NLP-ul poate fi ceea ce a devenit?
Amazon are peste 500 de cărţi despre PNL şi cele mai multe dintre cele mai vânzătorii sunt scrise de oameni care creatorii de originală şi dezvoltatorii din domeniu nu s-au întâlnit şi nu sunt de acord cu. Acest articol este de a pune întrebarea: PNL poate fi ceea ce a devenit?
Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) este un nume de greoi pentru un camp neobişnuit de studiu care este - sau a fost - cu privire la structura de experienţă subiectivă. Ce facem în mintea noastră şi organism, care creează experienţa noastră de lume? Şi, prin extensie, ce putem face pentru a influenţa experienţa altor oameni din lume?
Câmp iniţial a crescut dintr-un mic grup de studiu de la Universitatea din California, în anii 1970. Actori-cheie au fost un matematician, Richard Bandler, şi un profesor de lingvistica, Dr. John Grinder. Ei au început construirea de "modele" de modul în care acestea şi altele gândire, s-au comportat şi comunicate. Ele "modelată" hipnoterapeut legendarul şi tatăl lui Ericksonian hipnoza, Milton H Erickson; terapeutul de pionierat de familie, Virginia Satir, şi fondatorul Gestalt Terapie, Fritz Perls. Terapeuti Non-a inclus unele persoane de vânzări foarte mare succes şi negociatori, precum şi multe "oameni obişnuiţi", care au făcut schimbări în viaţa lor. Proiectul Phobia, de exemplu, implicat Richard Bandler modelare o serie întreagă de voluntari care au folosit de a avea o fobie şi nu mai au avut-o. El a fost interesat de ceea ce au făcut pentru a "pierde" fobie lor, şi a găsit că au făcut tot mai mult sau mai puţin acelaşi lucru. Odată ce a avut un model de faptul că, el a predat-o la alţii şi a demonstrat că oricine ar putea face acelaşi lucru la un nivel structural şi a obţine aceleaşi rezultate.
Punct-cheie aici este faptul că modelul său Richard transformat într-o tehnică. El a numit-o rapide Phobia Cure şi a predat-o, ca parte a programelor sale de formare NLP. El a spus: "NLP-ul este o atitudine si metodologie care lasă în urmă o pistă de tehnici". Dar, destul de devreme pentru a existat deja o anumită confuzie între un PNL) - studiul structurii de experienţă subiectivă, folosind procesele de modelare, şi b) Cererile de NLP - folosind urmele "de tehnici" pentru a influenţa tine si alte persoane.
In prezent exista tehnici pentru aproape totul. Un curs mediu de practician NLP-ul vă va învăţa tehnici pentru a deveni mai încrezător, motivaţi şi stabilite; schimbare credinţe; oprirea durere; se încheie vicii; induce fenomene hipnotic ... şi lista poate continua şi mai departe. Paul McKenna faimoasa modelate modul în care în mod natural de oameni subţiri gândesc alimentare, precum şi faptul că el a transformat într-un best-seller carte, eu te poate face Thin. Apoi, el a modelat pe oameni cum extrem de bogat se gândească la bani - inclusiv Richard Branson, Peter Jones, Sir Philip Green si Stelios Haji-Ioannou - şi că el a transformat într-un alt best-seller carte, I a putea face bogat. John Grinder este excelent, la artiştii interpreţi sau executanţi de modelare. Este aceeaşi poveste de peste şi mai mult: a afla cum cineva face ceva şi apoi să utilizaţi acest model pentru a crea o tehnica / formula / set de reguli care vor primi alte persoane să facă acelaşi lucru şi să obţină aceleaşi rezultate. Aceste tehnici oferi oamenilor şansa de a obţine ceea ce doresc. Ele sunt populare şi de valoare comercială. Paul McKenna, iar altele au ajutat milioane de oameni, prin schimbul acestor tehnici în uşor-formate accesibile.
It's devin confuze, totuşi. Ca un brand, NLP-ul este în haos. Unii oameni au auzit nu există acest lucru numit NLP-ul pe care te poate face bogat. Alţii au auzit există o dieta NLP-ul, care poate face să vă pierde în greutate. Am auzit la radio că NLP-ul este o modalitate de a deveni mai încrezător şi de succes. Am citit pe Internet, care fobii NLP-ul este de aproximativ depăşirea.
Din ceea ce am înţeles, sunt toate aceste neînţelegeri. NLP-ul este despre structura de experienţă subiectivă. Este de învăţare despre să recunoască şi să interacţioneze cu structura de modul în care oamenii cred. Este o meta-disciplină. Puteţi utiliza traseul "de tehnici" pentru a face multe lucruri, dar tehnicile nu definesc domeniul de aplicare a NLP.
It's a primit mai mult prea confuz. La fel ca cele mai multe grupuri de tineri, creatorii originale PNL şi dezvoltatori a scăzut în şi din iubire. Unii chiar s-au căsătorit, şi apoi divorţat. 35 ani pe, majoritatea dintre ei nu vorbesc între ele. Şi în timp ce mamica si taticul, atât în continuare dragostea lor copil foarte mult, ei au diferite speranţe şi vise pentru ea, şi stiluri foarte diferite de părinţi.
John Grinder a dezvoltat ceea ce el numeşte New Code NLP-ul, pentru a muta lucruri de urmat pentru o nouă generaţie. Este un pas curajos înainte, argumentând împotriva unora dintre ideile sale anterioare. În cartea sa Whispering Wind explică totul, dar noroc a găsi o copie. Nu e una din cele 500 + PNL cărţi pe Amazon şi niciodată nu am văzut-o într-o librărie. Ea a venit de până recent pe eBay, dar a fost enumerate pentru ofertele de peste £ 50.
Richard Bandler a avansat prea ideile sale - ar spune unii chiar mai mult - adăugarea submodalities la nodul PNL, rafinare şi adăugând numeroase tehnici, precum şi dezvoltarea noilor domenii anexată de proiectare Omului Ingineria si Neuro Hypnotic Repatterning, printre alte lucruri.
