Who is right?

[Unregistered]

Dear Forum.

Appologies for not being registered yet, I have not registered on the new forum but was on the old. I will be registered by this afternoon.


I have recently attended some NLP training where Richard Bandler was one of the presenters.
He is quite amazing an in my eyes an absolute genius.

Here comes the BUT

I have been on several other NLP courses where the trainer resepected other trainers and never criticised them. Bandler seemed to take a very large amount of time to overtly and emotionally criticise others.

In particular he and others in the training claimed that Richard was the discoverer / inventor of time line and that Mr James was not.


Can anyone shed any light on it?

Regards

[skip]

I cannot say definitively, and I certainly cannot speak for the James', but I can give you some things to consider.

Are you sure the content of Richard's ranting was the purpose, or do you suppose he wanted to elicit a particular state from the group? It could have been both, but you prolly know as well as I do, that, sometimes in metaphor the 'truth' can become subordinate to the requirements of the installation. And richard IS about unconscious installation.

There is a lady who claims to have 'invented' EMDR. She has the patent on it. Anyone who has been to an NLP training like she was, could figure out how to do it, because of learning eye accessing cues. But she codified it, and refined it, and now owns it. So be it.

Bandler and Grinder didnt actually "invent" NLP in the purest sense of the word. They studied people who were performing excellence, to get at what the essence of that excellence was. The defining and codifying they did, ended up being called NLP. The process they were perfecting was actually modeling. They neglected to patent it, so now they dont 'own' it.

James defined, refined, and codified Time Line. He also patented it, so now he owns it.

Did he hear about it from Bandler? Was it the result of his pursuits in NLP as a result of Bandler and Grinders teachings? Almost certainly, he surely wouldnt have come upon Time Line had he not been involved with them and their work. It didnt happen in a vacume.

Is he the ONE who first noticed that people had a time line, or is he just the person who delved into this aspect and developed an excellent theraputic approach out of it. Who cares about the first question, we know the second one was his intelligence and effort.

Everything we do is on the shoulders of those who have come before us. I think it is appropriate to acknoweledge, and thank those who first interested us, and taught us, and guided us, but we do not necessarily have to surrender our work to them, unless we are mere grad students. :)

[starfish]

Hi Skip.

Thanks for the reply.
(I am now registered.):)

I was aware that Bandler was operating at more than one level in his rantings. In fact he was doing so many things it was bewildering at times.

I had gone to see him in action because I hold him and his work in the highest regard and wanted to see the master in action so to speak.

I left feeling slightly disappointed that he felt the need to bad mouth so many other talented individuals. I was in the audience for three days and he continuously ranted. The time line issue was one specific.

If he was using this to elicit state, it seemed to me to be out of context with what he was doing with the rest of his teaching.]
Of course I may just have missed the point. And having seen his ability to bamboozle and confuse I am accepting that it may just have been my impression.
There were several other people around me who felt the same.

This is not the only time I have been exposed to people who teach NLP and spend time criticising others.

Walking the talk springs to mind.

I still enjoyed seeing him in action and would recommend that anybody take the opportunity, just try not to debate with him in public, I can almost guarantee you will lose.:confused:

Have a great day.
:D

[Merlin]

Star,

Mr. James *never* claimed to have been the discoverer/inventor of *timelines*

Tad did do some wonderful work with them though.
Tad does claim to have come up with a useful technique which he named Timeline therapy.
In fact, Tad refers to some of the literature available which references 'time lines' from thousands of years ago.
His techniques build on the timeline concept and provide useful tools.

As for criticizing other trainers, it may access states in people that Bandler wishes to use, but it would seem he could get those states with other methods than to badmouth his competition.

If Bandler's only method is to badmouth other trainers, he is pretty limited, and pathetic in my opinion.

