PNL puede ser lo que se ha convertido en?
Amazon tiene más de 500 libros sobre PNL y la mayoría de los best-sellers son escritos por personas que los creadores originales y desarrolladores de la materia no han conocido y no está de acuerdo. Este artículo es hacer la pregunta: ¿puede la PNL ser lo que se ha convertido en?
Programación Neuro Lingüística (PNL) es un nombre difícil de manejar para un campo de estudio inusual que es - o fue - sobre la estructura de la experiencia subjetiva. ¿Qué hacemos dentro de nuestra mente y cuerpo que crea nuestra experiencia del mundo? Y, por extensión, ¿qué podemos hacer para influir en la experiencia de otras personas del mundo?
El campo originalmente surgió de un pequeño grupo de estudio en la Universidad de California en la década de 1970. Los actores principales fueron un matemático, Richard Bandler, y un profesor de lingüística, el Dr. John Grinder. Se comenzó a construir "modelos" de cómo ellos y otros pensaban, se comportaban y comunicar. Que "el modelo" el hipnoterapeuta legendario y padre de Hipnosis Ericksoniana, Milton H Erickson, el terapeuta familiar pionera, Virginia Satir, y el fundador de la Terapia Gestalt, Fritz Perls. No terapeutas incluido algunas personas mucho éxito de ventas y los negociadores, así como muchos "gente común" que habían hecho cambios en su propia vida. El Proyecto de fobia, por ejemplo, participaron Richard Bandler modelización de toda una serie de voluntarios que solía tener una fobia y ya no lo tenía. Estaba interesado en lo que habían hecho "perder" su fobia, y se encontró que todos habían hecho más o menos lo mismo. Una vez que había un modelo de eso, él enseñó a los demás y demostrar que cualquier persona podría hacer lo mismo a nivel estructural y obtener los mismos resultados.
El punto clave aquí es que Richard se volvió a su modelo en una técnica. Lo llamó el cura fobia rápido y enseñó como parte de sus programas de formación en PNL. Él dijo: "La PNL es una actitud y una metodología que deja tras de sí una estela de técnicas". Pero desde muy temprano ya había cierta confusión entre a) la PNL - el estudio de la estructura de la experiencia subjetiva, utilizando los procesos de modelización, y b) Aplicaciones de la PNL - a través del "camino de las técnicas de" influir en usted y otras personas.
Hoy en día existen técnicas para casi todo. Un curso de PNL media profesional le enseñará las técnicas para ser más seguro, motivado y decidido, el cambio de creencias; detener el dolor, horas de adicciones; induciendo fenómenos hipnóticos ... y la lista sigue y sigue. Paul McKenna, naturalmente, la famosa modelo de cómo las personas delgadas pensar en la comida, y él lo convirtió en un best-seller, I Can Make You Thin. Luego, el modelo de cómo la gente extremadamente rica pensar en el dinero - como Richard Branson, Peter Jones, Sir Philip Green y Stelios Haji-Ioannou - y él lo convirtió en otro best-seller, I Can Make You Rich. John Grinder es excelente para artistas intérpretes o ejecutantes de modelización. Es la misma historia una y otra vez: ver cómo alguien hace algo y luego usar ese modelo para crear una técnica / fórmula / conjunto de normas que les permite conocer a otras personas a hacer lo mismo y obtener los mismos resultados. Estas técnicas de dar a la gente la oportunidad de obtener lo que quieren. Son muy populares y con valor comercial. Paul McKenna y otros han ayudado a millones de personas mediante el intercambio de estas técnicas en formatos fácilmente accesibles.
Se ha convertido en confuso sin embargo. Como marca, la PNL es un caos. Algunas personas han dicho que hay esta cosa llamada PNL que pueden hacerte rico. Otros han dicho que hay una dieta de PNL que te puede hacer perder peso. He oído en la radio que la PNL es una forma de ser más seguro y exitoso. He leído en Internet que las fobias PNL es acerca de la superación.
De lo que entiendo, estos son todos los malentendidos. La PNL es acerca de la estructura de la experiencia subjetiva. Se trata de aprender a reconocer e interactuar con la estructura de cómo piensa la gente. Es una meta-disciplina. Usted puede utilizar el "rastro de las técnicas de" hacer muchas cosas, pero las técnicas no se definen el ámbito de aplicación de la PNL.
