NLP 수 있습니까 어떻게 변해 가고있는가?
아마존 대부분의 베스트 셀러 원래 제작자와 현장의 개발자를 못 만난 사람에 의해 작성되었으며 동의하지 않는 NLP에 대해 500 개 이상의 책들이있습니다. 이 문서는 질문입니다 : NLP가 어떻게 변해 가고있는 수있는가?
신경 언어 프로그래밍 (NLP)는이 연구의 특이한 필드에 대한 이름을 다루기 - 아니면 - 주관적 경험의 구조에 대해서입니다. 왜 우리의 마음과 세상이 우리의 경험을 만들어 몸해야합니까? 그리고 확장에 의해, 우리가 세계의 다른 사람의 경험에 영향을하려면 어떻게해야합니까?
필드를 원래 작은 연구 그룹의 캘리포니아 대학의 1970 년대에서 자랐어요. 핵심 선수 수학자 리처드 Bandler, 그리고 언어학 교수들은, 닥터 존 그라인더. 그들은 건물 그들이 어떻게 다른 사람의 생각 "모델", 시작 행동과 의사 소통. 그들은 ""전설 hypnotherapist 및 Ericksonian 최면, H 조 밀튼 에릭슨의 아버지를 모델로, 개척 가족 치료사, 버지니아 Satir;와 형태 치료, 프리츠 Perls의 창립자. 비 치료사 매우 성공적인 판매 사람과 협상뿐만 아니라, 많은 "일반 사람들은"자신의 인생에 변화를 만들었 포함되어있습니다. 도마뱀 프로젝트, 예를 들면, 관련 리처드 Bandler 누가 공포증이 더 이상 그것을했다 사용하는 자원 봉사자의 전체 시리즈 모델링. 그는 그들이 "을 잃고"그들의 공포증이 무엇을 했나에 관심이 있었고, 그들이 모두 이상 또는 이하 같은 일을 것을 발견했다. 일단 그 모델이 있었다면, 아마 다른 사람에게 그것을 가르쳐 그리고 아무도 구조 수준에서 같은 일을 할 수 있고 동일한 결과를 얻을 시연했다.
핵심 포인트는 여기에 리차드 기법으로 자신의 모델로 설정되어있습니다. 그는 빠른 치료라는 도마뱀과 그의 NLP 교육 프로그램의 일환으로 그것을 가르쳤다. 그는 말했다 : "NLP 태도 및 방법론이 그 기술의 흔적을 남겨 뒀". 하지만 아주 초기에 이미) NLP 사이에 약간의 혼동 - 주관적 경험의 구조를 연구, 모델링의 프로세스를 사용하여었고, b)는 NLP의 응용 - 자신과 다른 사람에 영향을 기술의 "흔적"을 사용하여.
요즘에는 기술이 거의 다있습니다. 평균 NLP 개업 과정을 좀 더 자신감이 점점 동기 및 결정 기술을 가르칠 것입니다; 신념 변화, 고통을 막을; 중독 결말; 최면 현상을 일으킬 ... 그리고 목록 및갑니다. 폴 멕케나에 유명 얇게하는 방법을 자연스럽게 사람들이 음식에 대해 생각하는 모델로, 그리고 그로 설정되어 최고의 책 판매, 나는 얇은 만들 수있습니다. 그럼 방법을 극도로 부자들이 돈에 대해 생각 - 리차드 브랜슨, 피터 존스, 선생님 필립 그린 스텔 리오스하지, - Ioannou을 포함한 모델 - 그리고 그는 다른 최고의 책 판매에, 나는 당신을 부자로 만들어주지 수 아닙니다. 존 그라인더 모델링 공연에서 우수합니다. 같은 이야기를 반복하고있어 : 알아낼 방법을 누군가 그리고 뭔가 않습니다 / 분유 / 규칙 다른 사람이 같은 일을 얻을 것이다 동일한 결과를 얻을 설정 기법을 만들고 그 모델을 사용할 수있습니다. 이러한 기술은 사람들이 기회를 그들이 원하는 것을 얻을 제공합니다. 그들은 상업적으로 가치가 인기가 많습니다. 폴 멕케나에 다른 사람을 쉽게 액세스할 형식에서 이러한 기술을 공유하여 수백만의 사람들을 도왔다.
그것은 비록 혼란이 될거야. 브랜드로서, NLP 혼란이다. 일부 사람들이이 일을 NLP 당신이 부자로 만들어주지 수라고 들었어요. 기타 거기에 당신이 무게를 잃을 수있습니다 NLP 다이어트 들었어요. 나는 라디오에서 그 NLP 더 많은 자신감이되고 성공적인 방법이 들었어요. 내가 인터넷에서 읽어 NLP에 대한 공포증을 극복합니다.
올린사람 내가 뭘 이해하고 이러한 모든 오해입니다. NLP 주관적 경험의 구조에 대해서입니다. 그것에 대해 인식하는 방법을 터득 및 구조와 상호 작용하는 사람들이 어떻게 생각. 그것은 메타 - 규율. 당신은 "하지만, 많은 것들을 할 기술 NLP의 범위를 정의하지 않으면 기술의"흔적을 사용할 수있습니다.
