Gary Turner wrote:

OK, lets get the thread back on track...tired of the bickering...

Another issue I have with NLP courses is that there is no focus on client's issues, the psychological models of how a client constructs various issues. I believe that unless you study these, it is not possible to work accurately, safely or ecologically with a paying client.

For example, I know of many NLPers who say that a phobia should always be treated with the fast phobia cure. So when it doesn't work - what do you do? If a study has been made as to the genesis and development, and sustaining, of phobias, then you will know where to look to attend to.

My personal belief is that any NLPer working with clients needs to understand more about psychology and the various models and methodology to resolve the issues in order to work most appropriately.

Lets get the thread back on track...

Best regards,

Smiler

Yes, lets. I agree with you about the psych training.

I recall with some mirth seeing someone in another forum, confidently announce that he fixes insomnia using NLP every day, and "it *never* takes more than 5 minutes". Must be rich by now I should think, and all without, it seems, understanding that insomnia is not so much a problem in and of itself, but more often a symptom of other problems, and that the underlying causative problem should be addressed first, whether by NLP or hypnosis or CBT or whatever.

None of that was deemed important to this guy, who evidently heard (and believed) Bandler when he said NLP achieves immediate results always, like stamping a sheet of steel into the shape of a car bumper. Immediate. Like the fast phobia cure is often expected to be but generally isn't.

Which kind of demonstrates your point I suspect.

If there is a number one failure of NLP, it lies with trainers convincing (or perhaps failing to un-convince) green students, that they can and should apply NLP patterns willy nilly, and to expect success rather than work for it. As I said earlier, too may practitioners apply NLP in the same way they might mutter magical incantations.

Gary
many thanks for getting back on track

i am not exactly sure what you mean gary when you talk of psychological models...... but anyway (whatever they are)could they be seen as just another external imposition on the client from the outside (not that this is necessarily bad good right or wrong)........rather like the imposition of the fast phobia job (when simply seen or used as a technique).........

.......instead.couldnt such things as the fast phobia job just be used as a guide or map .......a direction rather than an absolute.........a doorway to exploration........going thru the steps will show you what the client is doing or needs......(can they dissociate comfortably or not....can they visualise...are there beliefs which get in the way...is there an insistent 'yes but!'.....do they need distance.....is there a secondary gain....etc .....) there are many indicators revealed along the way which will show how the client constructs their issues

to me this flexibility of working in the present with what IS rather than what has been is what makes nlp so effective

another point ,....altho i am not sure exactly what these psychological models are......when models get into the hands of the clients they can become just another form of conditioning imposed on top of their issue.....and this(in my experience) is more common than not in sessions (altho i think this may have a lot to do with where i work)


and doesnt the reality strategy .... sensory acuity and calibration...submodalityexploration.. and communication with the greater conscious arrive at how they construct their issue
yours anekant

SimonIffe wrote:

...If there is a number one failure of NLP, it lies with trainers convincing (or perhaps failing to un-convince) green students, that they can and should apply NLP patterns willy nilly, and to expect success rather than work for it.

The specific NLP trainers I have met would suggest other-wise. Working towards an outcome that the client wants is probably useful. So is using feedback (i.e. working for it) until the client is happy. Doing stuff (willy nilly or otherwise) to a client suggest the client is not part of the process or at least is on the periphery. The relationship between the client and facilitator and the 'task' go hand in hand, not separated.

SimonIffe wrote:

...too may practitioners apply NLP in the same way they might mutter magical incantations.

My earlier suggestion about a comprehensive Diagnosis applies.

Hi Anekant, I don’t diagnose, nor do I expect my clients to. It is not something I’m trained to do, and not something I like my clients coming to me with either – often a diagnosis accepted by a client becomes ‘hypnotic’ and they follow the suggestion. I ALWAYS work with what a client presents. And whatever ‘label’, if any, they give.
However, studying the psychological ‘models’ for depression, panic attacks, general anxiety disorder, weight disorders, addictions etc allows you to work much more educated and elegantly – and safely! Obviously test before you operate, ask cleanly rather than suggest, but still the knowledge of the model helps in so many ways. I’m studying psychopathology like mad (amongst so much other stuff) and finding it is being incredibly helpful in my work.
A quick safety example: I’ve found it quite easy to work with alcoholics – yet at the same time my speed of work is hindered by the knowledge of what going cold turkey can do as the body and mind readjusts, as it finds its chemical balance once more, so I have to work slowly at the rate of their bodies. DT’s aren’t fun by any means.