Tiene más confusa también. Como la mayoría de los grupos de jóvenes, los creadores originales y desarrolladores de la PNL cayó dentro y fuera de amor. Algunos incluso se casó, y luego se divorciaron. 35 años en la mayoría de ellos no hablan entre sí. Y mientras papá y mamá, tanto todavía aman a su bebé mucho, que tienen diferentes esperanzas y sueños, y los estilos de crianza de los hijos muy diferentes.
John Grinder ha desarrollado lo que él llama Nuevo Código de PNL, para avanzar las cosas para una nueva generación. Es un paso valiente hacia adelante, argumentando en contra de algunas de sus ideas anteriores. Su libro susurrando en el viento lo explica todo, pero buena suerte para encontrar una copia. No es uno de los 500 + libros de PNL en Amazon y nunca he visto en una librería. Lo hizo subir en eBay recientemente, pero fue incluido entre las ofertas de más de £ 50.
Richard Bandler ha avanzado en sus ideas muy - algunos dirían que incluso más - submodalidades añadir a la base de la PNL, el refinado y la adición de muchas técnicas, y el desarrollo de los nuevos campos adjunto de Ingeniería y Diseño Humano Neuro Hypnotic remodelar, entre otras cosas.
PNL se ha convertido como un caballo con dos pilotos, cada uno va en direcciones diferentes. De hecho, es como un caballo con cientos o incluso miles de usuarios, porque cada uno de los co-creadores y algunos de los desarrolladores han ungido por una serie de instructores, capacitadores expertos y aprendices para difundir su palabra. E, inevitablemente, después de unos meses o años, estas personas descubren que tienen ideas propias también, y empezar a añadir su toque personal a las cosas. Poco a poco o de repente, empiezan a difundir su propia versión de la PNL.
Así, mientras que los principales actores han sido distraído por su juego de "La mía es más grande que el tuyo", creo que el debate ha pasado. Hay una nueva generación de gente altamente motivado la venta de la PNL como una especie de catch-all cura milagrosa. A menudo es combinado con el pensamiento positivo, la ley de la atracción y afirmaciones. Mi pregunta es si la PNL puede ser lo que se ha convertido en nuestra conciencia colectiva? La mayoría de las personas que saben acerca de la PNL conocemos como una manera de cambiar tu vida en 7 días. La mayoría de los 500 + libros promueven como una estrategia para el éxito. Pero, ¿qué es realmente?
Bandler y Grinder trabajo pionero llevado a un cambio de paradigma que - como el desarrollo de la psicología positiva (el estudio de las personas que lo están haciendo bien en lugar de las personas que son infelices o están "enfermos mentales") - ha tenido un tremendo impacto en el éxito de millones de personas . Me parece útil la creación de muchas maneras y, sobre todo como una manera de recopilar y estructurar la información de una manera sistemática. He aprendido mucho de ellos, tanto directa como indirectamente. Ambos tienen mi respeto y que son muy talentosos, inteligentes y originales de personas.
¿Pero cómo han sido los líderes de su campo?
"Follow me, estoy detrás de ti."
El problema es que muchos de sus estudiantes se conozcan mejor lo que son. Es a sus estudiantes que van a la tele, obtener sus libros en las librerías y utilizar la web para promover sus propias versiones de la PNL.
Y muchos de estos estudiantes no han tenido más de una formación de pocos días, el aprendizaje de cosas como The Cure fobia rápida a una clase de 100 + otros estudiantes. A menudo no tenían oportunidad de hacer sus preguntas de maestros.
Estas son las personas que se presentan como grandes embajadores del campo, y salirse con la suya.
Creo que alguien tiene que decirle a Bandler y Grinder que están matando a su legado. Los dos han tomado el camino fácil. Ambos han certificado y alentó a las personas que no tienen conocimiento de lo que la PNL es ni siquiera la habilidad para utilizar las técnicas. Hay gente ahí fuera que otros ahora engañosa y tomar dinero de manera fraudulenta, perjudicando no sólo a sí mismos y sus clientes, sino también empañar todo el campo de la PNL.
Sí, alguien tiene que decirles eso. Pero no va a ser yo. Probablemente soy la única persona que se le paga como un promotor de promover tanto Bandler y Grinder eventos. Yo no voy a mover el bote.
