Hi everyone,

(First of all, let me say this is not a critique of the authors' NLP knowledge or skill, which is probably much superior to mine, this is just about my relationship with this particular audio programme.)

I had a renewed listen to this today.

Can't say I enjoy the audio much because of the somewhat dry 'Radio 4' style of presentation.

That aside, some of the content got me thinking.

The authors say:
NLP began as the search for an answer to one over-riding question: what is it that makes someone excellent?

Is that really how NLP began? I mean, I wasn't there. I don't really know what happened. But from the stories I've heard and the books I've read, it always seemed more a case that Bandler and Grinder wanted to build a model of how certain therapists used language. I mean, sure, NLP generalised out from that, but the question is: how did it start? What was the over-riding question, if there was one, that started it all? Was it really that one?

The authors also say:
NLP is the study of excellence.

I've heard this a lot. But is that really what NLP is? Or is NLP the study and practice of modelling? (Which is subtly different.) Or is it - as RB says - "the study of the structure of subjective experience and what can be calculated from that"?

(If NLP really is the study of excellence, then I have the same question I've heard Chris ask: where are all the excellent people?)

There are other ideas from the programme I'd like to put up for debate. For example: the idea of the Meta Model as being a tool to clarify what people mean; the age-old idea of speaking to people "in their preferred rep system" so they can understand you; and the idea of saying everything three times when you speak publicly, once using picture words so visual people can understand you, once in hearing words so auditory people can understand you; and once using feeling words so kinesthetic people can understand you.

But for now, I'm most interested in feedback and discussion on the two questions posed above.

Cheers

Hi Stephen,

It is a question i had been asking myself alot lately. I was considering buying this....

Anglo American - Early Days of NLP: An Incredible Journey Through the Early Days of NLP with Two People Who Were There




YouTube - Jack Johnson - Good People

mean, sure, NLP generalised out from that, but the question is: how did it start? What was the over-riding question, if there was one, that started it all? Was it really that one?

I agree, the unwritten verbal script and passed down through ages the overriding customs, traditions and rules coupled w/ the the written book, the ONE surely works in mysterious ways.

So, I was considering buying this since I have to settle for the library copy of all the excellent people available....

Thou Shall Prosper authored by Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Stephen

A little bird told me:

First there was Bandler doing a course in psychology and getting very frustrated because he didn't see any point to it as taught in UCSC.

At the same time, or just before, but probably NOT after, this situation arose, Bandler, who had been doing various jobs for Robert Spitzer (sp?), owner of Science and Behavior Books, was asked by Spitzer to edit a book on Fritz Perls.

(Perls had died in 1970, and what we're talking about was probably sometime in 1972.)

Bandler had stuff Perls had written, and tapes of him at work (both audio and video?). Without meaning to, Bandler found himself modelling Perls based on all this information. And he and Frank Pucelik started to "do" Perls, based on Bandler's modelling. But it was all pretty basic - no refining process.

According to Grinder, by the time he met Bandler, both Bandler and Pucelik could do Perls better than Perls could!

Anyway, there was an arrangement at UCSC whereby any fourth year student could run his own course, with credits, if he could find enough students will to pay to do the course.

Bandler figured he knew more than enough to teach people how to do Perls, but neither he nor Pucelik quite knew how they were doing what they were doing, so they didn't feel able to pass on what they knew.

So Bandler had a talk with Grinder (who he knew casually) and asked if he could help them out.

For a while Grinder, Bandler and Pucelik were working jointly on the project, until Pucelik broke away to do his own thing. And Bandler and Grinder carried on with the development of what is now "Classic Code NLP".

The fact that Bandler got the ball rolling by modelling Perls is why modelling came to be "NLP" with everything else being related techniques and concepts that built up around or "fell out of" the modelling process.

So NLP was originally a project to model excellent communication skills so Bandler could be a great teacher of Gestalt Therapy.

Not quite how it turned out.

Welcome back Bob Spitzer, who also got Bandler to do a month tour of Canada with Virginia Satir on a teaching tour. Bandler did the sound and recording (1973?).

Although Bandler is supposed to have spent most of the time listening to music and reading, he actually modelled Satir to the point where he could do her stuff as well as she could.

