Talk:Neurolinguistic programming

I think that NLP_and_science at WP makes for interesting reading. :-) --Bob M 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting reading indeed! Yet another great example of misinformation that vested interests spread about. It turns out that one of the most important studies (Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques (1988) - Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education) that the critics use and that supposedly discredits PNL does nothing of the sort:


 * Read the bit on Applications and Comments - while not actually saying that it is the be all and end all of techniques, it does refer to its potential... contrary to what the Wikipedia article claims that this particular study states.


 * Analogies abound, and the warring factions in the social & health sciences in general mean that no-one who is not directly a practicioner of a certain discipline will ever have a good word to say for any method other than his/her own. Ditto language teaching methods. Ditto evolution, and just 'bout anything else that is subject to controversy...


 * I've just attended an international conference (700 attendees) as an unbiased spectator and was shocked at the violent demonstrations of intolerance shown by participating experts accusing each other in public of all sorts of professional incompetence. Amazing.--Technopat 00:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that experts will always be happy to rubbish their opponent's theories. But this is one case in which I do think we should mention there is some controversy.  If you wish to mention controversy about other apporaches I am sure you will feel free to do so.--Bob M 16:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me point out by saying that I do not claim to be a great expert on this subject. However my understanding is that we have have "Neurolinguistics" which is a quite respected science looking at the connections between language and the mind. And then we have Neurolinguistic programming which was first though up as a therapy. It didn't get much traction and subsequently re-invented itself as a English teaching methodology. So perhaps we need to be a bit more explicit about what it actually is. Our article doesn't go into much detail about NLP - it seems to be mostly about "VAK models" which we state are not exclusive to NLP. If I understand VAC models correctly they are about people having different ways of learning - something which is probably not too controversial, though I am not sure how far I'd want to take it. So what is there which is exclusive/unique to NLP?  I've got a copy of "Handing Over" an NLP textbook in my hands as I write, and I quote from the introduction:

NLP is to do with method, not content. It is not a teaching method in the way that the "direct method" or the "Silent way" are methods. NLP is an approach to life learning and communication. Many aspects are directly or indirectly relevant to teaching. It's difficult to say which parts of this book are specifically NLP. Life Levels, VAKOG and metaprogrames, among others are clearly NLP concepts. But at another level anything that is good practice in NLP.


 * And I'm not a lot wiser. Anything that is good is NLP?  The rest reads a bit like something from a sect. So I remain unconvinced.--Bob M 18:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I mentioned elsewhere that I wouldn't consider NLP a teaching method at all, but as yet another approach "to life learning and communication" to use your quote above. What I do think it does is help teachers be more aware of their own and their students' communication needs and styles. That said, I'm certainly not stating it is any better or worse than any other approach - I was just converting an existing redlink into a bluelink... --Technopat 19:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to quibble - [[Image:Th_unsure.gif]] but ... well ... I think you were objecting to the pre-existing wording. --Bob M 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And because it was the only one that had been singled out for criticism... :) --Technopat 08:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed blog as inline citation
Have removed the following inline citation from the article - and rather than being accused of being a book-burning Fascist, am posting it here for it to be on record for future readers: http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2006/11/nlp-trainings-shameful-fraudulent-cult.html NLP Pseudo-science

Given the recent developments in ICTs and their influence on our society, I have often defended the use of blogs as reliable sources, though my rationale has always been that they be blogs run by recognised authorities in whatever field they specialise in - and even then, I reserve the right to have my misgivings: the fact that so-and-so is an authority on such-and-such matter, doesn't mean his/her opinion on another matter is necessarily authoritative or even of interest. However, I have rarely come across such a opinionated, radical and spiteful blog as the above - obviously written by someone who suffers from delusions of grandeur - and least of all do I expect to see it used as a cite for a serious teaching wiki.

I was toying with the idea of leaving it in because it disqualifies itself, but better thoughts prevailed and I reckon it's better to stick it here - pending, hopefully, its eventual deletion by the Powers-that-B. Sorry for getting so het up, but this one really got me goat. --Technopat 00:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Other uses of NLP
I have reinserted the other uses of the methodology as it gives interested parties an idea of the scope of the concept.--Bob M 22:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I have a reputation to maintain as one of the world's worst best off-topickers :) I have no intention of entering into an edit war on this one. But surely interested parties can find out for themselves... there's enough stuff there in the references and external links for the to read up on without prompting from telfpedia. Here we're interested in the application of NLP to [language] teaching, not its other applications. --Technopat 10:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that people should be aware of the apparently unlimited scope of the methodology. Such knowledge may make people petter prepared to evaluate the worth - or otherwise - of the system when it comes to deciding its validity in English teaching.--Bob M 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)