Hi folks,

Still pursuing my study of academic criticisms of what those people think is "NLP" I've just come across a real doozy.

But before I say anything about it I'd like to conduct a very simple poll to get people's views on the purpose of "NLP".

It seems that the late Virginia Satir once wrote that the NLP technique might be part of the "beginning of the end of people relating to each other through force, dictatorship, obedience and stereotypes ... It is a question of whether the old attitudes will die and new ones be born or that civilisation dies out. I [Virginia Satir] am working on the side of keeping civilsation going with new values about human beings. I hope that now you are, too." (People Making, 1972)

Now I know that we're all jolly nice folk on NLPConnections, and of course we would like as little conflict in the world as possible. But is it "NLP"'s primary function to rid the world of ALL conflict, I wonder?

My question, then, is this:

Do you personally reject all suggestions that conflict has anything to do with "unequal resources, systematic patterns of discrimination and respect, or fundamental antagonisms in social life", preferring instead to define conflict as "something that is a deviation from a world of perfect inner calm and communion between our individual mental models"?

If you think conflicts include both internal and external factors, answer "yes"
If you think conflict is "all in yer mind, man" and that contextual factors are irrelevant, answer "no".

And if you want to add any thoughts of your own, thank you.

Be well

Andy B.

Woah, that's a lot of talk about conflict

It's not so often I hear NLP being tunnel-referenced that way so I guess I haven't grasped your research hypothesis.

The closest I can get to answering your questions is to suggest that NLP liberates behavioural choice and perhaps for some people in certain situations that might include choosing conflict as the most appropriate response.

This discussion feels a bit constricting to me at the moment so I'll be interested to see how it pans out.

coookiebabe wrote:

Woah, that's a lot of talk about conflict

It's not so often I hear NLP being tunnel-referenced that way so I guess I haven't grasped your research hypothesis.

Firstly, thank you for your response Cookiebabe.

My "research hypothesis" is that academics who criticise NLP usually haven't the foggiest idea what they are talking about. (This hypothesis really did come from observations, btw. I did not form the hypothesis and then go looking for evidence.)

In this particular case, however, I am testing a hypothesis put forward by someone else, in a book chapter called "Managing Conflict: The Curious Case of Neuro-Linguistic Programming".

I'll explain in a bit more detail when a few more votes are in.

Be well

Andy B.

Andy... do we only get those two choices? I voted "no," all conflict is in someone's mind... but I also think that most of what we perceive as "the real world" - so called contextual factors - also exists only in our minds.

To my mind the number one factor in negative emotions and distorted thinking is the thinking/feeling of an external locus of control. Powerlessness! There is alot of scientific research showing this to be the case. Just a thought!

GRANT US THE SERENITY OF MIND TO ACCEPT THAT WHICH CANNOT BE CHANGED,
COURAGE TO CHANGE THAT WHICH CAN BE CHANGED
AND WISDOM TO KNOW THE ONE FROM THE OTHER

a prayer by Reinhold Neibuhr

PhilFarber wrote:

Andy... do we only get those two choices? ... but I also think that most of what we perceive as "the real world" - so called contextual factors - also exists only in our minds.

Yes, those are, in this context, the only choices - they weren't set by an NLPer I hasten to add.

I can't really say much more without giving the whole deal way, so I'll ask you a question instead:

Is it the context/"real world" itself which is in your head, or your perceptions of the "context"/"real world"?

Be well

Andy B.

Perhaps there's some real world outside my head, but what we're talking about when we say "conflict" are the thingies I can think of. The perceptions which are, indeed, all in my head.

Hi there, visitor

I see over 500 people have visited this thread, but only 8 people had voted last time I checked.

If you've come in part way through I'd really appreciate it if you would please go to the start of the top of the thread and read the first post - then vote in the poll which comes BEFORE that first post.

Ta!

PhilFarber wrote:

Perhaps there's some real world outside my head, but what we're talking about when we say "conflict" are the thingies I can think of. The perceptions which are, indeed, all in my head.

Fine. And what do those thingies you can think of relate to?

