NLP može biti ono što je postao?
Amazon ima preko 500 knjiga o NLP-a najviše od svega najbolje prodavači su napisali ljudi koji su originalni kreatori i programeri na terenu nismo se upoznali i ne složiti. Ovaj članak je postaviti pitanje: NLP može biti ono što je postao?
Neuro lingvističkog programiranja (NLP) je nezgrapan naziv za neobičan polje istraživanja koje je - ili je - o strukturi subjektivnog iskustva. Što radimo unutar našeg uma i tijela koja stvara naše iskustvo svijeta? I, by extension, ono što možemo učiniti kako utjecati na druge ljude iskustvo svijeta?
Polje izvorno izrastao je iz male studijske skupine na Sveučilištu California u 1970. Ključni igrači bili su matematičar Richard Bandler i profesor lingvistike, dr. John Grinder. Počeli su zgrade "modeli", kako su i drugi misli, ponašao i priopćiti. Oni su "oblikovana" legendarni hypnotherapist i otac Ericksonian hipnoza, Miltona Ericksona H; pionirski obitelji terapeuta, Virginia Satir, i utemeljitelj gestalt terapija, Fritz Perls. Non-terapeuti su neke vrlo uspješne prodaje ljudi i pregovarači, kao i mnogi "obični ljudi" koji su napravili promjene u vlastitom životu. Phobia projekt, na primjer, koji su uključeni Richard Bandler modeliranje cijeli niz volontera koji se koristi da imaju fobije i više nije imala. On je bio zainteresiran za ono što su učinili za "izgubiti" svoje fobije, i on je pronašao da su učinili sve više-manje ista stvar. Nakon što je imao model koji je on učio i drugima pokazao da bilo tko može napraviti istu stvar na strukturalnoj razini i dobiti iste rezultate.
Ključna stvar ovdje je da Richard okrenuo modela u tehnici. Nazvao ga Brzi Phobia Lijek i podučava ga kao dio svoje NLP trening programa. On je rekao: "NLP je stav i metodologija koje ostavlja iza sebe trag od tehnike". No, vrlo rano o bilo je već neka zbrka između) NLP - proučavanje strukture subjektivnog iskustva, koristeći procese modeliranja, te b) primjene NLP - korištenje "trag tehnike" utjecati na sebe i druge ljude.
Danas postoje tehnike za gotovo sve. Prosječna NLP praktičar tečaj će vas naučiti tehnike za postaje sve više uvjeren, motivirani i odlučni, mijenjanje uvjerenja; zaustavljanje boli; kraj ovisnosti; induciranje hipnotičkog pojava ... i ide na popisu i dalje. Paul McKenna slavno po uzoru kako prirodno tanke ljudi misle o hrani, te se okrenuo da u bestseleru, I Can Make You Thin. Onda je oblikovana kako ekstremno bogatih ljudi razmišljaju o novcu - uključujući Richard Branson, Peter Jones, Sir Philip Green i Stelios Haji-Ioannou - i on je to pretvorio u drugu bestseleru, I Can Make You Rich. John Grinder je odlična na modeliranja izvođača. To je ista priča više i više: saznajte kako netko radi nešto i onda koristiti taj model za stvaranje tehnika / formule / set pravila koji će dobiti druge ljude učiniti istu stvar i dobiti iste rezultate. Ove tehnike daju ljudima priliku da biste dobili ono što žele. Oni su popularni i komercijalno vrijedne. Paul McKenna i drugi su pomogli milijunima ljudi po dijeljenje ovih tehnika u lako pristupačnim formatima.
To je ipak postati zbunjujući. Kao brand, NLP je u kaos. Neki ljudi su čuli da je ovo stvar zove NLP koje te može učiniti bogatim. Drugi su čuli tu je NLP dijeta koje se mogu napraviti te izgubiti težinu. Čuo sam na radiju da je NLP je putu da postane više sigurni i uspješni. Čitala sam na internetu da je NLP se oko prevladavanja fobije.
Od ono što ja razumijem, to su sve nesporazume. NLP se o strukturi subjektivnog iskustva. Radi se o učenju prepoznati i komunicirati sa strukturom kako ljudi misle. To je meta-disciplina. Možete koristiti "trag tehnike" raditi mnoge stvari, ali tehnike ne definiraju opseg NLP.
Svoj 'je dobio više zbunjujućih previše. Kao i većina grupa mladih ljudi, originalni NLP stvaralaca i razvijatelja pala i iz ljubavi. Neki su čak i udala, a zatim se razveli. 35. godine života, a većina njih ne govore jedni drugima. I dok je mamica i tatica i dalje vole svoje dijete jako puno, oni imaju različite nade i snove za to, i vrlo različite stilove roditeljstva.
John Grinder razvio ono što on naziva New Code NLP, pomaknuti stvari naprijed za nove generacije. To je hrabar korak naprijed, tvrdeći kako protiv neke njegove prethodne ideje. U svojoj knjizi "Whispering Wind sve to objašnjava, ali dobra sreća nalaz kopiju. To nije jedan od 500 + NLP knjiga na Amazon i Ive 'nikada pp od SEE in knjižara. To nije došao gore na eBay-u zadnje vrijeme, ali to je bio na popisu za ponude iznad £ 50.
Richard Bandler ima svoje napredne ideje previše - neki bi rekli čak i više na taj način - dodajući submodalities na srž NLP, pročišćavanje i dodajući mnoge tehnike, te u razvoju novih polja u prilogu dizajna ljudskim strojarstva i neuro hipnotičku Repatterning, između ostalog.
NLP je postao poput konja s dva vozača, svaka ide u različitim smjerovima. U stvari, to je kao konj sa stotinama ili možda čak i tisuće vozača, jer su svaki od ko-kreatori i neke od razvijatelja pomazanika niz trenera, majstora trenera i naučnike širiti svoju riječ. I, neizbježno, nakon nekoliko mjeseci ili godina, te ljudi otkriju da imaju ideje za vlastiti previše, i počnu dodajući vlastite spin na stvari. Postupno ili odjednom, počinju širiti svoju verziju NLP.
Tako dok ključni igrači su rastreseni po svojoj igri "moje je veća od tvoje", mislim da rasprava je premještena na. Tu je nova generacija visoko motivirani ljudi prodaje NLP kao neka vrsta uhvatiti-svi čudo iscjeljenje. To je često u kombinaciji s pozitivno mišljenje, zakon privlačnosti i afirmacije. Moje pitanje je da li NLP može biti ono što je postalo je u našoj kolektivnoj svijesti? Većina ljudi koji znaju o NLP-to znam kao način mijenjati svoj život u 7 dana. Većina od 500 + knjiga promovirati ga kao strategija za uspjeh. Ali, ono što je stvarno?
Bandler i Grinder je pionirski rad doveli su do pomak paradigme koja - kao što je razvoj pozitivne psihologije (učenje ljude koji rade dobro nego ljudi koji su nezadovoljni ili "psihički bolesne") - je imao golem utjecaj na uspjeh milijuna ljudi . Mogu pronaći njihovu izradu koristan na mnoge načine, a posebno kao put za prikupljanje i strukture podataka na sustavan način. Naučila sam puno od njih oboje, izravno i neizravno. Oni oba imati moje poštovanje i oni su jako talentirani, pametni i originalne ljude.
Ali kako su oni bili kao lideri njihove polju?
"Hajdete za mnom, ja sam iza tebe."
Problem je u tome što mnogi njihovi studenti su poznatiji od njih. To je svoje učenike koji idu na TV-u, dobiti svoje knjige u knjižarama i koristiti web promovirati svoje vlastite verzije NLP.
I mnogo od tih studenata nije imalo više od nekoliko dana treninga, učenje stvari poput Brzi Phobia Lijek u klasi 100 + drugih učenika. Često nisu imali prilike pitati svoju učitelj pitanja.
To su ljudi koji se predstavljaju kao polja veliki ambasadori, i oni se i dalje s njom.