NLP-ul a devenit ca un cal cu doi rideri, fiecare merge în direcţii diferite. De fapt, e ca un cal cu sute sau chiar mii de călăreţi, deoarece fiecare dintre co-creatori şi unii dintre dezvoltatori au uns-o serie de formatori, formatorilor de masterat şi de ucenici pentru a răspândi cuvântul lor. Şi, în mod inevitabil, după câteva luni sau ani, acesti oameni descoperi care le-au idei proprii de asemenea, şi ei încep adăugarea de spin propriile lor pe lucruri. Treptat sau dintr-o dată, ei încep de raspandire propria versiune de NLP.
Deci, în timp ce actorii cheie au fost distras de jocul lor de "mina lui mai mare decât a ta", cred ca dezbaterea sa mutat pe. Există o nouă generaţie de oameni extrem de motivaţi de vânzare cu NLP-ul ca un fel de catch-all cura miracol. Este adesea combinate cu gândire pozitivă, legea de atracţie şi de afirmatii. Întrebarea mea este dacă NLP poate fi ceea ce a devenit în conştiinţa noastră colectivă? Cei mai mulţi oameni care ştiu despre NLP ştiu ca pe o modalitate de a-ti schimbi viata in 7 zile. Cele mai multe dintre 500 + cărţi promova ca pe o strategie de succes. Dar ceea ce este cu adevărat?
Bandler şi Grinder de munca de pionierat a dus la o schimbare de paradigmă pe care - cum ar fi dezvoltarea psihologiei pozitive (studia oameni care fac bine, mai degrabă decât de oameni care sunt nemultumiti sau "bolnav psihic") - a avut un impact extraordinar asupra succesului a milioane de oameni . Mi se pare crearea acestora util în multe feluri si mai ales ca o modalitate de a aduna informaţii şi de structura într-un mod sistematic. Am invatat multe de la ei atât, direct şi indirect. Ei ambele au respectul meu si sunt foarte talentat, inteligent si original de oameni.
Dar cum acestea au fost la fel de lideri din domeniul lor?
"Urmati-ma, eu sunt chiar in spatele tau."
Problema este că mulţi dintre elevii lor sunt mai bine cunoscute decât sunt. Este elevii lor care merg la TV, pentru a primi cărţile lor în librării şi utilizarea pe web pentru a promova propriile versiuni de NLP.
Şi o mulţime de aceşti studenţi au avut nu mai mult de un training de câteva zile, de învăţare lucruri ca Phobia Fast Cure într-o clasă de 100 + alti elevi. Adesea, ei nu aveau şanse de a pune întrebări profesorul lor.
Aceştia sunt oameni care se prezintă ca ambasadori domeniul's great, şi ei scapa cu ea.
Cred că cineva trebuie să-i spuneţi Bandler şi Grinder că acestea sunt uciderea moştenirea lor. Ei s-au luat calea atât de uşor. Ei s-au încurajat atât certificate, precum şi persoanele care nu au nici o înţelegere a ceea ce este NLP şi nici aptitudini de a utiliza chiar şi tehnici. Sunt oameni acolo alţii chiar acum înşelătoare şi luând bani sub pretexte false, dăunătoare nu numai ei înşişi şi clienţii lor, dar, de asemenea, tarnishing întregul domeniu al NLP.
Da, cineva trebuie să le spun asta. Dar nu este mergi la a fi mine. Sunt, probabil, singura persoană care primeşte plătite ca un promotor să promoveze atât Bandler şi evenimente piatră de moară. Nu merg la rock barca.
71 comments
Cred că tu chiar le-a spus.
Bună ziua Chris,
-Am bucurat foarte mult de citit articolul dumneavoastră - şi-mi împart frustrarea ta.
Eu nu cred că evoluţiile atât de mulţi care au fost în jurul la acea vreme (psihologia cognitivă "revoluţie", iar mai târziu de circulaţie pozitive Psihologie, şi mult mai mult .... Uita-te la CBT acum!) Însele le-au continuat să evolueze şi influenţa noi generaţii de NLP şi studenţii - uns (!) - au foarte diferite călătorii leanring.
Nu sunt sigur că a spune Bandler şi Grinder ar ajuta la nimic - aşa cum aţi spus, domeniu a devenit fragmentate - dar, poate, în loc de a folosi cei care sunt activi în domeniul la "reorientarea" traininguri NLP-ul pentru a reflecta acest lucru? Acesta este, după cum ştiţi, începe să aibă un INpact în prezent pe scena postgratuate - nu este, cu siguranţă loc pentru gândire!
De altfel - Eu sunt cu voi definirea PNL ca "Studiul a structurii de experienţă subiective" - Numai noi stim mult mai mult despre asta acum
Vă mulţumim din nou pentru un astfel de articol bine gândite!
Miriam
Chris, tu a pune în scris ceea ce am fost spus în ultimele 14 luni. Am crezut că aceasta a fost o maladie care afectează India, în principal, împreună cu părţi din Orientul Mijlociu şi Africa ... pare o pandemie sale globale.
Acestuia a ajuns la un stadiu în cazul în care I dont utiliza chiar şi pe termen PNL, când am vinde ... clientilor momentul auzi cele trei litere, în această combinaţie special, ele îşi pierd interesul. Unii chiar întreb dacă am "ceva real" de a oferi.
Deci, acum, tocmai am mergeţi mai departe şi spune-le ce vor să audă ... şi de a folosi NLP (sau ceea ce ştiu de el), cel mai bine cum pot pentru a crea schimba.
Fii că, în calitate, aceasta poate, nu există într-adevăr poate face cineva ceva despre asta? Gata de pitch, în cu orice este necesar.
Jagat
Max Chris,
Ei bine făcut, deşi nu poate fi de acord cu tot de ceea ce ai scris eu vă felicit pe scris un astfel de articol cinstit şi couragous.
Poate din cauza naturii sale subiective mult din ceea ce ai spus sa întâmplat a fost prestabilite?
