Can NLP be what it has become?
Amazon has over 500 books about NLP and most of the best-sellers are written by people who the original creators and developers of the field haven’t met and don’t agree with. This article is to ask the question: can NLP be what it has become?
Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) is an unwieldy name for an unusual field of study that is – or was – about the structure of subjective experience. What do we do inside our mind and body that creates our experience of the world? And, by extension, what can we do to influence other people’s experience of the world?
The field originally grew out of a small study group at the University of California in the 1970s. The key players were a mathematician, Richard Bandler, and a linguistics professor, Dr John Grinder. They began building “models” of how they and others thought, behaved and communicated. They “modelled” the legendary hypnotherapist and father of Ericksonian Hypnosis, Milton H Erickson; the pioneering family therapist, Virginia Satir; and the founder of Gestalt Therapy, Fritz Perls. Non-therapists included some very successful sales people and negotiators, as well as many “ordinary people” who had made changes in their own life. The Phobia Project, for example, involved Richard Bandler modelling a whole series of volunteers who used to have a phobia and no longer had it. He was interested in what they had done to “lose” their phobia, and he found they had all done more-or-less the same thing. Once he had a model of that, he taught it to others and demonstrated that anyone could do the same thing at a structural level and get the same results.
The key point here is that Richard turned his model into a technique. He called it the Fast Phobia Cure and taught it as part of his NLP training programs. He said: “NLP is an attitude and methodology that leaves behind a trail of techniques”. But quite early on there was already some confusion between a) NLP – the study of the structure of subjective experience, using the processes of modelling, and b) Applications of NLP – using the “trail of techniques” to influence yourself and other people.
Nowadays there are techniques for almost everything. An average NLP practitioner course will teach you techniques for becoming more confident, motivated and determined; changing beliefs; stopping pain; ending addictions; inducing hypnotic phenomena… and the list goes on and on. Paul McKenna famously modelled how naturally thin people think about food, and he turned that into a best-selling book, I Can Make You Thin. Then he modelled how extremely rich people think about money – including Richard Branson, Peter Jones, Sir Philip Green and Stelios Haji-Ioannou – and he turned that into another best-selling book, I Can Make You Rich. John Grinder is excellent at modelling performers. It’s the same story over and over: find out how someone does something and then use that model to create a technique/formula/set of rules that will get other people to do the same thing and get the same results. These techniques give people the chance to get what they want. They are popular and commercially valuable. Paul McKenna and others have helped millions of people by sharing these techniques in easily-accessible formats.
It’s become confusing though. As a brand, NLP is in chaos. Some people have heard there’s this thing called NLP that can make you rich. Others have heard there’s an NLP diet that can make you lose weight. I heard on the radio that NLP is a way to become more confident and successful. I read on the internet that NLP is about overcoming phobias.
From what I understand, these are all misunderstandings. NLP is about the structure of subjective experience. It’s about learning to recognise and interact with the structure of how people think. It’s a meta-discipline. You can use the “trail of techniques” to do many things, but the techniques don’t define the scope of NLP.
It’s got more confusing too. Like most groups of young people, the original NLP creators and developers fell in and out of love. Some even got married, and then divorced. 35 years on, most of them don’t speak to each other. And while mummy and daddy both still love their baby very much, they have different hopes and dreams for it, and very different parenting styles.
John Grinder has developed what he calls New Code NLP, to move things forward for a new generation. It’s a brave step forward, arguing against some of his previous ideas. His book Whispering In The Wind explains it all, but good luck finding a copy. It’s not one of the 500+ NLP books on Amazon and I’ve never seen it in a bookshop. It did come up on eBay recently, but it was listed for bids over £50.
Richard Bandler has advanced his ideas too – some would say even more so – adding submodalities to the core of NLP, refining and adding many techniques, and developing the new appended fields of Design Human Engineering and Neuro Hypnotic Repatterning, among other things.
NLP has become like a horse with two riders, each going in different directions. In fact, it’s like a horse with hundreds or maybe even thousands of riders, because each of the co-creators and some of the developers have anointed a series of trainers, master trainers and apprentices to spread their word. And, inevitably, after a few months or years, these people discover they have ideas of their own too, and they start adding their own spin on things. Gradually or suddenly, they start spreading their own version of NLP.
So while the key players have been distracted by their game of “mine’s bigger than yours”, I think the debate has moved on. There’s a new generation of highly-motivated people selling NLP as some kind of catch-all miracle cure. It’s often combined with positive thinking, the law of attraction and affirmations. My question is whether NLP can be what it has become in our collective consciousness? Most people who know about NLP know it as a way to Change Your Life in 7 Days. Most of the 500+ books promote it as a strategy for success. But what is it really?
Bandler and Grinder’s pioneering work led to a paradigm shift that – like the development of positive psychology (studying people who are doing well rather than people who are unhappy or “mentally ill”) – has had a tremendous impact on the success of millions of people. I find their creation useful in many ways and especially as a way to gather and structure information in a systematic way. I have learnt a lot from them both, directly and indirectly. They both have my respect and they are very talented, clever and original people.
But how have they been as leaders of their field?
“Follow me, I’m right behind you.”
The problem is that many of their students are better known than they are. It’s their students who go on tv, get their books into bookshops and use the web to promote their own versions of NLP.
And a lot of these students have had no more than a few days training, learning things like the Fast Phobia Cure in a class of 100+ other students. Often they had no chances to ask their teacher questions.
These are the people who present themselves as the field’s great ambassadors, and they get away with it.
I think someone needs to tell Bandler and Grinder that they’re killing their legacy. They’ve both taken the easy path. They’ve both certified and encouraged people who have no understanding of what NLP is and no skill to even use the techniques. There are people out there right now misleading others and taking money under false pretenses, damaging not only themselves and their clients but also tarnishing the whole field of NLP.
Yeah, someone needs to tell them that. But it isn’t going to be me. I’m probably the only person who gets paid as a promoter to promote both Bandler and Grinder events. I’m not going to rock the boat.
Success coach; hypnotist; host of 
73 comments
i think you just told them.
Hello Chris,
I very much enjoyed reading your article – and I share your frustration.
I do think that so many developments that were around at the time (Cognitive psychology “revolution” , and later the Positive Psychology movement , and so much more …. look at CBT now!) have themselves continued to evolve and influence new generations of NLP and the students – the annointed(!) – have very different leanring journeys.
I am not sure that telling Bandler and Grinder anything would help – as you say, the field has become fragmented – but perhaps instead to use those who are active in the field to “refocus” NLP trainings to reflect this? It is, as you know, beginning to have an inpact now in the postgratuate arena – there is certainly room for thought!
Incidentally – I am with you defining NLP as ” The study of the structure of subjective experience” – Only we know so much more about this now
Thank you again for such a thoughtful article!
Miriam
Chris, you put in writing what I’ve been saying for the past 14 months. I thought this was a malady afflicting India, mainly, along with parts of the Middle-East and Africa…seems its a global pandemic.
Its reached a stage where I dont even use the term NLP when I sell…the moment clients hear those three letters in that particular combination, they lose interest. Some even ask if I have ’something real’ to offer.
So now, I just go ahead and tell them what they want to hear…and use NLP (or what I know of it) as best I can to create change.
Be that as it may, is there really something someone can do about it? Ready to pitch in with whatever it takes.
Jagat
Hi Chris,
Well done , although I can’t agree with all of what you have written I commend you on writing such an honest and couragous article .
Perhaps because of its subjective nature much of what you say has happened was predetermined?
Cheers,
Brian
BIG THUMBS UP. This perfectly sums up what I think and I only wish you’d said it 20 years ago and they’d listened then. It’s too late now, NLP is a joke.
And thanks for the article, I have a keen eye on learning more about NLP. I never knew there was so much division and confusion within ‘NLP’.