[Terry]

Star, I suggest you revise your view of Bandler to a more realistic one. A person who is outstanding in one area of life, is likely to be very unbalanced in others, but this in no way demeans the talents they have developed in that one area...
It may be that you wish to see what isn't there, but that is not Bandler's fault. He may just be a boarish person, who has great skills in this one area from which you are now able to learn by standing on his shoulders, while in other areas, such as giving due credit to others, he may be very remiss.....Learn what you can, and don't dwell on the negatives of his personality. It ill becomes us to benifit from another while commenting on their deficiencies......

[Obi Wan]

I have to begin this with a preemptive apology, I know that I am not a frequent user of this board and I come and go as I please. So the rapport that I may need to say this I may or may not have established. I am a direct communicator and choose to communicate directly about this situation.



The statement "A person who is outstanding in one area of life, is likely to be very unbalanced in others," is a belief and in my opinion a limiting belief. It's also a Meta-Model violation.



I'm a little frustrated at how unclean your language was in this statement Terry, you're a Forum Moderator, and an avid poster with many excellent opinions but being a Forum Moderator you wield a certain authority and expertise. People who aren't as skilled as us may unconsciously adopt a belief about themselves or other people based on that statement.



I see this board as an opportunity to promote and grow NLP. And as a Senior Member I seek to keep my language as clear as possible when I make posts. I would implore other members to do the same, especially Forum Moderators.

[starfish]

Hi Terry

I agree that a person may be an absolute genius in one area of his life, but do not proscribe the your point of view that he / she is likely to be unbalanced in others. It was the learning of NLP that has helped me be clear in my thinking and to remove "complex equivalences" like this from my language.
Indeed it is NLP and the presuppositions of NLP in particular that have really given me the ability to change my life.
I believe that NLP is not one area of life, it encompasses all areas. And it was with disappointmet that I witnessed one of the founders of this subject not practising what he was preaching.

And as an update.

The course I was on was my NLP master practioner. Unfortunately I had to leave the course after only three days due to a major issue in work. To my surprise I received a certificate in the post yeaterday, signed by the great man himself, saying that " ....has successfully completed the course of study and has consistently demonstrated the highest degree of competency to be certified as a Licensed Master Practitioner of Neuro-Linguistic Programming."
Now that is very scary!

And Terry, I agree with the sentiments of Isaac Newton.

"If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants".
Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter to Robert Hooke, Feb 5th, 1675.

Have a great day Terry.

[Annie]

Hi Star,

I have purposefully avoided this discussion about " Richard Bandler : the person, as well as trainer of people " for some increasingly alarming reasons.
Why ? -
I choose filling my life, and surrounding myself with, * Positive benevolent people, whose daily walk examplifies the words falling from their lips *; the kind of people I can easily refer to as " choice friends ", and I use guidelines the majority of people evidently aren't interested in passing.


You said : " I believe that NLP is not one area of life, it encompasses all areas. " ... Ciould you shed some more light on this statements of yours ?
In particular, I am asking if you are saying that you have adopted NLP, for the time being, as your preferred Religion ?


Next you said : " And it was with disappointmet that I witnessed one of the founders of this subject not practising what he was preaching. "

Yup, you'll discover all sorts of strange " Priesthoods " incapable of passing muster.


Then you said : " And as an update :
The course I was on was my NLP master practioner. Unfortunately I had to leave the course after only three days due to a major issue in work. To my surprise I received a certificate in the post yesterday, signed by the great man himself, saying that " .... has successfully completed the course of study and has consistently demonstrated the highest degree of competency to be certified as a Licensed Master Practitioner of Neuro-Linguistic Programming."
Now that is * very scary ! * "

but hey, doesn't it feel Great ! : and Look, all it took for you to have become another " CERTIFIED Master prac. of NLP " was paying your $Dues$, and occupying a chair for 3 days ! ... Wow,
now - how ready do you feel to 'Trance-form' the world, Star ?
and
I don't know what your Dues were, but I payed $ 1700 for a series of 7 seperate " in-house " courses occupying 13 months of my time complete with over 1100 Practice hours, before passing a written exam and conducting a supervised Session for a person I had never met until that day. No matter, aced both with flying colors ... to get Bandler's official stamp of approval on my ( Certificated wall-decoration, now floating around somewhere else :) )

I have found that, generally, it's best *not* to elevate another human, most especially ourselves, to the stature of a " giant, or a God ". Maybe you differ ?

