可以是自然语言处理，已成为什么？
亚马逊拥有500关于NLP书籍，大部分畅销书是谁写的原始创造者和外地的开发人员没有满足人民不同意。 这篇文章是要问一个问题：能自然语言处理是它已成为？
神经语言程式学（NLP）是一个研究领域是不寻常的笨重的名称-或者是关于主观经验结构- 。 我们做什么我们的头脑和内部机构，建立我们对世界的经验？ 以及由此延伸，我们能做些什么来影响其他人的世界的经验？
外地原本出自一个小型研究小组已在20世纪70年代在加利福尼亚大学。 关键球员是一个数学家，理查班德勒，和语言学教授，谢永磨床。 他们开始建设“的模式，他们是如何与人认为”行为和沟通。 他们“蓝本”的传奇和Ericksonian催眠催眠，米尔顿埃里克森的父亲，家庭治疗的先驱，维吉尼亚萨提尔;以及完形治疗，弗里茨皮尔斯的创始人。 非治疗，包括一些非常成功的销售人员和谈判，以及许多“常人”谁曾在自己的生活变化。 项目的恐惧症，例如，涉及理查班德勒模拟一个志愿者谁曾经有恐惧，不再有它整个系列。 他很感兴趣，因为他们所做的“失去”的恐惧症，他发现他们都做得更多，或多或少同样的事情。 有一次他的这种模式，他教给别人，并且表现出任何人都可以做一个结构性的水平相同的事情，得到相同的结果。
这里的关键是，理查德变成了他的模型的技术 。 他把它叫做快速恐惧症的治疗，并教他的NLP训练计划的一部分。 他说：“自然语言处理是一种态度和方法，留下线索的技巧”。 但是，很早就已经有一些之间）的NLP混乱-的主观经验结构的研究，利用模拟的过程，和b）NLP的应用-利用技术“线索”影响自己和其他人。
现在有技术，几乎一切。 平均NLP执行师课程会教你变得更加自信，积极和坚决的技术，改变观念，阻止疼痛;结束瘾，诱导催眠现象...和清单上和范围。 保罗麦肯纳仿照著名的自然苗条的人如何对食品认为，他令我们成为畅销书，我可以使你薄 。 然后，他为蓝本如何极其丰富的人认为钱-包括理查德布兰森，彼德琼斯，菲利普格林爵士和哈吉，约安努-他转成另一种是最畅销的书，我可以使你致富 。 约翰磨床是优秀的模拟表演。 这是同样的故事反复：了解如何某人做错事，然后使用该模型创建的技术/配方/一套规则，以让其他人做同样的事情，得到相同的结果。 这些技术使人们有机会得到他们想要的东西。 他们是流行和商业价值。 保罗麦肯纳和其他人分享了在易于获取这些技术的格式数百万人。
这已经成为混乱，但。 作为一个品牌，NLP是一片混乱。 有些人听说有所谓的自然语言处理，可以使你致富这件事。 其他人听到有一个自然语言处理的饮食，可以使你减肥。 我听到的广播电台认为，NLP是一种更加自信和成功。 我看互联网上的NLP是对克服恐惧。
据我了解，这些都是误解。 NLP是对主观经验结构。 这是有关学习承认并与之互动的结构怎么想。 这是一个元纪律。 您可以使用的技术“线索”的事情很多，但技术不定义NLP的范围。
它具有更迷惑了。 像多数年轻人群体，原来的自然语言处理的创造者和开发出下降和爱。 有的甚至结婚，然后离婚。 35年，但他们大多不相互交谈。 虽然妈妈和爸爸都爱自己的孩子还非常多，他们有不同的希望和梦想，它和非常不同的养育方式。
约翰磨床开发出了他所谓的新代码的NLP，提出新的一代事情的进展。 这是一个勇敢的一步，对他以前的一些想法争论。 他的书风中的耳语解释这一切，但好运找到一个副本。 这不是一个500 +的亚马逊自然语言处理的书籍，我从来没有见过它在书店。 它没有拿出最近在eBay上，但它超过50英镑的出价上市。
理查德班德勒拥有先进的他的想法太-有些人会说更是如此-加入submodalities的自然语言处理，提炼和添加许多核心技术，开发新追加的人体工程学设计和神经催眠Repatterning，领域等等。
自然语言一样，已成为一个有两个选手马，每一个不同的方向。 事实上，它就像一个数百甚至数千名马的骑手，因为每个共同创造者和开发一些膏一系列的培训，掌握培训和学徒来传播他们的话。 而且，不可避免地，经过数月或数年，这些人发现他们有自己的想法太多，他们开始添加自己的事情自己的旋转。 逐步或突然间，他们开始传播自己的自然语言处理自己的版本。
因此，尽管主要参与者已经被他们的“我比你大”的比赛分心，我觉得今天的辩论已经改变。 有一个充满干劲的销售渔获物的一些人一种自然语言处理新一代的灵丹妙药。 它经常与积极的思考，对法律的吸引力和肯定。 我的问题是自然语言处理，可以看它在我们的集体意识成为？ 大多数人知道谁对自然语言处理，以此来改变你的生活7天是知道的。 大多数500 +图书推广取得成功的战略。 但什么是真的？
班德勒和磨床的开拓性工作，导致了思维模式的转变-如积极心理学的发展（学习的人谁做得好，谁不是人不满或“精神病”） -产生了对数百万人成功的巨大影响。 我觉得他们的创作在许多方面有益，尤其是作为一种收集和结构系统地信息。 我从他们既学到了很多东西，直接和间接的。 他们都有我的尊重，他们都非常聪明，聪明，原来的人。
但为什么它们被作为其领域的领导者？
“跟我来，我在你身后的权利。”
问题是，它们的许多学生更好地了解比他们。 这是他们的学生，谁上电视，进书店的书籍和使用网络，促进自然语言处理他们自己的版本。
而这些不超过数天培训了很多学生，学习的100级，如快速恐惧症防治的东西+其他学生。 他们往往没有机会问老师问题。
正是这些人谁是目前该领域的巨大大使自己，他们摆脱它。
我认为，需要有人告诉班德勒和磨床是他们杀害了他们的遗产。 他们俩都采取了坦途。 他们俩认证，并鼓励人们谁没有什么NLP是，没有技能，甚至使用的技术的理解。 有些人现在在那里误导他人，并采取蒙混过关的钱，不仅损害自己和他们的客户，也损害了NLP的整个领域。
是的，需要有人告诉他们。 但它不会是我。 我可能是唯一的人谁得到作为发起人，以促进两班德勒和磨床事件支付。 我不会捣乱。
Success coach; hypnotist; host of 
71评论
我认为你告诉他们。
您好克里斯，
我很喜欢读你的文章-我分享您的挫折。
我认为这么多的事态发展，参加了一次（认知心理学的“革命”，以及后来的积极心理学运动，因此还有更多...。在CBT去看看！）有自己的继续发展和影响的自然语言处理的新世代和学生-的受膏者（！） -有非常不同的leanring旅程。
我不知道该说什么班德勒和磨床将帮助-正如你所说，这项领域已变得支离破碎-但也许不是使用那些谁在这一领域积极开展以“重新调整”的NLP培训，以反映呢？ 这是，如你所知，开始对inpact现在在postgratuate舞台上-当然是有思考的空间！
