---

14 responses:

Ian Paul Sharp

25th August 2009 (5:12 pm)

I agree Chris – and where to we go from here? A networking colleague of mine used to keep telling me I should train in CBT since it was so similar to NLP but had more credibility. I’ve always resisted, partly because NLP offers more, partly because I’m already well qualified in NLP. Or do I just have a clear view of my navel?

There some ‘serious’ research projects – http://www.nlpiash.org and the work being done at the University of Surrey for example. We do need to earn our place at the table alongside CBT, not demand a place.

Richard Bandler is fond of saying that he’s not into theory so it’s up to others to do that work if they wish. It’s no good complaining if CBT gets all the respect and recognition if we want to keep the ‘secrets’ of NLP to ourselves.

Perhaps it’s time for those involved with therapeautic NLP to get serious – or we run the risk that NLP is seen as an underground sideshow.

meeta sengupta

25th August 2009 (5:13 pm)

You are absolutely right. NLP has been positioned as ‘beyond science’. While pychiatry and psychology may have as little to contribute to well being as any ‘science’ possibly can, they certainly receive far more respect than NLP. None of these are science, in the classic sense of the term, but have gained a measure of credibility and funding for its practioners by modelling science. We could possibly model this success too.

This is not difficult to implement – a program of research, regular papers, comparative studies, informal (schmooze) and formal interactions with opinion makers.

At the same time, I also believe that this is going to be difficult to initiate, as I am not sure if thats the way the leaders want to take it. I get this distinct impression that anti-establishmentarianism is a source of joy – and I love that too. Bit of a cock a snook, see what we can do without you! I have to appreciate that. Finding common ground is going to be an interesting negotiation.

Vince Knight

25th August 2009 (6:31 pm)

Sounds like the headline question answers itself – if NLP is the study of excellence, then study the way CBTers did it and model that process.

It also seems like a familiar scenario, anyone remember Betamax? Apple? Netscape? Shame if NLP went that way, and ironic too.

Kevin Cole

25th August 2009 (6:57 pm)

Some have been working on this…http://nlprandr.org/

I’m not certain how far exactly they’ve come along with it or how much effort and funds are going into further developing it but it’s a good start.

I am the first to admit that when it comes to the “Science” of NLP & Hypnosis, if it supports my (or I should say *our*) work and I learn about it then I use it. On the other hand, if science doesn’t support my work, then it just gets in my way of assisting someone to overcome something that science just hasn’t caught up with being possible yet.

For me currently, I spend my time helping as many as I can and teaching as many as I can how to get results. The theory, I too leave in others hands for the most part but am very grateful to those that are putting in those efforts.

That being said, I believe that as long as you do great work and get yourself out there giving people an experience of that work, you will be taken seriously and clients will come to you regularly. I used to have the belief that traditional therapists had it easier as far as gaining clients until I decided to sublet my office out one day a week to two different therapists. One a Licensed Social Worker and the other a Psychologist that specializes in a CBT approach. I soon learned that I actually do much better then them as far as not only results but as far as gaining regular clients. Why? Well, my belief is simply because I’m not afraid to get out there and give people an experience of the work via free presentations and such. And during those presentations I NEVER try and explain what NLP is. I simply give them a profound experience and show them some instant results. That’s what people crave. Results. Not theory. (Although again, the theory can only help and I’m grateful to those putting in that time…)

Kay

25th August 2009 (10:44 pm)

Thanks for this Chris.
Your comment raises many (and on-going) debates around the NLP persona.

If we want to convince ministers to write us into health and education programmes then perhaps we ought to consider regulating ourselves. If I dare suggest, this may mean an overhaul of the NLP training and accreditation framework. Have you noticed how many of our nation’s movers and shakers use NLP principles exquisitely and yet refrain from declaring it as NLP? Why?

Wouldn’t it be interesting to commission an independent research project to uncover the wider public perception of NLP? Of course there is a risk that the results of such ‘information gathering’ might be a little difficult to swallow at first, but that’s OK because we’re really good at responding cleanly to what’s being presented. Aren’t we?