So who would you (or anyone) recommend to learn from? Bandler or Grinder? or both? Would that add to confusion from my point of view that of one of starting out?
Thanks
Neil
well said …… though I’m not sure they’ve taken the easy path …. it’s out of their control how the field has developed and NLP’s not the only field this has happened to
Hi Chris,
I think you bring up several good points.
One- NLP no longer has a good definition. The idea has been promoted that everything is NLP. If that is true then is NLP really anything? If NLP is what everyone is already doing then why bother with it? I recently asked a forum for a good definition of NLP. I got 20 different definitions. Then those 20 people started arguing with each other about who was right.
That brings me to the second point- The NLP diploma mills out there. 3-7 days of training does not produce a practitioner. One ‘trainer’ went to 3 weeks of ‘training’ and began teaching as a certified ‘trainer’ without ever seeing one single client. I went to such a training to observe and it was terrible. The students who paid 1400 dollars a piece were learning nothing.
The result is that NLP has become fractured and unusable because you have inexperienced people teaching and certifying people which in turn are less experienced and produce even worse practitioners.
My last point might be obvious- There is no desire to change this system. NLP has become a money generator. Training are not about quality except by a few trainers. When money becomes more important than quality then you have a field that is in decline.
About 6 years ago I wrote an article very much like yours. I was viciously attacked by those who were teaching at the time. I was accused of just marketing and that invalidated my opinion. I am glad that there are those who are involved with NLP that are finally putting the systems feet to the fire and demanding a higher standard.
The best way to control this is to vote with you money. Get good referrals from quality trainers and expose those who are not doing a good job.
Good post Chris. Maybe this time something will happen.
Tom Vizzini
You’ve hit the nail on the head Chris, this is why I put NLP behind me, I hope things will turn round but I’m doubtful.
Hi Chris,
Applause. Very well written.
It’s like the old question, is NLP a therapy? Some people say ‘yes’. Some people say ‘no’. Some people say ‘no’ but then go on to say everything else as if they really mean ‘yes’.
I’m kinda hearing the voice of Michael Neill right now, telling me that what happens to NLP is something I can’t control; that happenings I don’t like in the NLP are things I can’t stop; that NLP isn’t really a thing anyway; and that my happiness doesn’t hang on any of it.
(And I know you’re not hanging your happiness on it either, you’re making an intelligent, observed commentary.)
My personal philosophy is to forget about trying to ‘fix’ NLP world. (Who says my fix would be right anyway?) And, instead, simply pursue my own personal excellence and, like you, get to the bottom of what NLP is and really should be – and aspire to be that.
Great article.
Cheers
Hi Chris,
Thanks for writing this and illustrating the confusion that has come about in the field. However, I am concerned that there are individuals that could develop the belief that NLP is best avoided just because of the lack of congruency among trainers. NLP is not only a worthy field with a long line of useful techniques; it’s helped loads of individuals gain greater clarity, success, and health. There are inexperienced trainers and practitioners out there. But there are also really great people that are using NLP with integrity. My suggestion? Do your research before booking a seat in a class. Just because a course is 7 days or 10 days doesn’t mean you won’t learn the material. Did you learn everything you needed to know in your field at university? When you enter a field it is your responsibility to take what you know and expand upon it. The truth is, when you choose a training institute well, you learn a lot and have a great experience.
Cheers
You have balls of steel
Hi Chris
A good analysis of what has happened. When any way of doing something different is useful you will have the snake oil salesmen jumping on the band wagon. An unfortunate side effect of that is the likely hood that those who demand higher standards get tarred with the same brush.
That is compounded by the others who believe they know what they are doing and are genuine in their desire to promote what they think NLP is. Because they are congruent in their ignorance they are able to pass that ignorance on with some success.
You ask “Can NLP be what it has become?” I think the answer is that it has become what it is. By aspiring to be better than that we might create an oasis of excellence in a desert of mediocrity. When people get tired of the sand they tend to head for where the water is.
Best wishe
Here is the culmination of my subjective experience of NLP (hope it helps):
Since my first encounter with NLP training I have been lucky enough to experience it in it’s true form, as you describe in your article. Consequently my personal and professional practice of NLP has this philosophy at it’s core and I believe it is in turn passed on to my clients and anyone I happen to talk to about what I do. If I should venture into training others at some point I dare-say that I would continue to pass this understanding on.
All the best
Nice article Chris.
Comment from an honest noob
I must admit as a new ‘follower’ of the ideas of NLP there is always the thought in the back of my mind that there seems to be much diversity in the way others practice, but they do all seam to rotate around the original core ideas.
Personally I like getting to the root of things and its that which interests me. I dont think anyone can learn half a language and expect to become a proficient translator.
The only ones who suffer there are the ‘customers’.
It seems to me that when the main subject of an idea is up against the diversity of the human mind then there are bound to be differenced of opinion – just like ‘therapy’ before NLP.
I must admin I dont know much about what Bandler and Grinder are doing now, I am too busy trying to follow the path they have carved from the start and only just starting.
One thing I have realised is that this is not a religion.
There are no deities , no ultimate truth, no holy grail.
Its more of an exploration to an undiscovered country.
Maybe Grinder has found a mountain he needs to conquer and Bandler, a nice beach to explore.
I think maybe some would like them instead to lead them deeper into the jungle.
Well if you know where the path starts, and all the tools you need you were born with – start walking
peace.
Drive by comment as I whoosh by… OMG – yes!
. 20-hour online course my butt…
Hi Chris this strikes as long unwieldy article. Leadership is as much about followership. Setting a trend, coming up with an innovative idea, a new concept. This is truely evolutionary, and few since have brought such to NLP.
The core to my mind stays true.
It is the followers who have changed the way the horse is ridden.
Jill W-W
NLP has got lost in a quagmire of egos and greed. It will ultimately return to its roots or die. Only time will tell which. Good article.
Indeed, a very good article. I can very much agree that there are many “master” nlp practitioner and “trainers” who have very little idea about what it is they are doing or teaching. Finishing a one week course creates a lot of illusion for people that they are masters of NLP. It takes years of learning and experience to get a good idea of how NLP works and many more years to master it.
I have been doing NLP since 2004. Practitioner, Master Practitioner and Trainer training have been completed. However, I have yet to call myself an NLP Master. There is a lot to be learned about NLP and Psychology before one can begin teaching other people.
Out of all the Trainings that exist in the world nowadays, there are only so few who I would train with.
Chris, you have made an excellent summary about the field. Perhaps it is up to us – the after Bandler&Grinder generation to do something about it.
Very thought provoking, Chris.
Before I got into NLP, I had trained to become a Feldenkrais practitioner. It’s rumored that when Moshe Feldenkrais was nearing the end of his life, he told several of his followers individually that he hoped they would be the one to carry on his work. Each felt they’d been given the crown and afterward a political fray ensued with people going forth in different directions, combining his work with other things they were doing or were interested in. Similarly, there is the same problem with the unwieldy name and lack of definition for the study/practice/philosophy.
What may be needed is an International Federation — a governing body to set standards, assess trainings, develop meaningful certifications. Then one would know if a training was certified by the IFNLP. But that requires people who are willing to step up and do the work. Most NLP’rs are more interested in doing their own thing. And most would rather avoid the licensing fees and dues that would inevitably result. IASH is experiencing some of those very issues.
There’s no trademark on the name, so anyone can use it. There’s no explanation of an appropriate career path, so it’s easy for well-intentioned students to believe they’ve attained the skill to hang up a shingle and go into business right after they’ve gone through a week’s training.
It’s possible that precisely because therapists were some of the first people B&G modeled that it has been confused with therapy. Therapists, medical professionals and counselors are certainly encouraged to add the skills and techniques they’ve learned to their arsenals, so it’s understandable that there will be blurring.