Mislim da netko treba reći Bandler i Grinder da oni ubijaju svoju ostavštinu. Oni su oboje smo uzet lak put. They've oba ovjereni i ohrabrio ljude koji nemaju razumijevanja onoga što je NLP-a nema ni vještinu da koriste tehnike. Ima ljudi vani odmah zavodi i druge uzimajući novac lažno, štetno ne samo sebe i njihovih klijenata, ali i matiranje cijelog područja NLP.
Da, netko treba im reći da. Ali to ne ide mi se. Ja sam vjerojatno jedina osoba koja dobiva plaćeni kao promotor za promicanje i Bandler i Grinder događaja. Ja sam ne ide na rock brod.
71 comments
Mislim da ste ih samo rekao.
Pozdrav Chris,
Ja jako puno uživala čitanje tvoj članak - i ja podijeliti svoje frustracije.
Ja mislim da je tako velik razvoj koji su bili oko na vrijeme (Kognitivna psihologija "revolucije", a kasnije Pozitivna psihologija pokreta, i tako mnogo više .... Pogledamo CBT sada!) Su se dalje razvijati i utjecati na nove generacije NLP i studenti - pomazanik (!) - imaju vrlo različite leanring putovanjima.
Ja sam ne siguran da govori Bandler i Grinder što će pomoći - kao što kažete, polje je postalo rascjepkano - ali možda umjesto toga koristiti onima koji su aktivni u polje "preusmjeriti" NLP treninzima da odražavaju ovo? To je, kao što znate, počela je danas u inpact postgratuate areni - tu je svakako sobu za razmišljanje!
Usput - Ja sam s vama NLP definiraju kao "proučavanje strukture subjektivno iskustvo" - Samo mi znamo toliko više o ovom sada
Hvala vam opet za takav zamišljen članak!
Miriam
Chris, te u pisanom obliku staviti ono što sam rekao za proteklih 14 mjeseci. Mislio sam da je to bolest afflicting Indija, uglavnom, zajedno sa dijelovima-Bliski Istok i Afrika ... čini svoje globalne pandemije.
Njegova dosegla fazu gdje sam čak i ne koristiti termin NLP kad sam prodati ... trenutak klijentima čuti ta tri slova u tom kombinacijom, gube interes. Neki su čak i pitati ako sam "nešto prave 'za ponuditi.
Tako da sada, upravo sam ići dalje i reći im ono što žele čuti ... i korištenju NLP (ili ono što ja znam o tome) kao najbolje što mogu napraviti promjenu.
Bilo kako bilo svibanj, tamo je stvarno nešto što netko može učiniti o tome? Spremni za vertikala u sa bilo je potrebno.
Jagat
Chris hi,
Well done, iako ne mogu složiti sa svim što ste napisali sam te pohvaliti na pisanje kao pošten i couragous članak.
Možda je zbog subjektivne prirode mnogo od onoga što ti kažeš nije dogodilo bio predodređen?
Živjeli,
Brian
BIG Thumbs Up. Ovo je savršeno sumira ono što mislim, a ja samo želim da bih rekao da prije 20 godina i oni bi slušali tada. To je prekasno sada, NLP je šala.
I hvala za članak, ja sam oduševljen oko na učenje više o NLP. Nikad nisam znao da je toliko podjela i konfuziju unutar "NLP '.
Pa tko će te (ili bilo tko) preporučuju da biste saznali više? Bandler i Grinder? ili oboje? Će taj dodaj u zabunu s moje točke gledišta da jedne od početka van?
Hvala
Neil
dobro je rekao ... ... iako nisam siguran oni 'uzeti jednostavan put .... to je izvan njihove kontrole kako polju razvila i NLP nije samo polje ovo se dogodilo na
Chris hi,
Mislim da vam dovesti nekoliko dobrih bodova.
One-NLP više nema dobre definicije. Ideja je unaprijeđen da je sve NLP. Ako je to istina onda se stvarno ništa NLP? Ako je NLP je ono što svi već radi onda zašto gnjaviti s tim? Nedavno sam pitao forum za dobru definiciju NLP. Dobio sam 20 različitih definicija. Tada su 20 osoba koje je pokrenuo tvrdeći jedni s drugima o tome tko je bio u pravu.
To me dovodi do druge točke diplomu NLP mlinovi vani. 3-7 dan treninga, ne proizvodi praktičar. Jedan 'trener' otišao u 3 tjedna 'trening' i počeo s nastavom kao certificirani 'trener' bez da ikada vidio jednu klijenta. JA je otišao na takvu obuku za promatranje i to je bio strašan. Studenti koji plaćaju 1.400 dolara komad bili učenja ništa.
Rezultat toga je da NLP je postalo prijelom i neupotrebljiv, jer ste neiskusni ljudi nastave i certificiraju ljudi koji zauzvrat su manje iskusni i proizvoditi još gore praktičara.
Moja posljednja točka može biti očito, ne postoji želja za promjenu ovog sustava. NLP je postala generator novca. Obuka se ne o kvaliteti osim nekoliko trenera. Kad novac postaje važniji od kvalitete onda imate polje koje je u padu.
Oko 6 godina prije JA je napisao članak vrlo velik dio poput tvoje. Bio sam zlobno napadnuta od strane onih koji su bili u vrijeme nastave. Bio sam optužen za marketing i samo moje mišljenje da je poništena. Drago mi je da ima onih koji su uključeni s NLP da konačno su stavljanjem sustavi noge na vatru i zahtjevan viši standard.
Najbolji način kontrole je ovo glasovati s vama novac. Get dobre preporuke od kvalitetnih trenera i izložiti one koji ne rade dobar posao.
Dobar post Chris. Možda ovaj put će se nešto dogoditi.
Tom Vizzini
Youve hit nokat na glavu Chris, ovo je razlog zašto sam stavio NLP iza mene, nadam se da će se stvari okrenuti se, ali sam sumnjičav.
Chris hi,
Pljesak. Vrlo dobro napisana.
To je kao stara pitanja, NLP je terapija? Neki ljudi kažu 'da'. Neki ljudi kažu 'ne'. Neki ljudi kažu 'ne', ali onda ići na to reći sve drugo kao da su oni zapravo znači 'da'.
I'm kinda sluh glas Michaela Neill upravo sada, kako mi govori da je ono što se događa na NLP je nešto što ne mogu kontrolirati, da događanja mi se ne sviđa u NLP se stvari ne mogu zaustaviti, da NLP zar t stvarno stvar u svakom slučaju, i da moja sreća ne visiti na bilo koji od Internet.
(I znam da ne visi svoju sreću na njemu bilo, što ste inteligentni, promatrana komentar.)
Moja osobna filozofija je da se zaborave pokušavate "popraviti" NLP svijetu. (Tko kaže da će se popraviti moje pravo anyway?) I, umjesto toga, jednostavno nastaviti svoje osobne izvrsnosti i, poput vas, doći do dna što je NLP-a stvarno bi trebao biti - i težiti da bude taj.
Velik članak.
Živjeli
Chris hi,
Hvala za ovo pisanje i ilustriranje konfuziju koja ima dogoditi u polju. Međutim, ja sam zabrinut da postoje pojedinci koji bi mogao razviti NLP vjerovanje da je najbolje izbjegavati samo zbog nedostatka congruency među trenerima. NLP je ne samo dostojan polje s dugom nizu korisnih tehnika, ona je pomogao hrpe pojedinaca dobiti veće jasnoće, uspjeha i zdravlja. Tu su neiskusni treneri i liječnici vani. No, tu su i zaista veliki ljudi koji su koristeći NLP s integritetom. Moj prijedlog? Da li Vaše istraživanje prije rezerviranja mjesta u klasi. Samo zato što naravno je 7 dana ili 10 dana ne znači da nećete naučiti materijal. Jeste li naučiti sve što je potrebno znati u polju na sveučilištu? Kad unesete polje Vaša je odgovornost da ono što znaju i proširiti na njemu. Istina je, kada odaberete trening institut dobro, vas naučiti puno i imaju veliko iskustvo.