73 Comentarios
Creo que sólo les dijo.
Hola Chris,
Disfruté mucho la lectura de su artículo - y comparto su frustración.
Creo que la evolución de tantos que estaban alrededor de la época (la psicología cognitiva "revolución", y más tarde el movimiento de la Psicología Positiva, y mucho más .... Vistazo a la TCC ahora) se han seguido evolucionando y la influencia de las nuevas generaciones de PNL y los estudiantes - viajes leanring el ungido (!) - tienen muy diferentes.
No estoy seguro de que decirle a Bandler y Grinder nada ayudaría - como usted dice, el campo se ha fragmentado - pero quizás en vez de usar los que están activos en el campo de "reorientar" los entrenamientos de PNL para reflejar esta situación? Se trata, como ustedes saben, empiezan a tener INpact ahora en el ámbito postgratuate - sin duda hay margen para el pensamiento!
Dicho sea de paso - Yo estoy con ustedes la definición de la PNL como "El estudio de la estructura de la experiencia subjetiva" - Sólo nosotros sabemos mucho más sobre esto ahora
Gracias de nuevo por un artículo tan atento!
Miriam
Chris, se pone por escrito lo que he estado diciendo durante los últimos 14 meses. Pensé que esto era un mal que aflige la India, principalmente, junto con partes de Oriente Medio y África ... parece el de una pandemia mundial.
Su llegado a una etapa donde incluso no utilizar el término PNL cuando venda ... el momento de escuchar a los clientes de tres letras en esa combinación en particular, pierden interés. Algunos incluso se preguntan si tengo "algo real" para ofrecer.
Así que ahora, sólo seguir adelante y les dice lo que quiere oír ... y el uso de la PNL (o lo que sé de ella) lo mejor que puede para crear el cambio.
Sea como fuere, ¿hay realmente algo que alguien pueda hacer al respecto? Listo para lanzar con lo que sea necesario.
Jagat
Hola Chris,
Bien hecho, aunque no puedo estar de acuerdo con todo lo que usted ha escrito, os encomiendo a escribir un artículo tan honesto y couragous.
Tal vez debido a su naturaleza subjetiva mucho de lo que usted dice que ha ocurrido estaba predeterminado?
¡Salud!,
Brian
BIG thumbs up. Esto resume perfectamente lo que pienso y sólo me gustaría que me dijo que hace 20 años y que había escuchado entonces. Es demasiado tarde ahora, la PNL es una broma.
Y gracias por el artículo, tengo un ojo en aprender más sobre la PNL. No sabía que había tanta división y confusión dentro de "PNL".
Entonces, ¿quién sería usted (o alguien) recomendar a aprender? Bandler y Grinder? o ambos? Ojalá que añadir a la confusión, desde mi punto de vista de uno de principiante?
Gracias
Neil
bien dicho ... ... aunque no estoy seguro de que han tomado el camino fácil .... está fuera de su control, cómo el campo se ha desarrollado y PNL no es el único campo esto ha ocurrido a
Hola Chris,
Creo que abrir varios puntos positivos.
Uno-PNL ya no tiene una buena definición. La idea ha sido promovida de que todo es PNL. Si eso es cierto entonces es PNL realmente algo? Si la PNL es lo que todos ya lo está haciendo, ¿por qué molestarse con él? Recientemente le pregunté a un foro para una buena definición de PNL. Tengo 20 definiciones diferentes. Entonces esas 20 personas comenzaron a discutir entre sí acerca de quién tenía razón.
Esto me lleva al segundo punto-La PNL fabricantes de diplomas por ahí. 3-7 días de entrenamiento no produce un médico. Trainer One 'fue a las 3 semanas de «formación» y comenzó a enseñar como un entrenador certificado' sin haber visto nunca un solo cliente. Fui a la formación tal de observar y era terrible. Los estudiantes que pagan 1.400 dólares por pieza estaban aprendiendo nada.
El resultado es que la PNL se ha convertido en fracturada e inutilizables debido a que hay personas sin experiencia docente y la certificación de las personas que a su vez tienen menos experiencia y producir los profesionales aún peor.
