vernpeace wrote:

hi Sam, i...was...thinking...more...along...the...lines... of...a...Gin...and...Tonic!...
...its...not...the...Gin...you...know!...its...all ...in...the...Bubbles...and...Quinine...
...from...the...water!..

peace&love...vern

yawn... its just that some things really are only entertaining the first time you see them.. I thought you would know when to give up..

hi john, i...will...continue...my...research...and...your.. .welcome...to...take...
part...or...not!..the...choice...is...clear!

peace&love...vern

vernpeace wrote:

hi Sam, i...was...thinking...more...along...the...lines... of...a...Gin...and...Tonic!...
...its...not...the...Gin...you...know!...its...all ...in...the...Bubbles...and...Quinine...
...from...the...water!..

peace&love...vern

Quinine's also good for malaria too, so fingers crossed!

"Quinine's also good for malaria too, so fingers crossed!"

hi Sam, its...not...the...reason...the...Queen...Mother... lived...for...a...hundred...
years...is...it?..

as...for...crossing...your...fingers!..not...recom mended...unless...you...
know...what...your...doing!

peace&love...vern

I don't see what the problem is with people writing what they feel. Everyone has their view. NLP really is a non-judgmental discipline. So please lets not judge.

The Greenfield article, the wikipedia article, the skeptics article have a fairly similar world view. And I think on the whole they are written intelligently - for their own worldview.

The most effective NLP practitioners I have seen completely avoid dissing other people's worldviews. Such dismissal shows some rather deep insecurity and inflexibility.

Sorry Andy, but your article falls into the trap of tantrumming against someone's worldview. You are taking a rock-logic brickwall mind and using logical fallacies to tantrum against their brickwall.

NLP doesn't need science approval. NLP works. And it works because the core of NLP comes from a point of increasing flexibility. I feel this thread is a downward spiral of insecurity.

Keep a solid stance in the philosophy of NLP, and flexibly deflect any barbs and arrows by accepting their existence and letting them fall past you.

All you really need to write about the skeptics dictionary is "That is their view of NLP, I accept that is their view, and their worldview is based in measuring things". That is not everyones view.

The NLP view is based in increasing awareness, flexibly taking action where it is needed, and nonaction where it is not needed.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

All you really need to write about the skeptics dictionary is "That is their view of NLP, I accept that is their view, and their worldview is based in measuring things".

That must be your view on their view of NLP, because when I read it I don't see anywhere at all that they measure. Did you really read Andy's article?

Dragon05 wrote:

You cannot make the distinction between what is therapy and what is not, so why don't you at least try to make yourself look slightly credible and attempt to do so in your next post? ...

NLP is not just therapy, but to say categorically it is not a therapy is just plain silly.

A bit late in the day, but this point is worth answering.

1. Therapy is specifically problem-oriented. If a person wants to IMPROVE their situation, as distinct from wanting to resolve a problem. that would NOT require therapy. It might benefit from coaching, but not from therapy.

2. Can NLP-related techniques be used in a therapeutic context? Yes they can. But that does NOT make NLP itself a form of therapy.

3. NLP is ONLY a specific form of modelling as used by Bandler and then Bandler and Grinder as they were developing the field of NLP (techniques and applications).
This does NOT mean that "NLP Modelling" is inherently better than any other form of modelling (as some people seemed to think Grinder was saying about 3 years back), only that it is the approach used in the development of NLP and therefore uniquely qualifies as "NLP modelling".

Everything else in the "field" of NLP consists of techniques, method(ologie)s and applications.

Therefore NLP is NOT a form of therapy.

4. Bandler modelled Fritz Perls whilst transcribing a number of video and audiotapes of Perls at work for a book he had been asked to edit. He found that he could replicate Perls' performance as a result of this "implicit learning", and according to Grinder (live conversation in September this year), by the time they started working together, Bandler was even better at Gestalt Therapy than Perls himself.

A similar process occurred whilst Bandler was running the sound and recording systems for Virginia Satir. By this time Grinder was working with Bandler, and together with Satir herself they wrote a book on Family Therapy.

Now Fritz Perls died in the very early 1970s (1972?), before NLP was even a gleam in Bandler's eye. So, according to Grinder, again in our recent conversation, B & G were looking round for another "excellent" therapist to model to cross check their initial results.

Why a therapist, if NLP isn't a therapy? Because Bandler had already modelled two world class therapists, so it was logical to model a third rather than someone from another area of expertise.

And in any case, they simply didn't know any other world class people that they could model "close up and personal". Indeed, remember that they only got to Erickson through Gregory Bateson.