Živjeli
Imate lopte od čelika
Chris hi
Dobra analiza onoga što se dogodilo. Kada bilo koji način radiš nešto drugo je korisno imati ćete prodavatelji zmija ulje skakanje na bend vagon. Jadan nuspojava toga je vjerojatno da će oni poklopac koji zahtijevaju više standarde dobiti katraniziran sa istom četkom.
To je složen od strane drugih koji vjeruju da znaju što rade i jesu pravi u želji da promoviraju ono što misle da je NLP. Jer su podudarna u svom neznanju oni su u stanju proći da neznanje o sa nekim uspjehom.
You pitati "Može NLP biti ono što je postao?" Mislim da je odgovor da je postao ono što jest. By teži da bude bolji nego da bismo mogli stvoriti oazu izvrsnosti u pustinji prosječnost. Kada se umorite od pijeska ljudi imaju tendenciju da za glavu, gdje je voda.
Najbolji wishe
Ovo je vrhunac moje subjektivno iskustvo NLP (nadamo da pomaže):
Pošto je moj prvi susret s NLP trening sam bio dovoljno sretan da to iskustvo u obliku to je istina, kao što ste opisali u svom članku. Dakle moj osobni i profesionalni trening NLP-ima tu filozofiju na to je srž i vjerujem da je opet prošao na mojim klijentima i svima sam se dogoditi da razgovaraju o onome što mi je činiti. Ako sam trebao pothvat u drugi trening u nekom trenutku, usudio bih se reći da bih i dalje da prođe ovaj na razumijevanju.
Sve najbolje
Izbirljiv članak Chris.
Komentar od iskren noob
Moram priznati kao novi 'sljedbenik' od ideja NLP-uvijek misli na leđa mog uma da izgleda kao da se mnogo raznolikosti u praksi put drugih, ali oni obaviti sve šav rotirati oko jezgre originalne ideje .
Osobno sam kao dobivanje na korijen stvari i ono što me interese. JA dont misliti bilo tko može naučiti pola jezika i očekivati da će postati stručnjak prevodilac.
Samo oni koji pate postoje "kupaca.
Čini mi se da je, kad glavni predmet ideja je protiv raznovrsnost ljudskog uma zatim tu su dužni da se differenced mišljenja - baš kao i 'terapije' prije NLP.
Moram administracijski JA dont znati velik dio o što Bandler i Grinder rade sada, ja sam previše zauzet pokušava slijediti put su rezbareni od početka i tek početak.
Jedna stvar koju sam shvatio je da to nije religija.
Nema božanstva, no krajnja istina, ne sveti gral.
Njegova više istraživanja da neotkrivene zemlje.
Možda brusač je pronašao planina mu treba osvojiti i Bandler, lijepe plaže to istraživati.
Mislim da bi možda neki poput njih, umjesto da vodi ih dublje u džunglu.
Pa ako znate gdje se put počinje, i sve alate koje trebate rođeni sa - start walking
mir.
Drive by komentirati kao što sam whoosh po ... OMG - da!
.
20-sata online tečaj moje kišnicu ...
Chris hi ovo udari dokle nezgrapan članak. Vodstvo je kao puno o followership. Postavljanje trend, nakupljanjem inovativni ideja, novi koncept. To je uistinu evolucijski, a malo jer su doveli do takve NLP.
Core u moj um ostaje vjeran.
To je sljedbenike koji su promijenila način na koji konj je voziti.
Jill WW
NLP je izgubljena u blato od ega i pohlepe. Na kraju će se vratiti svojim korijenima ili umrijeti. Samo vrijeme će reći što. Dobar članak.
Zapravo, jako dobar članak. Ja mogu jako puno se slažu da postoji mnogo "gospodara" NLP praktičara i "trenera", koji imaju vrlo malo pojma o tome što je to što rade ili nastave. Dorada jednotjednu naravno stvara puno iluzija za ljude koji su majstora NLP. Potrebno je godine učenja i iskustva da biste dobili dobru ideju o tome kako NLP djela i mnogo više godina da ga majstor.
Imam bio događaj NLP od 2004. Praktikant, Master Practitioner trening i trener je završeno. No, moram još nazvati sebe NLP Master. Ima je puno da se saznaje o NLP i psihologije ne može početi prije nego što nastavi drugih ljudi.
Od svih Treninzi koje postoje u svijetu danas, ima samo tako malo tko bih trenirati.
Chris, ste napravili odličan sažetak o polju. Možda je do nas - nakon Bandler i Grinder generacije učiniti nešto o tome.
Vrlo misao koji razdražuje, Chris.
Prije nego što sam dobio u NLP, imao sam trenirao da postane Feldenkrais praktičar. To je glasine da je, kad Moshe Feldenkrais bio bliži kraju svog života, rekao je nekoliko njegovih sljedbenika individualno da se nada da će biti neki to nositi na njegov rad. Svaki osjećali oni bi dobili krunu i nakon toga je uslijedio politički sukob s ljudima izlazila u različitim smjerovima, kombinirajući svoj rad s drugim stvarima su radili ili su se zanimati i. Isto tako, tu je isti problem sa nezgrapan naziv i nedostatak definicije za studij / praksa / filozofije.
Ono što svibanj biti potrebno je International Federation - upravno tijelo za uspostavljanje standarda, procijeniti treninga, razvijati smislen certifikate. Onda bi znati ako trening je certificiran od strane IFNLP. Ali to zahtijeva ljudi koji su spremni korak gore i obaviti posao. Većina NLP'rs su više zainteresirani za događaj svojim stvar. I većina bi radije izbjeći licenciranje naknade i takse koje neminovno rezultat. IASH doživljava neke od tih vrlo pitanjima.
Nema zaštitni znak na ime, tako da svatko može koristiti. Ne postoji objašnjenje odgovarajuće karijeru, tako da je lako za dobronamjerni studente da vjerujemo da ste stekli vještinu na objesiti šindra i otići na posao odmah nakon što ste otišli kroz tjedan treninga.
Moguće je da upravo zbog terapeuti su neki od prvih ljudi B & G modelira da je miješati s terapijom. Terapeuti, medicinske stručnjake i savjetnike svakako su ohrabreni da dodavanje vještine i tehnike su naučili da svojim arsenala, pa je razumljivo da će se zamućenje.
Mnogo razmišljati o tome. Hvala za artikulirati svoje misli i poticanje ovu raspravu.
Chris hi,
Prvo, veliki članak, stvarno uživao. da, imate dotaknuo mnoge na bodove u vrlo sočan i elegantan način, i držite kratko plamena-ljevičare, jer kao što kažeš, da bi živjeli od toga ... ali kao što kažeš, netko treba reći.
Mislim da moja realizacija je da, iako nema ništa pretežno * novo * po kažu u NLP, to se okupiti tona vrlo moćna i korisna tehnika, a kao što je uzimanje sirovine domaćeg eksploziva te ih zajedno miješanje u bojler kuća (izgovor dosjetka), postoje posljedice.
Da, ljudi pitanje vjerovanje da li netko može nazvati ih ja Practitioner nakon 7 dana treninga. Naravno da mogu! to je vjera. zar ne? i svijet će se vrlo brzo odlučiti. nakon svega ne trebate potvrdu da će se vjenčati i imati dijete, tako da ne može biti tako loše.
U mojem iskustvo, (vidio) reputaciju kao trener je sve, tako da su ili vrlo dobar trener, ili ćete donijeti svima na sud kako ih zaustaviti u razgovoru s suprotno. Hmmm .. mislim o tome na trenutak. tako, na kraju će odlučiti javnosti. i još uvijek budale i njihov novac se lako slomljen.