Noroc,
Brian
BIG thumbs up. Acest lucru perfect sume de până ce cred şi eu doresc doar aţi spus-o acum 20 de ani şi ei 'a ascultat atunci. Este prea târziu acum, NLP-ul este o glumă.
Şi mulţumesc pentru articol, am un ochi ageri privind învăţarea mai multe despre NLP. Am stiut niciodata nu a existat diviziune atât de mult şi confuzie în "NLP".
Deci, cine s-ar tine (sau oricine) recomandă să învăţăm de la? Bandler sau piatră de moară? sau amândouă? Ar care se adaugă la confuzie din punctul meu de vedere că a unuia dintre incepand de afară?
Mulţumesc
Neil
bine zis ... ... deşi eu nu sunt sigur că am luat calea cea mai usoară .... Este în afara controlului lor modul în care domeniu a dezvoltat şi PNL nu este singurul domeniu acest lucru sa întâmplat cu
Max Chris,
Cred că ai adus mai multe puncte bune.
One-NLP-ul nu mai are o definiţie bună. Ideea a fost promovat ca totul este NLP. În cazul în care acest lucru este adevărat, atunci este NLP-ul într-adevăr ceva? În cazul în care NLP-ul este ceea ce toată lumea face deja atunci de ce deranjez cu ea? Recent, am cerut un forum pentru o definiţie bună a NLP. Am 20 definiţii diferite. Apoi, cele 20 de persoane au început argumentând unii cu alţii despre cine a avut dreptate.
Asta-mi aduce la al doilea punct-diploma de mori de NLP acolo. 3-7 zile de formare nu produce un practician. Un antrenor '', a ajuns la 3 săptămâni de "formare profesională" şi a început să predea în calitate de formator certificate "", fără a văzut vreodată un singur client. M-am dus la o astfel de formare profesională pentru a observa si a fost groaznic. Studenţii care au plătit 1400 de dolari o bucata de învăţare a fost nimic.
Rezultatul este că PNL a devenit fracturat şi sunt inutilizabile pentru că aveţi oameni fără experienţă de predare şi de certificare, de oameni care, la rândul lor sunt mai puţin experimentaţi şi să producă practicieni chiar mai rău.
Ultimul punct ar putea fi evident-Nu există nici dorinţa de a schimba acest sistem. PNL a devenit un generator de bani. Formare nu sunt, cu privire la calitatea, cu excepţia de către o formatori câteva. În cazul în bani devine mai important decât de calitate, atunci aveţi un domeniu care este în declin.
Aproximativ 6 ani în urmă am scris un articol foarte mult ca a ta. Am fost atacat brutal de către cei care au fost de predare la timp. Am fost acuzat de doar de introducere pe piaţă şi că, infirmată opinia mea. Mă bucur că există cei care sunt implicaţi cu PNL, care sunt punerea în cele din urmă picioarele a sistemelor de foc şi cerând un standard mai ridicat.
Cel mai bun mod de a controla acest lucru este de a vota cu tine bani. Ia referrals bun de la formatori de calitate şi de a expune pe cei care nu fac o treabă bună.
Bun post Chris. Poate ca asta se va întâmpla ceva timp.
Tom Vizzini
V-aţi lovit de unghii pe cap Chris, de aceea am pus PNL în spatele meu, sper că lucrurile se vor întoarce, dar eu sunt îndoielnice.
Max Chris,
Aplauze. Foarte bine scris.
Este ca si cum întrebarea vechi, NLP-ul este o terapie? Unii oameni spun "da". Unii oameni spun "nu". Unii oameni spun "nu", dar apoi atunci du-te la a spune totul altceva ca în cazul în care într-adevăr înseamnă "da".
Sunt cam ascultarea vocea lui Michael Neill, chiar acum, spunându-mi că ceea ce se intampla cu NLP-ul este ceva ce nu le poate controla, ca ce se intampla nu-mi place în PNL sunt lucruri pe care nu pot opri, că nu e NLP " t într-adevăr un lucru, oricum, şi că fericirea mea nu atarna pe oricare dintre ea.
(Si stiu ca nu esti agăţat fericirea ta pe ea, fie, ai face o inteligent, comentariu observate.)
Filozofia mea personală este de a uita de încercarea de a "repara" lumea NLP. (Cine spune fix meu ar fi dreptul de oricum?) Şi, în schimb, pur şi simplu urmări excelenţa propriul meu personal şi, ca tine, ajunge la partea de jos a ceea ce NLP-ul este într-adevăr şi ar trebui să fie - şi aspira să fie asta.
Articolul Mare.
Noroc
Max Chris,
Vă mulţumim pentru scris acest lucru şi care ilustrează confuzia care a venit cam în domeniu. Cu toate acestea, eu sunt îngrijorat de faptul că există persoane care ar putea dezvolta convingerea că PNL este cel mai bun evitată doar din cauza lipsei de congruency printre formatori. NLP-ul nu este doar un domeniu demn, cu un lung şir de tehnici utile; este ajutat grămadă de indivizi obţine o mai mare claritate, de succes, şi sănătatea. Nu sunt formatori lipsit de experienţă şi practicieni acolo. Dar există, de asemenea, oamenii cu adevărat mari care folosesc NLP cu integritate. Parerea mea? Face cercetare dumneavoastră înainte de a rezerva un loc într-o clasă. Doar pentru că un curs este de 7 zile sau 10 zile nu înseamnă că nu veţi învăţa materialul. Ai învăţat tot ce ai nevoie sa stii in domeniul dumneavoastra la universitate? Când introduceţi un câmp, este responsabilitatea dvs. de a lua ceea ce ştii şi să se extindă pe ea. Adevărul este că, atunci când alegeţi un institut de formare bine, ai învăţa o mulţime şi au o mare experienta.
Noroc
Ai bile de oţel
Max Chris
O bună analiză a ceea ce sa întâmplat. În cazul în nici un fel de a face ceva diferit este util veţi avea agenţi de vânzări Snake ulei sar de pe banda de vagon. Un efect nefericit, care este parte a capota probabil că cei care cer standarde mai ridicate a lua gudronate cu pensula acelaşi lucru.
