From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Subject: Re: NLP info wanted
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:50:00 GMT

In article <19921002.063808.397@almaden.ibm.com> HANKINS@PKEDVM8.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>This is a long posting, so please bear with me.
>
All interesting questions, so I'll comment on each one. Note that I have
no "the answers" but perhaps can shed some light:

>
>1. If NLP is so effective, why is it still so obscure after 15+ years?
It wasn't invented in the mainstream, nor validated via mainstream
therapeutic community processes. However, it is hardly obscure. Robbins
has sold millions of tapes and books, and thousands have attended his
seminars. Comparing "Unlimited Power" with "An Introduction to
Neuro-Linguistic Programming" which many like reveals that UP is
mostly "pure" NLP techniques, and that Robbins is in the bibliography of
INP as a "legitimate" NLP source.
>
>2.  Why are the seminars and books so #%$#& expensive?
Actually, the cheapest approach is via Robbins basic seminar ($600), and
Bob Bays' "Skills" followup ($200). That will ground you in the basic
techniques with practice and some fine-tuning. How much does it cost
to become a "centrist" therapist? The books are not expensive--have you
checked the costs of textbooks lately. Compared to them NLP books are
cheap. As for mass "cheap" Unlimited Power is $15. How much do you
suppose a basic textbook on psychology costs? Listen, this is not
a "whisper the key to success in my ear" $5.95 mass paperback matter.
>
>3. Is Tony Robbins for real, or is he just a huckster using the idea
>   of NLP to enhance his sales pitch?  (I lost considerable confidence
>   in him after finding out that he buys half-hour infomercials)
Robbins is very much for real and his stuff is pure NLP. I speculate that
he decided to take the "generally useful technique" market model followed
by many, rather than the academic therapy instruction model. He has a gift
for explaining the techniques so they are useful to the layman. Millions
of his tapes have been sold via the infomercials, and I've spoken to many
who have started out with them and have said they've changed their lives.
Few other mass-market items (with the possible exception of the Bible)
can be said to have done that.
>
>4. It seems to me that the story of Richard Bandler is evidence that
>   it isn't a panacea, particularly when applied to oneself.
It's well-known that many psychiatrists and psychologists have rotten
personal or family lives. Few economists are millionaires, though many
of their techniques work. Wagner was a shit, though his music has
transformed many. There's not necessarily a connection between a
brilliant innovator and using the practices on the self. One's self
is a notoriously hard client to treat. Lawyers say the lawyer who
defends himself has a fool for a client.
>
>5. Some acquaintances have mentioned that the charisma of the
>   facilitator may be a major factor in the success of NLP workshops,
>   due to a phenomenon where all kinds of things work in front of an
>   audience that don't outside.  In particular, a phenomenon was
>   men-tioned where the participant will experience what the
>   facilitator is looking for in order to please or avoid embarassing
>   him.  Is this a significant factor?
Charisma is always good. It's not clear that it's necessary. I had
some pretty dull math professors but I learned Advanced Calculus
all the same.
>
>6. I get suspicious when it is suggested (as one poster did) that a
>   technique cannot be learned except by apprenticeship to an expert
>   (which the apprentice pays for) or by an expensive workshop. 
Teaching youself to drive is a good way to get into bad accidents and
injure others as well.
>
>
>
>PRACTICAL, WITH AN ADMIXTURE OF SKEPTICISM:
>
>1. 5-step reframing - I have trouble identifying signals from
>   unconscious parts.
In my view this process is very hard to do on yourself. You simply have
to pause and give time for the "unconscious parts" to signal, but don't
look for them. Assume there are still two or three parts that won't
go along and repeat that part of the process, signals or no. It won't
hurt if you use conditional language. As for the signals themselves,
I've seen incontrovertible ones that could not be produced consciously.
In one instance the cords on the front of a person's neck would pop
out like a neon sign. This didn't happen with swallowing, and the person
couldn't reproduce it consciously.
>
>2. It seems to me that the idea of reframing is just too easy...  talk
>   to some unconscious parts for a while, they do all the work, I get
>   all the benefits.  Will my incredulity hamper the effectiveness?
If you are sabotaging youself you can't expect a good result. If you
don't believe a particular process it's best not to do it. If you didn't
believe in Freud's model, you'd probably be a very poor psychoanalytic
patient, because you'd be consciously or subconscioously undermining
yourself all the time.

