NLP - an overview

[nzric]

"NLP is the influence of language on our mind and subsequent behaviour."
"NLP is the method for modelling excellence so it can be duplicated"

"The presuppositions of NLP" - from NLP Workbook (Joseph O'Connor)

1. People respond to their experiences, not to reality itself (our senses, beliefs and experiences give us a map with which to operate, but we only know the map - not the reality).

2. Having a choice is better than not having a choice (always act to increase choice)

3. People make the best choice they can at the time (..given their map of the world. Give them a better choice or a superior map, and they will take it)

4. People work perfectly (we are all executing our strategies perfectly, but the strategies may be poorly designed and ineffective)

5. All actions have a purpose (we are always trying to achieve something, although we may not be aware of what it is)

6. Every behaviour has a positive intention (all our actions aim to achieve something that we value and that benefis us. A person is not their behaviour)

7 The unconscious mind balances the conscious; it is not malicious (the unconscious is everything that is not in consciousness at the present moment)

8. The meaning of the communication is not simply what you intend, but also the response you get (if you are not getting the result you want, change what you are doing)

9. We already have all the resources we need or we can create them (there are no unresourceful people, only unresourceful states of mind)

10. Mind and body form a system. They are different expressions of the one person (is is not possible to make a change in one without the other being affected)

11. We process all information through our senses (developing your senses to become more acute gives you better information and helps you think more clearly)

12. Modelling successful performance leads to excellence (if one person can do something, it is possible to model it and teach it to others)

13. If you want to understand, act (the learning is in the doing)

[YODA]

No.13 is where the crux of the matter resides.

[quartermaster]

I have to be honest, this looks like a steaming pile of unmentionable to me. No. 13 is true though

[hwardo]

What seems so off-course to you, Gingerfist?

[quartermaster]

some of the ideas in the numbered points directly contradict just about everything that makes sense to me, or jsut seem to be based on...well, nothing at all. far be it from me to criticise what someone else says but it just doesn't sit right with me.

[hwardo]

Fair enough.

Take note, however, that NLP is designed to rattle your cage a little-- the idea is that we all have a collection of incidents that shaped our individual maps or perceptions of the world around us which we hold to be "real."

It seems upsetting in some ways, because it implies that, if left unchecked, we are simply a sum of our parts, deterministically following our map.

The nice thing about NLP is that it stands for neurolinguistic *programming*-- you can reprogram "bad" maps.

A lot of psychologists are on board with this theory of reconditioning-- it is very much in line with the current behaviorism trend in the science of the mind, but it incorporates certain neurological observations into its schema.

But it is kinda spooky.

[MichaelV]

I agree that this is a combination of the incredibly obvious, and the incredibly ludicrous. It's like Dianetics without the Scientology, which is to say, still complete BS.

Do some research and use your brain, even if these quacks tell you that your brain is screwed up because of past experiences, neuro-linguistic programming, engrams, or any other crap. Your brain works just fine. It processes what you see, hear, taste, touch, and feel. It compares these to an immensely complex map of things that you have experienced before to identify, analyze, and process what you are experiencing so that you can make decisions. Sometimes you make good decisions, and sometimes you make bad decisions.

I'm going to take this one point at a time rather than just continuing on my endless rant.

1. People respond to their experiences, not to reality itself (our senses, beliefs and experiences give us a map with which to operate, but we only know the map - not the reality).

That almost . . . ok, no, it doesn't make sense. We perceive reality through sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, and perhaps chi ;) . We compare what we perceive to experiences that we have stored. This is how we are able to make decisions. I see a fire, I stick my hand in the fire, it hurts. The next time I see a fire, I compare that to my previous experience with fire and know not to stick my hand in it. It doesn't mean I'm responding to my experience; I'm responding to the reality of the fire - I'm simply using my experience to make better decisions.

2. Having a choice is better than not having a choice (always act to increase choice)

I'd say that's generally true, although oversimplified. If I had a choice between being hit in the head or being hit in the stomach, then I would argue that that isn't better than being forced to have sex.

3. People make the best choice they can at the time (..given their map of the world. Give them a better choice or a superior map, and they will take it)

Bah, that's ridiculous. People make bad choices all the time, besides being frequently put into a situation where every possible choice is equally bad.

How do you define "best", anyway? People generally act to improve things for themselves as individuals and themselves as a group, whether that group be family, club, country, race, whatever. That should be combined with improving their situation short-term and improving their situation long-term.

