🚀 go-pugleaf

>...  However although most of the leaders in the NLP training have
>conventional advanced degrees in clinical psychology (Connirae Andreas
>has a PhD), for whatever reason they do not test their results using the
>generally accepted methodology, rarely publish in journals (except for a
>few NLP publications) and in general do not play the game of science.  
>
>One might think that here would be the makings of a perfect partnership.
>The NLPers could supply the ideas and the academics could develop
>and test them in scientific fashion and get the scientific credit, which
>apparently most NLPers aren't concerned about.  
>
>Or the academics can continue the solipsistic game of writing follow-up
>papers to other follow-up papers and the NLPers can gradually take over
>the job of providing therapists with tools that actually work.  
>
>--
>It is a poor sort of skepticism which merely delights in challenging
>those claims which conflict with one's own belief system.  
>                                                          --Bogus quote 
>lady@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu         lady@uhunix.bitnet

First, a disclaimer:  I am NLP trained.  I know John Grinder, Richard
Bandler, Connirai and Steve Andreas, as well as most of the other
well known trainers personally.

When I first heard about NLP (a Science Digest article) I immediately
thought, "If this is true then I must learn it."  Nothing disappointed
me.  I can add little to the argument over scientific validity and
recognition; there does not seem to be much ACADEMIC research on NLP.
This always disappointed me, as I was convinced long ago, and many times
over since, through anecdotal evidence and personal experience that
it gets results.
 
Notice that I did not say 'it is true' or anything to that effect.
I do believe that it gets repeatable results through teachable, 
testable methods.  Why no one does this for a dissertation, or some
such, baffles me.  Heck, they could even find some way to prove it
false.  I would still like to see the research.  
 
Oh, wait, sorry.  I just remembered there is at least one paper 
available.  The Army Material Command had a project done
to test NLP for improving training in .45 Pistol shooting.  The
story is that the Army had been teaching this since 1919 and 
figured that if they threw this at NLP there would be NO room
for improvement.  The documented evidence (I have seen it) showed
an absolutely remarkable improvement over Army standards that
was unexplainable by chance to a very high degree.

I also know that when my wife broke her arm and called me to come
home, I arrived to find her literally crying in pain.  Within
90 seconds of my beginning a hypnotic suggestion for her arm to
become comfortable she smiled and said, "Wow, are you good!"  Now,
this is great for my ego - not to mention my marriage, but the 
point is that AS FAR AS SHE WAS CONCERNED the pain CEASED.  That
is good enough for me - most of the time.

I used the NLP techniques to learn both hypnosis and NLP itself,
recursively.  I continue to use them to learn and improve my life
and career (not in NLP or psychology directly).

To me the most exciting thing about NLP is not the ability to
repair the effects of psychological trauma, but rather the 
meta-benefits of the modeling techniques that led to the
discovery of most of these and the understanding of the
techniques themselves.

The short version goes like this:  If you can find an expert
practitioner to model then there is almost always a short cut
method to gaining mastery.  This is what was done in the 
pistol training, this is how the hypnosis aspects were derived
for NLP from Milton Ericson's work, this is how I learned NLP
to an expert level in a very short period of time, and this
is said by most of the leaders to be the true essence of
the NLP technology.

Herb Martin
martinher@urvax.urich.edu