Grinder The Origins Of Neuro Linguistic Programming

1. Auflage 2013
ISBN: 978-1-84590-864-5
Verlag: Crown House Publishing
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 288 Seiten

The Origins of NLP brings together the recollections and thoughts of some of the main protagonists from the very early days of NLP. In 1971 Richard Bandler and Frank Pucelik were students at Kresege College at the University of California Santa Cruz. They had a strong mutual interest in Gestalt Therapy, Frank because of his traumatic time in Vietnam and because he had been working with some disaffected and drug-addicted kids, and Richard because he had been working with Science and Behavior Books on transcribing and editing Fritz Perls' seminal work, The Gestalt Approach and Eyewitness to Therapy. They started a local Gestalt group and ran 2-3 sessions a week collaborating and experimenting with the language of therapy. They started achieving some brilliant results but were having problems transferring their skills to others and so Richard invited one of their college professors, John Grinder, to observe what they were doing in order that he would, hopefully, be able to deconstruct what they were doing that was so effective. John was a professor of Linguistics and was instantly impressed with the work that they were doing. He was able to add more structure and in due course the three of them formalised what is now known as the Meta Model. NLP, or Meta as it was known then, was born.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Grinder, John

Leseproben

INTRODUCTION

Reflections on

John Grinder

This book has as its purpose a description of the origins of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). Note, please the use of the indefinite article in the phrase, The co-editors of this book, Frank Pucelik and John Grinder, were two of the three prime movers in the creation of NLP and one or both of them were present at the majority of the events described herein that define the origins of NLP. A third voice, that of Richard Bandler, is not present in this book as he elected not to participate.

The presentation of the origins of a field presents an interesting challenge for a number of reasons – among them, the fact that memory is reconstructive.

Here is easily the most responsible act I, as an author and a co-editor, can offer you as the reader of this book. It takes the form of a warning. In approaching what you are about to read, keep in mind the following three points in what you encounter in this volume:

1.

According the latest models of memory processes, memories are stored as intact units to be retrieved and displayed. They are stored in distinct physical locations (the primary cortical areas for each of the corresponding input channels) of the central nervous system; more specifically in separate representational systems. The connections among them are mediated by synesthesia circuitry.

To then, is to reassemble portions of experience stored in separate locations into what appears (in the present) to be a coherent representation of some experience in the past, one that satisfies the present intentions and requirements of the person doing the remembering. Such present intentions and requirements of the person remembering operate as filters on the search mechanisms that reconstitute the .

Thus, all such representations are ultimately, and profoundly, works of fiction. By the way, the fact that they are fiction is NOT a disqualification, simply an epistemological warning about the veracity of what you are reading.

So, what do you suppose is the probability of getting these pieces reassembled so as to match the archival representation of some omniscient, ever present (and non-existent) audio visual 360 degree recording apparatus in the sky?

2.

Thus, can be expected to vary as a function not only of the state, intentions, and filtering that existed at the time of the actual event but also as a function of state, present intentions, and filtering of the person reconstructing the in the present. Distinct portions of the reconstruction being reported will be identified and presented and others will not. As the state, intentions, and requirements of the person remembering shift, so will the representations of what occurred. Some of these differences will depend on the granularity of the representation (its specificity) and whether it is confined to a specific logical type of representation – description, interpretation, and evaluation (assuming that the person making the reconstruction, or indeed the reader, can make the distinction among these varying modes of representation). This is unlikely as the vast majority of the members of the fourth estate have yet to notice or are unable or unwilling to respect.

Test it for yourself – remember the last dinner you ate in a restaurant. OK, ready – make a representation of what occurred … Got it!

Cool, but what about the color of the border of the menu? Did the servers actually present the fresh dishes from one side of the diner and remove the used dishes from the other side? How were the portions of the dinner arranged on the serving platters? Were the chargers color coordinated with the flowers on the sideboard (what sideboard!)? Who spoke first after the ordering was complete? Did the following speakers at the table replicate the rhythm of the first speaker’s voice or was there a significant contrast? Did the volume of sound in the restaurant rise and fall with a certain temporal frequency? Did the texture of the side dishes complement the texture of the main dish? How clearly could you hear the sounds of the kitchen where your food was being prepared? How frequently did the people sitting beside each other mirror the others’ physical movements as compared with people facing one another either at the same table or the one to your left as you sat at the table? Did the chairs you all sat in make a loud sound when moved during the seating ritual? Was the waiter/waitress right or left handed? Was the tablecloth arranged as a square or a diamond with respect to the table it covered … a flurry of questions, most of little or no interest for most people.

The point here is that in reconstructing a you are confronted with the task of selecting from among a very large (although finite) set of possible things to represent. Those things that actually end up in your reconstruction are there as an indicator of your intentions and interests, now, as you reconstruct the . In the provocations above about your dinner at the restaurant, I confined myself largely to physical aspects of the event. What if we were to venture into the relationships implicit at that table and the complex operations implied by these relationships? Now the situation gets even more complex. If you were able to compare what you reconstructed with respect to the dinner in the restaurant with this archive, do you suppose that your reconstruction would contain more or less than the archival file referred to above. Surprisingly, the answer is both – you would find a vast array of things that were not reconstructed in your representation and some things in your representation would NOT be present in the archive captured by that ubiquitous recording system in the sky.

There are higher level differences that emerge in addition to the essentially incomplete and selective nature of your reconstruction of the dinner. Was your representation biased, focusing largely on the visual aspects of that dinner/restaurant event? Was any attention given to the sounds of the environment (the restaurant)? What about the tastes and combinations and sequences of tastes, the developing of various topics in the conversation, and how the feelings of the people at the table shifted with the development of the conversations about these various topics?

3.

What the point of examining the historical development of something as complex as the birth of a new field? Are you hoping to catch a glimpse of the processes of discovery, possibly even with the intention of using such processes in making comparable discoveries yourself? Are you so naive as to think that two human beings confronted with the “same” set of stimuli (experiences) will respond in the “same” way? The ’s are in quotes to remind you that the same set of stimuli are NOT the same when processed through distinct neurologies. Is it really relevant to you as a researcher to know how someone else with a completely distinct background responded to the stimuli that were available at the origin of NLP? Do you really think that playing the music of and dancing to Congolese traditional rhythms, and training and riding Arabian trail horses … will assist you in becoming a better modeler? Does having developed a set of effective patterns help guide young people out of the thick jungle of drugs towards a lighted path from which some of them can then reach back and guide their former mates? Is it really an advantage to speak some eight languages; or have a deep appreciation of battlefield injuries and the corresponding life-saving interventions required; or know how to derail a train with a minimum of plastic explosives; or hit a golf ball 300 yards down the middle of the fairway; or to have a deep computational competency in automata theory; or how to rig a automatic watering system for horse trough; or …

Personally, I don’t think so. But then, it is very dangerous to generalize from a sample of one.

Yet, as I move around the globe offering training, conferences, and demonstrations, one of the most frequent questions is the history question: and What ensues, if the person asked is willing to accept the question, is a series of bedtime stories, meeting the requirements of the speaker’s present intentions in presenting themselves to strengthen the image of whoever the speaker is and what s/he wishes the audience to carry away with them.

So, step back a moment here before plunging into this maelstrom and ask yourself the obvious question:

What is the relationship, if any, between the of modeling and the

Isn’t the point of this simple but difficult adventure called the modeling of genius to detect, assimilate unconsciously, code, and disseminate the patterning of geniuses? If this cycle of deep learning has any point, it is to make available the patterning of geniuses in a learnable form that integrates these patterns of genius into the performance of people wishing to achieve higher...