History of neuro -linguistic programming · History of neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19/10/2006 04:45 PM [3]

19/10/2006 04:45 PMHistory of neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 1 di 7file:///Users/ennio/Desktop/PNL/x/00a-History%20of%20neuro-lingu…ramming%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.webarchive

One of a series of articles on

Neuro-linguistic programming

(NLP)

Main articles

NLP · Principles · Topics · History

NLP and science · Bibliography

Concepts and methods

Modeling · Meta model · Milton model

Perceptual positions · Rapport · Reframing

Representation systems · Submodalities

Positive intention · Well-formed outcome

Meta program · Neurological levels

Anchoring · Map-territory relation

Related principles

Empiricism · Subject-object problem

Subjective character of experience

Philosophy of perception

Cognitive linguistics · Metacognition

People

Richard Bandler · John Grinder

Gregory Bateson · Robert Dilts · Judith DeLozier

Milton Erickson · Virginia Satir · Fritz Perls

Steve and Connirae Andreas · Charles Faulkner

History of neuro-linguistic programming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from History of NLP)

This article discusses the history of the field known as Neuro-linguistic programming.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) was developed jointly by

Richard Bandler and John Grinder under the tutelage of Gregory

Bateson (a renowned anthropologist, social scientist, linguist and

cyberneticist), at the University of California, during the 1960s and

1970s.

Originally a study into how excellent psychotherapists were achieving

results they did, it rapidly grew into a field and methodology of its

own, based around the skill of modeling as used to identify the key

aspects of others behaviors and approaches that led them to be capable

of outstanding results in their fields.

With the 1980s, the two fell out, and amidst acrimony, and intellectual

property lawsuits by Bandler, NLP tended to be developed in a

fragmented and haphazard manner by many individuals, some ethically,

and some opportunistically, often under multiple confusing brand

names.

During the 1990s, tentative attempts were made to put NLP on a more

formal, regulated footing, in countries such as the UK, and around

2001, the law suits finally became settled, and a variety of individuals

and representative groups in the field resumed moves to put the field

on a more professional footing.

Contents

1 Context and early influences

2 Development of NLP

2.1 Initial studies

2.2 Early models developed into the core of NLP

2.3 Splintered

2.4 Rethinking NLP: "New Code" approach

2.5 NLP buzz

2.6 21st century

3 See also



3.1 Developers

4 References

Context and early influences

One of the earliest influences on NLP were General Semantics (Alfred Korzybski) as a new perspective for

looking at the world which included a kind of mental hygiene . This was a departure from the Aristotelian

concepts of modern science and objective reality, and it influenced notions of programming the mind. Korzybski

General semantics influenced several schools of thought, leading to a viable human potential industry and

associations with emerging New Age thinking. By the late 1960s, self-help organizations such as EST, Dianetics,

and Scientology had become financially successful. The Esalen human potential seminars in California began to

attract a wide range of thinkers and lay-people, such as the gestalt therapist Fritz Perls, as well as Gregory

Bateson, Virginia Satir, and Milton H. Erickson.

A second important part of the context was, that the founders developed a philosophy of "doing" rather than

"theorizing". This may have been due to the strong counterculture (anti-establishment) mood at the time. As part

of this, whilst there was respect for the scientific method (hypothesize, test, question), there was less regard for

the concerns and approval of mainstream science in doing so. Likewise there was little thought of control or

standards, or of setting guidelines; the field was left open for those interested to explore whatever its principles

led them to, and wherever their personal interest took them. In general, during much of NLP's history, developers

have preferred to generate ideas, test their value in practice, and leave rigorous scientific verification to other

parties or until later.

A final set of influences were that old notions of behaviorism and determinism which had long held sway, were

rapidly becoming disfavored, and issues such as the subjective character of experience were becoming more

accepted as part of a postmodern outlook, bringing with it such questions as the subject-object problem,

recognition of cognitive biases, and the questioning of the entirety of the philosophy of perception and the nature

of reality. Bateson, an anthropologist himself, strongly supported cultural relativism (the view that meaning could

only be found in a context – not to be confused with moral relativism), which is now considered fundamental in

anthropology.

Such approaches undoubtedly influenced the development of the early studies, by inclining Grinder and Bandler

to study the effectiveness of their subjects from an anthropological (observational) basis, seeking to understand

what their behavior signified, rather than a psychoanalytic approach of how they fitted into a theory.

