可以是自然語言處理，已成為什麼？
亞馬遜已經超過500本書關於NLP及大部分暢銷書是誰寫的人的原創者和開發的領域並沒有滿足，不同意。 這篇文章是要問一個問題：能自然語言處理是它已成為？
神經語言程式學（NLP）是一個笨拙的名稱不同尋常的研究領域是-或者是 -對結構的主觀經驗。 我們做什麼我們的頭腦裡和身體我們的經驗，創建了世界？ 以及由此延伸，我們能做些什麼來影響其他人的經驗的世界？
外地原本出自一個小的研究小組在美國加州大學在20世紀70年代。 關鍵球員是一個數學家，理查班德勒，和語言學教授，謝永磨床。 他們開始建設“模型”，他們是如何和其他人的思想，行為和溝通。 他們“藍本”的傳奇催眠和父親的Ericksonian催眠，米爾頓埃里克森，開拓家庭治療師，弗吉尼亞薩提亞以及格式塔療法的創始人，弗里茨皮爾斯。 非治療，包括一些非常成功的銷售人員和談判，以及許多“常人”誰作出了改變自己的生活。 項目的恐懼症，例如，涉及理查班德勒模擬整個系列的志願者誰曾經有恐懼，不再多。 他很感興趣，因為他們所做的“失去”的恐懼症，他發現他們都做得更多，或多或少同樣的事情。 有一次他的楷模，他教給別人，並且表現出任何人都可以做同樣的事情在結構水平，獲得相同的結果。
這裡的關鍵是，理查德把他的模型為一個技術 。 他把它叫做快速恐懼症治療，教他的一部分的NLP培訓。 他說：“自然語言處理是一種態度和方法，留下了線索的技術”。 但是，很早就已經有一些混亂之間）的NLP -研究結構的主觀經驗，使用過程的模型，和b）應用NLP的-使用“線索的技術”，影響自己和其他人。
現在有技術，幾乎一切。 平均NLP執行師課程會教你的技術為越來越有信心，動力和決心，改變信仰，阻止疼痛;結束癮，誘導催眠現象...，凡此種種，不勝枚舉下去。 保羅麥肯納仿照著名的自然苗條的人怎麼想的食物，他令我們成為暢銷書，我可以使你薄 。 然後，他為藍本如何極其豐富的人認為錢-包括理查德布蘭森，彼德瓊斯，菲利普格林爵士和哈吉，約安努-他轉成另一種是最暢銷的書，我可以使你致富 。 約翰磨床是優秀的模擬表演。 這是同樣的故事反复：了解如何某人做錯事，然後使用該模型創建的技術/配方/設置的規則，將讓其他人做同樣的事情，得到相同的結果。 這些技術使人們有機會得到他們想要的東西。 他們是流行和商業價值。 保羅麥肯納和其他人幫助數百萬人分享這些技術在易於訪問的格式。
這已經成為混亂，但。 作為一個品牌，NLP是一片混亂。 有些人聽到有這個所謂自然語言處理，可以使你致富。 其他人聽到有一個自然語言處理的飲食，可以使你減肥。 我聽到的廣播電台認為，NLP是一種更加自信和成功。 我看互聯網上的NLP是對克服恐懼。
據我了解，這些都是誤解。 NLP是對結構的主觀經驗。 這是有關學習承認並與之互動的結構怎麼想。 這是一個元紀律。 您可以使用“線索的技術”的事情很多，但技術不界定範圍NLP的。
它具有更迷惑了。 像大多數的青年群體的人，原有的自然語言處理的創造者和開發出下降和愛。 有的甚至結婚，然後離婚。 35年來的，其中大多數是不相互交談。 雖然媽媽和爸爸都愛自己的孩子還非常多，他們有不同的希望和夢想它，非常不同的養育方式。
約翰磨床開發出了他所謂的新代碼的NLP，推動事情的進展新的一代。 這是一個勇敢的一步，認為對他以前的一些想法。 他的書風中的耳語解釋這一切，但好運找到一個副本。 這不是一個500 +的NLP書籍，亞馬遜和我從來沒有見過它的書店。 它沒有拿出最近在eBay上，但被列入招標超過50英鎊。
理查德班德勒擁有先進的他的想法太-有些人會說更是如此-加入submodalities核心的自然語言處理，提煉和添加大量技術，開發新領域的追加人體工程學設計和神經催眠Repatterning，等等。
自然語言處理，已成為像馬有兩個車手，將在每一個不同的方向。 事實上，它就像一匹馬擁有成百上千甚至成千上萬的乘客，因為每一個合作創造者和一些發展商受膏者一系列的培訓，掌握培訓和學徒來傳播他們的話。 而且，不可避免地，經過數月或數年，這些人發現他們有自己的想法太多，他們開始加入自己的旋轉的東西。 逐步或突然間，他們開始傳播他們自己的版本NLP的。
