NLPことはできますが何となっている？
Amazonとのほとんどは、最高の売り手は、元のクリエイターとフィールドの開発者に会っていない人々によって書かれているに同意しないNLPについては、500以上の書籍をしています。 この資料では、質問をすることです：NLPが何となっていることができますか？
神経言語プログラミング（NLP）のが勉強の異常なフィールドの扱い名-やされました -主観的経験の構造についてです。 どのような我々の心とは、世界の経験を作成体内に行うのですか？ および拡張子によって、私たちが世界の他の人々の経験に影響を与えるができますか？
このフィールドは、もともと小規模な研究グループは、カリフォルニア大学の1970年代に発展した。 キープレーヤーの数学者、リチャードBandlerは、言語学の教授が、博士ジョングラインダー。 これらの構築方法を、他人を思考の"モデル"を始め、行儀と伝達。 彼らは""伝説の催眠療法とEricksonian催眠、ミルトン高エリクソンの父親をモデル;先駆的な家族療法士、バージニアサティア、そしてゲシュタルトセラピー、フリッツのPerlの創始者。 禁煙セラピストがいくつかの非常に成功したの販売員との交渉だけでなく、多くの"普通の人々が"自分の生活の中で変更が含まれます。 恐怖症プロジェクトは、例えば、関与リチャードBandler人と恐怖が、もはやそれが使用されるボランティアのシリーズ全体のモデリング。 彼は"失うものは"自分に対する恐怖心が何を持っていた興味があったし、彼はすべて以上または以下と同じことをやったことが分かった。 一度、彼はのモデルが、彼は他人に教え、誰もが構造的なレベルで同じことを行うことと同じ結果を得ることを示した。
重要な点はここではリチャードはテクニックに、彼のモデルになっている。 彼はそれを高速恐怖症治療と呼ばれる彼のNLPのトレーニングプログラムの一環として、それを教えた。 かれは言った："NLP的な態度と方法論されている技術の後れを取るの葉"。 しかし、かなり早い段階で既に存在する）NLPの間に多少の混乱-主観的体験の構造の研究では、モデリングのプロセスを使用していたイ）自然言語処理のアプリケーション-自分自身や他の人に影響を与える技術の"道"を使用。
最近は、技術はほとんどすべてのです。 平均NLPプラクティショナーコースではもっと自信になりつつある動機と判断するためのテクニックを教えるが、信念を変更する、痛みを止める;中毒終了;催眠現象を誘発する...とのリストを延々と続く。 ポールマッケンナ有名な方法を自然に薄い人々に食糧を考えるモデルに、彼がに最高になって本の販売を、 私はこの薄膜を確認できます 。 それから彼はどのように、非常に豊かな人々がお金について考える-リチャードブランソン氏は、ピータージョーンズ、サーフィリップグリーン、ステリオスハジIoannouを含むモデル化-そして、彼は別のベストセラー本に、 私はあなたを豊かにすることになって。 ジョングラインダーモデリング演奏で優れています。 これは、同じ話を何度もの：を見つけるがどのようにして何か/数式/ルールは、他の人が同じことをすることになると同じ結果を得るに設定する手法を作成するためのモデルを使用します。 これらの技術は人々はチャンスが欲しいものを得るに与える。 彼らは、商業的に貴重な人気があります。 ポールマッケンナなどを簡単にアクセス可能な形式でこれらのテクニックを共有することによって数百万人支援している。
これも混乱になっている。 ブランドとして、NLP混乱している。 一部の人々がこのことをNLPはあなたを豊かにすることができますというのを聞いた。 その他の存在する場合は減量することができますNLPダイエットは聞いたことがある。 私はラジオでは、NLPもっと自信になるし、成功した方法ですが聞こえた。 私は、インターネット上の読み取りは、NLPを克服され恐怖症。
から私が理解し、これらはすべて誤解です。 NLP、主観的経験の構造についてです。 それについて認識することを学ぶのとの構造と対話する方法を考える人。 これは、メタ規律だ。 また、"しかし、多くのことを行うには、技術自然言語処理の範囲を定義していない技術の"証跡を使用することができます。
それよりも混乱を持っている。 若い人たちのほとんどのグループと同様に、オリジナルのNLPのクリエイターや開発者の愛のうちに下落した。 一部では、結婚して離婚した。 で35年間、ほとんどお互いに話すことはありません。 しながらのミイラとの両方はまだ非常に多く、赤ちゃんの愛パパ、彼らは、非常にさまざまな子育てのスタイルを別の夢と希望とを持っている。
ジョングラインダー彼はニューコードNLPと呼んで、前方、新世代のために何かを移動するために開発しています。 これは、勇敢な一歩を、いくつかの彼の前のアイデアに反対と主張している。 彼の本は風で 、それはすべての説明は幸運コピーを見つけるウィスパリング 。 これは1 500 + NLP図書アマゾンわけではないと私は本屋で見たことがない。 これはeBayは最近、思いついたのが£ 50以上の入札を上場されました。
リチャードBandlerあまりにも自分のアイディアを進んでいる-一部はなおさらそうだと思います- NLP、精製し、追加のコアには、多くの技術submodalitiesを追加し、他のものの間でデザイン人間工学ネウロ催眠Repatterningのは、新しい追加フィールドを開発。
NLP 2人のライダーそれぞれ別々の方向に向かって馬のようになっている。 これは、各共同制作者と一部の開発者のトレーナーは、一連のマスタートレーナーと弟子たちに広めるため油を注がが実際には、数百、または多分ライダーの何千人もの馬のように、だ。 と、必然的に、数ヶ月から数年後には、これらの人々にも独自のアイデアが発見し、彼らは世の中に自分のスピンの追加を開始します。 徐々に、または、突然、彼らは自然言語処理の独自のバージョンの拡散を開始します。
よって、キープレーヤー"私のあなたのより大きい"よりものの、自分のゲームに気を取られて、私は考えては、議論に移動しています。 が意欲的な人々をキャッチの一部のようなものとしてNLPを販売する新世代のすべての奇跡の治癒。 多くの場合、肯定的な思考と組み合わせての、魅力と確約の法則。 私の質問かどうかをNLPは私たちの集団意識の中でどのようになってすることができますか？ 人NLP 7日間であなたの人生を変更する方法としてそれを知っていること知っているほとんどの人々 。 のほとんどは、500 +図書成功のための戦略として、それを促進する。 しかし、実際にそれを何ですか？
Bandlerとグラインダーの先駆的な仕事のパラダイムシフトは、人だけではなく、人不満があるか"精神障害者"）人が肯定的な心理学の開発-のような（勉強人がやっているにつながった-数百万人の成功に多大な影響を及ぼしている。 私は、その作成の多くの方法で、便利なサービス、特にと体系的な方法での構造情報を収集するための方法として、。 私は彼らの両方から、直接、間接的に学ぶことがたくさんある。 2人とも私の尊敬している、彼らは非常に巧妙な才能され、元の人々 。