더 너무 혼란 있어요. 젊은 사람들은 대부분의 그룹과 마찬가지로, 원래의 NLP 제작자 및 개발자들이 사랑하는 마음에서 마감했다. 심지어 일부, 그리고 결혼 후 이혼했다. 35 년, 그들의 대부분은 서로 얘기하지 않습니다. 그리고 엄마와 둘 다 자신의 아기를 아주 많이 사랑하는 아빠, 그들은 매우 다른 양육 스타일을 다른 희망과 꿈이 그것있다.
존 그라인더 뉴 코드 NLP 무엇을 호출, 앞으로 새로운 세대의 물건을 움직일을 개발하고있다. 그것은 용기있는 단계를 앞으로 그의 이전의 아이디어에 대한 논쟁. 그의 책은 바람 있음,하지만 모든 걸 설명해주는 행운을 복사본을 찾는 위스퍼링. 한 500 + NLP 책을 아마존에서 안 나는 책방에서 본적이 없어. 그것은 이베이 최근지만 온 게 £ 50 이상의 입찰가에 대한 나열했다.
리처드 Bandler 너무 자신의 아이디어를 첨단있다 - 좀 더 그렇게 말한 것 - NLP, 정제 및 추가 코어, 많은 기술 submodalities를 추가하고 다른 것들 중에서 디자인 인간 공학 및 신경 최면 Repatterning의 새로운 추가 필드를 개발하고있습니다.
NLP 기수와 함께 두 개의 서로 다른 방향으로 가고 말처럼되고있다. 왜냐하면 각 공동의 창조자 및 몇몇 개발자 트레이너의 일련의 마스터 트레이너와 제자들의 입소문과 기름 부음이 사실은, 그것을 수백, 어쩌면 수천 두사 람의 말처럼 말야. 그리고, 필연적으로, 몇 달 또는 몇 년이 후 이러한 사람들은 그들의 자신의 아이디어를 발견, 그리고 그들은 그들의 자신의 스핀에 추가를 시작합니다. 점차적으로 또는 갑자기, 그들은 NLP의 자신의 버전을 확산 시작합니다.
따라서 핵심 선수 "내 크지롱"이상의 자신의 게임에 의해 정신왔다, 내가 생각하는 논쟁이 이동하고있다. 거기에 높은 의욕 사람 잡는 일종의 NLP 판매하는 새로운 세대의 모든 기적의 치료제. 그것은 종종 긍정적인 생각과 결합의, 매력과 affirmations의 법칙. 내 질문이 있는지 NLP 우리의 집단 의식 어떻게 변해 가고있는가 될 수있다? 누가 NLP 7 일 안에 당신의 삶을 변화시키기위한 방법으로 그것을 알고에 대해 아는 대부분의 사람들은. 대부분의 500 + 도서 성공을위한 전략으로 추진하고있습니다. 하지만 정말입니까?
Bandler 및 그라인더의 선구적인 작업을 패러다임의 변화는 누가 누군지 잘보다는 불행하거나 "정신적으로 아픈") 사람들이 긍정적인 심리학의 개발 - 같은 (공부하는 사람이 뭐하는거야 LED를 - 수백만의 성공에 엄청난 영향을 미쳤습니다 . 난 그들의 창조 여러 가지 방법에 특히 유용하고 체계적인 방법으로 구조 정보를 수집하는 방법이다. 내가 그들을 둘 다에서 직접 간접적으로 배우는 많다. 그들은 둘 다 내 존중하고 그들은 매우 재능 있고 영리한 원래 사람.
하지만 어떻게 그들의 분야의 리더로되어 있나요?
"나를 따르라, 내가 바로 당신 뒤에 있어요."
문제는 그들보다 자신의 학생들에게 더 많은 알려져있습니다. 그것은 TV에서 누가 가야 그들의 학생들이 자신의 책을 서점에 가서 NLP의 자신의 버전을 홍보 웹 사용하고있습니다.
그리고 몇 일간 훈련을 더 이상 없었 이러한 학생들의 많은, 100 클래스에서 빠른 치료 도마뱀 같은 것들을 배우고 + 다른 학생. 종종 그들은 교사가 질문이없습니다 기회가됐다.
이들은 필드의 훌륭한 홍보 대사로 자신을 현재의 사람들이, 그들은 도망가.
나는 누군가에게 Bandler 및 그라인더 그들의 유산을 죽이고있어 필요하다고 생각해. 그들은 둘 다 쉬운 경로를 촬영했습니다. 그들은 둘 다 인정하고 격려 누가 무엇을, 심지어 NLP 기법을 사용해야하는지 전혀 기교 전혀 이해를 가진 사람. 많은 사람들이 밖으로 거기 지금 오해의 소지가 다른 사람과 허위뿐만 아니라 자신과 자신의 고객뿐만 아니라 NLP의 모든 필드를 손상 tarnishing 돈을 횡령있습니다.
