Hi Michael P.

So, I surmise, you've chosen to be offended by some aspects of my communication with you or others on this thread.

Since your last post wasn't specific enough for me to understand what parts of the discussion made you decide that this is a type of interaction you don't fancy, I'll simply respect your right to do what you believe is the most useful course of action for you.

I'll also try to clarify two points.

1. You say:
Before going to this seminar I reviewed my friend's recording of one of the first NHR introductions. I think it's the one that lasts two days live, but I could be mistaken.
I liked it very much. Despite RB looking rather sick there, he was still brilliant.
On this recording Richard said a few times that this is just an introduction to NHR, so I took it that full format training will offer more.
When I looked at the description of the META seminar, it didn't say anywhere that it was just an introduction.
Also, I came to a conclusion (how naiv of me) that exersises where not recorded on the DVD to save space.

Also, my ideas about "actual training" were not as clear to me before the training as they are now. I gave myself an opportunity to fully experience Mr. Bandler's style of training and it became obvious that it's somewhat good, but not good enough for me.
I realized, as the result of this experience, that the unconsious installation is not enough if not supported by properly structured practice.
I didn't have this belief clear in my mind, now I do. That's one of the benefits of this seminar.

-- Alex.

Oups, I guess I won't clarify my second point now, as I got to run to work.

Hey Alex,

You wrote:
"the unconsious installation is not enough"

I don't think no one has ever said it is! From my own experience Richard has always said 'practice, practice and more practice" and also he sometimes says 'at a workshop you only do an exercise once, it is up to you to continue practicing'.

Yet I also know some of the things installed will begin to show in the days following the training and usually Richard installs them (and even says it) to be attached to specific states. he usually says 'state dependant'. So IF 'specific state (developed at the workshop)' THEN 'specific strategies, meta programs and beliefs' (installed at the workshop).

Now I am pretty sure you won't accept this description since your experience/evidence (which I am sure you do know includes deletions and distortions based on the generalizations from your own structure) tells you otherwise, yet I still though I would be happier myself replying this to you offering you a different perspective on the specific point of 'unconsicous installation'... which again does require 'properly structured practice'.

My only challange to you is that you seem to presuppose that properly structured practice is what YOU think a properly structured practice is. When maybe if you do practice the few (in your perception) things he asked you to do, then you could surprise yourself with more things going on inside.

Just a thought.

And by the way, discovering you shouldn't study from Bandler (or anyone) is also valuable. I know I learned the same thing about other trainers and I think it was worth it.
So many just talk with out having an experience to back their views. So... expensive? Well depends on the frame of reference you use!

People pay 20 times as much or a lot more to a college/university to discover some degrees are useless and stupid. And they spend 4 to 5 years of their lifes in there!!!
Then they go to me and say "I studied that but I don't want to dedicate my life to doing that"
My reply is "Don't!" and usually they say complaining: "But I've already spend so much time and money" and so they have spent years (usually more than 5) miserable because of it.
So the question is... Better to find out in 5 days or 5 years? Spending little or a lot of money? You probably are spending more days complaining about it that the time you spent at the workshop. I say: Move on and feel good about moving on. You don't need Bandler and he doesn't need you.

Have a good week

Alex
Cool.
Glad our communication is now running through the same set of filters, by mutual adjustment.
Look forward to a better understanding in future posts.
Be well


Peter

Gabe,
You sure have a gift of a great communicator! Now I feel joy that I didn't spend too much time and money to discover that Bandler's seminars are "useless and stupid".
Is it how the techniques of reframing are taught now by mr. Bandler? By unconscious installation no doubt?

Hi Alex,

And you'd be quite wrong, but that's OK... I seldom choose to be offended and my criteria for discussions that interest me doesn't have an Offended?(Y/N) step...


As for why I decided not to engage in the debate and simply chose to clarify my exisiting communications, I'll explain.

Your current debating strategy isn't one that I enjoy using.

An important criteria for me is to be understood. I choose to be responsible for my communications and that, for me, means making every reasonable effort to insure that my meaning has gotten across. That doesn't mean that everyone will agree with what I got across, it just means that my understanding of what they understood as reflected back to me in the conversation seems to me to be what I meant to say.

The kind of replies I've been reading from you thus far seem to me to be sorting for difference, even when there seems to be a bit of reaching involved.

Your choice of interpretations seems to be following a pattern which will most likely lead to misinterpretation of meaning or intent, like the one I corrected with at the beginning of this post.

With that criteria in mind, the level of specificity that it seems to me would be required to reply in a way that would not be subject to misinterpretation given your current debating strategy is somewhat arduous for me to do. And, at the moment, I've not got the time or the inclination to formulate responses in a way that will fulfil my own criteria facilitate, to the extent necessary, the understandability of my own communication.

So, to provide a further illustration of what I mean, all of my posting here in this thread thus far (some 1,500 words, not including this post), has been almost exclusively to clarify what I meant in the first 150+ word post and then to further clarify those clarifications!