因此，儘管主要參與者已經被他們的比賽分心的“我的比你大”，我覺得今天的辯論已經改變。 有一個新的一代充滿幹勁的人銷售的NLP的一些種包羅萬象的靈丹妙藥。 它經常與積極的思考，法律的吸引力和肯定。 我的問題是自然語言處理，可它已經成為我們的集體意識？ 大多數人知道的NLP誰知道它作為一種方法來改變你的生活7天。 大多數500 +書籍促進它作為一項戰略的成功。 但什麼是真的？
班德勒和磨床的開拓性工作，導致了思維模式的轉變-如發展產生積極的心理（學習的人誰做得好，誰不是人不滿或“精神病”） -已經產生了巨大影響的成功對數百萬人。 我覺得他們的創作在許多方面很有用，尤其是作為一種信息收集和結構有系統地。 我學到了很多，從他們兩個人直接和間接的。 他們都有我的尊重，他們都非常聰明，聰明，原來的人。
但為什麼它們被視為各自領域的領導人？
“跟我來，我在你身後的權利。”
問題是，許多學生是比他們更好地了解的。 這是他們的學生在電視上誰去，使自己的書到書店，利用網絡來推銷自己的版本的自然語言處理。
和很多這些學生有不超過數天的培訓，學習的東西，如快速恐懼症的防治類100 +其他學生。 他們往往沒有機會問老師問題。
正是這些人自己是誰目前該領域的偉大的大使，他們擺脫它。
我認為，需要有人告訴班德勒和磨床是他們殺害了他們的遺產。 他們倆都採取了坦途。 他們倆認證，並鼓勵人們誰不認識NLP是什麼，沒有技能，甚至使用的技術。 有些人現在在那裡誤導他人，並採取資金蒙混過關，不僅損害自己和他們的客戶，也損害了整個領域的自然語言處理。
是的，需要有人告訴他們。 但它不會是我。 我可能是唯一的人誰收錢作為發起人，以促進兩班德勒和磨床事件。 我不會搗亂。
72評論
我認為你告訴他們。
您好克里斯，
我很喜歡讀你的文章-我分享您的挫折。
我認為這麼多的事態發展，是周圍的時間（認知心理學的“革命”，以及後來的積極心理學運動，因此還有更多...。看CBT現在！）有自己的繼續發展和影響新一代的自然語言處理和學生-的受膏者（！） -有非常不同的leanring旅程。
我不知道該說什麼班德勒和磨床將幫助-正如你所說，這項領域已變得支離破碎-但也許不是誰使用這些活躍在外地的“重新調整”的NLP培訓，以反映呢？ 這是，如你所知，開始對inpact現在在postgratuate舞台上-當然是有思想的空間！
順便說一句-我與你定義的NLP為“結構的研究主觀經驗” -只有我們知道這麼多有關此現
再次感謝您這麼周到的文章！
儀
克里斯，你把我寫我們一直在說，在過去14個月。 我認為這是一個弊病困擾著印度，主要是，隨著部分中東和非洲...看來它是一種全球性流行病。
它的地步我dont甚至使用這個詞的NLP賣...當我現在聽到這些客戶在這三封信，特別是結合在一起，他們失去了興趣。 甚至有人問我是否有'什麼真正的'提供。
所以，現在，我只想繼續進行，並告訴他們什麼他們想要聽到...和使用自然語言處理（或我所知道的）盡我所能創造變革。
雖然如此，可真有那麼回事有人能做些什麼呢？ 準備好間距與不惜代價。
傑加特
您好克里斯，
幹得好，雖然我不能同意你都寫我謹向你寫出這樣的誠實和couragous文章。
也許是因為其主觀性質許多事情你說是發生了預定？
乾杯，
布賴恩
大拇指。 這完全概括了我的想法，我只希望你能說，20年前，他們會聽，然後。 這太遲了，NLP是一個笑話。
並感謝的文章中，我有敏銳的眼光就更多地了解自然語言處理。 我從來不知道有這麼多的內部分裂和混亂'的NLP'。
但是，誰想得到你（或任何人）建議的學習對象？ 班德勒或機？ 或者兩者都是？ 這又增加混亂從我的觀點認為一開始呢？
謝謝
尼爾
說得好... ...雖然我不知道他們已經採取了坦途...。 這是從他們控制的領域發展和NLP並不是唯一的外，今年發生了
您好克里斯，
我想你帶了幾個好點。
一個自然語言不再具有良好的定義。 這個想法已經晉升，一切是自然語言處理。 如果是真的那麼的NLP真的什麼呢？ NLP是什麼，如果每個人都已經在做，為什麼還要進行呢？ 最近，我問一個論壇有一個良好定義的NLP。 我得到20個不同的定義。 然後，這20人開始互相爭論，誰是正確的。
這使我想到第二點，在自然語言處理文憑工廠那裡。 3-7天的訓練不會產生一個醫生。 一個'教練'到3個星期的訓練，並開始教學認證的'教練'而沒有看到一個單一的客戶端。 我去培訓，這樣一來觀察，這是可怕的。 誰的學生支付1400美元拿來學習什麼。
