Who went, What did we all think ?
This was the first time Id Seen the Great man and was mighty Impressed.
It would be interesting to hear what the more experienced amongst us thought ...........

I thought Richard did a grand job. He seemed to make the essence of NLP simpler and more transparent than I've seen him do before in such a short space of time. He communicated so many core ideas - to take clients literally, to unpack nominalisations, to give up asking "why" and notice the structure going on in the present moment - and did so very simply, memorably and persuasively.

I particularly enjoyed the way he riffed off all the questions thrown at him, and directed each answer somewhere useful, amusing, and inspiring. It was also good to see him deal with demo subjects that weren't completely straightforward, and to watch him utilise whatever they said or did to create the change they wanted.

From a techniques perspective, he took people through a few submodality changes I hadn't come across, and did a nice conversational threshold pattern, which, like much of the evening, was explained very straightforwardly (to paraphrase: "If you're looking at the same image and feeling pissed off, guess what, you're looking at the same image and not feeling afraid anymore!").

But most of all, the message of the evening seemed to be to get the fuck on with your life. That even with "perfect" NLP-derived strategies, you still need to work and practice at getting better - being a great artist, a great musician, a great anything takes work, so stop the analysing and vague fantasising and get planning and get doing!

My girlfriend came along with me and found him very interesting, but quite aggressive, even when he was just telling stories. I've listened to Bandler for years, so I'm pretty accustomed to his style, but I guess compared to say most of the speakers on T.E.D., he is pretty aggressive.

My response to her was that may be in part Richard's personality (and it's one way to get immediate compliance from demo subjects!), but it's also a useful way of leading us the audience into states of frustration, impatience and determination, to... well, get the fuck on with our lives. To become frustrated with mainstream psychology, frustrated with endlessly worrying and to pass through the threshold of "enough is enough", well that can be a profoundly useful process.

"Fair enough" she said, "but I still wouldn't like to go to dinner with him". And I guess you can't argue with that! She did say she liked the fact that he stayed on stage in the break and afterwards for photos and autographs, something he didn't have to do, but his taking the time to do that definitely made some people's nights.

I myself left on a high, not a giddy, spinning-feelings-till-your-head-blows-off high, but a high of seeing a master of his art in excellent form and a reminder of what's important in life and what's not. It was also great to meet some Connections members there too - both to catch up with a few old friends and put some faces to names!

All the best,

Joe

"He SEEMED to make the essence of NLP simpler ... "?? He DID make the essence of nlp simpler. You don't need the qualifier. This isn't academic philosophy class.

As for not having dinner with Richard - how does she know what Richard is like at dinner? And isn't the question: why would Richard want to have dinner with her?

And as for "the message of the evening SEEMED to be ... " - the message of the evening WAS and IS: get over it. He actually said it, and it's one of the themes in the new book (some copies of which had been flown in, and were on sale).

Richard was, in my experience, in great form, and positively bouncing with health. Roll on Edinburgh.

Hi Eric,

I can understand why "was/is" is stylistically better than "seems", and why it would be healthy for me personally to become more certain of my perceptions and gut feelings. I habitually write/say "seems" more than is necessary. Thanks for taking the time to give me that pointer.

My girlfriend has absolutely no idea what Richard Bandler is really like at dinner. In conversation with her I pointed out that he is different in the one to one sessions of The Bandler Effect set than he is working a crowd. But it's hardly a devastating criticism, and no I don't think she needs to shift her thinking into wondering whether Richard would like to have dinner with her! I believe it's an interesting off-hand comment from a different perspective.

Anyway, I agree he was in much better health than when I saw him a few years back, and yes, he did make NLP simpler and his message did mesh with his book perfectly (it's been available on Amazon for a while).

Hope you enjoy Edinburgh.

Joseph

Richard started the introduction with a history of NLP and what he learned from Grinder and what he developed himself.. i'e working with people that had gotten over phobias to see what they were actually doing in their experience and modelling it.

As it was an introduction he compared and contrasted what people did inside their heads to make themselves feel bad - such as talking with bad internal dialogue and looking at pictures constantly - and then he contrasted that with how to stop doing it. So he demonstrated with two delegates how they could stop thinking of something that made them feel bad by changing the submodalities of the images, using amnesia pattern on them - and a lovely new thing of taking the feeling of something you don't want and achoring it to that image - and mixing it up using colours.

