NLP Connections - the ultimate NLP resource on the internet - and the largest NLP forum!

I placed my order for this yesterday at 16.45 on Amazon and received the book this morning.
First impression - its slightly bigger than A5.
The book is structured in 4 parts -
1/. Taking Your Mental Inventory - an indepth discussion on Submodalities
2/. Getting Over It - This deals with getting over bad suggestions, beliefs and phobias.
3/. Getting Through It - This focuses on getting through big events, habits and compulsions
4/. Getting To It - Getting to fun, love, sex, meeting people etc.

The book is written with Richard discussing principles, then going through a case study and how he helped the person. He describes what he did, how he did it and why he did it.
This is then followed up with a step-by-step guide to that particular technique.

Reading the book is like having Richard across from you and talking to you. His personality does come through.
For most people - you will be familiar with most if not all of the techniques.
I have been doing this for many years. Whilst I was familiar with most of them -I did come across a few new distinctions and variations on techniques I've ben using.

Whether you are a Super Duper Grand Master Practitoner or a newbie I would highly recomend it.

I got my copy when I got home from work today. First impressions, good advice, easily read and sounds like a conversation with Richard. I intend reading this as a matter of urgency and enjoy every word. I would recommend this and urge everyone to buy it.

Wendy

Steve Andreas has reviewed Richard Bandler’s new book, Get the Life You Want: the Secrets to Quick and Lasting Life Change with Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
The review is quite extensive, detailed, and often critical, because the book presents only a crude caricature of NLP methods. The book omits most of the careful distinctions, detailed methods, attention to precise language, verb tense, and careful ecology that Bandler himself developed, emphasized, and taught over twenty years ago. There are many serious omissions, confusions, ambiguities, contradictions, and outright errors. Unfortunately, this kind of sloppy, shoddy presentation of NLP is also typical of much of the training in the “field” as a whole.
The review concludes with a call to action to move NLP from a random collection of personal opinions toward becoming a practical and comprehensive science.
The entire review is posted on Steve’s blog at: Steve Andreas’ NLP Blog*NLP Articles, News, and Tidbits about Psychotherapy and Personal Development Since the review is quite long, the blog also has a pdf copy for easy printing and offline reading.
Steve
--
“Funeral by funeral, theory advances.” --Paul A. Samuelson

Steve Andreas, NLP author, trainer, developer, (Steve Andreas Home)

Steve,

Thx for the detailed review.

For the most part I agree, and I have raised similar questions before here on this list. ie: ecology issues, the danger that lies in using the described threshold pattern, ...

Next upon that:

One of the things that the NLP field seems to miss out time after time is that the techniques mentioned in the book (even if they are not described correctly or incomplete as you mention) are symptom level change work techniques.

And this might work fine in some cases.

though...

Bandler showed us clearly in the Hypnotist video's (where he uses a few of the described techniques out of the book) that symptom level change work won't always work that great or not at all in this specific case.

The sad thing of it all is that the NLP world doesn't want to acknowledge it or in most cases doesn't even recognize it.

Have fun

Bart

I`m having trouble viewing Steve Andreas` review. Anyone else?

Hi Charles

Check your PM, I sent a cut and paste copy.

J

Thank you Jay!

Can you pls send me a copy of the review? I tried the website, no joy.

Cheers

Here a link to Steve's PDF Version of the review, if There's any issues, with me doing this, then in the words of Bart Simpson BITE ME!

http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/wp-c...e-you-want.pdf

J

Cheers, I'll have a butchers at it :O)

Thanks Jay - very kind.

You guys are welcome! Yet I was not being kind, I was being pragmatic lol it would have been a pain in the Butt, Having several can you send me a copy too request.

The link provided comes from Steve's site/blog, directly.

J

Who's going to write a review of Steves review?

For those who are interested in how ideas are put together and sequenced for the purpose of creating new ideas, building plausibility and creating sets of internal experience for the reader (whether the ideas are true or not or whatever), this is a prety good example.

Steve, I thought your review was interesting and I agree with some of the points you've mentioned. I also think it's clever of you to have put together a learning experience and nested that in with a review. I like it.