그래, 누군가가 그들에게 요구. 하지만 내가이 될 수없습니다. 양쪽 Bandler 및 그라인더 이벤트를 홍보할 수있는 모터로 먹고 살잖아요 나는 아마 유일한 사람. 난 보트를 흔들 않을거야.
71 코멘트
난 그냥 그들에게 같아요.
안녕하세요 크리스,
전 무척 즐거웠 기사를 읽고 - 내가 당신의 절망을 공유할 수있습니다.
내가 CBT는 그 주위의 시간 (인지 심리학 "혁명"이 그 많은 발전, 그리고 나중에 긍정적인 심리학의 움직임, 그리고 훨씬 더 .... 보여 지금 생각해!) 스스로 진화하고 NLP의 새로운 세대의 영향력을 지속적으로 학생 - 기름 부음 (!) - 매우 다른이 leanring 여행.
확실하지 오전 Bandler 및 도움이 될 그라인더 아무것도 - 당신이, 필드에 조각되어있다 -하지만 대신에 ""NLP 교육 하자는 자들 분야에서 활약을 사용 할 말이 반영 말하는 건가요? 자네도 알다시피 그것은, 지금 시작 postgratuate 경기장에서 inpact해야하는 것입니다 - 이미 확실하게 생각을위한 공간입니다!
여담 - 난 당신과 "주관적 경험의 구조 연구"로 정의 오전 NLP - 오직 우리는 지금 너무 이것에 대해 좀 더 알고
다시는 그런 사려깊은 문서를 주셔서 감사합니다!
미리암
크리스, 당신은 내가 지난 14 개월 동안 말한 적 서면에 따로 담아. 난이 주로 중동의 부품 아프리카 동부와 함께 ... 자사의 세계적인 유행병 보이는 질병 인도 afflicting, 줄 알았는데.
그 어디에도 팔 때 ... 지금은 고객의 특정 조합에 그 세 글자를 듣고 NLP 용어를 사용하지 말아 단계에 도달, 그들은 흥미를 잃게됩니다. 만약 내가 뭔가 '진짜 제공하는 일부도 부탁드립니다.
그럼 지금부터, 난 그냥 가서 무엇을 그들이 듣고 ... 그리고 NLP를 사용하여 원하는 걸 말해 (또는 나는 그것의) 나는 변화를 만들 수있는 최고로 뭘 알아.
그것이 수 만나 거기에 정말 뭔가를 누군가가 그것에 대해 할 수있는 무엇입니까? 함께 뭐든의 피치를 준비.
Jagat
안녕하세요 크리스,
잘했다,하지만 난 당신이 내가 그런 정직하고 couragous 기사를 쓰고 당신을 추천 무엇을 작성한와 동의하지 않을 수있습니다.
아마도 많이 일어난 무슨 말을 자사의 주관적인 성격 때문에 미리 정해진 어땠어?
환호,
브라이언
큰 THUMBS 업. 이것은 완벽하게 올라가 내가 무슨 생각을 하죠 그리고 난 당신이 그것을 20 년전에있다면 좋겠는데 그리고 그들은 그 말을 들었다면. 너무 늦었어, NLP 농담입니다.
그리고 문서를 줘서 고마워, 난 NLP에 대한 자세한 학습에 대한 날카로운 안목을 갖고. 난 거기에 너무 많은 부문과 '이내에 혼란을 줄 몰랐어 NLP'.
그래서 당신 (또는 사람)에게서 배울 것이 좋습니다까요? Bandler 또는 그라인더? 또는 둘 다? 그 혼란을 보려면 내 지점에서 추가시겠습니까 그 중 하나를 시작하는가?
감사합니다
닐
잘했다 ... ...하지만 나는 그들이 쉬운 경로를 촬영했는지 아니에요 .... 그것은 밖으로 그들의 방법을 제어 분야 개발 및 NLP이 일어난 유일한 필드 안의
안녕하세요 크리스,
난 당신이 몇 가지 좋은 점을 가져다 같아요.
한 - NLP는 더 이상 좋은 정의하고있다. 아이디어는 모든 NLP이 승진했다. 만약 그게 사실이라면 다음 NLP 정말 없습니까? 만약 여러분이 이미 NLP 그럼 왜 그걸 귀찮게 뭐하는 거죠? 최근 NLP의 좋은 정의를위한 포럼을 물었다. 난 20 개의 다른 정의를 가지고. 그럼 그 20 명이 누구 였는지 서로 다른 권리에 대한 논쟁을 시작했다.
그 두 번째 지점으로 나를 돋보이게 - NLP 졸업장 공장 밖으로 거기. 교육 3-7일 개업을 생성하지 않습니다. 하나는 '트레이너'3 주 '훈련을 가서도 하나의 클라이언트를 보지 않고'공인 트레이너 '로 강의했다. 그런 훈련을 관찰하기 위해 갔었는데 정말 끔찍했습니다. 누가 조각 1,400 달러를 지불한 학생들은 아무것도 학습했다.
그 결과 골절이 될 NLP 및 사용할 수 있기 때문에 당신이 미숙한 사람이 가르침을 차례로 경험이 적은 및 더 나쁜 사람 실무자를 생산 증명해야합니다.
