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