顺便说一句-我与你定义为“的主观经验结构的研究”自然语言处理-只有我们知道了这么多，现在这个更多
再次感谢您这么周到的文章！
仪
克里斯，你把写什么我一直在说，过去14个月。 我认为这是一个弊病困扰着印度，主要是，随着中东部分地区和非洲...似乎是其全球大流行。
它的地步我dont甚至使用这个词的NLP卖...当我现在的客户听到这一特定组合的三封信，他们失去了兴趣。 甚至有人问我是否有'什么真正的'提供。
所以，现在，我只想继续进行，并告诉他们什么他们想要听到...和使用自然语言处理（或我所知道的）尽我所能创造变革。
虽然如此，可真有那么回事有人能做些什么呢？ 准备好间距与不惜代价。
杰加特
您好克里斯，
干得好，虽然我不能同意你写我赞扬写出这样的诚实和couragous文章大家。
也许是因为它的许多事情发生了你所说的主观性质是预先确定的？
干杯，
布赖恩
大拇指。 这完全概括了我的想法，我只希望你能说，20年前，他们会听，然后。 这太迟了，NLP是一个笑话。
文章和感谢，我对学习关于NLP更敏锐的眼睛。 我从来不知道有这么多的部门和在'混乱的NLP'。
但是，谁想得到你（或任何人）建议的学习对象？ 班德勒或机？ 或者两者都是？ 这又增加混乱从我的角度来看，把一个开始呢？
谢谢
尼尔
说得好... ...虽然我不知道他们已经采取了坦途...。 这是从他们控制的领域发展和NLP并不是唯一的外，今年发生了
您好克里斯，
我想你带了几个好点。
一个自然语言不再具有良好的定义。 这个想法已经晋升，一切是自然语言处理。 如果是真的那么的NLP真的什么呢？ NLP是什么，如果每个人都已经在做，为什么还要进行呢？ 我最近要求对NLP的良好定义的论坛。 我得到20个不同的定义。 然后，这20个开始，每个人，谁是正确的其他争论。
这使我的第二点，在自然语言处理文凭工厂那里。 3-7天的培训不会产生一个医生。 一个'教练'到3'星期的训练，并开始为认证的'训练而没有看到一个单一的客户端的教学。 我去培训，这样一来观察，这是可怕的。 谁的学生支付1400美元拿来学习什么。
结果是自然语言处理，已成为断裂，无法使用，因为你有经验的人的教学和证明人，从而缺乏经验和实践产生更坏。
我的最后一点可能是显而易见的，是没有希望改变这个制度。 自然语言处理已成为一个赚钱发电机。 培训质量是不是只有少数培训。 当资金变得更为重要的质量，那么你有一个字段，在下降。
大约6年前，我写了一篇非常想你。 我被那些恶毒的攻击谁了当时的教学。 我被指控只是市场推广和无效我的意见。 我很高兴有那些与自然语言处理谁牵涉到终于把系统脚下的火灾，要求更高的标准。
最好的办法来控制，这是与您获得拨款。 培训质量得到良好的转介及揭露那些没有谁做得很好。
克里斯好岗位。 也许这时候就会发生什么。
汤姆维齐尼
你一针见血克里斯钉，这就是为什么我把我身后的NLP，我希望情况会反过来，但我怀疑。
您好克里斯，
热烈的掌声。 写得很好。
这就像老问题的，是的NLP心理治疗？ 有些人说'是'。 有些人说'不'。 有些人说'不'，但随后继续说一切的一切，如果他们真有'是'。
我有点儿听到声音迈克尔奥尼尔现在，告诉我发生了什么NLP是我无法控制，这发生的事情我不喜欢在自然语言处理一些事情，我不能停止;认为，NLP力并未随手的事无论如何，和我的幸福并没有挂在它的。
（我知道你是不是挂在你的幸福不是，你作出了明智的观察评论。）
我个人的理念是要忘记'修复'的NLP世界。 （谁说我定会正确呢？），而只单纯追求我个人的卓越和你一样，到达NLP是什么，真正应该是底部-并希望成为的。
伟大的文章。
干杯
您好克里斯，
感谢写这本及说明已对今后在该领域的混乱。 不过，我担心有可能发展个人认为，NLP是最好的只是因为之间缺乏培训叠合避免的信念。 NLP是不仅是一个值得领域的有用的技术，长线，它有助于个人获得更清晰负荷，成功和健康。 有经验的教员和医生那里。 但也有真正伟大的人们，使用的是完整的NLP。 我的建议？ 不要在预定座位类的研究。 仅仅因为一门课程是7天或10天，并不意味着你不会学习的材料。 你知道所有你需要知道在您的领域在大学？ 当你输入一个字段，您有责任照顾你所知道的会员和扩大它。 事实是，当您选择培训机构好，你学到很多东西，有丰富的经验。
干杯
你有钢球
您好克里斯
阿发生什么很好的分析。 当有不同的做事方式是有用的，您将有蛇油推销员就带车跳。 这一不幸的一个副作用是可能罩那些要求更高的标准谁获得来去同样刷。
这加剧了人谁相信他们知道他们在做什么，是各自的愿望，以促进他们认为NLP是真实的。 因为他们是一致的无知在他们能够通过一些成功的无知。
你问：“可以是自然语言处理，已成为什么？”我认为答案是，它已成为它是什么。 由渴望成为比我们可能会在一个平庸的沙漠绿洲的卓越。 当人们厌倦了沙子，他们往往走向地方水。
最佳wishe
这里是我的NLP的主观经验的高潮（希望它帮助）：
自从我与自然语言的训练，我一直有幸经验是真实的形式第一次遇到，你在文章中描述。 因此我个人和专业NLP的实践这一理念，它的核心，我相信这是又到我的客户，任何人我交谈发生什么我不通过。 如果我企业在某个时候我敢说，说，我会继续通过这一份谅解纳入培训等。
一切顺利
好的文章克里斯。
评论从一个诚实noob
我必须承认，作为一个新的'追随者NLP的思想'有人总是在我的脑子里也似乎是别人的方式非常多样化思想的做法，但他们都缝旋转围绕原核心理念。
我个人喜欢把自己的事情的根源，它是我的利益。 我不认为任何人都可以学习半年的语言，并期望成为一个精通翻译。
谁受到的唯一存在的'客户'。
在我看来，当一个理念的主要议题是对人类心灵的多样性时再有必然的意见差分-就像'治疗前的NLP'。
我必须管理我不知道什么班德勒和磨床现在所做的很多，我一直忙于跟随他们从一开始，只是刚刚开始雕刻的道路。
有一件事我已经意识到的是，这不是一个宗教。
没有神，没有终极的真理，没有圣杯。
更多的是探索它的一个未被发现的国家。
也许磨床发现一座山，他需要征服和班德勒，一个漂亮的海滩探索。
我认为，也许有些人希望他们，而不是带领他们深入丛林。
那么如果你知道路径开始，所有的工具，你需要你出生的-开始行走
和平。
驾车的评论，因为我的... OMG嗖嗖-是的！
。
20小时网上当然，我的屁股...