結果是自然語言處理，已成為斷裂，無法使用，因為你有經驗的人的教學和證明人，從而缺乏經驗和實踐產生更壞。
我的最後一點可能是顯而易見的，是沒有希望改變這個制度。 自然語言處理已成為一個賺錢發電機。 培訓質量是不是只有少數培訓。 當資金變得更為重要的質量，那麼你有一個字段是在下降。
大約6年前，我寫了一篇非常想你。 我是惡毒的攻擊那些在誰的教學時間。 我被指控只是市場推廣和無效我的意見。 我很高興，也有一些是涉及誰是自然語言處理系統終於把腳下的火災，要求更高的標準。
最好的辦法來控制，這是投票權，你的錢。 獲得好的口碑，從質量培訓和揭露那些沒有誰做得很好。
克里斯好崗位。 也許這時候就會發生什麼。
湯姆維齊尼
你碰到釘子的頭克里斯，這就是為什麼我把自然語言背後的話，我希望情況會反過來，但我懷疑。
您好克里斯，
熱烈的掌聲。 寫得很好。
這就像老問題，是的NLP心理治療？ 有些人說'是'。 有些人說'不'。 有些人說'不'，但隨後繼續說一切的一切，如果他們真有'是'。
聽到我的聲音有點兒邁克爾奧尼爾現在，告訴我發生了什麼NLP是我無法控制，這發生的事情我不喜歡在自然語言處理一些事情，我不能停止;認為，NLP力並未隨手的事無論如何，我的幸福，並沒有掛在這一切。
（我知道你不掛你的幸福，要么，你作出了明智的觀察評論。）
我個人的理念是要忘記'修復'的NLP世界。 （誰說我定會正確呢？），而只單純追求我個人的卓越和你一樣，深究NLP是什麼，真正應該是-並希望成為的。
偉大的文章。
乾杯
您好克里斯，
感謝寫這本和說明的混亂情況已經對在外地。 不過，我擔心有可能發展個人相信，NLP是最好避免僅僅因為缺乏疊合培訓中。 NLP是不僅是一個值得領域的一長排的有用的技術，它裝載了個人獲得更大的清晰度，成功和健康。 有經驗的教員和醫生那裡。 但也有真正偉大的人正在使用的NLP的完整性。 我的建議？ 你們的研究預定考試座位之前，在一個類。 僅僅因為一門課程是7天或10天，並不意味著你不會學習的材料。 你知道你的一切需要知道在您的領域的大學？ 當你輸入一個字段，您有責任照顧你所知道的會員和擴大它。 事實是，當您選擇培訓機構好，你學到很多東西，有豐富的經驗。
乾杯
你有球鋼
您好克里斯
一個很好的分析所發生的事情。 當任何方式做了一些不同的是有用的，您將有蛇油推銷員跳上樂隊的旅行車。 一個不幸的副作用是可能罩那些要求更高的標準誰獲得來去同樣刷。
這加劇了人誰相信他們知道他們在做什麼，而且是真正在他們的願望，以促進他們認為NLP是。 因為他們是一致的無知在他們能夠通過，愚昧與一些成功。
你問：“可以是自然語言處理，已成為什麼？”我認為答案是，它已成為它是什麼。 由渴望成為優於我們可以創建一個卓越的綠洲在沙漠中的平庸。 當人們厭倦了沙子，他們往往走向地方水。
最佳wishe
這裡是我的高潮的主觀經驗的NLP（希望它幫助）：
自從我第一次與自然語言的訓練我已經幸運地體驗它在它的原始形式，象你所說的在您的文章。 因此我個人和專業實踐NLP的有這個理念在它的核心，我相信這是又傳給我的客戶，任何人我碰巧傾訴我做什麼。 如果我在訓練其他企業在某個時候我敢說，說，我會繼續通過這項諒解。
一切順利
好的文章克里斯。
評論從一個誠實noob
我必須承認，作為一個新的'信徒'的想法NLP的總是存在的思想在後面的腦海裡，似乎有很多不同的方式別人的做法，但他們都縫旋轉圍繞原核心理念。
我個人喜歡把自己的根本的東西，它是我的利益。 我不認為任何人都可以學習半年的語言，並期望成為一個精通翻譯。
唯一有誰遭受的'客戶'。
在我看來，當一個主要的主題思想是行動的多樣性對人類心靈那麼必然是差分的意見-就像'治療'前的NLP。
我必須管理我不知道什麼班德勒多和磨床現在所做的，我一直忙於走他們的道路從一開始雕刻，只有剛剛開始。
有一件事我已經意識到的是，這不是一個宗教。
沒有神，沒有終極的真理，沒有聖杯。
它更是一個探索的未被發現的國家。
也許磨床發現一座山，他需要征服和班德勒，一個漂亮的海灘探索。
我認為，也許有些人希望他們，而不是帶領他們深入叢林。
那麼如果你知道路徑開始，所有的工具，你需要你出生的-開始行走
和平。
駕車的評論，因為我嗖嗖的... OMG -是的！
。
20小時網上當然，我的屁股...
