RmtView wrote:

Hi Chris
The literature goes against your comments.

Be specific. What literature goes against what specific comments of mine?

RmtView wrote:

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!

RmtView wrote:

What literature specifically?

RmtView wrote:

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.

Oh, you are describing applications of NLP in defining NLP. NLP is not a therapy however NLP models and patterns can be applied to therapy, persuasion etc..

RmtView wrote:

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.

I agree. Kindly provide some context and some specificity to your comments.

RmtView wrote:

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.

More effective for whom?

RmtView wrote:

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!

I wonder if you have any idea at all who Chris Collingwood is - or is it just that you have no respect whatever for yourself?

Chris and his wife founded Inspiritive, possibly the foremost NLP training company in Australia - many, many years ago. Over that time he has worked with many of the people involved with NLP from its earliest days, including John Grinder and Steve Andreas - both on a pretty regular basis.

If Chris doesn't have a clear idea of what NLP is and isn't about then I don't know who you could/would count as a reliable source of information on the subject.

And by the way, what do you claim as your basis for disputing the nature of NLP as described by Chris? It is painfully obvious that you aren't even clear that NLP is a specific modeling process and nothing else. What you are arguing about, as Chris has explained - quite clearly, I thought - is a few techniques and applications. They are indeed NLP-related. But they AREN'T NLP.

As to your claims about the literature, if you've had a good look at my web site then you will have noticed rather a large number of book reviews - of which around 150 (maybe more) are on NLP books, and allegedly NLP-oriented books, including everything Bandler and Grinder have written, jointly and separately, EXCEPT one of Bandler's books.

If you think Bandler and/or Grinder have ever described NLP as a form of therapy in their books I can assure you that you are wrong. Indeed, I can point you to specific passages where they categorically deny that they are therapists or engaged in therapy.

Its a pity you didn't bother to read my answers to you, or did you just not understand them, because I have already dealt with all the dead horses you are still flogging [ prevert! ]

Years ago, when Artificial Intelligence was in its infancy, someone in America created a program called ELIZA. The purpose of ELIZA was meet the requirements set out by Alan Turing that a computer would qualify as "intelligent" if it could communicate with a human being so effectively that they couldn't tell that they were communicating with a computer.

Now, to be specific, ELIZA behaved like a counselor. BUT the program came in two parts. One was the actual input and output processes, and the second was a list of keywords which the program looked for in the input and uilized in the output.

And the point is this - ELIZA only function as a "counselor" because the keyword section of the program was mde up of "counseling" words. It took very little time to change the set of words so that the program could communicate on any subject the programmer cared to supply the words for.

You are still hung up on the CONTENTS of one set of words, at the expense of not understanding the program or its uses.

I think this paragraph says it all:

RmtView wrote:

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.

No, possibly because like your good self they don't know what NLP is. What you list here are NLP-related applications, the use of NLP-related TECHNIQUES. And ALL of these applications are, in fact, variations of NLP-related communication, which you apparently think is a specialist area in its own right.

I quote from Bandler's book "Magic in Action":

"I took what I learned from Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson, Bill Feldman, and all for [of?] the great communicators, and went further than they could ever have dreamed of because I learned form [from?]
them."
Introduction, page xv

Notice, NOT "all of the great therapists" but "all of the great communicators".

RmtView wrote:

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.

Well of course you are entitled to your opinion. But if you want other people to take you seriously (I'm assuming that you aren't posting just to be a nuisance?) you really do need to show that you bother to read, and understand, other people's posts before answering them, and that you have at least a passing acquaintance with the material you are stating your opinions about.

But, your choice.

Chris Collingwood wrote:

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

And got the reply:

hypnoben wrote:

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

Specific example?

Bandler certainly runs seminars on Shamanism, which I guess might well qualify as New Age (though not having been on his course I'm only guessing)

BUT

To the best of my knowledge he never confuses NLP with other subjects. NLP seminars are about NLP, DHE courses are about DHE, NHR courses are about NHR, and so on.