He answered questions from the audience, including one on how to deal with Alzeimers patients. I think it is wonderful that he doesn't see NLP as a catch all cure for everything and does not claim to be able to achieve what is clearly unrealistic - so with one lady who had a disability he gave her some practical down to earth advice on how to work with what she's has got and create a happy life - within the limitations that her body afforded her. These things for me are pure gold - keeping it real and yet changing what you can using your neurology etc.

My feeling is that if I were to do the practioner again - there would be many more new nuggets of information and streamlined techniques that I have not heard before - based on what I saw - and it was very exciting.

He mentioned that he would love to develop something akin to a remote control for brain where you could just press a button and get the right amount of state - he said he was working on this in the lab and doing lots of measuring of brain patterns and hardware for the brain.

Also someone asked about the best way to do self-hypnosis - his recommendation was to get a mind spa - this would take out the need to do years of yoga or meditation and would just 'knock your ass into trance' eheheh

I left feeling very satisfied and realised that I had 'grown up' since my assisting daze with all of me intact - for me it was a test to see how far I had come in my own personal development. And I am most grateful for Richard's dedication and tenacity to keep doing what he is doing - he made it quite clear and in no uncertain terms that he is definately not done yet - I can only be excited about where NLP is going next.

Hope this has been helpful - but again this is just my perspective.

Best wishes
Nina

Ps... here is a nice illustration of my take on the message

[ame]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0jn5aExnhNE[/ame]

I also want to thank to Eric Robbie, who spent time with me chatting and giving me tips on how to approach my first one day workshop. That in itself for me was worth the £80 to have a master class in training from such a great master.

Eric is a generous, giving and totally unselfish person - I cannot say enough to do him justice - he's just a wonderful person and that's it!!!

Thank you Mr Robbie

ericrobbie wrote:

"He SEEMED to make the essence of NLP simpler ... "?? He DID make the essence of nlp simpler. You don't need the qualifier. This isn't academic philosophy class.

I took Joe's post differently, but that doesn't surprise me - I'm guessing everyone got their own reading of it, like everyone got their own experience of Richard Bandler last night (and oh, how I wish I'd been able to be there with you!). The more I've come to consider that everyone's experience of everything is entirely unique (and I'm not instructing you how to suck eggs, Eric, God forbid - just talking about what it's like for me), the more I to use "seems" and other qualifiers to reflect that this is what I experienced, not necessarily what they did or might.

ericrobbie wrote:

As for not having dinner with Richard - how does she know what Richard is like at dinner? And isn't the question: why would Richard want to have dinner with her?

Seems to me she was expressing a personal opinion. Not one I agree with - I'd love to have dinner with him. But nothing more or less than an opinion.

BMcKenna wrote:

The more I've come to consider that everyone's experience of everything is entirely unique [...] the more I to use "seems" and other qualifiers to reflect that this is what I experienced, not necessarily what they did or might.

I find reading lots of Robert Anton Wilson tends to do that to you too Bridget!

I still think that writing and thinking in absolutes can be the road to dogmatism, and I think Old Bob (Eris rest his soul) is a fine education in remembering your reality tunnel is just your reality tunnel.

But to take Eric's comments in the spirit I trust they were intended, phrases like "in my opinion", "it seemed to me", "as far as I'm concerned" do weaken the impact of your writing, and can weaken your certainty about things you should be certain of. It's like running a "model of the world" pattern through everything you write and think. Great for tolerance and relativism, but not so good for impactful writing or for trusting your intuitions.

I think being too dogmatic is dangerous, but being too relativistic and fuzzy has its own dangers too. To quote Yeats' apocalyptic vision:

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

My intention was to write a wholly positive review, because that's how I felt. It was a great night . And hey, it's always useful to receive feedback on how I might improve my writing (and thinking). So, once more, with feeling...

Richard did a grand job last night .

All the best,

Joe.

Excellent points, Joe - I do tend to overdo it, especially in here, but I think I'll grant myself a pass on it in this particular context, right after I say: Richard IS grand. A fuckin' genius all around.

joseph_kao wrote:

Richard did a grand job last night .

...in your opinion.

John

z8000783 wrote:

...in your opinion.

John

I'll see your lost performative and I'll raise you a lack of referential index: "You talkin' to me?"

joseph_kao wrote:

I'll see your lost performative and I'll raise you a lack of referential index: "You talkin' to me?"

I'll see your lack of referential index and raise you a simple deletion: "He did a Grand Job doing what?"

