Kan NLP være, hvad det er blevet?
Amazon har over 500 bøger om NLP og de fleste af de bedste sælgere er skrevet af folk, som de oprindelige skabere og udviklere af området har ikke opfyldt, og ikke er enige med. Denne artikel er at stille spørgsmålet: kan NLP være, hvad det er blevet?
Neuro Lingvistisk Programmering (NLP) er et tungt navn til et usædvanligt for uddannelsen, som er - eller var - om strukturen af subjektive oplevelse. Hvad gør vi inde i vores sind og krop, der skaber vores oplevelse af verden? Og i forlængelse heraf, hvad kan vi gøre for at påvirke andre folks oplevelse af verden?
Det område, der oprindeligt voksede ud af en lille studiegruppe på University of California i 1970'erne. De centrale aktører var en matematiker, Richard Bandler, og en lingvistik professor, Dr. John Grinder. De begyndte at bygge "modeller" for, hvordan de og andre mente, handlet og formidlet. De "inspireret" den legendariske hypnoterapeut og far til Ericksonian hypnose, Milton H Erickson, den banebrydende familie terapeut, Virginia Satir og grundlæggeren af Gestaltterapi, Fritz Perls. Ikke-terapeuter inkluderet nogle meget succesrige sælgere og forhandlere, samt mange "almindelige mennesker", som havde lavet ændringer i deres eget liv. Den Phobia projektet, for eksempel modeller, der er involveret Richard Bandler en række frivillige, som anvendes til at have en fobi, og ikke længere havde det. Han var interesseret i, hvad de havde gjort for at "miste" deres fobier, og han fandt de havde alle gjort mere eller mindre det samme. Når han havde en model af, at han lærte det til andre, og viste, at man kunne gøre det samme på et strukturelt niveau og få de samme resultater.
Det centrale punkt er, at Richard vendte sin model til en teknik. Han kaldte det for Fast Phobia Cure og lærte det som en del af hans NLP træningsprogrammer. Han sagde: "NLP er en attitude og metoder, som efterlader et spor af teknikker". Men ganske tidligt om der allerede var en del forvirring mellem a) NLP - undersøgelse af strukturen af subjektive oplevelse, ved hjælp af processer for modellering, og b) Anvendelse af NLP - ved hjælp af "sporet af teknikker" til at påvirke dig selv og andre mennesker.
I dag er der teknikker til næsten alt. En gennemsnitlig NLP Practitioner kursus vil lære dig teknikker til at blive mere selvsikker, motiverede og fastlægges skiftende overbevisning stoppe smerte, slutter misbrugsproblemer, overtalelse hypnotiske fænomener ... og listen bliver ved og ved. Paul McKenna berømt model, hvor naturligt tynde mennesker tænker på mad, og han vendte sig, at i en bestseller-bog, Kan jeg få dig til Thin. Så han inspireret hvordan ekstremt rige folk tænker sig om penge - herunder Richard Branson, Peter Jones, Sir Philip Green og Stelios Haji-Ioannou - og han vendte sig, at i en anden bedst sælgende bog, jeg kan gøre dig rig. John Grinder er fremragende på modellering kunstnere. Det er den samme historie igen og igen: find ud af, hvor nogen gør noget, og derefter bruge denne model til at skabe en teknik / formel / sæt regler, som vil få andre til at gøre det samme og få de samme resultater. Disse teknikker giver folk en chance for at få, hvad de ønsker. De er populære og kommercielt værdifulde. Paul McKenna og andre har hjulpet millioner af mennesker ved at dele disse teknikker i let-tilgængelige formater.
Det er blevet forvirrende selv. Som et brand, er NLP i kaos. Nogle mennesker har hørt der er denne ting kaldet NLP, der kan gøre dig rig. Andre har hørt der er en NLP kost, der kan få dig til at tabe sig. Jeg hørte i radioen, at NLP er en måde at blive mere selvsikker og succesfuld. Jeg læste på internettet, at NLP handler om at overvinde fobier.
Fra hvad jeg forstår, disse er alle misforståelser. NLP handler om strukturen af subjektive oplevelse. Det handler om at lære at genkende og interagere med strukturen af, hvordan folk tænker. Det er en meta-disciplin. Du kan bruge "sporet af teknikker" til at gøre mange ting, men de teknikker, som ikke definerer rækkevidden af NLP.