您好克里斯只要这条臃肿的罢工。 领导，是既要追随者。 设置一个趋势，未来具有创意的想法，一个新的概念了。 这才是真正的进化，也很少，因为这样带来的自然语言处理。
在我的头脑保持真正的核心。
这是谁也改变了马是充满追随者。
吉尔湿重
自然语言已经失去了对自我和贪婪的泥潭。 它最终将回到它的根源或死亡。 只有时间才能告诉我们的。 好文章。
事实上，一个很好的文章。 我非常同意，有许多“船长”NLP执行师和“培训”谁对什么是他们正在做或教学很少的想法。 为期一周的整理过程中创造了一个幻想的人，他们是许多自然语言处理的主人。 这需要学习和经验得到如何自然语言处理工程，多了好几年好主意，掌握它。
我一直在做自2004年以来的NLP。 医生，师证书和培训师的培训已经完成。 不过，我还没有称自己为一个自然语言大师。 有一个值得吸取的一个关于NLP之前和心理学就可以开始教其他很多人。
剔除所有的培训，在当今世界存在，只有极少数谁与我会训练。
克里斯，你已对这一领域极好的总结。 也许是由我们-后班德勒和磨床一代做些什么。
非常耐人寻味，克里斯。
在我到了自然语言处理，我已训练成为菲登奎斯医生。 有消息称，当摩西菲登奎斯已接近他生命结束时，他告诉他的追随者几个单独，他希望他们将是一个继续进行他的工作。 每个觉得他们会被赋予皇冠和后来经过政治上的龃龉与人会提出不同的方向相结合他与他们做或者其他感兴趣的东西同样的工作，随之而来，但与笨重的名称相同的问题和不足定义为研究/实践/哲学。
需要的可能是一个国际联合会-一个管理机构，制定标准，评估培训，发展有意义的认证。 那么我们知道如果一个培训是由IFNLP认证。 但是，这要求人们谁愿意加强和做这项工作。 大多数NLP'rs更感兴趣的是做自己的事情。 大多数人都表示愿意避免的许可费和会费，将不可避免地造成。 IASH正经历着这些非常的一些问题。
有没有这个名字的商标，因此任何人都可以使用它。 目前没有合适的职业发展道路的解释，所以它容易善意的学生认为他们已经达到了技能挂断一瓦和进入企业的权利后，他们已经通过一个星期的训练了。
这可能正是因为治疗师的B＆G的模仿，它已经与治疗的第一人一些混淆。 治疗师，医疗专业人员和专家在肯定鼓励增加的技能，他们已经学会在其核武库的技术，因此它理解会有模糊。
许多思考。 感谢您的想法，并阐明促使这一讨论。
您好克里斯，
首先，伟大的文章，很喜欢它。 是的，你刚才提到的许多要点非常多汁和优雅的方式，并举行简短的火焰引诱为你说，你从它的生活...但正如你所说，需要有人这样说。
我想我的体会是，虽然没有什么主要*新*元说，在自然语言处理，它汇集了非常强大的和有用的技巧吨，如考虑到国内原材料制造的爆炸物和锅炉混合在一起房子（借口的双关语），有后果。
是的，人们的信仰问题，是否有人可以调用它们的自我训练后7天，医生。 他们当然可以！ 它是一种信念。 对不对？ 世界将很快作出决定。 毕竟你不需要证书结婚或生小孩，所以不能说坏。
根据我的经验，你的（认为），作为教练的声誉就是一切，所以你不是一个非常好的教练，或者你带着大家法院阻止他们交谈相反。 嗯..想想那一刻。 因此，最终的市民决定。 仍然愚弄，他们的钱很容易分手。
人，你看，寻求幸福的承诺，这一切，我们先卖人民的物质游行，但我们已经找到了这一点，所以让我们将到更抽象-成功的承诺，你只需要正确的模式，正确的“诀窍”。 超载问题是：在这个时代，你可以访问的任何信息，你想要的任何知识，在按一下按钮，（也可能是信用卡号），但这样做将所有的按钮按下，所以真正的问题是：
1）你能处理？ 自然语言处理从来没有承诺，你将获得成功，只是你可以在你的成果，实现更大的灵活性和选择。
b）如果您安装在自己的优秀模式，并采取了模型，那么你采取行动通过另一个fascade（直到你掌握了这种技术），那么你冒的风险成为不受同情，仁慈而发展中国家大规模的自我？ 即自然语言处理工程，所有的时间。 对不对？ 所以你不能错！ 哎呀。
c从能源的角度来看），自然语言处理工程为主的第三恰克拉，和第六轮穴，这意味着大量的重点是头脑的工作和意志力。 这里的问题是自然语言处理，使人们拆除围墙，他们可能有他们的生活的许多障碍举行，所以这可以释放出潜力，除非有某处的渠道，我们又回到了很多自我的问题再次。 我经常想到的是，在（非常小）的NLP社会有这么多的人不懂对方。 缺少了什么？ 可能是同情。 不知道。 只是我的两分钱的价值。
所以，我想的NLP将演变成更多的东西心在未来为中心。 哦，是的，它被称为是人类。
）
感谢发布！
@ cityguyyoga。
我赞扬你和你的清晰*热情*同意你的看法。
约翰磨床在“风中细诉”认为，关于NLP在更广泛的世界混乱的存在是因为我们不能区分“自然语言处理模型”，“自然语言处理应用软件”和“自然语言训练”。 他认为，独特贡献班德勒和他专门的技术模型的行为，而这，往往被忽视，我们所做的应该是任何NLP的定义方面。
我同意，但我想补充一点，四元组的主观经验的模式，几乎从原有的“结构魔术”也是一个根本性的变化贡献当时的认知行为新兴科学领域的忽视。
其他一切，我们在自然语言学习和教学已被“发现”和几千年来教，作为一个克劳利，帕坦加利或任何其他“神奇的学习”制度，将迅速明确。 这是很自然的。 我们毕竟是研究人的主观经验。
我们是我们的环境，班德勒和磨床的所有产品中。 自然语言处理有可能成为一门学科，是认知心理学领域的一小部分：但其nascence在加州七十年代初，他们的选择商品化的教学，这意味着它的传输，通过培训已成为很多共同点多层次传销和“邪教”组织，因为它遇到了学术界。
大后克里斯。 我认为一般人只要停止使用“自然语言处理”，并再装作知道这是什么坚定的信念是。 因为即使是合作，创作人员可以不同意它是什么，我们注定...注定我告诉你*动摇岁男子在愤怒地拳头*.
