EnEllePee@YouSeeElle

Thanks for replying. I really appreciate intelligent, considered feedback. I love discussing this. Your links were really interesting. For my benefit and to ensure discussion remains focused I will summarise the key points you made that I want to comment on: 1) Managers of big companies can and do make mistakes. Their faith in NLP doesn't make NLP true or useful. They are as human and as susceptible to becoming self-improvement junkies as the next person (perhaps even more so such is the nature of their job). 2) The future of open-source self-help. 3) Psychology is not a science. 1) This is undoubtedly true. What we cannot doubt is their intention. It would be false, surely, to say that managers intend to misspend company money. It is also fair to say that top companies attract some very intelligent people to managent roles. Assuming that they act rationally then there is something to be explained. There is no necessary reason to say that NLP is true but it lends weight to the argument. It leaves the person wishing to deny NLP's usefulness the need to turn to substantive arguments against it: "Principle X is wrong because Y reason". Otherwise your belief that NLP is not useful is irrational. The above argument rests on the following principle: "If the evidence seems to suggest Outcome X as opposed to Outcome Y, belief in Outcome X is the most rational if there is no reason why Outcome X cannot be the case." Furthermore, this debate cannot be resolved either way on necessary truths but rather on probabilities. 2) I absolutely agree with you here. I believe the future of self-help lies in an open-source format, in the exchange of ideas and the sharing of experiences. The most glaring problem is that of quality control. Needless to say a lot of money and even more Good is to be gained through perfecting such a system. It is my hope that one day I can perfect such a system. 3) Psychology is a science. To deny this is to make some bold claims about the nature of science. Psychology rests on repeatable experiments with many variables that can be independtly changed. The main way this could be challenged is by disputing the quality of the results. Because our brains necessarily have subjective experiences it is questionable to what extent results can be compared. At a basic level, what does it mean when one person says he is very happy (8/10) as compared to another who gives the same analysis. In what way are they having the same experience? Lights coming up on brain scans dont begin to cover it. I mean how can we even compare subjective experiences in theory let alone in practice? I think a great deal of pragmatism has to be involved where consciousness is concerned. We cannot measure thoughts and emotions in the same way we can the acceleration of a cart down a ramp. There are no dials we can read. The best we can do is ask ourselves how people who have what we want approach life and try to copy these. It just so happens this works. We have to do what works. If this is different for every individual then so be it, we should be encouraged to explore our own unique paths. It just so happens that there are many links. We are all afterall human. This is the substance of NLP. It is not a matter of being dogmatic but being practical. Dogmatism is useless when it comes to subjective minds. This is one of many reasons why I agree with your assertion that an open source self-help community would be the most effective. Listen, Im super tired now. I'll check back tomorrow. I hope it makes some sense!

Hi Dan. I really enjoyed recording the show with you so thanks for being a good sport! Im not familiar with CBT. I've spoken to some CBT practitioners and one of my good friends had some CBT therapy. From what I understand it shares many guiding principles with NLP. I dont know how similar or different it is. It comes recommended from my friend who got a lot of benefit from it. I believe that NLP and CBT are substitutes. It is not a case of degree of problem, so it isnt true that NLP is the plaster whilst CBT is the bandage. They are alternatives to treat (?) the same bouts. If there is a difference then it's that CBT is more for the avoidance of pain ("therapy") whereas NLP can also be used for the advancement of pleasure. A 15 minute trawl of Google would tell you more than I know about CBT. As an aside, Im more interested in what NLP can do to take normal (I really hate that word and I hope my meaning is clear) to a place of great happiness rather than taking depressed people to a better place. I dont see myself as being a therapist in any way.