Much to think about. Thanks for articulating your thoughts and prompting this discussion.
Hi Chris,
Firstly, great article, really enjoyed it. yes, you have touched on many on the points in a very succulent and elegant way, and hold short of flame-baiting, for as you say, you make a living from it… but as you say, someone needs to say this.
I guess my realization is that although there is nothing predominantly *new* per say in nlp, it does bring together a ton of very powerful and useful techniques, and like taking the raw ingredients of home-made explosive and mixing them together in a boiler house (excuse the pun), there are consequences.
Yes, people question the belief of whether someone can call them selves a Practitioner after 7 days of training. Of course they can! it’s a belief. right? and the world will decide very quickly. after all you don’t need a certificate to get married or have a baby, so it can’t be that bad.
In my experience, your (perceived) reputation as a trainer is everything, so you are either a very good trainer, or you bring everyone to court to stop them talking to the contrary. Hmmm..think about that for a moment. so, in the end the public will decide. and still fools and their money are easily parted.
People, you see, seek the promise of happiness, that’s all, and we first sell people material processions, but we have figured that bit out, so let’s move up to the more abstract – the promise of success, you just need the right model, the right “know-how”. Problems is overload: In this day and age, you can get access to any information, any knowledge you want, at the click of a button, (and possibly a credit card number), but doing so will press all your buttons, so the real questions are:
a) Can you handle it? nlp never promises that you will be successful, only that you can have more flexibility and choices in achieving your outcomes.
b) If you install models of excellence in yourself, and act out the model, then are you acting through another fascade (until you master it) then do you run the risk of become immune to compassion, kindness while developing a massive ego? i.e. nlp works all the time. right? so you can’t be wrong! Oops.
c) from an energy perspective, nlp works predominately on the 3rd chakra, and 6th chakra, meaning that a lot of the focus is on mind-work and will-power. Problem here is that nlp allows people to tear down walls and barriers they may have held for a lot of their lives, so this can release a lot of potential, and unless there is somewhere to channel this, we are back to the ego question again. I’ve often thought about the fact that so many people in the (very small) nlp community don’t speak to each other. What’s missing? probably compassion. dunno. just my two cents worth.
So, I guess nlp will evolve into something more heart-centric in the future. oh, yeah, it’s called being human.
)
Thanks for posting!
@cityguyyoga.
I commend you for your clarity and *passionately* agree with you.
John Grinder in “Whispering in the Wind” argues that the confusion about NLP in the wider world exists because we fail to distinguish between “NLP modelling”, “NLP applications” and “NLP Training”. He suggests that the unique contribution that Bandler and he made was specifically the technique of behavioural modelling and that this, often overlooked, aspect of what we do should be central to any definition of NLP.
I concur- though I would add that the 4-tuple model of subjective experience, pretty much overlooked since the original “Structure of Magic” was also a paradigm shifting contribution to what was then the emerging field of cognitive behavioural science.
EVERYTHING else that we learn and teach in NLP has been “discovered” and taught for thousands of years- as a study of Crowley, Patanjali or any other “magical” system will quickly make clear. This is only natural. We are after all studying human subjective experience.
We are all products of our environment, Bandler and Grinder included. NLP could have become an academic discipline, a small part of the field of cognitive psychology: but its nascence in California in the early 70’s and their choice to commercialise their teaching has meant that its transmission through trainings has as much in common with multi level marketing and “cult” encounter groups as it has with academia.
Great post Chris. I reckon most people should just stop using the term “NLP” and stop pretending to know what it is with such conviction. Since even the co-creators can’t agree what it is, we’re doomed…doomed i tell you *shakes fist in angry old man manner*.
In terms of what I’d consider “success”, there aren’t that many succesfull people in NLP. I’ve met some people who were doing really great in their field of expertise, people earning 100s of 1000s of pounds, who then went on NLP trainings, quit their jobs and now sit around posting fluffy messages on Twitter… but at least they’re Happy.
It’s not that there aren’t people doing well from NLP, but given the number of people who take trainings and call themselves NLPers, there’s a disproportional number of people whose lives seem to suck more now than before.
NLP can be fantastic and can open up a whole world of possibilities. Just like LSD in the 60s opened up the minds of 1000s of people. The problem is, like LSD, it’s not the substance itself that makes people smart, it’s how you use it.
Using NLP to get smarter is great. Using NLP as an excuse to be dumber is stoopid.
If I may add to my previous comment …
Despite the problems, I’m still a fan. (I’m sure most of you are too.) I still think NLP represents a grand set of skills and ideas. I still think it helps people. And I still think it’s a good idea to help more and more people get the magic.
Let’s not kill NLP off ourselves. Whatever happens in/to ‘NLP world’, we can still all personally aspire to be the best ambassadors for it we can be. That’s my aim.
Cheers
Good points well made Chris, and I think you echo many others in the NLP field. However I am not sure what you think might happen now….. personally I think it is upto individual NLP practitioners, trainers etc to take some responsibility for the brand and communicate and therefore educate the rest.
The first rule of being an effective NLP’er is not to mention you use NLP. Every business consultant using NLP knows that if you mention NLP you lose the contract. It’s a soiled brand with negative connotations and no credibility outside its own border.
Can it be what it has become? How old was the virgin Mary?
It was what it was and is what it is. If one’s expectations are that it remain the same or embrace the changes that have occurred over time, then one’s expectations are satisfied or not. In my experience, people will generally move to satisfy their needs. If a person needs NLP to quench their desires to get rich quick, create therapeutical remedies, seduce, market, feel good, hypnotize or they are impressed with certain academies or trainers then they will be attracted and move towards that source. Fundamentally, we are all in it for the _________ (fill in the blank). Whether the knowledge or application of techniques helps us in our professional life, or whether the person who trains others receives compensation for the courses they provide, or whether creating and maintaing a state of general well-being helps someone in life, its all about a positive result. And who am I to assess the subjective experience of another? I may be able to measure that experience using the techinques of NLP. I may even be able to change someone should they so desire.
I, too, focus on the structure, the modelling of the subjective experience, but that is my preference. In my experience, many people don’t really care about how things work, they just want a quick: give me three steps to do to get a particular result. Do you really want to know the torque of a piston ring and the injection rate of the fuel in a car, or do you just want to know where the key and parking brakes are located?
In my opinion this is not what NLP was or ought to be, but things are what they are. We live in an instant gratification age, we get information with the click of a mouse button, or food at a drive though restaurant in 2.38 minutes. In general, NLP training today reflects what is occurring in our society. Why would that surprise anybody? If you are a vegetarian go to a vegetarian restaurant. If you want a good meal, spend time preparing it yourself (or find a friend who is a good cook). We usually get what we want. A good businessperson gives the people what they want. I don’t believe its fair to compare the NLP marketplace with personal opinions – because every frog praises it’s own pond.
We are trained to deal with what is. We don’t have to like it. We are trained to “leave the content” out of the equation and focus on process. But the problem I often struggle with struggle with is getting beyond the content and focusing on the process, leaving what’s in my head, my own subjectivity, and realizing that the world is out there.
So what is the question?
I am not religious fellow, but the age of the Virgin Mary doesn’t really matter. What matters is what followed and what that has become and where one is in realtion.
@ Anonymous:
Yes, your right – you can loose some contracts because of peoples “fear” about NLP. Each time i got the chance tor a talk after “loosing” such a contract i had a good chance to tell and show that professional NLP is different from their “knowledge” about it. These “taught full NLP in 10 days” or “change your whole life and solve all the worlds problems in 5 days”-offers are the problem and i often see these people talking about “their” NLP with biiiig $$-signs in both eyes! This discredits the professional NLP-teachers and trainers! Here in Europe we have a saying: ” With a master certificate you may call yourself a master, but it needs a a whole pile of hard work to be one!” And this is so true in the field of NLP…
This is a timely read and makes so much sense to me, however isn’t it true that when any idea or set of ideas become successful people want to step up onto the bandwagon, hoping to be carried along in the flow, and like many good students in time, they often outshine their mentors and teachers.