しかし、どのようにそれらの分野の指導者とされている？
"私に従って、私はあなたのすぐ後ろだ。"
問題よりもている生徒の多くはよく知られています。 誰がテレビに行く生徒、書店に自分の本を取得し、自然言語処理の独自のバージョンを促進するためにウェブを使うのだ。
そして、数日の訓練は以上だったが、これらの学生の多くは、100のクラスでは、高速恐怖症治療のようなものの学習+他の生徒たち。 多くの場合、彼らは、教師の質問にもチャンスがあった。
これらの人は、フィールドの偉大な大使として自らを提示する人々が、彼らはすぐにして欲しい。
私は誰かBandler指示し、研削盤は、彼らの遺産が死亡している必要があると思う。 これらは両方とも簡単にパスしたものだ。 これらの両方の認定をしたよう奨励し、誰がどのNLP、さらに技術を使用していない技術であるのか全く理解がある人。 ある人々をも揃え誤解を招くなどと虚偽の口実の下にだけではなく、自分自身やクライアントだけでなく自然言語処理の全体をフィールドに変色損傷お金を取っている。
うん、 誰かに伝える必要がある。 しかし、それは私がするつもりはありません。 人ともBandlerとグラインダーのイベントを促進するためのプロモーターとして支払われる私はおそらく唯一の人物。 私はボートロックするつもりはない。
73コメント
私はあなただけで彼らに言われたと思う。
こんにちは、クリス
私は非常にあなたの記事を読んで楽しんで-そして私はあなたの欲求不満を共有します。
私はペニスでは、前後のタイムで（認知心理学の"革命"が非常に多くの開発、およびそれ以降のポジティブ心理学の動きなど多くの...見て今考えてください！）自ら進化するとNLP新世代の影響力を続けていると学生-聖なる（！） -非常に違っていたleanring旅。
私はよく分かりませんがBandlerと役立つだろうグラインダー何か-の場合は、フィールドの断片となっている-しかし、おそらく代わりに""NLP研修焦点を合わせる人は、フィールドで活躍して使用するように言うこれを反映するよう指示？ ご存知のように、初めは現在、postgratuateの分野でinpactていることです-そこは確かに思考のための部屋です！
ちなみに-私はあなたと"主観的体験の構造の研究"としてNLPを定義マイン-のみが、今ほどこのことについてもっと知りたい
再びこのような思慮深い記事をありがとうございました！
ミリアム
クリスは、私は過去14カ月間、何を言ってきた書面にする。 私はこれは主に、中東の一部、中東、アフリカと一緒に... ...その世界的な流行だ病気インドを悩ませて、と思った。
そのどこでも、私が販売する...今のクライアントは、特定の組み合わせで、これら3つの文字を聞くという用語はNLPを使用いけない段階に到達し、彼らは興味を失う。 もし私'something'をリアルタイムを提供している一部でもお問い合わせください。
だから今、私は先に行くと何を聞いて... ...とNLPを使用するに伝えます（または私はそれを）私は作成、変更することができます最高として知っている。
それはそれかもしれないが、ください本当に何かを誰かにできることは何ですか？ とはどんなことでも、ピッチに準備ができました。
Jagat
こんにちは、クリス
よくやったものの、私はすべて私がこのような誠実couragous記事を書くことであなたを称賛するよう書かれているのに同意することはできません。
おそらく、多くの場合が起こったのかと言うのは、主観的な性質のため、所定のでしたか？
乾杯、
ブライアン
FanBoxが。 これは完全に私の考えを合計し、私はそれを20年以上前に述べたくれれば良かったのに、彼らを聞いたのですが。 それは遅すぎる現在、NLPは冗談です。
また、記事のおかげで、私はNLPについての学習に熱心な目をしている。 私はこれほど多くの部門と'内で混乱していたとは知らなかったNLP'。
だから、あなた（または、誰でも）から学ぶことをお勧めしますか？ Bandlerまたはグラインダー？ またはその両方？ その混乱を私の視点から追加するかは、1つのアウトを開始する？
ありがとう
ニール
やだ... ...しかし私は、簡単にパスを撮影したかわからないんだけど...。 それはうち、自分の方法を制御するフィールドを開発したとNLPこれに起こっている唯一のフィールドではないの
こんにちは、クリス
私はあなたを、いくつかの良い点をもたらすと思う。
1 NLPは、もはや良い定義しています。 このアイディアは、すべてのNLPが推進されています。 場合は、次に該当するNLP本当に何ですか？ もしNLP誰もが、なぜそれをわざわざやっているのですか？ 私は最近、自然言語処理の良い定義のためのフォーラムを要請した。 私は20の異なる定義を得た。 次に、これらの20人がそれぞれの人が正しかったについては、他と口論を開始した。
2番目のポイントに私をもたらしますNLPディプロマミルがある。 トレーニング3-7日施術を生成しません。 1つ'トレーナー'の3週間の研修行って、これまで1つのクライアントを見ずに'認定トレーナー'として指導を始めた。 私はそのような訓練を観察しに行って、それはひどいものだった。 人の作品1400ドルを支払った学生は何も学習した。
結果は、NLPを骨折となっていると使用できなくなるので経験の浅い人々を教えると、順番に、経験の少ないされ、さらに悪いことに実務を生成人を証明することです。
私の最後のポイントを明らかにされるかもしれないがない欲望は、このシステムを変更することです。 NLPはお金を発電機となっている。 トレーニングではない品質のいくつかのトレーナーを除いては。 このようにお金の質が高い場合は低下しているフィールドがより重要になります。
約6年前、私はとてもあなたのような記事を書いた。 私は悪意を持って人々の時間で教えていたに襲われた。 私はマーケティングとは、私の意見を無効に告発された。 私は人のNLPとは、最終的には、火災には、システムの足を入れていると、より高い水準を要求関与しているのは嬉しい。
このコントロールに最善の方法でお金を投票しています。 品質のトレーナーから良いの参照を取得し、人々は良い仕事をしていない公開されます。
ポストクリスが良好です。 たぶん、この時何が起こるか。
トムビッツィーニ
あなたは頭のクリスで、これは、なぜ私は私の後ろにNLPに言えば、物事を好転させるだろうが、私は疑わしいといいけど爪のヒットしました。
こんにちは、クリス
拍手。 非常によく書き込まれます。
これは、古い質問のように、NLPは治療とは？ 一部の人々 'と言うyes'と。 一部の人々 'と言うの'。 一部の人々 'no'に、その後他のすべてとして、もし本当に意味すると言うに行く'yes'と言う。
私はちょっと今のマイケルニールの声を公聴会は、何NLPたまたま私に告げる私は制御できないものです、私はNLPにしている私を停止することができないことの出来事のようにはありませんがNLP ISNの'トンは本当にだいずれにせよ、そして私の幸福も、それの上でハングアップしていません。
