From: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Breeding, xt-dGR,)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: NLP info wanted
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:00:13 GMT
Reply-To: exudeb@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson TX
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 397@almaden.ibm.com, HANKINS@PKEDVM8.VNET.IBM.COM () writes:
>This is a long posting, so please bear with me.
>
>I've been interested in NLP since I was first made aware of it via an
>internal newsgroup several years ago.  I've tried some of the
>techniques I've read about.  Some have worked, some have not.  At
>present I don't know which outcomes are due to NLP and which are due
>to other factors (for instance my admittedly low competence level in
>applying the model).
>
>Therefore I'd like to ask some questions about NLP both practical and
>skeptical, soliciting the comments of persons knowledgeable about the
>model.
>
>
>SKEPTICAL:
>
>1. If NLP is so effective, why is it still so obscure after 15+ years?

NLP itself is not effective; some people who do something they call NLP
are effective, and some aren't.  I have met a number of therapists who
claim to do NLP, who may have had a weekend workshop on it, and who
actually have no idea what they are doing.

NLP can be easily oversold because it seems so easy.  Learning to use
it well is not easy (in my experience).

Nothing (that I know of) works for everyone.  If it doesn't work for
you, it is easy to say, "NLP doesn't work."  When I'm not able to get a
change that my client wants, I'm willing to admit, "I don't know how to
help you."

>2.  Why are the seminars and books so #%$#& expensive?

The seminars are expensive, but compared to the typical business
seminar, they are usually about half the price.  Books are expensive,
in general, but I haven't noticed NLP books being more so than others.

>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)

IMHO, Tony is an auto-salesman (as in auto-biographer :-).

>4. It seems to me that the story of Richard Bandler is evidence that
>   it isn't a panacea, particularly when applied to oneself.

NLP is a technology; it provides no guidance as to how it should be used.

>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?

It may be in some cases, but rapport (rather than charisma) is an
essential ingredient in any change work.  Also, trainers don't just
pick someone at random from the audience to demonstrate a technique.
They have a pretty good idea what they are going to have to work with
before they start.
 
>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.  I'm
>   well aware that the bandwidth of workshops is much bigger than
>   books or even videotapes (especially due to the interactive nature
>   of a workshop).  But when I'm informed that that's the *only* way
>   to learn the material, I grab my wallet and hang on tight - someone
>   is getting ready to help me empty it.

I wouldn't pay for an apprenticeship (I haven't heard that one
before).   As a beginner, I needed the direct personal contact with the
skills that a workshop afforded.  Now I use workshops as a place to get
information that is not yet published, to practice the skills I am
learning, and to experience, and learn from, the skills of others.  As
for other means, personally, I get more from books and audios than I do
from videos.

>   ...

>CURIOUS:
>
>1. Why did John O. Stevens change his name to Steve Andreas?

Ask him, ;-)


>PRACTICAL, WITH AN ADMIXTURE OF SKEPTICISM:
>
>1. 5-step reframing - I have trouble identifying signals from
>   unconscious parts.  What am I doing wrong?  Is this common?  I ask
>   the questions, and I notice no real change in my kinesthetic,
>   auditory or visual internal experience.

>  ...

Some people can do what you are trying to do, I can't.  I do my self
reframing overnight, and it usually works.  Have you ever been awakened
in the middle of the night with the solution to a problem?  (1. Learn
(review) the procedure; 2. Think about the behavior you want to
reframe; 3.  Establish rapport with the part responsible (do the best
you can); 4.  Ask it to do the reframe; 5. Go to sleep.)

>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 it interferes with doing it, or with making a serious attempt, yes.

>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.

My rule is: If you get the change, you did something right.  If the
change doesn't last, then you didn't take care of everything involved
and you may have to dig deeper.  (There is no failure, only feedback.)

>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?

The idea of getting any desired change using any given technique is a
challenge frequently used to really stretch a programmer.  It is not
the preferred way of working.

>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?

