4 ms·

Thats sad. NLP started off as a more scientific take on Hypnosis, as california required certification for hypno, but none for other, identical processes, hence

Thats sad. NLP started off as a more scientific take on Hypnosis, as california required certification for hypno, but none for other, identical processes, hence the name change. However the 'inventors' left it in the hands of people who made it a sketchy MLM pyramid of trainers trainings. There IS some good insight, but most of it ia just rehashed lessons from Milton H Erickson retold by Richard Bandler. Then came the pickup artist trend, also latching on to similar techniques. That said, most 'Neuro Linguistic Programming' published in the last 20 years is mostly crap.

DonHopkins 7y ago
Sad they were eventually exposed and debunked? Nope. I'm just sad it took so long. The inventors, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, were greedy bickering charlatans, both just trying to make a buck from the very start. It was pure crap from day one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Intellectual_property_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#I... >On this matter Stollznow (2010)[18] comments, "[i]ronically, Bandler and Grinder feuded in the 1980s over trademark and theory disputes. Tellingly, none of their myriad of NLP models, pillars, and principles helped these founders to resolve their personal and professional conflicts." >[...] In 2009, a British television presenter was able to register his pet cat as a member of the British Board of Neuro Linguistic Programming (BBNLP), which subsequently claimed that it existed only to provide benefits to its members and not to certify credentials. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8303126.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8303126.stm https://neurobollocks.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/neuro-linguistic-programming-the-1970s-neurobollocks-that-just-refuses-to-die/ https://neurobollocks.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/neuro-linguis... >Despite being nearly 40 years old, and a ridiculous, facile hodge-podge of concepts from psychology, philosophy, linguistics and new-age twaddle with absolutely no support from any reputable sources, amazingly, NLP is still very much alive and kicking. Bandler has kept on developing (and ruthlessly trademarking) a load of new techniques including ‘Design Human Engineering™’, or ‘Charisma Enhancement™’. A lot of his recent work also appears to include hypnosis. His website is essentially one big advertisement for his books, CDs and speaking gigs; and there are literally thousands of individuals, businesses, and ‘institutes’ offering NLP training for a bewildering variety of purposes and people. Bandler has even latterly jumped on the ‘Brain training’ trend with a new company called ‘QDreams‘ (‘Quantum brain training!’; ‘Success at the speed of thought!’ FFS…). Searching on Twitter turns up many, many people earnestly tweeting away about the benefits of NLP. Why is it so persistent? Partly this is because of Bandler’s clear talent for slick marketing, re-invention and dedication to innovative bull-shittery, and partly because NLP was never really clearly defined in the first place, which makes it highly malleable and adaptable to any pseudo-scientific new-age trends that come along. Despite a hiccup in the mid-90s (when Bandler tried to sue Grinder for ninety million dollars) it seems to be as popular as ever, and to be attracting new adherents all the time. >In my opinion the real stroke of genius in NLP, and perhaps the reason why it’s been so successful, is simply the name. These days we’re used to putting the ‘neuro-‘ prefix in front of everything, but back in the ’70s, this was way ahead of its time. Obviously there’s nothing remotely ‘neuro’ about it, though. Plus the ‘programming’ bit has a deliciously Orwellian appeal; promising the potential to effect change in oneself or others, if you just know the right techniques. http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html >"For example, I believe it was very useful that neither one of us were qualified in the field we first went after - psychology and in particular, its therapeutic application; this being one of the conditions which Kuhn identified in his historical study of paradigm shifts. Who knows what Bandler was thinking?" -John Grinder >postscript: On a more cheerful note, Bandler has sued Grinder for millions of dollars. Apparently, the two great communicators and paradigm innovators couldn't follow their own advice or perhaps they are modeling their behavior after so many other great Americans who have found that the most lucrative way to communicate is by suing someone with deep pockets. NLP is big on metaphors and I doubt whether this nasty lawsuit is the kind of metaphor they want to be remembered by. Is Bandler's action of putting a trademark on half a dozen expressions a sign of a man who is simply protecting the integrity of NLP or is it a sign of a greedy megalomaniac?

DonHopkins 7y ago

Sad they were eventually exposed and debunked? Nope. I'm just sad it took so long. The inventors, Richard Bandler and John Grinder, were greedy bickering charlatans, both just trying to make a buck from the very start. It was pure crap from day one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Intellectual_property_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#I... >On this matter Stollznow (2010)[18] comments, "[i]ronically, Bandler and Grinder feuded in the 1980s over trademark and theory disputes. Tellingly, none of their myriad of NLP models, pillars, and principles helped these founders to resolve their personal and professional conflicts." >[...] In 2009, a British television presenter was able to register his pet cat as a member of the British Board of Neuro Linguistic Programming (BBNLP), which subsequently claimed that it existed only to provide benefits to its members and not to certify credentials. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8303126.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8303126.stm https://neurobollocks.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/neuro-linguistic-programming-the-1970s-neurobollocks-that-just-refuses-to-die/ https://neurobollocks.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/neuro-linguis... >Despite being nearly 40 years old, and a ridiculous, facile hodge-podge of concepts from psychology, philosophy, linguistics and new-age twaddle with absolutely no support from any reputable sources, amazingly, NLP is still very much alive and kicking. Bandler has kept on developing (and ruthlessly trademarking) a load of new techniques including ‘Design Human Engineering™’, or ‘Charisma Enhancement™’. A lot of his recent work also appears to include hypnosis. His website is essentially one big advertisement for his books, CDs and speaking gigs; and there are literally thousands of individuals, businesses, and ‘institutes’ offering NLP training for a bewildering variety of purposes and people. Bandler has even latterly jumped on the ‘Brain training’ trend with a new company called ‘QDreams‘ (‘Quantum brain training!’; ‘Success at the speed of thought!’ FFS…). Searching on Twitter turns up many, many people earnestly tweeting away about the benefits of NLP. Why is it so persistent? Partly this is because of Bandler’s clear talent for slick marketing, re-invention and dedication to innovative bull-shittery, and partly because NLP was never really clearly defined in the first place, which makes it highly malleable and adaptable to any pseudo-scientific new-age trends that come along. Despite a hiccup in the mid-90s (when Bandler tried to sue Grinder for ninety million dollars) it seems to be as popular as ever, and to be attracting new adherents all the time. >In my opinion the real stroke of genius in NLP, and perhaps the reason why it’s been so successful, is simply the name. These days we’re used to putting the ‘neuro-‘ prefix in front of everything, but back in the ’70s, this was way ahead of its time. Obviously there’s nothing remotely ‘neuro’ about it, though. Plus the ‘programming’ bit has a deliciously Orwellian appeal; promising the potential to effect change in oneself or others, if you just know the right techniques. http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html >"For example, I believe it was very useful that neither one of us were qualified in the field we first went after - psychology and in particular, its therapeutic application; this being one of the conditions which Kuhn identified in his historical study of paradigm shifts. Who knows what Bandler was thinking?" -John Grinder >postscript: On a more cheerful note, Bandler has sued Grinder for millions of dollars. Apparently, the two great communicators and paradigm innovators couldn't follow their own advice or perhaps they are modeling their behavior after so many other great Americans who have found that the most lucrative way to communicate is by suing someone with deep pockets. NLP is big on metaphors and I doubt whether this nasty lawsuit is the kind of metaphor they want to be remembered by. Is Bandler's action of putting a trademark on half a dozen expressions a sign of a man who is simply protecting the integrity of NLP or is it a sign of a greedy megalomaniac?