>3. The one thing I've tried to reframe is procrastination.  It seemed
>   to work for a while, but only in the environment where I originally
>   did the reframe.  Eventually the old avoidance-of-task behavior
>   returned.
Procrastination is a hard one because the roots are very deep. We hear
quite a lot about fear of failure or fear of success. Another biggie
that's not as often heard is fear of being judged. With NLP you need
to reinforce the process (reframe) regularly for some time, in my view,
to get continuing results. I also recommend very strongly the paperback
"Procrastination" by somebody and Yuen (a couple of Berkely psychologists)
and their tape set (I think Sybervision). They have an excellent
model of how it works and what to do and run apparently successful
groups for Berkely students. Perhaps someone else has the full reference.
>
>4. If, as B&G say in FiP, one can get any behavioral change one wants
>   with reframing, why bother with all the other techniques such as
>   eye and voice cues, strategies, TOTEs, anchors, double-dissociation
>   and so on?  Why go to an NLP practitioner when one can reframe
>   oneself?  Why practice these techniques on a client when one can
>   simply teach them to reframe, then have them reframe themselves
>   into reframing whenever they need or want a change?
We need all the help we can get. Some techniques are better for some things
and if, for example, you have a negative anchor it's simpler and more
direct to extinguish it in many cases than to do a major reframe. After
all, we have aspirin and band-aids as well as major surgery. As for teaching
a client, that's a good way to give the client some self-reliance and
strength, but initially the client may need a lot of help in dealing with
stuff that's been troublesome for a long time. For one thing, the client
may be defending the old patterns strongly, since they avoid more pain
than they give pleasure, and thus an astute counselor may be needed.
For example, we often ask ourselfs weak questions or questions without
power--an astute counselor can help ask effective questions.
>
>5. Can NLP be used for self-change, or is it strictly for
>   client-programmer relationships?  Or is it some mixture of
>   techniques, some of which are suitable for self-programming and
>   some which are not?
In my view it is very useful for self-change, but takes someone skilled
to get one started. Some techniques are probably best when run by a
counselor; others good for self-conditioning. Try it and see.
>
>6. Perhaps instead of always requiring outside assist-ance, perhaps
>   such assistance is only needed until the techniques are
>   well-learned,...
I think a guide or therapist or counselor is always helpful in all
areas of life. Coaching is needed even by experts. Psychoanalysts
still need to see their supervisors or senior analysts. The greatest
sports figures still take coaching.

>
>   Hmmm.  I wonder if a computer program could be written to help out
>   with this sort of thing.
I think this may be magical thinking. A computer program cannot effectively
pick up the many subtle cues and tailor its responses appropriately. It
is a very crude instrument for these things.

>
>7. The importance of having someone outside oneself to do the
>   programming suggests to me that something like an 'NLP club' of
>   local amateur and professional prac-titioners would be useful (kind
>   of like co-counseling).
Though there's nothing wrong with a discussion group to share ideas
and experience, I wouldn't trust brain surgery to a local club of
amateurs. Professionals who are good and well-occupied would be
unlikely to participate, except as a way to get new clients.

>
>8. Many of the accessing cues that programmers pick up are outside the
>   awareness of the programmee.  How can one elicit one's own
>   strategies, particularly when they go by rapidly and contain
>   components that are outside awareness?  Do I need a videocam?
No, you need a buddy to work with. Alternatively, you can tape the
processes in, for example, Unlimited Power, and run them on yourself that
way. You can't be the observer and the observed at the same time and expect
to do either job effectively. The last person who did that was Freud,
by psychoanalyzing himself,  but he was a rare, towering genius of the
sort we see few of in each century.

>
>
>FAR-OUT IDEAS
>
>1. It seems to me that since NLP is about "pretending effectively for
>   the rest of one's life," I should be able to make reframing even
>   *easier*.  B&G say in "Frogs into Princes" that if one doesn't
>   think one has a part, one can -create-it out of experiences such as
>   TV, movies, books, imagination - anything that allows one to see
>   how such a part *might* be.
I don't agree with your interpretation of taking this to creating a
part that knows how to do six-step reframing. It's more about getting
affect and tone than detailed skills. Skills still take instruction,
coaching, and practice. Try this: create a part that knows my
second son's middle name. Good. What is it?

>2. It occurs to me that B&G and other NLP practitioners are not
>   exploiting the full power of the model.  They do a little magic here,
>   a little there, fix this phobia, model that ability, etc., etc.>
>
>   For instance, one could download a scientist and then program oneself
>   to essentially -be- her.
See 1. above. this is magical thinking and a misinterpretation, in my
view.>

> >3. There are sensors (commonly used by the military in attack >
helicopters) that can tell which way one's eyes are pointing.  > We
still cannot tell what thoughts and experiences (at a fine-structure
level) a person is having in their head when we measure electrical
impulses. Until we can, any attempt at strategy elicitation by
mechanical means is, I think, doomed to failure. This is more magical
thinking. As a simple example, one athlete's strategy is to hear the
cheering crowd in his head (whether they're there or not) and then
think "You can do it." No instrumentation can pick up this specific
stragegy.

>
>
>Dan Hankins

David