在我会考虑什么“成功”方面，有没有在自然语言处理很多succesfull人。 我遇到一些人正在做谁在其专业领域真正伟大的，人们对英镑的收入，谁的NLP培训，然后在100年代到1000年代，辞去工作，现在大约在Twitter发布消息坐在柔软...但至少他们'重新快乐。
这并不是说没有人有这样的自然语言处理好，但由于人们谁采取培训，自称NLPers号码，有一个人的生活似乎比以前更吸现在不成比例的数目。
自然语言处理，可神奇，可以打开了整个世界的可能性。 就像在60年代迷幻剂打开了1000人的头脑中。 问题是，如迷幻剂，它不是物质本身是令人聪明，这是你如何使用它。
使用自然语言处理，以获得更聪明是巨大的。 以此作为借口，要学越笨的NLP是stoopid。
如果我可以添加到我以前的评论...
尽管有问题，我仍然是一个迷。 （我相信你们大多数也有同感。）我仍然认为自然语言处理是一个技能和思想大集。 我仍然认为它帮助人们。 我仍然认为这是一个好主意，让越来越多的人得到了魔术。
让我们不要杀死自己的NLP。 无论发生在/到'的NLP世界'，我们仍然可以都亲自希望成为最好的大使，因为我们可以。 这是我的目标。
干杯
好站好了克里斯，我想你回声在自然语言处理领域的许多其他问题。 不过我不知道你的想法可能会发生的，现在... .. 我个人认为这是upto个人NLP从业，培训人员等采取一些品牌的责任和沟通，因此，教育的休息。
在成为一个有效的NLP'er第一条原则是，更不用说使用自然语言处理。 每一个商业顾问使用自然语言处理，如果你知道你提到的NLP失去了合同。 这是一个弄脏负内涵，没有自己的边界之外的信誉品牌。
难道它已成为？ 多大年纪了，圣母玛利亚？
这是这是什么，是它是什么。 如果一个人的期望是，它维持不变，或拥抱已经发生的时间，那么我们的期望是满意或不满意的变化。 根据我的经验，人们通常会努力满足他们的需求。 如果一个人需要的NLP来解渴的意欲快速致富，创造的治疗补救办法，引诱，市场，手感好，催眠或者它们与某些院校或导师留下深刻的印象那么，他们就会被吸引，并为实现这一代码的举动。 从根本上讲，我们都在它的_________（填空）。 无论知识或技术的应用可以帮助我们的职业生涯中，我们或谁的人是否接受训练的人所提供的课程，还是建立和maintaing一般国家的福祉帮助的人在生活中，它的所有关于赔偿积极的结果。 和我是谁，以评估另一个主观经验？ 我也许能措施的使用体验NLP的techinques。 我可能甚至可以改变一个人如果他们愿意的话。
我也，在结构，造型的主观经验，注意力集中，但是这是我的偏好。 根据我的经验，很多人并不真正关心的事情是如何工作的，他们只是想快速：给我做的三个步骤来获得特定的结果。 你真的想知道一个活塞环扭矩和在汽车燃油喷射速度，还是你只是想知道的关键和手刹的位置？
在我看来，这不是自然语言处理是或者应该是，但事情是他们的。 我们生活在一个即时满足的时代，我们得到了一个鼠标按钮，或食物的驱动器信息，请点击虽然餐厅二点三八分钟。 一般情况下，今天的NLP训练反映了在我们的社会上发生的。 为什么会是任何人感到惊讶？ 如果你是素食主义者去素食餐厅。 如果你想好饭，花时间准备自己动手（或找朋友谁是好厨师）。 我们通常会得到我们想要的。 一个好的商人给人他们想要的东西。 我不相信它的公平比较个人的意见的NLP市场-因为每一个青蛙称赞它自己的池塘。
我们训练有素的处理是什么。 我们没有喜欢它。 我们都是受过训练，“遗漏的方程和过程的重点内容”。 但这个问题我常常与越来越超出的内容和重点斗争的过程中斗争，留下什么，在我的头，我自己的主体性，并认识到，世界就在那里。
那么是什么问题？
我不是宗教研究员，但圣母玛利亚的年龄并不重要。 关键是遵循什么，已成为和地点之一realtion的。
@匿名：
是的，你的权利-您可以松动，因为人民“的一些合同恐惧”关于NLP。 每次我了，在“松动”，这样的合同i的机会Tor的讲座有一个很好的机会告诉，并表明专业NLP是从他们的“知识是”不同。 These “taught full NLP in 10 days” or “change your whole life and solve all the worlds problems in 5 days”-offers are the problem and i often see these people talking about “their” NLP with biiiig $$-signs in both eyes! This discredits the professional NLP-teachers and trainers! Here in Europe we have a saying: ” With a master certificate you may call yourself a master, but it needs aa whole pile of hard work to be one!” And this is so true in the field of NLP…
This is a timely read and makes so much sense to me, however isn't it true that when any idea or set of ideas become successful people want to step up onto the bandwagon, hoping to be carried along in the flow, and like many good students in time, they often outshine their mentors and teachers.
This should be a good thing because it develops ideas further and there will always be some that use this as a vehicle to promote themselves without the underlying understanding or ability to be great or even very good in some cases.
This fractionation has happened in so many fields, but without it and without some of the egos, there would not be the growth necessary to push the envelope of understanding.
It is possible to make a living from using these skills in therapy, but you cannot hope to make large sums of money unless you become a trainer and offer certification for cash, however good the training is.
So I will continue to search for training that is relevant to my own beliefs and which add something of value to the way that I practice NLP or whatever you would like to call it.
NLP is whatever you find it to be depending where you look and who you are.
Dani Dennington
The accrediting organisations are commercial, it's in their interest to push through as many certificates as possible even if people aren't up to scratch. NLP has become a cash cow and unfortunately it's too late to turn back time.