Development of NLP

Initial studies

In the early 1970s, Richard Bandler was invited by Bob Spitzer, owner of Science and Behavior Books, to attend

training by Fritz Perls and Virginia Satir, and was later hired by Spritzer to assist, transcribe and edit recordings

of Perls for a book. At the time, Bandler was a student at University of California, Santa Cruz, and had began

running Gestalt therapy workshops to refine his skills. While at UCSC, Bandler invited assistant professor of



running Gestalt therapy workshops to refine his skills. While at UCSC, Bandler invited assistant professor of

linguistics Dr. John Grinder to observe his Gestalt workshops, to help build an explicit model of how Bandler

(and Perls) did Gestalt therapy. Grinder used his knowledge of transformational grammar, and starting with Perls

and moving to leading family systems therapist Virginia Satir, the two collaborated to produce several works

based on these exceptional psychotherapists of the time.

The resulting linguistic model analysed how therapeutic recognition and use of language patterns could on its own

be used to influence change. First published in The Structure of Magic Volume I (1975), the models were

expanded in The Structure of Magic Volume II (1976), and Changing With Families (co-authored with Satir

herself in 1976), and eventually became known as the meta model (meta meaning "beyond"), the first core model

within what ultimately became an entire field.

Early models developed into the core of NLP

The early work, especially the meta model, captured the attention of anthropologist, Gregory Bateson who became

a major influence on the early intellectual foundations of the field, including Logical levels, logical types, double

bind theory, cybernetic epistemology and cultural relativism (the axiomatic anthropological concept that meaning

only exists within a context).

Bateson introduced the co-founders to Milton Erickson, at that time in his 70's, and recognized as the founder of

clinical hypnotherapy and a near-legendary[1] therapeutic genius in his own right. Bateson was lecturing at

University of California, Santa Cruz, and was attached to the newly formed Kresge College where Grinder was

also lecturing in linguistics. Bandler and Grinder met with Erickson on a regular basis, and modeled his approach

and his work over eighteen months. In 1975-1976 they published a first volume set of patterns, Patterns of the

Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson Volume I (1975), followed in 1977 by Patterns of the Hypnotic

Techniques of Milton H. Erickson Volume II, which together form the basis of the so-called Milton model, a

means to use deliberately imprecise language to enable a person to work at an unconscious or somatic level rather

than a cognitive level, to resolve clinical issues more effectively.[2].

These early studies and models of patterns used by recognized genuises, such as the meta-model and Milton

model, formed the basis of workshops and seminars. Under the subject title of "Neuro-linguistic programming",

they became increasingly popular, firstly with psychotherapists, then business managers, sales professionals, and

new age people.

As popularity for NLP increased, a development group formed around the co-founders including Leslie Cameron-

Bandler, Judith DeLozier, Stephen Gilligan, Robert Dilts, and David Gordon (author of Therapeutic Metaphors,

1978) and made significant contributions to NLP. A collection of Grinder and Bandler's seminars were

transcribed by Steve Andreas and published in 1979, Frogs into Princes.

Splintered

In 1980 Bandler's collaboration with Grinder abruptly ended and also Leslie Cameron-Bandler filed for divorce.

Bandler, Grinder and their group of associates parted ways. A number of agreements were reached as to legal

settlement between Bandler and Grinder, as regarded NLP and their partnership. Shortly after (1983), Bandler's



settlement between Bandler and Grinder, as regarded NLP and their partnership. Shortly after (1983), Bandler's

company Not Ltd declared bankruptcy.

Ongoing legal threats ensued throughout the 1980s and 1990s surrounding trademarks, intellectual property and

copyright, causing some of Bandler and Grinder's books to go out of print for a while ('Structure I & II', and

'Patterns I & II' – considered the foundations of the field – were later republished).

