Why has Bandler embraced choices that lead to him being labelled a wildcard and badboy while Grinder prefers an approach that leans to academic rigour and physical prowess?

Given that the field of NLP is in large part about communication style, are those differences character-based and incidental or do they point to profound distinctions in method and intention?

Is it really the case the Bandler learned how to capture attention from comedians, making for a populist approach? And what are the advantages of Grinder's live style, which can come across more academic in tone?

There are at least two ways to approach responding to these questions. One involves challenging my presuppositions and asking me for evidence, and is not what I'm looking for here: I apologise in advance for not responding in this thread to queries of that nature. Another way is to take my questions in good faith, even if they're not perfectly formed, and answer from that perspective. And if we can do that without it turning into a Bandler v Grinder bitchfest, so much the better: I have read, trained with and learned from both men.

adrian r wrote:

Why has Bandler embraced choices that lead to him being labelled a wildcard and badboy while Grinder prefers an approach that leans to academic rigour and physical prowess?

My best guess is that they're like any of us: each chooses behaviors that are consistent with his image of himself.

My best guess is they have very different beliefs about how people will learn best and easiest. Or, more specifically, how the kind of people they want to teach will learn best and easiest.

How did they make those choices... I would say mostly because they are from very different families. It's not a very NLP-friendly idea but I think that's the biggest factor. Malcolm Gladwell explains it well in Outliers.

adrian r wrote:

Why has Bandler embraced choices that lead to him being labelled a wildcard and badboy

Hi Adrian,

I have spotted two parts to this question that need to be considered seperately IMHO

1. Why has Bandler embraced choices....
2. that lead him to being labelled a wildcard and badboy...

1 - This might be bettered answered when we think about why we choose our own style in any area of presenting material for teaching. For example, when I trained as a fitness instructor many moons ago, I chose to work with larger figured people and as I wanted to use a gently gently approach - I just could not see myself shouting a the top of my lungs... 'GO FOR THE BURN TILL HURTS AND DO 10 MORE'.. etc It just did not fit with me and how I operated - and this would fit with Chris's comment about attracting the 'type' of people you want to teach.

I like this idea that perhaps Richard had organised his thinking working backwards from the 'outcome' end of the equation. He often talks about knowing where you want to end up in order to know how what to do in order to get there.

Another example of this was when I was choosing which subjects to study for my degree - one of the teachers mentioned that I should think about where I want to use it and work backwards - and this made much more sense and allowed me to choose the 'road' I was going to take to get there.

Also could be that from RB's past unique experiences - he gained unique insights as to what he thought would work - more maverick ideas such as using music, stories, jokes - he knew about how learning 'goes in'... and that peolple learn best when they are in 'good states'.. such as being happy and interested and attentive - and all the good brain juice that goes with that.. it makes you want to know more and find out more and get curious.. I suspect he sees this as common sense reasoning.

You can get clues into how he thinks by seeing some patterns in his logic - like when I asked him about the how the brain influences healing in his interview with me - he looks at what is not working and is not useful and then contrasts it with the OPPOSITE idea of what does work and what he has seen has produced the results - in the interview he says

"They have done tremendous studies that discovered the limits of your ability to heal and the relationship between those limits and stress has
been duly noted. However, they haven’t duly noted the inverse, which seems to me obvious: that the more that people can go into just the
right state, the more they can heal themselves of just about anything."


So the second part is why this led him to being labelled a wildcard and badboy...

The methods he chose that worked in his experience with working with people - perhaps rubbed people the wrong way that thought you had to take 'years' and who perhaps liked the idea of being 'sombre' and miserable and go through all the pain in order to sort the problem out....

I had this with family - you tell them that it doesn't have to be this way... and they just think you're mad and still keep whining - but when you are strong enough to believe that things can be different and you stand your ground.... you sometimes have to take some flack or alot.

That people label him a badboy.. is there own problem and not his and I am sure that he didn't plan on having that label attached to him when he chose his particular methods when he started out.... but they (those labellers) probably spured him on more to do more things that worked really effectively and completely and upset the labellers off even more LOL As he often says.. he likes to use methods that get things done as fast and as effectively as he can (phobia cure etc)... as he is "...not a patient man.."

Nina

Chris I agree about the Outliers reference.

I think creativity often flourishes because of differences rather than in spite of them. Many musical collaboration are stronger because of differences. OK, in the end people split, often once success allows them to work alone.

One can speculate about how much further they would have gone together but we will probably never know.

Interesting parallels with Lenon and McCartney. John and Edward.

Hey, come on. John & Edward are fantastic! (and they are only one person- its all done with CGI!)

I've not read Outliers, but I just 'googled' it and read the Wiki entry. I really like the concept that there is no such thing as being naturally 'gifted', and that ultimately it comes down to hard work, belief, timing and luck. It reminds me of the NLP presupposition that 'we have all the resources we need'. So many times, at work for example, I hear people saying that they are 'not good enough' to do X. I always say to them that yes they are and if they want something badly enough they will work for it.

Perhaps John & Edward could (with the right amount of work) become the new Lennon & McCartney.

Enlightenment Steve wrote:

Hey, come on. John & Edward are fantastic! (and they are only one person- its all done with CGI!)

I've not read Outliers, but I just 'googled' it and read the Wiki entry. I really like the concept that there is no such thing as being naturally 'gifted', and that ultimately it comes down to hard work, belief, timing and luck. It reminds me of the NLP presupposition that 'we have all the resources we need'. So many times, at work for example, I hear people saying that they are 'not good enough' to do X. I always say to them that yes they are and if they want something badly enough they will work for it.

Perhaps John & Edward could (with the right amount of work) become the new Lennon & McCartney.

I think John and Edward would make a great Ant and Dec

virtualAngel wrote:

I think John and Edward would make a great Ant and Dec

I'm sure they can do anything they like! ''Life Coaching with Jedward'', anyone?

They're lovely!

Lovely served with fava beans maybe. Otherwise, no Chris. Just...no.