Aceasta este agravată de alţii care cred că ştiu ce fac şi sunt originale, în dorinţa lor de a promova ceea ce ei cred că NLP-ul este. Pentru ca sunt congruente, in ignoranta lor, acestea sunt în măsură să treacă că ignoranţa privind cu un oarecare succes.
Puteţi cere "Pot NLP-ul să fie ceea ce a devenit?" Cred că răspunsul este că acesta a devenit ceea ce este. Prin care aspiră să fie mai bine decât că ne-ar putea crea o oaza de excelenţă într-un deşert de mediocritate. Când oamenii obosesc de nisip, ele tind să se îndrepte în cazul în care apa este.
Cel mai bun wishe
Aici este punctul culminant al experienţei mele subiective de NLP (sperăm că ajută):
De la prima mea întâlnire cu NLP-ul de formare am fost destul de norocoşi să experienţă într-o formă e adevărat, aşa cum aţi descrie in articolul tau. În consecinţă, practica mea personala si profesionala a PNL a acestei filosofii at it's core şi cred că este, la rândul său trecut la clienţii mei şi oricine se întâmplă să vorbesc despre ceea ce fac. Dacă eu ar trebui să se aventureze în altele de formare la un moment dat I-îndrăznesc să spun că am vor continua să transmită această înţelegere mai departe.
Toate cele mai bune
Nice articol Chris.
Comentariu de la un noob cinstit
Trebuie sa recunosc ca un adept nou "" a ideilor de NLP există întotdeauna crezut că în partea din spate a mintea mea că se pare că există diversitate de mult, în altele, practica fel, dar face tot cusătura să se rotească în jurul idei originale de bază .
Personal, îmi place Noţiuni de bază pentru rădăcină de lucruri şi că ceea ce mă interesează. I dont cred că oricine poate învăţa de o jumătate de limbă şi se aşteaptă să devină un traducator experimentat.
Singurii care suferă există "clienţi".
Mi se pare că, atunci când subiectul principal al unei idei este de până împotriva diversitatea mintii umane, atunci nu sunt obligaţi să fie differenced de opinie - la fel ca "terapia" înainte de NLP.
Eu trebuie să admin I dont know de mult despre ceea ce Bandler şi Grinder fac acum, eu sunt prea ocupat încearcă să urmeze calea care le-au sculptat de la început şi numai doar la început.
Unul thing I-au dat seama este faptul că aceasta nu este o religie.
Nu există zeităţi, nu adevărul absolut, nu Sfantul Graal.
Sale mai mult de o explorare într-o ţară nedescoperite.
Poate că a găsit o piatră de moară de munte are nevoie de a cuceri si Bandler, o plajă frumos de a explora.
Cred ca unii ar putea ca ei în loc să-i conducă mai adânc în junglă.
Ei bine, dacă ştii unde începe calea, şi toate instrumentele de care aveţi nevoie de tine s-au născut cu - începe de mers pe jos
pace.
Drive de comentariul după cum am whoosh de ... OMG - Da!
.
20 de ore online, curs fundul meu ...
Max Chris greve ca acest articol lung greoi. Leadership-ul este la fel de mult despre followership. Setarea o tendinţă, venind cu o idee inovatoare, un concept nou. Acest lucru este cu adevărat evolutiv, şi puţine, deoarece au adus astfel de NLP.
De bază care să mintea mea rămâne fidel.
Acesta este urmaşii care şi-au schimbat modul în care calul este de mers.
Jill WW
NLP-a s-au pierdut într-o mlaştină de ego şi lăcomie. Acesta va reveni în cele din urmă la rădăcinile sale sau a muri. Doar timpul va spune care. Articol bun.
Într-adevăr, un articol foarte bun. Eu pot foarte mult de acord că există multe "master" practitioner NLP şi "formatori", care au idee foarte putin despre ce se fac sau de predare. Finisare un curs de o săptămâna creează o mulţime de iluzie pentru oameni că sunt maestri de NLP. Este nevoie de ani de experienţă de învăţare şi pentru a obţine o idee bună a modului în care acţionează PNL şi mulţi ani să stăpânească ea.
Eu am făcut PNL din 2004. Practitioner, Master Practitioner de instruire şi formare profesională au fost finalizate. Cu toate acestea, am încă de a apela mine însumi un Master NLP. Există o mulţime de învăţat despre PNL şi Psihologie înainte de a putea începe o predare alte persoane.
Din toate cursurile de formare care există în lume din zilele noastre, există doar atât de puţine, care mi-ar cu trenul.
Chris, le-aţi făcut un sumar excelent despre domeniu. Poate ca este de până la noi - după generaţie Bandler & Grinder de a face ceva despre asta.
Foarte thought provoking, Chris.
Înainte de a am intrat în PNL, am avut instruiţi pentru a deveni un practician Feldenkrais. Este zvonuri că atunci când Moshe Feldenkrais a fost aproape de sfârşitul vieţii sale, el a spus de mai multe din adepţii lui individual, că speră că va fi o să îşi desfăşoare activitatea sa. Fiecare simţit ei 'sa dat coroana şi după aceea a urmat un scandal politic cu oameni merge mai departe în direcţii diferite, combinând activitatea sa cu alte lucruri au facut sau s-au interesat şi de mod similar, există aceeaşi problemă cu numele de greoi şi lipsa de definiţie pentru studiul / practica / filozofie.
Ceea ce poate fi necesar este o federaţie internaţională - un organism de conducere de a stabili standarde, de a evalua traininguri, dezvoltarea certificari semnificative. Apoi, într-ar şti dacă o formare profesională a fost certificată de către IFNLP. Dar asta cere oameni care sunt dispuşi să-şi intensifice şi facă treaba. Cele mai multe NLP'rs sunt mult mai interesaţi în a face ceva lor. Şi cele mai multe, mai degrabă ar evita taxele de licenţiere şi taxele care ar rezulta în mod inevitabil. IASH se confruntă cu unele dintre aceste probleme foarte.