In July of 1996 after many years of legal controversy, Bandler filed a lawsuit against Grinder and again in

January 1997 against both Grinder and numerous prominent members of the NLP community including, Carmen

Bostic-St. Clair, Steve Andreas and Connirae Andreas. In his suit, Bandler claimed (retrospective) sole ownership

of NLP, and the sole right to use the term under trademark, as well as trademark infringement, conspiratorial

tortious interference and breach of settlement agreement and permanent injunction by Grinder. [5]

(http://web.archive.org/web/19990224225605/http://www.nlp.com.au/action/state.htm) [6]

(http://www.nlpschedule.com/random/lawsuit-nlpc.html) In addition, Bandler claimed "damages against each such

defendant in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than [US]$10,000,000.00" per individual. The

list of defendants included 200 "Does", i.e. empty names to be specified later. [7]

(http://web.archive.org/web/20021108024906/http://www.nlp.org/NLP/random/lawsuit-text.htm)

On February 2000 the US Superior Court found against Bandler stating that "Bandler has misrepresented to the

public, through his licensing agreement and promotional materials, that he is the exclusive owner of all

intellectual property rights associated with NLP, and maintains the exclusive authority to determine membership

in and certification in the Society of NLP." [8]

(http://web.archive.org/web/20010210021504/http://www.anlp.org/anlpnews2.htm#usa)

Contemporaneous with Bandler's suits in the US Superior Court, Tony Clarkson (a UK practitioner) asked the UK

High Court to revoke Bandler's UK registered trademark "NLP", in order to clarify legally whether this was a

generic term rather than intellectual property. The UK High Court found in favor of Clarkson, and that NLP was a

generic term, later declaring Bandler bankrupt in the UK for failure to pay the sum of the ruling. Archive.org 11

July 2000 (http://web.archive.org/web/20010406091232/www.anlp.org/anlpnews.htm#law)

Rethinking NLP: "New Code" approach

John Grinder began collaborating with Judith DeLozier; between between 1982-1987 they began developing the

New Code of NLP, they were heavily influenced by anthropologist Gregory Bateson, and a desired to create an

aesthetic and ethical framework for the use of NLP patterns. Their recode was presented in a series of seminars,

titled Turtles All the Way Down; Prerequisites to Personal Genius, transcripts were published in book by the

same name. In the 1980s, Grinder ceased providing public seminars, to pursue cultural change in organisations.

During this time he held few public seminars, while he continued to refine the New Code of NLP with his new

partner, Carmen Bostic St Clair. They published recommendations to the NLP community to become a legitimate

field of study, in their work, Whispering in the Wind (2001).

Other members of the original development group, formed their own associations and modifications of the

original work and took NLP is different directions.



Richard Bandler together with Todd Epstein developed much of the theory and practice associated with

'submodalities',[3] that is, "the particular perceptual qualities that may be registered by each of the five primary

sensory modalities".[3] Post-1980 much of Bandler's work revolved around the NLP concept of submodalities.[3]

Bandler independently developed Design Human Engineering and authored Magic in Action, Using Your Brain

for a Change, Time for a Change and Persuasion Engineering (written with John LaValle). (As of 2006, Bandler

continues to lecture, consult and produce media on NLP)

NLP buzz

A disquieting direction became obvious in the 1990s when, partly due to the legally-driven fragmentation of NLP

practice, and partly due to lack of a defining and regulating structure to oversee the rapidly growing field, it

seemed for a time that NLP could be (and was) promoted as the "latest thing", a panacea, or universal miracle

solution. Dubious models and practices burgeoned, in parallel with bona fide. For a number of these new

practices, profit, marketability or New Age appeal proved a stronger motive than realism or ethics.

Training too became fragmented. A plethora of trainers, some renowned, some New Age and charismatic, and

some focussed upon niches, emerged, each with their own competing ideas of what training and standards were

needed to become a "practitioner". As a result, today there is a range of in duration, quality and credibility of

different practitioner training programmes.

In this respect, Platt (2001) comments critically[4] that NLP needs to temper its claims, and accept it has limits on

its effectiveness:

"Does that make NLP bogus? No, it does not. But the research and the findings of the investigators

certainly make it clear that NLP cannot help all people in all situations, which is frequently what is claimed

and what practioners assert... The immoderate claims that are made for NLP might be viewed a little more

critically when viewed against this background."

Likewise the Irish National Center for Guidance in Education's Guidance Counsellor's Handbook (current as of

2005) includes the following caveat about excessive claims made by some trainers:

"Unfortunately, NLP has a history of so-called NLP Practitioners overstating the level of their competence,

and of their training.[5]

21st century

By the end of 2000 some sort of rapprochement between Bandler and Grinder was achieved when the parties

entered a release wherein they inter alia agreed that "they are the co-creators and co-founders of the technology

of Neuro-linguistic Programming. Drs. Grinder and Bandler recognize the efforts and contributions of each other

in the creation and initial development of NLP." In the same document, "Dr. John Grinder and Dr. Richard

Bandler mutually agree to refrain from disparaging each other's efforts, in any fashion, concerning their respective

involvement in the field of NeuroLinguistic Programming." ("Release" reproduced as Appendix A of Whispering

in the Wind by Grinder and Bostic St Clair (2001)).