（そして、私はそれを上のいずれかに、知的で、観察解説を作っているあなたの幸せをぶら下げていないなら知っている。）
私の個人的な哲学'NLP世界を修正しようとしてのことを忘れることです。 （誰が私を修正することが右のいずれ？）そして、代わりによると、単純に、自分自身の個人的な卓越性を追求するような場合は、NLPとは何か本当に必要かということが真相に迫る-とすることを熱望すること。
素晴らしい記事。
乾杯
こんにちは、クリス
は、そのフィールドについての来ているの混乱をこれと示すいただきありがとうございます。 しかし、私はその信念は、NLP最高のトレーナーの間で合同の欠如という理由だけで避けて開発できる個人が心配です。 NLPだけでなく、価値のあるフィールドに便利なテクニックの長い行ですが、よりわかりやすく、成功を収めると健康、個人の負荷を助けている。 が未熟なトレーナーや実務家とある。 しかし、また、整合性をNLPを使っている本当に素晴らしい人々です。 私の提案は？ クラスの座席予約の前に調査しなさい。 という理由だけでコースを7日または10日である場合は、素材学ぶことはできないことを意味していません。 あなた学ばなかったあなたの分野で大学を知るために必要なすべての？ ときに、あなたの責任はあなたが知っているを取り、その上に展開されているフィールドを入力します。 真実するときにも、あなたは多くを学ぶとは素晴らしい経験を持って訓練機関を選択しています。
乾杯
あなた鋼のボールが
こんにちはクリス
何が起こったの良い分析。 何かが違うことのいずれかの方法はインチキセールスマンバンドワゴン496497ているに便利です。 ことの不幸な副作用の可能性が高いフードは、それらの人より高い基準を要求するのと同じブラシで汚名を着せられる。
それはたぶん、彼らと自分の欲求は、NLPが何を考えて推進するための正規品何を知っていると信じて他の人が複利計算されます。 ため、彼らは無知では、いくつかの成功とは、無知を渡すことができます合同です。
あなたが"NLPが何となっていることはできますか？"私の答えは、それが何であるかとなっていると思います。 志望ではなく、私たちの月並みな砂漠の卓越性のオアシスを作成する可能性が改善すること。 人々が彼らがどこに水が頭の傾向にある砂の疲れてしまう。
ベストwishe
ここで自然言語処理の私の主観的な経験の集大成です（支援）希望：
私は十分にそれの真の形でそれを経験する幸運NLPのトレーニングで私の初めての出会いとして、あなたの記事で説明しますので。 自然言語処理の結果、私の個人やプロの練習では、コアのは、この哲学を持って、私はそれに曲がる、私のクライアントと誰も私について私は何をするか話すことが起こるに渡されると思います。 もし私が研修、他にいくつかの点で私はあえては、私にこのような理解を渡すために続けると言うのベンチャーがあります。
すべての最高の
ニースの記事クリス。
正直noobからのコメント
私は自然言語処理のアイデアの'新しいフォロワー'としては常に私の心の奥がある方法は、他人の練習に多くの多様性と見られると考えられて認める必要がありますが、それらはすべての縫い目は、元の中核となる概念を中心に回転する。
個人的に私は物事のルートを得るようには利益を私に。 私dont誰半分言語を学ぶことができると考え、熟練した翻訳者になることを期待します。
誰がいるに苦しむだけでは、'お客様'。
それは私にそのときのアイデアのメインテーマは人間の心の多様性に対して、そこの意見のdifferencedにバインドされて- 'と同様に治療'NLP前までのようです。
私は私dont Bandlerとグラインダー今何をしているのは知っている、私はあまりにも忙しくて、開始とばかりのスタートから彫刻がある道を歩むしようとして管理する必要があります。
私は自覚してきましたことの一つは、これは宗教ではありません。
存在しない神々の究極の真実の聖杯です。
その探査以上の未知の国へ。
たぶんグラインダー彼を征服しBandlerを探索するにすてきなビーチを必要とする山を発見した。
私は多分いくつかの代わりにその深いジャングルにつながることをしたいと思います。
井戸の場合、パス始まって、あなたが持って生まれていた必要なすべてのツール-歩行を開始します
平和。
ドライブのコメントで、私... OMGによってヒューという音-はい！
。
20時間のオンラインコースでは私のお尻...
こんにちはクリス長いにくい記事では、このストライキ。 指導者として多くの部下についてです。 、革新的なアイデア、新しいコンセプトを考え出す傾向を設定します。 これはまさに、進化され、数年を持ち込んでいるNLPするなど。
私の心にコアの真のままになります。
誰が馬に苦しむされている方法を変更している信者です。
ジルwwは
NLPのエゴと欲望の泥沼に失われてしまったしています。 結局のところ、そのルーツやダイに戻ります。 教えてくれるだけの時間を。 良い記事。
実際、非常に良い記事。 私は非常に多くの"マスター"nlpプラクティショナー、誰が何が彼らをしているかを教えているのはほとんど考えている"トレーナー"は同意することができます。 1週間コース終了の人は、自然言語処理の主人の錯視の多くを作成します。 これは、学習と長年の経験をどのようにNLPの作品と、より多くの年の良いアイデアを得るにマスターするのにかかる。
私は2004年以来、NLP行ってきました。 プラクティショナー、マスタープラクティショナーやトレーナーの訓練を完了している。 しかし、私はまだ自分自身、NLPマスターを呼び出す必要があります。 ようこそNLPと心理学については一の前に他の人々を教え始めることができます学ぶことがたくさんある。
のみので、私には列車は少ないだろうが、世界で今日存在するすべてのトレーニングのうち、あるている。
クリス、あなたの分野について、優れたサマリーてきた。 おそらく、それを私たちには、 -の後にBandler＆グラインダーの世代はそれについて何かをする。
非常に、クリス考えさせられる。
前に、私はNLPに入った、私はフェルデンクライスプラクティショナーになるため訓練を受けていた。 そのときにモシェフェルデンクライス彼の人生の終わりに近づいていたという噂が、彼は個別には、彼が彼の仕事を遂行する1つのことを望んでいた信者の数と語った。 それぞれのユーザーと、その後政治的な争いの冠が与えられてしたい人などさまざまな方向に、彼らはやっている、または興味のある同様にされた他のものと彼の仕事となると続いた感じは、扱いにくい名前と欠如と同じ問題です定義は、研究のための/練習/哲学。
何が必要になることが、国際連盟は-標準を設定するトレーニング、有意義な資格を開発運営体を評価する。 場合は、訓練IFNLPによって認定されたそれから1つを知っている。 しかし、それは人々にステップアップし、仕事を喜んでいる必要があります。 ほとんどのNLP'rsもっと自分のことをやってに興味を持っています。 そして、ほとんどのではなく、ライセンス料や会費は必然的結果とを避けるだろう。 IASHいくつかのこれらの非常に問題が発生している。