Now Bandler had two people modelled, wanting communication skills plus Perls' theraping skills.

Trouble is, they only have one live exemplar, so they can't do much comparing. Then Bateson comes up with the idea of them visiting Milton Erickson, who could knock both Perls and Satir (good as they were/had been) into a cocked hat.

That's when Grinder really came into his own as he showed Bandler how to codify what Erickson was doing for teaching purposes (See the Hypnotic Patterns and Techniques of Milton. H. Erickson, Vols 1 (1975) and 2 (1977).

And that - AFAIK - is how classic code NLP came to be.

The "excellence" bit was essentially an accident. Bandler was put in the way of two excellent therapists/communicators by Spitzer - and introduced them to Grinder - and Bateson brought Bandler and Grinder to Erickson.

And anyway, why model anyone who is less than excellent at whatever they do - if you have a choice?

BTW - this does serve to explain, IMO, what constitutes "authentic" or "genuine" elements of the FoNLP.

They should, I would argue, be directly modelled from someone who is recognised by their peers as being "excellent" in the relevant respect, or at least based on/derived from someone who is rated "excellent".

Look at most of what people have tried to pass off as "NLP" and you will invariably find that it is based on theory or pure guesswork, and has no pre-existing supporting evidence that it works.

Oh, and about all the missing "excellent" NLPers, they don't exist.

Knowing how to be excellent is one thing. Putting it into practice is something else.
Most of us are to some extent or other resistent to simply adopting someone else's way of doing things. We want to do it "our way". So however much we learn from an excellent exemplar, we feel the need to tweak it, here and there, to make it fit our own mental maps. And BINGO! we're no longer doing what the excellent person does.

C'est la vie

Hope this is of use

Be well

Andy B.

Andy B. wrote:

Knowing how to be excellent is one thing. Putting it into practice is something else.
Most of us are to some extent or other resistent to simply adopting someone else's way of doing things. We want to do it "our way". So however much we learn from an excellent exemplar, we feel the need to tweak it, here and there, to make it fit our own mental maps. And BINGO! we're no longer doing what the excellent person does.

Surely by the time Bandler had modelled several exemplars (others include Feldenkrais and Farrelly) he was synthesising something new from their interplay, and therefore 'no longer doing what the excellent person does'. Especially by the time he'd worked with Eric Robbie and come up with DHE, which is concerned with creating models from scratch. Which is to say, once you've been exposed to a few patterns, you can with some confidence toy with them. OK, it helps to be as bright as Bandler...but that brightness itself is a process derived by refining whatever was there to start off with from nature and nurture to arrive at something more effective.

Hi Andy,

Pretty much as I understood the origins too. Definitely not with Bandler and Grinder meeting and saying, "Let's find out what makes people excellent", as the legend often says.

I agree that NLP is essentially the practice of modelling and the application of models, for the purpose of doing practical rather than academic things. And using whatever information is available from linguistics, neurology, logic, philosophy, etc, to help us describe/code, calculate and predict more of what we can do in the process of modelling, and the application of models.

Is that the same as saying "it's about excellence"? Well, one could say that, but I prefer the slightly more grounded, "it's about being able to do things you couldn't do before", for all the benefits that has. (Which can be, "lots".) Like being able to get on a stage and be charismatic when you couldn't before. Like being able to get on a plane when you couldn't before. Like being able to talk people into being brighter and happier when you weren't able to do so before. Those benefits can be amazing and massively liberating, though it won't necessarily make you a millionaire or a film star. (Which is what "excellence" might mean to some.)

And also, like you, I'm not so comfortable with confabulated ideas being passed off as NLP, as well as erroneous 'calculations' from the (often insufficiently understood) "axioms" of NLP. Like the famed and often-trotted-out "you should say things three times, etc, etc, etc.".

And, like Eric, I'm not comfortable with the reduction of NLP into 'soundbites', 'bullet points', where what is left is an impressive sounding motto that lots of people can trot out to sound impressive, but what's been stripped away is any real comprehension of it and its utilisation. ("The brain can't process negatives", etc.)