I am, happily, a 1st generation “NLPer”, trained by Dr. Bandler, and certified and licensed by The Society of NLP. Of which not many people even know about. It is an attempt by Bandler and John & Kathy LaValle to maintain the highest standards in the NLP and DHE community, by having members get re-certified and re-licensed, pepetually, within a 2 year period of any previous re-certifications and re-licensings.
My opinion, if they ain't been trained by the master, or any other Master NLP Trainer, “stay clear!”.
Dr. Richard Bandler has said of Joe Vanore: “he KNOWS NLP!!” I am thankful for having such a good reputation in the industry.
By the way, Richard's own story when stopped by a police officer for some traffic violation, was asked what his occupation was, looking down on the seat seeing books on Neurology, Linguistis, and Computer Programming, said: “I'ma Neuro Linguistic Programmer, etc., etc. “. So you see, all the definitions are made up, or are attempts to describe what Dr. Richard Bandler was teaching. You talk about NLP, have you any credentials in the area? Have you sought any information from The Source, Richard Bandler himself.? Your article, though with good intentions, reads like a third party term paper. Where are the references to the General Semanticist, and author of “Science and Sanity” Count Alfred Korzybski. He was the real “Source” and setup for NLP. Just another over-qualified thought process expert. Give me the one's the Psych's ain't winning with, absent severe brain damage. I like challenges.
Joe (Doc) Vanore
@ Dr. Joseph A. Vanore, Sr. You asked: “You talk about NLP, have you any credentials in the area? Have you sought any information from The Source, Richard Bandler himself.?”
I have been learning from Richard and working with him for many years – first as a student, later as an assistant and then as a promoter/organiser of his events. As a specialist in applying NLP to the context of therapeutic work, I am “highly recommended” by Richard personally. I organised the first and to date only Society of NLP-approved Advanced Master Practitioner event in Europe with Richard's support. I am currently the UK promoter for his international program: The Best of Bandler Technologies – which will be a fantastic event. I'm sure Richard would like to see you there.
感谢克里斯开放的辩论...
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!
Anthony
I think it is a problem of language – odd given its background.
I think the word “practitioner” encourages a lot of people to go on an NLP course with the same motivation as the people answering the “Why not become a driving instructor” adverts that are on TV all the time.
People leave the course asking questions like “where can I rent a room? ” and “Where can I find some “broken ” people to fix in that room to pay the rent?” Soon they are asking the question, “How can I teach other people about this stuff to make my money instead of doing it?”
I think it would be better to be leaving a course asking “How can I apply all this great stuff to make the life I already have even better?” “What can I do to build on what I have learnt?” “Who can I model that does really cool stuff?”"How can I contribute to the future of NLP?”
I remember at really amazing guitarist being interviewed about why he played in such an innovative way? His reply was “well the alternative was to be just another suburban Eric Clapton”.
hi Chris – theres a great site John La Valle set up not only for me – but he was the only one helping when someone wanted to “secure the quality of NLP” in Austria – by letting only phd´s teach NLP … Yes how stupid … only through the Society of NLP I was able to write a public letter to that guy – and keeping NLP free. Have a look at this site http://www.nlpisnottherapy.com
all the best
伊冯娜
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.
干杯，
Craig
Hey Chris!
To me, I think Eric Robbie nails it best in his profile description on nlpconnections…
…”I like doing NLP”
To me – key word: “doing”
What's that old anecdote about Eskimos having a zillion different words for snow…
…imagine the arguments and misunderstanding that would occur if they had just the one word!!??
Thanks for the comeback Chris. I now think I know you a little better, since you asserted who you are. I appreciate and respect that. I met Da “Man” back in'92 at a Communications Hypnotic Ideation Course Richard was teaching at the Top Gun school in San Diego Holiday Inn. I participated in many many many many of his certifying and licensing cources since then. I just wrote an intro to Meisam S. Delavar's books “Basic priciples of NLP; NLP in Cognative Approach vol 1 & NLP in Behavioral Approch vol 2″.
The last paragraph: “Welcome to the adventures of your life never being the same again. 'Hats off” to Meisam and all the developers and continuing developers of NLP. A community dedicated to 'YOU'.”
Though all referrential constructs, I feel that with the Pot Pouri of NLP material available – …people in all walks of life can effectuate immediate and permanent dramatic change to enrich their lives and make the world a better place to live in.
Bon Vivant
I feel very touched by your article Chris. I trained with McKenna Breen in 1998-2000 but feel nowadays the field has become a joke. The skills are useful but how many people these days get the skills? All I see from people now is confidence. Confidence about what, that is the question? I feel Bandler has sold out. Maybe Grinder too, I'm not so sure about that side. It's very sad to see.
I trained with McKenna Breen before it all went crazy and, like others have said, I use my skills but I don't ever tell people I do NLP. The image of NLP is more horrible than dog poo! Why would I want to be associated with that?
Just to add my voice to the crowd, I really agree with this.
Chris, I must admit, I disagree with the idea that you're currently advocating. I believe the confusion arises from whether NLP is a brand name or a field of study. Naturally, it can be both, but we don't usually consider computer science a brand name, do we?
Bandler and Grinder have given the world a set of tools and methodologies that is proving to be the foundation for the next generation of communication and development. That's fantastic. However, though they may be the Creators of NLP, they are not the Leaders. That's an important difference, because as near as I can tell, fields of study don't have leaders, they have developers.
What good would leaders be to us, now, anyway? What purpose would they serve? As NLPers, we know damn well that the techniques taught in trainings are only pointers, directing us towards the deeper truths that allow us to generate new techniques, to discover new patterns. Bandler has always been very vocal about prohibiting the standardization of NLP. Though this has perhaps kept NLP out of academia for too long, it has also allowed for the kind of exponential, albeit covert, growth that's the reason we're all here.
Don't you agree that the fact that NLP is presented in so many ways, as a method of self-improvement, persuasion, therapy, business structure, spiritual practice, and communication technology, is logical, natural, and important because it's true??? NLP can do all of these things and more, so for that particular purpose, we should consider encouraging this fractionation. That way, as people descend into the quicksand of NLP, they will be overjoyed to discover even more ways that they can put the technology to use.
Hi Chris
Interesting debate you have breathed life into. I feel that the way NLP is currently heading on the GPS-limo, NLP is on a crash course with no where else to go? Looking through the adverts in some NLP related publications worries me. This plethora of new Trainers coming through the ranks armed with Powerpoint slides and certificates ready signed for new comers after 7 days (or less) of training is a sure indication that unless some pretty radical action happens, NLP will have been consigned to the incurables section of the hospital before it has had the chance to cure itself. The cure being to understand exactly what you were saying in your blog, the study of subjective experience.