This should be a good thing because it develops ideas further and there will always be some that use this as a vehicle to promote themselves without the underlying understanding or ability to be great or even very good in some cases.
This fractionation has happened in so many fields, but without it and without some of the egos, there would not be the growth necessary to push the envelope of understanding.
It is possible to make a living from using these skills in therapy, but you cannot hope to make large sums of money unless you become a trainer and offer certification for cash, however good the training is.
So I will continue to search for training that is relevant to my own beliefs and which add something of value to the way that I practice NLP or whatever you would like to call it.
NLP is whatever you find it to be depending where you look and who you are.
Dani Dennington
The accrediting organisations are commercial, it’s in their interest to push through as many certificates as possible even if people aren’t up to scratch. NLP has become a cash cow and unfortunately it’s too late to turn back time.
I am, happily, a 1st generation “NLPer”, trained by Dr. Bandler, and certified and licensed by The Society of NLP. Of which not many people even know about. It is an attempt by Bandler and John & Kathy LaValle to maintain the highest standards in the NLP and DHE community, by having members get re-certified and re-licensed, pepetually, within a 2 year period of any previous re-certifications and re-licensings.
My opinion, if they ain’t been trained by the master, or any other Master NLP Trainer, “stay clear!”.
Dr. Richard Bandler has said of Joe Vanore: “he KNOWS NLP!!” I am thankful for having such a good reputation in the industry.
By the way, Richard’s own story when stopped by a police officer for some traffic violation, was asked what his occupation was, looking down on the seat seeing books on Neurology, Linguistis, and Computer Programming, said: “I’m a Neuro Linguistic Programmer, etc., etc. “. So you see, all the definitions are made up, or are attempts to describe what Dr. Richard Bandler was teaching. You talk about NLP, have you any credentials in the area? Have you sought any information from The Source, Richard Bandler himself.? Your article, though with good intentions, reads like a third party term paper. Where are the references to the General Semanticist, and author of “Science and Sanity” Count Alfred Korzybski. He was the real “Source” and setup for NLP. Just another over-qualified thought process expert. Give me the one’s the Psych’s ain’t winning with, absent severe brain damage. I like challenges.
Joe (Doc) Vanore
@ Dr. Joseph A. Vanore, Sr. You asked: “You talk about NLP, have you any credentials in the area? Have you sought any information from The Source, Richard Bandler himself.?”
I have been learning from Richard and working with him for many years – first as a student, later as an assistant and then as a promoter/organiser of his events. As a specialist in applying NLP to the context of therapeutic work, I am “highly recommended” by Richard personally. I organised the first and to date only Society of NLP-approved Advanced Master Practitioner event in Europe with Richard’s support. I am currently the UK promoter for his international program: The Best of Bandler Technologies – which will be a fantastic event. I’m sure Richard would like to see you there.
Thanks Chris for opening up the debate…
So NLP Training is first the learning and modeling of excellent skills in others, re-producing them in your own experience, teaching them to other people and observing those other people demonstrating these same skills adequately. Box ticked, job done.
I’m hoping any NLP trainer will be doing this.
I haven’t worked directly with either Bandler nor Grinder. However, I am confident about NLP. I am confident that both Bandler and Grinder are effective trainers. I am confident that they have both only certified those of their students who have effectively demonstrated these excellent skills. I am confident that those students of theirs, who became certified as NLP trainers, were deemed by Bandler and/or by Grinder, to be equal to the task.
So, in that case I have nothing to worry about, because I have learned the modeling skills and the techniques, plus the attitudes of NLP from both Bandler’s and Grinder’s students. Fool proof. Isn’t it?
I suppose that both Bandler and Grinder might have had ‘off days’ and let a few less than adequate students slip through their nets… no, that’s not possible, surely.
So, in that case, we can rely on the principles and tools of NLP to naturally water down through the generations, and develop in new interesting ways (thank you Robert Dilts for the wonderful Intavision exercise, for example), making new turns, creating new possibilities and new pathways, as it continues to grow through the ages – just like language does.
So, I am confident that NLP is not what it was at the beginning, nor what it was when Bandler and Grinder found new possibilities and added them, nor what what it was when they separated and went their own ways, nor what it was last year, nor what it was last week.
I am confident that NLP is as subjective a thing, now, as it was back then. It’s just that more people are speaking that word and defining what it means and using the principles, attitudes, skills and techniques, in equally subjective ways.
And maybe it’s not so much a question of how it SHOULD be, but more a question of: I wonder what it might bring forth in this world in 50 years’ time? I wonder who might have the next extraordinary idea, maybe as a result of these wonderful contributions already made? I wonder who might already be developing something extraordinary right now, as I write this?
Best wishes,
David Rose
Very well said Chris.
All very well, but who’s going to take notice of B&G even if they get up from their bath chairs and shake a fist at those meddling kids?
Their misbegotten offspring include Tony Robbins, Paul McKenna, Chris Howard, Tad James and Robert Dilts, and I’m suspecting none of those gents got where they are by modelling humility.
So, let’s look at things another way. Never mind what those three letters stand for, or stood for. Concentrate instead on what people are doing with them now. Which is easier said than done, sadly, since there’s a plethora of shit out there and it can take a long while to come across the genuine article.
But it exists. It’s hard to do this bit without sounding doctrinaire, and I can of course only go by my own experience, but there’s a world of difference between the instant fix-it BS offered by most in the market, and the kind of generative, multilayered experience that you’ll receive by training with…and here’s where things get contentious folks…Eric Robbie, Gabe Guererro, Ron Perry and Michael Breen.
Those are the folks who get my vote for movers and shakers, and it’s interesting to see what they’re up to. Gabe is taking a tip from those who muddled and meddled with the legacy of Feldenkrais and creating his own broader and deeper take on things neurolinguistic, without reference to those three bloody letters. And he’s arguably doing a better job than B&G themselves ever did by creating a learning experience for students which includes immersion in the disciplines which led NLP’s founders to come up with the field.
Also note: the certification business is a tragic farce. Trainings were initially 20-some days purely because of American legal requirements for training therapists. Not because that’s how long it took, or takes, to train someone in NLP. Equally, the seevn day course is a phenomenon created by McKenna Breen based on market research, which sure enough revolutionised NLP training and rattled some very rusty cages, but also unleashed a competitive free-for-all that’s led to diminished quality over the years, every pisspoor training coming complete with its own certifying organisation to recommend it.
The solution? Find what works for you, and make the most of quality trainers while they’re still with us. And take that into your own life and the lives of others, and never mind whether it’s called NLP.
Generations ago, the Sufis experienced many of the same problems that NLP ran into. Thing being, the human tendency to fossilise what was living wisdom and turn it into empty ritual.
For instance, the Sufis are responsible for whirling dervishes. At the time they were created, the intention was to get a stuffy community up off its ass and whirling around to have fun. Centuries on, it’s become a rote behaviour and adherents argue about what colour tassles to wear, and whether to rotate clockwise or counterclockwise, and I dare say right now people are arguing on a whirling dervish forum the rights and wrongs of effective whirling practice.
Meanwhile, some smart kids in their twenties are putting together ideas from viral memetics, slam poetry, graffiti and chaos magic, and they’re having the time of their lives wondering where it’s going to take them…
Chris, some of the points you raise are things I’ve been thinking for a while myself (along with many of your other commenters).
I’m not sure what can be done about ill-trained people running away with “the field” and mucking up its reputation; I think that probably happens a lot with any discipline that’s as deep, wide, and long as this thing we do. It’s hard for some people to wrap their brain around “the structure of subjectice experience.”
