Hi All,

The post at the bottom of this one, in response to someone suggesting a newbie look at NLPU.com, started a somewhat heated discussion on this thread: http://www.nlpconnections.com/newrep...wreply&p=29964

The thread itself went back and forth, and sometimes got personal, and sometimes went off the, what was to my mind, central theme of this post - i.e. Robert Dilts sucks.

It was unusual to me to see that someone who is quite venerated by many in the field of NLP (although I have no personal experience of his teaching, nor have I read any of his books) should have a "danger" sign placed in front of his website so that newcomers to the field should be warned to stay away.

Andy did post a link to an article on his own website - Logical and Neurological Levels - in support of his argument and this article also had a link to an excellent piece by Wyatt Woodsmall - Fachartikel - So called Logical Levels an systemic NLP. I wanted to take the time to read through both before I made any comment on this.

I think that between them (and the quote from Steve Andreas), they have substantially shown that the theory of Logical Levels is neither logical, nor hierarchical. Also, it would appear that the theory does not really follow from the works of Bateson at all. (We are not, of course, privy to any discussions that Dilts had with Bateson on this subject).

So, we have one of his theories consigned to the scrap heap (although, even Woodsmall describes it as "a useful laundry list of factors to consider in a change context", so perhaps it might be left to hang around for a while longer).

Let me get a little meta on this.

Which ideas did he have that were good, and which were downright awful? Are they the only 2 options?

I ask because I am not familiar with everything that Dilts has contributed to the field so it would be useful for me to know.

In the same article by Wyatt Woodsmall that was quoted above, he concludes by reminding the reader that he makes a distinction between the ideas and the person. He goes on, "Robert Dilts is a really wonderful person who has spent his life extending and expanding the NLP map. Although it is not always possible to agree with his maps, it is impossible to deny his contribution to NLP. He is perhaps more responsible than anyone for picking up the intellectual fragments left by Grinder and Bandler and patching them together into an intellectual system. Much of what we view as NLP today is a result of his efforts. For this we should all be grateful to him."

I'm not sure that this is a very fair conclusion, without the backing to follow it up. One swallow does not make a summer, and showing that one idea that someone has is flawed does not mean that everything that they have ever written is rubbish. The website in question appears to have a lot of information about NLP. A brief browse of the index of the denigrated encyclopedia (which is actually co-authored with Judith DeLozier - does she suck too?) shows that it contains much, if not more, of the material that one would find in most of the "stock" books that anyone would find in an average book store. Not ideal, but not the worst thing in the world, or is it?

So, is it true? Does Robert Dilts suck big time? Or, should we forgive an enthusiasm for a flawed idea and be grateful for the rest of his efforts? How does the NLP Connections jury vote?

Cheers,


Stephen