John

It's too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair

Ah the meta-model is a fine tool! (Which version? For what? According to whom? How do I know? Compared to what? Arrrgh!!!! ).

Hmm, well... a grand job at directing myself, and I believe other members of the audience towards focusing on what's important (as in spending the rest of the evening with my other half) and what's not (typing any more posts on this thread for this evening!).

G'night.

joseph_kao wrote:

Ah the meta-model is a fine tool! (Which version? For what? According to whom? How do I know? Compared to what? Arrrgh!!!! ).

Hmm, well... a grand job at directing myself, and I believe other members of the audience towards focusing on what's important (as in spending the rest of the evening with my other half) and what's not (typing any more posts on this thread for this evening!).

G'night.

Pip pip

John

Was there anything about the night that seemed not to work, or that could have been made to work better?

uuhhhhmmm Cameron.. I am not qualified to answer that question.. I think Richard would be the one to ask that one

If you only compare yourself to your last performance.. then only the person who is doing the comparing is able to answer...especially if you don't really much need people's ideas on what you could have done better...

For example.. I will be teaching my first workshop in a week or so... and I have nothing to compare it to yet.. but what I will have is information about my performance based on the standard that I have seen .... so I will set my own standards and then review it... now if someone I respect and has experience in this area.. I would accept their feedback about my performance.. so Richard, Eric, or John or Paul.. I would take their advice on board .. but if I didn't know you from adam.. what you say about my performance will not even hit the sides.. as I am looking for criteria based on standards that I have set.. not on what others think I should have.. so the next time I train/ teach in rl.. I will have upped my game using NLP to make my trainings better.

So I am sure Richard is his own best critque.. and probably only one or two people I know of would have enough influence to answer that question.... and they know who they are LOL - but whether they would be so bold.. that is another matter.

So my point is.. why would you want to hear an opinion of someone who is not quaified to answer your question? Is it because you want to improve your own training methods or... ???

Best wishes
Nina

virtualAngel wrote:

uuhhhhmmm Cameron.. I am not qualified to answer that question.. I think Richard would be the one to ask that one

Ha ha, OK, won't mention meta murder

It SEEMS to me that everyone is qualified to answer that question, from their own map, of course. More rounded feedback is good.

Oh I just added some more to my original ..

Setting your own standards and comparing yourself only to yourself is a great idea and philosophy and I understand the wisdom of that part.

virtualAngel wrote:

uuhhhhmmm Cameron.. I am not qualified to answer that question.. I think Richard would be the one to ask that one

However, you claim to be unqualified to say what could have been better for you, but you are qualified to say what worked well for you, as you did in your first post. So, a customer can only ever say what was good, but never what wasn't so good in a training, they are unqualified ?

virtualAngel wrote:

...especially if you don't really much need people's ideas on what you could have done better... For example.. I will be teaching my first workshop in a week or so... ... now if someone I respect and has experience in this area.. I would accept their feedback about my performance.. so Richard, Eric, or John or Paul.. I would take their advice on board .. but if I didn't know you from adam.. what you say about my performance will not even hit the sides.

Will you, as many trainers do, ask for feedback from your customers after your first workshop ? Many of them you won't know from adam.

virtualAngel wrote:

So I am sure Richard is his own best critque.

I would agree this is likely, but if others cannot have a reasoned opinion, from their own map and level of understanding, surely every review written is worthless.

Enough for now
Cam

Hi Cameron,

Yes I think feedback from your customers is always good, particularly if it's from their own perspective - I will be looking for evidence of non-verbal feedback as I go along and hopefully can be adaptable enough to change what I am doing to satisfy them and help them achieve the learning outcomes.

If they give me feedback about what they liked or found difficult to 'get' then I would take that on board and use it to design the next one a bit differently etc. That way I can evolve the classes whilst a the same time improving on my own performance against the standards I set for myself.

I may have read your post wrong - so I was thinking more that you wanted people to critique his performance etc - that is the part I cannot comment on, as it's not my place.

It has been said here on this forum before - that when people say that Richard did a 'grand job' or that he is on 'top form' - his response would be to say.. how the dickins do they know.. when they don't even know what he is doing?

So yes a customer can feedback what was good or bad for them in their own experience - so I think I just wanted clarification as to the kind of information you wanted - if people's feedback on what didn't work for them is what you wanted, then cool.

I think all reviews are valuable - I just wasn't clear on the level of information that you wanted.

So what would have been better for me would have been a few more hours of the same

Best wishes
Nina