Grinder is quite keen on Carlos Casteneda's work (which might be seen as "New Age" by some people) - but in the context of his own development "New Code" NLP. NOT when he's doing straight NLP.

I do appreciate, however, that without a good working knowledge of "classic" NLP these distinctions may seem unnecessarily pedantic. Which is why I would genuinely like to know where YOU think the overlap has occurred.

Be well

Andy B.

Tranquil_Lotus wrote:

... 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?

What matters, Frederic, is whether you have any interest in what is going on outside your head.

Is the way NLP is perceived REALLY irrelevant to its effectiveness?

How effective is NLP for someone who might really benefit from it - in ANY context - if they refuse to go anywhere an NLP practitioner because they've heard bad reports about NLP?

During the time I worked for BT I went on numerous business courses, and nearly every single one involved NLP techniques of one kind or another. BUT, no one ever mentioned NLP, because it already had a bad reputation due to reports by people who were allegedly experts but actually didn't know their gluteus maximus from their articulatio cubiti.

How many businesses - and more importantly the people in them - could be benefitting from the use of NLP-related techniques, and NLP itself, if the field of NLP wasn't getting an undeserved bum rap?

Etc.

JAT

Be well

Andy B.

Well, Andy and Chris, I believe the most effective way to answer this is in one go.

The web and the literature are full of NLP-as-a-therapy concept. For example:

http://www.nlp-therapy.co.uk/

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Rapid-Cognitive-Therapy-Professional-Therapists/dp/1899836373/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225269798&sr=1-3"]http://www.amazon.com/Rapid-Cognitive-Therapy-Professional-Therapists/dp/1899836373/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225269798&sr=1-3[/ame]

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Brief-NLP-Therapy-Therapies/dp/0761959653/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225269798&sr=1-5"]http://www.amazon.com/Brief-NLP-Therapy-Therapies/dp/0761959653/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225269798&sr=1-5[/ame]

And the positivist research on NLP also treats NLP as a therapy or set of therapeutic interventions. They examine eye accessing and couselling, phobia treatments and so on. They found whatever they found and I can accept that.


Its completely understandable that people in general, and skeptics and other researchers treat NLP as a therapy. Its also reasonable as we as NLP proponents do tend to gain benefit therapeutically from NLP. Its also fine to call it a model. But keep in mind its context and how it was developed (much of it from the models of therapists).


I know you guys are looking into working NLP as a biz thing, and that does seem to be where the money lies, but I am of the opinion that the actual benefit of NLP goes way beyond that to the core of the person and I dare say it, humanity.

I don’t think it’s a religion as has been mentioned on some of the other threads, but it does have some of the more positive qualities of such an entity. Again, you may feel that the business community may not like that, but I believe there are enough people at the higher end of the community who would welcome those qualities, not the least because they fit the vision and power of leadership.

Such leadership really does not work by taking the views of skeptics and slapping copious logical fallacies on them like there is no tommorrow. It requires a far more accepting attitude to deal with criticism and resistance. I am just as happy to talk to skeptics of NLP as I am talking to certified practitioners.

Another logical fallacy you have applied here, Andy, is treating Chris as if his supposed authority makes him right. Its irrelevant.

You say NLP is a model, and its applications are not models. I view NLP differently. There are differences of opinion on what NLP actually is. And of course there are many more differences on what NLP should be or how it should develop. Those who like the buzz or connectivity of NLP tend to see it in a broader contextual perspective. Those who dress it up as science tend to insist that it is a model exclusively. And there are people in between. There are people who accept those views are all valid in their own way, and those who dismiss their opponents.

Now distractions aside, if you really want to look like you are standing back and examining things thoroughly, I would advise you to stop making logical fallacies the core strategy of your investigation approach.
Rich

Hi Adrian

You said
-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.