そこの名前には商標ですので、誰でも利用可能だ。 が適切なキャリアパスの何の説明なので、それを善意の学生たちは砂利がハングアップし、ビジネスの直後には1週間の訓練を経てきましたに入るスキルを得ているはずだしやすいのだ。
そのため、正確にセラピストがいくつかのB＆Gは、その治療法と混同されているモデルの最初の人々が可能です。 セラピスト、医療従事者やカウンセラーは確かにスキルと彼らは核兵器のことを学んだ技術を追加するので、それがあいまいさは理解できるが奨励される。
ずっと考えています。 自分の考えを明確、この議論を促すためのありがとう。
こんにちは、クリス
まず、素晴らしい記事では、実際にそれを楽しんだ。 はい、あなたのポイントには非常にジューシーかつエレガントな方法の多くは、触れられていないと炎の迫害短いまま、あなたが言うとおりの場合は、そこから生計を立てて...でも、あなたが言うとおり、誰かがこんなことを言う必要があります。
私は自分の実現の推測ではあるものの、主に* 1 nlpに*と言う、新しいと一緒に非常に強力で便利なテクニックの1トンをもたらすが、何もされ、自宅の原材料撮影のような爆発と一緒にボイラーに混ぜて作られ家（）は、影響されているしゃれ失礼します。
はい、人々のかどうかを誰かが訓練の7日後にプラクティショナー自己呼び出すことができるという信念を質問。 もちろん、彼らができます！ それを信じている。 右？ そして世界は非常に迅速に決定します。 すべての場合、結婚したり、赤ちゃんがいるので、それは悪いことができない証明書は必要ありませんした。
私の経験で、あなたの（）は、トレーナーとしての評判を感知すべてであるため、どちらかは非常に良いトレーナーいるか、裁判所には、逆に話すのを止めるに全員をもたらす。 うーん..についてだと思う瞬間です。 これには、公開を決定するの末尾が。 とは愚か者と彼らのお金を簡単にpartedをされます。
人々は、を参照して、これらはすべて、私たちは最初の人々素材行列の販売が、私たちは、ビットのうちなので、より抽象的なまでの移動-成功の約束を聞かせ把握して、あなたにぴったりのモデルが必要です幸福の約束を求めるは、右の"ノウハウ"。 問題のオーバーロードされます：この日および年齢では、任意の情報へのアクセスを得ることができるボタンをクリックするだけでは、任意の知識、（そしておそらく、クレジットカード番号など）が、そのすべてのボタンを押しれますので、やっ具体的な質問です：
）は、それを処理できますか？ NLPは、成功することになるということだけは、お客様の成果を達成するために、柔軟性と選択肢を持つことができます。
一方、大規模な自我の開発b）もし、自分の卓越性のモデルをインストールし、モデルを行動に移す、その後、別のfascadeを介して（まで）してあなたの危険を冒すかそれがマスターの思いやりに免疫になると、親切に行動している？ すなわちnlpすべての時間を動作します。 右？ ので、間違ったことはできません！ おっと。
℃）のエネルギーの観点から、nlp主に第三のチャクラには、第六チャクラは、フォーカスの多くの心には仕事との意味の作品はパワー。 ここでの問題は、nlp人の壁と彼らの生活の多くのための開かれた可能性があります障壁を取り壊すことができるので、これは、可能性がない限り、どこかにこのチャネルには、私たちは再び自我に疑問を呈し、再度ている多くのリリースすることができます。 私はよく、実際には、（非常に）小さなnlpコミュニティに非常に多くの人がお互いに話をしないことについて考えている。 何が欠けている？ おそらく同情。 知らんよ。 の価値は私の2セント。
だから、私は何かを詳細に中心に進化していくが、今後の中心nlpね。 ああ、うん、これはと呼ばれる人間。
）
投稿いただきありがとうございます！
@ cityguyyoga。
私はあなたのわかりやすいようにすると称賛*情熱*あなたに同意する。
ジョン研削盤で"風の中の"ウィスパリングため、我々の間に"NLP"、"NLPのアプリケーション"とモデルを区別するために失敗には、より広い世界でNLPについての混乱が存在すると主張する"NLPトレーニング"。 彼は示唆してユニークな貢献は、Bandlerと彼が作った行動のモデル化の具体的手法であり、これは、しばしば、私たちが自然言語処理の任意の定義の中心にする必要がありますかの側面見落とされていました。
私は同意する、しかし私は、主観的な経験は、4組のモデルは、かなり多くのマジックのオリジナルの"構造"も、パラダイムの次に認知行動科学の新たなフィールドであるへの貢献をシフトされて以来見落としを追加します。
他のすべてが我々を学ぶとNLPで教える"されて発見された"と数千年の教え-クロウリー、パタンジャリまたは任意の他の"魔法の研究をできるだけ早く明確にする"システムです。 これは当然のことだ。 後にすべての人間の主観的な経験に学び私たちです。
我々は環境、Bandlerと研削盤のすべての製品が含まれます。 NLP学問、認知心理学の分野のほんの一部になっている可能性が：しかし、70年代初期にカリフォルニア州では、nascenceは自分の選択が授業を商業化するためのトレーニングを通じて伝送など多くの共通点の多レベルのマーケティングをして意味していると"カルト"が発生したグループとして学界としています。
偉大なポストクリス。 私は、この法律において"NLP"と、そのような信念を持って何かを知っているふりを停止するの使用を停止する必要がありますほとんどの人が数える。 さらに、共同以来、クリエイターが何であるかは、運命だ... ...運命*こぶしを怒っている老人の方法で、*.握手を教えて私は同意することはできません
私は"成功"と考えるだろうという点では、されていませんがNLPの多くのsuccesfull人。 私は、人々は1000人をNLPのトレーニングを行ったポンドの、数百を得る人は本当に素晴らしいそれぞれの専門分野でやっていた一部の人に会ったことは仕事を辞めて、現在はTwitterの上でフワフワしたメッセージを投稿を囲んで座る... ...だが、少なくとも彼ら'再ハッピー。
そこには人もNLPから行っていないが、ではないが人のトレーニングを取り、自分自身NLPersコールの人々の番号が与えられ、そこの、その生活をより今まで以上に吸うように見える人々の釣り合い番号です。
NLP、素晴らしいことができる可能性の世界全体を開くことができます。 LSDのちょうど60のように1000年代の人々の心を開いた。 問題は、LSDのように、それは、人々のスマートなる物質そのものではない、それはどのように使用されます。
を使用してNLPを得る賢く素晴らしいです。 言い訳としてdumberするNLPを使用してstoopidです。
もし私が以前のコメントに追加することがあります...