Why is being obtuse a bad thing? Surely it's better than being acute... Im the guy speaking as an NLP Practitioner on the Hatchet Job. Sean, peace be upon him, gave me a link to this forum. There's some very interesting feedback here: Lord NLP of Bloomsbury would be very proud. Seriously, it's great to hear what people actually think of NLP. Ive come to comment as me, not as an NLP practitioner. NLP doesnt make many substantive claims about the brain. It doesnt work by making truth claims. In fact the key to using NLP elegantly is recognising its flexibility. The substantive claims it does make are accepted by psychology (as an academic field) and I guess by biologists. For instance, "The neural pathways for imagination and memory are the same". Nothing too shocking here. So when you say NLP has no basis in science whatsoever you are wrong. You would be right to say NLP and science cover very different ground. Science and NLP overlap in terms of their subject matter, the human brain, but differ wildly in their approach. Science asks, "What can we know about the world?" and seeks to accumulate knowledge as best it can (for instance through experiments where different variables are changed). NLP asks, "What works?". It seeks to understand why some people are happy and others arent, why some peopke are succesful and others arent, why some people are productive and others arent. It's far closer to a social science than a pure science. If it works it's NLP. One big concept in NLP is the idea of modelling: seeking to understand what succesful people do and think (success as in "I want X, I have X" rather than associations with a highly paid job) and trying to replicate it to get similar results. I have a great little saying, "If it works, it's NLP". Thus your car might be NLP, but London buses certainly arent! Just kidding. With human behaviour I stand by that claim... NLP is about studying the human condition really. It's a bit anthropological like that. Nobody's dissing anthropology. There are differences though... I agree. NLP does not help itself. Here are some of the reasons I think it shoots itself in the foot: 1) It is known by an acronym: NLP. People are suspicious of acronyms. 2) It has a lot of jargon: for instance "metaframes" and long words. This, as you say, seems to be NLP seeking legitimacy for itself. NLP does not need to do this. It should live or die by its strengths and weaknesses not its baffling words. I believe it is good enough to live and more than this, flourish, on its material. When I speak about NLP using NLP terms and lingo most people turn off. When I speak about the subject matter, success and failure, why people act as they do and happiness, people immediately engage. I find most people are interested in NLP but not in the jargon. I will reiterate that NLP is not a science and would be better off being simpler. You make three points I would like to address: 1) It is corporate and culty. People pay a lot of money to go on seminars. It is all advertising and hype, like dianetics. 2) People become seminar junkies. 3) An NLP practitioner is not in a better place to help vulnerable people than traditional psychologists. 1) First point is that the biggest companies in the City pay large somes for NLP Practitioners to run training/management days. They do this because NLP looks at success and failure, how to get success and how to avoid failure. Big businesses don't care if something has scientific backing or not: they want to see results, the bigger the better, so that they can make the most money possible. If NLP did not work they would pull the money and invest it in something else. Secondly, people can spend their money on what they like. If people are willing to pay a lot of money then so be it. You wouldnt hate on someone who bought an Aston Martin. As an aside, I think most NLP practitoners are bullshit and dont warrant charging 2p for their services. A good NLP practitoner,of which there are remarkably few ,is life changing. You cant put a price on that. starting from next year the government will officially monitor all people charging for coaching. This regulation is welcome and in my opinion necessary to uphold the good name of those Practitioners who do genuinely do a good job and those that are dangerous. I would be for requiring a licence to practice. 2) This point is really interesting to me and I agree with you. Those who enter the world of self-help, because it touched on the human condition and those things most sensitive to us, often become obsessed with self help and neglect to help themselves! This is because it's interesting. I can see why people get trapped. One of my values is to help people get results and not entertain them. Im still working out the best way to do things because I dont believe traditional methods of coaching are the best way of getting results. People are more like to get hooked and read and read and never change anything. 3) From phobias to kids with ADD, NLP has a track record of getting success where traditional methods fail. We live in a world where pharmaceutical companies skew drug results and all but lie in scientific publications to bolster their claims and profits from drugs. A lot of times drugs are prescribed where they shouldnt be. This is one of the most worrying threats to the scientific spirit at the moment. Google it, it's hit the headlines recently. At the very least there is an explanadum that needs to be explained: why does NLP get results where traditional methods fail? Like a psychologist ...? Whilst not an NLP Practioner, I highly recommend this highly entertaining talk given by Sir Ken Robinson at a conference full of the world's brightest and boldest minds. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html This for me is brilliant NLP.