From: jds2@po.CWRU.Edu (John D. Specht)
Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)
Reply-To: jds2@po.CWRU.Edu (John D. Specht)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 23:14:59 GMT


In a previous article, joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) says:
>In article <friday.713720778@well.sf.ca.us> friday@well.sf.ca.us (Carol Anne 
>Ogdin) writes:
>learn NLP. I have heard that it is not possible to learn NLP without paying
>bucks to a certified teacher; that in fact people attempting to teach these
>techniques without the imprimatur of the official group risk lawsuits. Could
>you clarify this?

welcome one and all to the wonderful three-ring circus known as
'non-traditional psychology' (at least in my head that's what it's called!)

To begin, I learned NLP without the aid of the organization mentioned, 
and the reason I even studied it was because it was very similar to some 
techniques I was already using. I didn't know there was such a thing as a 
'certified teacher' for this, I was introduced to it by the daughter of 
an NLP practitioner. She loaned me three books (_Structure_of_Magic_,
_Frogs_into_Princes_, and _Hypnotic_Realities_) and I practiced from them.
I will agree that you cannot learn all of this from a book, but they serve
as very good guidelines, and observation is critical to the whole process.
(Although some of the basic techniques can (and have, by me) be used over
the telephone, or even telnet.)

>
>>							      and then go about
>>  giving a NLP a bad name by practicing something else altogether.  
>
>as far as giving NLP a bad name, wasn't there a murder or something like
>that among the original founders? 
>

Just because of the Aaron Burr conspiracy we should throw out the US gov't?

>>								    It's sort
>>  of like learning calculus from a text without ever having done an exercise
>>  or solved a single real problem (funny, people wouldn't then call themselves
>>  mathematicians...but they will claim behavioral skills!).
>
>this whole bit sounds suspiciously like the trip played by AMORC (and I am
>sure many other groups). they claim to have 'hidden knowledge', the mark
>(excuse me, the neophyte) pays his money for several years and is eventually
>taught stuff that is in the public domain and in fact explicated in easily
>available books. to avoid the neophyte obviating the necessity for spending
>these large chunks of pelf, they are specifically warned away from certain
>books and authors.

Again, I have paid no money, and I use these techniques almost daily. _Frogs_
into_Princes_ is a transcript of a Bandler and Grinder workshop that includes
several 'quick fixes' including a 15-minute cure for most phobias (it works, 
but took me 25 minutes the first time I used it on someone.) I don't claim
to be a licensed anything, I just am in the habit of helping my friends as
needed. Your example brings to mind Dianetics, which is really on about 99%
merde, from what I've seen.

>
>some of the many chasidic jewish groups (theoretically all, but well....)
>are in fact initiatory groups. all but one have 'living masters' (tzaddikim)
>and an 'experiential' trip. some in fact state rather clearly that it is
>unimportant that the individual chasid be illuminated (and discourage
>individual qabalistic study), but should adhere to an illuminated tzaddik.
>most chasidic groups do consist of 'courts' of families owing fealty (in
>all senses of that word) to some tzaddik. there is one group, however (and
>I am very frustrated that I cannot call their name to mind right now) who
>are called 'the dead chasidim'. their founder wrote up the whole trip in
>books and using these books (the story goes), one can attain illumination.
>
Sounds like just another religion bent on maintaining its own power. Sorry.

>let it be understood that one does not simply read these books. the process
>of reading them sets certain internal forces in motion that may not take
>full effect for years (this particular group of chasidim, BTW, are not the
>only people to follow such an initiatory trip, and their founder not the
>only person who has written books like this. MinT&P is (I think deliberately)
>a book of this sort (sufis call books 'dead teachers')).

What's MinT&P? I would also suggest that _The_Illuminatus!_ trilogy is one
such book which will have later effects. Bandler and Grinder also write
and speak (in transcript) with this effect.
>
>finally, there is nothing new under the sun. whatever the NLP folks have
>'discovered' has been known for hundreds or thousands of years. perhaps
>they have invented a new system of terminology. if you would care to elucidate
>some NLP techniques, I am sure we could have some interesting discussions
>and comparisons with other systems.
>

I agree that this is nothing new. Mr. Erikson has been using most of it for
decades without formalizing the process. By creating a formal method (which
they call NLP) Bandler and Grinder have allowed different people who use
various (not necessarily related to NLP) psychological techniques, because
it is based on a set of terms which are the same for all humans. For example,
the word Schizophrenia has a exactly one definition PER PERSON USING IT. My 
definition is slightly different from yours, based on my experiences with 
the word compared to yours. If this example is too large, try the word Green.
Do you mean grass-green, or copper-green, or do you meany US currency? If you
think about the last three times you've had a misunderstanding with someone,
they are likely to all be because of different definitions for the same word.

Well, enough ranting for now. Next!

Paul
-- 
jds2 	John D. Specht (Heads I win; Tails you lose.) Virtual reality is life!
ae358	Paul Bort (It ain't pretty being easy) Spring: Forces, Coiled again!
If you want to save an endangered species, hug a romantic.
Love is the triumph and pleasure and joy and light that makes life bearable.
Newsgroups: alt.magick