Mi último punto podría ser obvio-No hay voluntad de cambiar este sistema. PNL se ha convertido en un generador de dinero. La formación no son acerca de la calidad sino por formadores pocos. Cuando el dinero se vuelve más importante que la calidad entonces usted tiene un campo que está en declive.
Hace unos 6 años escribí un artículo muy parecida a la suya. Me fue brutalmente atacado por aquellos que estaban enseñando en el momento. Me acusaron de algo de marketing y que invalida mi opinión. Me alegro de que hay quienes están involucrados con PNL que finalmente están poniendo los pies a los sistemas de fuego y exigiendo un estándar más alto.
La mejor manera de controlar esto es votar con su dinero. Obtenga referencias de buena calidad de los formadores y exponer a los que no están haciendo un buen trabajo.
Buen post Chris. Tal vez esta vez algo va a suceder.
Tom Vizzini
Usted ha puesto el dedo en la cabeza de Chris, es por eso que me puse PNL detrás de mí, espero que las cosas van a dar la vuelta, pero estoy dudoso.
Hola Chris,
Aplausos. Muy bien escrito.
Es como la vieja cuestión, la PNL es una terapia? Algunas personas dicen «sí». Algunas personas dicen «no». Algunas personas dicen «no», pero luego van a decir todo lo demás como si realmente quieren decir "sí".
Estoy un poco escuchar la voz de Michael Neill en este momento, me dice que lo que ocurre con la PNL es algo que no puede controlar, que los acontecimientos no me gusta en la PNL son cosas que no puedo parar, ¿no que la PNL " t realmente una cosa de todos modos, y que mi felicidad no se cuelga en ninguna de ella.
(Y yo sé que usted no está colgando su felicidad en ella bien, estás haciendo un ser inteligente y observar el comentario.)
Mi filosofía personal es olvidarse de intentar "arreglar" el mundo PNL. (¿Quién dice que mi solución sería justo de todos modos?) Y, en cambio, simplemente seguir mi excelencia personal y, como usted, llegar al fondo de lo que la PNL es y debería ser - y aspiran a ser eso.
Gran artículo.
¡Salud!
Hola Chris,
Gracias por escribir esto y que ilustra la confusión que ha surgido en el campo. Sin embargo, me preocupa que hay personas que podrían desarrollar la creencia de que la PNL es mejor evitar sólo por la falta de congruencia entre los formadores. La PNL es no sólo un campo digno, con una larga lista de técnicas útiles, sino que ayudó a las cargas de los individuos obtener una mayor claridad, éxito y salud. Hay instructores y profesionales sin experiencia que hay. Pero también hay gente realmente grande, que utiliza la PNL con integridad. ¿Mi sugerencia? Haga su investigación antes de reservar un asiento en una clase. El hecho de que un curso es de 7 días o 10 días no significa que usted no aprenderá el material. ¿Sabía usted aprender todo lo que necesitaba saber en su campo en la universidad? Al entrar en un campo que es su responsabilidad de tomar lo que sabes y ampliar en ella. La verdad es que cuando se elige un instituto de formación, así, se aprende mucho y tienen una gran experiencia.
¡Salud!
Usted tiene las bolas de acero de
Hola Chris
Un buen análisis de lo que ha sucedido. Cuando cualquier forma de hacer algo diferente es útil que tendrá los vendedores de aceite de serpiente saltando en el vagón de la banda. Un desafortunado efecto secundario de esto es la campana probable que aquellos que exigen estándares más elevados queda embarrado con la misma brocha.
Que se ve agravada por los otros que creen que saben lo que están haciendo y son sinceros en su deseo de promover lo que ellos piensan es la PNL. Debido a que son congruentes en su ignorancia de que son capaces de superar la ignorancia en que con cierto éxito.
Usted pregunta "¿Puede ser lo que la PNL se ha convertido?" Creo que la respuesta es que se ha convertido en lo que es. Aspirando a ser mejor que el que podríamos crear un oasis de excelencia en un desierto de la mediocridad. Cuando la gente se cansa de la arena tienden a dirigirse a donde está el agua.