For instance, people quite frequently have extra-marital affairs. That improves the short-term situation for the individual (they get laid), but degrades the short-term situation for their family, and degrades the long-term situation for the individual and the family. Why then do people have extra-marital affairs? They know beforehand what the consequences are likely to be. (Hint: because people don't always make the best decisions.)

4. People work perfectly (we are all executing our strategies perfectly, but the strategies may be poorly designed and ineffective)

What do you mean we work perfectly? This seems like a bulletpoint that is designed to make you shake your head in agreement without ever actually saying anything (would make a politician proud). We don't work perfectly in a physical sense, nor in an emotional sense, nor in a mental sense. If you'd like to clarify what this is supposed to mean, I'll be happy to post my thoughts on it.

5. All actions have a purpose (we are always trying to achieve something, although we may not be aware of what it is)

Does twiddling my thumbs have a purpose? You could argue that it does, but it would just be a pedantic argument.

6. Every behaviour has a positive intention (all our actions aim to achieve something that we value and that benefis us. A person is not their behaviour)

There's this guy I know. His name is Nick. I don't like him. I have no reason for not liking him - he's never done anything to me in particular. It just makes me mad that he wastes oxygen that could be used for a better purpose than sustaining his life. One day I cussed him out and yelled at him in front of a large group of people (for no reason other than that I don't like him). All the people who witnessed this now think I'm an ass (which is true, I did act like an ass). What positive intention did I have for this behavior?

Or . . . what am I trying to achieve by twiddling my thumbs?

If a person isn't defined by their behavior, then what defines them? Their physical appearance? Your behavior is the outward expression of your personality, thoughts, and feelings. A person is not their behavior, but their behavior is the most complete expression of who they are.

7 The unconscious mind balances the conscious; it is not malicious (the unconscious is everything that is not in consciousness at the present moment)

Uh, ok. I could argue here for the sake of it, because I understand what's being implied here. However, perhaps I'm reading into it, and since I basically agree with the statement, I'll just let it go.

8. The meaning of the communication is not simply what you intend, but also the response you get (if you are not getting the result you want, change what you are doing)

What? The meaning of communication is to exchange information with another party. Again, this sounds like something that is intended to make me smile and nod, but doesn't actually make any sense. Pehaps someone would like to explain it to me?

9. We already have all the resources we need or we can create them (there are no unresourceful people, only unresourceful states of mind)

When do we acquire all the resources we need? If I'm being charged by an ungulate, then I would argue that I definitely do not have all the resources I need. I would argue that a 5 year old child does not have all the mental, emotional, or social resources that they need. I would argue that most 25 year olds do not have all the mental, emotional, or social resources that they need, either.

In what sense do we have all the resources we need? Perhaps you should tell the I-don't-even-know-how-many starving people in the world that they have all the resources they need; that they're just in an unresourceful state of mind. I'd bet they'd eat you if you told them that.

10. Mind and body form a system. They are different expressions of the one person (is is not possible to make a change in one without the other being affected)

Ok.

11. We process all information through our senses (developing your senses to become more acute gives you better information and helps you think more clearly)

Sure, even though developing your senses evidently doesn't help you perceive reality any better (according to point #1), so I don't really see why you'd bother.

12. Modelling successful performance leads to excellence (if one person can do something, it is possible to model it and teach it to others)

Sure.

13. If you want to understand, act (the learning is in the doing)

I actually don't agree with this. There are a lot of things that don't require action to acquire understanding. A roundhouse kick, for instance, you need to do to understand. The workings of the internal organs of a frog you can understand without ever actually seeing a frog (you don't have to dissect it to understand it).

I have more things I'd add, but I feel like I've gone overboard on my rant already, so I'll stop. Maybe I'll post some more later.

<<edited for formatting problems>>

[hwardo]

With all due respect, I find your argument to be lacking in a couple of places. So often in these sorts of philosphical discussions, folks will not immediately recognize something, and as a result, they will completely write it off. I feel that many of your arguments are well stated, but they actually support an NLP model of behavior.

Re: Twiddling your thumbs-- is it pedantic to point out that most nervous tics are a result of past impressions? The act in itself is meaningless, but what is behind it is important-- a lot of NLP has to do with those little tics and what imprints, traumas, and impressions that they lead to.

Try to keep an open mind-- as eloquent as nzric was in his list, there is actually quite a lot of literature on NLP and NLM that might make it even clearer.