There are some techniques that I wouldn't attempt to apply to myself.
Part of the advantage that any "helper" has is being "outside of" the
problem.  This can be very hard to do when you are the client, and
"inside" the problem.

There are also some techniques that I do use on myself.

>6. Perhaps instead of always requiring outside assist-ance, perhaps
>   such assistance is only needed until the techniques are
>   well-learned, or until you've suc-cessfully modeled the outside
>   input to the point where you can have it without the assistant
>   being present, in much the same way that you hear your mother's
>   voice when you see that your bedroom is messy.

Knowing the technique very well certainly helps, but my comments above
still apply (for me).

>   Hmmm.  I wonder if a computer program could be written to help out
>   with this sort of thing.

Actually, Robert Dilts sells some computer programs that are supposed
to help one learn basic NLP skills, and some simple strategies.  I
haven't seen them myself.

>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).  Then folks could exchange hints and tips,
>   and practice the techniques on each other.  Kind of like computer
>   clubs back when all computer owners were either hardware or
>   software hobbyists.

This can be an excellent way to learn.  Many trainings set up practice
groups for just this purpose.

>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?

>   ...
>
>   So.  How do I get information about my own (partially unconscious)
>   strategies?  Do I need a videocam+recorder?  Or another NLP
>   practitioner?  Or is there some way to observe my own mental
>   processes?

Elicitation of a strategy is an interactive and iterative process that
is far beyond the capability of AI today (IMHO).  Also, working at the
level of strategies is just not the most effective way of doing most
things.

>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.
>
There is some "bootstrapping" you can do to help make future changes
and learning easier.

>   Like I said before, it seems too easy...  or are there limits?

What IS easy, is what you already know how to do well.  What you don't
know how to do can seem impossible.  I'm sure there are limits; I just
don't know what they are (other than my personal ones).

>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.
>
>   Thinking big, it seems to me that by means of strategy elicitation
>   and other methods of gaining information about a person's mental
>   organization, one could essentially download significant portions
>   of a person's entire mental program, and then do modifica-tions
>   where desired.
>
>   For instance, one could download a scientist and then program oneself
>   to essentially -be- her.
>
>   This could open up a whole new industry:  persona software, programs
>   designed to help you reprogram yourself into a desired persona.  Am I
>   being ridiculous enough yet?

Actually, "downloading" someone's expertise is just what NLP is really
about.  The process is called modeling.  The techniques you read about
are just the results of that process.  It is probably true to say that
most people who do NLP, are just using those results, and not actually
modeling for new results.

>3. There are sensors (commonly used by the military in attack
>   helicopters) that can tell which way one's eyes are pointing.
>
>   VR equipment allows (via a helmet-mounted display) visual data to be
>   presented in a fixed place in the field of vision.
>
>   Other sensors can track skin temperature, moisture, and so on (I'm
>   thinking about such sensors attached to the face).
>
>   Yet others which I've experienced firsthand can detect muscle tension
>   by electrical means.
>
>   Heartrate and breathing can be tracked, as can voice tone/tension,
>   posture, etc.
>
>   It occurs to me that with the right software and VR setup and
>   sensors, one could set up NLP programming software that could
>   elicit and reprogram an individ-ual's strategies, either to his own
>   specifications or someone else's.
>
>   If NLPers used this to elicit the main strategies of certain
>   'geniuses' in various fields, this could be used in conjunction
>   with a NLP-based learning soft-ware to achieve rapid assimilation
>   of skills and knowledge in various disciplines; I know something
>   like this is possible, because I use NLP techniques as a memory aid
>   today (I first learned a form of these techniques from
>   memory-technique books by Jerry Lucas and Harry Lorayne; they're
>   also consistent with standard behaviorist conditioning).  For
>   instance, I regularly install strategies in which the sight of a
>   cover of a book is an anchor for a vision of the page number I'm
>   currently on - a mental bookmark.

There is a great deal more to "genius" or "persona" than a few
strategies; and so there would be a great deal more to modeling them.
Maybe someday...;-)  Dave

>Dan Hankins