Mejor wishe
Esta es la culminación de mi experiencia subjetiva de la PNL (esperanza de ayuda):
Desde mi primer encuentro con la formación de PNL que he tenido la suerte de experimentar en su forma verdadera, como usted la describe en su artículo. Por lo tanto mi práctica personal y profesional de la PNL tiene esta filosofía en su núcleo y creo que es a su vez pasa a mis clientes y nadie se me ocurre hablar de lo que hago. Si me atrevería a entrenar a otros en algún momento-me atrevo a decir que seguirá para aprobar este acuerdo el.
All the best
Niza, el artículo Chris.
Comentario de un noob honesto
Debo reconocer como un nuevo seguidor "de las ideas de la PNL no es siempre el pensamiento en el fondo de mi mente que parece que hay mucha diversidad en la práctica de otras manera, pero ellos hacen todo juntas a girar alrededor del núcleo original ideas .
Personalmente me gusta llegar a la raíz de las cosas y que la que me interesa. Yo no creo que nadie puede aprender un idioma y medio esperan llegar a ser un traductor competente.
Los únicos que sufren no son los «clientes».
Me parece que cuando el tema principal de una idea es en contra de la diversidad de la mente humana, entonces no están obligados a ser diferenciados de opinión - al igual que la "terapia" antes de PNL.
Debo admin No sé mucho acerca de lo que Bandler y Grinder estamos haciendo ahora, yo estoy muy ocupado tratando de seguir el camino que han labrado desde el principio y sólo acaba de empezar.
Una cosa que me he dado cuenta es que esto no es una religión.
No hay dioses, ni la verdad última, no hay Santo Grial.
Sus más de una exploración a un país desconocido.
Tal vez Grinder ha encontrado una montaña que necesita para conquistar y Bandler, una bonita playa para explorar.
Creo que tal vez a algunos les gustaría que en lugar de llevarlos más en la selva.
Bueno si se sabe dónde empieza el camino, y todas las herramientas que necesita usted nació - empezar a caminar
paz.
Unidad por el comentario de que yo ... ¡zas por OMG - ¡Sí!
.
20-horas de cursos en línea mi trasero ...
Hola Chris esta huelga como el artículo difícil de manejar de largo. El liderazgo es tanto acerca de los seguidores. Configuración de una tendencia, de llegar a una idea innovadora, un nuevo concepto. Esto es realmente la evolución, y algunos ya han dado como a la PNL.
El núcleo de mi mente se mantiene fiel.
Se trata de los seguidores que han cambiado la forma en que el caballo está montado.
Jill WW
PNL se ha perdido en un lodazal de egos y la codicia. En última instancia, volver a sus raíces o morir. Sólo el tiempo dirá cuál. Buen artículo.
De hecho, un artículo muy bueno. Puedo muy de acuerdo en que hay muchos "maestro" profesional de la PNL y "formadores" que tienen muy poca idea sobre qué es lo que están haciendo o la enseñanza. Terminando un curso de una semana crea una gran ilusión para las personas que son dueños de la PNL. Se necesitan años de aprendizaje y experiencia para conseguir una buena idea de cómo funciona la PNL y muchos más años para dominarlo.
He estado haciendo PNL desde 2004. Practitioner, Master Practitioner y de formación de formadores se han completado. Sin embargo, todavía tengo que decir que soy un Maestro PNL. Hay mucho que aprender acerca de la PNL y Psicología antes de poder empezar a enseñar a otras personas.
De todas las actividades de capacitación que existen en el mundo hoy en día, sólo hay tan pocos los que me gustaría entrenar con el.
Chris, que ha hecho un excelente resumen sobre el terreno. Tal vez sea a nosotros - el después de Bandler y Grinder generación a hacer algo al respecto.
Un clima de reflexión, Chris.
Antes de que me metí en la PNL, me había entrenado para convertirse en un profesional de Feldenkrais. Se rumorea que cuando Moshé Feldenkrais se acercaba al final de su vida, le dijo a varios de sus seguidores de forma individual que esperaba que sería el de continuar su trabajo. Cada uno sentía que había dado la corona y después una contienda política se produjo con la gente saliendo en diferentes direcciones, que combina su trabajo con otras cosas que estaban haciendo o se interese mismo modo, existe el mismo problema con el nombre difícil de manejar y la falta de definición para el estudio / práctica / filosofía.