I find that description (which I also use a lot) tremendously exciting in its open-endedness, and I suppress (or not) a sigh when someone says “Isn’t it about sales (or wotever)?” or “Yeah! Tony Robbins!” In short, I think a lot of good might result from a 7-day course being the “diploma” level, and certification being earned by a demonstration of understanding and ability.
Hey Chris,
Kudos!!! Very well written article & RIGHT ON!!! I can NOT believe I just read this, because just a few days ago I was really troubled at the realty of where Bandler & Grinder have gone and the disjointed nature of what THEY created. Anyway, I really do hope they read it & are influenced by it.
Much Success!
Anthony
I think it is a problem of language – odd given its background.
I think the word “practitioner” encourages a lot of people to go on an NLP course with the same motivation as the people answering the “Why not become a driving instructor” adverts that are on TV all the time.
People leave the course asking questions like “where can I rent a room? ” and “Where can I find some “broken ” people to fix in that room to pay the rent?” Soon they are asking the question, “How can I teach other people about this stuff to make my money instead of doing it?”
I think it would be better to be leaving a course asking “How can I apply all this great stuff to make the life I already have even better?” “What can I do to build on what I have learnt?” “Who can I model that does really cool stuff?”"How can I contribute to the future of NLP?”
I remember at really amazing guitarist being interviewed about why he played in such an innovative way? His reply was “well the alternative was to be just another suburban Eric Clapton”.
hi Chris – theres a great site John La Valle set up not only for me – but he was the only one helping when someone wanted to “secure the quality of NLP” in Austria – by letting only phd´s teach NLP … Yes how stupid … only through the Society of NLP I was able to write a public letter to that guy – and keeping NLP free. Have a look at this site http://www.nlpisnottherapy.com
all the best
Yvonne
NLP. or SSE. There seems to be some confusion here.
The Study of Subjective Experience. is what Bandler and Grinder set out to do, in order to find out what made some people very successfull at specific things/ tasks/ in certain areas of life.
Surely NLP. Neuro Linguistic Programming is what happens to all of us as we live and grow. The term was used by Bandler and Grinder to desrcibe the the aquisition of certain states and capabilities that people have or can aquire through their neurological and linguistic experience and can be used to reprogram when a current behaviour is detremental, by using a different experience to suplant one that is having a detremental effect . From what I have learned, like most new areas that open up, the practice in its infancy could be very crude Do any of you remember the first mobile phones They were the size of a housebrick and needed a battery twice the size. We have come a long way in the field of comunications since then. Likewise when Roentgen discovered Xrays he knew little of the impact they would make, in fact in his experiments he ruined his own health not realising the dangers. Since then the techniques of using xray and radiation has developed and is used world wide for diagnosis and treatments. The same has happened with NLP. People have been using NLP unconciously for thousands of years. The difference now is that some people consiously choose to train in using it. Where they train depends on what they can find out about training and what they can afford. The quality of training will vary just as the quality of any training will vary at different establishments, including Universities due to the quality of the people teaching. It is up to the student to carry on learning indefinately. We will never know everything. There will always be new things to discover, new things to pass on. One thing will never change, human beings in their present form will always need to eat. Why moan about other people needing to and being able to do so?
Margaret Johnson, NLP Practitioner
We are the sum total of our experience.
When somebody wonders and creates something in their head it is theirs to shape. As soon as their concept enters the world (in some sort of code that we can share) it is set loose. Like a fledgling flying from the nest the journey will be shaped in part by chance. Each being who encounters this bird will perceive it differently depending on their sensory acuity, where they see it from, how it relates to them and on how much importance they place on it. Some may see it as beautiful and wish to protect it so it can continue traveling and changing, others may see it as a threat and wish to shoot it down, others may wish to capture the young bird for themselves preserving it in time by taxidermy, others may make much of a single shed feather and yet others will tell us they saw the bird when they did not.
At this moment we have the innovators of NLP here with us and I believe it is up to us to ask questions and listen. I also think it is up to us to disseminate information, defend (many good things have to be) and help develop NLP. My hope is that the trail of techniques that make up NLP will be used as a matter of course in schools, hospitals, busineses and in the home. I also believe we need experts at the other end of the spectrum and we have that. I salute Chris’s courses and communication platforms which disseminate excellent information and I hope you continue to do this.
I agree that the term “NLP” can be overused and there are many misconceptions but my personal belief is that if there is a positive result from a technique the end-user (client) doesn’t care if its NLP or anything else. People want results and tools such as anchoring, the allergy technique and other NLP tools work. sometimes they are combined with other techniques but does it really matter? As long as the person who needs the help is getting it. Think about it 99% of people who seek guidance from Tony Robbins are not doing so because he uses “some NLP” its because he is the best at what he does – helping people. My final thought is that there is so much that NLP can offer to help those truly in need such as those with phobias anxiety depression etc. and I wish more practitioners would focus on this as opposed to a profit motive (i.e. just executive coaching etc.).
To follow up, many of these comments continue to illustrate that even trained NLP practitioners with the best of intentions have many misunderstandings about what NLP is.
Is there any mileage to asking B & G to put out a statement saying what *they* think it is?
Chris, you have a fantastic site and a great following. I’ve had similar musings about the NLP industry for a while.
Isn’t NLP a nominalization? And if so, it has as many meanings as minds that consider it. At the end of the day, are not all nominalizations vaporware?
What really matters is what’s written on the substrate of our individual and collective neurology, not what we call it, or how we promote it.
Cheers,
Craig
Hey Chris!
To me, I think Eric Robbie nails it best in his profile description on nlpconnections…
…”I like doing NLP”
To me – key word: “doing”
What’s that old anecdote about Eskimos having a zillion different words for snow…
…imagine the arguments and misunderstanding that would occur if they had just the one word!!??
Thanks for the comeback Chris. I now think I know you a little better, since you asserted who you are. I appreciate and respect that. I met Da “Man” back in’92 at a Communications Hypnotic Ideation Course Richard was teaching at the Top Gun school in San Diego Holiday Inn. I participated in many many many many of his certifying and licensing cources since then. I just wrote an intro to Meisam S. Delavar’s books “Basic priciples of NLP; NLP in Cognative Approach vol 1 & NLP in Behavioral Approch vol 2″.
The last paragraph: “Welcome to the adventures of your life never being the same again. ‘Hats off” to Meisam and all the developers and continuing developers of NLP. A community dedicated to ‘YOU’.”
Though all referrential constructs, I feel that with the Pot Pouri of NLP material available – …people in all walks of life can effectuate immediate and permanent dramatic change to enrich their lives and make the world a better place to live in.
Bon Vivant
I feel very touched by your article Chris. I trained with McKenna Breen in 1998-2000 but feel nowadays the field has become a joke. The skills are useful but how many people these days get the skills? All I see from people now is confidence. Confidence about what, that is the question? I feel Bandler has sold out. Maybe Grinder too, I’m not so sure about that side. It’s very sad to see.
I trained with McKenna Breen before it all went crazy and, like others have said, I use my skills but I don’t ever tell people I do NLP. The image of NLP is more horrible than dog poo! Why would I want to be associated with that?
Just to add my voice to the crowd, I really agree with this.
Chris, I must admit, I disagree with the idea that you’re currently advocating. I believe the confusion arises from whether NLP is a brand name or a field of study. Naturally, it can be both, but we don’t usually consider computer science a brand name, do we?
Bandler and Grinder have given the world a set of tools and methodologies that is proving to be the foundation for the next generation of communication and development. That’s fantastic. However, though they may be the Creators of NLP, they are not the Leaders. That’s an important difference, because as near as I can tell, fields of study don’t have leaders, they have developers.