Ljudi, vidimo se, tražiti obećanje sreće, to je sve, a prvo prodajemo materijal povorkama ljudi, ali smo se podoba taj malo van, pa neka je potez do više sažetak - obećanje uspjeha, te pravedan trebate pravo model , pravo "know-how". Problemi se preopterećenje: Na ovaj dan i dob, možete dobiti pristup do bilo koje informacije, sve znanje koje želite, klikom na gumb, (a možda i broj kreditne kartice), ali to će sve vaše pritisnite tipke, tako da pravi su pitanja:
) Možete li to podnijeti? NLP nikad ne obećava da će biti uspješan, samo da možete imati više fleksibilnosti i mogućnosti u postizanju svoje ishode.
b) Ako instalirate modela izvrsnosti u sebe, i djelovati iz modela, onda ste djelujući kroz drugu fascade (dok ga majstor) pa da li vi riskirate postati imuna na samilost, ljubaznost, a razvoj masovnog ego? odnosno NLP radi cijelo vrijeme. zar ne? tako da ne može biti u krivu! Ups.
c) iz energije perspektive, NLP radovi većinom na 3. čakra, i 6. čakra, što znači da puno fokus je na um-rad i snaga volje. Problem ovdje je da NLP omogućava ljudima da rušiti zidove i barijere oni svibanj imati u posjedu radi puno života, tako da to može otpustiti mnogo potencijala, a ako postoji negdje na ovom kanalu, mi smo natrag u ego pitanje opet . Ja sam često mislio o činjenici da je toliko ljudi u (vrlo male) NLP zajednice ne govore jedni drugima. Što nedostaje? vjerojatno samilost. dunno. samo moja dva centa isplati.
Na taj način, JA pogodak NLP će evoluirati u nešto više srce-centric u budućnosti. oh, yeah, zove da ga se ljudi.
)
Hvala za postavljanje!
@ cityguyyoga.
Ja vas pohvaliti za svoju jasnoću i strasno * * složiti s tobom.
John Grinder u "Whispering in the Wind", tvrdi da je zbunjenost o NLP-u širem svijetu postoji jer mi ne razlikujemo "NLP modeliranje", "NLP aplikacije" i "NLP Trening". On predlaže da jedinstveni doprinos da Bandler i on je napravio posebno je tehnika modeliranja u ponašanju i da je to, često previdi, aspekt onoga što mi ne bi trebao biti centralno na bilo koju definiciju NLP.
Sam slagati-iako bih dodati da je 4-torka model subjektivno iskustvo, ljepušan velik dio previdjeti jer originalni "Struktura of Magic" također je paradigma prebacuje doprinos onome što je tada bio u nastajanju području kognitivne znanosti u ponašanju.
Sve ostalo što smo naučiti i podučavati u NLP je "otkrio" i podučavao već tisućama godina, kao i proučavanje Crowley, Patanjali ili bilo koje druge "magičnu", sustav će vrlo brzo jasno. To je samo prirodna. Mi smo nakon svega proučavanja ljudske subjektivno iskustvo.
Mi smo svi proizvodi iz naše okoline, Bandler i Grinder uključeni. NLP mogao postati akademska disciplina, mali dio područja kognitivne psihologije, ali njegov nascence u Kaliforniji u ranim 70-ih i njihov izbor da komercijalizirati svoje učenje je značilo da je njen prijenos putem treninga kao što ima mnogo zajedničkog s multi level marketing i "kult" susret grupe, kao što je i akademske zajednice.
Izvrstan post Chris. Ja misliti većina ljudi bi trebali prestati koristiti samo pojam "NLP" i zaustaviti se pretvarali da znam što je s takvim uvjerenjem. Od čak i ko-kreatori ne mogu dogovoriti što je to, mi smo osuđeni ... osuđena sam ti reći * trese šakom u ljutit stari način *.
In terms of what I'd consider “success”, there aren't that many succesfull people in NLP. I've met some people who were doing really great in their field of expertise, people earning 100s of 1000s of pounds, who then went on NLP trainings, quit their jobs and now sit around posting fluffy messages on Twitter… but at least they're Happy.
It's not that there aren't people doing well from NLP, but given the number of people who take trainings and call themselves NLPers, there's a disproportional number of people whose lives seem to suck more now than before.
NLP can be fantastic and can open up a whole world of possibilities. Just like LSD in the 60s opened up the minds of 1000s of people. The problem is, like LSD, it's not the substance itself that makes people smart, it's how you use it.
Using NLP to get smarter is great. Using NLP as an excuse to be dumber is stoopid.
If I may add to my previous comment …
Despite the problems, I'm still a fan. (I'm sure most of you are too.) I still think NLP represents a grand set of skills and ideas. I still think it helps people. And I still think it's a good idea to help more and more people get the magic.
Let's not kill NLP off ourselves. Whatever happens in/to 'NLP world', we can still all personally aspire to be the best ambassadors for it we can be. That's my aim.
Cheers
Good points well made Chris, and I think you echo many others in the NLP field. However I am not sure what you think might happen now….. personally I think it is upto individual NLP practitioners, trainers etc to take some responsibility for the brand and communicate and therefore educate the rest.
Prvo pravilo da je na snazi NLP'er a da ne spominjem koristite NLP. Svaki poslovni savjetnik NLP koristi zna da ukoliko spomenuti NLP te izgubiti ugovor. To je zamazan marka s negativnim konotacije te nema kredibilitet izvan vlastitih granica.
Može li se ono što je postao? Koliko je bio star djevice Marije?
To je ono što je bilo i što je to. Ako jedna očekivanja su da ostaju iste ili zagrljaj promjene koje su se dogodile tijekom vremena, onda je očekivanja su zadovoljni ili ne. U mom iskustvu, ljudi općenito će se pomaknuti da zadovolje njihove potrebe. Ako osoba treba NLP ugasiti svoje želje da bi se obogatili brzo, stvoriti terapeutskim lijekova, zavesti, tržište, osjećaju dobro, hipnotizirati ili su impresionirani s pojedinim akademijama i trenere biti će privući i krenuti prema tom izvoru. Osnovi, svi smo u njemu za _________ (popuniti prazno). Da li znanje ili primjenu tehnika pomaže nam u našem profesionalnom životu, ili da li osoba koja vlakovi drugi prima naknadu za tečajeve koje pružaju, ili da li kreiranje i maintaing stanje opće dobrobiti netko pomaže u životu, sve o svojim pozitivan rezultat. A tko sam ja da ocijeniti subjektivno iskustvo drugoga? Ja svibanj moći izmjeriti da iskustvo techinques NLP. Ja svibanj čak moći promijeniti nekoga bi oni to žele.
Ja, previše, fokus na strukturu, modeliranje subjektivnog iskustva, ali to je moja prednost. U mom iskustvu, mnogi ljudi ne stvarno briga za o tome kako stvari rade, oni samo žele brzo daj mi tri koraka za napraviti da biste dobili određeni rezultat. Da li vi stvarno ištanje to znati okretni moment od klipnih prstena i stopa ubrizgavanje goriva u auto, ili vam se jednostavno želite znati gdje se nalaze ključne i parking kočnice?
Po mom mišljenju to nije ono što je NLP ili treba da bude, ali stvari su ono što jesu. Živimo u instant zadovoljenje dobi, možemo dobiti podatke s klikom miša, ili hranu u drive iako restoran u 2,38 minuta. U principu, NLP trening danas reflektira ono što se događa u našem društvu. Zašto bi to iznenađenje bilo tko? Ako ste vegetarijanac idite na vegetarijanski restoran. Ako želite dobar obrok, trošiti vrijeme na to pripremaju sami (ili naći prijatelja koji je dobar kuhar). Mi obično dobiti ono što želimo. Dobar poslovnom daje ljudima ono što oni žele. Ne vjerujem da se njihova fer uspoređivati s NLP tržištu osobnih mišljenja - jer svaka žaba pohvalio je vlastiti ribnjak.
Mi smo osposobljeni za nositi s tim što je. Mi nemamo to sviđa. Mi smo obučeni da "ostaviti sadržaj" iz jednadžbe i fokus na proces. No, problem sam često bore sa borba sa postaje izvan sadržaja i fokusiranje na proces, ostavljajući ono što je u mojoj glavi, svoju subjektivnost, i shvativši da je svijet je vani.