Det har jo mere forvirrende for. Som de fleste grupper af unge, faldt den oprindelige NLP skabere og udviklere i og ud af kærlighed. Nogle endda blev gift, og derefter skilt. 35 år på, at de fleste af dem ikke tale med hinanden. Og mens mor og far begge stadig elsker deres barn meget, de har forskellige håb og drømme for det, og meget forskellige forældrerollen stilarter.
John Grinder har udviklet det, han kalder New Code NLP, at flytte ting frem for en ny generation. Det er et modigt skridt fremad, argumenterer imod nogle af hans tidligere ideer. Hans bog Whispering In The Wind forklarer det hele, men held og lykke at finde en kopi. Det er ikke en af de 500 + NLP bøger på Amazon, og jeg har aldrig set det i en boghandel. Det kom op på eBay for nylig, men det blev noteret for bud over 50 £.
Richard Bandler har rykket sine idéer for - nogle vil sige så meget mere - tilføjelse submodalities til kernen i NLP, raffinering og tilføjer mange teknikker, og udvikle nye vedlagte områderne Design Human Engineering og Neuro Hypnotic Repatterning, blandt andre ting.
NLP er blevet som en hest med to ryttere, hver går i forskellige retninger. Faktisk er det som en hest med hundredvis eller måske tusindvis af ryttere, fordi hver af de co-skabere og nogle af de udviklere har salvet af en række undervisere, master undervisere og lærlinge til at sprede deres ord. Og uundgåeligt, efter et par måneder eller år, opdager disse mennesker, de har ideer til deres egen også, og de begynder at tilføje deres egen spin på tingene. Gradvist eller pludseligt, de begynder at sprede deres egen version af NLP.
Så mens de centrale aktører er blevet distraheret af deres spil "min er større end din", mener jeg, at debatten har bevæget sig. Der er en ny generation af højt motiverede mennesker sælger NLP som en slags catch-all mirakelkur. Det er ofte kombineret med positiv tænkning, loven om tiltrækning og påstande. Mit spørgsmål er, om NLP kan være, hvad det er blevet i vores kollektive bevidsthed? De fleste mennesker, der kender til NLP kender det som en måde at ændre dit liv i 7 dage. De fleste af de 500 + bøger fremme det som en strategi for succes. Men hvad er det egentlig?
Bandler og Grinder's banebrydende arbejde førte til et paradigmeskift, der - ligesom udviklingen i positiv psykologi (studerer mennesker, der klarer sig godt i stedet for mennesker, der er utilfredse eller "mentalt syg") - har haft en enorm indflydelse på succes for millioner af mennesker . Jeg synes deres oprettelse nyttige på mange måder og især som en måde at indsamle og strukturere informationer på en systematisk måde. Jeg har lært meget af dem begge, både direkte og indirekte. De begge har min respekt, og de er meget dygtige, kloge og oprindelige folk.
Men hvordan er de blevet som ledere af deres område?
"Følg mig, jeg er lige bag dig."
Problemet er, at mange af deres elever er bedre kendt end de er. Det er deres studerende, der går på tv, få deres bøger til boghandlere og bruge internettet til at fremme deres egne versioner af NLP.
Og en masse af disse studerende har haft mere end et par dage uddannelse, læring ting som Fast Phobia Cure i en klasse for 100 + andre studerende. Ofte de havde ingen chancer for at spørge deres lærer spørgsmål.
Det er de mennesker, der præsenterer sig selv som feltets store ambassadører, og de slippe af sted med det.
Jeg tror, nogen har brug for at fortælle Bandler og Grinder, at de dræber deres arv. De har begge taget den nemme vej. De har begge bekræftet og opmuntret folk, der ikke har nogen forståelse af, hvad NLP er og ingen færdigheder til selv bruge teknikker. Der er folk derude lige nu vildlede andre og tage penge under falske forudsætninger, skader ikke kun sig selv og deres kunder, men også ødelægger hele området i NLP.
Ja, nogen har brug for at fortælle dem det. Men det vil ikke være mig. Jeg er formentlig den eneste person, der bliver betalt som en initiativtager til at fremme både Bandler og Grinder begivenheder. Jeg vil ikke til at rokke båden.
71 kommentarer
Jeg tror, du lige har fortalt dem.