I'm in a very interesting position. I'm currently working with John Grinder on what he told me is the most exciting modelling project he has worked on to date.
(Considering he modelled Erickson that was a bit of a WOW).
The reason he is so gripped by this project is that no one has attempted to do what I am doing at the level that I'm doing it.
His words were,” I'm hoping and believe that we might have some new discoveries coming out of it that will be fresh to NLP”. This is why he is backing me over the next three years for its hopeful conclusion? We will have to wait and see? The evidence will be supported by multi-media technology so here goes.
I agree that something needs to happen to NLP ASAP to create some credibility and authenticity across the wide range of possibilities that NLP could benefit the human race. The 'something' I would suggest is 'Congruency' of it's Practitioners.
Peter Salisbury
As you promote both of them and are therefore part of the problem, what do you hope to achieve by this rocking the boat?
Personally I rather like the current state of nlp, if you want good you can find it, if you want bad you can find it, the responsibility remains with you.
I am very pleased that nlp has spread globally and quickly and this benefit to the world can be attributed to the creators whoever you think they are.
The world has benefited from nlp, a similar example is the case of craniosacral work which Sutherland (the founder) said should remain in the osteopathic community, well it escaped and the world has benefited (altho people can always find counterexamples). Compare this to the Trager work which has attempted to keep its work pure . By doing this it has not spread and created benefits even though it is a highly effective form of bodywork. In my a opinion a loose form of leadership is better than tight control any day, I value freedom.
About trainings becoming moneymaking treadmills …well this is more the result of the capitalist world that we live in(with its emphasis on short term ecology and and applications approach….certainly an area that can be readdressed by nlp in the corporate world)
What I personally value in a training is the continuing connection with the unconscious process and the money is another issue.
Incidently many of the so called changes that are being called for by Grinder and others were actually stated in many of the earlier books such as the structures of magic , trancermations etc etc (emphasis on process/ exploration rather than application). However it is good to to have them updated and stated more explicitly.
I think a useful question to ask is ' Have i benefited from nlp and do i continue to do so?'
ABSOLUTELY AGREE! I have felt this for ages and not seen it reflected back. Good to see a debate emerging.
I feel a lot of people have been very wounded by modern NLP. The McKenna operation while it helped a lot of people was a commercial engine and I feel some of the most vulnerable people who went to them for help ended up in a lot of debt after so many trainings they didn't need. I feel this was a shameful period in NLP's history and though it is over it has left a legacy because many of those students are now trainers themselves and repeating the cycle.
It's a big mess Chris, and thank you for shining some light.
As I read again the article and the responses, it seems to me it all boils down to basically four things:
1。 No universally agreed definition of NLP.
2。 No universally agreed 'scope' for what is NLP, and therefore what an NLP programme should teach.
3。 No single leadership, leading the direction in which NLP changes and continues to develop.
4。 Variable quality of trained people.
Or, more simply, it's splintered and uncontrolled.
(I don't agree that the problems are specifically 'the commercialisation of NLP', 'introduction of 7-day trainings', etc. I think those are abstractions of the problems based on people's personal beliefs. Forgive me, it's just what I think and I'm aware I could be wrong.)
So far, the debate has been mostly been on a problem-oriented track, which is fine as a stage to go through. Now I'm wondering, what's the solution-oriented track?
It's worth asking ourselves, are there any positive by-products of the way things are? Well, one is that it means the field is not stilted. It means there's personal freedom within the field. Would we want to lose those things?
As for the addressing problems themselves…
Well, it seems to me we can't force everyone to have a common definition of NLP.
Some working group could work to agree and define a common scope, but then you're still going to have camps, such as your 'Logical Levels are NLP' and 'Logical Levels are not NLP' camps.
We could ask Bandler, Grinder, et al, to submit to just one of them being leader. Or co-operate as a leadership collective. Yeah, right! We know that's not going to happen.
And as for quality, well we could create a society and publish and enforce standards. But that's been done before and it hasn't fixed things.
The best things we can do for NLP lie somewhere else, I think.
I'm sure we'd agree that trying to “fix NLP” based on changing what other people/groups think and do is a not-well-formed outcome. Whatever one might do to attempt to control it (like the things I mention above) would seem to just create more of the behaviour we're defining as the problem (splintering).
I can't help thinking the well-formed equivalent is for us to simply lead from within, by taking responsibility for our own behaviours, our own quality, spread the word to others, influence others to take the same level of responsibility, help others and be as good an ambassador as we can.
Just my added thoughts.
Cheers
I commend your positive approach Stephen (above). I'd say you're also right in that the problem isn't the commercialisation per se but what has happened because of it. In such a fragmented field as NLP with no leader or in fact several competing leaders there's no check against some of those being greedy and exploiting their position and I'm afraid this is what happened in the 90s especially on the Bandler side. The problem is titles were sold off without the people acquiring relevant skills and now those people are the ones teaching NLP to others. That's why I say it's too late to fix it, the cycle has gone too far already. Unless you have a time machine it's too late.
Chris, you've gotten a lot of people talking, and I hope it accomplishes something good.
I wanted to post my thoughts on the subject, but the comment ended up to be way too long. I posted it on my own blog instead. My response to your article is, in a nutshell, that I agree that NLP is a fragmented mess, and that I disagree that that has to be a bad thing.
Chris, welcome to the club. I learnt NLP with some friends and one by one we've all come to the same conclusion, which is that some aspects of NLP are undoubtedly very useful but the egos and insanity of those at the top make it a very toxic environment. I suggest focussing on ericksonian hypnosis which offers the same skills but in a nourishing environment.
For anyone interested in John and Carmens book,see http://www.whisperinginthewind.com
Nice one, Chris.
To me, NLP's reputation could be helped by:
(a) a universally-recognized accreditation that denotes a minimum level of expertise that a client has a right to expect;
(b) a concerted effort by NLPers to raise the profile of NLP wherever possible into the mainstream consciousness, as happened with psychoanalysis;
(c) some perceived unity in the field – Bandler, Grinder, Robbins, Hall, etc – sell the core brand first, then the personal take on it (the English language is constantly absorbing and evolving but it's always known as English…)!
Best wishes 'n' kudos to ya
Dear Chris and all who have been contributing,
I had to really think about what nlp ment for me after carefully reading all of this. I have suffered with mental health problems for some twenty years and nothing conventional seems to help. When it comes to the nhs i fear we are on our own. To begin with nlp was the drift wood i clung to in hope of recovery or respite, after hearing RB claims of healing others.
Hypnosis was once shrouded in mystery and superstition until Milton Erickson exposed his truth to the scientific and medical community allowing hypnosis to take its rightful stand in the medical professions.
