🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DLB.92Dec14100306@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com 
   (David Barton) writes:
>
>I think you may be over-generalizing Mr. Lady's statements.  The
>following is my own opinion, but I believe that he would agree (Lee?
>Any comments?).

First of all, I would like to say that I'm delighted to finally see
people on the net whose expertise on NLP is greater than my own.  For much
too long in sci.psychology I played the role of resident net expert on
NLP, and I am poorly qualified for such a role.  

My opinions are just that -- opinions.  I urge people to investigate for
themselves and make up their own minds, as well as cautiously listening
to people like Dave Barton who know what they're talking about.  

>NLP is indeed valuable for self-help in many instances (Hell's bells,
>I am using it myself for several things, including controlling my
>diabetes).  Most of the instruction courses assume a helper / client
>situation, as observation is more effective this way.  Therapy is only
>one aspect of these situations; others include management, training,
>and education.

Almost anyone who has NLP training uses it for self-help.  I just want
people to know that to really learn NLP requires considerable effort and
dedication (and monetary investment) and I don't think it makes sense for
*most* people to do that purely to get self-help.  I think *most* people
are better off simply taking their problems to an NLP practitioner or,
perhaps better, a conventional therapist who also has NLP training. 

Some people can learn mathematics or languages from books or tapes.  Most
people can't.  Most books on mathematics which are designed for
self-study are pretty superficial.  

>Applying various NLP techniques to oneself has various problems.
>Among them are those grouped under the term "ecology" (does this
>change agree with the total mind/body/spirt/belief matrix that makes
>up the person? (a slightly more general definition than that Mr. Lady
>gave in a previous message)).  It can be much more difficult to
>identify these in oneself than in another person; this level of
>introspective objectivity is fairly rare.  Usually some will work and
>some not.

Your definition of ecology is good and mine was perhaps a little sketchy.
Somehow I think I may have given the impression that ecology only has to
do with "secondary gain."  If so, I'm glad you have corrected me.  

It's also just difficult to do work on oneself in somewhat the same way 
it's hard to do self-hypnosis.  In most NLP techniques one is going
into some sort of light trance (just as when you're engrossed in
reading a book) and it's hard to do that if at the same time you're
trying to think rationally about what the next step of the technique
is.  With practice, one can learn, some faster than others.  (I myself
am a slow learner.)

Also, it helps to have another person to get around one's blind spots.
Yes, ecology has a big part to do with this.  A client (oneself) will say
"I want X."  A good therapist won't just buy into this, but will ask
"What do you want X FOR?  Is there something besides X that would serve
you better and still give you what you *really* want?"  

If books and audiotapes and self-study courses help people and seem worth
the money, I'm glad.  I just don't like to see people use them as a basis
for judging NLP.  

--
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