5. It is my perception that the basis for a good understanding of the relationship between NLP and therapy (any therapy) is to understand the relationship between "process" and "content" - two important concepts in NLP.

NLP is about the PROCESS of communication - ANY communication.
Therapy is about the CONTENT of any particular form of therapy.

Thus there is ONLY ONE authentic form of NLP, but innumerable forms of therapy, defined both by application (physiotherapy, psychotherapy, speech therapy, etc.) and by approach within each application (Freudian psychotherapy, Adlerian, Jungian, etc.)

In my experience I've found that most people who get confused about NLP do so because they don't, for whatever reason, distinguish between process and content.

And this seems to be what was happening with Peter, too.

Be well

Andy B.

RmtView wrote:

The Greenfield article, the wikipedia article, the skeptics article have a fairly similar world view. And I think on the whole they are written intelligently - for their own worldview.

Well, that may be your view, but maybe it is based on misunderstanding.

The Greenfield article is written (if I'm not mistaken) by a guy who trolls the internet looking for arguments with NLPers.

It is his proudest boast (to me, on a Skeptics' chat group) that he once got an NLPer so worked up with his twaddle that the NLPer got thrown off the list for flaming, whilst he - Bond, McFay, Singh, Greenfield, etc. - wasn't even cautioned.

If you think his article, or any of the others, qualifies as intelligent then I have to ask: "What is 'intelligent' about a pack of lies?"

RmtView wrote:

Sorry Andy, but your article falls into the trap of tantrumming against someone's worldview. You are taking a rock-logic brickwall mind and using logical fallacies to tantrum against their brickwall.

If I was trying to change Carroll's mind you might have a point. In facty my sole purpose was to demonstrate how totally off base Carroll's comments are, and to provide information for anyone who has Carroll's twaddle presented to them as an authoritative view.

As it happens, I am currently in communication with a Dr Michael Heap, whose 1988 review of a number of experiments on NLP-related topics has been quoted for many many years as another authoritative view. I have pointed out to Dr Heap (who is a genuine psychologist with a long and successful career in this field) that his findings are seriously at fault. For example, he stated in 1988, and still insists, that there was very little support for NLP claims in the experimental abstracts he reviewed. I pointed out that something like 45% of the 60 abstracts he reviewed actually DO support Bandler and Grinder's claims, to a greater or lesser extent.

So, has Dr Heap treated my comments as "tantrumming", as you put it?

On the contrary, he has been unfailingly courteous and friendly (Mr Bradbury and Dr Heap are now Andy and Mike), he has posted my original communication on his website, and he has invited me to write a piece explaining my perceptions of the affair for his annual magazine for skeptics.

FWIW, it strikes me that people who write posts like yours MIGHT actually mean "If **I** wrote something like this then it would mean that I was ..." rather than understanding that we ALL have, and act out of, different views of vthe world - based on differing knowledge, experience, beliefs, etc. It is possible, I suppose, that such people could greatly benefit from an indepth understanding of NLP. Couldn't they?

JAT

Be well

Andy B.

Hi Damian and Andy

Yes I have read the article. I have read all of them, and the skeptic dictionary comes from a positivist world view, which ultimately involves measurement. They look for things that can be measured and they measure them. They only really accept statements, concepts, and methods that can and have been measured in some way. I don't believe NLP is about measuring things in the same way.

To be specific, Andy, your article is problematic because those authors will very quickly recognize the logical fallacies you present.

You hold up a straw man at the new age term. To many new age is just a shelf in a bookstore. It doesn't necessarily mean the stuff you describe. I see nothing wrong with calling NLP new age. I understand some don't like that term to be used in business situations. But ultimately, NLP does work together with some of the more useful new age notions of the last century.

You present a lot of goalpost moving logical fallacies throughout. In addition some of your factual statements are both unconvincing and incorrect. You say:

1. NLP is NOT a form of psychotherapy and never has been

Actually, the early books do say that it is a model based upon the model of therapeutic wizards. And many people really do see it as a therapy. It makes no sense at all to present people with an incorrect fact, and to make it even more unconvincing.

Being a psychotherapy or based on psychotherapy, psychotherapists, it becomes more convincing. If it can be used as a therapy, then it is useful for people to use it on themselves as such. It is useful to all in that way.

You talk about smears. It makes no sense at all. Look at the history of the 70s and the development of management thinking etc and there will be bad with good. Its fine. EST was a particular point in time and most people moved on. NLP came forward more positively.

Look at the whole of the Carrol article. As an NLP practitioner, it may jar a little. But as someone reading from the outside it could serve as a bit of a rant, or as a bit of an advert for NLP.