Nice metaphor.

Cheers
Rich

Purely as a matter of interest (since members of this community are based all over the world - and polling day is only a couple of days away -

Some twonk has posted a LENNNNNNNNGTHY online article claiming that Obama is using covert hypnosis and NLP techniques to turn Americans into adoring slaves. The article is here:

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27...iques_in_His_\
Speeches.pdf

(You'll have to turn these three lines back into a single URL - no spaces. There are underlines between "27s" and "Use" and of" etc.)

FWIW I've posted an answer here:
Is Obama Using NLP?

BTW, this is intended purely for people interested in NLP, and it is pointless anyone writing to tell me they don't approve of it or that it won't persuade anyone outside of NLP.
Know what I mean, nudge, nudge, wink, wink



Be well

Andy B.

Nice article. Regarding communication patterns in US politics Linguist George Lakeoff has written an interesting book about the use of framing by the Republicans - Moral Politics.

Cheers,

Chris Collingwood

Hi Andy

Distraction is also something used in politics.

Your article on NLP and Obama has nothing to do with your use of abundant logical fallacies in your anti-skeptics article.

The distraction failed. Your article and logical fallacies remain unconvincing.

I guess I'll just have to accept your position.

Rich

Hi Rich,

What is so important for you in holding your belief that NLP is a therapy?

Chris

Andy B. wrote:

What matters, Frederic, is whether you have any interest in what is going on outside your head.

Is the way NLP is perceived REALLY irrelevant to its effectiveness?

How effective is NLP for someone who might really benefit from it - in ANY context - if they refuse to go anywhere an NLP practitioner because they've heard bad reports about NLP?

Very Nice, Andy, love your work.

Yes some interest but not as much as I may one day develop. Right now, my head is focused on learning to use my gluteus maximus and seeing how it interacts with my quadratus lumborum and how this can in fact affect my psoas major.

When I figure out what makes my backside ache and discovered all the wonderful ways to fix it . I am sure my intrests will broaden outside of my immediate sphere.


In all seriousness, Yes agreed, that in the broader context you present it is very relevant.

Not that I concur with Rich, I do wonder, if a person wont go near an NLP practitioner because of the bad rap NLP has recieved then having NLP viewed under another lable may actually result in the person benefiting from NLP, could it not? .

Sure, I am opening up a can of worms, but to me helping people is far more important that the lable put upon the technique.

After reviewing the posts, I can see the distinctions that you have pointed out. My trainer also made these distinctions during my training, as does Bandler in his tapes. Though before this post, I would have summed straight NLP, DHE, NHR and New Code, under the banner of NLP.

That's how I percieved it in my map, so thank you for helping me make this distinction. I imagine, that I am not be only one to do so.

Thanks again and have a great day

Frederic

Hello Chris

What makes you think its my belief that NLP is a therapy?

I pretty much know why you would like to hold NLP as a model. I know it from multiple views also.

Some would say that calling it a model makes it sound more saleable and misleads people into thinking its a similar scientific pedigree to the sort of probabilistically supported psychological models you get in cognitive psychology. It also makes it more obscure, so the uninitiated Joe can't contradict you.

Others would say that you call it a model because it is an appropriately vague thing to say about something vague.

Some would say that calling it an attitude is just too vague and not businesslike enough.

We all have our views

Mine is that referring to NLP as a therapy is perfectly acceptable when at least some people report learning and using it to be therapeutic, and especially when the originators stated that its based partly upon the patterns of therapeutic wizards.

Rich

Get over yourself, Rich. The reason nlp was called "a model" was 'cos it was and is "a model and not a theory", following on from the ideas of Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962).

Calling anything "a theory" means that you think and can prove it's "true". But as Kuhn pointed out, scientific truth is only "true" relative to the paradigms being used. A model, on the other hand, doesn't claim to be "true", it just has to account for what works - for example, with respect to correspondences between input and output, what seems to "operate on" what, and so on.

