Home Page Search Eng. Jeff Oliver Merl's World NLP and Addictions
[ < Prev ] Thread Index [ Next > ]

Re: Concerns



Oivind Revang <Oivind.Revang@bi.no> wrote in article
<324E556D.672@bi.no>...
> As a former uncritical absorber of NLP material and now
psychology
> student I want to point out some problems that occured to
me while
> reviewing my NLP books again.
>
> First of all in my argument I'd like to point out the 3
types of
> knowledge that can be achieved.
> - Authorative: You are told that it is that way
> - Intuitive: You think that it is that way
> - Scientific Method: You try to observe if it is that
way, and try to
> limit subjective input. In that way you get a unbiased
opinion.
>
> It is clear to me that NLP is largely Intuitive, and for
some very
> Authorative (Bandler said it, then it has to be true!).
Even when
> there is a possibility to establish a correlation
scientifically
> NLPers seem to prefer the highly subjective personal
testimony. This
> makes it incredibly difficult to evaluate books and
material.
>
> Second, NLP claims to be a holistic model of mind. What I
see is a
> functional explanation of mind, one that says this is the
way it is. I
> see no attempts to relate NLP findings to
neuro-biological findings,
> or any attempts to even define very important terms in
the model (like
> what is consciousness, the unconscious, altered states,
etc...)
>
> It seems to me that NLP is a highly inductive model. Be
aware of
> historical facts about inductive theories. Even if it
produces results
> it is not necessarily right. Freud cured people with his
> psychoanalytic theory that now only sells as
popular-psychology, and
> is largely seen as a hoax among renowned psychologists.
When people
> thought the earth was flat they still got where they
wanted through
> navigation, thir model of the world was wrong, but they
still got the
> right results. Newtons model of gravity is still used in
most
> calculations, but it is wrong, Einstein has a more
accurate model.
> What I'm getting at is that NLPs success at treating
people doesn't
> mean that it is right and that other models can't
duplicate the
> results.
>
> Third, NLP authors are highly effective communicators
(thats what
> their trained in), and it's very easy to unintentionally
use
> suggestive techniques, think about that the next time you
read a book
> by Bandler and Grinder.
>
> Magnus
> - Only the fool quotes, the truly wise man gets quoted



Hi Oivind,


You are right to keep your eyes and ears wide open.

You know, I spoke to a woman who had studied
communication....... so I did ask her:

You have studied communication so
you know how the brain get his information......
don't you? And she looked at me with BIG EYES
wondering what I meant and I said to her you know
you see pictures in your mind and you talk to yourself etc.
And she looked at me as if I was crazzzzy and she
was a little bit right you know  ;-)

>>>>>>> NO they don't learn you that there <<<<<<<<

Last time I spoke to a girl who did studied
psychology. And I thought cool let's ask
her  " so you know how the brain get's his
information?"  And she looked at me with BIG EYES
wondering what I meant and I said to her you know
you see pictures in your mind and you talk to yourself etc
Nobody told her that !! Her study was  4 years man !!!

But you are right

NLPers are highly effective communicators (thats what
we like to be and it's very easy to use suggestive
techniques
and we think about it every time whenever  you read a book
by Bandler and Grinder.


--
Stay Well and Relax

Jan Willem Nicolay
The Netherlands
Follow-Ups: