Richard's new book is pretty good, not great but I can say one thing for certain - no way will it sell anything like a Paul Mckenna book, nothing to do with Mckenna being more well known to the general public through TV work, etc. Just that it is not as digestable or anywhere near as wel laid out for the average member of the public that it is aimed at. Sure people into NLP or even Masters at NLP will buy them, but the target audience is the general public mass market.

The stuff with Submodalities? Seems maybe to average person unnecessary or overcomplicated, Mckenna in his books 'Change Your Life In 7 Days', 'Super Confidence', etc doesn't bother with such detail for a reason - he doesn't deem it that necessary and doesn't want to bog down or bamboozle the average reader.

Chapters like 'Getting To Exercise' , one on smoking too? Also dieting? Bandler looks very fit, doesn't he like he hits the gym a lot? And he follows a healthy strict diet? Not! I know he hasd been ill, etc but if you must include such things you should look the part, if Paul Mckenna was overweight and doing 'I Can Make You Thin' books & seminars, people would rightly think is this a joke, he wants to tell me about dieting yet clearly can't stick to one himself. Or tell me to exercise but doesn't look at all fit himself.

'Get The Life You Want' I got the U.S. addition the cover is ok not that eye grabbing, inside not that eye catching with click flick through if in a store.

Overall good book, but no matter how well publicized the launch is it won't sell vast quantities I don't think. Many buying it are people like us interested in NLP buying it for curiousity value to see what its like & if there is anything new in it.

*U.S. edition

This book is just a mediocre summary of old/known NLP techniques. Its only reason of existence seems to be the intent to make even more money by targeting the mass market. After a couple of pages it reads like a broken disk: change submodalities & spin feelings over and over again.

In short, except if you are totally new to NLP, not worth to read, save your money.

If someone is to cash in on selling NLP techniques to the masses, better him than most of them who do it. However, I bought it and found it's almost unreadable in parts, not a patch on Paul McKenna's similar book. I can't see why Dr B doesn't model some good writers because he obviously has a valid message but boy he struggles to communicate it in print.

I suspect Paul has a better editor. Mind you I'm not just saying this because I are one (okay, you caught me - I am saying this for exactly that reason), but people with fantastic ideas often need someone who can help them structure what they're saying in such a way that it comes across to the reader. Without that - barring the writer being a good natual editor him- or herself, the best ideas in the world might not find the readership they deserve.

My 2p, and entirely prejudiced btw

Hi all,

for what it's worth I think Richard Bandler got his message over very clearly in print, I found it enjoyable and very easy to read and I think that yes it is simple to understand and that's exactly what he had in mind when he wrote it, a self help, NLP manual. I think most people would be able to put it into practice and Get the Life they Want!

Violeta

Violeta wrote:

Hi all,

for what it's worth I think Richard Bandler got his message over very clearly in print, I found it enjoyable and very easy to read ...
Violeta

I agree. To me it seems a very well structured and well written introduction and it definitely fills a gap in the market in terms of an elegant presentation of these powerful techniques. If you want more description, metaphor and rationale you can go to "Using Your Brain for a Change" or one of the other early books.

I also suspect that the book's structure is not as simple as it at first seems. I think the choice of things to "get over", "get through" and "get to" in the book may well serve a metaphorical purpose as well as addressing specific needs, aiming to promote generative change not just point solutions.

I do suspect however that many people who read it as an intro to NLP will not get full benefit as they will simply not do the exercises, or will not stick at them. Having someone else to step you through the process makes a huge difference. The people who skim through and do not do the exercises properly may well dismiss it all as being too good (too simple?) to be true. However surely even for these people a little seed will have been sown in their minds....

I also have no doubt that many other people will immediately change their lives for the better with this book.

KHill99 wrote:

I do suspect however that many people who read it as an intro to NLP will not get full benefit as they will simply not do the exercises, or will not stick at them. Having someone else to step you through the process makes a huge difference. The people who skim through and do not do the exercises properly may well dismiss it all as being too good (too simple?) to be true. However surely even for these people a little seed will have been sown in their minds....

I also have no doubt that many other people will immediately change their lives for the better with this book.

I used to be one of those people who didn't do the exercises. Oh, sometimes I kinda skimmed over them, but as soon as someone said "Get out a piece of paper and make two columns" I was outta there to the next chapter. Then one day I received a really good book and actually did the first exercise in the first chapter. Which led me here.

Imagine that.

Hey,

While I was reading this book a few questions kept reassuring..

what happened to ecology?

Have fun

Bart

Ecology got bored and took a vacation leaving a few people behind worying about it. It's ok though, I had a call from it the other day and he's doing just fine.

jamiedixon wrote:

Ecology got bored and took a vacation leaving a few people behind worying about it. It's ok though, I had a call from it the other day and he's doing just fine.

Did he by a change also tell you why he got bored?

Hi Bart,

I'm just about to rush out the door for dinner but i'll reply quickly and possibly expand upon it later.

I'm not sure whether Richard has ever taught "ecology" as such and he may have, i dunno.

To me, ecology checking is one of those concepts that was added in for no real reason. It's almost asif someone back in the late 70's early 80's had a sudden idea that "oh, what happens if we change someones map and it changes other stuff and it all fucks up and the person goes away and has a crappy life". In my experience of human beings and working with people, that concept just doesn't exist. If the change is shit, the behaviour will just reset (in most cases).

The fact that some people feel the need to do ecology checks shows me that they didn't take into account the persons whole structure from the beginning and now they're going back to check for fuck ups. I can't speak for Richard and his book but it strikes me as an unnesessary step to talk about ecology because when you think about it, if the person makes a change and it doesn't fit in with the way their life opperates, what's gonna give way first? The change or their entire environment.