您好克里斯這個打擊，只要笨拙的文章。 領導，是既要追隨者。 設置一種趨勢，即將與創新的理念，一個新的概念。 這才是真正的進化，也很少，因為這樣帶來的自然語言處理。
核心停留在我看來如此。
這是誰的追隨者已經改變了馬是充滿。
吉爾濕重
自然語言已經失去了在困境的自我和貪婪。 它最終將回到它的根源或死亡。 只有時間才能告訴我們的。 好文章。
事實上，一個很好的文章。 我非常同意，有許多“船長”NLP執行師和“培訓”誰知道甚少，什麼是他們正在做或教學。 為期一周的整理過程中產生了很多幻想的人，他們的主人自然語言處理。 這需要多年的學習和經驗得到一個好主意是如何自然語言處理工程和很多年時間才能掌握它。
我一直在做的NLP自2004年以來。 醫生，師證書和培訓師的培訓已經完成。 不過，我還沒有稱自己為一個自然語言大師。 還有很多需要學習關於NLP及心理學，才可以開始教其他人。
剔除所有的培訓中存在的當今世界，只有極少數誰與我會訓練。
克里斯，你提出一個很好的總結有關領域。 也許是由我們-後班德勒和磨床一代為此做些什麼了。
非常耐人尋味，克里斯。
之前，我進入了自然語言處理，我已訓練成為菲登奎斯醫生。 有消息稱，當摩西菲登奎斯已接近結束時他的生活，他告訴他的一些追隨者，他希望獨立，他們將是一個繼續進行他的工作。 每個覺得他們會得到官方的和以後的政治弗賴隨後還將提出了人在不同的方向，結合自己的工作與其他他們做些或者感興趣同樣地，有同樣的問題與笨重的名稱和缺乏定義為研究/實踐/哲學。
需要的可能是一個國際聯合會-一個管理機構，制定標準，評估培訓，發展有意義的認證。 那麼我們知道如果一個培訓認證的IFNLP。 但是，這要求人們誰願意加強和做這項工作。 大多數NLP'rs更感興趣的是做自己的事情。 大多數人都表示願意避免的許可費和會費，將不可避免地造成。 IASH遇到一些問題，這些非常。
有沒有商標的名稱，因此任何人都可以使用它。 沒有什麼解釋適當的職業道路，所以它容易善意的學生認為他們已經達到了技能掛斷一瓦和進入企業的權利後，他們已經經歷了一個星期的訓練。
這可能正是因為治療有些第一人民乙＆G的模仿，它已被混淆治療。 治療師，醫療專業人員和專家在肯定鼓勵增加的技能和技巧，他們已經學會在其核武庫，因此它理解會有模糊。
許多思考。 感謝您的想法，並闡明促使這一討論。
您好克里斯，
首先，偉大的文章，很喜歡它。 是的，你剛才談到的許多點上是非常多汁和優雅的方式，並舉行簡短的火焰引誘，為你說，你的生活從它...但正如你所說，需要有人這樣說。
我想我的體會是，雖然沒有什麼主要*新*元說，在自然語言處理，它匯集一噸的非常強大的和有用的技術，如到原材料的自製爆炸品和混在一起的鍋爐房子（藉口的雙關語），有後果。
是的，人們的信仰問題，是否有人可以調用它們的自我修煉後7天的培訓。 他們當然可以！ 它是一種信念。 對不對？ 世界將很快作出決定。 畢竟你不需要證書結婚或生小孩，所以不能說壞。
根據我的經驗，你的（認為）的聲譽，作為教練就是一切，所以你不是一個非常好的教練，或者你帶著大家法院阻止他們交談相反。 嗯..想想那一刻。 因此，最終的市民決定。 仍然愚弄，他們的錢很容易分手。
人，你看，尋求幸福的承諾，這一切，我們先賣人民的物質遊行，但我們已經找到了這一點，所以讓我們將到更抽象的-成功的承諾，你只需要正確的模式，正確的“訣竅”。 超載問題是：在這個時代，你可以訪問的任何信息，你想要的任何知識，在點擊一個按鈕，（也可能是信用卡號），但這樣做將所有的按鈕按下，所以真正的問題是：
1）你能處理？ 自然語言處理從來沒有承諾，你將獲得成功，只是你可以有更多的靈活性和選擇，實現你的成果。
b）如果您安裝模式，在自己的優秀，並採取了模型，那麼你採取行動通過另一個fascade（直到你掌握了這種技術），那麼你所冒的風險的免疫力，以同情，仁慈而發展中國家大規模的自我？ 即自然語言處理工程，所有的時間。 對不對？ 所以你不能錯！ 哎呀。
三）從能源角度看，自然語言處理工程為主的第三恰克拉，和第六輪穴，這意味著很多，重點是頭腦的工作和意志力。 這裡的問題是自然語言處理，使人們拆除圍牆和障礙，他們可能已經舉行了很多自己的生活，因此這可能釋放出大量的潛力，除非有某處的渠道，我們又回到了自我的問題再次。 我經常想到的是，這麼多人的（非常小）的NLP社會不相互交談。 缺少了什麼？ 可能是同情。 不知道。 只是我的兩分錢的價值。
所以，我想的NLP將演變成更多的東西心為中心的未來。 哦，是的，它被稱為是人類。
）
感謝發布！
@ cityguyyoga。
我讚賞您為您的清晰度和*熱情*同意你的看法。
約翰磨床在“花落的風”認為，混亂關於NLP更廣泛的世界存在，因為我們不能區分“自然語言處理模型”，“自然語言處理應用軟件”和“自然語言訓練”。 他認為，獨特貢獻班德勒和他專門的技術模型的行為，這往往忽略的層面：我們做什麼，應是任何定義的NLP。
我同意，但我想補充一點，四元模型的主觀經驗，幾乎忽略了，因為原來的“結構魔術”也是一個根本性的變化貢獻了當時新興領域的認知行為科學。
其他一切，我們學習和教學的NLP已被“發現”，並教了幾千年，作為研究克勞利，帕坦加利或任何其他“神奇”系統將迅速明確。 這是很自然的。 我們畢竟是研究人的主觀經驗。
我們所有產品都是我們的環境，班德勒和機內。 自然語言處理有可能成為一門學科，一小部分的認知心理學領域：但其nascence在加州七十年代初，他們的選擇商品化的教學，這意味著它的傳輸，通過培訓已成為很多共同點多層次傳銷和“邪教”遇到群體，因為它與學術界。
大後克里斯。 我認為一般人只要停止使用“自然語言處理”，並停止假裝知道它是什麼堅定的信念。 因為即使是合作，創作人員可以不同意它是什麼，我們注定...注定我告訴你*動搖拳頭憤怒地*.歲男子
在什麼條件我會考慮“成功”，有沒有那麼多的succesfull人在自然語言處理。 I've met some people who were doing really great in their field of expertise, people earning 100s of 1000s of pounds, who then went on NLP trainings, quit their jobs and now sit around posting fluffy messages on Twitter… but at least they're Happy.