Hej Chris,
Jeg var meget glad for at læse din artikel - og jeg deler din frustration.
Jeg tror, at så mange udviklinger, der var rundt på det tidspunkt (Kognitiv psykologi "revolution", og senere Positive Psychology bevægelse, og så meget mere .... Kigge på CBT nu!) Selv har fortsat med at udvikle sig og påvirke nye generationer af NLP og de studerende - den salvede (!) - har meget forskellige leanring ture.
Jeg er ikke sikker på, at fortælle Bandler og Grinder noget ville hjælpe - som du siger, er området blevet fragmenteret - men måske i stedet for at bruge dem, der er aktive på området for at "koncentrere" NLP træninger for at afspejle dette? Det er, som bekendt, at starten har en INpact nu i postgratuate arenaen - der bestemt er plads til eftertanke!
I øvrigt - jeg er med jer definere NLP som "The undersøgelse af strukturen af subjektive oplevelse" - Kun ved vi så meget mere om dette nu
Tak igen for sådan en tankevækkende artikel!
Miriam
Chris, du lægger i at skrive, hvad jeg har sagt i de sidste 14 måneder. Jeg troede det var en sygdom plager Indien, primært sammen med dele af Mellemøsten og Afrika ... synes det en global pandemi.
Dens nået et stadium, hvor jeg dont selv bruge udtrykket NLP, når jeg sælger ... det øjeblik kunderne høre de tre bogstaver i denne særlige kombination, de mister interessen. Nogle endda spørge, om jeg har 'noget rigtig "at tilbyde.
Så nu vil jeg bare gå videre og fortælle dem, hvad de ønsker at høre ... og bruge NLP (eller hvad jeg ved af det), så godt jeg kan, for at skabe forandringer.
Være, at som det kan, er der virkelig noget nogen kan gøre ved det? Klar til banen med hvad det tager.
Jagat
Hej Chris,
Well done, selv om jeg ikke er enig med alle om, hvad du har skrevet jeg anbefale dig at skrive sådan en ærlig og couragous artikel.
Måske på grund af dens subjektive karakter meget af hvad du siger, der er sket var forudbestemt?
Skål,
Brian
BIG THUMBS UP. Denne perfekt opsummerer, hvad jeg mener, og jeg ville ønske, du havde sagt det 20 år siden, og de havde lyttet derefter. Det er for sent nu, NLP er en joke.
Og tak for artiklen, jeg har et vågent øje på at lære mere om NLP. Jeg aldrig vidste, der var så meget splittelse og forvirring i "NLP".
Så hvem vil du (eller alle) anbefale at lære af? Bandler og Grinder? eller begge dele? Ville at tilføje til forveksling fra mit synspunkt, at en af starter ud?
Tak
Neil
godt sagt ... ... selvom jeg ikke er sikker på, at de har taget den nemme vej .... den er ude af deres kontrol, hvordan området har udviklet og NLP er ikke det eneste område, dette er sket til
Hej Chris,
Jeg tror, du bringer op flere gode punkter.
One-NLP ikke længere har en god definition. Ideen er blevet fremmet, at alt er NLP. Hvis det er sandt, så er NLP egentlig noget? Hvis NLP er, hvad alle allerede gør så hvorfor bekymre sig om det? Jeg har for nylig spurgte et forum for en god definition af NLP. Jeg fik 20 forskellige definitioner. Så de 20 mennesker begyndte skændtes med hinanden om hvem der havde ret.
Det bringer mig til det andet punkt-NLP eksamensbevis møller derude. 3-7 dage af uddannelsen ikke producere en praktiserende læge. Et 'træner' gik til 3 uger "uddannelse" og begyndte at undervise som en certificeret 'træner' uden nogensinde at se en enkelt kunde. Jeg gik til en sådan uddannelse til at observere og det var forfærdeligt. De studerende, der betalte 1400 dollars et stykke var at lære noget.
Resultatet er, at NLP er blevet splittet og ubrugelige, fordi du har uerfarne folk, undervisning og certificering mennesker, som igen er mindre erfarne og producere endnu værre praktikere.
Mit sidste punkt kunne være indlysende-Der er ikke noget ønske om at ændre dette system. NLP er blevet en penge-generator. Uddannelse er ikke om kvalitet, med undtagelse af nogle få undervisere. Når pengene bliver vigtigere end kvalitet, så har du et felt, der er i tilbagegang.