I feel most comfortable simply being " a Beloved child, of the God of us all "


Annie

[Unregistered]

Hi Annie.

This is Starfish again, I have forgotten my password, but will find it soon!!

Annie, I posted a very simple message about time line and who was right.
I posted it out of curiosity and also disappointment.

I have been lectured by members of the forum on how I should behave and what I should believe.

Now you bring in religion.
Annie, I do not have a religion, I have my beliefs and values, if I wanted a religious discussion I would have commented on a religious forum.
I am looking for NLP debate, discussion and knowledge on this forum.

I have said that NLP affects all of our areas of life, and here is one simple test, as we are completely in control of our own state, in what area of life is this not applicable?

And how did you assume that NLP may be my religion from that comment?

My comments about receiving a master prac certificate were to highlight and further contextualise my disappointment. And no it does not feel good to have the certificate, it makes a mockery of the term.

I am unsure as to how you have come to another assumption or even suggestion that I would deify another person.

Annie as a forum member on an NLP site it would be great to see some NLP from you. Not what you have given.


Have a great day.

[Annie]

Hi Star,

You said : Annie, I posted a very simple message about time line and who
was right. I posted it out of curiosity and also disappointment.

Yes, I understood both your curiosity and also disappointment.
~

You said : " My comments about receiving a master prac certificate were to highlight and further contextualise my disappointment. And no it does not feel good to have the certificate, it makes a mockery of the term. "

Yes, I understood the 'mockery' as well , thus my response. Apparently, you did not understand that ?
~

You said : I have been lectured by members of the forum on how I should behave and what I should believe.

Hey, what else is Not new . so, how about you saying : " well, if Believing &/or behaving like this works for you : Great ! yet,
here's what I choose to believe ... : (proposing something more beneficial to you, as well as others, in the Long-run ... and with people interested in more positive ideas, this tends generally to work pretty well :)
~

You said : Now you bring in religion

Yes, did you understand how I meant that ? : You know, -
religion : NLP's map, complete with pre-suppositional beliefs, models & methodologies
prophets : Bandler, et al
disciples : Practitioners by the multiple 1000's all having paid Dues to, & having been Certificated by, this prophet himself.
and

hey, when these particular Brands are just the tools you need for the challenge at hand, then by all means *Use them joyfully !*.
but
consider, carefully : Thinking of NLP/hypnotherapy like a " Screw-driver/Hammer kit "; if those are the 2 gadgets you've got, pretty soon every challenge starts looking like either a screw, or a nail : even when they're not. so -
this is why I referred to it as another " man-made religion " .

I'd rather have as many different resourceful tools available, as beneficially will help me bring my, as well as others, Goals to fruition. What about you, Star ? :D
~

You said : Annie, I do not have a religion, I have my beliefs and values.
Kewl,
tho I have heard loads of people admitting : " My beliefs & values ARE my religion ". Have you encountered that also ?
~

and just for the Record again, I have divested myself of " Organized religion " as well, after being told as a mother : " Until you attain unto God's absolute perfection, you have no right to defend your life or the health of your children much less ask your husband to change his criminal behaviors. Your job is to teach your kids how to endure suffering well " .
Well,
I cherish passionately certain beliefs & values I will *not* compromise on, so I divorced us from : not only my husband, but the church I was raised in, as well as Organized religion, period.

And
with but Jesus as our religion and Love as the practice in our home my daughter grew up free. Thank God !

Now, you may ask : so, What has this story to do with NLP ?
Simply this : isn't NLP about giving us greater beneficial choices *of a more functionally flexible & healthy nature* ? : well, given a child(ren) not being blessed with 2 such parents, they can enjoy being with at least 1. (altho 2 of us would have been my Preferred choice). so - you tell me, how NLP-ish is this ?
~

You said : I have said that NLP affects all of our areas of life, and here is one simple test, as we are completely in control of our own state, in what area of life is this not applicable ?