In addition, national regulatory and certification bodies have begun to be founded, notably in the UK, with

credentials or standing within psychological and psychotherapy association bodies.

Trademark and IP claims settled, it is a possibility that a more regular platform for the future development of

NLP as an ongoing field of endeavour may come into being.[6]

See also

List of NLP topics

Empiricism

Epistemology

Communication

Hypnosis

Humanistic psychology

Linguistics


Developers

Richard Bandler and John Grinder (co-founders)

Robert Dilts

Leslie Cameron-Bandler

Judith DeLozier

Stephen Gilligan

David Gordon

References

. 1 ^ A large number of books of true legends and anecdotes of Erickson have been written.

. 2 ^ John Grinder & Carmen Bostic St. Clair, (2001) Whispering in the Wind. C&J Enterprises.

. 3 ^ a b c See [1] (http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html3/StSy40.html) [2]

(http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html3/StSy38.html) and [3]

(http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/html/B08.html)

. 4 ^ Platt, 2001, NLP - No Longer Plausible?

. 5 ^ Guidance Counsellor's handbook, section 1.4.5: http://www.ncge.ie/resources_handbooks_guidance.htm

section 1.4.5 [4] (http://www.ncge.ie/handbook_docs/Section1/NLP_Guide_Sch.doc) (DOC)

. 6 ^ (See Appendix of Whispering in the Wind.)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_neuro-linguistic_programming"

Categories: Articles with unsourced statements | Neuro-Linguistic Programming



This page was last modified 02:36, 6 October 2006.

All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for

details.)

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

19/10/2006 04:45 PMNeuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 1 di 10file:///Users/ennio/Desktop/PNL/s-Neuro-linguistic%20programming%20bis%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.webarchive



(NLP)

Main articles










Related principles





People







The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs, that adherents use primarily as an

approach to personal development. NLP was influenced by the ideas of the New Age era as well as beliefs in human

potential. The initial ideas of NLP were developed around 1973 by Richard Bandler, a student, and John Grinder, a

professor of linguistics, in association with the social scientist Gregory Bateson. The term "Neuro-linguistic programming"

denotes a set of models and principles meant to explore how mind and neurology (neuro), language patterns (linguistic),

and the organization of human perception and cognition into systemic patterns (programming) interact to create subjective

reality and human behaviors.

Based upon language patterns and body language cues derived from the observation of several world-renowned

therapists[1], NLP focused on areas such as how subjective reality drives beliefs, perceptions and behaviors, and therefore

how behavior change, transforming beliefs, and treatment of traumas is often possible through appropriate techniques based

upon how known experts worked with this relationship.[1][2][3] The techniques distilled from these observations were

metaphorically described by the original developers as "therapeutic magic," with NLP itself described as 'the study of the

structure of subjective experience".[4][5] They are predicated upon the principle that all behaviors (whether excellent or

dysfunctional) are not random, but have a practically determinable structure [3][6] NLP has been applied to a number of

fields such as sales, psychotherapy, communication, education, coaching, sport, business management, interpersonal

relationships, as well as less mainstream areas such as seduction and spirituality.

Due in part to its open-ended philosophy, NLP is controversial. It is at times criticized in the scientific community as

unproven or pseudoscientific[14] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12977,1058573,00.html) , and amongst

those who watch for fraud, for exaggerated claims and unethical approaches by a number of practitioners.[15]

(http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html) There is also some dispute among its developers and proponents regarding what NLP is

and is not.

Contents

1 Overview

1.1 Philosophical stance

1.2 Scope of NLP

1.3 Goals of NLP

2 Concepts and methods

2.1 Presuppositions

2.2 Ecology

2.3 Rapport

2.4 Patterns and models

2.5 Modeling

2.6 Other concepts

2.6.1 Brain lateralization

3 History and development

3.1 Origins of the name

3.2 Alternate brands

4 Controversies and criticisms

4.1 Claims to science

4.2 Scientific analysis

4.3 Views on therapeutic classification

4.4 Questionable applications

4.5 NLP as a New Age approach

4.6 Cult allegations

4.7 Ethical concerns

5 See also

6 External links

7 Notes and references



Overview

Philosophical stance

NLP is sometimes described as an empirical epistemology. That is, it is a way of knowing with evidence obtained by personal experience and observation rather than

results derived from an overall theory. It is eclectic in that it draws heavily on results from other fields deemed useful. Many consider NLP a "toolbox" that is

unbiased in purpose or application, leaving that ultimately to the practitioner to decide. As such, it studies processes (or form), rather than content.

