This thought was prompted by another thread. Do you consider NLP to be 'alternative' and/or 'new age'?

I personally consider NLP 'alternative' when used in the context of therapy, but mainstream in the context of coaching, communication skills and personal resourcefulness. (Even though it is probably longer established in the context of therapy.)

I've never personally considered NLP 'new age' though, perhaps because, to me, 'new age' has semantic connotations I don't associate with NLP. But that's just me.

I'm just curious whatever everyone else thinks. So here we go. What do you think? Are we alternative and new age?

Cheers

Some days it's hard to get a definition of what NLP is, so the thought of putting a definition into a category seems ludicrous.

Part of the issue would seem to be that whatever you say about NLP you're never entirely wrong.

I'm headed toward old age, myself.

Steven,

This is a good question. I wonder what defines if something is "Mainstream" and accepted "Alternative" and accepted or "New Age" and accepted. I suspect that at some point in time a lot of current mainstream thinking was considered "Alternative"

I think of NLP as Complimentary to other practices while also being and creating Distinct and more Effective practitioners in NLP and other practices.

Which does not answer your question at all.....

Jason

Hi Jason,

Thanks for that. It does answer my question, in that it tells me your take on it.

Personally - and I emphasise the word 'personally' - I take something as 'alternative' when it's chosen 'as an alternative to more commonly accepted approaches and ideas'.

Which is I consider NLP to be not alternative in coaching and education in communication skills, because I think NLP is a commonly accepted approach in those contexts. (In my 20 corporate years, I've seen lots of business courses teaching ideas and skills from NLP.)

As for 'new age', I find this more difficult to put into words. For me, 'new age' evokes a foundation in spiritual ideas, sometimes esoteric ideas, and eastern ideas of such things as energy. I'm all for that, by the way (I'm studying breathing and energy at the moment), I just don't recognise that kind of thinking in the foundations of NLP. (I see it in the extended study of NLP, and in NHR, PPT, etc, but not in the sensory-based, strategies-based foundations of NLP.)

But that's just my take on it.

I remain curious as to how others perceive it.

Cheers

Foundation NLP and extended NLP. Interesting distinction.

What I found interesting was the psychotherapists take on NLP all but one of my teachers had the perception that NLP was manipulative and subversive in some way and definitely "new age" in nature.

When I questioned them on their exposure and experience it turned out to be nil or third party gossip with no foundation.

During my training I did endevour to educate them especially when we analised a number of videos of emminent psychotherapists like Carl Rogers, Fritz Perls etc... actually doing therapy with clients I would be able to express what they were doing in terms of process.

I could point out meta model questioning, mirroring and matching bodylanguage and also predicates in verbal language and how the therapist was building rapport and the answer I always got back was "no that is not true. it is just an indication of the therapists emapthy for the client" so I exchanged the word rapport for empathy and suddenly I had some really good insights into the theraputic process, according to my tutors.

I believe that the key is to look at and express NLP theories/models in tandem with other theraputic models really for me NLP helps me understand the process in other ways of working it gives me a framework to take on new understandings.

There are frequently difficulties in explaining therapeutic approaches between the therapy and NLP communities often because of generalisations on both sides. There is no one single therapy view of NLP nor one single NLP view of therapy.

Sounds responses so far.

Having explicitly practised NLP for anxiety related issues within and 'Integrative Medical Clinic' and also recently read an email reply from a major university stating that NLP is a "psuedo-science".

So that is the third option, seeing as the subject of this thread is a forced choice / double bind question, seems good to expand into other possibilities for what NLP 'is' or 'is like'.

However, if using the concept of "transfer of training" then NLP SHOULD be considered the single greatest format for transferring skill from different situations and to different people. This is mainstream psychology and goes back to the days of Thorndike and his experiments with pigeons. But while Thorndike summised that "formal theory" (a set of principles that if learned would enhance ALL aspects of one's life experience) was not feasible... however he was reporting on the effect of schooling (early 1900s) as a "fundamental process" for enhancing all areas of life, which it was clearly shown did NOT. Reading, writing, arithmatic? Perhaps the Greeks got it wrong!?

Whereas NLP, or the subcomponents of NLP (outcome specification, state mastery, pattern interrupts, anchoring, language pattern recognition and application) when learned can be applied in any context for enhancing any aspects of a person's life and therefore fulfil the criteria for "formal theory".

In summary, I too like the way NLP training can allow us to not only 'dissect' what people are doing (like in the previous example of empathy by Jason) but transfer those skills to others.

While I don't know if I can channel an alien spirit from the planet bongo or if I can manipulate the energy levels of my friends through prayer... I do know that if there is real phenomena occurring for new agers then heck let's get out there and model it for ourselves and everyone who is interested!!!

Cheers,

salvorob wrote:

... the subject of this thread is a forced choice / double bind question ...

Is it really? Not sure that's quite right... unless you consider 'Yes', 'No' and 'Maybe depending on how you cut it' as the forced choices.

I like what you've added to the question though.

Cheers

Steve_W wrote:

Do you consider NLP to be 'alternative' and/or 'new age'?

I'm not a fan of either label for NLP, as I have seen how the mere mention of them can trigger instant cynicism and dismissal in many people who nonetheless accept psychotherapy and hypnotherapy as valid treatments.

Mind you, 'alternative comedy' was derided by the establishment in the 1980s as an 'alternative to comedy'. Nowadays, those alternative comedians ARE the establishment. Heh.