John Grinder

[Mentalius]

As Richard Bandler takes up a lot of space (not only weight-wise:o), I hardly ever hear anyone speak or write about John Grinder. has anyone gone to any of grinders seminars?

I´ll be going to one in about 3 weeks time. I´ve attended a few of Richards trainings, allways been a blast, i just wonder why Grinder doesn´t take up more space:

[nUnregistered]

As Richard Bandler takes up a lot of space (not only weight-wise:o), I hardly ever hear anyone speak or write about John Grinder. has anyone gone to any of grinders seminars?

I´ll be going to one in about 3 weeks time. I´ve attended a few of Richards trainings, allways been a blast, i just wonder why Grinder doesn´t take up more space:

Mentalius,

I went to John's Modeling worshop in London about 2 years ago and I went to his New Code training this last Oct in Sacramento. if you have more questions, email me.

jimr_77024@yahoo.commoc

[Mentalius]

Thanx, I was more after a broader discussion. Two guys went ahead and did some terrific stuff, and only one of them gets "all" the credit. Seems like we owe John Grinder some respect, as I recollect he was responsible for perceptual positions, and I guess most nelpers use these to some extent.

On the hypnosis-side, J.G. seems to be the master of contentfree tranceinduction and -utilization.

Just curious...:p

[nUnregistered]

Mentalius....

considering the number of people showing up at his seminars, I'd say he gets plenty of respect. just wish I could go to his leadership training in Ireland this coming month

Jim

[Merlin]

>I hardly ever hear anyone speak or write about John Grinder.

Maybe John doesn't care for Richard's limelight.

[Mentalius]

>I hardly ever hear anyone speak or write about John Grinder.

Maybe John doesn't care for Richard's limelight.

Well, according to "Whispering..." he wants to re-educate people, to make distinctions between NLP applications, NLP teaching and NLP modeling. Plus starting to involve the unconcious more into application.

If I read it correctly, he has a mission, which will be easier with at least some limelight.

[skip]

Mentalius,

Do all missions require limelight?

Does Johns?

skip

[Alonso]

aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaahaaa aaaaaaaaaa

Bandler will so kick your ass if he reads this, exercise caution

then he'll talk about you in his seminars

[nUnregistered]

Well, according to "Whispering..." he wants to re-educate people, to make distinctions between NLP applications, NLP teaching and NLP modeling. Plus starting to involve the unconcious more into application.

If I read it correctly, he has a mission, which will be easier with at least some limelight.

I can tell everyone in this forum that in both JOhn's Modeling workshop in 2004 in London and his NLP New Code training in Oct '05 in Sacramento,CA he very EXPLICITLY says that if you aren't doing any modeling, you aren't doing NLP as far as he's concerned. FULL STOP.

NLP New Code training:you are taught what he calls the "verbal package" which uses some elements of the Meta Model plus some state management methods relying on zero personal history. and how to set up a communication arrangement with one's unconscious- a loop that one uses to set up what John calls an "alliance" with one's unconscious. the outcome could be for health goals or other. in fact he "simultaneously" taught about 9 people, (besides me) at once how to do this. the arrangement is not unlike(in fact I suspect that some hypnotists would say it is)using ideomotor signals via one's fingers. in some case students used other kinesthetic signals the body provided rather than fingers.

there were other topics covered too.

Jim

[Poodle]

In looking and studying NLP you will find that Bandler's contribution was Meta and Meta is most of NLP. Where in the hell would NLP be without Meta??

There have been various lawsuits about who "owns" NLP - Bandler or Grinder? You will see that neither does. I happen to prefer Bandler because of his personality, teaching methods and just all out FUN!! True genius knocks at my door. I answer it. Now, if we could get Bandler to be a Medium and channel Erickson. How much would that be worth!

[nUnregistered]

In looking and studying NLP you will find that Bandler's contribution was Meta and Meta is most of NLP. Where in the hell would NLP be without Meta??

