Was browsing Michael Hall and Bob Bodenheimers book Submodalities Going Meta today and the foreword, written by Robert Dilts, ends with Robert Dilts being called co-founder of NLP.

I was under the impression that he joined the Bandler-group in its late stage (squeaking in towards the end, I believe Terrence Mcclendon wrote in his book), and that Bandler & Grinder are generally considered the two founders of NLP.

Can anyone more knowledged shed more lights on this claim of Dilts that I've never seen before?

Dilts himself does not appear to make that claim: http://nlpuniversitypress.com/html/D26.html

Yes, that's why I reacted. I haven't seen the claim be made until now.

Damian wrote:

Yes, that's why I reacted. I haven't seen the claim be made until now.

I'm guessing that whoever edited that book made an oops.

The same kind of 'oops' that led Michael Hall to neglect to credit Eric Robbie for the use of his materials in The Spirit of NLP I wonder?

Giving too much credit and giving too little are different kinds of 'ooops'.

Maybe Michael is evening things out now, in a cosmic sense?

I'm not sure Eric would agree that's entirely fair...

I have an unpopular view. Since NLP as it's taught nowadays hardly resembles what NLP was considered to be in the 1970s, and every one of the people in that original group has now refined their ideas and moved forward to such an extent that they no longer think about things in the same way they used to think about them back then, I personally think it's fair to say they all influenced each other and they all contributed to what we now consider NLP.

Co-founders, co-creators, co-developers or simply a bunch of buddies who played around with some ideas together... I get bored of all the labels and the legal rows and the ego-mania. It seems pretty obvious to me that several people came up with this stuff together, as a group, collaboratively, and they continue to inspire each other - in books, in articles and through the grape-vine as they hear about what each other are doing and wonder how that works and how they can take it a stage further. NLP has been moving forward since its earliest days and it's always been the product of more than one person's energy.

But then it's thinking like that which leaves me with few friends in the NLP world... for my own sake, I should probably pick one guru and kneel down in awe...

I'd say the difference between co-founder and co-developer is quite fundamental. You can always bring new developers aboard, the original founders will always stay the same.

Way back when, Richard Bandler was amused by various people who claimed to be co-founders of NLP. At some of his seminars RB would hand out cards (that looked exactly like Discordian Pope cards) that said:

The holder of this card is a fully entitled
Con-Founder of NLP
as designated by
Richard Bandler
& The Society of NLP
Treat him or her accordingly

At another seminar he gave out cards that were almost identical, but said Co-Developer of NLP instead.

There's something similar going on with founders of the USA. There's a lot of status, in the eyes of some, to be had for being a descendant of the folks who were on the Mayflower. A geneticist friend was approached by a representative of people in a society believing themselves to be in that group to see if DNA tests could be done to determine for sure who really really did merit that description. The project was quietly dropped when it became apparent just how few of the group's members would make the cut. Doesn't deny the fact that many were moved to acts of charity and community service based on their belief.

I don't think it really matters who did what and when. The important thing is what they have done since and what they are still doing.

Consistent achievement rather than being in the right place at the right time is what will be remembered and what will make a difference.

Pete Best was still going on about how he could have been in the Beatles while Ringo got on with being the voice of Thomas the tank Engine.

adrian r wrote:

The same kind of 'oops' that led Michael Hall to neglect to credit Eric Robbie for the use of his materials in The Spirit of NLP I wonder?

I thought the idea was that he gives too much credit to Eric Robbie and every other trainer that is mentioned in that book.

chris_morris wrote:

Giving too much credit and giving too little are different kinds of 'ooops'.

I have an unpopular view. Since NLP as it's taught nowadays hardly resembles what NLP was considered to be in the 1970s, and every one of the people in that original group has now refined their ideas and moved forward to such an extent that they no longer think about things in the same way they used to think about them back then, I personally think it's fair to say they all influenced each other and they all contributed to what we now consider NLP.

Co-founders, co-creators, co-developers or simply a bunch of buddies who played around with some ideas together... I get bored of all the labels and the legal rows and the ego-mania. It seems pretty obvious to me that several people came up with this stuff together, as a group, collaboratively, and they continue to inspire each other - in books, in articles and through the grape-vine as they hear about what each other are doing and wonder how that works and how they can take it a stage further. NLP has been moving forward since its earliest days and it's always been the product of more than one person's energy.

But then it's thinking like that which leaves me with few friends in the NLP world... for my own sake, I should probably pick one guru and kneel down in awe...

That's a very popular view with me Chris. I think many, many people think the same but they just generally can't be bothered to get involved with the debate... because they agree with you and arguing with a disciple of a guru is a pretty futile task. They've already demonstrated a limited view of the world, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so you might as well move on and have a more constructive conversation with some one they can learn from.

Cheers

John

To a certain degree I agree with John and Chris however to keep things balenced I have to mention the name John Grinder as one of the co-creators of NLP.

From the NLP Academy website :
'John Grinder has devoted his life’s work towards his quest to uncover and present human patterns of excellence, modelled from geniuses in different fields. He created Neuro-Linguistic Programming with Richard Bandler, as a means to investigate and replicate extreme human excellence.'

Carl

I agree with you Chris, whoever, whenever NLP was created it is where it is today through hundreds if not thousands of people. It goes without saying that Richard and John weren’t the only two people instrumental in its development. You only have to look at Stephen Gilligan and the models themselves Erickson, Satir and Pearls to know this is a collaboration of brilliance. Does it really matter who did what?



Best

David Hamilton