From: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Breeding, xt-dGR,)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:23:42 GMT
Reply-To: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX

In article 40868@urz.unibas.ch, spissinger@urz.unibas.ch () writes:
>Hi,
>
>I read some books about NLP and was really fascinated by the elegance and
>effectiveness of the method. But when I tried some of the techniques myself it
>didn't work.
>
>What's the problem?
>Does it only work when Bandler does it?
>How do psychologists look at NLP?
>What are the latest developments?
>
>Thomas
>

NLP is elegant, AND it is not simple.

NLP is two things:

NLP(1) - A set of specific communication skills that allow a NLPer to interact with another person to discover exactly how they are able to do something that they do very well (their "technique"), and then ultimately, to teach that "technique" to others.

NLP(2) - The collection of generally useful "techniques" that have been accumulated through years of doing NLP(1).

It is mostly NLP(2) that gets published.  The basic skills required to do NLP(1), and to effectively apply NLP(2), are best (only?) learned through direct training.  The person who wants to apply NLP(2) must first achieve competence at NLP(1) so that these skills can simply operate unconsciously, while consciously applying the chosen technique.

Now, all of these skills, and all of these techniques, have been "discovered" in real human beings (they are not invented), so we are all capable of learning them.  But most of us have not "naturally" learned most of them.  To the extent that you already have the skills of NLP(1), you may be able to simply read about an NLP(2) technique and apply it.  But training in specific NLP(2) techniques is still frequently helpful (in the past 7 years, I have had approximately 20 weeks of training; and I have anothe

r 3 weeks scheduled for this fall).

Bandler and Grinder had many of the skills of NLP(1) "naturally", and they were able to "bootstrap" themselves to learn even more.  But there are now thousands of NLPers who are able to do these things more or less effectively.  Each individual has more or less competence, in each specific skill, and we are all less that completely competent.

A comment on how you tried to "apply" what you read: If you were working on yourself, you should be aware that this is almost always more difficult than working on someone else.  To the extent that the technique you are applying is complex, it is very difficult to be both "inside" the experience, and "outside" directing the experience.  I don't believe that it was just a coincidence that TWO people discovered/developed the basics of NLP together.

On the other hand: If you were working on someone else, be careful!  Much of what you will learn in basic NLP training is how to keep your "client" out of "trouble" while you are working together.  NLP can be very powerful; know what you are doing before you do it!

The latest developments in NLP, as in any field, are not published yet.  You will find some of this in current trainings, or through personal contact with other NLPers.  Once you are into the field, you will also be able to "discover" things on your own.

Finally, I am not a psychologist (but some of my best friends are :>).  The ones I know have opinions of NLP ranging from very negative to very positive.  Take your choice.  Like anything else, I think it is very hard to judge without personal experience (as a "client" or as a trainee), and personal experiences will vary.

I hope this helps.  If you are interested enough to invest some time and money in basic NLP training, by all means, do that.  Don't expect to get very far on what you can read.  There is one book that I can recommend: "Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Programming," by Joseph O'Connor.  It is the best general introduction as you will find, and it has lots of information on other books, and on trainings, in the Appendix.

Good luck, Dave
Newsgroups: sci.psychology