Omkring 6 år siden skrev jeg en artikel, meget gerne have din. Jeg var ondskabsfuldt angrebet af dem, der var undervisning på det tidspunkt. Jeg blev beskyldt for bare markedsføringen, og at ugyldige min mening. Jeg er glad for, at der er dem, der beskæftiger sig med NLP, der er endelig sætter systemer fødder til ilden og kræver en højere standard.
Den bedste måde at kontrollere dette, er at stemme med dig penge. Få gode henvisninger fra kvalitet undervisere og eksponere dem, der ikke gør et godt stykke arbejde.
God post Chris. Måske denne gang vil ske noget.
Tom Vizzini
Du har ramt hovedet på sømmet, Chris, det er derfor, jeg stiller NLP bag mig, jeg håber, at tingene vil vende rundt, men jeg er tvivlsom.
Hej Chris,
Bifald. Meget godt skrevet.
Det er ligesom det gamle spørgsmål, er NLP en terapi? Nogle mennesker siger »ja«. Nogle mennesker siger »nej«. Nogle mennesker siger "nej", men derefter gå over til at sige alt det andet, som om de virkelig betyder 'ja'.
I'm kinda hørt stemme Michael Neill lige nu, fortæller mig, at hvad der sker med NLP er noget, jeg ikke kan kontrollere, at happenings jeg ikke kan lide i NLP er ting, jeg kan ikke stoppe, at NLP ISN ' t virkelig noget alligevel, og at min lykke ikke hænge på noget af det.
(Og jeg ved, du ikke hænge din lykke på det enten, du gør en intelligent, observeret kommentar.)
Min personlige filosofi er at glemme alt om at forsøge at "fix" NLP verden. (Hvem siger, at mit fix ville være rigtigt alligevel?), Og i stedet blot at forfølge min egen personlige ekspertise, og som dig, komme til bunds i, hvad NLP er og burde være - og stræber efter at blive det.
Stor artikel.
Skål
Hej Chris,
Tak for at skrive dette, og illustrerer den forvirring, der er opstået i området. Men jeg er bekymret over, at der er enkeltpersoner, som kunne udvikle troen på, at NLP er bedst undgås blot på grund af manglende congruency blandt undervisere. NLP er ikke kun en værdig felt med en lang række nyttige teknikker, det har hjulpet masser af enkeltpersoner opnå større klarhed, succes og sundhed. Der er uerfarne undervisere og praktikere derude. Men der er også rigtig dejlige mennesker, der bruger NLP med integritet. Mit forslag? Har din forskning, før reservere en plads i en klasse. Bare fordi et kursus er 7 dage eller 10 dage betyder ikke, vil du ikke lære materialet. Har du lære alt, hvad du har brug for at vide i dit område på universitetet? Når du indtaster et felt, er det dit ansvar at tage, hvad du kender og uddybe det. Sandheden er, når du vælger en uddannelsesinstitution godt, du lærer en masse og har en stor oplevelse.
Skål
Du har kugler af stål
Hej Chris
En god analyse af, hvad der er sket. Når nogen måde at gøre noget andet er nyttigt, vil du have slangen olie sælgerne hoppe på båndet vognen. En uheldig bivirkning af dette er det sandsynligt, hætte, at dem, der kræver højere standarder få asfalteret med samme pensel.
Dette forstærkes af de andre, der tror de ved, hvad de gør, og er ægte i deres ønske om at fremme, hvad de tror, NLP er. Fordi de er kongruent i deres uvidenhed, de er i stand til at videregive, at uvidenhed om med en vis succes.
Du spørger "Kan NLP være, hvad det er blevet?" Jeg tror, at svaret er, at det er blevet, hvad det er. Som ønsker at være bedre end at vi kunne skabe en oase af topkvalitet i en ørken af middelmådighed. Når folk bliver trætte af det sand de har en tendens til at lede efter, hvor vandet er.