Dakle, što je pitanje?
Nisam vjerski čovjek, ali u dobi od Djevice Marije, ne stvarno tvar. Važno je ono što slijedi, a što da je postao i gdje je u realtion.
@ Anonymous:
Da, vaše pravo - možete labav neke ugovore zbog naroda "strah" o NLP. Svaki put kada sam dobio priliku Tor razgovor nakon "gubitka" takav ugovor imao sam dobru priliku za reći i pokazati da je profesionalna NLP se razlikuje od svoje "znanje" o tome. Te "predavao pune NLP-u 10 dana" ili "mijenjati cijeli svoj život i riješiti sve probleme svijeta u 5 dana", nudi se problem i ja se često vidi ti ljudi govore o "svojim" NLP s biiiig $ $-znaci u oba oči! To discredits profesionalno NLP-učitelja i trenera! Ovdje u Europi imamo rekavši: "Sa majstor certifikat vam svibanj poziv sebe majstor, ali treba aa cijelu hrpu truda da se jedan!" I ovo je tako istina na području NLP ...
Ovo je pravovremeno čitanje i čini toliko smisla za mene, no je li istina da kad bilo koji ideja ili skup ideja postanu uspješni ljudi žele pojačati na bandwagon, nadajući se da će se provoditi u duž toka, kao i mnogi dobri učenici na vrijeme, oni često zasjeniti njihove mentore i nastavnike.
Ovo bi trebala biti dobra stvar, jer se razvija ideje dalje i uvijek će biti nekih koji koriste ovaj kao vozilo za sebe promovirati, bez razumijevanja temeljne ili sposobnost da biti velik ili čak vrlo dobar u nekim slučajevima.
Frakcioniranje To se dogodilo u tako mnogim područjima, ali bez njega i bez nekih od ego, ne bi bilo potrebno za rast guranje omotnicu razumijevanja.
Moguće je da bi živjeli od korištenja tih vještina u terapiji, ali ne mogu nadati da će napraviti velike svote novca osim ako postati trener i nude certificiranje za gotovinu, ali dobar je treninga.
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.
Ja sam, sretno, 1. generacije "NLPer", trenirao dr. Bandler, te ovjereni i licencirani od strane društva NLP. Od kojih mnogi ljudi nisu ni znali o tome. To je pokušaj Bandler i John & Kathy Lavalle održavati najviše standarde u NLP-i dhe zajednici, tako što članovi dobiti re-certificirani i re-slab, pepetually, u roku od 2 godine od bilo koje prethodne re-certifikati i 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 proof. Isn't it?
I suppose that both Bandler and Grinder might have had 'off days' and let a few less than adequate students slip through their nets… no, that's not possible, surely.
So, in that case, we can rely on the principles and tools of NLP to naturally water down through the generations, and develop in new interesting ways (thank you Robert Dilts for the wonderful Intavision exercise, for example), making new turns, creating new possibilities and new pathways, as it continues to grow through the ages – just like language does.
So, I am confident that NLP is not what it was at the beginning, nor what it was when Bandler and Grinder found new possibilities and added them, nor what what it was when they separated and went their own ways, nor what it was last year, nor what it was last week.
I am confident that NLP is as subjective a thing, now, as it was back then. It's just that more people are speaking that word and defining what it means and using the principles, attitudes, skills and techniques, in equally subjective ways.
And maybe it's not so much a question of how it SHOULD be, but more a question of: I wonder what it might bring forth in this world in 50 years' time? I wonder who might have the next extraordinary idea, maybe as a result of these wonderful contributions already made? I wonder who might already be developing something extraordinary right now, as I write this?
Best wishes,
David Rose
Vrlo dobro, rekao je Chris.
All very well, but who's going to take notice of B&G even if they get up from their bath chairs and shake a fist at those meddling kids?
Their misbegotten offspring include Tony Robbins, Paul McKenna, Chris Howard, Tad James and Robert Dilts, and I'm suspecting none of those gents got where they are by modelling humility.
So, let's look at things another way. Never mind what those three letters stand for, or stood for. Concentrate instead on what people are doing with them now. Which is easier said than done, sadly, since there's a plethora of shit out there and it can take a long while to come across the genuine article.
But it exists. It's hard to do this bit without sounding doctrinaire, and I can of course only go by my own experience, but there's a world of difference between the instant fix-it BS offered by most in the market, and the kind of generative, multilayered experience that you'll receive by training with…and here's where things get contentious folks…Eric Robbie, Gabe Guererro, Ron Perry and Michael Breen.
Those are the folks who get my vote for movers and shakers, and it's interesting to see what they're up to. Gabe is taking a tip from those who muddled and meddled with the legacy of Feldenkrais and creating his own broader and deeper take on things neurolinguistic, without reference to those three bloody letters. And he's arguably doing a better job than B&G themselves ever did by creating a learning experience for students which includes immersion in the disciplines which led NLP's founders to come up with the field.
Also note: the certification business is a tragic farce. Trainings were initially 20-some days purely because of American legal requirements for training therapists. Not because that's how long it took, or takes, to train someone in NLP. Equally, the seevn day course is a phenomenon created by McKenna Breen based on market research, which sure enough revolutionised NLP training and rattled some very rusty cages, but also unleashed a competitive free-for-all that's led to diminished quality over the years, every pisspoor training coming complete with its own certifying organisation to recommend it.
The solution? Find what works for you, and make the most of quality trainers while they're still with us. And take that into your own life and the lives of others, and never mind whether it's called NLP.
Generations ago, the Sufis experienced many of the same problems that NLP ran into. Thing being, the human tendency to fossilise what was living wisdom and turn it into empty ritual.
For instance, the Sufis are responsible for whirling dervishes. At the time they were created, the intention was to get a stuffy community up off its ass and whirling around to have fun. Centuries on, it's become a rote behaviour and adherents argue about what colour tassles to wear, and whether to rotate clockwise or counterclockwise, and I dare say right now people are arguing on a whirling dervish forum the rights and wrongs of effective whirling practice.
Meanwhile, some smart kids in their twenties are putting together ideas from viral memetics, slam poetry, graffiti and chaos magic, and they're having the time of their lives wondering where it's going to take them…
Chris, some of the points you raise are things I've been thinking for a while myself (along with many of your other commenters).
I'm not sure what can be done about ill-trained people running away with “the field” and mucking up its reputation; I think that probably happens a lot with any discipline that's as deep, wide, and long as this thing we do. It's hard for some people to wrap their brain around “the structure of subjectice experience.”
I find that description (which I also use a lot) tremendously exciting in its open-endedness, and I suppress (or not) a sigh when someone says “Isn't it about sales (or wotever)?” or “Yeah! Tony Robbins!” In short, I think a lot of good might result from a 7-day course being the “diploma” level, and certification being earned by a demonstration of understanding and ability.
Hey Chris,
Kudos!!! Very well written article & RIGHT ON!!! I can NOT believe I just read this, because just a few days ago I was really troubled at the realty of where Bandler & Grinder have gone and the disjointed nature of what THEY created. Anyway, I really do hope they read it & are influenced by it.
Much Success!
Anthony
I think it is a problem of language – odd given its background.
I think the word “practitioner” encourages a lot of people to go on an NLP course with the same motivation as the people answering the “Why not become a driving instructor” adverts that are on TV all the time.
People leave the course asking questions like “where can I rent a room? ” and “Where can I find some “broken ” people to fix in that room to pay the rent?” Soon they are asking the question, “How can I teach other people about this stuff to make my money instead of doing it?”
I think it would be better to be leaving a course asking “How can I apply all this great stuff to make the life I already have even better?” “What can I do to build on what I have learnt?” “Who can I model that does really cool stuff?”"How can I contribute to the future of NLP?”