Right, so : in his Cocaine-states, and
his 1985 - 88 Santa Cruz states, and
his Diabetic-states, and
his (Screaming-profanity-in-his-students-faces) states people have witnessed repeatedly in his seminars, and
his state of sending out Certificates of " Master competency " to you, Star, witnessing him displaying his behaviors above, for 3 days -
in all of that : how is Richard Bandler role-modeling being beneficially in control of his own states ?

and as well, in what state-of-mind, did you choose addressing your (this) post to me ?
~

You said : Annie as a forum member on an NLP site it would be great to see some NLP from you. Not what you have given. Have a great day.

Whenever in the past, that I have "written in NLP-speak" - the feedback from my Loved ones was : " Just write as you would normally express yourself ". Apparently, that has not met with success with you either. I apologize if, in your opinion, I have failed you in my communication. Would you consider it possible that you might have mis-understood some of what I wrote because my " style" may be a bit different than yours ?


At any rate, I am sure glad that the students in our school have a much higher opinion of me than you seem to have, Star.

I wish you much happiness, and joy ... in all of your various endeavors, my friend ! :)


Annie

[Don]

Hi Star,
Whenever in the past, that I have "written in NLP-speak" - the feedback from my Loved ones was : " Just write as you would normally express yourself ".

Annie


Hi, Annie.

I was fascinated by your comment. I have only received a tiny bit of training in NLP and am in no way an expert or even a practitioner, so please take this as coming from a point of wanting to have more understanding.

It seems to me--and correct me if you disagree or if I am wrong--that a person who is really trained in NLP makes NLP a paradigm of their existance, not just something they do. I have met many "NLPers" who seem to constantly be communicating using NLP skills. It's not something they turn on and off, it becomes part of their very being.

However, from your post, it seems that this is not your particular mode.

This is not meant as a criticism, just an observation. And it leads to some questions:

1) Would you agree with my assessment? If so, would you, then, not consider yourself to have the NLP paradigm as part of your being?

2) Is NLP something one does, or is it something one lives and what one "is?"

3) Do you isolate things as NLP and not-NLP?

Thanks.

[Annie]

Hi Don,

Inherently, observations are Good ! ... now, what/how we use them, can get really Interesting :)

Right, not quite intentionally, I came to studiy formal-NLP, the whole schebang. I think it's good for communication, in General - and adds other valuable skills like Tad James' Timeline - ideas, etc.

But, I chose not being a " NLP-practitioner " in the sense of helping people with " Therapy "- needs. For one thing, in my experience of having encouraged people's *Self-healing*, most people are not ailing for " lack of Therapy " anyway.

That's why I favor being a " teacher ". (before I entered Nursing-school 30 years ago,
I intended becoming an " Elementary Music teacher " as I dearly love both Children and Music : well, I made up for that in other ways by working with Un/Home-schooled children, and adults, Leading choirs :D of various kinds anyway); so - I have joyfully combined all of my various skills gained, and will continue adding to them as I perceive such being Helpful to other people as well.

There are many reasons why I am so happy with *our own School* : We got together, sorting-thru the Best ideas everybody else offers, adding our own, and we will continue creating even better models. It's really exciting !

Thanks for your interest, Don ; and in my experience with you here, you have come across as *a very thoughtful, caring, kind, generous and OPEN-minded individual. May you always cherish these, your resources :)


Annie

[DrMattJames]

Hi Merlin,

Thank you, what you stated is correct and that is exactly what I would have said.