Nu există nici o marcă înregistrată pe numele, astfel încât oricine poate folosi. Nu există nici o explicaţie a carierei este cazul, asa ca e usor pentru elevii bine intenţionate să cred că am atins de calificare pentru a închide o şindrilă şi a intra în dreptul de afaceri după ce au trecut prin cursuri de formare de o săptămână.
Este posibil ca, tocmai pentru că terapeuţi au fost câteva dintre primii oameni B & G modelat că a fost confundat cu terapie. Terapeuţi, medici şi consilieri sunt cu siguranţă încurajate pentru a adăuga abilităţile şi tehnicile care le-au învăţat să arsenalele lor, astfel că este de înţeles că nu va fi estompează.
O mare parte să se gândească. Vă mulţumim pentru articulare gândurile tale şi pentru a incita această discuţie.
Max Chris,
În primul rând, mare de articol, foarte placut. Da, aţi atins pe mulţi pe puncte într-un mod foarte suculente si elegant, apăsat pe scurt a flăcării chinuirea, pentru ca ai spus, ai face un trai din ea ... dar după cum aţi spus, cineva trebuie să spun asta.
Cred ca realizarea mea este că, deşi nu este nimic nou în principal * * pe cuvânt de spus în PNL, acesta nu aduce impreuna o tona de tehnici foarte puternic şi util, precum şi luând ca ingrediente brut de home-made explozive şi amestecarea le împreună într-un cazan House (scuza joc de cuvinte), există consecinţe.
Da, oamenii problema credinţa dacă cineva pot apela ele însele a Practitioner după 7 zile de instruire. Desigur, ele pot! Este o credinţă. corect? şi lumea va decide foarte repede. la urma urmei nu aveţi nevoie de un certificat să se căsătorească sau care au un copil, aşa că nu poate fi aşa de rău.
In my experience, your (perceived) reputation as a trainer is everything, so you are either a very good trainer, or you bring everyone to court to stop them talking to the contrary. Hmmm..think about that for a moment. so, in the end the public will decide. and still fools and their money are easily parted.
People, you see, seek the promise of happiness, that's all, and we first sell people material processions, but we have figured that bit out, so let's move up to the more abstract – the promise of success, you just need the right model, the right “know-how”. Problems is overload: In this day and age, you can get access to any information, any knowledge you want, at the click of a button, (and possibly a credit card number), but doing so will press all your buttons, so the real questions are:
a) Can you handle it? nlp never promises that you will be successful, only that you can have more flexibility and choices in achieving your outcomes.
b) If you install models of excellence in yourself, and act out the model, then are you acting through another fascade (until you master it) then do you run the risk of become immune to compassion, kindness while developing a massive ego? ie nlp works all the time. right? so you can't be wrong! Oops.
c) din punct de vedere energetic, PNL lucrări principal pe chakra 3rd, şi a 6-chakra, în sensul că o mulţime de se pune accent pe minte-de muncă şi va-putere. Problema aici este că NLP permite oamenilor să dărâmaţi pereţi şi bariere acestea pot avea deţinute pentru o mulţime de viaţa lor, aşa că acest lucru se poate de presă o mulţime de potenţiali, şi dacă nu există undeva la acest canal, suntem înapoi la ego-ul din nou întrebarea . M-am gândit de multe ori despre faptul că atât de mulţi oameni din comunitate NLP (foarte mici), nu vorbesc între ele. Ce lipseste? , probabil, compasiune. dunno. doar meu doi cenţi în valoare.
Deci, cred ca PNL va evolua în ceva mai mult inima-centrice în viitor. Oh, da, este numit fiinta umana.
)
Vă mulţumim pentru a posta!
@ cityguyyoga.
Felicit tu pentru claritate si pasiune * * sunt de acord cu tine.
John Grinder în "Whispering in the Wind" susţine că confuzia despre PNL în lumea întreagă există pentru că nu reuşim să se facă distincţie între "NLP-ul de modelare", "NLP aplicatii" şi "NLP Training". El sugerează că această contribuţie unică pe care Bandler şi el a făcut a fost în mod special tehnicii de modelare de comportament şi că acest lucru, adesea trecute cu vederea, aspect legat de ceea ce facem ar trebui să fie esenţiale pentru orice definiţie a NLP.
I-de acord deşi aş adăuga că 4-modelul tuple de experienţă subiectivă, destul de mult trecute cu vederea, deoarece originalul "Structura Magic" a fost, de asemenea, o paradigmă deplasarea contribuţie la ceea ce atunci era în curs de dezvoltare din domeniul ştiinţelor cognitive comportamentale.
Orice altceva pe care le învăţa şi preda în NLP a fost "descoperit" şi a predat timp de mii de ani, ca un studiu de Crowley, Patanjali sau orice alt "magice", sistemul va face rapid clar. Aceasta este doar natural. Noi suntem, după toate studiază experienţei umane subiective.
Noi suntem toate produsele din mediul nostru, Bandler si Grinder incluse. NLP-ul ar fi putut deveni o disciplină academică, o mică parte din domeniul psihologiei cognitive: dar nascence sale în California, în 70 şi începutul anilor alegerea lor să comercializeze de predare a însemnat că transmiterea acestora prin cursuri de instruire are la fel de mult în comun cu comercializarea Multi Level şi "cult" grupuri de encounter cum le are cu mediul academic.
Great post Chris. Cred că cei mai mulţi oameni ar trebui să oprească doar folosind termenul "NLP" şi nu ne mai prefacem să ştie ce este cu atîta convingere. Din moment ce chiar şi de co-creatori, nu poate fi de acord ceea ce este, suntem condamnaţi ... sortit Eu vă spun * pumnul în mod furios bătrân *.
În termeni de ceea ce mi-ar considera "de succes", nu sunt foarte mulţi oameni de succes în NLP. Am întâlnit nişte oameni care făceau cu adevărat mare, în domeniul lor de expertiză, oamenii castiga 100s din 1000 de lire sterline, care apoi a mers la training-PNL, părăsească locul de muncă, iar acum se aşeze la postarea de mesaje de pe Twitter pufos ... dar cel puţin ei " Happy Re.