I have heard RB say he would not do the same thing with nlp but would leave that to others. Would NLP stand up to the rigorous trials of a scientific procedure? Which techniques would pass? CBT has been proven effective beyond even medication for the treatment, of especially, depression.
Of course i have taken this down the therapy route because of my own experience and seeing as the first models where Milton,Satir,Gestalt(Pearls?) and so much nlp seems to be hypnosis/therapy based (to my mind).
Unfortunatly, it has become like a cult, with charismatic leaders, its own language, expensive initiation rights etc.
To summarize: Would nlp stand up to scientific/medical approval?
亲切的问候
Over the last few years I've found my “loyalty” to NLP waning. As a Master Prac. with the Society of NLP, having trained under Bandler, I ask myself “why should I continue to give NLP credit?”
1。 I have been threated with lawsuits for the mere mention of Bandler's name
2。 There are idiots out there who have the same qualifications as me simply because they PAID and ATTENDED a seminar – there is NO quality control in NLP
3。 Rooms chock full of people paying £2,000 to hear Bandler and McKenna speak? Come on “not by their words, but by their deeds shall ye know them” springs to mind.
4。 As a self protection instructor who is a regular consultant to military and law enforcement do I want to be associated with this “law of attraction”/ “solve all your problems in an hour” MAGICAL thinking? I do not.
This article was excellent, and was the tipping point for me. I'm ditching the NLP mantle, I will NOT be associated with the practises or the people who share it and I urge teachers and coaches to do the same.
Hi Chris,
Thought provoking indeed.
I myself have experienced frustration regarding various aspects of what you are expressing.
Here are some of my experiences and views in response.
I have probably done in excess of 400 hours of explicit NLP training in the past few years and so it continues. This doesnt include the books I read and the vast amount of research etc. Of course it's purely my belief but I think it's important that people who are going to do any kind of change work with others, in any guise, need to have the requisite skills and understanding…
General Practitioners have years of training and hands on experience before they are given license to diagnose and prescribe.
Similarly, people that work with others in the NLP field should surely also have a minimum standard of skill and ability to be 'licenced' to practise or run a practice.
My first experience of NLP was the Bandler/Mckenna show. I call it a show because for me, looking back to that experience, it was just that.
Brilliant as it was to be in a room being taught by Richard, I came away with only a surface understanding and no real skill integration. I could barely remember anything! It was all very reliant on that 'old school' NLP training approach of “don't worry if it seems like nothing makes sense. It's all going to integrate unconsciously”. I am highly skeptical of that approach and it smacks of lazy teaching. Of course there is much that happens at the unconscious level but we have a conscious mind too!!
In addition, the calibre of assisting (in hindsight) wasn't of a particularly high standard. With 500 people in a room, you need some talented, pro active assistants to ensure that people are given adequate help.
It's that style of training (large numbers and ineffective assistants) which limits access to the trainers and limits learning. It seems more of a financial model than a model that truly supports effective NLP skills development.
It terms of NLP definitions and misconceptions…where do I start?!!
The 'traditional' practitioner approach has always been 'techniques' led. In my experience of nlp trainings (which are many and varied) the way nlp is taught is very fragmented and techniques based, until you get to Master prac level.
Even then, it's all a bit formulaic and doesn't reinforce the systemic nature of NLP. There's nowhere near enough emphasis placed on modelling which is the essence of NLP. Some might say, it is NLP.
I don't see enough holistic and joined up NLP training. This is my approach and i'm sure others are training it in a more connected and systemic way…..
As for what nlp is and the reputation of NLP, again, where to start!!! Aaaahhrrrrr.
So many people (clients) have expressed concern or negative views about NLP. When I have probed to find out more, it's often because of a 'bad' training experience or something they've read online.
This seems to be linked to a few things;
-the number of people who do 5 minutes (ok, slightly exaggerating!!) of nlp training, get a certificate and then print business cards and start coaching or running trainings
-the 'dating/seduction' element that isn't always marketed in a way that supports the amazing field that is NLP and contributes to a less than savoury reputation.
- the fact that the practice of NLP isn't truly regulated
- that certificates seem to be given out indiscriminately – without much rigour or evidence of skills…
The label of NLP Practitioner, Master Practitioner – what does this really mean? If you got certified as a Spanish practitioner, you would be expected to speak Spanish. However there are 1000's of people who have been certified as 'Practitioners' and they sure do need alot of practise.
Oh dear…i was meant to be having an early night Chris. See what you've done!!!!!!
In terms of the legacy you talk about….if
NLP is about subjective experience and modelling is how we learn, innovate etc etc, then we are all responsible for the legacy of NLP.
So much more I want to say/share/ask but i really have get some sleep…
I will read all posts with interest…
Chantal
Chris
In my subjective experience money is the key element in driving NLP to where it is at! Those who master the skill see it as a way to take huge amounts of money from gullable, deperate or indeed greedy people!
great article.i was also confused about it.thanks you helped to clarify it a little bit.
Hi Chris,
I think you are making an interesting point here. And there are many interesting comments above.
My subjective opinion (!) is that I am not sure I am very concerned about the name – the nominalisation – itself. I think the outcome, the skills, the better, happier, more effective and productive lives are more important. What I learnt from my NLP teachers has got me through some of the hardest most challenging times in my life and I have been able to help others with the techniques and attitudes too.
But you make many good points.
And you have been brave saying this. Why not take it one step further and ask Richard his view on this, on nlpteleclass.com? You will have an opportunity to do so. Or as I am the interviewer who will convey the questions, would you like me to ask him for you? I am brave too!
love from Laura
Great article Chris, with some very thought provoking points. A great deal of the problem, as you say, lies in the assumption that the skills modelled using NLP somehow become part of NLP.
I once saw it elegantly – if somewhat 'tongue-in-cheekedly' – summed up in a reply on a forum where someone had asked for an NLP cure for headaches. One of the replies went along the lines of “NLP says find someone who has the skill you want and copy it. When I have a headache I take aspirin and it goes. So there you are: the NLP cure for headache is take two aspirin 4 times a day.”
When I explain NLP to my students I compare the science and art we call “NLP” itself to a language, for example French. The models are like books written in French. They are not part of the language itself, just things that people have produced using the language. You can take one of those books and read it to yourself or to someone else, and it will have an effect: pictures in the mind, sounds, feelings, etc. The exact pictures, sounds, feelings, etc. someone will create are dictated largely by the content of the book (how scenes are described, which characters and locations are included, etc.) and how you read it (which is where the art comes in). Most people seem to relate to that.
I now only use the nominalisation NLP in course titles that lead to certification, and I'm in the process of removing it from our website from all but the certification courses. When I talk to corporate clients, they don't care if I'm teaching NLP or knitting – as long as the course produces the change and the results that they want.