Matt

[Dreamweaver]

Skip, Bandler's argument, as far as I can gather, is that because he and John Grinder didn't copyright NLP and its technologies, it bacame public domain. Then for people to take aspects of their creation, package it and then copyright it as if they owned it, is an infringement on the "moral copyright". I know that no such title exists, but lets face it - taking someones ideas and packaging them as you like and claiming them as your own, without giving due credit, is by any description THEFT.
Deep in their hearts people who have ripped Bandler off (and anyone else for that matter) know what they have done. Or perhaps they have recoded their own memories so well that they believe thay are right and justified. That whilst one genius is busy creating they are busy copyrighting the idea to develop it.
From what I hear Anthony Robbins as a licensing agreement with Bandler and still manages to bring in his millions $.
In my estimation, Bandler is the real genius behind NLP and will continue to go on creating new technologies until the day he dies (then hopefully he'll be waiting on the other side for the rip off merchants to join him)
What else have those stealers of his creations produced? NOTHING.

SKIP: You wrote "they neglected to patent it (NLP/modelling) so now they don't own it" and "James defined, refined and codified Time line. He also patented it, so now he owns it."
Does that statement really rest well with you? try for a moment imagining being ripped off in such a way.

I have my own little theory, which you may or may not be interested in. Having lost the Copyright to NLP in the courts, perhaps Bandler is now out to undermine those very groups who want to institutionalise NLP and even Nominalise it. By training hundreds of people enmasse and handing out thousands of certs each year he is certainly doing that. Whilst at the same time training people in his newer work DHE, NHR and keeping that copyrighted. No doubt someone, without talent of their own, will find a way to rip him off.

And here's a question for "Tad" Why does Bandler appear to dislike you so much?

[skip]

Hi Dreamweaver,

I wish you had read and thought about what I said a little more.

Your moral argument is correct IMO. We do stand on others shoulders, and IMO we do have a moral obligation to give credit where credit is due.

Who should you be giving credit to for the ability to read and write, so that you could participate here?

Sometimes that doesnt happen, and sometimes it is not possible. I use things that I simply do not recall where I learned them. I know they arent "mine" but who to give credit to ...? And in my lifetime, I have had enough experiences to know I thought of something, only to discover it had already been thought of. So I dont necessarily rule out simultaneous discovery on things.

HOWEVER moral and ethical obligations vary from person to person. AND while I might feel that EMDR is a rip off of eye accessing cues, it doesnt alter the fact that this lady did expand on it, and patent her process, and she NOW owns it. She took something that wasnt 'owned' in the legal sense, made it her own, and no matter how I might feel about it, if I use her process, I would have to pay her.

I would say similar about Timeline although the origions of that are not as clear to me as EMDR. And I might add about timeline it does appear that Tad contributed quite a bit to the timeline idea, even if the germ of the thought wasnt his.

BUT Dreamweaver, I would suggest that here isnt the place for ethical arguments. Simply because ethics differ and there is no resolution to them, AND from a list moderators POV they generally degrade into personal investive.

So the burning question would be do you have anything of a new perspective to bring to this? Or having expressed your outrage and found no one to argue with are you done?

skip

[Dreamweaver]

Skip, one last point, then I'm done. According to Grinder bother he and Bandler offered to pay Erickson royalties from the books they wrote after modelling him.
Has james done this with the work he expanded upon.
I suspect that as long as there is no law about such things rip off merchants will continue to exist and be happy to do so. You seem quite happy with what you believe but what will you do when the wellspring of new ideas dries up? when Bandler and his ilk of true creative genius have got their new developments so wrapped up in intellectual property and copyright you will be leftto scrape the frloo looking for something to do.
I am actually happily smiling right now because you and I both know that you and many others continue to make their living from the efforts of others.

Take care and have a nice life.

[skip]

If it makes you feel better to feel some moral superiority over someone who agrees with you, because you dont understand that they said, then by all means feel superior for the rest of your life.