Bedste wishe
Her er kulminationen på min subjektive oplevelse af NLP (håber det hjælper):
Siden mit første møde med NLP-uddannelse har jeg været så heldig at opleve det i dets sande form, som du beskriver i din artikel. Derfor min personlige og faglige praksis af NLP har denne filosofi på det centrale, og jeg tror, det er til gengæld videre til mine kunder og alle, jeg tilfældigvis til at tale med om, hvad jeg gør. Hvis jeg skulle vove sig ind i uddannelsen andre på et tidspunkt tør jeg-sige, at jeg ville fortsætte med at videregive denne forståelse på.
Alle de bedste
Nice artikel Chris.
Kommentar fra en ærlig noob
Jeg må indrømme, som en ny "Efterfølgeren" af de ideer, NLP er der altid tænkte på bagsiden af mit sind, at der synes at være stor forskel på, hvordan andre praksis, men de gør alt hinde at rotere omkring det oprindelige kerne ideer .
Personligt kan jeg lide at få til roden af ting og det, der interesserer mig. Jeg dont mene alle kan lære et halvt sprog og forventer at blive en dygtig oversætter.
De eneste, der lider der er "kunder".
Det forekommer mig, at når den primære genstand for en idé, er op mod mangfoldigheden i det menneskelige sind, så der er bundet til at være differenced af udtalelse - ligesom 'terapi' før NLP.
Jeg må admin Jeg ved meget om, hvad Bandler og Grinder gør nu, er jeg alt for travlt med at følge den vej, de har hugget fra starten og kun lige begyndt.
En ting jeg har forstået er, at dette ikke er en religion.
Der er ingen guder, ingen ultimative sandhed, ingen hellige gral.
Dets mere af en efterforskning af en uopdaget land.
Måske Grinder har fundet et bjerg, han behøver for at erobre og Bandler, en dejlig strand at udforske.
Jeg tror måske nogle ønsker dem i stedet for at lede dem dybere ind i junglen.
Tja, hvis du ved, hvor stien starter, og alle de værktøjer, du behøver, du blev født med - begynder at gå
fred.
Drevet af en kommentar, som jeg whoosh ved ... OMG - ja!
.
20 timers online kursus min røv ...
Hej Chris denne strejker så længe uhåndterlig artikel. Lederskab er lige så meget om followership. Indstilling af en tendens, der kommer op med en innovativ idé, et nyt koncept. Dette er virkelig evolutionære, og få siden har bragt sådanne til NLP.
Det centrale er efter min mening forbliver tro.
Det er de tilhængere, som har ændret den måde, at hesten er redet.
Jill WW
NLP har faret vild i et hængedynd af egoer og grådighed. Det vil i sidste ende tilbage til sine rødder eller dø. Kun tiden vil vise, hvilken. God artikel.
Faktisk en meget god artikel. Jeg kan meget enig i, at der er mange "master" NLP Practitioner og "undervisere", der har meget lidt idé om, hvad det er, de gør, eller undervisning. Finishing en uges kursus skaber en masse illusion for folk, at de er mestre i NLP. Det tager år at lære og opleve at få en god idé om, hvordan NLP virker, og mange flere år at mestre det.
Jeg har gjort NLP siden 2004. Practitioner, Master Practitioner og Træner uddannelse er afsluttet. Men jeg har endnu ikke kalde mig en NLP Master. Der er meget at lære om NLP og psykologi, før man kan begynde at lære andre mennesker.
Ud af alle de Undervisning, der findes i verden i dag, er der kun så få, som jeg tog med.
Chris, du har lavet en glimrende oversigt over området. Måske er det op til os - det efter Bandler & Grinder generation til at gøre noget ved det.
Meget tankevækkende, Chris.
Før jeg kom ind i NLP, havde jeg trænet til at blive en Feldenkrais praktiserende læge. Det er rygter om, at når Moshe Feldenkrais nærmede sig slutningen af sit liv, han fortalte flere af hans tilhængere individuelt, at han håbede, at de ville være en til at fortsætte sit arbejde. Hver følte, de havde fået krone og bagefter en politisk fray fulgte med mennesker, der går frem i forskellige retninger, der kombinerer sit arbejde med andre ting, man gør, eller var interesseret i. Tilsvarende er der det samme problem med det uhåndterlige navn og manglende definition for undersøgelsen / praksis / filosofi.