Or maybe we could build upon the magnificent ‘evidence gathering’ projects that many teaching and health professionals have quietly and naturally begun to generate, in line with their known professional standards and industry norms. And just to clarify; I mean evidence not anecdote!

Einstein said that human beings are stupid because we keep doing the same thing and expect different results and yet that’s what I see/hear within the community. Richard and John have moved on and we lap up their latest teachings, but has the NLP community moved on? I don’t think it has because I don’t think ‘it’ knows how to. Cue a regulatory body. Or rather two. One for practice and one for training – at least that’s what I’d advocate!

I do love the NLP framework and hugely admire the NLP pedigree, though there does appear to be a hierarchy within the NLP fraternity, that some might call oppressive and self serving, buffering the inner circle from what’s happening on the ground. Who influences strategic decisions?

Blimey, if I was in charge for a day I’d want a big chat with a lot of people.

Back to your point about CBT Chris, I can’t help but notice that CBT training is stringent, regulated and transparent which seems to give it universal thumbs up. NLP on the other hand, whilst undoubtedly an infinitely more powerful tool is sadly (often) perceived as a loose cannon.

Please! Can we share clean, concise; solution focused international debate whereby delegates are only allowed to contribute towards something even more positive and powerful? Yes? Count me in.

Youval

26th August 2009 (11:15 am)

Good post, i’ve enjoyed it alot.
actualy reflected some things that i was thinking about recently.

Lydia

26th August 2009 (11:25 am)

I’ve been reading your blog and you’re a butcher Chris, you slaughter sacred cows with every entry.

Good for you, a lot of it needs saying.

Bob Janes

26th August 2009 (4:55 pm)

The NLPTCA is the public facing organisation of NLP based therapy in the UK. It has been a member of the UK Council for Psychotherapy since the early 1990s if I remember correctly.

Chris Morris

26th August 2009 (5:26 pm)

So many organisations lay claim to that role Bob. In the UK we have trainers and practitioners approved by ANLP, SNLP, INLPTA, BBNLP, ABNLP, ITANLP… and so it goes on.

I have some respect for SNLP and ITANLP because they were set up by the founders of the field and they accredit people who the founders of the field personally vouch for (kind of).

Most of the others are money-making enterprises that will endorse anyone for a few quid a year. They have no mandate. They just get in the way.

Alan C

26th August 2009 (8:30 pm)

I see parallels with the other field in which I work, that is Chiropractic. For the first hundred years of Chiropractic those doing it espoused it’s wonders while doctors and government largely ignored it or pointed to the lack of research and occasionally suggesting it as quakery. In the UK Chiropractic volunteered to regulate and register through legislation and, while there are some down sides to the mass of regulation, overall Chiropractic has generally become viewed in a much better light.
NLP may have to go at least some way down a similar route if it is to gain public and professional credence. I’d also add, however, that if NLP chooses the registration route that a lot of trainers and practitioners might get upset on the way.

Judy Rees

1st October 2009 (10:00 am)

Well said Chris! People might want to know that the Call for Submissions for the second NLP Research Conference has just gone out – see http://www.cf.ac.uk/sohcs/degreeprogrammes/continuingeducation/2010courses/the-second-international-neurolinguistic-programming-research-conference.html

anekant

7th October 2009 (9:59 am)

And yet in 30 years or so Nlp has found its way into every area of life…creating a great influence on the world…it just has not done it so officially…is this not a reflection of the very heart of nlp
anekant

Chris Morris

28th July 2010 (7:46 pm)

Using Google Trends, we can easily see the rise of interest in CBT compared to the decline in NLP. Notice that they started at the same point in 2004 and have gone in different directions.

http://bit.ly/a04bh9

Stephen Woolston

28th July 2010 (7:57 pm)

Hi Chris,

I did read this first time round too. Great blog post, as always.

For me, in all matters and variations of “what ‘the world’ thinks of NLP”, the thing is we don’t control ‘the world’ and we don’t control that meme that is NLP. I tend to think the best we can do is good work, and let go of excess concern on the world view of NLP. I do believe that good work, of whatever persuasion, will find its reward. Indeed, I think you are a living example of that.

Cheers

Comments are now closed for this post