Nu e că nu sunt oameni fac bine de la PNL, dar având în vedere numărul de persoane care iau training-uri si se numesc NLPers, există un număr disproporţionat de persoane ale căror vieţi par sa suga mai mult acum decât înainte.
NLP-ul poate fi fantastic şi poate deschide o lume întreagă de posibilităţi. La fel ca LSD-ul, în '60 a deschis mintea de 1000 de oameni. Problema este, ca LSD-ul, nu este ea însăşi substanţa care îi face pe oameni inteligent, este modul în care îl folosiţi.
Folosind PNL pentru a obţine mai inteligent este mare. Utilizarea NLP-ul ca o scuză pentru a fi mai proaste este stoopid.
Dacă aş putea adăuga la comentariul meu anterior ...
În ciuda problemelor, eu sunt încă un fan. (Sunt sigur că majoritatea dintre voi sunt prea.) Eu încă mai cred NLP-ul reprezintă un set Ducat al competenţelor şi a ideilor. Eu încă mai cred că îi ajută pe oameni. Şi eu încă mai cred că este o idee bună pentru a ajuta mai mulţi oameni şi mai mult a lua magic.
Să nu ucizi PNL de pe noi înşine. Oricare ar fi lucru se întâmplă în / la "NLP-ul lumii", putem toate încă personal aspiră să fie cel mai bun ambasadori pentru aceasta putem fi. Asta scopul meu.
Noroc
Bun puncte de bine făcute Chris, şi cred că aţi ecou multe altele din domeniul NLP. Cu toate acestea nu sunt sigur ce credeţi că s-ar putea întâmpla acum ... .. personal cred că este pana la practicieni individuale NLP-ul, etc formatori de a lua o anumită responsabilitate pentru brand-ul şi de a comunica şi, prin urmare, educa restul.
Prima regula de a fi un NLP'er efectivă nu este de a menţiona să utilizaţi NLP. Fiecare consultant de afaceri folosind NLP-ul ştie că, dacă ai spus-PNL pierzi contractului. Este un murdare brand cu conotaţii negative şi nici credibilitatea în afara frontierelor sale proprii.
Poate fi ceea ce a devenit? Cât de vechi a fost fecioara Maria?
Aceasta a fost ceea ce a fost şi este ceea ce este. În cazul în care aşteptările sunt un că aceasta rămâne acelaşi sau embrace schimbările care au avut loc în timp, apoi o aşteptările sunt îndeplinite sau nu. Din experienţa mea, oamenii se vor muta, în general, pentru a satisface nevoile lor. Dacă o persoană are nevoie de PNL pentru a potoli dorinţele lor să se îmbogăţească rapid, a crea remedii terapeutice, seduc, de piaţă, te simti bine, hipnotiza sau sunt impresionati de academiile de anumite sau de formatori, atunci ei vor fi atrase şi trecerea la această sursă. Fundamental, toţi suntem într-o pentru _________ (completati goală). Dacă cunoştinţele sau de aplicare a tehnicilor ne ajută în viaţa noastră profesională, sau dacă persoana care a trenurilor de alţii primeşte despăgubiri pentru cursurile care le oferă, sau dacă crearea si mentinerea o stare de bunăstării generale ajută pe cineva în său de viaţă, totul despre un rezultat pozitiv. Şi cine sunt eu să evalueze experienţa subiectivă a unui alt? I poate fi capabil să măsoare că experienţa folosind techinques de NLP. I poate fi chiar şi în măsură de a schimba cineva ar trebui să doresc acest lucru.
Eu, de asemenea, se concentreze pe structura, de modelare a experienţei subiective, dar că reprezintă preferinţa mea. Din experienţa mea, mulţi oameni nu le pasă cu adevărat despre cum merg lucrurile, ei chiar doresc o rapida: da-mi trei paşi să fac pentru a obţine un anumit rezultat. Chiar vrei să ştii cuplu de un inel cu piston şi rata de injectare a combustibilului într-o maşină, sau tu chiar vrei să ştii unde cheie şi frânele de parcare sunt situate?
În opinia mea acest lucru nu este ceea ce PNL a fost sau ar trebui să fie, dar lucrurile sunt ceea ce sunt. Trăim într-o vârstă gratificare instantanee, vom obţine informaţii cu clic pe un buton mouse-ului, sau a produselor alimentare de la o unitate de deşi restaurant in 2.38 minute. În general, de formare NLP-ul de astăzi reflectă ceea ce are loc în societatea noastră. De ce ar surprinde faptul că cineva? Dacă sunteţi un vegetarian merg la un restaurant vegetarian. Dacă doriţi o masa buna, petrece timp pregătindu-l tine (sau a găsi un prieten care este un bucătar bun). De obicei obţine ceea ce ne dorim. Un om de afaceri bun oferă oamenilor ceea ce doresc. Nu cred că corect sa de a compara pe piata PNL cu opinii personale - pentru că fiecare broasca laudă iaz propriu.
Suntem pregătiţi să se ocupe de ceea ce este. Noi nu avem de a place. Suntem pregătiţi să "iasă din conţinut" din ecuaţie şi să se concentreze asupra procesului. Dar problema de multe ori am lupta cu lupta cu devine dincolo de conţinutul şi concentrându-se pe procesul, lăsând ce e în capul meu, subiectivitatea mea, precum şi realizarea că lumea este acolo.
Deci, ce este problema?
Eu nu sunt religios colegi, dar de vârstă a Fecioarei Maria, nu conteaza cu adevarat. Ceea ce contează este ceea ce a urmat şi de faptul că ceea ce a devenit şi în cazul în care una este în realtion.