I remember at really amazing guitarist being interviewed about why he played in such an innovative way? His reply was “well the alternative was to be just another suburban Eric Clapton”.
hi Chris – theres a great site John La Valle set up not only for me – but he was the only one helping when someone wanted to “secure the quality of NLP” in Austria – by letting only phd´s teach NLP … Yes how stupid … only through the Society of NLP I was able to write a public letter to that guy – and keeping NLP free. Have a look at this site http://www.nlpisnottherapy.com
all the best
Yvonne
NLP. or SSE. There seems to be some confusion here.
The Study of Subjective Experience. is what Bandler and Grinder set out to do, in order to find out what made some people very successfull at specific things/ tasks/ in certain areas of life.
Sigurno 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.
Cheers,
Craig
Hey Chris!
To me, I think Eric Robbie nails it best in his profile description on nlpconnections…
…”I like doing NLP”
To me – key word: “doing”
What's that old anecdote about Eskimos having a zillion different words for snow…
…imagine the arguments and misunderstanding that would occur if they had just the one word!!??
Thanks for the comeback Chris. I now think I know you a little better, since you asserted who you are. I appreciate and respect that. I met Da “Man” back in'92 at a Communications Hypnotic Ideation Course Richard was teaching at the Top Gun school in San Diego Holiday Inn. I participated in many many many many of his certifying and licensing cources since then. I just wrote an intro to Meisam S. Delavar's books “Basic priciples of NLP; NLP in Cognative Approach vol 1 & NLP in Behavioral Approch vol 2″.
The last paragraph: “Welcome to the adventures of your life never being the same again. 'Hats off” to Meisam and all the developers and continuing developers of NLP. A community dedicated to 'YOU'.”
Though all referrential constructs, I feel that with the Pot Pouri of NLP material available – …people in all walks of life can effectuate immediate and permanent dramatic change to enrich their lives and make the world a better place to live in.
Bon Vivant
I feel very touched by your article Chris. I trained with McKenna Breen in 1998-2000 but feel nowadays the field has become a joke. The skills are useful but how many people these days get the skills? All I see from people now is confidence. Confidence about what, that is the question? I feel Bandler has sold out. Maybe Grinder too, I'm not so sure about that side. It's very sad to see.
I trained with McKenna Breen before it all went crazy and, like others have said, I use my skills but I don't ever tell people I do NLP. The image of NLP is more horrible than dog poo! Why would I want to be associated with that?
Just to add my voice to the crowd, I really agree with this.
Chris, I must admit, I disagree with the idea that you're currently advocating. I believe the confusion arises from whether NLP is a brand name or a field of study. Naturally, it can be both, but we don't usually consider computer science a brand name, do we?
Bandler and Grinder have given the world a set of tools and methodologies that is proving to be the foundation for the next generation of communication and development. That's fantastic. However, though they may be the Creators of NLP, they are not the Leaders. That's an important difference, because as near as I can tell, fields of study don't have leaders, they have developers.
What good would leaders be to us, now, anyway? What purpose would they serve? As NLPers, we know damn well that the techniques taught in trainings are only pointers, directing us towards the deeper truths that allow us to generate new techniques, to discover new patterns. Bandler has always been very vocal about prohibiting the standardization of NLP. Though this has perhaps kept NLP out of academia for too long, it has also allowed for the kind of exponential, albeit covert, growth that's the reason we're all here.
Don't you agree that the fact that NLP is presented in so many ways, as a method of self-improvement, persuasion, therapy, business structure, spiritual practice, and communication technology, is logical, natural, and important because it's true??? NLP can do all of these things and more, so for that particular purpose, we should consider encouraging this fractionation. That way, as people descend into the quicksand of NLP, they will be overjoyed to discover even more ways that they can put the technology to use.
Chris hi
Interesting debate you have breathed life into. I feel that the way NLP is currently heading on the GPS-limo, NLP is on a crash course with no where else to go? Looking through the adverts in some NLP related publications worries me. This plethora of new Trainers coming through the ranks armed with Powerpoint slides and certificates ready signed for new comers after 7 days (or less) of training is a sure indication that unless some pretty radical action happens, NLP will have been consigned to the incurables section of the hospital before it has had the chance to cure itself. The cure being to understand exactly what you were saying in your blog, the study of subjective experience.
I'm in a very interesting position. I'm currently working with John Grinder on what he told me is the most exciting modelling project he has worked on to date.
(Considering he modelled Erickson that was a bit of a WOW).
The reason he is so gripped by this project is that no one has attempted to do what I am doing at the level that I'm doing it.
His words were,” I'm hoping and believe that we might have some new discoveries coming out of it that will be fresh to NLP”. This is why he is backing me over the next three years for its hopeful conclusion? We will have to wait and see? The evidence will be supported by multi-media technology so here goes.
I agree that something needs to happen to NLP ASAP to create some credibility and authenticity across the wide range of possibilities that NLP could benefit the human race. The 'something' I would suggest is 'Congruency' of it's Practitioners.
Peter Salisbury
As you promote both of them and are therefore part of the problem, what do you hope to achieve by this rocking the boat?
Personally I rather like the current state of nlp, if you want good you can find it, if you want bad you can find it, the responsibility remains with you.
I am very pleased that nlp has spread globally and quickly and this benefit to the world can be attributed to the creators whoever you think they are.
The world has benefited from nlp, a similar example is the case of craniosacral work which Sutherland (the founder) said should remain in the osteopathic community, well it escaped and the world has benefited (altho people can always find counterexamples). Compare this to the Trager work which has attempted to keep its work pure . By doing this it has not spread and created benefits even though it is a highly effective form of bodywork. In my a opinion a loose form of leadership is better than tight control any day, I value freedom.
About trainings becoming moneymaking treadmills …well this is more the result of the capitalist world that we live in(with its emphasis on short term ecology and and applications approach….certainly an area that can be readdressed by nlp in the corporate world)
What I personally value in a training is the continuing connection with the unconscious process and the money is another issue.
Incidently many of the so called changes that are being called for by Grinder and others were actually stated in many of the earlier books such as the structures of magic , trancermations etc etc (emphasis on process/ exploration rather than application). However it is good to to have them updated and stated more explicitly.
I think a useful question to ask is ' Have i benefited from nlp and do i continue to do so?'
ABSOLUTELY AGREE! I have felt this for ages and not seen it reflected back. Good to see a debate emerging.
I feel a lot of people have been very wounded by modern NLP. The McKenna operation while it helped a lot of people was a commercial engine and I feel some of the most vulnerable people who went to them for help ended up in a lot of debt after so many trainings they didn't need. I feel this was a shameful period in NLP's history and though it is over it has left a legacy because many of those students are now trainers themselves and repeating the cycle.
It's a big mess Chris, and thank you for shining some light.
As I read again the article and the responses, it seems to me it all boils down to basically four things:
1. No universally agreed definition of NLP.
2. No universally agreed 'scope' for what is NLP, and therefore what an NLP programme should teach.
3. No single leadership, leading the direction in which NLP changes and continues to develop.
4. Variable quality of trained people.
Or, more simply, it's splintered and uncontrolled.
(I don't agree that the problems are specifically 'the commercialisation of NLP', 'introduction of 7-day trainings', etc. I think those are abstractions of the problems based on people's personal beliefs. Forgive me, it's just what I think and I'm aware I could be wrong.)
So far, the debate has been mostly been on a problem-oriented track, which is fine as a stage to go through. Now I'm wondering, what's the solution-oriented track?
It's worth asking ourselves, are there any positive by-products of the way things are? Well, one is that it means the field is not stilted. It means there's personal freedom within the field. Would we want to lose those things?
As for the addressing problems themselves…
Well, it seems to me we can't force everyone to have a common definition of NLP.
Some working group could work to agree and define a common scope, but then you're still going to have camps, such as your 'Logical Levels are NLP' and 'Logical Levels are not NLP' camps.
We could ask Bandler, Grinder, et al, to submit to just one of them being leader. Or co-operate as a leadership collective. Yeah, right! We know that's not going to happen.
And as for quality, well we could create a society and publish and enforce standards. But that's been done before and it hasn't fixed things.
The best things we can do for NLP lie somewhere else, I think.
