aikijason wrote:

If, as Eric has stated, Unlimited Power was written by a number of leading NLP trainers at the time, then possibly the content and message within the book has value even if the authenticity of the authorship is in question??

Personally I am a bibliophile and I would buy the book for a buck, read it and decide for myself.

Which seems, on the face of it, like a very reasonable suggestion.

Unless one asks: Why bother with a book of secondhand information when there is so much firsthand information available?

Bandler and Grinder's books, written together or separately, may not always be the most easy to read, but they are the only ones guaranteed (allowing that some of them were edited by the Andreas') to be"the real deal".

I'm not sure how Jason thinks he, or anyone else, could make a useful evaluation of "Unlimited Power", or any other third party book on NLP, without first reading at least some of the genuinely authoritative texts, or why he would recommend that action to a newbie. Though I am sure he will have his reason(s).

An observation that seems relevant here:

One of the most remarkable things I've been finding, in my research into criticisms of NLP, is how many academics, even those who CLAIM to have read one or more books by Bandler and Grinder (Frogs into Princes being the favourite), for some unexplained reason(s) prefer to select their quotes from other, third party sources. Even where those sources make claims that Bandler and Grinder never made (about NLP being 'a science' for example - see Frogs into Princes, page 18, "As modelers, we're not interested ... etc.").

(Is this a pattern, boys and girls? Can YOU figure out why Aunt and Uncle PhuD might be doing this?)



Be well

Andy B.

Andy B. wrote:

Which seems, on the face of it, like a very reasonable suggestion.

Unless one asks: Why bother with a book of secondhand information when there is so much firsthand information available?

Bandler and Grinder's books, written together or separately, may not always be the most easy to read, but they are the only ones guaranteed (allowing that some of them were edited by the Andreas') to be"the real deal".

I'm not sure how Jason thinks he, or anyone else, could make a useful evaluation of "Unlimited Power", or any other third party book on NLP, without first reading at least some of the genuinely authoritative texts, or why he would recommend that action to a newbie. Though I am sure he will have his reason(s).

An observation that seems relevant here:

One of the most remarkable things I've been finding, in my research into criticisms of NLP, is how many academics, even those who CLAIM to have read one or more books by Bandler and Grinder (Frogs into Princes being the favourite), for some unexplained reason(s) prefer to select their quotes from other, third party sources. Even where those sources make claims that Bandler and Grinder never made (about NLP being 'a science' for example - see Frogs into Princes, page 18, "As modelers, we're not interested ... etc.").

(Is this a pattern, boys and girls? Can YOU figure out why Aunt and Uncle PhuD might be doing this?)



Be well

Andy B.

Andy, when I read the section that I have highlighted my teeth turned around inside my head and tried to eat my brain. Then I threw up a little bit in my mouth. Could you be more hypocritical? On YOUR site where you reveiw books for NOOBS there is not a single book by Bandler and Grinder. There are some good books, but nothing "firsthand."

.

Andy B. wrote:

Which seems, on the face of it, like a very reasonable suggestion.

Unless one asks: Why bother with a book of secondhand information when there is so much firsthand information available?

Bandler and Grinder's books, written together or separately, may not always be the most easy to read, but they are the only ones guaranteed (allowing that some of them were edited by the Andreas') to be"the real deal".

I'm not sure how Jason thinks he, or anyone else, could make a useful evaluation of "Unlimited Power", or any other third party book on NLP, without first reading at least some of the genuinely authoritative texts, or why he would recommend that action to a newbie. Though I am sure he will have his reason(s).

An observation that seems relevant here:

One of the most remarkable things I've been finding, in my research into criticisms of NLP, is how many academics, even those who CLAIM to have read one or more books by Bandler and Grinder (Frogs into Princes being the favourite), for some unexplained reason(s) prefer to select their quotes from other, third party sources. Even where those sources make claims that Bandler and Grinder never made (about NLP being 'a science' for example - see Frogs into Princes, page 18, "As modelers, we're not interested ... etc.").

(Is this a pattern, boys and girls? Can YOU figure out why Aunt and Uncle PhuD might be doing this?)



Be well

Andy B.

Andy,

In defence of my earlier statement. I have read and own every early Bandler and Grinder book and I have read all of them more than once. This is one of the faults of acedemics we tend to collect and use old books as reference sources. Actually I think that Frogs is kinda scant on information compared to later works like insiders guide to submodalities but I have some excellent DVD's (about 20 hours worth)of RB's earlier seminars when he was working with NLP Comprehensive that are out of this world for content and I think are also not available anymore.

In terms of NLP although I have been studying this stuff since 1989 along with other theoretical models of talking therapies and have been certified (literally) since 1998 I have only been teaching NLP since 2006 as Certified by the Big Guy himself. I am blessed because students of mine have gone on to set up reasonably successful practices for themselves which humbles me that I had a hand in teaching them a thing or two.

I do not purport to be an expert in fact I consider myself a novice still and thank god! because that means that I contiinue to learn something new from the human potential field everyday and this is part of the fun for me.

I just think that every source of information on NLP, DHE, NAC or what ever other acronym you want to give to it have useful information and also some not so useful stuff.

Personally I am interested in what works and can I replicate or better it more than how many bits of paper I can hang in my office.

OH bugger! the purpose of this post I have totally forgot now....OH yeah it was to welcome someone new to the forum.......

WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME please do not be put off by the NLP foamers stroke us and ask interesting questions but what ever you do NEVER feed us after midnight MWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Love Ya

Jason "Elmer PhuD" Pearson

Andy B. wrote:

Why bother with a book of secondhand information when there is so much firsthand information available?

One could make a well-reasoned argument that NLP is composed entirely of secondhand information. One of your criticisms of Dilts' (Neuro-)Logical Levels model -- that it's "not NLP" because it sprung from the mind of a NLPer rather than from a model of someone outside the field -- seems to imply that you'd agree.

I like Unlimited Power and continue to recommend it. All of the criticism I've read so far reinforces my opinion of its quality. Even the idea that it was not written by Tony Robbins seems to me to be a point in its favor.

russianbear wrote:

Andy, when I read the section that I have highlighted my teeth turned around inside my head and tried to eat my brain. Then I threw up a little bit in my mouth.

Ugh... Dude... I just had lunch!

Michael_DeBusk wrote:

Ugh... Dude... I just had lunch!

Sorry Michael.