Druckman (1988) comments:[7]

"The system was developed in answer to [why] particular psychotherapists were so effective with their patients. Rather than explore this question in terms of

psychotherapeutic theory and practice, Bandler and Grinder sought to analyze what the therapists were doing at an observational level, categorize it, and apply

the categories as a general model of interpersonal influence. NLP seeks to instruct people to observe, make inferences, and respond to others, as did the three

original, very effective therapists."

Its approach and philosophy have also been described as closer to a technology than a science, and it is often identified as being similar to engineering; in that it tries

to answer "what works?" rather than "what is true?". Ultimately, its ideal end products are systematized models and usable approaches, rather than beliefs or facts.

The original developers claimed not to be interested in theory, and NLP teaches a practitioner to focus on "what works". However, this in no way prevents

practitioners from creating and promoting their own theories behind NLP, and some have done this, basing theories upon a synthesis of core observable NLP

combined with other personal, new age, psychological, and/or neurological concepts. Some trainers teach these theories as part of NLP.

NLP trainings do not teach a scientific method for assessing whether a change process is effective. They teach to observe subtle verbal and non-verbal cues, and it is

implicit that there is no certainty in any given method and that flexibility is key.

Scope of NLP

NLP does not recognize any ultimate mediator in the structure and organization of subjective human thought except the senses, sensory representations, and human

neurology and physiology. However it does not place a limit on what may be represented within or by those systems – possibly by synesthesia, the experiencing of

one form of sensation within a different sensory system. So NLP considers it a legitimate question to study the subjective experience, and subjective processes, of

anything that humans claim to experience. This has led to wide proliferation covering for example:

Recognized communication phenomena such as negotiation and parent-child communication

Psychological phenomena such as phobias and regression

Medical phenomena such as pain control, or ways to influence illness/wellness

Phenomena mediated primarily by the unconscious such as post-hypnotic suggestion, unconscious communications, trance induction and utilization, and

perception changes

Broadly recognized but non-scientific phenomena such as meditation and enlightenment

Altered states such as alcoholism, depression, dissociation, addiction and religious fervor

Parapsychological phenomena such as ESP

Body and lifestyle change such as breast enlargement and finding sexual partners

Business situations such as sales and management coaching

"Unpacking" of skills and situations previously regarded holistically, to reveal a way to make them separable and examine them analytically.

Modelling of dead or famous people from what is known of them, such as Jesus Christ or Nelson Mandela. (That is to say, identifying subjectively what the

experience of being these people might be like, and proposing detailed suggestions of the internal ways of thinking, based upon observed evidence, which

enable them to be as they are/were)

Development and systemization of more efficient and varied approaches to working with communication, and human beliefs and subjective reality.

Goals of NLP

A person seeking change is in effect seeking a path through an unfamiliar landscape, to a goal which at present they conceptualize they desire, but in some way lack a

means to reach. In this sense, the place of the coach or "other" is to heuristically learn about and guide their exploration in a fruitful manner, by helping them with

regard to alternative paths, the desirability of present goals, or their perceptions as to the landscape.

In this analogy, the purpose and function of NLP is a step beyond this: - to provide a general philosophy and approach (together with tools and methodologies) that

will assist a competent guide to generatively and more optimally fulfill this role in any completely different personal landscape, that is robust despite the immense

variability of people, psychologies and circumstances.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) studies the structure of how humans think and experience the world.

NLP model and “presuppositions” NLP is a model; it isn’t a theory, nor is it concerned with ultimate truth about human behavior. There are the presuppositions upon

which that model is built. To test a presupposition, act as if it were true and notice the results you get.



Presuppositions are beliefs that someone practicing NLP will find useful for creating changes in themselves and the world, more easily and effectively. The emphasis

is on "useful" not whether each one could be proven to be "true". Practitioners of NLP often include different presuppositions in their list but what follows are the

most common.