But what do we do about fragmentation? I don't think a single global body is the answer. There would be too much infighting, and then a few splits, and we'd be back where we started (gosh, how about that for an interesting set of beliefs? And what am I projecting there? Eek!)
A good first step would be to define what exactly a “Practitioner” of NLP is. If NLP is 'just' SSE, then practitioners are surely just observers and cataloguers – as I suspect the founders of NLP in many ways were at the start; their application of what they observed was probably done primarily to prove their hypotheses and test what they were modelling. Helping people was a bonus. Hell, they were academics!
At the other end of the spectrum is the view (evident in many NLP trainings) that the practitioner's role is to have a toolkit of pre-packed models and to be able to pick the right one forthe job (or force it if needs be). NLP courses then become little more than an environment for people to practice the models, and they could ahve got it all by reading a book.
To me, the practitioner's role to create change in their client by understanding their model of the world, designing a better one, and finding a way to shift the client from one to the other. That in turn implies that there is a core body of skills which the practitioner needs to learn, and which could be set out as the basic syllabus which would allow for cross-recognition of qualifications. In essence, we need to define what elements of the language need to be taught at Prac and at Master Prac (like deciding what vocab and grammar need to be taught for school exams in French and then for a degree).
If a trainer chooses to add specific models (a reading list of French literature, to continue the analogy) to their course to save students from having to reinvent the wheel, and most importantly to provide good examples for them to study, that's their choice. But the core skills need to be taught.
Speaking metaphorically again, it reminds me of the way that traditional craftsmen would carry a tool box but also, for special jobs, they had the skills to take a few items of raw material – wood and metal – and create any tool they needed specifically for the circumstances. We need to be turning out craftsmen, not assembly line robots.
As for the problem of inexperienced teachers, NLP could learn (model?) a lot from other professions. Mentoring of new trainers by more experienced ones springs to mind. We could even set up a system where the first few courses or students had to be countersigned by a mentor, or at least a sample checked (I can hear the gasps of horror already). CPD for trainers would be another great step forwards – and one that is missing in many associations.
Then what about people going out and setting up as practitioners with only a week of training? It's hard in an “unregulated” field like NLP. But many unregulated professions have cleaned up their act with voluntary standards and codes. Few individual schools would put hurdles in the way of potential students, because 90% of them will go to a school that makes it easier to pass. But what if there was a professional body for NLP practitioners that students could join afterwards, which insisted on CPD, awarded recognition for hours of client-work delivered, had a proper code of ethics and complaints procedure,… OMG I seem to be suggesting that we become self regulating? That sounds like the start of a slippery slope towards regulation itself. Of course then we have the task of creating public awareness of the register – which means money, and therefore registration fees.
However, I think the hardest obstacle to overcome is many trainers' fear of not certifying someone. I quite often ask students to repeat part of their assessment if I don't think they've met the standard I expect. At the end of the day I am the one signing the certificate, and I have to be happy putting my name – and my reputation – on the line. I also *invite* students to maintain a learning log after their training to record all that 'unconscious integration'. I have spoken to trainers who feel that because a student has paid for certification they can't fail them. At the same time I'm sure there are trainers out there who are even more stringent than I am. Again, the answer seems to be external assessment, but trainers may resist the idea of having to pay someone to come and test (and potentially fail) their students!
This is such a wide-ranging discussion that I'm going to stop there (mostly because I just realised it's 4am!), but it is a fascinating one. Thanks for opening it up!
Rob
Hello and Nice one Chris
I agree with your statements and myself see a great opportunity, with so many 'qualified (only one quote I think so as to avoid judging?) NLPers, to access the fruits of trial and error /success and find what has been working. With so much data, maybe those who value quality can reverse engineer.. ok maybe with a new, more user friendly,brand name? Spelling out NLP (no not the letters silly!) must be one of the all time greatest inductions?
Hi Chris,
It strikes me that the confusion at the heart of NLP stems from the very way that it is presented, especially by the people who started it all.
Richard Bandler, during his practitioner and master prac courses fills his teaching time with stories and anecdotes about how NLP started. It all seems very clear. Bandler had spare time at Uni and started to read psychology books. He then asked which therapies worked. The answer was very few. He then went along to watch Satir and Perls doing their things. He found elements that they were doing which seemed to have the same structure. He went to Grinder. Grinder intoduced transformational grammar to the equation. The Meta Model was born and The Structure of Magic written.
Having read Magic 1 and 2, it is clear that this book is really devised as a manual for therapists. NLP is not mentioned – but the whole idea is that what Bandler and Grinder are doing is finding effective therapy.
Then comes Patterns 1 and 2. Once again, Bandler and Grinder try to work out how a therapist – Erickson – is doing what he is doing. Now the Milton Model is defined, which is the inverse Meta Model. Somewhere in Patterns 2, the term NLP is used. The whole book is once again dedicated to uncovering how therapy is done – and that seems to be the primary objective of the work of the two men at this time.
It's as if the two men stumble upon a process they later call “NLP modelling” while trying to work out why Satir, Perls and Erickson are doing their things. So, the first books and the subsequent volumes: Frogs into Princes, Trance-formations, Using Your Brain for A Change, Magic in Action, Reframing etc – are all books which are focussed on therapy.
The idea of modelling non-therapists appears, to the outside observer, to be something which is grafted on later. Indeed, modelling itself appears to be a later addition to the discourse. The two men's initial desire to uncover and make explicit specific techniques that are used in therapy appears to be the initial driver for the field that they later called NLP.
This, I think is at the heart of the confusion. That NLP really did start off as a therapy-based discipline, and then started to expand to different areas. In this reading of the history of NLP, it is the therapy based NLP which is the “true” or “original” form of NLP, and later additions are an extension of the processes the two men used in order to work out what Satir, Perls and Erickson were up to. Whether this is empirically true is not really important – it is most certainly the impression that Bandler gives.
It is interesting to note, at Bandler seminars, that his repeated use of stories from the therapeutic world are often challenged by bewildered business-people, who see no use for the stories they are being told. The DVDs of Persuasion Engineering also show this “therapy bias” in the way information is presented.
With one very strong strand of NLP essentially presenting NLP as a means of therapy, while the other, Grinder, is on record as stating that the primary function of NLP is modelling excellent behaviours at the conscious and unconscious levels, it is no surprising that NLP has something of an identity crisis.
My own view is that you learn from as many people as you can, and you piece together a NLP that works for you. Perhaps its strength is that it is ultimately malleable and adaptable – and that learning the NLP ethos teaches you to just be more open to new ideas than you ever were before. That in itself is something that a lot of people could do with learning in this world!
Leave a Comment