Hvad der kan være behov for, er en International Federation - en styrende organ til at fastsætte standarder, vurderer trainings, udvikle meningsfulde certificeringer. Så ville man vide, om en uddannelse blev bekræftet af IFNLP. Men det kræver mennesker, der er villige til at intensivere og gøre arbejdet. De fleste NLP'rs er mere interesseret i at gøre deres egne ting. Og de fleste vil hellere undgå de licensafgifter og afgifter, der vil uundgåeligt resultat. IASH oplever nogle af disse meget spørgsmål.
Der er ingen varemærke på navnet, så alle kan bruge det. Der er ingen forklaring på en passende karriere, så det er nemt for velmente studerende til at tro, de har opnået de færdigheder til at lægge på en rullesten og gå ind i erhvervslivet, lige efter de har været igennem en uges træning.
Det er muligt, at netop fordi terapeuterne var nogle af de første mennesker, B & G modelleret, at det er blevet forvekslet med terapi. Terapeuter, sundhedspersonale og rådgivere er bestemt opfordres til at tilføje de færdigheder og teknikker, de har lært at deres arsenaler, så det er forståeligt, at der vil blive udvisket.
Meget at tænke over. Tak for at formulere dine tanker og udløste denne diskussion.
Hej Chris,
For det første, stor artikel, virkelig nydt det. ja, har du været inde på mange af de punkter i en meget saftige og elegant måde, og holde korte af flamme-lokkemad, for som du siger, du lever af det ... men som du siger, nogen har brug for at sige det.
Jeg tror min erkendelse er, at selvom der ikke er noget overvejende * nyt * pr siger i NLP, betyder det at samle et ton af meget kraftfuld og nyttige teknikker, og som tager råvarer af hjemmelavede eksplosive og blande dem sammen i en kedel huset (undskyld ordspillet), der er konsekvenser.
Ja, folk spørgsmålstegn ved troen på, om man kan kalde dem selv en Practitioner efter 7 dages uddannelse. Selvfølgelig kan de! det er en tro. ret? og verden vil beslutte, meget hurtigt. efter alt du behøver ikke et certifikat for at blive gift eller har et barn, så det kan ikke være så slemt.
Det er min erfaring, (din opfattet) ry som en træner er alt, så du enten er en meget god træner, eller du få alle til domstolene for at stoppe dem at tale om det modsatte. Hmmm .. tænke over det et øjeblik. så i sidste ende det offentlige vil beslutte. og stadig er tåber og deres penge er let skiltes.
Mennesker, du ser, søger et løfte om lykke, det er alt, og vi først sælger folk materiale processioner, men vi regnede med, at smule ud, så lad os gå op til de mere abstrakte - løftet om succes, du skal bare have den rigtige model , den rigtige "know-how". Problemer er overbelastning: I dag og alder, kan du få adgang til alle oplysninger, enhver viden, du ønsker, ved at klikke på en knap, (og muligvis et kreditkortnummer), men dermed vil presse på alle dine knapper, så de virkelige spørgsmål er:
a) Kan du klare det? NLP aldrig løfter om, at du vil blive en succes, blot, at du kan få mere fleksibilitet og valgmuligheder i at nå dine resultater.
b) Hvis du installerer modeller af høj kvalitet i dig selv, og handle ud modellen, så er du handler gennem en anden fascade (indtil du mestrer det) så kan du risikere at blive immune over for barmhjertighed, godhed og samtidig udvikle en massiv ego? dvs NLP arbejder hele tiden. ret? så du kan ikke tage fejl! Ups.
c) fra et energimæssigt synspunkt, NLP arbejder hovedsageligt på 3. chakra, og 6. chakra, hvilket betyder, at en stor del af fokus er på sind-arbejde, og vil-magt. Problemet her er, at NLP giver folk mulighed for at nedbryde mure og forhindringer, de måtte have haft for mange af deres liv, så denne kan frigive en masse potentiale, og medmindre der er et sted at kanalisere dette, er vi tilbage til ego spørgsmål igen . Jeg har tit tænkt over det faktum, at så mange mennesker i den (meget lille) NLP samfund ikke taler til hinanden. Hvad mangler? sandsynligvis medfølelse. dunno. bare mine to cent værd.
Så jeg gætte NLP vil udvikle sig til noget mere hjerte-centreret i fremtiden. oh, yeah, det hedder det at være menneske.
)
Thanks for posting!
@ cityguyyoga.
Jeg vil rose dig for din klarhed og lidenskabeligt * * enig med dig.