To quote B&G, a model just has to be useful. It has nothing inherently to do with sales. Or your other "multiple views".

Did you get that I said "inherently", Rich? I say this 'cos this "I'm-the-last-man-standing-with-probity-and-precision-and-I-say-very-little-but-what-I-do-say-is-strictly-and-provably-and-logically-true-or-if-not-true-then-at-least-valid-and-not-fallacious-on-my-part" act of yours - it's just tedious.

Haven't you got something better to contribute?

Eric.

Nice work Andrew (as usual) so glad you set that piece straight, especially at such a crucial time.

Nadia.

Andy B. wrote:

Purely as a matter of interest (since members of this community are based all over the world - and polling day is only a couple of days away -

Some twonk has posted a LENNNNNNNNGTHY online article claiming that Obama is using covert hypnosis and NLP techniques to turn Americans into adoring slaves. The article is here:

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama%27s_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His _\
Speeches.pdf

(You'll have to turn these three lines back into a single URL - no spaces. There are underlines between "27s" and "Use" and of" etc.)

FWIW I've posted an answer here:
Is Obama Using NLP?

BTW, this is intended purely for people interested in NLP, and it is pointless anyone writing to tell me they don't approve of it or that it won't persuade anyone outside of NLP.
Know what I mean, nudge, nudge, wink, wink



Be well

Andy B.

Interesting discussion. I scanned through that right-wing .pdf file some time back. My thought was that it was a bit of a con job. NLP terms are not intended to describe some secret and scary manipulative patterns - the terms describe how we use language all the time. You can point to pretty much any sample of spoken or written text and identify hundreds of cases of deletion, distortion and generalization, all kinds of culturally-based presuppositions, analog marking, anchoring and whatever.

More to the point, Obama is obviously a successful speaker and an excellent subject for modeling studies of various kinds. (And if he indeed had studied NLP, I'd propose that enhanced communication abilities, negotiation skills, state control, and so on are traits we want in a president.)

Someone mentioned George Lakoff's books... I'm a big fan and am very interested in incorporating his ideas of metaphors and frames into an NLP training program. I suspect Lakoff has studied some NLP, too, tho more obviously his roots are similar to B & Gs.

Hi Eric

The meaning of communication is the response (feedback) you get.

Tell a psychologist NLP is a model, and you'll be claiming that its a theory that can be measured and tested.

What I have contributed is the recognition that Andy has filled his website with logical fallacies. So far most people here seem to be evading the matter and looking for sidesteps and distractions.

I believe NLP practitioners should work from broader perspectives, and should stop writing embarrassingly incorrect, desperate and feeble arguments against things that require no particular fuss.

There are far better ways to handle resistance, and to offer nothing in return but flailing distraction and evasion is about the most disgraceful behavior possible.



Rich

RmtView wrote:

The meaning of communication is the response (feedback) you get.

Tell a psychologist NLP is a model, and you'll be claiming that its a theory that can be measured and tested.

What I have contributed is the recognition that Andy has filled his website with logical fallacies. So far most people here seem to be evading the matter and looking for sidesteps and distractions.

I believe NLP practitioners should work from broader perspectives, and should stop writing embarrassingly incorrect, desperate and feeble arguments against things that require no particular fuss.

There are far better ways to handle resistance, and to offer nothing in return but flailing distraction and evasion is about the most disgraceful behavior possible.

If the meaning of communication is the response you get, maybe you should apply that to what you choose to call your contribution.

You recognise that Andy has filled his website with logical fallacies. A logical fallacy you make yourself, is that you specifically fail to point them out. I'd very much appreciate if you could quote them (specifically, of course!) and write about what it is that makes them logical fallacies. Failing to do so, hence offering nothing but flailing distraction and evasion is about the most disgraceful behavior possible.

(All sarcasm aside: Yes, I'd really appreciate if you could do so. Call me slow if you wish, but I fail in recognising the logical fallacies you claim exist.)