내 마지막 지점을 명확가 될 수도없고 욕망이 시스템을 변경하는 것입니다. NLP 돈을 발전기되고있다. 교육 아닙니다 품질 몇 트레이너 의한 경우를 제외에 대해. 때 많은 돈이 품질을 누른 다음 그 거부에 필드보다 중요 해집니다.
약 6 년 전 나는 매우 당신 같은 기사를 썼다. 나는 사악 사람은 시간을 가르치고 있었 의해 공격을 받았다. 난 그냥 마케팅 및 내 의견을 무효를 주장했다. 제가 그 사람 NLP와 결국 발사 시스템 발을 집어넣는거야 그리고 더 높은 기준을 요구하는 관계입니다 기쁩니다.
이 컨트롤을 위해 최선의 방법은 당신이 돈을 투표하는 것입니다. 품질 트레이너로부터 추천을 받아 좋은 사람 좋은 일을 할 수없습니다 노출될 수있다.
게시물 크리스 좋아. 아마이 시간에 무슨 일이 일어날 것입니다.
톰 Vizzini
당신은 머리가 크리스, 이거 내가 왜 내 뒤에 넣어 NLP, 이런 일들이 주위를 둘러 것입니다하지만 난 의문이야 좋겠 박았네했습니다.
안녕하세요 크리스,
박수. 아주 잘 쓰여진.
그것은 너무도 오래된 질문처럼, NLP 치료가 무엇입니까? 어떤 사람은 '말'예 '. 어떤 사람들은 '아니오'라고. 어떤 사람들은 '아니오'하지만 그 모든 다른 것처럼 그들의 진짜 뜻에 가서 '예'라고.
난 지금 좀 마이클 닐의 목소리를 듣고, 그게 NLP 무슨 일이 생기면 말해 내가 통제할 수없는 무언가이다; 그 NLP에 멈출 수없는 일이 일어나는 일들 좋아하지 않아; 그 NLP 아니네 ' T는 정말 것은 어쨌든, 그리고 내 행복이 언제 그것을 꽉 잡고하지 않습니다.
(그리고 당신이 그것을하거나, 당신은 지능, 관찰 논평을 만들고 있어요 당신의 행복을 매달려도 안해주니까.)
내 개인적인 철학은 'NLP 세상을 고치려고 잊어입니다. (누가 내 고칠 것이 바로 거니?) 그리고, 대신에 적혀있어, 단순히 내 자신의 개인적인 우수성을 추구 것처럼, NLP 무엇이고 진짜되어야 하단에 도착 - 그리고했으면하는 바램이가.
멋진 기사.
환호
안녕하세요 크리스,
그 분야에 대해 올있다 혼란이와 보여주는 작성 주셔서 감사합니다. 그러나, 나는 그 믿음 NLP 트레이너 중 최고의 congruency의 부족 때문에 피할 수있는 개인이 개발하는 걱정입니다. NLP뿐만 아니라 가치있는 필드에 유용한 기술의 긴 라인 수 있으며,보다 선명도, 성공적인 이득과 건강을 개인의 부하 큰 도움이 됐어요. 이미 경험이 트레이너와 실무자 거기있습니다. 하지만 거기에 또한 무결성과 NLP를 사용하는 정말 멋진 사람들이다. 나의 제안? 수업 시간에 좌석을 예약하기 전에 연구 마십시오. 그냥 있기 때문에 코스를 7 일 또는 10 일 당신과 자료를 배우려하지 않는 것은 아닙니다. 배웠어 당신의 분야에서 대학에서 필요한 모든 것을 알아? 언제 책임은 귀하에게 당신이 무엇을 알고 데리고 가서 그것을 바탕으로 확장하고 필드에 입력하십시오. 진실은, 당신이 잘 때, 당신은 많은 것을 배울 그리고 좋은 경험이 교육 기관을 선택합니다.
환호
당신은 강철 불알
안녕하세요 크리스
무슨 일이 있었는지이 좋은 분석. 뭔가 다른 일을 할 때 어떤 방법으로 당신은 만병 통치약 판매원 밴드 웨건에 점프된다 유용합니다. 그 불행한 부작용 가능성이 후드가 그 더 높은 기준을 요구받을 것과 같은 브러쉬를 tarred.
저 사람이 그들이 그들의 욕망을 그들은 NLP가 무슨 생각을 촉진하기 위해 정품입니다 뭘 알고 믿는 다른 사람에 의해 복합입니다. 왜냐하면 그들은 그들의 무지에서 그들은 약간의 성공을 함께 무지를 전달할 수있습니다 합동있습니다.
당신은 "NLP가 어떻게 변해 가고있는 수 물어 봐도 될까요?"나는 대답 그것 무엇인지되고있다라고 생각합니다. 주목함으로써보다 우리는 평범의 사막에서 최상의 오아시스를 만들 수있습니다 나은 사람이되도록. 사람들은 언제 어디로 물이 머리를하는 경향이 모래 피곤하기도 하고요.