Robert Dilts says that "NLP is theoretically rooted in neurology, psychophysiology, linguistics, cybernetics and communication theory".[8] Other NLP proponents say

it is not based on theory, it is based on modeling (and Richard Bandler states that he does not "do theory"). Dilts et al. state that NLP is more interested in what

works than what is true.[5]

Presuppositions

The NLP presuppositions are a set of axiomatic beliefs used as an approach to change work. Although they vary slightly in expression or classification they are

essentially expressed at some point in all NLP schools. They include:

The map is not the territory. The world we perceive is not the same as the actual world.

Everyone lives by their own unique and equally valid model of the world.

People always make the best choice available to them, given what they know.

No one is wrong or broken. People work perfectly to accomplish what they are currently accomplishing.

There is a solution (a desirable outcome) to every problem.

People already have all the resources they need to effect a change.

There is a distinction between a person and the behaviors they exhibit. Every behavior is useful in some context.

No response, experience or behaviour is meaningful outside of the context in which it was established or the response it elicits next.

The behavior of a person is not who they are. The intention of all behaviour is always assumed positive.

The meaning of a communication is the response it elicits. The intention behind a communication is not its meaning.

The person with the most flexibility and variation of behavior guides the outcome of the human interactions.

Memory and imagination can have the same impact as actual experiences when a person is fully engaged (associated).

Knowledge, thought, memory, and imagination are the result of sequences and combinations of representational systems.

If someone can do something, anyone can learn it.

Mind and body are part of the same cybernetic structure, so anything occurring in one also affects the other.

If you aren't getting the response you want, do something different.

There is no such thing as failure. There is only feedback.

Change comes from releasing the appropriate resource, or activating the potential resource, for a particular context by enriching a person's map of the world.

"Energy flows where attention goes":

Ecology

In principle, NLP is usually described as a "client-oriented" methodology, in that the client's subjective perception is treated with respect, and to a large degree the

client's developing perception of a problem or situation which provides the feedback and basis for guidance within NLP intervention. In business or conflict resolution

NLP usually advocates a win-win philosophy. The term "ecology" (borrowed in the sense of "how disparate things co-exist in balance") is used to signify the careful

checking needed to ensure that all aspects of a situation are taken into account, such as the well-being of others involved, the ethics of the work done, the beneficial

nature of goals sought, any secondary gains affected, and so on. [9]

Because NLP methods can be used unethically, lack of careful regard to ecology is considered unacceptable or inappropriate by most professionals. However, because

no central body controls or regulates NLP at this time, there is in practice a wide profusion of individuals and groups using NLP in precisely that way, and this has

drawn strong criticism from a wide range of sources.

Rapport

Patterns and models

Modeling

The goal of modeling is to capture a behaviour of an expert and transfer it to another person. The NLP theory behind modeling does not state that anyone can be

Einstein. Rather, it says that know-how can be separated from the person, documented and transferred experientially, and that the ability to perform the skills can be

transferred subject to the modeler's own limits, which can change, and improves with practice. This is often interpreted as a view of "unlimited potential" because a

person's ability to change is only limited by the change technology available to that person.

Modeling involves observing in depth, discussing, and imitating and practicing many different aspects of the subject's thoughts, feelings, beliefs and behaviors (i.e.,

acting "as if" the modeler is the expert) until the modeler can replicate these with some consistency and precision.

Other concepts



Brain lateralization

Hemispheric differences (brain lateralization) are used to support assumptions in NLP. Robert Dilts proposes that eye movements (and sometimes gestures)

correspond to visual/auditory/kinesthetic representation systems and to specific regions in the brain.[10] For example, the left side is said to be more logical/analytical

than the right side, which is said to be more creative/imaginative [11] and regions of the brain are said to be specialised for certain functions such as mathematics or

language.[12]

History and development

Neuro-linguistic programming was developed jointly by Richard Bandler and John Grinder under the tutelage of anthropologist, social scientist, linguist and

cyberneticist Gregory Bateson, at the University of California, Santa Cruz, during the 1960s and 1970s.

Originally a study into how excellent psychotherapists were achieving results they did, it rapidly grew into a field and methodology of its own, based around the skill

of modeling as used to identify and confirm aspects of others behaviors and ways of thinking that led them to notability in their field. They took a similar approach to

change. It did not matter to them if the client had an understanding for the problem, rather they focused on finding people who had successfully overcome, and how

they did it.