問題にもかかわらず、私はまだファンだ。 （私は確認するのはあまりにも）私はまだNLPのスキルやアイデアの壮大なセットを表すと考え、ほとんどだ。 私はやはり人々に役立つと思います。 と私はまだそれは良いアイデア、より多くの人が魔法を支援するためだと思う。
聞かせ自分自身をオフNLPを殺すではない。 どのように起こる/'にNLP世界'、我々はまだ、すべての個人的には最高の大使のために私たちができることを切望することができます。 それが私の目指している。
乾杯
良い点をよくなされたクリスは、私はあなたのNLP分野で多くの他のエコーだと思う。 しかし、私はすぐに起こるかもしれない何を思うかわからない... ... .. 個人的に私はそれをuptoされ、個々のNLP実践者、トレーナーなどのブランドのいくつかの責任を取ると通信するための残りの部分の教育だと思う。
効果的なNLP'erされての最初のルールは、NLPを使用し言及されていません。 すべてのビジネスコンサルタント、NLPを使用する場合はNLP言及には、契約を失う知っている。 これは、否定的な意味合いと、独自の境界線の外からは信頼性を持つブランドの汚れている。
それができないそれが何となっている？ 何歳の処女マリアでしたか？
それが何だったし、それが何です。 1つの期待は同じままですか、時間をかけて、次に発生している1つの期待かどうかが満たされている変更を受け入れている。 私の経験では、人々は一般的に彼らのニーズを満たすために移動します。 もし人が自分の欲望を癒やすため豊富な迅速な、良い、催眠術をかけるかを感じるが、特定の塾やトレーナーとして注目され、そのソースに向かって移動感心している治療的救済は、市場に誘惑を取得するNLP必要があります。 根本的に、我々のすべてのそれには_________です（記入は空白）。 かどうかの知識や技術のアプリケーションを当社のプロ生活で、またはお役立つかどうかは、他人の列車の人たち、または提供するかどうかを作成しても一般の状態maintaing -され、そのすべてについての生活の中で誰かを支援するコースのための補償金を受け取る肯定的な結果。 者と私は別の主観的な経験を評価するのですか？ 私はその経験を自然言語処理のtechinquesを使用して測定することができる場合があります。 私もはずがないので、願望を変更することができる場合があります。
私も、この構造体は、主観的な経験のモデリング、に焦点を当てるが、私の好みです。 私の経験では、多くの人が実際にはどのように物事の仕組み気にしない、彼らは簡単にしたい：私を行うには、特定の結果を得るための3つの手順を与える。 あなたが本当にピストンリングのトルクと車の中では、燃料の注入速度、またはあなたが知っているだけでは、キーと駐車ブレーキに位置しているかを知りたいか？
これは何NLPされたか、あるべきではない私の意見では、しかし、物事は何かあります。 私たちは、即座に満足の時代に、私たちはドライブで、マウスボタン、または食品のクリックして情報を得るのライブも2.38分にあるレストラン。 一般的に、NLPの訓練、今日私たちの社会の中で起こっている反映されます。 なぜかは、驚き誰？ 場合は、菜食主義のレストランに行く菜食主義者です。 場合は、自分自身（または、人の良い調理されている友人を見つけるのは準備の時間を費やす）は、良い食事をします。 我々は通常我々が望んを取得します。 良いビジネスマンが望むものを人々ができます。 私は個人的な意見を持つNLP市場を比較するために、公正とは思わない-ので、すべてのカエルは自身の池を賞賛する。
我々が何であるかに対処する訓練を受けています。 我々はそのようにする必要はありません。 私たちは""方程式とプロセスに焦点を当てるのうち、コンテンツのままにする訓練を受けています。 しかし、問題は、私がコンテンツを超えて取得され、プロセスに焦点を当てたとの闘争で多くの闘争は、何を私の頭は、私自身の主観で、さんとは、世界はそこにあるの実現を残し。
いったい何が問題ですか？
私の仲間が、聖母マリアの年齢、宗教ではないがどうでもいい。 何が何と続いては、どのようになっており、1つのrealtionのである事項。
@匿名：
はい、あなたの右-あなたの人々のため"のいくつかの契約の緩いことができます"NLPについては恐れている。 たびに、i"は"このような契約を私は失うことの後に話す機会をTorを得たチャンスに指示すると、プロのNLPそれについては、"知識"とは異なることを示していた。 これらの"10日"またはフルNLP教えて"あなたの人生を変更すると5日間のすべての世界の問題を解決"を提供して問題と私はしばしばこれらの人々 "の話を参照している彼らの"NLPとbiiiig $ $ -標識の両方で目！ これは、プロのNLPの教師やトレーナー不名誉！ Here in Europe we have a saying: ” With a master certificate you may call yourself a master, but it needs aa whole pile of hard work to be one!” And this is so true in the field of NLP…
This is a timely read and makes so much sense to me, however isn't it true that when any idea or set of ideas become successful people want to step up onto the bandwagon, hoping to be carried along in the flow, and like many good students in time, they often outshine their mentors and teachers.
This should be a good thing because it develops ideas further and there will always be some that use this as a vehicle to promote themselves without the underlying understanding or ability to be great or even very good in some cases.
This fractionation has happened in so many fields, but without it and without some of the egos, there would not be the growth necessary to push the envelope of understanding.
It is possible to make a living from using these skills in therapy, but you cannot hope to make large sums of money unless you become a trainer and offer certification for cash, however good the training is.
So I will continue to search for training that is relevant to my own beliefs and which add something of value to the way that I practice NLP or whatever you would like to call it.
NLP is whatever you find it to be depending where you look and who you are.
Dani Dennington
The accrediting organisations are commercial, it's in their interest to push through as many certificates as possible even if people aren't up to scratch. NLP has become a cash cow and unfortunately it's too late to turn back time.
I am, happily, a 1st generation “NLPer”, trained by Dr. Bandler, and certified and licensed by The Society of NLP. Of which not many people even know about. It is an attempt by Bandler and John & Kathy LaValle to maintain the highest standards in the NLP and DHE community, by having members get re-certified and re-licensed, pepetually, within a 2 year period of any previous re-certifications and re-licensings.
My opinion, if they ain't been trained by the master, or any other Master NLP Trainer, “stay clear!”.
Dr. Richard Bandler has said of Joe Vanore: “he KNOWS NLP!!” I am thankful for having such a good reputation in the industry.
By the way, Richard's own story when stopped by a police officer for some traffic violation, was asked what his occupation was, looking down on the seat seeing books on Neurology, Linguistis, and Computer Programming, said: “I'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. ですよね？
I suppose that both Bandler and Grinder might have had 'off days' and let a few less than adequate students slip through their nets… no, that's not possible, surely.
So, in that case, we can rely on the principles and tools of NLP to naturally water down through the generations, and develop in new interesting ways (thank you Robert Dilts for the wonderful Intavision exercise, for example), making new turns, creating new possibilities and new pathways, as it continues to grow through the ages – just like language does.
So, I am confident that NLP is not what it was at the beginning, nor what it was when Bandler and Grinder found new possibilities and added them, nor what what it was when they separated and went their own ways, nor what it was last year, nor what it was last week.