I'm not the first person to come here and realise there's a difference between 'authentic NLP'* and the 'errors/reductions of pop-NLP'.

As a simple search on the forum will highlight.

[* Not to be confused with 'stuck in the past' NLP.]

And Adrian,

I think you're so spot on as usual. You look all around you and see lots. That's why it's great to be around you.

Here's where I'm heading to:

I wish fewer books trotted out the popular myths, legends, reductions, errors and sound-bites of NLP.

If there's one book I hope for - and maybe it's already out there - it's one that tells the more accurate, more grounded, more elaborates-on-the-journey story of NLP. One that, through exploration of the story of NLP, debunks some of the myths and mottos of NLP, which have become 'de facto truths'. One that helps people get what is authentically NLP.

Question: (And maybe this is a question to you Andy, as reviewer), is the DVD named by Guilio above, that document? It says it is on the tin, but is it really that document?

Cheers

Yes..
The audio book you have titled this thread after is an abridged version of the book, which happens to have a forward by John Grinder. It was one of the first books i ever read on the subject and the thing that stuck in my mind was the forward by Dr. Grinder. He describes the work of the authors using a metaphor, the metaphor of having turned a wild rain forest into a rose garden. This picture has stayed with me ever since and probably had the most impact on me in those early days. What did Grinder mean by this? Knowing the importance Grinder places on the unconscious (rain forest) what could an english rose garden (conscious) mean in this context?
Oh yes..Stephen, the link i have added is for a dvd but i have yet to see any reviews for it. I believe it is Robert Dilts and co.

best wishes

Have just dug my copy of the book out...
"What you are about to read never happened, but it seems reasonable, even to me" John Grinder 1989

I'm afraid I wouldn't trust this book if it came gold-plated and guaranteed.

In my personal OPINION, Mr Dilts has trouble relating to reality at times.
For example, in one interview he said:

"The beginning of the Nineties is the time when we created 'NLP University' at the University of Santa Cruz in California."


Does this look like the "NLP University" is, or at least was, a part of the UCSC?

I phoned up the university and couldn't find anyone who knew anything about it. It is my *guess*, based on what I was told, that the only relationship is that Dilts sometimes hires UCSC facilities for his activities (training, etc.).

If you can track down the relevant articles from the French online(?) NLP magazine "PNL Repere" - with Dilts and Grinder "discussing" what Dilts has "contributed" to "NLP, it will give you a better idea of what is involved.

Part 1 is an interview with Dilts on what he calls "3rd generation NLP".

Dilts has, in my opinion, undoubtedly come up with some useful ideas - the Disney Creativity model, etc. But unless you already have some solid background knowledge it can be a hard job to separate the nuggets from the dross.

Be well

Andy B.

adrian r wrote:

Surely by the time Bandler had modelled several exemplars (others include Feldenkrais and Farrelly) he was synthesising something new from their interplay, and therefore 'no longer doing what the excellent person does'.

Hi Adrian

I wonder if we're on the same page.

Each model exists in its own right. It reflects a particular skill which a particular exemplar has.

What I meant by no longer doing what the excellent person does was all the bits and bobs that people add on or substitute which are NOT from models of excellence in a particular skill. Otherwise know as customizing.

We ALL do it to some degree, I would guess, including Bandler and Grinder and Robbie, etc., etc.

Please remember, though, that NLP modelling has a final stage: being able to replicate or surpass the skill of the exemplar.

It would be nuts, in my opinion, to say that no one should ever do any better that the person they were modelling. And if that means adding from elsewhere, so be it.

To stay within the realm of authentic NLP, any add ons would also be modelled from somewhere. That is to say, the power of the FoNLP - is that everything either comes from or is based upon models of actions which have ALREADY been found to work because someone actually used them.

And to save any argument - I am NOT saying that that is the ONLY acceptable way of doing things. I'm just saying I believe it is the authentic NLP way. Since none of us lives in a bubble I'm pretty sure we all do some synthesizing from time to time.

The objection is NOT to synthesizing, only to the way that some people do the synthesis and then try to claim that the RESULT of the synthesis is "NLP". That's why I think it is perfectly right of John LaValle to say that "NLP + anything isn't NLP".

Be well

Andy B.