Its about the background knowledge...

Does that explain it a bit better? If not, ask away and I'll try again mate!

Best regards,

Smiler

Interesting blog post to which I commented towards the end. Joy's reply is particularly interesting.

Hello
gary my judge is some what judgemental of models ....... but my jury is still out deliberating.......it may take years....but i continue to slam it around my head

steve .......... joy of living well(interesting name) arrogance and instant results
well yes i think i passed thru the arrogant phase of nlp altho there may be a vestigial tendency every now and again.................but the question is .....because as she states this is a common attitude (and indeed one that does probably give nlp a bad name )....HOW DOES THIS GET INSTALLED .......because it is common ....and it is not just a few rogue trainers ...........where does it come from and WHY?........where did we get it from (?) and why?...........is this a present from the creators of nlp......are the alternative therapies always in need to proove to the medical associations..........or .is it simply true ....is nlp simply better ..... or is it the human condition and the need to be more right than the other.......or is the pursuit of excellence just too much for the middle mind to take............................................well there may be an answer........

brief instant quicker than quick nlp......well i have also been thru a phase of this .........and in my opinion it is just unsustainable in reality .....it does not hold up .............so reality teaches ........you learn this very quickly...........but you still have the tools to deal with it.....my guess is that if people are working with ordinairy people (not nlp trained ...visually responsive etc)then they will adjust their trainings accordingly.......but there is more to consider

Instant nlp has moved people from the frame that change is long and difficult....which has to be good........also when you consider erickson who seemed to have done brief work but also seemed to take a leisurely stroll thru the healing journey.............i mean who can afford a client to have 30 sessions =£2,400 at £80 per session

also there is an emphasis on nlp that change is GENERATIVE..................they may not get all their needs met in a session but a direction is set in which they begin to work out their own problems........in their own time ......

the other point is that......there is a difference between the public and the private sector..............many clients have an expectation of brief therapy these days ....because of financial restrictions ....because of cultural conditioning etc.....there is an expectation of it .....how you deal with this is your experience ....but while you might be saying 'YEAH 10....20 SESSIONS' the fella next door may be saying 'WELL 2 SESSIONS WILL DO IT'......this creates pressure ........ and you have to do a slow build on your practice to get the more discerning client.....so you may be tempted to keep the day job

a bit of a rant i know
yours anekant

anekant wrote:

... steve .......... joy of living well(interesting name) arrogance and instant results this is a common attitude (and indeed one that does probably give nlp a bad name )....HOW DOES THIS GET INSTALLED .......because it is common ....and it is not just a few rogue trainers ...........where does it come from and WHY?........where did we get it from (?) and why?...........is this a present from the creators of nlp......

Well, even Richard Bandler said that change work is 90% diagnosis, 10% intervention (apologies, I can't find the source but will post it if I find it)

I think newer NLPers translate the 'instant' results as instant therapy. All the time. Even Brief Therapy might take a couple of sessions. It may be that a simple conversational change such as Sleight of Mouth may change a limiting belief in under a minute. That's fast! However, how long does it take to source the limiting belief? (That's a rhetorical question btw).

And the skill of the trainer to pay exquisite attention and re-cognise what's going on - does that have a bearing? (etc.)

More controversially, Does the length of a Practitioner's Course contribute in terms of practicing the techniques within the extra time and access to expertise?

If someone with a phobia has difficulty visualising, That may be an extra session to develop that ability before undergoing the Fast Phobia Cure.

anekant wrote:

...is nlp simply better .....

Why put people through Flooding and Emotional Trauma when it could be done painlessly?

anekant wrote:

...or is it the human condition and the need to be more right than the other

Some people have a burning need to be more right than others. Or maybe to insist that their map is 'better' than others.

anekant wrote:

..or is the pursuit of excellence just too much for the middle mind to take

An interesting question might be: How good enough is something?
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent.

It seems to me that we have a set of values we carry around (in a small briefcase) and each value has a tolerance of accuracy. Each person will have a threshold where they will find something acceptable. They may even mark that acceptability with a kinaesthetic check. Say, when they EXIT a strategy of a TOTE.

At school, scraping through Mathematics (50%) was acceptable to me. That's down to my perceived capability and external factors. (Somehow I got through Degree level maths but that's another story.)

anekant wrote:

...so reality teaches me........I learn this very quickly...........but I still have the tools to deal with it.....my guess is that if I are working with ordinairy people (not nlp trained ...visually responsive etc)then I will adjust my trainings accordingly......