I am confident that NLP is as subjective a thing, now, as it was back then. It's just that more people are speaking that word and defining what it means and using the principles, attitudes, skills and techniques, in equally subjective ways.
And maybe it's not so much a question of how it SHOULD be, but more a question of: I wonder what it might bring forth in this world in 50 years' time? I wonder who might have the next extraordinary idea, maybe as a result of these wonderful contributions already made? I wonder who might already be developing something extraordinary right now, as I write this?
Best wishes,
David Rose
Very well said Chris.
All very well, but who's going to take notice of B&G even if they get up from their bath chairs and shake a fist at those meddling kids?
Their misbegotten offspring include Tony Robbins, Paul McKenna, Chris Howard, Tad James and Robert Dilts, and I'm suspecting none of those gents got where they are by modelling humility.
So, let's look at things another way. Never mind what those three letters stand for, or stood for. Concentrate instead on what people are doing with them now. Which is easier said than done, sadly, since there's a plethora of shit out there and it can take a long while to come across the genuine article.
But it exists. It's hard to do this bit without sounding doctrinaire, and I can of course only go by my own experience, but there's a world of difference between the instant fix-it BS offered by most in the market, and the kind of generative, multilayered experience that you'll receive by training with…and here's where things get contentious folks…Eric Robbie, Gabe Guererro, Ron Perry and Michael Breen.
Those are the folks who get my vote for movers and shakers, and it's interesting to see what they're up to. Gabe is taking a tip from those who muddled and meddled with the legacy of Feldenkrais and creating his own broader and deeper take on things neurolinguistic, without reference to those three bloody letters. And he's arguably doing a better job than B&G themselves ever did by creating a learning experience for students which includes immersion in the disciplines which led NLP's founders to come up with the field.
Also note: the certification business is a tragic farce. Trainings were initially 20-some days purely because of American legal requirements for training therapists. Not because that's how long it took, or takes, to train someone in NLP. Equally, the seevn day course is a phenomenon created by McKenna Breen based on market research, which sure enough revolutionised NLP training and rattled some very rusty cages, but also unleashed a competitive free-for-all that's led to diminished quality over the years, every pisspoor training coming complete with its own certifying organisation to recommend it.
解決法は？ 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
イボンヌ
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.
確かに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.
乾杯、
Craig
Hey Chris!
To me, I think Eric Robbie nails it best in his profile description on nlpconnections…
…”I like doing NLP”
To me – key word: “doing”
What's that old anecdote about Eskimos having a zillion different words for snow…
…imagine the arguments and misunderstanding that would occur if they had just the one word!!??
Thanks for the comeback Chris. I now think I know you a little better, since you asserted who you are. I appreciate and respect that. I met Da “Man” back in'92 at a Communications Hypnotic Ideation Course Richard was teaching at the Top Gun school in San Diego Holiday Inn. I participated in many many many many of his certifying and licensing cources since then. I just wrote an intro to Meisam S. Delavar's books “Basic priciples of NLP; NLP in Cognative Approach vol 1 & NLP in Behavioral Approch vol 2″.
The last paragraph: “Welcome to the adventures of your life never being the same again. 'Hats off” to Meisam and all the developers and continuing developers of NLP. A community dedicated to 'YOU'.”
Though all referrential constructs, I feel that with the Pot Pouri of NLP material available – …people in all walks of life can effectuate immediate and permanent dramatic change to enrich their lives and make the world a better place to live in.
Bon Vivant
I feel very touched by your article Chris. I trained with McKenna Breen in 1998-2000 but feel nowadays the field has become a joke. The skills are useful but how many people these days get the skills? All I see from people now is confidence. Confidence about what, that is the question? I feel Bandler has sold out. Maybe Grinder too, I'm not so sure about that side. It's very sad to see.
I trained with McKenna Breen before it all went crazy and, like others have said, I use my skills but I don't ever tell people I do NLP. The image of NLP is more horrible than dog poo! Why would I want to be associated with that?
Just to add my voice to the crowd, I really agree with this.
Chris, I must admit, I disagree with the idea that you're currently advocating. I believe the confusion arises from whether NLP is a brand name or a field of study. Naturally, it can be both, but we don't usually consider computer science a brand name, do we?
Bandler and Grinder have given the world a set of tools and methodologies that is proving to be the foundation for the next generation of communication and development. That's fantastic. However, though they may be the Creators of NLP, they are not the Leaders. That's an important difference, because as near as I can tell, fields of study don't have leaders, they have developers.
What good would leaders be to us, now, anyway? What purpose would they serve? As NLPers, we know damn well that the techniques taught in trainings are only pointers, directing us towards the deeper truths that allow us to generate new techniques, to discover new patterns. Bandler has always been very vocal about prohibiting the standardization of NLP. Though this has perhaps kept NLP out of academia for too long, it has also allowed for the kind of exponential, albeit covert, growth that's the reason we're all here.
Don't you agree that the fact that NLP is presented in so many ways, as a method of self-improvement, persuasion, therapy, business structure, spiritual practice, and communication technology, is logical, natural, and important because it's true??? NLP can do all of these things and more, so for that particular purpose, we should consider encouraging this fractionation. That way, as people descend into the quicksand of NLP, they will be overjoyed to discover even more ways that they can put the technology to use.
Hi Chris
Interesting debate you have breathed life into. I feel that the way NLP is currently heading on the GPS-limo, NLP is on a crash course with no where else to go? Looking through the adverts in some NLP related publications worries me. This plethora of new Trainers coming through the ranks armed with Powerpoint slides and certificates ready signed for new comers after 7 days (or less) of training is a sure indication that unless some pretty radical action happens, NLP will have been consigned to the incurables section of the hospital before it has had the chance to cure itself. The cure being to understand exactly what you were saying in your blog, the study of subjective experience.
I'm in a very interesting position. I'm currently working with John Grinder on what he told me is the most exciting modelling project he has worked on to date.
(Considering he modelled Erickson that was a bit of a WOW).
The reason he is so gripped by this project is that no one has attempted to do what I am doing at the level that I'm doing it.
His words were,” I'm hoping and believe that we might have some new discoveries coming out of it that will be fresh to NLP”. This is why he is backing me over the next three years for its hopeful conclusion? We will have to wait and see? The evidence will be supported by multi-media technology so here goes.
I agree that something needs to happen to NLP ASAP to create some credibility and authenticity across the wide range of possibilities that NLP could benefit the human race. The 'something' I would suggest is 'Congruency' of it's Practitioners.
Peter Salisbury
As you promote both of them and are therefore part of the problem, what do you hope to achieve by this rocking the boat?
Personally I rather like the current state of nlp, if you want good you can find it, if you want bad you can find it, the responsibility remains with you.
I am very pleased that nlp has spread globally and quickly and this benefit to the world can be attributed to the creators whoever you think they are.