It's not that there aren't people doing well from NLP, but given the number of people who take trainings and call themselves NLPers, there's a disproportional number of people whose lives seem to suck more now than before.
NLP can be fantastic and can open up a whole world of possibilities. Just like LSD in the 60s opened up the minds of 1000s of people. The problem is, like LSD, it's not the substance itself that makes people smart, it's how you use it.
Using NLP to get smarter is great. Using NLP as an excuse to be dumber is stoopid.
If I may add to my previous comment …
Despite the problems, I'm still a fan. (I'm sure most of you are too.) I still think NLP represents a grand set of skills and ideas. I still think it helps people. And I still think it's a good idea to help more and more people get the magic.
Let's not kill NLP off ourselves. Whatever happens in/to 'NLP world', we can still all personally aspire to be the best ambassadors for it we can be. That's my aim.
乾杯
Good points well made Chris, and I think you echo many others in the NLP field. However I am not sure what you think might happen now….. personally I think it is upto individual NLP practitioners, trainers etc to take some responsibility for the brand and communicate and therefore educate the rest.
The first rule of being an effective NLP'er is not to mention you use NLP. Every business consultant using NLP knows that if you mention NLP you lose the contract. It's a soiled brand with negative connotations and no credibility outside its own border.
Can it be what it has become? How old was the virgin Mary?
It was what it was and is what it is. If one's expectations are that it remain the same or embrace the changes that have occurred over time, then one's expectations are satisfied or not. In my experience, people will generally move to satisfy their needs. If a person needs NLP to quench their desires to get rich quick, create therapeutical remedies, seduce, market, feel good, hypnotize or they are impressed with certain academies or trainers then they will be attracted and move towards that source. Fundamentally, we are all in it for the _________ (fill in the blank). Whether the knowledge or application of techniques helps us in our professional life, or whether the person who trains others receives compensation for the courses they provide, or whether creating and maintaing a state of general well-being helps someone in life, its all about a positive result. And who am I to assess the subjective experience of another? I may be able to measure that experience using the techinques of NLP. I may even be able to change someone should they so desire.
I, too, focus on the structure, the modelling of the subjective experience, but that is my preference. In my experience, many people don't really care about how things work, they just want a quick: give me three steps to do to get a particular result. Do you really want to know the torque of a piston ring and the injection rate of the fuel in a car, or do you just want to know where the key and parking brakes are located?
在我看來，這不是自然語言處理是或者應該是，但事情是他們的。 我們生活在一個即時滿足的時代，我們獲取信息的單擊鼠標按鈕，或食物的驅動器，但餐廳二點三八分鐘。 一般情況下，今天的NLP訓練反映了正在發生在我們的社會。 為什麼會是任何人感到驚訝？ 如果你是素食主義者去素食餐廳。 如果你想好飯，花時間準備自己動手（或找朋友誰是好廚師）。 我們通常會得到我們想要的。 一個好的商人給人他們想要的東西。 我不相信它的公平比較的NLP市場與個人的意見-因為每一個青蛙稱讚它自己的池塘。
我們訓練有素的處理是什麼。 我們沒有喜歡它。 我們都是受過訓練，“離開的內容”走出方程和集中的過程。 但這個問題我經常的鬥爭，鬥爭越來越超出的內容和重點的過程中，留下什麼，在我的頭，我自己的主體性，並認識到，世界就在那裡。
那麼是什麼問題？
我不是宗教的傢伙，但年齡聖母瑪利亞其實並不重要。 關鍵是遵循什麼，已成為和地點之一是在realtion。
@匿名：
是的，你的權利-您可以寬鬆一些，因為人民的合同“恐懼”關於NLP。 每一次我有機會托爾了會談，在“鬆動”，這樣的合同我有一個很好的機會告訴，並表明不同專業的NLP是從他們的“知識”關於。 這些“教充分的NLP在10天內”或“改變你的一生，解決世界上所有問題，5天”，優惠的問題，我常常看到這些人所說的“他們”自然語言處理與biiiig $ $ -跡象都眼睛！ 這敗壞的專業自然語言處理，教師和培訓！ 在這裡，歐洲，我們有句古話：“以大師證書你可以稱自己是主人，但它需要一大堆機管局的辛勤工作是一個！”，這是如此真實在外地的自然語言處理...