베스트 wishe
여기 NLP 내 주관적 경험이 절정입니다 (도움) 희망 :
내가 충분히 사실 양식에 경험 행운이 NLP 훈련을 처음으로 발생, 당신이 당신의 문서에서 설명부터. 따라서 NLP의 개인 및 직업적인 연습에서 핵심이 철학을 가지고 있는데 그 안에 차례 내 고객과 그 누구에 대해 어떻게 얘기를 어떻게에 전달됩니다 믿습니다. 만약 내가 다른 사람으로 훈련을 어느 시점에서 난 감히 - 내가이 이해를 전달할 것이라고 벤처를 계속해야합니다.
전체 최고
예쁜 문서 크리스.
정직한 놈의 댓글
내가 NLP의 아이디어를 새로운 추종자 '로서 언제나 내 마음의 뒤에 거기에 다른 방법으로 연습에 많은 다양성을 보인다에서 생각 인정합니다,하지만 그들이하는 모든 솔기를 원래의 핵심 아이디어를 주위를 회전하려면 .
개인적으로 나는 것들 루트 점점처럼 그 어떤 이익을 내게. 난 더이상 누구도 절반은 언어를 배울 수 있다고 생각하고 능숙하게 번역되고 기대합니다.
누가 거기 고통만이 '고객'.
그것은 내게 그 때 아이디어의 주요 대상이 인간의 마음의 다양성에 대해 거기에 의견 differenced 수 바인딩된 - '처럼 치료'NLP 전에 것 같다.
난 밖에 나가 Bandler 및 그라인더은 지금 뭐하고 있는데 대해 많이 알고, 나도 바쁘고 그들은 시작하고 이제 겨우 시작 놓은 경로를 추적하고 관리해야합니다.
내가 깨달은 게 하나 있는데이 아니라 종교입니다.
아무 신들, 아니 궁극적인 진리를, 아니 성배가없습니다.
자사의 탐험을 더 많이 알려지지 않은 나라.
어쩌면 그는 그라인더를 정복하고 Bandler, 탐험 멋진 해변이 필요 산을 발견했다.
아마 몇몇을 대신해서 깊은 정글로 그들을 이끌 것 같은데요.
글쎄, 당신이 어디에 경로를 시작하면, 당신은 당신과 함께 태어 났 필요로하는 모든 도구 - 산책을 시작
평화.
드라이브 코멘트에 의해 난 ... 세상에 의해 붕 - 그래!
.
20 시간 온라인 코스 내 엉덩이 ...
안녕하세요 크리스 오래 다루기 문서가이 파업. 리더십과 followership만큼 중요하다. , 혁신적인 아이디어, 새로운 개념을 세우는 경향 설정합니다. 이것은 정말로, 진화론과 몇 가지 이후로 가져 NLP와 같은.
내 마음에 핵심적인 사실이 유지됩니다.
그 사람 말 쟁이입니다 방법을 변경 추종자이다.
질 트면
NLP 자아와 탐욕의 수렁에서 길을 잃었습니다. 그것은 궁극적으로 뿌리가 아니면 죽음으로 돌아갑니다. 시간이 말해줄 것이다가. 좋은 기사.
사실, 아주 좋은 기사. 난 아주 많이 많이 "마스터"NLP 개업 그리고 그게 그들은 일을하거나 교육에 대한 아주 작은 생각 "트레이너"동의 수있습니다. 1 주일 과정을 마치기 사람들이 NLP의 주인에 대한 환상이 많이 만들어집니다. 그것은 학습과 경험의 세 작품과 방법을 NLP 더 많은 년간의 좋은 생각을 그것을 주인이 걸립니다.
난 2004 년 이후 NLP하고있다. 개업, 마스터 치료사와 트레이너 트레이닝이 완료되었습니다. 하지만, 난 아직 내 자신 NLP 마스터에게 전화했다. 저기 NLP와 심리에 대해 전에는 하나 다른 사람을 시작할 수있습니다 가르치고 배울 수 많은됩니다.
단지 그래서 누구와 기차 것이 몇 가지는 오늘날 세계에서 존재하는 모든 교육의 없음, 거기에있습니다.
크리스, 당신은 필드에 대한 훌륭한 요약을 만들었습니다. 아마도 그것이 우리에게있다 - 후에 Bandler & 그라인더 세대가 그것에 대해 뭔가를해야 할 일.
아주, 크리스 도발 생각.
전에 NLP에있어, 난 Feldenkrais 실천되고 훈련을했다. 그것은 모세 Feldenkrais 때 그의 삶의 끝자 락했다 소문이있어, 그가 개별적으로 그들이 자신의 일을 수행 하나되기를 희망 그의 추종자들이 몇 가지있다. 그들은 그리고 나서 각각의 정치적 희생양 왕관을받은 사람들의 앞뒤로 서로 다른 방향에서, 그들은하고 있었거나 관심을 안으로 다른 물건도 마찬가지로 자신의 작품을 결합가는 느낌 있었는데, 거기 다루기 이름과 부족과 같은 문제입니다 정의를위한 연구 / 연습 / 철학.