[MichaelV]

Well, it would make sense that my argument is lacking in a couple of places, as I was simply responding to a bullet list rather than taking the time to put together a well-thought-out thesis on why I think this particular behavioral model is ridiculous. I could do that, but frankly I'd rather twiddle my thumbs ;) .

I've previously done a fair amount of research on nlp and dianetics, which have quite a bit in common with each other, except that dianetics is a bit more ridiculous and less well thought out. But then, what do you expect from a pop scifi writer?

Both of the above mentioned (I don't know what to call them - theories, approaches, wags?) are so obviously right in so many instances that it's easy to gloss over the things that are wrong. I learned when I was a child that if I wanted someone to believe a lie, I had to mix enough truth in so that it seemed reasonable. The same principle is at work here.

I really could continue to argue over this, and I'll be happy to do so. I feel like I'm going a bit overboard and don't want to appear beligerent, however. If anybody'd like to continue, then I will too.

[hwardo]

You don't seem beligerent at all-- we're all here to argue. Was your research some kind of comparison between dianetics and and NLP? I don't know much about scientology (beyond that L. Ron Hubberd is quite a character).

I think that there are quite a lot of models of neurolinguistic programming out there, and I am curious what it is, specifically, that seems so off to you?

My understanding of it is that it is a system of understanding our behavior.
which is based upon figuring out through various cues what the process behind our actions is. The idea is that if we can understand the process, it provides us with a way of re-programming it.

At basic levels, this may include someone conquering a fear by imagining the experience that led to the fear, and then altering both the physical cues that trigger the fear, as well as the "map" they built around it.

This doesn't seem particularly controversial to me, and I have a good friend who incorporates it into his therapy as a psychologist.

What are your thoughts?

[Kosh]

MichaelV, all of those arguements were flawed. I would explain but it would take ages since there are so many arguments.

1. Why is this so hard to grasp? the mind is simply a model of the world, isnt it?

5. Twiddling you thumb does have a purpose, wether that purpose is vastly important is a seperate matter...if it didnt have a purpose why would you do it?

6. Everything you do is designed to suite your agenda, even if this isnt apparent...is that not hard to understand? Why would you do something that isnt? It might be to encourage a small but false fealing of superiority or it might be to combat the fact that you are threatened by him, whatever.

I dont understand your arguments, they are just "no thats wrong because of this false logic".

[nzric]

There are a few points I want to clear up -

hwardo - much as I'd like to be eloquent, I actually summarised the points from a book on NLP. It was Joseph O'Connor.

NLP is designed to be a way to influence behaviour. It deals with psychological problems/behaviours therefore it isn't totally rational (because we aren't). It is designed to improve your own skills to deal with the world.

Put it this way. MichaelV, your fire-hot-bad analogy is almost right, but NLP is designed to deal with psychological issues. Say you are a kid and you walk up to your father. He smells of beer and when you walk up he hits you in the face. Therefore, next time you see him, you think of the previous experience and are hesitant to approach him (just like your fire example).

Now this goes on until you're older - you have built a 'map' in your head which includes the rule father-hurts. You begin to change your map because your father isn't an influence on your life anymore, but you still have a background feeling of man-hurts, which harms your social behaviour and your relationships (if you're female). NLP separates the (flawed) map from the reality.

Twiddling your thumbs is a nervous gesture. The fact that you're doing that instead of doing something else could mean an underlying hesitation to take action (...etc. I'm just saying any action has a purpose).

Dianetics is a tool to convince people they are flawed in order to get them to fork out money to Scientologists. It isn't a recognised psychological practice and has nothing to do with NLP.

People behave in certain ways because they have preconceived notions of the result of their behaviour. That's called a personality. We form our personality by making judgements and forming a perception of the world based on our own experiences in the past, as well as the information we receive from the outside world (from our senses). The more acute our senses and method of processing information, the closer our own beliefs about the world are to what the world (and other people's motivations) is really like.

[snailfist]

Looking at the fire anaolgy, if you put your hand in the fire in the first place, then you failed to respond to the reality of the fire being a danger. You only responded to your experience by not putting your fire in the hand subsequently.

You are right in saying that the brain works fine in processing information. But it does not intrinsically know reality, and can only base its perception of reality on what it experiences.

[nzric]

Good point.

[zun]

NB: A map is not the territory.

For those who would like a demonstration of NLP, I suggest watching Derren Brown.