這是一項及時閱讀和太有用了我，但是是不是確實，當任何想法或一套設想成為成功人士，要加強到行列，希望在沿線進行流動，和很多好學生的時間，他們往往勝過他們的導師和教師。
這應該是一件好事，因為它進一步發展的想法，總有一些使用此作為一種手段，促進，而沒有基本的認識和能力是偉大的，甚至是非常好的，在某些情況下。
這分餾發生在許多領域，但是沒有它，沒有一些自我，就沒有必要的增長推動信封理解。
它有可能使生活使用這些技能的治療，但你不能期望可以大筆的錢，除非你成為一個教練，並提供認證的現金，即使有再好的培訓。
因此，我將繼續尋找相關的培訓，這是我自己的信仰和增加的東西的價值的方式，我練習的NLP或任何你想調用它。
NLP是無論你覺得它是根據你的外觀和你是誰。
達尼登寧頓
的評審機構是商業，這是符合他們的利益，並推動了許多證書的可能，即使人不達到標準。 自然語言處理已成為搖錢樹，不幸的是，為時已晚讓時光倒流。
我幸好是一個第一代“NLPer”，訓練博士班德勒，許可和認證，並通過全社會的自然語言處理。 其中很多人甚至不知道。 它試圖通過班德勒和約翰和凱西拉瓦勒保持最高標準，自然語言處理和二氫埃托啡社區，通過讓會員們重新認證和重新授權，pepetually，在2年前的任何時間重新認證和重新- licensings。
我認為，如果是未經過訓練，由船長或任何其他法師的NLP導師，“保持清晰！”。
博士理查德班德勒說喬瓦諾雷：“他知道的NLP！”我很感謝有這樣一個良好的信譽在業界。
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.
感謝克里斯開放的辯論...
所以，自然語言處理的培訓首先是學習和建模的優秀技能在其他國家，重新製作他們自己的經驗，教給其他人，其他人的觀察表明，這些相同的技能充分。 方框打勾，完成工作。
我希望所有的NLP教練將這樣做。
我沒有直接同要么班德勒也不磨床。 不過，我相信關於NLP。 我深信，無論班德勒和磨床是有效的培訓。 我深信，他們都只有通過認證的那些學生，有力地證明誰這些優秀的技能。 我相信，這些學生是他們的，誰成為認定為自然語言培訓，被認為是由班德勒和/或磨床，為等於任務。
因此，在這種情況下我沒有什麼可擔心的，因為我已經學會了建模技能和技巧，以及對自然語言處理的態度從班德勒的和磨床的學生。 傻瓜證明。 是不是？
我想這兩個班德勒和磨床可能有'過天，讓一些不到足夠的學生，通過他們的支路網...不，這不可能，肯定。
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.
因此，讓我們來看看事情的另一種方式。 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!
安東尼
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
伊馮娜
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.
Cheers,
Craig
Hey Chris!
To me, I think Eric Robbie nails it best in his profile description on nlpconnections…
…”I like doing NLP”
To me – key word: “doing”
What's that old anecdote about Eskimos having a zillion different words for snow…
…imagine the arguments and misunderstanding that would occur if they had just the one word!!??
Thanks for the comeback Chris. I now think I know you a little better, since you asserted who you are. I appreciate and respect that. I met Da “Man” back in'92 at a Communications Hypnotic Ideation Course Richard was teaching at the Top Gun school in San Diego Holiday Inn. I participated in many many many many of his certifying and licensing cources since then. I just wrote an intro to Meisam S. Delavar's books “Basic priciples of NLP; NLP in Cognative Approach vol 1 & NLP in Behavioral Approch vol 2″.
The last paragraph: “Welcome to the adventures of your life never being the same again. 'Hats off” to Meisam and all the developers and continuing developers of NLP. A community dedicated to 'YOU'.”
Though all referrential constructs, I feel that with the Pot Pouri of NLP material available – …people in all walks of life can effectuate immediate and permanent dramatic change to enrich their lives and make the world a better place to live in.
Bon Vivant
I feel very touched by your article Chris. I trained with McKenna Breen in 1998-2000 but feel nowadays the field has become a joke. The skills are useful but how many people these days get the skills? All I see from people now is confidence. Confidence about what, that is the question? I feel Bandler has sold out. Maybe Grinder too, I'm not so sure about that side. It's very sad to see.
I trained with McKenna Breen before it all went crazy and, like others have said, I use my skills but I don't ever tell people I do NLP. The image of NLP is more horrible than dog poo! Why would I want to be associated with that?
Just to add my voice to the crowd, I really agree with this.
Chris, I must admit, I disagree with the idea that you're currently advocating. I believe the confusion arises from whether NLP is a brand name or a field of study. Naturally, it can be both, but we don't usually consider computer science a brand name, do we?
Bandler and Grinder have given the world a set of tools and methodologies that is proving to be the foundation for the next generation of communication and development. That's fantastic. However, though they may be the Creators of NLP, they are not the Leaders. That's an important difference, because as near as I can tell, fields of study don't have leaders, they have developers.
What good would leaders be to us, now, anyway? What purpose would they serve? As NLPers, we know damn well that the techniques taught in trainings are only pointers, directing us towards the deeper truths that allow us to generate new techniques, to discover new patterns. Bandler has always been very vocal about prohibiting the standardization of NLP. Though this has perhaps kept NLP out of academia for too long, it has also allowed for the kind of exponential, albeit covert, growth that's the reason we're all here.
Don't you agree that the fact that NLP is presented in so many ways, as a method of self-improvement, persuasion, therapy, business structure, spiritual practice, and communication technology, is logical, natural, and important because it's true??? NLP can do all of these things and more, so for that particular purpose, we should consider encouraging this fractionation. That way, as people descend into the quicksand of NLP, they will be overjoyed to discover even more ways that they can put the technology to use.
Hi Chris
Interesting debate you have breathed life into. I feel that the way NLP is currently heading on the GPS-limo, NLP is on a crash course with no where else to go? Looking through the adverts in some NLP related publications worries me. This plethora of new Trainers coming through the ranks armed with Powerpoint slides and certificates ready signed for new comers after 7 days (or less) of training is a sure indication that unless some pretty radical action happens, NLP will have been consigned to the incurables section of the hospital before it has had the chance to cure itself. The cure being to understand exactly what you were saying in your blog, the study of subjective experience.