무엇이 필요할 수도 국제 연맹입니다 - 표준을 설정하는 교육, 의미가 인증을 개발할 연맹, 평가. 만약 훈련 IFNLP에 의해 인증되었습니다 그리고는 하나가 잘 알고있다. 하지만 그 사람 단계 및 작업을 할 용의가 필요합니다. 대부분의 NLP'rs 더 자신의 일을 관심이있습니다. 그리고 가장 아니라 라이센스 비용과 회비는 필연적으로 초래 하리라는 사실을 피하는 것이다. IASH 어떤 사람은 매우 문제가 발생합니다.
저기 이름에 아무런 상표, 그래서 아무도 그것을 사용할 수 있어요. 거기에 적합한 경력 경로의 설명이없는, 그래서 그것에 대한 선의의 학생들은 조약돌를 끊고 비즈니스 바로 후 1 주일의 훈련을 통해 갔어요 들어가 기술을 획득했습니다 믿을 간단합니다.
그 이유는 정확하게 심리 치료사 일부 B 조 & G는 그 치료와 혼동되어 모델로 첫 번째 사람이 있었을 가능성이 있어요. 심리 치료사, 의료 전문가와 상담원 확실히 기술과 그들의 arsenals에게 배운 기술을 추가하려면, 그래서 그것은 거기에 모호하게 될 이해할 수있어 좋습니다.
많이 생각합니다. 여러분의 생각을 참을이 토론을하라는 주셔서 감사합니다.
안녕하세요 크리스,
첫째, 좋은 문서, 정말 즐거웠습니다. 그래, 당신이 점을 매우 흥미 진진한하고 우아한 방법으로 많은 사람 건드리지하고 불꽃의 유혹 짧은 잠깐 만요, 당신이 말하는 동안 당신이 그것에서 생활하다 ...하지만 당신이 말하는 사람이 말을해야합니다.
내 실현을 추측하지만 거기에 주로 * 당 NLP에 * 말 새, 그것을 함께 매우 강력하고 유용한 기술 톤 가지고 않으면 아무것도이고, 가정의 원료 성분을 복용처럼 폭발과 함께 보일러에서 그들을 섞어 만든 집 (), 거기에 결과를 넣어야 실례합니다.
예, 사람들은 누군가가 그들 여부 훈련 7 일 후 치료사 고생 호출할 수있는 믿음이 질문입니다. 물론 그들이있습니다! 그건 믿음. 맞죠? 세상을 매우 신속하게 결정한다. 여러분 모두 결혼하거나 아기를 가지고 그렇게 나쁜하실 수없습니다 증명서가 필요가 없어.
내 경험으로 귀하의 () 트레이너로서 명성을 인식 모든 너무 당신도 아주 좋은 트레이너가있다, 또는 당신이 법정에 반대하는 말을 그들을 막을 모두 가져. 흠 .. 생각이 잠시. 그래서, 공공 최종 결정했다. 여전히 바보들의 돈을 쉽게 잃을 수있습니다.
사람들이 당신보고, 그게 다야, 우리는 첫 번째 사람이 자료를 행렬을 판매하지만, 우리는 약간 밖으로, 그러니 더 추상적인 최대 이동 - 성공을 약속하자 생각이 있으면 그냥 바로 모델이 필요 약속 행복의 추구 , 오른쪽의 "노하우". 과부하 문제이다 :이 시대에, 당신은 어떤 정보에 접근할 수있는 버튼의 클릭으로 원하는 모든 지식, (그리고 아마도 신용 카드 번호), 근데 모든 버튼을 누르면됩니다, 그래서 뭐 진짜 질문이있습니다 :
) 당신이 그것을 처리할 수 있습니까? NLP 당신이 성공적일 것이라고 약속하지, 단지 당신이 당신의 결과 달성에 더 많은 유연성과 선택의 여지가있습니다.
반면 대규모 자아를 개발하고 b)는 만약 당신이 자신의 우수성을 설치 모델 및 모델 행동, 그리고 다른 fascade를 통해 (때까지) 다음의 위험을 실행하려면 어떻게합니까 그것을 마스터 연민에 면역이되고, 친절하게 행동 하죠? NLP 즉, 모든 시간을 작동합니다. 맞죠? 당신이 잘못되지 않을 수있습니다! 죄송합니다.
C) 에너지의 관점에서, NLP 주로 3 차크라에, 그리고 6 차크라, 그 초점이 많이 마음에 일도와 의미를 작동됩니다 전력. 문제는 여기 NLP 사람이 벽에 그들의 삶을 많이 개최 할 수있습니다 장벽을 짖밟고있습니다, 그래서 이것은 잠재하지 않으면 어딘가에이 채널에, 우리는 다시 자존심에 질문을 다시하는 중 많은 자료 수있습니다 . 나는 종종 그 사실을 (아주) 작은 NLP 사회에 너무 많은 사람들이 서로에게 말 안합니다에 대해 생각했습니다. 무슨 말이냐? 아마도 동정심. 몰라. 가치가 단지 내 2 센트.
그래서, 내가 좀 더 마음에 진화할 것이다 미래의 중심 NLP 같아요. 오, 그래,라고 불리는 인간.
