though that will often be
undone unless there's some discussion - click on the "discussion" tab
for either page to talk to people.
> It's a bit quick in its judgments, for example, labelling biofeedback
> and neurofeedback as 'new age developments'. As far as I have heard,
> biofeedback and neurofeedback are becoming very mainstream indeed.
>
> It also gets a few facts wrong, like the idea of communication
> resulting in 'thought fields', which I have never known to be
> connected with classic NLP methods.
Yes, I agree with few points on this page.
> I do find it a bit odd that even though the article clearly states
> that the concepts and methods of NLP 'do not work' and that NLP
> 'promotes methods that are false, inaccurate or ineffective', but
> these very same methods are supposedly used to create cult-like
> dependencies. Apparently 'people with these skills acquire such
> personal power that they are able to affect people deeply'.
>
> So do the techniques work, or do they not?
Absolutely.
> "However, "Achieving
> your own outcome at the expense of or even without regard for the
> other party constitutes manipulation. What makes this particular
> 'informed manipulation' so frightening is that people with these
> skills acquire such personal power that they are able to affect
> people deeply, and their capacity to misguide others is thereby
> increased to the point of evil." (Seitz and Cohen 1992). "
I didn't realise it was possible to increase your power "to the point
of evil".
> I think that the above article about NLP was written very, very
> recently, particularly in light of events on this and another
> group.
What other group?
Greg
So you believe that the techniques work absolutely, and that you do not agree with Seitz and Cohen's article? Or are you recruiting people from that group because they generally exclude people who question NLP in any way shape or form? Lets just say, you have lost quite a lot of cred in the last few minutes.[[User:HeadleyDown|HeadleyDown]] 12:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)