What good would leaders be to us, now, anyway? What purpose would they serve? As NLPers, we know damn well that the techniques taught in trainings are only pointers, directing us towards the deeper truths that allow us to generate new techniques, to discover new patterns. Bandler has always been very vocal about prohibiting the standardization of NLP. Though this has perhaps kept NLP out of academia for too long, it has also allowed for the kind of exponential, albeit covert, growth that’s the reason we’re all here.
Don’t you agree that the fact that NLP is presented in so many ways, as a method of self-improvement, persuasion, therapy, business structure, spiritual practice, and communication technology, is logical, natural, and important because it’s true??? NLP can do all of these things and more, so for that particular purpose, we should consider encouraging this fractionation. That way, as people descend into the quicksand of NLP, they will be overjoyed to discover even more ways that they can put the technology to use.
Hi Chris
Interesting debate you have breathed life into. I feel that the way NLP is currently heading on the GPS-limo, NLP is on a crash course with no where else to go? Looking through the adverts in some NLP related publications worries me. This plethora of new Trainers coming through the ranks armed with Powerpoint slides and certificates ready signed for new comers after 7 days (or less) of training is a sure indication that unless some pretty radical action happens, NLP will have been consigned to the incurables section of the hospital before it has had the chance to cure itself. The cure being to understand exactly what you were saying in your blog, the study of subjective experience.
I’m in a very interesting position. I’m currently working with John Grinder on what he told me is the most exciting modelling project he has worked on to date.
(Considering he modelled Erickson that was a bit of a WOW).
The reason he is so gripped by this project is that no one has attempted to do what I am doing at the level that I’m doing it.
His words were,” I’m hoping and believe that we might have some new discoveries coming out of it that will be fresh to NLP”. This is why he is backing me over the next three years for its hopeful conclusion? We will have to wait and see? The evidence will be supported by multi-media technology so here goes.
I agree that something needs to happen to NLP ASAP to create some credibility and authenticity across the wide range of possibilities that NLP could benefit the human race. The ’something’ I would suggest is ‘Congruency’ of it’s Practitioners.
Peter Salisbury
As you promote both of them and are therefore part of the problem, what do you hope to achieve by this rocking the boat?
Personally I rather like the current state of nlp, if you want good you can find it, if you want bad you can find it, the responsibility remains with you.
I am very pleased that nlp has spread globally and quickly and this benefit to the world can be attributed to the creators whoever you think they are.
The world has benefited from nlp, a similar example is the case of craniosacral work which Sutherland (the founder) said should remain in the osteopathic community, well it escaped and the world has benefited (altho people can always find counterexamples). Compare this to the Trager work which has attempted to keep its work pure . By doing this it has not spread and created benefits even though it is a highly effective form of bodywork. In my a opinion a loose form of leadership is better than tight control any day, I value freedom.
About trainings becoming moneymaking treadmills …well this is more the result of the capitalist world that we live in(with its emphasis on short term ecology and and applications approach….certainly an area that can be readdressed by nlp in the corporate world)
What I personally value in a training is the continuing connection with the unconscious process and the money is another issue.
Incidently many of the so called changes that are being called for by Grinder and others were actually stated in many of the earlier books such as the structures of magic , trancermations etc etc (emphasis on process/ exploration rather than application). However it is good to to have them updated and stated more explicitly.
I think a useful question to ask is ‘ Have i benefited from nlp and do i continue to do so?’
ABSOLUTELY AGREE! I have felt this for ages and not seen it reflected back. Good to see a debate emerging.
I feel a lot of people have been very wounded by modern NLP. The McKenna operation while it helped a lot of people was a commercial engine and I feel some of the most vulnerable people who went to them for help ended up in a lot of debt after so many trainings they didn’t need. I feel this was a shameful period in NLP’s history and though it is over it has left a legacy because many of those students are now trainers themselves and repeating the cycle.
It’s a big mess Chris, and thank you for shining some light.
As I read again the article and the responses, it seems to me it all boils down to basically four things:
1. No universally agreed definition of NLP.
2. No universally agreed ’scope’ for what is NLP, and therefore what an NLP programme should teach.
3. No single leadership, leading the direction in which NLP changes and continues to develop.
4. Variable quality of trained people.
Or, more simply, it’s splintered and uncontrolled.
(I don’t agree that the problems are specifically ‘the commercialisation of NLP’, ‘introduction of 7-day trainings’, etc. I think those are abstractions of the problems based on people’s personal beliefs. Forgive me, it’s just what I think and I’m aware I could be wrong.)
So far, the debate has been mostly been on a problem-oriented track, which is fine as a stage to go through. Now I’m wondering, what’s the solution-oriented track?
It’s worth asking ourselves, are there any positive by-products of the way things are? Well, one is that it means the field is not stilted. It means there’s personal freedom within the field. Would we want to lose those things?
As for the addressing problems themselves…
Well, it seems to me we can’t force everyone to have a common definition of NLP.
Some working group could work to agree and define a common scope, but then you’re still going to have camps, such as your ‘Logical Levels are NLP’ and ‘Logical Levels are not NLP’ camps.
We could ask Bandler, Grinder, et al, to submit to just one of them being leader. Or co-operate as a leadership collective. Yeah, right! We know that’s not going to happen.
And as for quality, well we could create a society and publish and enforce standards. But that’s been done before and it hasn’t fixed things.
The best things we can do for NLP lie somewhere else, I think.
I’m sure we’d agree that trying to “fix NLP” based on changing what other people/groups think and do is a not-well-formed outcome. Whatever one might do to attempt to control it (like the things I mention above) would seem to just create more of the behaviour we’re defining as the problem (splintering).
I can’t help thinking the well-formed equivalent is for us to simply lead from within, by taking responsibility for our own behaviours, our own quality, spread the word to others, influence others to take the same level of responsibility, help others and be as good an ambassador as we can.
Just my added thoughts.
Cheers
I commend your positive approach Stephen (above). I’d say you’re also right in that the problem isn’t the commercialisation per se but what has happened because of it. In such a fragmented field as NLP with no leader or in fact several competing leaders there’s no check against some of those being greedy and exploiting their position and I’m afraid this is what happened in the 90s especially on the Bandler side. The problem is titles were sold off without the people acquiring relevant skills and now those people are the ones teaching NLP to others. That’s why I say it’s too late to fix it, the cycle has gone too far already. Unless you have a time machine it’s too late.
Chris, you’ve gotten a lot of people talking, and I hope it accomplishes something good.
I wanted to post my thoughts on the subject, but the comment ended up to be way too long. I posted it on my own blog instead. My response to your article is, in a nutshell, that I agree that NLP is a fragmented mess, and that I disagree that that has to be a bad thing.
Chris, welcome to the club. I learnt NLP with some friends and one by one we’ve all come to the same conclusion, which is that some aspects of NLP are undoubtedly very useful but the egos and insanity of those at the top make it a very toxic environment. I suggest focussing on ericksonian hypnosis which offers the same skills but in a nourishing environment.
For anyone interested in John and Carmens book,see http://www.whisperinginthewind.com
Nice one, Chris.
To me, NLP’s reputation could be helped by:
(a) a universally-recognized accreditation that denotes a minimum level of expertise that a client has a right to expect;
(b) a concerted effort by NLPers to raise the profile of NLP wherever possible into the mainstream consciousness, as happened with psychoanalysis;
(c) some perceived unity in the field – Bandler, Grinder, Robbins, Hall, etc – sell the core brand first, then the personal take on it (the English language is constantly absorbing and evolving but it’s always known as English…)!
Best wishes ‘n’ kudos to ya
Dear Chris and all who have been contributing,
I had to really think about what nlp ment for me after carefully reading all of this. I have suffered with mental health problems for some twenty years and nothing conventional seems to help. When it comes to the nhs i fear we are on our own. To begin with nlp was the drift wood i clung to in hope of recovery or respite, after hearing RB claims of healing others.