)
게시 주셔서 감사합니다!
@ cityguyyoga.
난 당신의 지혜로움에 대해 당신은 추천 * 열정적 * 당신과 함께 동의합니다.
존 그라인더에서 "바람의"위스퍼링 왜냐하면 우리 사이에 "NLP", "NLP 응용 프로그램"및 모델링을 구별하지 못하는 그 넓은 세상에서 NLP에 대해서 혼란이 존재하는 주장 "NLP 교육". 그 제안은 독특한 기여 Bandler 그가 만든 구체적 행동 모델링 기술이 즉, 자주, 우리가 뭘 NLP의 정의 중심이되어야 할 측면을 간과했다.
난 동의 - 비록 내가 그 주관적 경험의 4 - 튜플 모델, 꽤 많은 매직의 원래 "구조"도 패러다임이 무엇인지 그리고 행동 과학의 신흥 들판이 있었어요 기여 이동 간과 이후에 추가합니다.
다른 모든 것들은 우리가 배우고 가르치는 NLP "되었습니다 발견"과 수천 년 동안 가르 쳤 - 크라 울리 Patanjali 또는 다른 "마법의 공부로 신속하게 명확하게된다"시스템입니다. 이것은 자연입니다. 이후에 모든 인간의 주관적 경험을 공부하고있습니다.
We are all products of our environment, Bandler and Grinder included. NLP could have become an academic discipline, a small part of the field of cognitive psychology: but its nascence in California in the early 70's and their choice to commercialise their teaching has meant that its transmission through trainings has as much in common with multi level marketing and “cult” encounter groups as it has with academia.
Great post Chris. I reckon most people should just stop using the term “NLP” and stop pretending to know what it is with such conviction. Since even the co-creators can't agree what it is, we're doomed…doomed i tell you *shakes fist in angry old man manner*.
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 …
문제에도 불구하고, 난 아직 팬이 예요. (나는 확실히 당신이 너무.) 나는 아직도 NLP 기술과 아이디어의 대상 집합을 나타냅니다 생각하는 대부분입니다. 난 아직도 그 사람을 준다고 생각합니다. 그리고 난 아직도 그게 좋은 아이디어를 더 많은 사람들이 마술을받을 수 있도록 같아요.
가자 스스로 떨어져 NLP 죽이지 아니에요. 뭐든간에 일어나는 / '에 NLP의 세계', 우리는 여전히 모든 개인적으로 최고의 대사를 위해 우리가 될 수있습니다했으면하는 바램이있습니다. 그게 제 목표입니다.
환호
좋은 점 잘 만든 크리스, 그리고 내가 너에게 NLP 분야에서 많은 사람들이 에코 같아요. 하지만 나는 지금 무슨 일이있을 것 같아 잘 모르겠지만 ... .. 개인적으로 내가 개까지 개별 NLP 종사자, 트레이너 등 브랜드에 대한 어떤 책임과 통신할 수 있기 때문에 나머지는 교육을 생각하는.
효과적인 NLP'er되는 첫 번째 규칙을 사용하면 NLP 언급하지 않습니다. 모든 비즈니스 컨설턴트 NLP을 사용하는 경우 당신 NLP 언급이 무능 알고. 그것은 어느정도 부정적인 뜻과 자신의 테두리 밖에서 신빙성이 없다 브랜드 지저분이야.
그것이 무엇이 될 수있다? 몇살 처녀 메리 어땠어?
그것은 무엇 있었어 그것은 무엇입니다. 만약 하나의 기대가 그것을 동일하게 유지하거나 시간이 경과 후 발생 한 번 기대 안에 만족 변경 사항을 수용합니다. 내 경험에 의하면, 사람들은 일반적으로 자신의 요구를 충족로 이동합니다. 만약 사람이 자신의 욕구를 끄지 아니하기에 부자가 빠르고, 좋아, 최면 요법이나 느낌이 그들이 특정 대학이나 트레이너 그때까지 그들은 매력되며 소스쪽으로 이동 감명 치료적인 구제 수단, 시장의 유혹을 NLP를 만들 필요합니다. 기본적으로, 우리 모두가 그것에 대한 _________합니다 (공백을 기입). 여부 지식이나 기술의 응용 전문 생활에서 우리에게 도움이 있는지 여부 또는 다른 사람 열차 사람들은, 또는 제공 여부를 만들고 잘 장군의 상태 maintaing -되고, 그 모든 사람에 대해 인생에 도움이 코스에 대한 보상을받습니다 긍정적인 결과입니다. 그리고 나는 다른 사람의 주관적인 경험을 평가하는 거지? 내가 그 경험 NLP의 techinques를 사용하여 측정할 수있습니다. 난 그들이 그렇게해야 원하는 사람을 변경할 수있습니다.