God bless you.

skip

[Peter St.Cloud]

Hi Unregistered

I came acorss this comment made by "Guess Who" on this forum

Quote -

"NLP makes extraordinary claims and presents incredible theories that are in contradiction to what is scientifically known. NLP practitioners are frequently critical of traditional therapies which they claim are inefficient because the therapist is reward for failure, the longer a problem lasts the more money the therapist makes. Yet they provide no evidence that the NLP techniques they are using are any better. For many years the standard response to anyone asking for scientific evidence from the head honchos was “We are not scientists and what we do is not a science so we don’t have to offer proof and besides it works”. Also the many unbelievable stories about these guys are just that unbelievable. These guys always argue from irrelevancies like "Scientists don’t know everything” yes that true but they do know something, that NLP offers the familiar new age promise of fast and painless way to change, phobia cure in ten minute and addictions in a few hours. So scientific boffins are puzzled why the head honcho is a typical overweight American that madder than a March hare on poppers."

Top me this persons comments sums up NLP. Nither of the two head honchos of NLP are genius, just fairly good saleman that have stumbled onto a good pitch. The below quote sums up NLP followers for me.

Quote -

"The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle."

The Emperor's New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson

Peter Saint Cloud (http://www.geocities.com/petersaintcloud)
Simply the best name in first class hypnotic preformances(tm)
Named Best Uk stage Hypnotist - 2004

[j0hnny#]

I came acorss this comment made by "Guess Who" on this forum
Top me this persons comments sums up NLP
well they would, you wrote them after all

(deceitful, tsk, tsk...... )

:)

[Merlin]

>Skip, Bandler's argument, as far as I can gather, is that because he and John Grinder didn't copyright NLP and its technologies, it bacame public domain.


You miss something significant.
NLP is only a *name*
B&G do not own the *name*
That's all.


>Then for people to take aspects of their creation, package it and then copyright it as if they owned it, is an infringement on the "moral copyright".


A *copyright* only applies to word order, like a story.
You cannot put your name on someone else's book and call it your own.
But you can still right a story on the same subject.
It can even be similar, just not the same word order.
You can even use the same words, as the languige itself is not copyrighted.


>I know that no such title exists, but lets face it - taking someones ideas and packaging them as you like and claiming them as your own, without giving due credit, is by any description THEFT.


Not so!


>Deep in their hearts people who have ripped Bandler off (and anyone else for that matter) know what they have done. Or perhaps they have recoded their own memories so well that they believe thay are right and justified. That whilst one genius is busy creating they are busy copyrighting the idea to develop it.


Ideas do not get copyrighted!


>From what I hear Anthony Robbins as a licensing agreement with Bandler and still manages to bring in his millions $.


Maybe he finds it useful or more profitable to do so?


>In my estimation, Bandler is the real genius behind NLP


For copying others?


>... and will continue to go on creating new technologies until the day he dies


The technology of being a copy-cat?


<snip of Skip>


>I have my own little theory, which you may or may not be interested in. Having lost the Copyright to NLP in the courts, perhaps Bandler is now out to undermine those very groups who want to institutionalise NLP and even Nominalise it. By training hundreds of people enmasse and handing out thousands of certs each year he is certainly doing that. Whilst at the same time training people in his newer work DHE, NHR and keeping that copyrighted. No doubt someone, without talent of their own, will find a way to rip him off.


Copyright does not offer protection anyway.
Anyone can do NHR or DHE.
They just cannot advertise and call it DHE or NHR without permission.
All Bandler owns is the *name* *DHE*, *NHR*
So, call it RHE and NMR :o)


>And here's a question for "Tad" Why does Bandler appear to dislike you so much?

Why should it matter who Bandler 'likes'?


You totally miss some fundamental ideas:

1-Patent protects an original idea. NLP is not an original idea.
2-Copyright protects things such as books, not ideas.
You cannot take any of Bandler's books as they are written, and put your name to them.
Even so, you may legally write a book on the subject matter and own the copyright of that book yourself.
3-Trademark. Bandler could have owned the letter grouping NLP as it applies to his marketed products, if he had applied for a TM at the time.

Mr. Bandler failed to claim the name *NLP*, that's all.
Anyone could still use the process or derive other works. They simply would not be allowed to call their work NLP.
They'd have to use other letters, PLC perhaps?
Even if NLP had been patentable, the patents would have expired before now.


Mr. James et. al. may own the *name* for timeline therapy, but not the process.
Anyone may use TLT, they just cannot use the name on their products or advertising.