There have been various lawsuits about who "owns" NLP - Bandler or Grinder? You will see that neither does. I happen to prefer Bandler because of his personality, teaching methods and just all out FUN!! True genius knocks at my door. I answer it. Now, if we could get Bandler to be a Medium and channel Erickson. How much would that be worth!

Poodle,

that is patently FALSE... the comment about Bandler's contribution and that it is Meta(assuming you mean the Meta Model). if fact anyone who has done their homework on NLP, the person who gets the least credit is Frank Pucelik who rarely EVER gets mentioned. yet there was no single contribution by anyone. they WERE a team. and I get my information right from the source: John Grinder.

[Mentalius]

As stated when I started this thread, I would be going to a new code seminar. I was. My main outcome was to regain the sense of magic about NLP. I did.

I have trained with Bandler a few times, and it has been great fun. I truly admire his wit and genius. However I didn´t get my outcome at the time - regaining the magic. I will most definitely do more training with John.

I might go see Richard for en evening, but I wouldn´t expect to gain more than laughs. BTW I think he IS channeling Milton, the last video I saw, made me think that he started to look - physically - like Milton, especially the way he has to wipe the side of his mouth.

To recap. I will most definitely advise to add new code to the repertoire.

[deep structure]

Mentalius,
What do you mean when you write "chanelling". Is this the same as modelling. Or do you mean in the spiritualist sense of having milton work though him from the spirit world. What do you mean? :rolleyes:

[Mentalius]

Mentalius,
What do you mean when you write "chanelling". Is this the same as modelling. Or do you mean in the spiritualist sense of having milton work though him from the spirit world. What do you mean? :rolleyes:

I was merely joking, I´m not into the spiritistic sense of the word. I am serious about bandler looking a bit like Milton, and if so I guess it´s a byproduct of modeling. Tried that myself once, got longer hair in a few month, and recognized it as a byproduct.:o

[Poodle]

Richard is NOT doing much NLP per se. He doesn't "own" it. He is doing an awful lot of DHE & Neurosonic Hypnotic Repatterning which is GREAT. As to wiping his mouth, he admits he had bad teeth and I'm sure recently got dentures as he now has a lisp that was never there before. The only NLP teaching he is doing is some at the Trainer's Training. It is good to know that Grinder is sticking with the tried and true. Did you find him boring? I have heard that comment and wondered if it were true.

[Mentalius]

"Did you find him boring?"

Not the least, he is not a comedian, but I was entranced and very well entertained in the sense that I was absorbed in redoing and reframing pretty much my whole NLP mindset. I have developed this over twenty-some ys. and I´m "back" at simplifying things, rather than reinventing every pattern again and again.

I find Dilts nice and boring, Gilligan trancy and boring, Tad James robotic, Steve Andreas intelligent, wise and boring. For some reason some NLP trainers just don´t know how to keep their audiences alive!

Richard does, John does, Tony "the Tiger" Robbins does for sure, John and Julie pretty much.

Actually I´m looking forward to have the chance to see "the Sorceress - Merlin" on stage at some time, smaller nose, bigger eyes - or not:D

[Pdrive]

Richard is NOT doing much NLP per se. He doesn't "own" it. He is doing an awful lot of DHE & Neurosonic Hypnotic Repatterning which is GREAT

... so hes not doing "NLP" hes doing NLP and calling it something else (I always wondered why he doesnt call it voodoo)


Peter

[deep structure]

Poodle,
I agree with you, The NHR stuff is great. Have you done the course with Bandler?

DS

[skip]

I found him booring in the extreme.

However what I was watching was what is now an old video and John was very much a linguist, doing his excruciating best to get the exact word.

No matter how much I tried, I couldnt finish the video. It wasnt as if he didnt know what he was talking about, he was just too tedious.

I certainly hope that John is a better presenter than he was way back then.

And "Turtles..." was a bit of a struggle to read. And "Whispering ..."