I'm in a very interesting position. I'm currently working with John Grinder on what he told me is the most exciting modelling project he has worked on to date.
(Considering he modelled Erickson that was a bit of a WOW).
The reason he is so gripped by this project is that no one has attempted to do what I am doing at the level that I'm doing it.
His words were,” I'm hoping and believe that we might have some new discoveries coming out of it that will be fresh to NLP”. This is why he is backing me over the next three years for its hopeful conclusion? We will have to wait and see? The evidence will be supported by multi-media technology so here goes.
I agree that something needs to happen to NLP ASAP to create some credibility and authenticity across the wide range of possibilities that NLP could benefit the human race. The 'something' I would suggest is 'Congruency' of it's Practitioners.
Peter Salisbury
As you promote both of them and are therefore part of the problem, what do you hope to achieve by this rocking the boat?
Personally I rather like the current state of nlp, if you want good you can find it, if you want bad you can find it, the responsibility remains with you.
I am very pleased that nlp has spread globally and quickly and this benefit to the world can be attributed to the creators whoever you think they are.
The world has benefited from nlp, a similar example is the case of craniosacral work which Sutherland (the founder) said should remain in the osteopathic community, well it escaped and the world has benefited (altho people can always find counterexamples). Compare this to the Trager work which has attempted to keep its work pure . By doing this it has not spread and created benefits even though it is a highly effective form of bodywork. In my a opinion a loose form of leadership is better than tight control any day, I value freedom.
About trainings becoming moneymaking treadmills …well this is more the result of the capitalist world that we live in(with its emphasis on short term ecology and and applications approach….certainly an area that can be readdressed by nlp in the corporate world)
What I personally value in a training is the continuing connection with the unconscious process and the money is another issue.
Incidently many of the so called changes that are being called for by Grinder and others were actually stated in many of the earlier books such as the structures of magic , trancermations etc etc (emphasis on process/ exploration rather than application). However it is good to to have them updated and stated more explicitly.
I think a useful question to ask is ' Have i benefited from nlp and do i continue to do so?'
ABSOLUTELY AGREE! I have felt this for ages and not seen it reflected back. Good to see a debate emerging.
I feel a lot of people have been very wounded by modern NLP. The McKenna operation while it helped a lot of people was a commercial engine and I feel some of the most vulnerable people who went to them for help ended up in a lot of debt after so many trainings they didn't need. I feel this was a shameful period in NLP's history and though it is over it has left a legacy because many of those students are now trainers themselves and repeating the cycle.
It's a big mess Chris, and thank you for shining some light.
As I read again the article and the responses, it seems to me it all boils down to basically four things:
1。 No universally agreed definition of NLP.
2。 No universally agreed 'scope' for what is NLP, and therefore what an NLP programme should teach.
3。 No single leadership, leading the direction in which NLP changes and continues to develop.
4。 Variable quality of trained people.
Or, more simply, it's splintered and uncontrolled.
(I don't agree that the problems are specifically 'the commercialisation of NLP', 'introduction of 7-day trainings', etc. I think those are abstractions of the problems based on people's personal beliefs. Forgive me, it's just what I think and I'm aware I could be wrong.)
So far, the debate has been mostly been on a problem-oriented track, which is fine as a stage to go through. Now I'm wondering, what's the solution-oriented track?
It's worth asking ourselves, are there any positive by-products of the way things are? Well, one is that it means the field is not stilted. It means there's personal freedom within the field. Would we want to lose those things?
As for the addressing problems themselves…
Well, it seems to me we can't force everyone to have a common definition of NLP.
Some working group could work to agree and define a common scope, but then you're still going to have camps, such as your 'Logical Levels are NLP' and 'Logical Levels are not NLP' camps.
We could ask Bandler, Grinder, et al, to submit to just one of them being leader. Or co-operate as a leadership collective. Yeah, right! We know that's not going to happen.
And as for quality, well we could create a society and publish and enforce standards. But that's been done before and it hasn't fixed things.
The best things we can do for NLP lie somewhere else, I think.
I'm sure we'd agree that trying to “fix NLP” based on changing what other people/groups think and do is a not-well-formed outcome. Whatever one might do to attempt to control it (like the things I mention above) would seem to just create more of the behaviour we're defining as the problem (splintering).
I can't help thinking the well-formed equivalent is for us to simply lead from within, by taking responsibility for our own behaviours, our own quality, spread the word to others, influence others to take the same level of responsibility, help others and be as good an ambassador as we can.
Just my added thoughts.
乾杯
I commend your positive approach Stephen (above). I'd say you're also right in that the problem isn't the commercialisation per se but what has happened because of it. In such a fragmented field as NLP with no leader or in fact several competing leaders there's no check against some of those being greedy and exploiting their position and I'm afraid this is what happened in the 90s especially on the Bandler side. The problem is titles were sold off without the people acquiring relevant skills and now those people are the ones teaching NLP to others. That's why I say it's too late to fix it, the cycle has gone too far already. Unless you have a time machine it's too late.
Chris, you've gotten a lot of people talking, and I hope it accomplishes something good.
I wanted to post my thoughts on the subject, but the comment ended up to be way too long. I posted it on my own blog instead. My response to your article is, in a nutshell, that I agree that NLP is a fragmented mess, and that I disagree that that has to be a bad thing.