나도, 구조, 주관적 경험의 모델링에 중점을두고 있지만 내 취향이다. 내 경험에 의하면, 많은 사람들이 정말 사물이 작동하는 방법에 대해 상관 없어, 그냥 빨리 끝내고 : 내가 할 특정 결과를 얻기 위해 3 단계주세요. 정말 피스톤 링의 토크 및 자동차 연료의 주입 속도, 또는 당신이 알고 그냥 열쇠는 어디에 위치 및 주차 브레이크를 알고 싶어 해요?
이게 NLP 않았거나 해야지되지 않습니다 제 생각에요,하지만 그들은 무슨 일이있습니다. 우리는 즉각적인 만족을 시대에, 우리는 드라이브에서 마우스 버튼을 클릭하거나, 음식을 클릭하여 정보를 얻을 수 사는 비록 2.38 분 식당입니다. 일반적으로, NLP 훈련을 오늘 우리 사회에서 일어나는 반영합니다. 왜 그렇게 놀랄 누구? 만약 당신이 채식주의 식당에 가서 채식주의 자입니다. 만약 당신이 자신 (혹은 좋은 요리입니다 친구를 찾아 그것을 준비하는 시간을 보내고) 좋은 식사를합니다. 우리가 일반적으로 우리가 원하는 것을 얻을. 좋은 비지니스 그들이 원하는 사람이있습니다. 나는 그것의 개인적인 의견을 가진 NLP 시장을 비교하는 것이 공평 믿지 않아 - 모든 개구리가 있기 때문에 그 자체가 연못을 찬양.
우리는 무엇 다루는 훈련을합니다. 우리가 그것을 좋아하지 않습니다. 우리는 ""방정식과 프로세스에 초점을두고 훈련 내용입니다. 하지만 문제는 내가 콘텐츠를 넘어 점점과 프로세스에 초점과 투쟁 종종 투쟁, 무엇을 내 머리, 내 자신의 주관,에 그리고 세상이 거기 실현을 떠난다.
그래서 질문은 무엇입니까?
나 동료,하지만 성모 마리아의 세 종교 아니에요 상관도없습니다. 뭐가 뭔지를 따라가 어떻게 변해 가고있는 하나의 realtion 어디에 중요하다는 것을.
@ 익명 :
네, 맞아요 - 당신이 사람 때문에 "일부 계약을 풀 수있다"NLP에 대해 우려하고있다. 때마다 ""와 같은 계약 후 내가 잃어버린 대화 기회가 와줘서있어 좋은 기회를 얘기하고 전문적인 NLP 그것에 대해 자신의 "지식"에서 다른 표시했다. 이들은 "10 일"또는 전체 NLP 가르쳤다 "당신의 인생 전체를 바꿀수 5 일 세상의 모든 문제를 해결하는"-을 제공 문제와 나는 종종이 사람 "에 대한 얘기를보고 그들의"NLP와 biiiig $ $ - 징후 모두 눈! 이것은 전문적인 NLP - 선생님과 트레이너들의 신빙성을 의심케! 여기에 유럽에서 우리가 말하는 : "당신이 직접 전화를 수도 마스터 마스터 인증서를 함께하지만, 그것을 하나의 힘든 일을 aa는 전체 더미가 필요해!"그리고 이렇게 NLP의 분야에서이 사실이라면 ...
이것은 시의 적절한 읽기 나에게 너무 많은 의미, 그러나 그것은 사실이 아니라고 그 때 생각이나 아이디어의 집합 성공한 사람들이 시류에 최대 단계로, 희망의 흐름에 따라 실시해야하고, 같은 많은 싶은가 시간이 좋은 학생들은 종종 자신의 스승과 교사가 밝게 빛나다.
이것은 좋은 일이 있기 때문에 더 이상 아이디어를 개발하고 거기에 항상 기본적인 이해와 능력을받지 않고 자신의 홍보 차량이 사용하는 몇 가지해야 될하거나 심지어 어떤 경우에는 매우 좋은 좋은됩니다.
이 fractionation 너무 많은 분야에서,하지만 일이없이 일부 자존심을하지 않고, 거기에 대한 이해의 봉투를 밀어 성장을 필요 없을 것이다.
그것은 치료에서 이러한 기술을 사용하여 생활 할 수있습니다,하지만 당신이시키지 않는 트레이너 및 현금 제공하는 인증서가 돈이 많은 액수 있도록 최선을 다하겠 수 없다, 그러나 좋은 훈련입니다.
그래서 난 내 자신의 믿음에 관련성이 있고 어떤 방법으로 뭔가 가치있는 것을 추가하는 훈련을 계속 검색 것입 연습 NLP하거나 그 이름을 붙히고 뭐든하고 싶습니다.
NLP 무슨 일이있어도 그것을 어디에 보이는 당신이 누군지에 따라 될 찾을 수있습니다.
대니 Dennington
인가 기관, 그건 그들의 관심이 가능한 경우에도 사람들이 없으 스크래치로 많은 인증서로를 통해 밀어 상업있습니다. NLP 현금 소를 안타깝게도 너무 시간을 되돌릴 늦었되고있다.
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. 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
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.
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!
안토니
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
이본
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.
확실히 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.
환호,
크레이그
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.
환호
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?
친절 감사합니다
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
크리스
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!
롭
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!
코멘트를 남겨두