Hypnosis was once shrouded in mystery and superstition until Milton Erickson exposed his truth to the scientific and medical community allowing hypnosis to take its rightful stand in the medical professions.
I have heard RB say he would not do the same thing with nlp but would leave that to others. Would NLP stand up to the rigorous trials of a scientific procedure? Which techniques would pass? CBT has been proven effective beyond even medication for the treatment, of especially, depression.
Of course i have taken this down the therapy route because of my own experience and seeing as the first models where Milton,Satir,Gestalt(Pearls?) and so much nlp seems to be hypnosis/therapy based (to my mind).
Unfortunatly, it has become like a cult, with charismatic leaders, its own language, expensive initiation rights etc.
To summarize: Would nlp stand up to scientific/medical approval?
Kind Regards
Over the last few years I’ve found my “loyalty” to NLP waning. As a Master Prac. with the Society of NLP, having trained under Bandler, I ask myself “why should I continue to give NLP credit?”
1. I have been threated with lawsuits for the mere mention of Bandler’s name
2. There are idiots out there who have the same qualifications as me simply because they PAID and ATTENDED a seminar – there is NO quality control in NLP
3. Rooms chock full of people paying £2,000 to hear Bandler and McKenna speak? Come on “not by their words, but by their deeds shall ye know them” springs to mind.
4. As a self protection instructor who is a regular consultant to military and law enforcement do I want to be associated with this “law of attraction”/ “solve all your problems in an hour” MAGICAL thinking? I do not.
This article was excellent, and was the tipping point for me. I’m ditching the NLP mantle, I will NOT be associated with the practises or the people who share it and I urge teachers and coaches to do the same.
Hi Chris,
Thought provoking indeed.
I myself have experienced frustration regarding various aspects of what you are expressing.
Here are some of my experiences and views in response.
I have probably done in excess of 400 hours of explicit NLP training in the past few years and so it continues. This doesnt include the books I read and the vast amount of research etc. Of course it’s purely my belief but I think it’s important that people who are going to do any kind of change work with others, in any guise, need to have the requisite skills and understanding…
General Practitioners have years of training and hands on experience before they are given license to diagnose and prescribe.
Similarly, people that work with others in the NLP field should surely also have a minimum standard of skill and ability to be ‘licenced’ to practise or run a practice.
My first experience of NLP was the Bandler/Mckenna show. I call it a show because for me, looking back to that experience, it was just that.
Brilliant as it was to be in a room being taught by Richard, I came away with only a surface understanding and no real skill integration. I could barely remember anything! It was all very reliant on that ‘old school’ NLP training approach of “don’t worry if it seems like nothing makes sense. It’s all going to integrate unconsciously”. I am highly skeptical of that approach and it smacks of lazy teaching. Of course there is much that happens at the unconscious level but we have a conscious mind too!!
In addition, the calibre of assisting (in hindsight) wasn’t of a particularly high standard. With 500 people in a room, you need some talented, pro active assistants to ensure that people are given adequate help.
It’s that style of training (large numbers and ineffective assistants) which limits access to the trainers and limits learning. It seems more of a financial model than a model that truly supports effective NLP skills development.
It terms of NLP definitions and misconceptions…where do I start?!!
The ‘traditional’ practitioner approach has always been ‘techniques’ led. In my experience of nlp trainings (which are many and varied) the way nlp is taught is very fragmented and techniques based, until you get to Master prac level.
Even then, it’s all a bit formulaic and doesn’t reinforce the systemic nature of NLP. There’s nowhere near enough emphasis placed on modelling which is the essence of NLP. Some might say, it is NLP.
I don’t see enough holistic and joined up NLP training. This is my approach and i’m sure others are training it in a more connected and systemic way…..
As for what nlp is and the reputation of NLP, again, where to start!!! Aaaahhrrrrr.
So many people (clients) have expressed concern or negative views about NLP. When I have probed to find out more, it’s often because of a ‘bad’ training experience or something they’ve read online.
This seems to be linked to a few things;
-the number of people who do 5 minutes (ok, slightly exaggerating!!) of nlp training, get a certificate and then print business cards and start coaching or running trainings
-the ‘dating/seduction’ element that isn’t always marketed in a way that supports the amazing field that is NLP and contributes to a less than savoury reputation.
- the fact that the practice of NLP isn’t truly regulated
- that certificates seem to be given out indiscriminately – without much rigour or evidence of skills…
The label of NLP Practitioner, Master Practitioner – what does this really mean? If you got certified as a Spanish practitioner, you would be expected to speak Spanish. However there are 1000’s of people who have been certified as ‘Practitioners’ and they sure do need alot of practise.
Oh dear…i was meant to be having an early night Chris. See what you’ve done!!!!!!
In terms of the legacy you talk about….if
NLP is about subjective experience and modelling is how we learn, innovate etc etc, then we are all responsible for the legacy of NLP.
So much more I want to say/share/ask but i really have get some sleep…
I will read all posts with interest…
Chantal
Chris
In my subjective experience money is the key element in driving NLP to where it is at! Those who master the skill see it as a way to take huge amounts of money from gullable, deperate or indeed greedy people!
great article.i was also confused about it.thanks you helped to clarify it a little bit.
Hi Chris,
I think you are making an interesting point here. And there are many interesting comments above.
My subjective opinion (!) is that I am not sure I am very concerned about the name – the nominalisation – itself. I think the outcome, the skills, the better, happier, more effective and productive lives are more important. What I learnt from my NLP teachers has got me through some of the hardest most challenging times in my life and I have been able to help others with the techniques and attitudes too.
But you make many good points.
And you have been brave saying this. Why not take it one step further and ask Richard his view on this, on nlpteleclass.com? You will have an opportunity to do so. Or as I am the interviewer who will convey the questions, would you like me to ask him for you? I am brave too!
love from Laura
Great article Chris, with some very thought provoking points. A great deal of the problem, as you say, lies in the assumption that the skills modelled using NLP somehow become part of NLP.
I once saw it elegantly – if somewhat ‘tongue-in-cheekedly’ – summed up in a reply on a forum where someone had asked for an NLP cure for headaches. One of the replies went along the lines of “NLP says find someone who has the skill you want and copy it. When I have a headache I take aspirin and it goes. So there you are: the NLP cure for headache is take two aspirin 4 times a day.”
When I explain NLP to my students I compare the science and art we call “NLP” itself to a language, for example French. The models are like books written in French. They are not part of the language itself, just things that people have produced using the language. You can take one of those books and read it to yourself or to someone else, and it will have an effect: pictures in the mind, sounds, feelings, etc. The exact pictures, sounds, feelings, etc. someone will create are dictated largely by the content of the book (how scenes are described, which characters and locations are included, etc.) and how you read it (which is where the art comes in). Most people seem to relate to that.
I now only use the nominalisation NLP in course titles that lead to certification, and I’m in the process of removing it from our website from all but the certification courses. When I talk to corporate clients, they don’t care if I’m teaching NLP or knitting – as long as the course produces the change and the results that they want.
But what do we do about fragmentation? I don’t think a single global body is the answer. There would be too much infighting, and then a few splits, and we’d be back where we started (gosh, how about that for an interesting set of beliefs? And what am I projecting there? Eek!)
A good first step would be to define what exactly a “Practitioner” of NLP is. If NLP is ‘just’ SSE, then practitioners are surely just observers and cataloguers – as I suspect the founders of NLP in many ways were at the start; their application of what they observed was probably done primarily to prove their hypotheses and test what they were modelling. Helping people was a bonus. Hell, they were academics!
At the other end of the spectrum is the view (evident in many NLP trainings) that the practitioner’s role is to have a toolkit of pre-packed models and to be able to pick the right one forthe job (or force it if needs be). NLP courses then become little more than an environment for people to practice the models, and they could ahve got it all by reading a book.