The world has benefited from nlp, a similar example is the case of craniosacral work which Sutherland (the founder) said should remain in the osteopathic community, well it escaped and the world has benefited (altho people can always find counterexamples). Compare this to the Trager work which has attempted to keep its work pure . By doing this it has not spread and created benefits even though it is a highly effective form of bodywork. In my a opinion a loose form of leadership is better than tight control any day, I value freedom.
About trainings becoming moneymaking treadmills …well this is more the result of the capitalist world that we live in(with its emphasis on short term ecology and and applications approach….certainly an area that can be readdressed by nlp in the corporate world)
What I personally value in a training is the continuing connection with the unconscious process and the money is another issue.
Incidently many of the so called changes that are being called for by Grinder and others were actually stated in many of the earlier books such as the structures of magic , trancermations etc etc (emphasis on process/ exploration rather than application). However it is good to to have them updated and stated more explicitly.
I think a useful question to ask is ' Have i benefited from nlp and do i continue to do so?'
ABSOLUTELY AGREE! I have felt this for ages and not seen it reflected back. Good to see a debate emerging.
I feel a lot of people have been very wounded by modern NLP. The McKenna operation while it helped a lot of people was a commercial engine and I feel some of the most vulnerable people who went to them for help ended up in a lot of debt after so many trainings they didn't need. I feel this was a shameful period in NLP's history and though it is over it has left a legacy because many of those students are now trainers themselves and repeating the cycle.
It's a big mess Chris, and thank you for shining some light.
As I read again the article and the responses, it seems to me it all boils down to basically four things:
1。 No universally agreed definition of NLP.
2。 No universally agreed 'scope' for what is NLP, and therefore what an NLP programme should teach.
3。 No single leadership, leading the direction in which NLP changes and continues to develop.
4。 Variable quality of trained people.
Or, more simply, it's splintered and uncontrolled.
(I don't agree that the problems are specifically 'the commercialisation of NLP', 'introduction of 7-day trainings', etc. I think those are abstractions of the problems based on people's personal beliefs. Forgive me, it's just what I think and I'm aware I could be wrong.)
So far, the debate has been mostly been on a problem-oriented track, which is fine as a stage to go through. Now I'm wondering, what's the solution-oriented track?
It's worth asking ourselves, are there any positive by-products of the way things are? Well, one is that it means the field is not stilted. It means there's personal freedom within the field. Would we want to lose those things?
As for the addressing problems themselves…
Well, it seems to me we can't force everyone to have a common definition of NLP.
Some working group could work to agree and define a common scope, but then you're still going to have camps, such as your 'Logical Levels are NLP' and 'Logical Levels are not NLP' camps.
We could ask Bandler, Grinder, et al, to submit to just one of them being leader. Or co-operate as a leadership collective. Yeah, right! We know that's not going to happen.
And as for quality, well we could create a society and publish and enforce standards. But that's been done before and it hasn't fixed things.
The best things we can do for NLP lie somewhere else, I think.
I'm sure we'd agree that trying to “fix NLP” based on changing what other people/groups think and do is a not-well-formed outcome. Whatever one might do to attempt to control it (like the things I mention above) would seem to just create more of the behaviour we're defining as the problem (splintering).
I can't help thinking the well-formed equivalent is for us to simply lead from within, by taking responsibility for our own behaviours, our own quality, spread the word to others, influence others to take the same level of responsibility, help others and be as good an ambassador as we can.
Just my added thoughts.
乾杯
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?
親切な点
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…
シャンタル
クリス
In my subjective experience money is the key element in driving NLP to where it is at! Those who master the skill see it as a way to take huge amounts of money from gullable, deperate or indeed greedy people!
great article.i was also confused about it.thanks you helped to clarify it a little bit.
Hi Chris,
I think you are making an interesting point here. And there are many interesting comments above.
My subjective opinion (!) is that I am not sure I am very concerned about the name – the nominalisation – itself. I think the outcome, the skills, the better, happier, more effective and productive lives are more important. What I learnt from my NLP teachers has got me through some of the hardest most challenging times in my life and I have been able to help others with the techniques and attitudes too.
But you make many good points.
And you have been brave saying this. Why not take it one step further and ask Richard his view on this, on nlpteleclass.com? You will have an opportunity to do so. Or as I am the interviewer who will convey the questions, would you like me to ask him for you? I am brave too!
love from Laura
Great article Chris, with some very thought provoking points. A great deal of the problem, as you say, lies in the assumption that the skills modelled using NLP somehow become part of NLP.
I once saw it elegantly – if somewhat 'tongue-in-cheekedly' – summed up in a reply on a forum where someone had asked for an NLP cure for headaches. One of the replies went along the lines of “NLP says find someone who has the skill you want and copy it. When I have a headache I take aspirin and it goes. So there you are: the NLP cure for headache is take two aspirin 4 times a day.”
When I explain NLP to my students I compare the science and art we call “NLP” itself to a language, for example French. The models are like books written in French. They are not part of the language itself, just things that people have produced using the language. You can take one of those books and read it to yourself or to someone else, and it will have an effect: pictures in the mind, sounds, feelings, etc. The exact pictures, sounds, feelings, etc. someone will create are dictated largely by the content of the book (how scenes are described, which characters and locations are included, etc.) and how you read it (which is where the art comes in). Most people seem to relate to that.
I now only use the nominalisation NLP in course titles that lead to certification, and I'm in the process of removing it from our website from all but the certification courses. When I talk to corporate clients, they don't care if I'm teaching NLP or knitting – as long as the course produces the change and the results that they want.
But what do we do about fragmentation? I don't think a single global body is the answer. There would be too much infighting, and then a few splits, and we'd be back where we started (gosh, how about that for an interesting set of beliefs? And what am I projecting there? Eek!)
A good first step would be to define what exactly a “Practitioner” of NLP is. If NLP is 'just' SSE, then practitioners are surely just observers and cataloguers – as I suspect the founders of NLP in many ways were at the start; their application of what they observed was probably done primarily to prove their hypotheses and test what they were modelling. Helping people was a bonus. Hell, they were academics!
At the other end of the spectrum is the view (evident in many NLP trainings) that the practitioner's role is to have a toolkit of pre-packed models and to be able to pick the right one forthe job (or force it if needs be). NLP courses then become little more than an environment for people to practice the models, and they could ahve got it all by reading a book.
To me, the practitioner's role to create change in their client by understanding their model of the world, designing a better one, and finding a way to shift the client from one to the other. That in turn implies that there is a core body of skills which the practitioner needs to learn, and which could be set out as the basic syllabus which would allow for cross-recognition of qualifications. In essence, we need to define what elements of the language need to be taught at Prac and at Master Prac (like deciding what vocab and grammar need to be taught for school exams in French and then for a degree).
If a trainer chooses to add specific models (a reading list of French literature, to continue the analogy) to their course to save students from having to reinvent the wheel, and most importantly to provide good examples for them to study, that's their choice. But the core skills need to be taught.