At this rate, if I were to introduce sufficient new material to the subject to attempt to clarify what the rest of NHR (besides the spinning exercise) is and means, I'll still be here posting clarifications into the spring...

At the same time, I respect your right to debate things in any manner that makes you comfortable.

So please understand that this is an individual judgement on my part, using an internal referential frame based on my own perceptions, criteria and outcomes. It is in no way meant as a criticism of you and/or your communications here.

On the contrary, I've gone out of my way to stress what I perceive might be the value in your original review as a unique and valid perception which might be weighed along with other equally unique and equally valid reviews by those who are considering the NHR training.

So, I hope that clarifies things on my part just a little further and Alex, thank you for your own clarifications.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

See Alex you are so right as always!!!
And you know exactly what my intentions were, god bless you for your infinite wisdom. See, one more proof that Bandler's approach is not good for you... if A implies B1, B2, B3 and B1, B2, B3 turn out to be true then... well you do know how the Poly'a patterns go since you've notice them all at Richard's stories. Including if A implies B and B is very unlikely but turns out to be true then... or if A implies B and B is very likely to happen but it turns out to be false then... well who cares about mathematical structures.

I say it so much better for you to stay away from our seminars, save money and time... you are right and should walk away because we have nothing to offer, I understand how our programs to you are "useless and stupid" being such an intelligent and open minded creature. BTW I love how you deliberatly use the quotes in "useless and stupid". We are skill less next to your greatness, so you are better off at other camps... hey maybe at other diciplines.

Have you thought of starting your own field? You appear to have all that it takes.

Oh btw, I learned reframing from Dilts, Halbom, Smith and a few others. Was I doing it? Was it done wrong? please master teach me how to do it right. My intention clearly was to reframe it so you thought about returning to a Bandler program, right? That was the whole point of the story about those who live miserably for years after spending too much time and money to get a degree.

Anyway, move on... don't get stuck in the same thing over and over again it is not a healthy thing to do.

Then don't use it!

I wasn't debating you.

You posts were very respectful and reasonable.

I have no problem with the fact you have very different perspectives on Bandler and his trainings.

If think you've got a bargain out of your NHR training, I'm happy for you.

I also like it when others understand what I'm saying.

I realize that I may fail sometimes to get the desired meaning accross and usually try to vary my approach when it happens.

So, you've answered the questions that I didn't ask and declined to answer the ones I asked -- the ones that I find to be potentionaly useful.
That's disappointing, Michael.

I don't care what you think of me and my debating strategies.

I do care to learn from as many sources as I can. I also would venture a guess that there are other people who are more interested in learning from you about the patterns and techniques of NHR than in in reading your long posts where all you do is trying to "explain yourself".

If my debating strategy or some other aspects of this thread make you feel that it's not an appropriate place for sharing your knowledge, start another thread.

I promise to participate using different information processing strategies. I know I can, trust me.

Gabe! Mi amigo!

Thanks for noticing. That's very perceptive of you.

Looks to me like something I'd like to learn more about. If you choose to expand on this I'll say thank you, no sarcasm.

Hi Alex,
I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm still not willing to engage in a discussion I'm not otherwise motivated to engage in...

And that's OK! In a similar manner, although I explained my own strategies here, I also do not need an external referential frame for my strategies. I was simply meeting what I was and am motivated to do, and that is to be clear. We all have our hobbies...

I did not 'try' to explain myself. I did explain myself. Now whether or not anyone understood the explanation is another matter...

So, if you frame my attitude with regard to clarity strategies in a similar way to your own nonchalance with regard to my opinion about your debating strategies, then you'll probably come quite close to what I mean here... ;-)

I don't doubt you, Alex. And I'm still not finding a compelling reason to for me to unpack and explain NHR here in this thread or another.

I don't see a great value in doing so, as seems to me the material is currently being taught in an optimal manner, considering the nature of the material. To do otherwise would be a mishmash of mathematical formulae and flowcharts which the vast majority of the audience would not understand and many of those who would understand would not necessarily be able to perform, based on that cognition.

I understand that not everyone in every circumstance might benefit from that teaching style, which you brought out in your review. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that unpacking it would help you to really understand it any better, it would more likely (in my estimation) give you a cognitive framework which would be of little use in the doing of the thing. i could be wrong, but that's my hallucination here.

You may (note may, not do) firmly believe that this is not the case and you may also be right. And that still doesn't change the fact that since that does not match my own hallucination which is, in turn, informed by experience and beliefs, it does not motivate me to proceed.

If I'm not terribly mistaken, one of the people you're talking with in this thread is one of the few people in the world with whom Bandler has explicitly detailed the framework behind NHR. If there's someone well placed to give you that explanation, it's him. And since you and Gabe seem to be going down a different communications track than I think is likely to get you that outcome should you find it valuable, I'm not sure you'll get it. Vary your technique and you might get more.

Then again, I'm not sure what you do or do not want here from this thread, and that's OK too.
Now if you'll excuse me for a bit, I've got a manuscript that won't proofread itself!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

EDIT: I see you have indeed begun to vary your technique with Gabe and I'd like to acknowledge that.