[Sky]

Well said Merlin.. That is how I understand copyright law also...

[Terry]

Sorry that my remarks regarding genious often being unbalanced,made some people unhappy, but I stand by that remark based on experience. I have yet to find anyone who is highly competent in one area, who is not equally incompetent in another....As for my being a "moderator" this is incorrect also, I believe Don and Skip are the only moderators to date, and I am far too blunt to be one anyway. I speak as I find, and have yet to develop the skill of being kind to those who offend me.....I was by the way, not being unkind to Mr Bandler since I have never met him, and have no opinion of him therefor. I only made my comments as a general observation. Terry
Oh yes, just to correct another misconception, I have never studied NLP, nor seen the need to do so. I use it naturally in some instanced it seems, but don't call it by that name, so I owe nothing to the originator, and from observation, note that as Merlin said, it is a name only, and part of our character for many. T

[TaffyE]

Any product that has something similar could be declared a rip off of the original.
When you keep the basics and change the detail around it, there is a new product be it vacuum flasks, car design, aeroplanes, or NLP and so on.

[Another Unregistered]

I recently spent a bit of time studying up on copyright law etc.

I think Merlin is on the right track with his comments.

[Newbie]

Hiya All

I'm new to the forum just like to say I've read these posts and am confused?

Newbie

[Don]

As a published author, I can say that yes, SHE is.
:-)

[Merlin]

Kewl!
Nice feeling... confusion.

So, where do you plan to go from here?

[Unregistered]

Terry has never studied NLP or met Richard Bandler. "I only made my comments as a general observation". If you do not have direct experience, what have you observed, specifically? How do measure competence in one area and incompetence in another? You might want to seek out some new acquaintances, if all of your's are so unbalanced.

I think that "general observation" of unknown and unspecified characteristics is a direct measure of both lack of understanding and direct experience. This could be the imbalance you yourself posess and are so quick to project onto the "others" you observe.

If we are to evolve as humans, we need to look at results and direct experience and directive thinking, and begin to STOP BELIEVING that opinion and rumination is worth something other that it's ability to alter or maintain a given physiological state.

[Don]

Unregistered, if you had read Terry's original comment, you would have seen that she was defending Bandler and urging the original poster to learn as much from him as possible.

Terry made clear that the concept of people highly capable in one area are often not talented in others was from personal experience. That may be generalized, but the point was that if that does happen in many cases--and I think we all know people like that--it could explain what one person experienced with Bandler.

[oznlp]

Gedday folks,
Interesting thread.
I think that Bandler and Grinder have demonstrated a genius in their formulation/ codification of NLP. They started something useful and very big. They also injected a rather "in your face" attitude which I think is often misused.
Like many here I spent a long time on the fringes before finally getting my training. The reason? I found that many people who went and did NLP training came back from their training with a desperate need of ethics and respect for others.
The sense of "I can do anything" tended towards arrogance.
So I needed the skills to control trance and to review and address any beliefs that were being instilled.
I think these are essential skills for anyone wanting to do NLP training.
Some folks bag out NLP outright. They are entitled to their opinions.
Others think NLP is the uppermost in human communication.
They also are entitled to their opinions.
The rest of us might do well to allow NLP to be tested. To challenge our assumptions and to steer very carefully away from what I think of as "Creation Science" thinking. To explain; Creation Science claims status as a science but will not allow criticism from within or without its own ranks unless the criticism is well controlled.
In the scientific community everything is up for challenge and review. Doubt is the beginning and the mechanism for progress.
NLP works in a similar way sometimes.
The other similarity is the idolising of our heroes. Bandler and Grinder should receive recognition for what they started. Those who came after them and expanded their models should also be recognised. Tad James, Dilts, Hall, Boedenheimer and the many others.
It's simple respect.
But we should recognise that they aren't likely to achieve our idea of perfection or greatness. They may have achieved theirs though.
I reckon we should also respect the other therapy and communication models out there.

oznlp