I think more writing should be done that way so people can read it once, think about it and notice how their thoughts have shifted or emerged and then read again and notice the structures used in the writing and learn a lot from it.

One of my favourite questions to ask when reading or listening to someone speak is "What has to be there for them to have said that and what direction are they aiming to take me in".

Cheers,

Jamie

me too

Steve,

First, congratulations on making it clear at the beginning of your review that you are reviewing the book and not Bandler's work or developments.

My post is reviewing your review.

First suggestion, it would also be nice if you mentioned some of your critics are very subjective (as in limited by your limitations of not really being close to Richard in almost 20 years) and not based on truly understanding to perfection Bandler's recent work.

I do agree with some points you make (plenty of them as a matter of fact) and yet I don't with others.

For example:
You critisize him for using "push" and "pull" and suggest other words. You suggest "allow" or "watch"... sure as you pointed out the first two might presuppose effort but your options presuppose it happens on its own and not that the person IS doing it. Bandler's underlying presupposition for his work is that every person is better of becoming responsible for what goes on (driving the bus) rather than "allowing" things to happen or becoming a witness that "watches" as things happen. My 15 years experience (not so new at this) is that when I used words such as "allow" the person thought I did the change and not they did it.

With this additional information, doesn't it make more sense to presuppose effort than dissociation from the action?
I rather have people struggle a little with the task than struggle in life not becoming responsable for driving the bus. You can still disagree but I am sure you will at least grant me that there is a purpose for choosing those words and not your words.

While I agree with you on the idea providing specific criteria on several exercises, you critisize one exercise for violating a "fundamental NLPpresupposition" which btw you assume Bandler agrees with or continues to agree with. Perhaps he now knows better... I know I do and I don't (always) agree with the presupposition you quoted so while I agree with offering criteria not with the "wrong" in violating an old (many times unuseful) belief as the so called NLP presuppositions are.

You place a lot of critisism on ecology concerns and that in my opinion is good while I am not sure we have the same "beliefs" (call them presuppositions). You believe strongly on "the positive intent", "protective puspose" and the "usefulness of a behavior"... cool... I don't agree that is as often true as the premises I use such as "every process is interconnected and interacting with other processes".
I do believe in making sure of many things of the person's global structure, including understanding how the person will respond if I do x or y. But I don't believe in preserving´the so called "positive intentions" (I consider those to be reframes not there before the NLPer reframed it)... but we can discuss that on another thread.

There are a few other critisism you do that are not truly understanding what Bandler is actually doing... as when he is inducing a response as he does with the spinning feelings or when he apparently contradicts himself but does it inside of separate programs, sometimes using reversals... (although a few times he does contradict himself)... BUT I do agree many of those things you point out should be clear in the written form since when it is done by Bandler live there are other things going on such as calibration, breaks, etc.

The whole spinning feelings for example... I have mentioned many times an anecdote soem many years ago.
I was co-training (is it training? oh well) a personal enhancement workshop with Richard and as we were in his room reading wish lists i asked him... "Do you really believe all feelings spin in those directions? Or is it that you get them to do so by all the set up that you do?"
Richard's reply was "Well Gabe, the truth is... feeling have to be moving to remain there, but most likely they move like spaguetti on a bowl or shoe laces all tied together... when I get them to focus on those options I've already tricked them into the first change... one that is already easier to change."

He said some more but relevant to the whole other directions controversy I think this is enough.
The whole Kemp additional distinction is inelegant in creating what Bandler is actually doing... BUT is more accurate yet still very incomplete if we are describing how feelings actually move in our nervous system.

I agree the book often oversimplifies things... I know Richard has a purpose for that and yet I don't agree it is a great idea for every reader. In my opinion the book is not clearly targeted... it seems between introductory to nlp, advanced and a self help recipe book. Anyway, I do recommend the book for those who have not trained with Bandler and are interested in getting some new ideas. New to everyone? Of course not but for most.

Have a great day and hope this is read as it was written. With as much respect as possible and keeping myself as unbias as possible while still understanding my own beliefs, values and feelings are partially involved.

Gabe

BTW from what I've heard from Richard in the past 10 years, the clean freak is another one! Yet he probably (I can't be certain of) did took from Leslie's intervention the idea of what to do. He did mention to me a client that he had some few years ago in London which fits the story. And of course once it is a story perhaps the two are mixed together for metaphorical purpose.

