Bob thanks but it seems like you are the one confused here.... the original phrase came from General Semantics that is true, and in that field it meant exactly what you said... AND it is used in NLP and has been taught over 30+ years a lot more like I said and further more even your examples still ARE what in the area of linguistics called pragmatics is called sentenial metaphors which is when you say X that is not really literally about X (maps and territory) but about Y (perceptions/representations and experience).
So we are not really disagreeing, you simply think I am confused while the presuppositon in NLP (taken from another field) among other possible interpretations is to remind people our perceptions are not reality. Reason why in an argument a NLPer says "well that is your map" (meaning that is what you think but you could be wrong - btw that is a conversationla implicature) or a NLPer might say "in my map" (meaning in my perception or set of beliefs which could be wrong) to avoid being meta modelled to death about the truthfulness of his/her statement, which btw would be redundant if everyone understood expressions, words, etc are maps and maps can be accurate and precise while it still is not the experience, as you clearly point out

So.... nope I am not confused I went for the pragamtic (as from linguistics referring to context who says to whom, where, etc) interpretations.

Steve, great post. I would simply add sometimes we can even show a new map tp a client and he might like it but most times we add to it or rearrange it a little as you mentioned.

I am simply unable to imagine a scenario in which I would call Gabe confused or mistaken.

Hey Tony, thanks... I think. haha

let me get this straight.
You are unable to imagine a scenario... although it is very possible there is or are scenarios in which you would call me confused or mistaken.
Or you are unable to imagine a scenario in which you would call me.... you might think or know I am confused or mistaken you simply would not call me that.

In any case the possibility of those sceanrios existing is there and the possibility of you calling me that exist. hahaha

Well, just like anyone I get confused and mistaken.
Reagrding the presupposition I was referring to how it is commonly taught and interpret worldwide, it could be a wrong interpretation based on where the phrase came from but there was no confusion that is al I am saying.

And since I don't want you Tony to be unable to imagine a scenario let me get rid of that limitation.... are you the one who went to my practitioner program or am I mistaken and confusing you with someone else? ;-)

As concerns anything NLP-related, I find it highly unlikely that you, Mr. Guerrero, would be mistaken, therefore, since I cannot conceive of that possibility, or, more accurately, doubt its existence, I cannot imagine a scenario, involving NLP, where you would be confused.
As concerns your last statement, I have not been fortunate enough to attend one of your trainings (a sad reality, really), therefore I could not possibly have been that person.

I know Tony, I was joking (sorry if it was not clear it was a joke) and I was also demostrating being confused while not really being confused about you being at a program.

gabe wrote:

I know Tony, I was joking (sorry if it was not clear it was a joke) and I was also demostrating being confused while not really being confused about you being at a program.

You see, you couldn't pull it off because it is so unnatural for you to be confused.

peter108 wrote:

Hi Stephen
do people really tout 15mins? I'm curious as to where that on comes from?
I never got that impression from either Richard or John in their training's?

Actually if you've seen "30 years of NLP", Richard claims therein to be much much faster even than that. He speaks of doing a TV interview where the host wanted to bring out a man with a phobia of snakes, and warns Richard that there are only going to be 2 minutes. And Richard says essentially, "Bring him on!". And according to this story, the host got nervous, saying "What if we bring out the snake and he's still afraid?"

To which Richard replies "Then I'll use the other minute."

And this is only the most shocking reference he makes to his own speed that I can recall without researching more specifically. I am certain there are others.

I just realized I replied to an old message in the thread without reading the whole thing and that I can't remove this message. But this point wasn't raised and I think its an interesting issue nonetheless. Sorry for my poor habits in posting it nonetheless... it sometimes takes me a minute to acclimate again after leaving off forums for a while.

Hi Peter,

It seems ages back that I posted this. Then I stumbled across my listing on Google, and saw your response. Great!

One thing I learned at Uni was the instability of the English language. Derrida made a living deconstructing French - but the thing about applying deconstructionism to English was that the meaning in English was already so unstable that deconstructing it in the end made it impossible to communicate. I hated Derrida. I saw him, finally, driving around in a Citroen 2CV on a roundabout, with signs directing him round and round and round, continually pointing him on to the exit. There was no exit. Only the roundabout. That is Derrida in a nutshell. Or did I mean a Citroen? Derrida in a lemon... And so on.