Lo que puede ser necesaria es una federación internacional - un órgano rector para fijar normas, evaluar los cursos de capacitación, desarrollo de certificaciones significativa. Entonces uno podría saber si una capacitación fue certificada por el IFNLP. Pero eso requiere que las personas que están dispuestas a intensificar y hacer el trabajo. La mayoría de NLP'rs están más interesados en hacer su propia cosa. Y la mayoría preferiría evitar el pago de licencias y cuotas que tendría como consecuencia inevitable. IASH está experimentando algunas de esas cuestiones.
No hay ninguna marca en el nombre, así que cualquier persona puede utilizarlo. No hay una explicación de una carrera profesional adecuada, así que es fácil para los estudiantes bien intencionados que creen que han alcanzado la habilidad para colgar un cartel y entra en la derecha del negocio después de que han pasado por la formación de una semana.
Es posible que, precisamente porque los terapeutas son algunas de las primeras personas en B & G el modelo que se ha confundido con la terapia. Los terapeutas, profesionales médicos y consejeros son sin duda anima a añadir las habilidades y técnicas que han aprendido a sus arsenales, así que es comprensible que no habrá confusión.
Mucho que pensar. Gracias por articular sus pensamientos y provocando este debate.
Hola Chris,
En primer lugar, gran artículo, realmente lo disfruté. sí, se han abordado muchos de los puntos de una manera muy suculento y elegante, y mantenga por debajo de la llama-hostigamiento, pues, como usted dice, se puede vivir de ella ... pero como usted dice, alguien tiene que decirlo.
Supongo que mi comprensión es que, aunque no hay nada fundamentalmente nuevo * * por decir en PNL, que se reúnen a un montón de técnicas muy potentes y útiles, y como tomar las materias primas de fabricación casera de explosivos y mezclándolos en una caldera casa (excusa el juego de palabras), hay consecuencias.
Sí, la gente cuestiona la creencia de si alguien puede llamar a sí mismos un médico después de 7 días de la formación. Por supuesto que pueden! es una creencia. ¿verdad? y el mundo se deciden muy rápidamente. después de todo, no es necesario un certificado de casarse o tener un bebé, por lo que no puede ser tan malo.
En mi experiencia, su (percibida) reputación como un entrenador lo es todo, por lo que son o bien un entrenador muy bueno, o es llevar a todos a los tribunales para que dejen de hablar de lo contrario. Hmmm .. pensar que por un momento. así, al final, el público decidirá. y aún los tontos y su dinero son fácilmente separaron.
La gente, ya ves, buscar la promesa de la felicidad, eso es todo, y vender a la gente en primer lugar las procesiones de material, pero hemos calculado que poco fuera, así que vamos a subir a lo más abstracto - la promesa de éxito, sólo tiene el modelo adecuado , el derecho de "know-how". Problemas es la sobrecarga: En este día y edad, puede obtener acceso a cualquier información, cualquier conocimiento que desee, con el clic de un botón, (y posiblemente un número de tarjeta de crédito), pero si lo hace la prensa todos los botones, por lo que el preguntas importantes son:
a) ¿Puedes manejarlo? PNL promesas que nunca tendrá éxito, sólo que usted puede tener más flexibilidad y opciones en el logro de sus resultados.
b) En caso de instalar los modelos de excelencia en ti mismo, y actuar en el modelo, entonces estás actuando a través de otro fascade (hasta que lo domines) y luego se corre el riesgo de ser inmune a la compasión, la bondad, mientras que el desarrollo de un ego enorme? PNL es decir, funciona todo el tiempo. ¿verdad? por lo que no pueden estar equivocados! Uy.
c) desde una perspectiva energética, la PNL trabaja principalmente en el chakra de la 3 ª, y 6 º chakra, lo que significa que mucha de la atención se centra en la mente de trabajo y fuerza de voluntad. Problema aquí es que la PNL permite a la gente para derribar muros y barreras que pueden haber tenido para muchos de sus vidas, así que esto puede liberar un gran potencial, y si no hay lugar para este canal, volvemos a la pregunta de nuevo el ego . A menudo he pensado en el hecho de que tantas personas en la comunidad (muy pequeña) PNL no hablan entre sí. ¿Qué falta? probablemente la compasión. sé. sólo mis dos centavos.
Por lo tanto, creo que la PNL se convertirá en algo más de corazón centrado en el futuro. oh, sí, se llama ser humano.
)
Gracias por publicar!
@ cityguyyoga.