Its just silly to throw logical fallacies at rock logic thinkers. They'll laugh like drains at what you have written. Dr Heap looks to be pleasantly non judgmental about things and I'm sure he does want to display what you have written. The general population of skeptics will find it hard suppress a chuckle though, and no I don't believe for a second that they are all the same people. I find the rather desperate assertion completely unconvincing.

This is relevant to NLP practitioners in general, because you come off as being pretty unconvincing, and as I say it just sounds like a tantrum. Its not the sort of thing NLP practitioners should do, IMHO. There is absolutely no need at all.

Just accept their viewpoint for what it is. Its not going to change anyone elses' point of view in particular. Those who like NLP will do NLP, and those who don't will not.

And those who like NLP will do it on those who do not anyway, whether they know it or not.

Rich

All very well Rich, but what about those whose first encounter with NLP is at somewhere like Sceptics Dictionary and who dismiss it on that basis? Andy is providing a valuable counterpoint to that perspective which may result in people improving their lives.

Hi Rich,

RmtView wrote:

You hold up a straw man at the new age term. To many new age is just a shelf in a bookstore. It doesn't necessarily mean the stuff you describe. I see nothing wrong with calling NLP new age.

You may see nothing wrong with calling NLP new age even though NLP is not new age and never has been. I can understand how some people could form that view. It is unfortunate that some people claiming to train NLP mix it with new age content. However, NLP is not and has never been new age.

RmtView wrote:

Actually, the early books do say that it is a model based upon the model of therapeutic wizards. And many people really do see it as a therapy.

So what. Just because some people see NLP as a therapy does not make it a therapy. People belief all sorts of nonsence.

Chris Collingwood

Chris Collingwood wrote:

It is unfortunate that some people claiming to train NLP mix it with new age content.

You mean people like the people who created NLP in the first place?

hypnoben wrote:

You mean people like the people who created NLP in the first place?

No absolutely not.

Isn't new age just a lable that has been added to old teachings about conscious living.

Just accept their viewpoint for what it is. Its not going to change anyone elses' point of view in particular. Those who like NLP will do NLP, and those who don't will not.

And those who like NLP will do it on those who do not anyway, whether they know it or not.

I think that this just about sums it up, it all boils down to our maps of reality and wether some one gives NLP a good or a bad rap is irrelevant to its effectiveness, its all subjective. So does it really matter after all?

Maybe I am the one who if off with the pixies though I dont see how a write up in the Skeptics dictionary or labelled as New Age makes NLP less effective.

Be Well and have a great day

Frederic

Hi Adrian

Its a poor show. Throwing copious logical fallacies around is just embarrassing. NLP practitioners should know better.

Hi Chris

The new age label is a way for people to categorize NLP. Some bookstore owners do it, some advertisers do it. Some people don't like the term. They may say, oo er its a bit new agey! Those people will most likely never like NLP. But when some people read Carrol's or other critical articles, and they see the main concepts of NLP, they may still like the idea of them.

I use NLP to help myself through life. It allows me to adapt. It is by and large a type of self-therapy, and I do help my friends and acquantances using NLP. They do also get that therapy. And its not just wishy washy age of aquarius. There is a hard clarity and meta-logic to it all. Some new age ideas do have that quality, and so does well practiced NLP.

If any NLP practitioner overreacts so much against people's viewpoints, that they end up spewing copious logical fallacy, then they show a definite need for even stronger therapy.

A good dose of NLP perspective is definitely to be recommended. When dealing with criticism, it really helps to keep a sense of humour, to chill, and to simply put it all in reasonable perspective, without all the illogic and ad hominem.

Both Bandler and Grinder, Virginia Satir, Bateson, and many other models for NLP have that balanced humanitarian streak that is quite well represented in new age philosophies. Management and management gurus do also tend towards that mindset also, from Maslow to Peters.

Seriously guys, get with it!

Get clear, rational, and embrace the new age with any other good idea on the planet.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

The new age label is a way for people to categorize NLP. Some bookstore owners do it, some advertisers do it. Some people don't like the term. They may say, oo er its a bit new agey! Those people will most likely never like NLP. But when some people read Carrol's or other critical articles, and they see the main concepts of NLP, they may still like the idea of them.

Where can I get access to Carrol's articles? I wold like to know his specific criticisms.

RmtView wrote:

I use NLP to help myself through life. It allows me to adapt. It is by and large a type of self-therapy, and I do help my friends and acquantances using NLP. They do also get that therapy. And its not just wishy washy age of aquarius.

Do you really consider NLP to be a therapy?

RmtView wrote:

There is a hard clarity and meta-logic to it all. Some new age ideas do have that quality, and so does well practiced NLP.

