In my view, the work being done by the Andreases shows significant value.
Richard Bandler, and Tony Robbins, to cite two high-vis people, seem to be
focused on getting the word out, and possibly on getting wealth (not that I
find fault with that per se), and may be less attuned to or concerned with
possible developing personality cults. They may also be aiming for "80-20"
results. Buttonhole me sometime face-to-face; I've got some droll stories
to relate.
The last seminars I had with John Grinder and Judith Ann Delozier (as best
I can recall, around 1990-1991) were very rewarding. At that time, their
area of concern and approach to models/metamodels was varieties of focused
attention. I think you would have enjoyed it had you been present, Anders.
And the resistance those two had to cults of personality was obvious.
On the third tentacle, there has been a tendency for extravagant claims to
be made. I believe that some branch of the US military did some
investigation into the utility of some published/promoted NLP techniques,
but I doubt their applications and investigative methodology would satisfy
you.
MMB
At 12:00 AM 11/26/97 +0100, you wrote:
>"Ramez Naam (Exchange)" <ramezn@EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com> writes:
>
>> One technology that claims to allow humans to "rescript" themselves is
>> Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). A good book on NLP is "NLP: The New
>> Technology of Achievment", by the NLP Comprehensive training team,
>> edited by Steve Andreas.
>>
>> Caveat: I've been experimenting with NLP on myself for the past few
>> months, so my objectivity is quite possibly blurred. However I must say
>> that I find it both very interesting in the abstract, and very effective
>> when put to use.
>
>I'm a bit ambivalent about NLP. I have not yet read up heavily on it,
>but what I have read and tried seems to suggest that is mainly a large
>toolbox of more or less different tools with no real underlying Big
>Theory. That is of course not necessary as long as the tools work, and
>some certainly do. But at the same time I notice the tendency for
>"believers" of NLP to believe a little bit too strongly in it for my
>taste - it seems to have some memetic "cult potential" (I do not
>suggest it is a real cult, just that it somehow promotes a cohesion
>among NLPers and their beliefs that I find unhealthy for critical
>thinking and strict empirical testing). Since I also recognize that
>this may just be my prejudices talking, I get even more ambivalent.
>
>Are there any outside examinations of the efficiacy of NLP methods?
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
>asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
>GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
>
>