I'm sure we'd agree that trying to “fix NLP” based on changing what other people/groups think and do is a not-well-formed outcome. Whatever one might do to attempt to control it (like the things I mention above) would seem to just create more of the behaviour we're defining as the problem (splintering).
I can't help thinking the well-formed equivalent is for us to simply lead from within, by taking responsibility for our own behaviours, our own quality, spread the word to others, influence others to take the same level of responsibility, help others and be as good an ambassador as we can.
Just my added thoughts.
Cheers
I commend your positive approach Stephen (above). I'd say you're also right in that the problem isn't the commercialisation per se but what has happened because of it. In such a fragmented field as NLP with no leader or in fact several competing leaders there's no check against some of those being greedy and exploiting their position and I'm afraid this is what happened in the 90s especially on the Bandler side. The problem is titles were sold off without the people acquiring relevant skills and now those people are the ones teaching NLP to others. That's why I say it's too late to fix it, the cycle has gone too far already. Unless you have a time machine it's too late.
Chris, you've gotten a lot of people talking, and I hope it accomplishes something good.
I wanted to post my thoughts on the subject, but the comment ended up to be way too long. I posted it on my own blog instead. My response to your article is, in a nutshell, that I agree that NLP is a fragmented mess, and that I disagree that that has to be a bad thing.
Chris, welcome to the club. I learnt NLP with some friends and one by one we've all come to the same conclusion, which is that some aspects of NLP are undoubtedly very useful but the egos and insanity of those at the top make it a very toxic environment. I suggest focussing on ericksonian hypnosis which offers the same skills but in a nourishing environment.
For anyone interested in John and Carmens book,see http://www.whisperinginthewind.com
Nice one, Chris.
To me, NLP's reputation could be helped by:
(a) a universally-recognized accreditation that denotes a minimum level of expertise that a client has a right to expect;
(b) a concerted effort by NLPers to raise the profile of NLP wherever possible into the mainstream consciousness, as happened with psychoanalysis;
(c) some perceived unity in the field – Bandler, Grinder, Robbins, Hall, etc – sell the core brand first, then the personal take on it (the English language is constantly absorbing and evolving but it's always known as English…)!
Best wishes 'n' kudos to ya
Dear Chris and all who have been contributing,
I had to really think about what nlp ment for me after carefully reading all of this. I have suffered with mental health problems for some twenty years and nothing conventional seems to help. When it comes to the nhs i fear we are on our own. To begin with nlp was the drift wood i clung to in hope of recovery or respite, after hearing RB claims of healing others.
Hypnosis was once shrouded in mystery and superstition until Milton Erickson exposed his truth to the scientific and medical community allowing hypnosis to take its rightful stand in the medical professions.
I have heard RB say he would not do the same thing with nlp but would leave that to others. Would NLP stand up to the rigorous trials of a scientific procedure? Which techniques would pass? CBT has been proven effective beyond even medication for the treatment, of especially, depression.
Of course i have taken this down the therapy route because of my own experience and seeing as the first models where Milton,Satir,Gestalt(Pearls?) and so much nlp seems to be hypnosis/therapy based (to my mind).
Unfortunatly, it has become like a cult, with charismatic leaders, its own language, expensive initiation rights etc.
To summarize: Would nlp stand up to scientific/medical approval?
Kind Regards
Over the last few years I've found my “loyalty” to NLP waning. As a Master Prac. with the Society of NLP, having trained under Bandler, I ask myself “why should I continue to give NLP credit?”
1. I have been threated with lawsuits for the mere mention of Bandler's name
2. There are idiots out there who have the same qualifications as me simply because they PAID and ATTENDED a seminar – there is NO quality control in NLP
3. Rooms chock full of people paying £2,000 to hear Bandler and McKenna speak? Come on “not by their words, but by their deeds shall ye know them” springs to mind.
4. As a self protection instructor who is a regular consultant to military and law enforcement do I want to be associated with this “law of attraction”/ “solve all your problems in an hour” MAGICAL thinking? I do not.
This article was excellent, and was the tipping point for me. I'm ditching the NLP mantle, I will NOT be associated with the practises or the people who share it and I urge teachers and coaches to do the same.
Hi Chris,
Thought provoking indeed.
I myself have experienced frustration regarding various aspects of what you are expressing.
Here are some of my experiences and views in response.
I have probably done in excess of 400 hours of explicit NLP training in the past few years and so it continues. This doesnt include the books I read and the vast amount of research etc. Of course it's purely my belief but I think it's important that people who are going to do any kind of change work with others, in any guise, need to have the requisite skills and understanding…
General Practitioners have years of training and hands on experience before they are given license to diagnose and prescribe.
Similarly, people that work with others in the NLP field should surely also have a minimum standard of skill and ability to be 'licenced' to practise or run a practice.
My first experience of NLP was the Bandler/Mckenna show. I call it a show because for me, looking back to that experience, it was just that.
Brilliant as it was to be in a room being taught by Richard, I came away with only a surface understanding and no real skill integration. I could barely remember anything! It was all very reliant on that 'old school' NLP training approach of “don't worry if it seems like nothing makes sense. It's all going to integrate unconsciously”. I am highly skeptical of that approach and it smacks of lazy teaching. Of course there is much that happens at the unconscious level but we have a conscious mind too!!
In addition, the calibre of assisting (in hindsight) wasn't of a particularly high standard. With 500 people in a room, you need some talented, pro active assistants to ensure that people are given adequate help.
It's that style of training (large numbers and ineffective assistants) which limits access to the trainers and limits learning. It seems more of a financial model than a model that truly supports effective NLP skills development.
It terms of NLP definitions and misconceptions…where do I start?!!
The 'traditional' practitioner approach has always been 'techniques' led. In my experience of nlp trainings (which are many and varied) the way nlp is taught is very fragmented and techniques based, until you get to Master prac level.
Even then, it's all a bit formulaic and doesn't reinforce the systemic nature of NLP. There's nowhere near enough emphasis placed on modelling which is the essence of NLP. Some might say, it is NLP.
I don't see enough holistic and joined up NLP training. This is my approach and i'm sure others are training it in a more connected and systemic way…..
As for what nlp is and the reputation of NLP, again, where to start!!! Aaaahhrrrrr.
So many people (clients) have expressed concern or negative views about NLP. When I have probed to find out more, it's often because of a 'bad' training experience or something they've read online.
This seems to be linked to a few things;
-the number of people who do 5 minutes (ok, slightly exaggerating!!) of nlp training, get a certificate and then print business cards and start coaching or running trainings
-the 'dating/seduction' element that isn't always marketed in a way that supports the amazing field that is NLP and contributes to a less than savoury reputation.
- the fact that the practice of NLP isn't truly regulated
- that certificates seem to be given out indiscriminately – without much rigour or evidence of skills…
The label of NLP Practitioner, Master Practitioner – what does this really mean? If you got certified as a Spanish practitioner, you would be expected to speak Spanish. However there are 1000's of people who have been certified as 'Practitioners' and they sure do need alot of practise.
Oh dear…i was meant to be having an early night Chris. See what you've done!!!!!!
In terms of the legacy you talk about….if
NLP is about subjective experience and modelling is how we learn, innovate etc etc, then we are all responsible for the legacy of NLP.
So much more I want to say/share/ask but i really have get some sleep…
I will read all posts with interest…
Chantal
Chris
In my subjective experience money is the key element in driving NLP to where it is at! Those who master the skill see it as a way to take huge amounts of money from gullable, deperate or indeed greedy people!
great article.i was also confused about it.thanks you helped to clarify it a little bit.
Hi Chris,
I think you are making an interesting point here. And there are many interesting comments above.
My subjective opinion (!) is that I am not sure I am very concerned about the name – the nominalisation – itself. I think the outcome, the skills, the better, happier, more effective and productive lives are more important. What I learnt from my NLP teachers has got me through some of the hardest most challenging times in my life and I have been able to help others with the techniques and attitudes too.
But you make many good points.