That's just some ideas and i may or may not agree with them by the time i get back to my computer.

Have a fun saturday evening

Jamie

Ecology according to who's definition?

Richard once said to me "ecology is simply about making sure the person will function properly after you worked with them". He used as an axample when people motive to do thing by stressing out. If you remove the stress you have to make sure you also give the person an efficient way of motivating themselves.

Now, some other people talk about ecology as what will happen with others around them. So about which one you are referring to?

While I read Richard's book back when it was not yet finished, I remember it was implied and presupposed on several parts of the book the one I mentioned he talked about.

However... I also heard it was on vacation somewhere in the pacific ocean.

jamiedixon wrote:

The fact that some people feel the need to do ecology checks shows me that they didn't take into account the persons whole structure from the beginning and now they're going back to check for fuck ups. I can't speak for Richard and his book but it strikes me as an unnesessary step to talk about ecology because when you think about it, if the person makes a change and it doesn't fit in with the way their life opperates, what's gonna give way first? The change or their entire environment.

I don't find ecology a very useful concept. If I find myself worrying about ecology, it usually is just coz I am not convinced I am working on the real problem in the first place!

Many of the problems people report are actually the side effects of their solution to the real problem.

I like to ask people weird questions like "how are you going to overcome your solution to the problem?" That does their head in as people don't usually think about overcoming solutions or that they have already solved their problems (albeit in a way that isn't pleasant or get what they want!)

I had someone recently with whom part of the reported problem was feeling numb. I asked "so what does feeling numb let you not experience?" Roll the tears.. She had learned to disassociate from the feelings of the real problem. So what she said was a problem was a solution. Of course, without the real problem, the crappy solution becomes an unnecessary step!

Who needs ecology? If it existed then why would people create solutions that don't get them what they want? Its just daft..

For me ecology is important when you notice the role the person plays in the system. John, while I agree with the issue of something possibly not being the real problem, in many cases the person's relatives or friends have partially or completely structured their lives around the person's problem. Sometimes the person might be beyond the problem - but these who are closed to him might not be, and that, for me, is what checking ecology is about.

Artur Krol wrote:

For me ecology is important when you notice the role the person plays in the system. John, while I agree with the issue of something possibly not being the real problem, in many cases the person's relatives or friends have partially or completely structured their lives around the person's problem. Sometimes the person might be beyond the problem - but these who are closed to him might not be, and that, for me, is what checking ecology is about.

I agree that you need to check to what extent the symptom extends into their life. Thinking of this as ecology though is still just circular logic because if they are going to let other people get in the way of doing something different or keep the problem to get something from them then I still don't think the problem has actually been addressed at all. Its just an unnecessary term and can be used to evade. Its like a ready made excuse for therapists - "the solution isn't ecological". I'd rather just admit I got it wrong and missed what was actually going on. I think I'd learn quicker by admitting when I was wrong than making up a reason. Most problems aren't very "ecological" but they work damn well! So what's that about? Why do "unecological" problems stick so well?

I strongly suspect that dealing with secondary gain is one way to do what amounts to an ecology check, framed in such a way as to make it clear exactly what's being preserved: the benefits of the current situation. Get that right, and you've done what's intended by an ecology check anyway.

gabe wrote:

Ecology according to who's definition?

Richard once said to me "ecology is simply about making sure the person will function properly after you worked with them". He used as an axample when people motive to do thing by stressing out. If you remove the stress you have to make sure you also give the person an efficient way of motivating themselves.

Now, some other people talk about ecology as what will happen with others around them. So about which one you are referring to?

While I read Richard's book back when it was not yet finished, I remember it was implied and presupposed on several parts of the book the one I mentioned he talked about.

However... I also heard it was on vacation somewhere in the pacific ocean.

Lets start with the one he talked about ..

the question first came up after reading the chapter on the 'threshold application'
which basically comes down to taking a bad feeling and intensifying it until it snaps...

"...run the move over and over again until you feel really embarrassed about yourself

Do this to the point where you start to say to yourself "this is ridiculous, enough is enough"

... the above is followed by a dissociation exercise.

this reads like the most crappy advice you can give someone to do on themselves, . some might reach the threshold point .. others will get stuck just feeling shitty.

now this is just one example out of the book that seems to be totally out of touch with " ...making sure the person will function properly after you worked with them, "... or read my book...




Bart

adrian r wrote:

I strongly suspect that dealing with secondary gain is one way to do what amounts to an ecology check, framed in such a way as to make it clear exactly what's being preserved: the benefits of the current situation. Get that right, and you've done what's intended by an ecology check anyway.

Then you may as well say let's call it primary gain. Then from there you may as well say that lets find the real problem! As you may guess, I don't really believe in secondary gain either (or primary)..

Suppose someone develops a belief that they are a pile of shit at some point. Then later they create behaviors to conform to it. How does the concept of secondary gain help matters (you could say the secondary gain here might be defending the belief). Why not just say that the problem is they believe they are crap and change that? Then the gain becomes no gain, in fact the reverse, it will become an asset as they will have to defend the new belief. I just don't see how some of these classic concepts actually help. I think they complicate matters and are often just hand-me-downs that prevent people thinking about whats going on.

I have to go out now but back tomorrow..

Well, when you use an example that explicitly challenges the notion, it's quite easy to do what you've just done. However, I continue to find the notion of gain useful in, eg, working with homeless people who find it difficult to look after a tenancy of their own. It's a very useful filter to sort through what can be a bewildering range of behaviours that function as confusing content.