Chris, welcome to the club. I learnt NLP with some friends and one by one we've all come to the same conclusion, which is that some aspects of NLP are undoubtedly very useful but the egos and insanity of those at the top make it a very toxic environment. I suggest focussing on ericksonian hypnosis which offers the same skills but in a nourishing environment.
For anyone interested in John and Carmens book,see http://www.whisperinginthewind.com
Nice one, Chris.
To me, NLP's reputation could be helped by:
(a) a universally-recognized accreditation that denotes a minimum level of expertise that a client has a right to expect;
(b) a concerted effort by NLPers to raise the profile of NLP wherever possible into the mainstream consciousness, as happened with psychoanalysis;
(c) some perceived unity in the field – Bandler, Grinder, Robbins, Hall, etc – sell the core brand first, then the personal take on it (the English language is constantly absorbing and evolving but it's always known as English…)!
Best wishes 'n' kudos to ya
Dear Chris and all who have been contributing,
I had to really think about what nlp ment for me after carefully reading all of this. I have suffered with mental health problems for some twenty years and nothing conventional seems to help. When it comes to the nhs i fear we are on our own. To begin with nlp was the drift wood i clung to in hope of recovery or respite, after hearing RB claims of healing others.
Hypnosis was once shrouded in mystery and superstition until Milton Erickson exposed his truth to the scientific and medical community allowing hypnosis to take its rightful stand in the medical professions.
I have heard RB say he would not do the same thing with nlp but would leave that to others. Would NLP stand up to the rigorous trials of a scientific procedure? Which techniques would pass? CBT has been proven effective beyond even medication for the treatment, of especially, depression.
Of course i have taken this down the therapy route because of my own experience and seeing as the first models where Milton,Satir,Gestalt(Pearls?) and so much nlp seems to be hypnosis/therapy based (to my mind).
Unfortunatly, it has become like a cult, with charismatic leaders, its own language, expensive initiation rights etc.
To summarize: Would nlp stand up to scientific/medical approval?
親切的問候
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.
您好克里斯，
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…
尚塔爾
克里斯
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.
您好克里斯，
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!
羅布
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?
您好克里斯，
It strikes me that the confusion at the heart of NLP stems from the very way that it is presented, especially by the people who started it all.
Richard Bandler, during his practitioner and master prac courses fills his teaching time with stories and anecdotes about how NLP started. It all seems very clear. Bandler had spare time at Uni and started to read psychology books. He then asked which therapies worked. The answer was very few. He then went along to watch Satir and Perls doing their things. He found elements that they were doing which seemed to have the same structure. He went to Grinder. Grinder intoduced transformational grammar to the equation. The Meta Model was born and The Structure of Magic written.
Having read Magic 1 and 2, it is clear that this book is really devised as a manual for therapists. NLP is not mentioned – but the whole idea is that what Bandler and Grinder are doing is finding effective therapy.
Then comes Patterns 1 and 2. Once again, Bandler and Grinder try to work out how a therapist – Erickson – is doing what he is doing. Now the Milton Model is defined, which is the inverse Meta Model. Somewhere in Patterns 2, the term NLP is used. The whole book is once again dedicated to uncovering how therapy is done – and that seems to be the primary objective of the work of the two men at this time.
It's as if the two men stumble upon a process they later call “NLP modelling” while trying to work out why Satir, Perls and Erickson are doing their things. So, the first books and the subsequent volumes: Frogs into Princes, Trance-formations, Using Your Brain for A Change, Magic in Action, Reframing etc – are all books which are focussed on therapy.
The idea of modelling non-therapists appears, to the outside observer, to be something which is grafted on later. Indeed, modelling itself appears to be a later addition to the discourse. The two men's initial desire to uncover and make explicit specific techniques that are used in therapy appears to be the initial driver for the field that they later called NLP.
This, I think is at the heart of the confusion. That NLP really did start off as a therapy-based discipline, and then started to expand to different areas. In this reading of the history of NLP, it is the therapy based NLP which is the “true” or “original” form of NLP, and later additions are an extension of the processes the two men used in order to work out what Satir, Perls and Erickson were up to. Whether this is empirically true is not really important – it is most certainly the impression that Bandler gives.
It is interesting to note, at Bandler seminars, that his repeated use of stories from the therapeutic world are often challenged by bewildered business-people, who see no use for the stories they are being told. The DVDs of Persuasion Engineering also show this “therapy bias” in the way information is presented.
With one very strong strand of NLP essentially presenting NLP as a means of therapy, while the other, Grinder, is on record as stating that the primary function of NLP is modelling excellent behaviours at the conscious and unconscious levels, it is no surprising that NLP has something of an identity crisis.
My own view is that you learn from as many people as you can, and you piece together a NLP that works for you. Perhaps its strength is that it is ultimately malleable and adaptable – and that learning the NLP ethos teaches you to just be more open to new ideas than you ever were before. That in itself is something that a lot of people could do with learning in this world!
I still belive there are a lot of people out there that have a good knowledge of NLP and it's use. I salute all of them and their endavour to maintain the legacy of NLP.
On the other hand why are we surprised… every science, religion, and concept which had perspectives was twisted and turned to man's intrests… I am pretty sure Jesus or … Read MoreMohamed never ment for people to get killed in the name of their teaching… yet here we are facing people who belive there are virgins waiting for them in heaven if they kill “non-belivers”.
Hopefully we will learn from this too and move on to a higher understanding.
發表評論