Your sentence makes no sense to me. What is meta-logic? And how do you apply it?

RmtView wrote:

If any NLP practitioner overreacts so much against people's viewpoints, that they end up spewing copious logical fallacy, then they show a definite need for even stronger therapy.

The above sentence also makes no sense to me.

RmtView wrote:

A good dose of NLP perspective is definitely to be recommended. When dealing with criticism, it really helps to keep a sense of humour, to chill, and to simply put it all in reasonable perspective, without all the illogic and ad hominem.

According to whom and in what context?

RmtView wrote:

Both Bandler and Grinder, Virginia Satir, Bateson, and many other models for NLP have that balanced humanitarian streak that is quite well represented in new age philosophies. Management and management gurus do also tend towards that mindset also, from Maslow to Peters.

What as that got to do with anything? Most of the personal development programs, books etc labeled as new age that I have seen are content descriptions. NLP is about patterns and models, thus radically different to the new age.

Hi Chris

I don't see any problem with people treating NLP as a type of therapy. Certainly when you attend training, it tends to be therapeutic. And I do believe it is generically so. There is something about the way it works with the sense of perspective that leads to improvements in how to adapt.

I am saying there is a meta-logic to my own solution processes. I made the term up. There is probably a more accurate one. Basically, some people think things should be positivistic and measurable, and others say its all really subjective. I want to stand back and deal with both. I'd say they can both be reasonable, and I am meta from those two positions. The flexibility required only really needs a little study into both philosophies.

Andy really has created a messy article in positive logical terms, and in subjective logical terms. Just count the fallacies. Its off the freakin chart.

I know Carrol's article isn't perfect, but he's far more reasonable within his own philosophy.
The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

You said:
According to whom and in what context?

According to me, and in the context of acting reasonably. An NLP author who produces so many fallacies in one website should really do a bit of self-examination, and if they continue to produce such a batteries of fallacies in the long term, I would advise them to seek external help.

You say NLP is only about patterns and models. However, that is not what people are actually doing. Critical articles will look at how NLP is in the context of its industry and in the context of how people actually use it. In general its context is new age, whether in business or relating to other self improvement situations. I believe it is plain headinthesand not to see it, and just dishonest to deny it.

Many business people are quite accepting of the more new age methods, including as I said, Maslows hierarchy of needs. Look at Branson, or even Trump who revels in the hedonistic buzz of human connection.

Instead of pretending to be dryasdust science, why not just embrace the fact that NLP is part of a set of far more flexible ways! Accept all views for what they are and deal with criticism in style with a broader view.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

Hi Chris
I don't see any problem with people treating NLP as a type of therapy.

You may not see any problem with people treating NLP as a type of therapy. The fact remains that NLP is not a therapy!

RmtView wrote:

You say NLP is only about patterns and models. However, that is not what people are actually doing.

Well obviously they are not doing NLP.

RmtView wrote:

Critical articles will look at how NLP is in the context of its industry and in the context of how people actually use it. In general its context is new age, whether in business or relating to other self improvement situations. I believe it is plain headinthesand not to see it, and just dishonest to deny it.

This is your opinion.

RmtView wrote:

Instead of pretending to be dryasdust science, why not just embrace the fact that NLP is part of a set of far more flexible ways!

More opinion

Hi Chris

The literature goes against your comments. The fact is, the literature deals with NLP as a type of therapy. People buy such books because they are treating it as a type of therapy. It is a benefit!

You said:
Well obviously they are not doing NLP.

Actually, they are doing NLP. They are doing NLP with the usual types of activities that NLP is used for. NLP therapy, NLP persuasion, NLP self-improvement, NLP communication, NLP belief change, perspective change, NLP techniques, NLP patterns and so on.

This is a site where I can express my opinion. It is my opinion that to dismiss context from NLP is to suck the life out of it. And to rail against normal positivist thinking by wildly chucking logical fallacies at it is just about the most ridiculously unconvincing behavior from an NLP author.

Seriously, posting a video of drunken NLP practitioners dancing on glowing charcoal would probably be a more effective way of dealing with such criticism. At least it would involve a sense of humour.

Rich

Rich --

the issue here is the same as the difference between cooking as presented on most cookery programmes and in books, and at the level discussed by master chefs. The former is all about getting the recipe right, the latter is about the principles which give rise to the experience of food.

It's easy as someone who doesn't understand the distinction to assume that the master chefs are elitist when they get angry at cooks, even those who've worked with them, who don't understand fundamentals of season, temperature and culture, when all most consumers are bothered about is the price of eating out.