BUT I have several people whom I respect who have attended recent (last 5 years or so) trainings by John and they really like him.

cheers,

skip

[Poodle]

I LOVE it. It fascinates me! What is interesting is that I have on now some Bandler from 1986 -- he talks just like Erickson inducing and while people are in trance. Thankfully he changed to himself now. Erickson was true genius. One could almost swear it was Erickson talking. I guess he had modeled Erickson so much that he did not know any other way at that point in time.

Even a Grinder fan would enjoy these tapes - Ericksonian Hypnosis, A NLP Perspective - eBay. Taped from a workshop.

Uhhh, I don't think I would call Tad James boring - brilliant but not boring by any means. I also know that he knows how to teach VERY effectively. One can always learn new tricks from Masters.

[Pdrive]

I got those tapes... interesting stuff but the quality is terrible

[Mentalius]

Skip

I agree when it comes to the litterature, took me ages to read Turtles...could anything move slower than Turtles?:D

"Whispering" I finished, it was hard work, and not being a native speaker of english didn´t help. Live is different, and as stated I will be going again.

I didn´t say Tad James was boring! I said robotic. By that I mean that I attended a seminar years back, bought some audios and videos, and it was all the same stuff! Over and over, the same jokes, stories, puns (always taken by surprice!). Years later I bought books on Hypnosis and Trainers Training, and I found myself being able to predict 80% of the coming page. I´m just not gonna spend another dollar, on anything "new" from that source, as I wouldn´t expect it to be new. (Wondering - will this thread stay?)

I find John and Julie outdoing their "Master".

[Poodle]

I'll believe what you say but pleeeaaassseee leave Tony Robbins out of it. He just took a good idea and ran with it. He actually makes me a little ill.

As for the quality of those Ericksonian tapes - HORRID!! Even the tapes themselves have to be the cheapest quality possible. It's the content that I do enjoy tho. Even if the quality is HORRID, one can still learn.

[Poodle]

I said META, not META MODEL -- two very distinct aspects of NLP. If you do not know the difference, review in your mind NLP from anchors to Meta Model. Whole lot of territory there until one comes to Meta Modeling. Just think for a moment about submodalities, as a quick example.

[deep structure]

Poodle,
I'm confused. What do you mean by NHR, is it neuro hypnotic repatterning, or something else. The course I went on in edinburgh was the most enlightening thing I've experienced in a long long time. The results I have gotten with helping clients is incredible. It didn't take a whole lot of sensory acuity to realise that changes were being made for the better using the NHR techniques. And the best thing is, the changes are lasting.
If anyone out there has done the NHR training and wants to email me privately to swap ntes then I'm more than up for it.

DS

[nUnregistered]

Uhhh, I don't think I would call Tad James boring - brilliant but not boring by any means. I also know that he knows how to teach VERY effectively. One can always learn new tricks from Masters.

Poodle:

whom are you comparing him to when you say he "teaches very effectively"?

whom else have you taken training from?

Jim

[JohnR]

Yeah I was on a two week Trainer Training with Grinder LAST month (Mar06) What would you like to know?

[Alonso]

what the hell was I thinking? too much bandler

[Poodle]

Being a NLPer I love to go to NLP trainings/seminars. Who has more fun than a bunch of Master NLPers pushing each others buttons! You will find that most all of the classes are almost word for word year to year so you can't stay with the same Trainer for the same subject matter. For Trainer's Training I have two names in the process. That is why you are not finding anything new. You cannot expect to train over and over and over again with Dr. Tad James and not find the same material. I could throw a name out here but I'm not going to. I could probably write Dr. James' material I know it so well but so what. It just means he's a great trainer. Not robotic - intelligent! Vast difference! Been on to more and ready to go again this winter or early next year hopefully for Trainer's Training after I get the meta4's down really well.

[Poodle]

With Bandler it consists of metaphors with nested loops -- two different ways of doing them (chaining states). Anything different from Grinder?

[Mentalius]

I guess it´s good for the field that we´re not all going for the same trainers, and keeping a variety. Has anyone taken any trainings with Tom Vizzini? Seems less of a robot to me:rolleyes: , though I haven´t attende any trainings with him.