Oh one more thing.... the whole phobia issue. I do not believe the lady on "The Hypnotist" had a phobia. She often showed to be afraid and not phobic which as anyone experienced knows is not a phobia by definition and therefor won't be cured with a phobia cure. It can help but it won't do the trick.

Has Bandler ever failed? Depends how we evaluate that. I think so. But when he says he has not he is building a state in his audience so that they "trust" whatever will be offered to them will work. It doesn't always accomplish that but it has a purpose!

This year in Puerto Vallarta, he was as obvious as to talk about placebos (and beliving something works) just before he said that!

Oh noooooo...

we've been drinkin' the Kool-Aid

Bart,

If you don't believe making the client believe that you are good at what you do (regardless of wheather you are or not) and that what you do works (regardles if it does) will have an impact in how much the client will commit to the work and will even do the work himself or herself then you really need to stop drinking all that kool-aid. :-)

Marketing uses it all the time! Medicine, education, politics.... and of course NLP!
Making someone believe the presenter/teacher/physician/politician is perfect or at least great in his field is what makes people sign up, vote, learn x idea for Obama or try new products/medicines regardless of how good or bad it really is.

Perhaps if you instead of cutiing my paragraph would've quoted it complete you would have gotten the "it doesn't always accomplish that but it has a purpose!" ie. it doesn't always work but it is done hoping (or exepecting depending who you ask) it does.... and you know what? It does work many times! People will believe and try the most idiotic things if they believe the guy in front of the group knows what he is doing and that he or she "never fails".

Steve even mentions his purpose for writing an extensive review. he knows coming from Bandler many people will believe anything he says and that, I agree to be sad and even dangerous.

You wrote earlier:
You love generalizations, don't you?
The NLP world? Who specifically?
I've said for years that most NLP techniques are symptom level change work and that is what teach NOT to do on my therapeutic specialist program... so unless I am not part (member) of the set you called the NLP world, then your phrase should've said "some" or "many" or even "most NLP practitioners or people doing NLP won't acknowledge... etc"
I have dozens of examples on tape of Bandler working with someone at the symptom level and then do some more (apparently irrelevant to what the client reported as the problem) that in fact works at a much deeper level. That is where I got the idea from. Is that represented on this book? Might be implied a few times but not really clear for readers.

Fortunately many people will benefit from Bandler's book regardless of the precision of what it says.... unfortunately some will then try it on others without the placebo at work and they'll find they need the finer distinctions. Hopefully the book gets them into studying in depth NLP.

...that part of the paragraph i cut out, was way too great to just let it hang out there...



...Me thinks Gabe is taking this way to seriously...



Maybe I do... now without an answer from me to these questions you surely can grasp the meaning of the sentence.

... sure I could have used "some" or "many"..

Would you have responded?

Here's a thing where NLP'ers often get lost on.. generalizations

For NonNLP'rs there doesn't seem to be a problem with understanding that a statement like "the NLP community (gets stuck in symptom level change work)" does not equal "every NLP practitioner (gets..)

Great to see at least one NLP trainer to get that most if not all NLP applications are symptom level treatments, and also teaching this.

Then don't take it personally.

I've said it a few times before..overall I always like your postings, even if I don't always agree with the point you make. For me they have a sense of balance, maybe due to the out of the box thinking and not just parroting the whole ... It's good to see that a co-trainer with Bandler has the sense and the integrity to disagree with the "godfather's views" when he feels like, while so many of Bandlers students have been drinking the KA.

Have fun

Bart

Gabe/Bart:

Gabe wrote, I've said for years that most NLP techniques are symptom level change work."
Bart wrote, "most if not all NLP applications are symptom level treatments."

Please tell me how you distinguish "symptom level treatment" from "deeper" change (or whatever you call something better) and give me a clear-cut example--preferably specifying alternative treatment approaches in response to the same symptomatic complaint-- so that I can know exactly what you are talking about.
I assume that you are writing about an important distinction, but I don't yet know what it is.
Steve Andreas

"None of us is as smart as all of us." --Japanese proverb