And you have been brave saying this. Why not take it one step further and ask Richard his view on this, on nlpteleclass.com? You will have an opportunity to do so. Or as I am the interviewer who will convey the questions, would you like me to ask him for you? I am brave too!
love from Laura
Great article Chris, with some very thought provoking points. A great deal of the problem, as you say, lies in the assumption that the skills modelled using NLP somehow become part of NLP.
I once saw it elegantly – if somewhat 'tongue-in-cheekedly' – summed up in a reply on a forum where someone had asked for an NLP cure for headaches. One of the replies went along the lines of “NLP says find someone who has the skill you want and copy it. When I have a headache I take aspirin and it goes. So there you are: the NLP cure for headache is take two aspirin 4 times a day.”
When I explain NLP to my students I compare the science and art we call “NLP” itself to a language, for example French. The models are like books written in French. They are not part of the language itself, just things that people have produced using the language. You can take one of those books and read it to yourself or to someone else, and it will have an effect: pictures in the mind, sounds, feelings, etc. The exact pictures, sounds, feelings, etc. someone will create are dictated largely by the content of the book (how scenes are described, which characters and locations are included, etc.) and how you read it (which is where the art comes in). Most people seem to relate to that.
I now only use the nominalisation NLP in course titles that lead to certification, and I'm in the process of removing it from our website from all but the certification courses. When I talk to corporate clients, they don't care if I'm teaching NLP or knitting – as long as the course produces the change and the results that they want.
But what do we do about fragmentation? I don't think a single global body is the answer. There would be too much infighting, and then a few splits, and we'd be back where we started (gosh, how about that for an interesting set of beliefs? And what am I projecting there? Eek!)
A good first step would be to define what exactly a “Practitioner” of NLP is. If NLP is 'just' SSE, then practitioners are surely just observers and cataloguers – as I suspect the founders of NLP in many ways were at the start; their application of what they observed was probably done primarily to prove their hypotheses and test what they were modelling. Helping people was a bonus. Hell, they were academics!
At the other end of the spectrum is the view (evident in many NLP trainings) that the practitioner's role is to have a toolkit of pre-packed models and to be able to pick the right one forthe job (or force it if needs be). NLP courses then become little more than an environment for people to practice the models, and they could ahve got it all by reading a book.
To me, the practitioner's role to create change in their client by understanding their model of the world, designing a better one, and finding a way to shift the client from one to the other. That in turn implies that there is a core body of skills which the practitioner needs to learn, and which could be set out as the basic syllabus which would allow for cross-recognition of qualifications. In essence, we need to define what elements of the language need to be taught at Prac and at Master Prac (like deciding what vocab and grammar need to be taught for school exams in French and then for a degree).
If a trainer chooses to add specific models (a reading list of French literature, to continue the analogy) to their course to save students from having to reinvent the wheel, and most importantly to provide good examples for them to study, that's their choice. But the core skills need to be taught.
Speaking metaphorically again, it reminds me of the way that traditional craftsmen would carry a tool box but also, for special jobs, they had the skills to take a few items of raw material – wood and metal – and create any tool they needed specifically for the circumstances. We need to be turning out craftsmen, not assembly line robots.
As for the problem of inexperienced teachers, NLP could learn (model?) a lot from other professions. Mentoring of new trainers by more experienced ones springs to mind. We could even set up a system where the first few courses or students had to be countersigned by a mentor, or at least a sample checked (I can hear the gasps of horror already). CPD for trainers would be another great step forwards – and one that is missing in many associations.
Then what about people going out and setting up as practitioners with only a week of training? It's hard in an “unregulated” field like NLP. But many unregulated professions have cleaned up their act with voluntary standards and codes. Few individual schools would put hurdles in the way of potential students, because 90% of them will go to a school that makes it easier to pass. But what if there was a professional body for NLP practitioners that students could join afterwards, which insisted on CPD, awarded recognition for hours of client-work delivered, had a proper code of ethics and complaints procedure,… OMG I seem to be suggesting that we become self regulating? That sounds like the start of a slippery slope towards regulation itself. Of course then we have the task of creating public awareness of the register – which means money, and therefore registration fees.
However, I think the hardest obstacle to overcome is many trainers' fear of not certifying someone. I quite often ask students to repeat part of their assessment if I don't think they've met the standard I expect. At the end of the day I am the one signing the certificate, and I have to be happy putting my name – and my reputation – on the line. I also *invite* students to maintain a learning log after their training to record all that 'unconscious integration'. I have spoken to trainers who feel that because a student has paid for certification they can't fail them. At the same time I'm sure there are trainers out there who are even more stringent than I am. Again, the answer seems to be external assessment, but trainers may resist the idea of having to pay someone to come and test (and potentially fail) their students!
This is such a wide-ranging discussion that I'm going to stop there (mostly because I just realised it's 4am!), but it is a fascinating one. Thanks for opening it up!
Rob
Hello and Nice one Chris
I agree with your statements and myself see a great opportunity, with so many 'qualified (only one quote I think so as to avoid judging?) NLPers, to access the fruits of trial and error /success and find what has been working. With so much data, maybe those who value quality can reverse engineer.. ok maybe with a new, more user friendly,brand name? Spelling out NLP (no not the letters silly!) must be one of the all time greatest inductions?
Hi Chris,
It strikes me that the confusion at the heart of NLP stems from the very way that it is presented, especially by the people who started it all.
Richard Bandler, during his practitioner and master prac courses fills his teaching time with stories and anecdotes about how NLP started. It all seems very clear. Bandler had spare time at Uni and started to read psychology books. He then asked which therapies worked. The answer was very few. He then went along to watch Satir and Perls doing their things. He found elements that they were doing which seemed to have the same structure. He went to Grinder. Grinder intoduced transformational grammar to the equation. The Meta Model was born and The Structure of Magic written.
Having read Magic 1 and 2, it is clear that this book is really devised as a manual for therapists. NLP is not mentioned – but the whole idea is that what Bandler and Grinder are doing is finding effective therapy.
Then comes Patterns 1 and 2. Once again, Bandler and Grinder try to work out how a therapist – Erickson – is doing what he is doing. Now the Milton Model is defined, which is the inverse Meta Model. Somewhere in Patterns 2, the term NLP is used. The whole book is once again dedicated to uncovering how therapy is done – and that seems to be the primary objective of the work of the two men at this time.
It's as if the two men stumble upon a process they later call “NLP modelling” while trying to work out why Satir, Perls and Erickson are doing their things. So, the first books and the subsequent volumes: Frogs into Princes, Trance-formations, Using Your Brain for A Change, Magic in Action, Reframing etc – are all books which are focussed on therapy.
The idea of modelling non-therapists appears, to the outside observer, to be something which is grafted on later. Indeed, modelling itself appears to be a later addition to the discourse. The two men's initial desire to uncover and make explicit specific techniques that are used in therapy appears to be the initial driver for the field that they later called NLP.
This, I think is at the heart of the confusion. That NLP really did start off as a therapy-based discipline, and then started to expand to different areas. In this reading of the history of NLP, it is the therapy based NLP which is the “true” or “original” form of NLP, and later additions are an extension of the processes the two men used in order to work out what Satir, Perls and Erickson were up to. Whether this is empirically true is not really important – it is most certainly the impression that Bandler gives.
It is interesting to note, at Bandler seminars, that his repeated use of stories from the therapeutic world are often challenged by bewildered business-people, who see no use for the stories they are being told. The DVDs of Persuasion Engineering also show this “therapy bias” in the way information is presented.
With one very strong strand of NLP essentially presenting NLP as a means of therapy, while the other, Grinder, is on record as stating that the primary function of NLP is modelling excellent behaviours at the conscious and unconscious levels, it is no surprising that NLP has something of an identity crisis.
My own view is that you learn from as many people as you can, and you piece together a NLP that works for you. Perhaps its strength is that it is ultimately malleable and adaptable – and that learning the NLP ethos teaches you to just be more open to new ideas than you ever were before. That in itself is something that a lot of people could do with learning in this world!
Ostavite komentar