I changed the pronouns. Does that view still work?

anekant wrote:

...Instant nlp has moved people from the frame that change is long and difficult....which has to be good........

And that some therapies may actually deepen symptoms.

anekant wrote:

...also when you consider erickson who seemed to have done brief work but also seemed to take a leisurely stroll thru the healing journey.............i mean who can afford a client to have 30 sessions =£2,400 at £80 per session

One has to ask, Who is the Therapy for?

anekant wrote:

...also there is an emphasis on nlp that change is GENERATIVE..................they may not get all their needs met in a session but a direction is set in which they begin to work out their own problems........in their own time ......

That may be so whatever that own time actually is.

anekant wrote:

...the other point is that......there is a difference between the public and the private sector..............many clients have an expectation of brief therapy these days

My experience is that many think that 'therapy' is expensive, lying on a couch, talking about one's mother, father and sex for a looong time. Who'd want to go?

anekant wrote:

...there is an expectation of it .....how you deal with this is your experience ....but while you might be saying 'YEAH 10....20 SESSIONS' the fella next door may be saying 'WELL 2 SESSIONS WILL DO IT'......this creates pressure ........ and you have to do a slow build on your practice to get the more discerning client.....so you may be tempted to keep the day job...

Is that effective or efficient you are after? Of course, it might be effective AND efficient. I'd be wary of suggesting a number of sessions it would take in advance. Who knows what one might find under the carpet of the conscious mind....

The future is up to us, so here is a positive vision for NLP:

"A consistent and courageous long term perspective that incorporates ongoing congruence plus wider exploration".

This will likely involve choosing and modeling exemplars who help us move forward.

Newton, Giordano Bruno, and Spinoza for example. They were able to congruently reconcile their work in science with an openness towards the "technically magical" or "practically numinous".

This involves trying out new avenues, being open to acknowledging failure, and moving on to things that are more likely to work. It also involves following through on claims. If we make claims to neuroscience, then we should be held accountable to neuroscience methods of testing and accept passes or failures whenever they occur. That requires courage and flexibility in owning up to mistakes.

There are also demi-heros. Rupert Sheldrake, for example is doing great work researching subjects that others would shy away from. He deserves huge respect for that. There is currently no evidence to support his assertions about morphic fields etc. But that is no reason to stop the research.

It is not essential, but it would be encouraging to see people researching the "fringes" of NLP in a similar manner to Sheldrake. Except, where evidence fails to show anything, it should be stated with even more careful honesty and integrity.

Its that healthy doubt and honesty that I see in some corners of NLP, and that, together with the persistent exploration of human thought and ability, needs to be encouraged and nurtured in the long term.

A combination of a stress-tester's doubt and rigour, and the persistent courageous exploration of "technical magic" will help us move forward.

yes well......
i think that the 'APPLICATIONS' could be renamed as 'TECHNIQUES FOR DIAGNOSIS'

Changing the pronouns .....please feel free .... a new view ...yes ...thanks........

'I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together
See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly
I am crying'

But the question: where does the arrogance come from.?.......is still unanswered.......maybe its inherent in the individual.......and the tool (nlp) just brings it out.....or maybe its part of the packaging of nlp

Is it of value?....who knows
yours anekant

anekant wrote:

But the question: where does the arrogance come from.?.......is still unanswered.......maybe its inherent in the individual.......and the tool (nlp) just brings it out.....or maybe its part of the packaging of nlp

Is it of value?....who knows

hi Anekant,

If I may, I'd like to speculate on where the arrogance comes from. Of course, this is just a combination of intuition and opinion. The short answer is two places:

1) The original intent of the practitioner in learning NLP. Many people feel powerless, and as a result seek to bolster the egos by learning all the "magic tricks" that NLP supposedly offers. Watching Derren Brown on television has only encouraged this further. Others may come to NLP and/or hypnosis out of a desire to help their clients heal faster and more efficiently. And in many cases, it may be a little of both (some honest desire to help AND some desire to feel powerful.)

2) One of the co-founders seems to demonstrate confidence and "swagger" bordering on arrogance in the way he speaks, teaches, and presents. Given this, he's also funny and I think this helps to balance it out. Everyone has their own style. All that being said, it's easy to see how many of his students might adopt a similar attitude.

Cheers,

David