From: friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 05:39:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


From alt.magick Tue Aug 18 19:27:21 1992
In 
	 From: amanda@INTERCON.COM (Amanda Walker)
	 Date: 19 Aug 92 02:17:25 GMT
	 Newsgroups: alt.magick
	 Subject: Re: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)

Amanda writes:

> Representational Systems:
> 
>         NLP's treatment of language and representational systems
>         is liable to make any professional linguist run
>         screaming from the room, or at the very least pound on
>         the table :).  

I acknowledge your kinesthetic bias in the above, and absolutely
concur.  NLP is _not_ a science, nor has any of its progenitors
claimed it to be so.  I like to consider it a *technology* of be-
havior, collecting together useful suites of tools, methods and
techniques.  Anybody who claims NLP is a unique body of science or
knowledge is, of course, living in a state of sin.

>         One thing that you find as you study human
>         language at deeper and deeper levels is that it's much
>         *less* intuitive and understandable than it seems.

NLP, in fact, is quite in agreement with your contention.  The single
fundamental tenet of NLP is "actively engage in NOT knowing."  That
is, to observe, with as few preconceptions as possible, and to learn
from the stimuli provided.  There is no intrinsic assumption about
linguistic models, although the NLP "meta-model" is a useful (albeit
imperfect) tool to help understand most people's casual utterances.

>         Now, some of the claims of NLP ...

What claims, specifically, do you mean?

>         ... can be attributed to

Attributed by whom?

	----To the uninitiated in NLP:  In the four lines, above,
	   I am applying the NLP "meta-model" to elicit further
		  information based on the meta-model notions of the
		  DELETION of specificity on "claims", and the "lost
		  performative" of attribution.
	   ----You can find more details in Chapter 4 of "The Structure
		  of Magic"

>         the relatively strong position transformational grammar
>         held in the 60's and 70's in the linguistics community,
>         but it is far from the comprehensive theory of language that
>         people like Bandler present it to be.  

Where, specifically, does Bandler make any claim that NLP is a
comprehensive theory of language?  Knowing Richard personally, as
I do, I would expect him to emit a loud hoot and guffaw at your
assertion that he espouses ANY comprehensive THEORY of language.
In fact, I know of no scholarly paper or document produced by any
of the founders of NLP for the academic community.  While the book,
"Roots of NLP" cites most of the important reference works, it makes
no claim to originality or theoretic completeness.  All of the pub-
lished works are based on actual seminar transcripts, or "populari-
zations" of the underlying scholarly literature.

[stuff about grammars deleted]

>         To me, the claims that NLP makes about language...

Again, what claims, specifically?  and, by whom?

>         Now, the ideas of representational systems, matching
>         predicates and language style, etc. are valid.  They are
>         not, however, new.  

Has anyone representing the NLP Society or any of its successor
groups made a claim of originality?  I think not, and would appreci-
ate any formal citation you have to the contrary.

>         Any text on rhetoric or debate will
>         give you a lot more useful information on strategy, and
>         any introductory syntax text will give you far more accurate
>         information about language and its structure.

This is a curious claim, because--as I understand it--you have not
_been_ to any NLP training, and much of the knowledge shared in those
seminars has not yet been published.  Perhaps you can tell me where
your experience with NLP comes from, and what specific texts you
recommend in preference--I'd love to read them, because I'm still
learning how to communicate better (it's an unending process).

> Incongruity, Sensory Channels, etc:
> 
>      The basics (the Satir modes, Bateson's "Ecology of Mind,"
>      Ericksonian hypnotic therapy, etc.) are fine, but hardly new.
>      Suzette Haden Elgin's "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense"
>      is a much better treatment (in part because she's a professional
>      linguist), as are Deborah Tannen's books on communication styles.

I admire your reference:  Indeed, Elgin's "Gentle Art" is a fine book.
I reiterate:  NLP makes no claims for originality in areas you cite
here; NLP only claims to have amalgamated the available stuff into a
teachable (and learnable) whole, resolving some of the different terms
used by disparate writers into common words.  I would also note that
Virginia Satir and Gregory Bateson wrote the introductions to the
original book about NLP ("The Structure of Magic"), saying, in part,
"The knowledge of [my] process is now considerably advanced by Richard
Bandler and John Grinder, who can talk in a way that can be concretized
and measured..." (Satir) and "Grinder and Bandler have confronted the
problems which we confronted then and this series is the result.  They
have tools which we did not have--or did not see how to use." (Bateson)

> Besides, you might as well read the sources themselves.  There's no
> need to spend money for "official" NLP training :).

Yes, people _can_ read ABOUT these ideas, but the purpose of training
programs is to give people practical experience with real, live
examples, under supervision.  Would you prefer students of computer
science never write a line of code?  Or physicians never see live
patients with teachers before hanging out a shingle?

> Now, to be charitable, I suppose that NLP could have been highly 
> revamped in the ten years since I looked seriously at it

Oh, in what way, SPECIFICALLY, did you look seriously at NLP?  Did you
ever _take_ any NLP programs (if so, with whom, and for how long)

> I still have no reason to believe that there is
> anything in it that cannot be found in more traditional and reput-
> able sources.

Of course, NLP practitioners-in-training receive citations to those
references, and they are welcome to pursue them.  However, most of
them are practicing business people, therapists, executives and
students who'd rather learn *how* than pursue academic references.

> Amanda Walker
> 

To summarize:  NLP is emphatically NOT, nor has any of any its founders
claimed it to be, anything but an assemblage of other ideas melded into
a useful whole.  It is, however, a very powerful and useful suite of
skills which I, for one, am happy to have at hand.  In the ensuing
years, there have been some new branches (such as those dealing with
submodalities) that have been spawned as NLP practitioners learned
from the experience of applying what they'd learned to real-life
situations.  My own view is that most of these new NLP "inventions"
have come from Richard Bandler who, despite his often offensive
personal style, is one of the most wantonly creative people I've
ever had the pleasure to meet.

I close with one reference, which I think readers of this newsgroup
would find instructive.  Steve Lankton's "Practical Magic" (Meta Pub-
lications, 1980) is, according to its subtitle, "A translation of
Basic Neuro-Linguistic Programming into Clinical Psychotherapy."  It
would be a good basic "read" for people who want to learn something 
they probably don't already know, and are willing to remain open minded
about the possibilities that they might learn something in the
process.  I particular find it useful in dealing with people who
come to me for personal change work in the context of shamanic and
magickal practices in which I engage.
-- 
---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---
    - Friday -                   "If a miracle happens in your vicinity--
      friday@well.sf.ca.us                            take credit for it!"
      (Carol Anne Ogdin)