Speaking metaphorically again, it reminds me of the way that traditional craftsmen would carry a tool box but also, for special jobs, they had the skills to take a few items of raw material – wood and metal – and create any tool they needed specifically for the circumstances. We need to be turning out craftsmen, not assembly line robots.
As for the problem of inexperienced teachers, NLP could learn (model?) a lot from other professions. Mentoring of new trainers by more experienced ones springs to mind. We could even set up a system where the first few courses or students had to be countersigned by a mentor, or at least a sample checked (I can hear the gasps of horror already). CPD for trainers would be another great step forwards – and one that is missing in many associations.
Then what about people going out and setting up as practitioners with only a week of training? It's hard in an “unregulated” field like NLP. But many unregulated professions have cleaned up their act with voluntary standards and codes. Few individual schools would put hurdles in the way of potential students, because 90% of them will go to a school that makes it easier to pass. But what if there was a professional body for NLP practitioners that students could join afterwards, which insisted on CPD, awarded recognition for hours of client-work delivered, had a proper code of ethics and complaints procedure,… OMG I seem to be suggesting that we become self regulating? That sounds like the start of a slippery slope towards regulation itself. Of course then we have the task of creating public awareness of the register – which means money, and therefore registration fees.
However, I think the hardest obstacle to overcome is many trainers' fear of not certifying someone. I quite often ask students to repeat part of their assessment if I don't think they've met the standard I expect. At the end of the day I am the one signing the certificate, and I have to be happy putting my name – and my reputation – on the line. I also *invite* students to maintain a learning log after their training to record all that 'unconscious integration'. I have spoken to trainers who feel that because a student has paid for certification they can't fail them. At the same time I'm sure there are trainers out there who are even more stringent than I am. Again, the answer seems to be external assessment, but trainers may resist the idea of having to pay someone to come and test (and potentially fail) their students!
This is such a wide-ranging discussion that I'm going to stop there (mostly because I just realised it's 4am!), but it is a fascinating one. Thanks for opening it up!
Rob
Hello and Nice one Chris
I agree with your statements and myself see a great opportunity, with so many 'qualified (only one quote I think so as to avoid judging?) NLPers, to access the fruits of trial and error /success and find what has been working. With so much data, maybe those who value quality can reverse engineer.. ok maybe with a new, more user friendly,brand name? Spelling out NLP (no not the letters silly!) must be one of the all time greatest inductions?
Hi Chris,
It strikes me that the confusion at the heart of NLP stems from the very way that it is presented, especially by the people who started it all.
Richard Bandler, during his practitioner and master prac courses fills his teaching time with stories and anecdotes about how NLP started. It all seems very clear. Bandler had spare time at Uni and started to read psychology books. He then asked which therapies worked. The answer was very few. He then went along to watch Satir and Perls doing their things. He found elements that they were doing which seemed to have the same structure. He went to Grinder. Grinder intoduced transformational grammar to the equation. The Meta Model was born and The Structure of Magic written.
Having read Magic 1 and 2, it is clear that this book is really devised as a manual for therapists. NLP is not mentioned – but the whole idea is that what Bandler and Grinder are doing is finding effective therapy.
Then comes Patterns 1 and 2. Once again, Bandler and Grinder try to work out how a therapist – Erickson – is doing what he is doing. Now the Milton Model is defined, which is the inverse Meta Model. Somewhere in Patterns 2, the term NLP is used. The whole book is once again dedicated to uncovering how therapy is done – and that seems to be the primary objective of the work of the two men at this time.
It's as if the two men stumble upon a process they later call “NLP modelling” while trying to work out why Satir, Perls and Erickson are doing their things. So, the first books and the subsequent volumes: Frogs into Princes, Trance-formations, Using Your Brain for A Change, Magic in Action, Reframing etc – are all books which are focussed on therapy.
The idea of modelling non-therapists appears, to the outside observer, to be something which is grafted on later. Indeed, modelling itself appears to be a later addition to the discourse. The two men's initial desire to uncover and make explicit specific techniques that are used in therapy appears to be the initial driver for the field that they later called NLP.
This, I think is at the heart of the confusion. That NLP really did start off as a therapy-based discipline, and then started to expand to different areas. In this reading of the history of NLP, it is the therapy based NLP which is the “true” or “original” form of NLP, and later additions are an extension of the processes the two men used in order to work out what Satir, Perls and Erickson were up to. Whether this is empirically true is not really important – it is most certainly the impression that Bandler gives.
It is interesting to note, at Bandler seminars, that his repeated use of stories from the therapeutic world are often challenged by bewildered business-people, who see no use for the stories they are being told. The DVDs of Persuasion Engineering also show this “therapy bias” in the way information is presented.
With one very strong strand of NLP essentially presenting NLP as a means of therapy, while the other, Grinder, is on record as stating that the primary function of NLP is modelling excellent behaviours at the conscious and unconscious levels, it is no surprising that NLP has something of an identity crisis.
My own view is that you learn from as many people as you can, and you piece together a NLP that works for you. Perhaps its strength is that it is ultimately malleable and adaptable – and that learning the NLP ethos teaches you to just be more open to new ideas than you ever were before. That in itself is something that a lot of people could do with learning in this world!
I still belive there are a lot of people out there that have a good knowledge of NLP and it's use. I salute all of them and their endavour to maintain the legacy of NLP.
On the other hand why are we surprised… every science, religion, and concept which had perspectives was twisted and turned to man's intrests… I am pretty sure Jesus or … Read MoreMohamed never ment for people to get killed in the name of their teaching… yet here we are facing people who belive there are virgins waiting for them in heaven if they kill “non-belivers”.
Hopefully we will learn from this too and move on to a higher understanding.
Daily I am bombarded with spam adverts for mobile phones. Inundated by vendors explaining why there mobile phone is better than another. Swamping me with features that make their product the best on the market. All offering the same sort of things but with the twist of a bespoke name exclusive to that phone, words that have been invented to make them sound more important than they really are, HI-TECH to appease a market hungry for high falutin scientific names. But at the end of the day, a tool for telecommunication that is small enough to be transported on your person and used anywhere is a mobile phone. A way of communicating, that will be constantly developed, with improvements, elements that will be superseded, technologies becoming redundant as newer and better technologies are developed. Companies may fall as the market competes those brands that are household names may fall by the wayside and brands combine to fight for the lions share. In the end there may be one or two survivors, the big brands as it were, however they will dealing in devices that communicate. Even with the telephone itself, there is argument to who invented it Elisha Gray or Alexander Graham Bell, which was followed by a legal battle. Whoever or whatever has been lost in the annuls of history. Who develops it and takes it forward poses a bigger question. Where it goes from here is what intrigues me most. How far this model of communication can be taken is a question I ask myself daily, what can I do to develop it, what possibilities can I explore. For eventually when the market leaders go to the big communication hall of fame in the sky what will we be left with. Something or nothing? Personally I can't wait for that long to see if there is nothing, so intend to something about it.
This is the iPhone developer forum isn't it??????
コメントを残す