However, I did learn that the instability in the English language does give us more choice.

So, to answer your questions:

'I was interested in your use of terminology.
"fix" her." Presupposition that she is broken in some way?'

- Or that she wasn't fixed in a useful position? That her bearing (navigational course) was fixed in the wrong direction. That all she needed was a "shot in the arm" to help her. That all I needed to do was "trance-fix" her? That I need to fick (German for fuck) her phobia? Take your pick. It's all about choice.

"it's your job to make them ready." Really, according to whom. ( Richard of course in this answer) 'Make' presupposes there is no choice involved? I thought Richard supported "choice".

"Make" presupposes nothing. "Make" is a word. You presuppose it.

- Another word for make is to create. So, to help them create themselves into the type of person who is ready - like "someone can make themselves anew", "to make yourself ready". You can go for "assist" if you like. In fact, I think I'll use that word. Although it does seem to imply a painful swelling. The next time I get a client with assist I'll be sure to a cyst.

"has this client got what they need?"
How on earth can you ever know what a client NEEDS!

- You ask them. With questions. And watch and listen for the answers. That's the usual way. Do you not do that?

"I'd say that being able to even get on a plane and visit her family is pretty much what she was after. A qualified success, which the video acknowledges."
Maybe it was what she was consciously after? But that depends on how you look at it? Maybe getting on a plane and feeling different from the way she has been feeling might be what she was after?? Maybe being able to enjoy the flight was what she was after??? What I'm trying to get to here is your points all relate to first order symptom. What about state? Is it really all about getting on a plane? Or is it about how she processes the getting on a plane in a new way which allows her to create a new experience giving her ecological and congruent options which may generalise across any other areas of her life and outlook?

- Good point! "It depends how you look at it..." If I look at it upside down from between my legs, it looks completely different. But seriously folks, she obviously DOES feel different. SHE'S ON A PLANE and not going completely nuts. That's different to where she was before, don't you think?

Speed is not the only consideration in change work, is it?

- No, that was the context in which I joined the conversation.

This type of attitude has brought a lot of condemnation to the field of NLP.

- What type of attitude? Condemnation about what from whom? (Yawn, the meta-model - you can use it for some of the most tedious debates, don't you agree? - Oh, you mean THIS attitude. Right. I've got it.)

I'm all for a 'go get em' approach but new readers to this forum might wonder if this is all that is required to assist change in others as a priority.
Oh sorry I meant to say, make change, the client does not have any say in the proceedings, as NLPers we have the right and the power to fix and do as we see fit?????????????????

- Make change = create change. I don't know where you get the idea that the client has no choice. I'm sure that's something you must have made up, coz I can't find it in any of the literature. So, I must take issue with you: Of course, the client has a say. They come to you and ask for change. If at some level, they don't want it - you find out what that reason is. Then, if it is ecological - you a cyst them to make the change. If not, you leave them alone - or try something different. I chatted with a counsellor a little while ago, she went through 7 years of training and sat there unable to tell me what was the purpose of her counselling. But the last thing she wanted to do was change people. I think that's the attitude that Richard is countering in his trainings, don't you?

Food for thought.

- Thanks, I cook for myself.

I was also originally trained by Richard up to trainer level. I do not consider that Richard works in any way that could be considered unecological, however I think many people

- OUCH! "Transderivational search instigated." (Alarm bells sound, and a Tannoy: aaaruba, aaaruba, aaaruba...) "Many people"? Surely, surely you don't mean me!? Do you? But what if you do? Oh my goodness! The pain of it! The indignation! The humiliation! The nominalization!

do not consider or recognise that he does not always make clear the importance behind what he is doing covertly and overtly because of his experience and genius. This is where people can get the wrong end of the stick in regards to what appears to be happening and what might actually be happening.

- I couldn't agree more. So that's us all happy then, isn't? There, now, Peter, I have a final question for you: Will you marry me?