@ Anonim:
Da, dreptul dumneavoastră - puteţi pierde unele contracte, din cauza popoarelor "teamă" despre NLP. Fiecare timp i-am Tor sansa unui talk după "pierderea", un astfel de contract am avut o bună şansă de a spune şi a arăta că PNL profesional este diferit de cunoaştere "lor despre asta. Aceste "predat NLP-ul complet în 10 zile" sau "schimba întreaga ta viaţă şi pentru a rezolva toate problemele lumile in 5 zile"-oferte sunt problema si eu de multe ori se vedea acesti oameni vorbesc despre "lor" NLP cu biiiig $ $-semne, în ambele ochii! Acest lucru discreditează PNL profesional-profesorilor şi a formatorilor! Aici, în Europa, avem o spune: "Cu un certificat de maestru puteţi apela tine un maestru, dar are nevoie de aa grămadă întreagă de activităţi din greu pentru a fi una!" Şi acest lucru este atât de adevărat în domeniul NLP ...
Aceasta este o citi în timp util şi are sens atât de mult pentru mine, cu toate acestea nu este adevărat că, atunci când nici o idee sau un set de idei deveni oameni de succes care doriţi să-şi intensifice pe bandwagon, în speranţa de a fi efectuate de-a lungul în fluxul, şi ca multe studenţi bună în timp, au de multe ori pune în umbră mentorii lor şi profesori.
Acest lucru ar trebui să fie un lucru bun, deoarece dezvoltă ideile în continuare şi vor exista întotdeauna unii care folosesc acest lucru ca pe un vehicul de promovare a ei înşişi, fără înţelegere de bază sau capacitatea de a fi mare sau chiar foarte bune în unele cazuri.
Acest lucru sa întâmplat fracţionare în domenii atât de multe, dar fără ea şi fără unele dintre ego-ului, nu ar fi creşterea necesare pentru a împinge plic de înţelegere.
Este posibil să se facă o viaţă de la utilizarea acestor competenţe în terapie, dar nu poate spera să facă sume mari de bani dacă nu ai devenit un trainer şi de certificare pentru oferta de numerar, cu toate acestea bune de instruire este.
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.
Eu sunt, din fericire, o generaţie 1st "NLPer", instruit de Dr. Bandler, şi certificate şi licenţiat de către 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?
Cele mai bune urări,
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.
Soluţia? 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!
Antonie
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
toate cele bune
Yvonne
NLP. or SSE. There seems to be some confusion here.
The Study of Subjective Experience. is what Bandler and Grinder set out to do, in order to find out what made some people very successfull at specific things/ tasks/ in certain areas of life.
Surely 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.
Noroc,
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.
Noroc
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?
Cu respect
Over the last few years I've found my “loyalty” to NLP waning. As a Master Prac. with the Society of NLP, having trained under Bandler, I ask myself “why should I continue to give NLP credit?”
1. I have been threated with lawsuits for the mere mention of Bandler's name
2. There are idiots out there who have the same qualifications as me simply because they PAID and ATTENDED a seminar – there is NO quality control in NLP
3. Rooms chock full of people paying £2,000 to hear Bandler and McKenna speak? Come on “not by their words, but by their deeds shall ye know them” springs to mind.
4. As a self protection instructor who is a regular consultant to military and law enforcement do I want to be associated with this “law of attraction”/ “solve all your problems in an hour” MAGICAL thinking? I do not.
This article was excellent, and was the tipping point for me. I'm ditching the NLP mantle, I will NOT be associated with the practises or the people who share it and I urge teachers and coaches to do the same.
Hi Chris,
Thought provoking indeed.
I myself have experienced frustration regarding various aspects of what you are expressing.
Here are some of my experiences and views in response.
I have probably done in excess of 400 hours of explicit NLP training in the past few years and so it continues. This doesnt include the books I read and the vast amount of research etc. Of course it's purely my belief but I think it's important that people who are going to do any kind of change work with others, in any guise, need to have the requisite skills and understanding…
General Practitioners have years of training and hands on experience before they are given license to diagnose and prescribe.
Similarly, people that work with others in the NLP field should surely also have a minimum standard of skill and ability to be 'licenced' to practise or run a practice.
My first experience of NLP was the Bandler/Mckenna show. I call it a show because for me, looking back to that experience, it was just that.
Brilliant as it was to be in a room being taught by Richard, I came away with only a surface understanding and no real skill integration. I could barely remember anything! It was all very reliant on that 'old school' NLP training approach of “don't worry if it seems like nothing makes sense. It's all going to integrate unconsciously”. I am highly skeptical of that approach and it smacks of lazy teaching. Of course there is much that happens at the unconscious level but we have a conscious mind too!!
In addition, the calibre of assisting (in hindsight) wasn't of a particularly high standard. With 500 people in a room, you need some talented, pro active assistants to ensure that people are given adequate help.
It's that style of training (large numbers and ineffective assistants) which limits access to the trainers and limits learning. It seems more of a financial model than a model that truly supports effective NLP skills development.
It terms of NLP definitions and misconceptions…where do I start?!!
The 'traditional' practitioner approach has always been 'techniques' led. In my experience of nlp trainings (which are many and varied) the way nlp is taught is very fragmented and techniques based, until you get to Master prac level.
Even then, it's all a bit formulaic and doesn't reinforce the systemic nature of NLP. There's nowhere near enough emphasis placed on modelling which is the essence of NLP. Some might say, it is NLP.
I don't see enough holistic and joined up NLP training. This is my approach and i'm sure others are training it in a more connected and systemic way…..
As for what nlp is and the reputation of NLP, again, where to start!!! Aaaahhrrrrr.
So many people (clients) have expressed concern or negative views about NLP. When I have probed to find out more, it's often because of a 'bad' training experience or something they've read online.
This seems to be linked to a few things;
-the number of people who do 5 minutes (ok, slightly exaggerating!!) of nlp training, get a certificate and then print business cards and start coaching or running trainings
-the 'dating/seduction' element that isn't always marketed in a way that supports the amazing field that is NLP and contributes to a less than savoury reputation.
- the fact that the practice of NLP isn't truly regulated
- that certificates seem to be given out indiscriminately – without much rigour or evidence of skills…
The label of NLP Practitioner, Master Practitioner – what does this really mean? If you got certified as a Spanish practitioner, you would be expected to speak Spanish. However there are 1000's of people who have been certified as 'Practitioners' and they sure do need alot of practise.