John Grinder i "Whispering in the Wind", hævder, at forvirring om NLP i resten af verden eksisterer, fordi vi ikke formår at skelne mellem "NLP modelling", "NLP ansøgninger" og "NLP-uddannelse". Han foreslår, at den unikke bidrag, som Bandler og han var netop en teknik, adfærdsmæssige modellering og at dette ofte overset aspekt af det, vi bør være centralt i enhver definition af NLP.
Jeg er enig, men jeg vil gerne tilføje, at den 4-tuple model for subjektive erfaring, stort set overset siden den oprindelige "Structure of Magic", var også et paradigme skifte bidrag til det daværende nye inden for kognitiv adfærdsterapi videnskab.
Alt andet, at vi lærer og underviser i NLP er blevet "opdaget" og underviste i tusinder af år, som en undersøgelse af Crowley Patanjali eller anden "magiske" system vil hurtigt gøre det klart. Det er kun naturligt. Vi er trods alt forskning i menneskers subjektive oplevelse.
Vi er alle produkter af vores miljø, Bandler og Grinder inkluderet. NLP kunne være blevet en akademisk disciplin, en lille del af området for kognitiv psykologi: men nascence i Californien i begyndelsen af 70'erne, og deres valg til at kommercialisere deres undervisning har betydet, at overførsel gennem træninger har så meget til fælles med multi level marketing og "kult" støder grupper, som det har med den akademiske verden.
Great post Chris. Jeg regner de fleste mennesker bare skal stoppe med at bruge udtrykket "NLP" og holde op med at foregive at vide, hvad det er med en sådan overbevisning. Da selv den co-skaberne ikke kan blive enige, hvad det er, er vi dømt til ... dødsdømt jeg fortælle dig * ryster knytnæve i vrede gamle mand måde *.
Med hensyn til, hvad jeg ville overveje "succes", er der ikke så mange succesfulde mennesker i NLP. Jeg har mødt nogle mennesker, der gjorde virkelig stor inden for deres ekspertise, folk tjener 100'erne af 1000'erne af pounds, som derefter gik på NLP træninger, forlade deres job, og nu sidder omkring udstationering fluffy indlæg om kvidre ... men i det mindste « re glad.
Det er ikke, at der ikke er folk gør det godt fra NLP, men på grund af antallet af mennesker, der tager træninger og kalder sig selv NLPers, der er en uforholdsmæssige antallet af mennesker, hvis liv synes at suge mere nu end før.
NLP kan være fantastisk, og kan åbne op for en hel verden af muligheder. Ligesom LSD i 60'erne åbnet sind 1000vis af mennesker. Problemet er, ligesom LSD, det er ikke selve stoffet, der gør folk smart, det er hvordan du bruger det.
Ved hjælp af NLP til at få smartere er stor. Ved hjælp af NLP som en undskyldning for at være dummere er stoopid.
Hvis jeg kan tilføje til min tidligere kommentar ...
På trods af de problemer, jeg er stadig en fan. (Jeg er sikker på de fleste af jer er for.) Jeg mener stadig, NLP er en storslået sæt af færdigheder og ideer. Jeg synes stadig, det hjælper folk. Og jeg synes stadig det er en god ide at hjælpe flere og flere mennesker får det magiske.
Lad os ikke dræbe NLP fra os selv. Uanset hvad der sker i / til "NLP verden ', kan vi stadig alle personligt stræber efter at blive de bedste ambassadører for det vi kan være. Det er mit mål.
Skål
Gode punkter godt lavet Chris, og jeg tror, du tilslutte mange andre i NLP området. Men jeg er ikke sikker på, hvad du tror der kan ske nu ... .. jeg personligt synes, det er op til de enkelte NLP praktiserende læger, at undervisere osv. tage noget ansvar for brand og kommunikere, og derfor undervise resten.
Den første regel for at være en effektiv NLP'er er ikke at nævne du bruge NLP. Hver konsulent ved hjælp af NLP ved, at hvis du nævner NLP du mister kontrakten. Det er en snavset mærke med negative konnotationer, og ingen troværdighed uden for sin egen grænse.
Kan det være, hvad det er blevet? Hvor gammel var Jomfru Maria?