Its not a logical fallacy to assume people are smart enough to spot adolescent level logical fallacies. NLP is supposed to be about excellence and being a bit smarter no?

All that was offered was distraction. This is a thread about skeptics dictionary, not Obama and the ongoing election.

Frankly, I've got a little sick of some NLP practitioner's distraction oriented behaviour. Its a pretty shabby trick.

I'll present the specifics of the fallacies if nobody is willing to come forward and either make reasonable excuses for them, or admit that they are unacceptable and unconvincing.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

I'll present the specifics of the fallacies if nobody is willing to come forward and either make reasonable excuses for them, or admit that they are unacceptable and unconvincing.

If you are able to present what you perceive as fallacies then we have something specific to respond to. You are the person claiming fallacies in Andy's site then it's up to you to point them out.

Chris Collingwood

No show? Ok, I'll speak direcly to Andy.

There is a lot to cover. Firstly looking at the whole picture, throughout the whole article you throw accusations of ignorance at a particular writer and even a group of writers. This is significant when considering the consequences in resistance terms. And its interesting in view of how the average skeptic would respond, how to communicate resourcefully, how to analyze convincingly, and from the perspective of developing attitudes to deal with varying views.

There are many ways of doing things. Of course my current conclusion is that your strategy stinks. Not the least because you refer to so called evidence from TV shows!!! for the NLP phobia cure!!! Do you consciously calibrate your communication to overzealous seminar junkies, or is it just a sort of highly developed unconscious incompetence?
You seem to have developed a view that is consistently *10 narrower than the average skeptic. I am open, of course, to other views on this matter.

You referred to
neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)
Neurolinguistic Programming - a knol by Joe Greenfield

You accused each source (and the education book) of getting inaccurate information from each other. Where did they get their sources from? I believe even the meanest of critics would have to admit they got their sources from the rather misleading and changeable views of NLP authors such as yourself. Bear in mind that there are no standard or real authoritative sources for NLP, or at least that they are all highly debatable in authority terms.

The average academic or scientific skepticism reader is going to notice when someone blunders into their “appeal to authority” and “moving the goalposts” logical fallacy alarm after only the first couple of paragraphs.
Now some detail:

You carry on by referring to an anecdotal communication with the writers of a particular book who supposedly did not respond to you (an NLP practitioner) about their critical views. Tell me, why should they respond at all? It is already their belief that NLP is bogus and fraught with charlatanry and pseudoscience. What do you expect? A wine and submodalities party?

You talk about new age. You said:

“To this we might add tarot reading, Gaia, the Findhorn community, belief in ley lines, crystals, druidic and/or magick rituals, and so on. But even with this extended list it is still safe to say that neither NLP nor any authentic NLP-associated techniques are concerned with any of these subjects. Nor is it a cult (see FAQ 23), and the "New Age" allegation is simply the first of the many, many errors in this article.”

You are clearly using the straw man fallacy. If NLP (your version of NLP) doesn’t include Gaia, Ley lines, Crystals etc, then NLP is not new age or a cult?

Actually, the definitions of new age and cult can apply to NLP and I have absolutely no problem with that. It’s not my view but I accept that people would define or categorize NLP as such. Why should they not? It’s a reasonably obvious choice!

Then you get well and truly into the appeal to authority fallacy: You mention “Authentic NLP-associated technique”.

Now what the hell is that? Who dictates what is authentic and what is not? Is it you? Or you and Chris? Is there a board of authentic NLP technique identifiers? I don’t think so. NLP is about being resourceful. You don’t start with authority or claimed authority. You start with connection and flexibility by taking into account a variety of views.

Now I realize as you couldn’t manage to highlight any of these obvious logical fallacies yourself even given the normal newsgroup pace, this may be a lot for you to take in for one post. So I will pause and give you some time to answer.

Rich