Oh dear…i was meant to be having an early night Chris. See what you've done!!!!!!
In terms of the legacy you talk about….if
NLP is about subjective experience and modelling is how we learn, innovate etc etc, then we are all responsible for the legacy of NLP.
So much more I want to say/share/ask but i really have get some sleep…
I will read all posts with interest…
Chantal
Chris
In my subjective experience money is the key element in driving NLP to where it is at! Those who master the skill see it as a way to take huge amounts of money from gullable, deperate or indeed greedy people!
great article.i was also confused about it.thanks you helped to clarify it a little bit.
Hi Chris,
I think you are making an interesting point here. And there are many interesting comments above.
My subjective opinion (!) is that I am not sure I am very concerned about the name – the nominalisation – itself. I think the outcome, the skills, the better, happier, more effective and productive lives are more important. What I learnt from my NLP teachers has got me through some of the hardest most challenging times in my life and I have been able to help others with the techniques and attitudes too.
But you make many good points.
And you have been brave saying this. Why not take it one step further and ask Richard his view on this, on nlpteleclass.com? You will have an opportunity to do so. Or as I am the interviewer who will convey the questions, would you like me to ask him for you? I am brave too!
love from Laura
Great article Chris, with some very thought provoking points. A great deal of the problem, as you say, lies in the assumption that the skills modelled using NLP somehow become part of NLP.
I once saw it elegantly – if somewhat 'tongue-in-cheekedly' – summed up in a reply on a forum where someone had asked for an NLP cure for headaches. One of the replies went along the lines of “NLP says find someone who has the skill you want and copy it. When I have a headache I take aspirin and it goes. So there you are: the NLP cure for headache is take two aspirin 4 times a day.”
When I explain NLP to my students I compare the science and art we call “NLP” itself to a language, for example French. The models are like books written in French. They are not part of the language itself, just things that people have produced using the language. You can take one of those books and read it to yourself or to someone else, and it will have an effect: pictures in the mind, sounds, feelings, etc. The exact pictures, sounds, feelings, etc. someone will create are dictated largely by the content of the book (how scenes are described, which characters and locations are included, etc.) and how you read it (which is where the art comes in). Most people seem to relate to that.
I now only use the nominalisation NLP in course titles that lead to certification, and I'm in the process of removing it from our website from all but the certification courses. When I talk to corporate clients, they don't care if I'm teaching NLP or knitting – as long as the course produces the change and the results that they want.
But what do we do about fragmentation? I don't think a single global body is the answer. There would be too much infighting, and then a few splits, and we'd be back where we started (gosh, how about that for an interesting set of beliefs? And what am I projecting there? Eek!)
A good first step would be to define what exactly a “Practitioner” of NLP is. If NLP is 'just' SSE, then practitioners are surely just observers and cataloguers – as I suspect the founders of NLP in many ways were at the start; their application of what they observed was probably done primarily to prove their hypotheses and test what they were modelling. Helping people was a bonus. Hell, they were academics!
At the other end of the spectrum is the view (evident in many NLP trainings) that the practitioner's role is to have a toolkit of pre-packed models and to be able to pick the right one forthe job (or force it if needs be). NLP courses then become little more than an environment for people to practice the models, and they could ahve got it all by reading a book.
To me, the practitioner's role to create change in their client by understanding their model of the world, designing a better one, and finding a way to shift the client from one to the other. That in turn implies that there is a core body of skills which the practitioner needs to learn, and which could be set out as the basic syllabus which would allow for cross-recognition of qualifications. In essence, we need to define what elements of the language need to be taught at Prac and at Master Prac (like deciding what vocab and grammar need to be taught for school exams in French and then for a degree).
If a trainer chooses to add specific models (a reading list of French literature, to continue the analogy) to their course to save students from having to reinvent the wheel, and most importantly to provide good examples for them to study, that's their choice. But the core skills need to be taught.
Speaking metaphorically again, it reminds me of the way that traditional craftsmen would carry a tool box but also, for special jobs, they had the skills to take a few items of raw material – wood and metal – and create any tool they needed specifically for the circumstances. We need to be turning out craftsmen, not assembly line robots.
As for the problem of inexperienced teachers, NLP could learn (model?) a lot from other professions. Mentoring of new trainers by more experienced ones springs to mind. We could even set up a system where the first few courses or students had to be countersigned by a mentor, or at least a sample checked (I can hear the gasps of horror already). CPD for trainers would be another great step forwards – and one that is missing in many associations.
Then what about people going out and setting up as practitioners with only a week of training? It's hard in an “unregulated” field like NLP. But many unregulated professions have cleaned up their act with voluntary standards and codes. Few individual schools would put hurdles in the way of potential students, because 90% of them will go to a school that makes it easier to pass. But what if there was a professional body for NLP practitioners that students could join afterwards, which insisted on CPD, awarded recognition for hours of client-work delivered, had a proper code of ethics and complaints procedure,… OMG I seem to be suggesting that we become self regulating? That sounds like the start of a slippery slope towards regulation itself. Of course then we have the task of creating public awareness of the register – which means money, and therefore registration fees.
However, I think the hardest obstacle to overcome is many trainers' fear of not certifying someone. I quite often ask students to repeat part of their assessment if I don't think they've met the standard I expect. At the end of the day I am the one signing the certificate, and I have to be happy putting my name – and my reputation – on the line. I also *invite* students to maintain a learning log after their training to record all that 'unconscious integration'. I have spoken to trainers who feel that because a student has paid for certification they can't fail them. At the same time I'm sure there are trainers out there who are even more stringent than I am. Again, the answer seems to be external assessment, but trainers may resist the idea of having to pay someone to come and test (and potentially fail) their students!
This is such a wide-ranging discussion that I'm going to stop there (mostly because I just realised it's 4am!), but it is a fascinating one. Thanks for opening it up!
Jefui
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!
Lăsaţi un comentariu