Note that in my initial post I made a distinction between (a) conflict which included both internal and external elements, and (b) conflict which was entirely inside your head.

Perhaps I should have added that I was (the original proposer was) talking about conflict in general, NOT just conflicts one is personally involved in.
Does that make as difference?

Be well

Andy B.

Hi Andrew I was going to vote but went into the same state of inner conflict that I normally do when I am forced into either/or questions. While this is undoubtedly how I have previously been trained to "think" from Psychology I concluded that given the choices any data produced wouldn't be meaningful. Phil has pointed out ways in which the data would be rendered meaningless. I know this is not your choice of question and you can't reveal the reason yet so I don't think we will experience conflict on opinion here. Is that down to my own perception or is it real? Problem with the choice for me is because I can't help thinking "both" at times. If this then constitutes a "yes" then how can that constitute the real world only because that constitutes a yes&no answer?

We wouldn't have a mind if the real world didn't exist and the real world wouldn't exist if we didn't have a mind to experience it. This is the conflict I went through when I tried to answer. I was reminded of quite a startling memory when I read the post on conflict...

I witnessed two grown women verbally abusing each other and fighting over a turkey at Christmas time. A turkey. I found it fascinating, astonishing and slightly disturbing that two perfectly respectable grown women would literally fight over a turkey. The situation was as real as you can get - there was only one turkey. So that existed in the real world. But then a dynamic interplay came into hand which led to the fight that came from their minds. For me from my perception this was conflict that existed in the real world in front of me. From my perception I can also confirm that conflict exists in the real world due to the amount of wars currently happening. Thats real world for me but for the people fighting it is in their heads? Anyway nice question it has certainly stirred conflict within myself. If I have given you enough material for you to guide me/correct me I will certainly vote

Alistair_Donnell wrote:

I witnessed two grown women verbally abusing each other and fighting over a turkey at Christmas time. A turkey. I found it fascinating, astonishing and slightly disturbing that two perfectly respectable grown women would literally fight over a turkey. The situation was as real as you can get - there was only one turkey. So that existed in the real world. But then a dynamic interplay came into hand which led to the fight that came from their minds. For me from my perception this was conflict that existed in the real world in front of me. From my perception I can also confirm that conflict exists in the real world due to the amount of wars currently happening. Thats real world for me but for the people fighting it is in their heads? Anyway nice question it has certainly stirred conflict within myself. If I have given you enough material for you to guide me/correct me I will certainly vote

Surely you already have?

If you perceive that there is a real world situation which also owes much to what is going on in people's heads then you seem to be agreeing with the "yes" proposition. Even if it was only at that moment in time when you were writing your e-mail?

Be well

Andy B

I have a scenario for you that I think sums this up:

A man in a bar has had a few too many to drink and starts getting a bit paranoid about people "looking at him funny".

The stress of this builds and builds until he can't take it anymore and lashes out at an innocent passerby who he believes is saying bad things about him.

The passerby retaliates.

Now, I don't think anyone would doubt that all this trouble is in the paranoid mans head i.e. not in the real world, but how about the other guy? From his perspective he's just been punched for no reason. He didn't imagine it. It is most certainly not in his head. He has a damn good real world reason for being pretty pissed off

"Fine. And what do those thingies you can think of relate to?"

The obvious answer is "things out there in the real world." But just because it is obvious doesn't make it accurate or good, as it requires further definition of terms such as "out there" and "real world". That you already placed "real," "real world" and "all in someone's mind" in quotes suggest you are already aware of these issues.

I'd like to propose a couple other choices:

c) Yes and/or no, depending on the time, place and person. Can we calibrate, please?
d) Insufficient data. "I don't know." (The "agnostic" answer.)

In general, most (if not all) of what we take for "real" is a "user illusion", a way of operating in the world that allows us to experience clouds of probability as solid matter, sharply defined boundaries (in us or out of us) which really don't exist, and so on. It's a map. And while you might want to mark "conflict" in various places on your map... guess where the map lives?

