Hi all

I am planning a PhD which will examine the utility of enriching conflict or post-conflict NGO interventions with a psychological perspective - currently in my opinion underused. I'm particularly drawn to NLP models because of their apparent elegance.

I was planning to analyse the reasons people go to war using Dilt's nuerological levels. I had a few hypotheses - for example that people with reasons at the 'deeper' end of the spectrum would take longer to reconcile, and that interventions aimed at a more 'shallow' level than necessary would be undermined by 'deeper' levels, for example no point reallocating taxes if there is endemic racism underlying it.

However having read convincing criticisms (here: http://www.cnlpa.de/presse/loglev.html) that his levels are neither logical, nuerological, nor 'levels' but disparate phenomena, I am searching for a different more academically cohesive framework for this research, (I still love the Dilt's levels spacial anchors exercise).

Food for thought - some of the fundamental problems in war are entrenched interpersonal conflict, unresolved trauma, displacement or transference (particularly of power relations), a negative sum mentality, and hysterical stereotyping. These are problems therapists see in their offices daily, so I thought this forum would be a good place for some creative grist! If you have a moment, please brainstorm - anything no matter how seemingly irrelevant will be gratefully received.

Thanks in advance for any time and thoughts
Chris

Woodsmall's criticisms are well taken if awfully verbose.

The nut of it seems to be (from his stance) that NLP is a rather loose, gauzy model that makes good use of its definitional imprecision, in that it can talk the talk of rigor (or any number of other higher order value statements such as ethics, respectfulness, or elegance) while operationally functioning like a loose collection of ideas and techniques knit together by various legal, geneological, and esthetic commonalities.

To invert Woodsmall's optic, Dilts' conceptual weaknesses are actually a map of the internal confusions naturally inherent in the totality of NLP, primarily category errors and faulty beliefs as to what constitutes a system.

Woodsmall inquires," Further, do the elements of Dilts' totem pole form a system or are they simply a heap of elements?"... and later adds.........
"It must be remembered that NLP is largely an uncritical community with tolerance for all beliefs. It is also a community lacking in intellectual rigor that emphasizes utility and a positive K above all else. Many people find the concept of logical levels useful. Few go on to challenge its assumptions and to explore its implications as we have done here."

Fair enough and true enough. On the other hand I think NLP has found interesting and unexpected ways of getting behavioral, perceptual, and attitudinal change done.... often imperfectly and with considerable incoherence if taken in isolation. NLP appears to me the be most effective when used as a "layer" in other developed communication and negotiation processes. Rather than trying to bend NLP into the shape of a complex negotiation model for complex conditions, one would be far better served to use NLP to help absorb the expertise of those working in specific fields.

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I absolutely agree that NLP's lack of precision is in some ways a strength, as it has fostered an experimental and creative approach, a vast richness of ideas, techniques and approaches and even underlying philosophies, and a lively and engaging form of therapy.

Hi Chris,

I'd like to suggest you take a look at Robert Greene's "33 strategies of war", and also his "48 laws of power". Both offer great perspectives on the subject and you get to see a very good author modelling masters of war and persuasion.

The style is engaging too, filled with hundreds of stories to illustrate key points.

Enjoy!

Thanks for the tip Vincenzo! Will have a browse.

One candidate, admittedly not of NLP although he did follow a strikingly similar process of studying the experts not the afflicted, is Maslow's hierarchy of needs - physical sustenance, safety, belonging, esteem, self-actualization, and late in life he added self-transcendence. Not so obviously applicable as Dilt's levels but interesting potential.