Los felicito por su claridad y pasión * * de acuerdo con usted.
John Grinder en "Whispering in the Wind", sostiene que la confusión acerca de la PNL en el resto del mundo existe porque no somos capaces de distinguir entre "modelo PNL", "aplicaciones de la PNL" y "Entrenamiento de PNL". Él sugiere que la contribución única que Bandler y que hizo fue por el método de elaboración de modelos de comportamiento y que, a menudo pasado por alto, aspecto de lo que hacemos debe ser central en cualquier definición de PNL.
Estoy de acuerdo, aunque me gustaría añadir que el modelo de 4-tupla de la experiencia subjetiva, bastante alto ya que la estructura original "de la magia" era también un paradigma de cambio de la contribución a lo que entonces era el campo emergente de la ciencia cognitiva conductual.
Todo lo que podemos aprender y enseñar en la PNL se ha "descubierto" y enseñó durante miles de años-como un estudio de Crowley, Patanjali o cualquier otra "mágica" sistema rápidamente se aclarará. Esto es sólo natural. Todos estamos estudiando la experiencia subjetiva humana.
Estamos todos los productos de nuestro medio ambiente, Bandler y Grinder incluido. PNL podría haberse convertido en una disciplina académica, una pequeña parte del campo de la psicología cognitiva, pero su Nascence en California en los años 70 y su elección para comercializar su enseñanza ha hecho que su transmisión a través de capacitaciones tiene mucho en común con la comercialización de niveles múltiples y "de culto" grupos de encuentro como lo ha hecho con el mundo académico.
Gran poste Chris. Supongo que la mayoría de la gente simplemente debe dejar de usar el término "PNL" y dejar de pretender saber lo que es con tanta convicción. Puesto que incluso los co-creadores no pueden acordar lo que es, estamos condenados ... condenados te digo * sacude el puño en forma enojada viejo *.
En términos de lo que yo considere "éxito", no hay que mucha gente exitosa en la PNL. He conocido a algunas personas que estaban haciendo realmente grandes en su campo de experiencia, gente que gana 100s de 1000 de libras, que luego continuó los entrenamientos en PNL, dejaron sus puestos de trabajo y ahora se sientan en torno a publicar mensajes en Twitter ... esponjosa, pero al menos ' felices.
No es que no hay gente haciendo así de la NPL, pero dado el número de personas que toman cursos de capacitación y NLPers llaman a sí mismos, hay un número desproporcionado de personas cuyas vidas se parecen a chupar más ahora que antes.
PNL puede ser fantástico y puede abrir todo un mundo de posibilidades. Al igual que el LSD en los años 60 se abrió la mente de los 1000s de la gente. El problema es, como el LSD, no es la misma sustancia que hace que la gente inteligente, es cómo lo usa.
Uso de la PNL para obtener más inteligente es grande. Uso de la PNL como una excusa para ser más tonto es Stoopid.
Si puedo añadir a mi comentario anterior ...
A pesar de los problemas, sigo siendo un fan. (Estoy seguro que la mayoría de ustedes son demasiado.) Sigo pensando que la PNL representa un gran conjunto de conocimientos e ideas. Todavía creo que ayuda a las personas. Y todavía creo que es una buena idea para ayudar a la gente más y más la magia.
No vamos a matar a la PNL nuestra situación. Pase lo que pase en / a 'mundo PNL ", todavía podemos personalmente todos aspiran a ser los mejores embajadores de lo que podemos ser. Ese es mi objetivo.
¡Salud!
Puntos a favor bien hecho Chris, y creo que os hacéis eco de muchos otros en el campo de la PNL. Sin embargo no estoy seguro de lo que usted piensa que podría pasar ahora ... .. personalmente, creo que es individual upto PNL profesionales, formadores, etc para tener alguna responsabilidad en la marca y comunicar, por lo que educar a los demás.
La primera regla de ser un NLP'er eficaz no es hablar de utilizar la PNL. Cada consultor de negocios utilizando PNL sabe que si uno habla de la PNL se pierde el contrato. Es una sucia marca con connotaciones negativas, y carece de credibilidad fuera de sus fronteras.
¿Puede ser lo que se ha convertido? ¿Qué edad tenía la Virgen María?