To me, the practitioner’s role to create change in their client by understanding their model of the world, designing a better one, and finding a way to shift the client from one to the other. That in turn implies that there is a core body of skills which the practitioner needs to learn, and which could be set out as the basic syllabus which would allow for cross-recognition of qualifications. In essence, we need to define what elements of the language need to be taught at Prac and at Master Prac (like deciding what vocab and grammar need to be taught for school exams in French and then for a degree).
If a trainer chooses to add specific models (a reading list of French literature, to continue the analogy) to their course to save students from having to reinvent the wheel, and most importantly to provide good examples for them to study, that’s their choice. But the core skills need to be taught.
Speaking metaphorically again, it reminds me of the way that traditional craftsmen would carry a tool box but also, for special jobs, they had the skills to take a few items of raw material – wood and metal – and create any tool they needed specifically for the circumstances. We need to be turning out craftsmen, not assembly line robots.
As for the problem of inexperienced teachers, NLP could learn (model?) a lot from other professions. Mentoring of new trainers by more experienced ones springs to mind. We could even set up a system where the first few courses or students had to be countersigned by a mentor, or at least a sample checked (I can hear the gasps of horror already). CPD for trainers would be another great step forwards – and one that is missing in many associations.
Then what about people going out and setting up as practitioners with only a week of training? It’s hard in an “unregulated” field like NLP. But many unregulated professions have cleaned up their act with voluntary standards and codes. Few individual schools would put hurdles in the way of potential students, because 90% of them will go to a school that makes it easier to pass. But what if there was a professional body for NLP practitioners that students could join afterwards, which insisted on CPD, awarded recognition for hours of client-work delivered, had a proper code of ethics and complaints procedure,… OMG I seem to be suggesting that we become self regulating? That sounds like the start of a slippery slope towards regulation itself. Of course then we have the task of creating public awareness of the register – which means money, and therefore registration fees.
However, I think the hardest obstacle to overcome is many trainers’ fear of not certifying someone. I quite often ask students to repeat part of their assessment if I don’t think they’ve met the standard I expect. At the end of the day I am the one signing the certificate, and I have to be happy putting my name – and my reputation – on the line. I also *invite* students to maintain a learning log after their training to record all that ‘unconscious integration’. I have spoken to trainers who feel that because a student has paid for certification they can’t fail them. At the same time I’m sure there are trainers out there who are even more stringent than I am. Again, the answer seems to be external assessment, but trainers may resist the idea of having to pay someone to come and test (and potentially fail) their students!
This is such a wide-ranging discussion that I’m going to stop there (mostly because I just realised it’s 4am!), but it is a fascinating one. Thanks for opening it up!
Rob
Hello and Nice one Chris
I agree with your statements and myself see a great opportunity, with so many ‘qualified (only one quote I think so as to avoid judging?) NLPers, to access the fruits of trial and error /success and find what has been working. With so much data, maybe those who value quality can reverse engineer.. ok maybe with a new, more user friendly,brand name? Spelling out NLP (no not the letters silly!) must be one of the all time greatest inductions?
Hi Chris,
It strikes me that the confusion at the heart of NLP stems from the very way that it is presented, especially by the people who started it all.
Richard Bandler, during his practitioner and master prac courses fills his teaching time with stories and anecdotes about how NLP started. It all seems very clear. Bandler had spare time at Uni and started to read psychology books. He then asked which therapies worked. The answer was very few. He then went along to watch Satir and Perls doing their things. He found elements that they were doing which seemed to have the same structure. He went to Grinder. Grinder intoduced transformational grammar to the equation. The Meta Model was born and The Structure of Magic written.
Having read Magic 1 and 2, it is clear that this book is really devised as a manual for therapists. NLP is not mentioned – but the whole idea is that what Bandler and Grinder are doing is finding effective therapy.
Then comes Patterns 1 and 2. Once again, Bandler and Grinder try to work out how a therapist – Erickson – is doing what he is doing. Now the Milton Model is defined, which is the inverse Meta Model. Somewhere in Patterns 2, the term NLP is used. The whole book is once again dedicated to uncovering how therapy is done – and that seems to be the primary objective of the work of the two men at this time.
It’s as if the two men stumble upon a process they later call “NLP modelling” while trying to work out why Satir, Perls and Erickson are doing their things. So, the first books and the subsequent volumes: Frogs into Princes, Trance-formations, Using Your Brain for A Change, Magic in Action, Reframing etc – are all books which are focussed on therapy.
The idea of modelling non-therapists appears, to the outside observer, to be something which is grafted on later. Indeed, modelling itself appears to be a later addition to the discourse. The two men’s initial desire to uncover and make explicit specific techniques that are used in therapy appears to be the initial driver for the field that they later called NLP.
This, I think is at the heart of the confusion. That NLP really did start off as a therapy-based discipline, and then started to expand to different areas. In this reading of the history of NLP, it is the therapy based NLP which is the “true” or “original” form of NLP, and later additions are an extension of the processes the two men used in order to work out what Satir, Perls and Erickson were up to. Whether this is empirically true is not really important – it is most certainly the impression that Bandler gives.
It is interesting to note, at Bandler seminars, that his repeated use of stories from the therapeutic world are often challenged by bewildered business-people, who see no use for the stories they are being told. The DVDs of Persuasion Engineering also show this “therapy bias” in the way information is presented.
With one very strong strand of NLP essentially presenting NLP as a means of therapy, while the other, Grinder, is on record as stating that the primary function of NLP is modelling excellent behaviours at the conscious and unconscious levels, it is no surprising that NLP has something of an identity crisis.
My own view is that you learn from as many people as you can, and you piece together a NLP that works for you. Perhaps its strength is that it is ultimately malleable and adaptable – and that learning the NLP ethos teaches you to just be more open to new ideas than you ever were before. That in itself is something that a lot of people could do with learning in this world!
I still belive there are a lot of people out there that have a good knowledge of NLP and it’s use. I salute all of them and their endavour to maintain the legacy of NLP.
On the other hand why are we surprised… every science, religion, and concept which had perspectives was twisted and turned to man’s intrests… I am pretty sure Jesus or … Read MoreMohamed never ment for people to get killed in the name of their teaching… yet here we are facing people who belive there are virgins waiting for them in heaven if they kill “non-belivers”.
Hopefully we will learn from this too and move on to a higher understanding.
Daily I am bombarded with spam adverts for mobile phones. Inundated by vendors explaining why there mobile phone is better than another. Swamping me with features that make their product the best on the market. All offering the same sort of things but with the twist of a bespoke name exclusive to that phone, words that have been invented to make them sound more important than they really are, HI-TECH to appease a market hungry for high falutin scientific names. But at the end of the day, a tool for telecommunication that is small enough to be transported on your person and used anywhere is a mobile phone. A way of communicating, that will be constantly developed, with improvements, elements that will be superseded, technologies becoming redundant as newer and better technologies are developed. Companies may fall as the market competes those brands that are household names may fall by the wayside and brands combine to fight for the lions share. In the end there may be one or two survivors, the big brands as it were, however they will dealing in devices that communicate. Even with the telephone itself, there is argument to who invented it Elisha Gray or Alexander Graham Bell, which was followed by a legal battle. Whoever or whatever has been lost in the annuls of history. Who develops it and takes it forward poses a bigger question. Where it goes from here is what intrigues me most. How far this model of communication can be taken is a question I ask myself daily, what can I do to develop it, what possibilities can I explore. For eventually when the market leaders go to the big communication hall of fame in the sky what will we be left with. Something or nothing? Personally I can’t wait for that long to see if there is nothing, so intend to something about it.
This is the iPhone developer forum isn’t it??????
Leave a Comment