Det var, hvad det var og er, hvad det er. Hvis ens forventninger er, at det forbliver de samme, eller sig på de ændringer, der er sket over tid, så ens forventninger er opfyldt eller ej. I min erfaring, vil folk bevæger sig generelt til at opfylde deres behov. Hvis en person har brug for NLP til at slukke deres ønske om at blive rig hurtig, skabe terapeutiske midler, forføre, markedet, føler sig godt, hypnotisere eller de er imponerede over visse akademier eller undervisere, så vil de blive tiltrukket og bevæge sig i retning af denne kilde. Fundamentalt, at vi alle er i det for _________ (udfylde de tomme). Hvorvidt viden eller anvendelse af teknikker hjælper os i vores professionelle liv, eller om den person, der tog andre modtager kompensation for de kurser, de leverer, eller om at skabe og maintaing en tilstand af almene trivsel hjælper andre i livet, det handler om en positivt resultat. Og hvem er jeg til at vurdere den subjektive oplevelse af en anden? Jeg kan være i stand til at måle denne erfaring med at bruge techinques i NLP. Jeg kan endda være i stand til at ændre en person, hvis de ønsker det.
Jeg vil også fokusere på den struktur, modellering af den subjektive oplevelse, men det er min præference. Det er min erfaring, at mange mennesker ikke så meget om, hvordan tingene fungerer, de ønsker bare en hurtig: Giv mig tre trin for at gøre for at få et bestemt resultat. Ønsker du at vide det moment af et stempel ring og injektion sats af brændstof i en bil, eller vil du bare vide, hvor de centrale og parkeringsbremserne er placeret?
Efter min mening er dette ikke hvad NLP var eller burde være, men tingene er hvad de er. Vi lever i en øjeblikkelig tilfredsstillelse alder, vi får information med et klik på en museknap, eller mad i en drive selv restaurant i 2,38 minutter. I almindelighed, i dag NLP uddannelse afspejler, hvad der sker i vores samfund. Hvorfor ville det overraske nogen? Hvis du er vegetar gå til en vegetarisk restaurant. Hvis du ønsker et godt måltid, bruge tid på at forberede det selv (eller find en ven, som er en god kok). Vi normalt får, hvad vi vil. En god forretningsmand giver folk, hvad de ønsker. Jeg tror ikke sin fair at sammenligne NLP markedsplads med personlige meninger - fordi hver frøen roser sin egen dam.
Vi er uddannet til at beskæftige sig med, hvad der er. Vi behøver ikke at kunne lide det. Vi er uddannet til at "lade indholdet" ud af ligningen og fokus på processen. Men det problem jeg ofte problemer med at kæmpe med, er at komme ud over indholdet og fokusere på den proces, der forlader hvad der er i mit hoved, min egen subjektivitet og indse at verden er derude.
Så hvad er spørgsmålet?
Jeg er ikke religiøs fyr, men en alder af Jomfru Maria er faktisk ligegyldigt. Det afgørende er, hvad der følges, og hvad der er blevet, og hvor man er i realtion.
@ Anonym:
Ja, din ret - du kan løse nogle kontrakter på grund af folk "frygt" om NLP. Hver gang jeg fik chancen for tor en snak efter "miste" en sådan kontrakt Jeg havde en god chance for at fortælle og vise, at professionelle NLP er forskellige fra deres "viden" om det. Disse "undervist fuld NLP på 10 dage" eller "ændre hele dit liv og løse alle verdens problemer i 5 dage"-tilbud, der er problemet, og jeg ser ofte disse mennesker taler om "deres" NLP med biiiig $ $-tegn i både Øjne! Dette miskrediterer den professionelle NLP-lærere og undervisere! Her i Europa har vi et ordsprog: "Med en mester certifikat, kan du kalde dig selv en mester, men det kræver aa hel bunke af hårdt arbejde at være én!" Og dette er så sandt inden for 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'ma 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 bevis. Er det ikke?
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.
Løsningen? 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.
Hej 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
alle de bedste
Yvonne
NLP. or SSE. Der synes at være nogen forvirring her.
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.
Sikkert 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 (ie 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.
Skål,
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. Det er fantastisk. 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.
Hej 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.
Skål
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?
Venlig hilsen
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? Jeg ikke.
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.
Hej 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.
Hej 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?
Hej 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!
Efterlad en kommentar