Alex, it appeared to me that you were using sarcasm before.
I don't respond nicely to that stuff (I could but I choose not to).

Anyway since I do believe it would be useful for many other as well I do recommend the book: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning volume 2: Patterns of Plausible Inference by George Polya, Princeton Press
When Richard tells stories he is many times building what he refers to polya patterns and in such increasing or diminishing plausibility (credibility) to an argument or elliciting a response that he will attach to other things he is doing. See you thought his stories of kung fu were his own issues but maybe, just maybe he is creating some desired effect applying the Polya patterns.
Just as a very basic example once he has ellicited the 'that is a lot less creadible' state of mind then he might anchor that and fire it off later on with limiting beliefs. Of course usally he'll use Polya patterns as part of what I refer to as Bandler Argumentation Patterns.

BTW the answer to the first example is A becomes more credible (a bit more with each example that turns out to be true)... the answer to the second is A becomes very much more credible... and the answer to the third one can be obtained by following the same principle.

That is just the simplest of things going on at Bandler's stories. One of the many things also involved in Unconscious Installation. BTW this is not taught at Trainer's Training. If anyone wishes to ask a master at this ask Eric Robbie.

Anyway Alex, too bad you are staying away from Bandler programs (being so overpriced and all) to notice a lot more things like that going on. I guess you still have the videos option.

Have a good week

thanks, Gabe!

I too attended the recent nhr course in Edinburgh and also attended the shamanics.

My opinion about the experience kept changing throughout the course. There were ups and downs, which I attribute to being part of the process of attending a seminar designed to stretch you in ways you are not even aware of yet.

I don’t know all of what Richard and John were doing. The more courses I attend the better my idea gets. What I can say is that I look forward to the next one, since I value how much my experience of life, the universe and everything has improved given the input of the genius that Bandler is.

Would I attend another nhr seminar, probably not, yet somehow I get the idea that that is not the point.

Overall, I am glad I attended, I was presented with an opportunity to experience genius in motion and that’s not something that comes round every day.

Andy

i must say i just love it when someone of gabe's calibre comes in and throws a few extra balls into the juggle!

always something new to learn, cool

I just started to read the Polya's book online, I think I'll buy it.

Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Volume 2:... - Google Book Search

Hmm.. something wrong with the URL. Lets try again.

Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Volume 2:... - Google Book Search

Oh, well I guess anyone who want to read it has to do their own google search.

Thank you, Gabe, for the name of the book. And ,Alex, for the google page, it did work.
That book seems to be interesting. Something else to buy!

Just so nobody gets the wrong thing, and then ends up later disappointed, the book Gabe referred to is part of a two-volume series. The series was entitled: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, and was first published by Princeton University Press in 1954.

The title of Volume I is: Induction and Analogy in Mathematics. The title of Volume II is: Patterns of Plausible Inference. It's Volume II you're after.

Both volumes were reprinted at various times - for example, the copies I have are dated 1968 - and not always together - for example, there's a paperback version of Volume I came out in 1990, but Volume II didn't, and isn't, AFAIK, in paperback.

I'll repeat: the one you want if you're interested in what Gabe is describing is definitely Volume II. The other one is solid mathematics - you know, symbols, and formulae, and all that stuff.

Plus, a word of warning: Polya was writing about mathematics directly (and how to think about maths, directly, and how to get better at doing same), and about psychology and the human mind indirectly. You will have to do the translating to 'our kind' of contexts yourself. Just like Richard Bandler did.

Insider's tip. there are 12 patterns of PI mentioned by Polya, but Richard doesn't use all of them. Insider's challenge: can you name which ones? ....

Indeed, anyone who writes in with the correct answer - or even a plausible one - which lists the patterns RB uses regularly (and thus, by inference, the ones which he does not) will get a long-distance hug from me, and a warmly-witty come-back.

BTW, to save the general reader further time - and you, Alex, the chance to set yourself up for disappointment (which as you may know, does require adequate planning) - the sections of Vol II which relevant are pp03-43 and pp153-160.

Maybe what you need is a good library - Alex - such the NY Public, which I understand is near you, and a xerox machine - rather than Amazon.

Eric.

(Copyright law in the UK allows photocopying of up to five per cent of a book, or one complete chapter, for academic use, without fee or penalty. State and federal law in the US may differ.)

Eric,

I can always count on you for further reference. Always? Yes, always!
So... me saying this just after you posted further reference... does it make my comment more credible? hmmmm, so I guess we can have B (fact) then say something (A) which actually implies B and make A more credible right of the bat! Isn't this a new door of possibilities.

OK Erc I know it is not really new but don't tell them... I am pointing into a direction of a few things they could have missed of Richard's use of this.

So many people think since it says A implies B it has to come in that order, meaning A and then B. But what happens when you reverse it? B1, B2, B3 (facts) then A (belief/generalization)... is this one way of how we usually present to others as 'the truth'?... hmmm food for thought.

Anyway, thanks Eric as always.