Phil

PhilFarber wrote:

In general, most (if not all) of what we take for "real" is a "user illusion", a way of operating in the world that allows us to experience clouds of probability as solid matter, sharply defined boundaries (in us or out of us) which really don't exist, and so on. It's a map. And while you might want to mark "conflict" in various places on your map... guess where the map lives?

This argumnt as very fierce limitations.

If you really believe that everything is in your head, why are you devoting any time to this discussion? You must surely believe that you are debating with yourself?

Likrwise where is the Palestinian/Israeli conflict? Most of the time I have absolutely no idea what is currently going on over there. But they seem to know. That is to say, things have always moved on whenever I do hear anything about it. So it doesn't seem like they're waiting to use my consciousness to validate or facilitate what they are doing.

If I can clear up another possible source of confusion:

My poll question is DEFINITELY NOT enquiring where there is anything outside my skin, your skin, etc. It's only asking which option you *think* is most likely at the time when you vote.

The answer is thus "yes" for any answer, with any qualifications you think appropriate, EXCEPT:

No, there is nowhere for ANY conflict to exist - regardless of its severity or who is involved - other than in my head.

(And I'm still baffled as to why this thread has had so many visitors (relatively speaking) and so few votes.

For anyone who wants to vote you have to scroll up the the very top of the page ABOVE my initial post.

Thank you for your time and attention

Be well

Andy B.

Hi Andy,

Interesting post, in many ways. I voted when I first read it (yes), but did not post. I can also see where Phil F is coming from, and indeed others. Like Alistair, I do not work well with the dilemma presented, and if there were a "both" option or even "dont know", I may have gone for that.

Then again, I think Steven G also has a good point.

I kind of went with gut instinct. I think that without NLP or any other "think about things" model, conflict would exist out there. It always has, from mankind, chimpanzees, predators and victims all the way back.

Even if we were all smoothed out by NLP/therapy/meditation/limitless oil/food/power etc I think any hiatus from fighting would be a momentary blip in time.

History is yet to point to a time without conflict, is it not, and hence the instinctive "yes" ? Though I also notice, having voted that I could not change my vote were I to change my mind !

I do not understand the constraints of the original question, and look forward to your "reveal".

The most odd aspect to me is that out of 3500+ readers so far, only 12 have expressed an opinion at all. Are we collectively that conflict averse? Even to thinking about it ? Maybe that is why it is so prevalent.

MH

"This argumnt as very fierce limitations."

Now, you see, I wasn't arguing. Did you perceive some conflict?

"If you really believe that everything is in your head, why are you devoting any time to this discussion? You must surely believe that you are debating with yourself?"

That's not really an argument or refutation of what I said. I can have plenty reasons for talking to myself. Good grief, if I'm the only one here, who else would I talk to? And even this depends heavily on the definition of "self," which, IMO, is a sneaky and ever-changing concept. (And neurologically speaking, depends on activity in the right parietal lobe, which, when interfered with by injury, surgery, or TMS, changes entirely, and perhaps also changes dramatically with changes in state.)

"My poll question is DEFINITELY NOT enquiring where there is anything outside my skin, your skin, etc. It's only asking which option you *think* is most likely at the time when you vote."

By using terms like self, outside and inside, the poll question may rest largely on our personal definitions of those terms and basic beliefs about reality.

By the way... are you talking to me, or to the model of me (and my "argument") that you have in your head? Can you prove your answer either way?

(And just to point this out... I'm offering alternative points of view because the limitation of two choices in the poll makes me itch. I don't really have "firm beliefs" in this regard and, indeed, tend toward the agnostic "I don't know" answer. I would also suggest that the vast number of views relative to the tiny number of votes results from a similar itchiness among NLPers who can spot a double bind or "or question" from a mile away.)

While we're on the subject here... I'm going to plug my friend C.T. Butler's excellent book "On Conflict and Consensus." C.T. takes it as a given that conflict is "out there" and suggests that it is a desirable component of decisionmaking and, ultimately, consensus. Check it out. Online version here: A Guide to Formal Consensus

malcombhead wrote:

The most odd aspect to me is that out of 3500+ readers so far, only 12 have expressed an opinion at all. Are we collectively that conflict averse? Even to thinking about it ? Maybe that is why it is so prevalent.