Era lo que era y es lo que es. Si sus expectativas son que siguen siendo los mismos o aceptar los cambios que se han producido en el tiempo, entonces las expectativas se cumplen o no. En mi experiencia, la gente en general, se trasladará a satisfacer sus necesidades. Si una persona necesita PNL para apagar sus deseos de hacerse rico rápidamente, crear los recursos terapéuticos, seducir, de mercado, se siente bien, hipnotizar, o que están impresionados con las academias de algunos o formadores que luego se verán atraídos y avanzar hacia esa fuente. Fundamentalmente, todos estamos en esto por el _________ (llene el espacio). Si el conocimiento o la aplicación de técnicas nos ayuda en nuestra vida profesional, o si la persona que entrena a otros recibe una compensación a los cursos que ofrecen, o si la creación y maintaing un estado de bienestar general de ayuda a alguien en la vida, su todo acerca de una resultado positivo. ¿Y quién soy yo para evaluar la experiencia subjetiva de otra? Puedo ser capaz de medir que la experiencia con el techinques de la PNL. Incluso puede ser capaz de cambiar a alguien si así lo desean.
Yo, también, se centran en la estructura, la modelización de la experiencia subjetiva, sino que es mi preferencia. En mi experiencia, muchas personas no se preocupan realmente cómo funcionan las cosas, sólo quieren una rápida: me dan tres pasos que hacer para obtener un resultado determinado. ¿Estás seguro que quieres saber el par de un anillo del pistón y la tasa de inyección del combustible en un coche, o sólo quieres saber dónde se encuentra la clave y los frenos de estacionamiento?
En mi opinión esto no es lo que la PNL era o debería ser, pero las cosas son lo que son. Vivimos en una época en la satisfacción inmediata, se recibe la información con el clic de un botón del ratón, o la comida en un restaurante en la unidad aunque 2,38 minutos. En general, la formación de PNL hoy refleja lo que está ocurriendo en nuestra sociedad. ¿Por qué habría que sorprender a nadie? Si usted es vegetariano, ir a un restaurante vegetariano. Si quieres una buena comida, pasar tiempo a preparar usted mismo (o encontrar un amigo que es un buen cocinero). Por lo general, obtener lo que queremos. Un buen empresario da a la gente lo que quiere. No creo que el justo comparar el mercado de PNL con opiniones personales - porque cada rana alabanzas estanque propio.
Estamos capacitados para hacer frente a lo que es. No nos tiene que gustar. Estamos capacitados para "dejar que el contenido" de la ecuación y se centran en el proceso. Pero el problema que a menudo luchan con la lucha con es cada vez más allá del contenido y se centra en el proceso, dejando lo que está en mi cabeza, mi propia subjetividad, y darse cuenta de que el mundo está ahí fuera.
Entonces, ¿cuál es la pregunta?
Yo no soy religioso compañeros, pero la edad de la Virgen María no es realmente importante. Lo que importa es lo que sucedió y lo que se ha hecho y donde se encuentra en relacion.
@ Anónimo:
Sí, a la derecha - se pueden perder algunos contratos a causa de los pueblos "miedo" sobre la PNL. Cada vez que tiene la oportunidad de Tor una charla después de "perder" ese contrato que tenía una buena oportunidad para decir y mostrar que la PNL profesional es diferente de sus conocimientos "al respecto. Estos "enseña PNL completo en 10 días" o "cambiar toda su vida y resolver todos los problemas de los mundos en 5 días" ofrece son el problema y muchas veces ver a estas personas hablar de "sus" PNL con biiiig $ $ signos en ambos los ojos! Esto desacredita la PNL profesional profesores y formadores! Aquí en Europa tenemos un dicho: "Con un certificado patrón puede llamar a sí mismo un maestro, pero es necesario aa montón de trabajo duro para ser uno!" Y esto es tan cierto en el ámbito de la PNL ...
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. Me gustan los retos.
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. ¿O no?
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?
Mis mejores deseos,
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.
Pero existe. 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.
¿La solución? 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
todo lo mejor
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.
Sin duda, la PNL. 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.
¡Salud!,
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. Eso es fantástico. 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.
Hola 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.
¡Salud!
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?
Saludos cordiales
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? Yo no.
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.
Hola 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.
Hola 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?
Hola 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??????
Deja tu comentario