MH

I wonder about reader/responder averages here - any data Chris?

What conclusions would you draw if this ratio of response is within accepted norms of other threads? And likewise if it's wildly different?

This is after all, a subjective discussion forum.

coookiebabe wrote:

What conclusions would you draw if this ratio of response is within accepted norms of other threads? And likewise if it's wildly different?

This is after all, a subjective discussion forum.

I can better comprehend folk not wishing to give a written opinion to this or any other post. What I find strange is the apparent reluctance to click "yes" or "no" in anonymity and without comment.

I agree any data Chris M might have about such poles would be interesting.

MH

I have voted. I nearly didn't because I thought my vote required an explanation.

I don't really have time to give it so I thought it better not to vote.

Then I thought, I'll vote now and explain another time perhaps.

I suspect a vote on a very simple topic would have a higher response rate, there are too many terms in the question that require explanation.

This Post Includes an Explanation

PhilFarber wrote:

Now, you see, I wasn't arguing. Did you perceive some conflict?

No. I simply saw a different point of view. Did you think I thought there was some element of conflict?

PhilFarber wrote:

By using terms like self, outside and inside, the poll question may rest largely on our personal definitions of those terms and basic beliefs about reality.

This reminds me of the days when I was actually doing a degree in philosophy (I jacked it in after a year). A viewpoint called "Logical Positivism" was the dominant approach (I think it's just called "Positivism" these days).

The hottest bit of word play going was an exchange such as:

"Are we really happy?"
"Depends. What do you mean by 'happy'?"
"Aah, what do you mean by 'mean'?"

Oh how we laughed!

PhilFarber wrote:

By the way... are you talking to me, or to the model of me (and my "argument") that you have in your head? Can you prove your answer either way?

Neither. I don't have a model of you at all. All I answer is what I read on my screen.

AT WHICH POINT, though I'm still pitifully short of votes, since we seem unlikely to break out of the philosophical discussion, here is my reason for asking the question:

A book that came out in July this year - Managing Everyday Life - includes a chapter called Managing Conflict: The Curious Case of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

In this chapter, authors Spicer and Boussebaa, both academics connected with the Business School at the University of Warwick, argue that "conflict is viewed [by "NLP" - whatever they think that is] as being simply the product of unhelpful patterns of speech and thought. ... This suggests that the world is not something that exists outside of us, or between us, or even in our interaction. Rather the world is simply our unique mental precepts of it."
(Italics added for emphasis)

(Notice the "is" error.)

And later on:

"NLP [whatever they think that is] maintains that subjective experience has a structure and that by changing that structure, one can literally change one's world. In other words, NLP offer us a kind of individualism that begins from our internal world. There is no world in which we exist. The world is only a mental representation that may be altered and changed through skilled manipulation."
(Italics added for emphasis)

Again, notice the "is" error. The sentence "the world is only a mental representation ..." misses the point that our model of the world takes the form of 'a mental representation'. Or perhaps more accurately, 'our representation of the world takes the form of a mental model'.

If the authors had referred to our perceptions of the world, the fact that we can never know anything that is outside ourselves except subjectively, through our senses, and that by altering our perceptions we can "alter and change" our internal maps, then they would have been rather closer to the facts. (Always allowing that "change" and "alteration" seem to be widely regarded as being synonymous.)

I'll be putting my own analysis of the article online in the next few days - including a look at these authors' rather strange take on the underlying purpose of NLP - apparently determined by Virginia Satir around two years before NLP started.
(This is beginning to look like a Dan Brown novel - 'NLP: The Lost Mission!' )

For anyone who would like to read the Spicer & Boussebaa chapter firsthand you can find a copy online here:

On NLP

It's actually Google's HTML conversion of an article that was originally posted online as a ".doc" file.

You can also find it by Googling "spicer boussebaa nlp"

Be well

Andy B.