The initial three individuals Grinder and Bandler modeled[13] were Fritz Perls (Gestalt Therapy), Virginia Satir (Family therapy) and Milton H. Erickson (Ericksonian

Hypnosis). These individuals were considered highly competent in their fields, and the consistent patterns and approaches they appeared to be using, became the basis

of NLP. Grinder and Bandler analyzed the speaking patterns, voice tones, word selection, gesticulations, postures, and eye movements of these individuals and related

this information to the internal thinking process of each participant. These were the first of what came to be called "modeling" projects. The findings of these projects

have been widely used and integrated into many other fields, from health and disability, to law enforcement, to hypnotherapy and coaching.

In the 1960s and 1970s, general semantics influenced several schools of thought, leading to a viable human potential industry and associations with emerging New

Age thinking. Human potential seminars, such as Esalen in California began to attract people. Neuro-linguistic programming attracted mostly therapists at first but

eventually drew the attention of business people, sales people, artists, and "new-agers" (Hall, 1994). As it expanded, Leslie Cameron-Bandler, Judith DeLozier,

Robert Dilts, and David Gordon made further contributions to NLP and the seminars of Bandler and Grinder were transcribed into a book, Frogs into Princes. This

became a popular NLP book; demand for seminars increased, which in turn became successful human potential attractions (Dilts, 1991).

Most of the techniques that are commonly grouped together as NLP can be traced back to the early published works of the co-founders and the group of developers

that surrounded them in the 1970s. Bandler and Grinder took an immersion approach to learning, and would step into the shoes of successful people in order to learn

how they did what they did. They would imitate these people, without an initial concern for understanding. This concept was carried through into their changework.

Their first published model, the meta model was an approach to change based on responding to the syntactic elements in a client's language which gave them

information about the limits to their model of the world. Gregory Bateson, who wrote the foreword for the first book on NLP, was impressed with the early work in

NLP, and introduced the co-founders to Milton Erickson. Bateson became quite influential in the development of the people behind NLP, and providing many of the

intellectual foundations for the field.

The pair became immersed in the world of Milton H. Erickson and were given full access to his work, they developed and published the Milton model based on

Erickson's hypnotic language, therapeutic metaphors and other behavioral patterns such pacing and leading in to build rapport. Erickson and the co-founders shared

the idea that conscious attention is limited and thus attempted to engage the willing attention of the unconscious mind through use of metaphor and other hypnotic

language patterns.[14] Other concepts and ideas surround conscious and unconscious mind were heavily influenced by Erickson:

"He does not translate unconscious communication into conscious form. Whatever the patient says in metaphoric form, Erickson responds [matches] in

kind. By parables, by interpersonal action, and by directives, he works within the metaphor to bring about change. He seems to feel that the depth and

swiftness of that change can be prevented if the person suffers a translation of the communication." (Haley, "Uncommon therapy", 1973 + 1986, p.28)

The early group (Dilts et al. 1980) observed that people tended to give away information about their unconscious processing in the current eye movements patterns, as

well as changes in body posture, gestures, fluctuating voice tone, breathing shifts were linked to sensory-based language, "I see that clearly!", "I hear what you are

saying" or "let's remain in touch" [5][15][16]. This formed the basis of the representational systems model. And in turn allowed them to develop approaches to map the

strategies both successful people and clients in a therapeutic contexts. For example, the phobia reduction process involves separating (Visual / kinesthetic dissociation)

that is supposed to reduce the negative feelings associated to a traumatic event [1][17] and submodality change work which involved altering representations of

memory, for example, size, brightness, movement of internal images, in order to affect a behavioural change. [18] [19]. By being able to notice non-verbal cues that

indicate internal processing as well as the type an sequence of the process, they were able to focus on pattern, rather than personal content of client. Other methods

for change included anchoring, the process involving elicitation of resourceful memory, in order to bootstrap those for future contexts.

There are several beliefs and presuppositions that were published by the NLP developers still taught in NLP training which were designed to bring together some of

the patterns shared by the successful therapists and experts in communication. Most of these stem from Bateson or Korzybski's idea that the map is not the territory;

multiple descriptions promote choice and flexibility and that people have organised personal resources (states, outcomes, beliefs) effectively in order to change

themselves and achieve outcomes[1]. Even a seemingly negative behavior or part is considered in NLP to be attempting to fulfill some positive intention (of which

they may not be aware of consciously). These presuppositions may not be true, but it is useful to act as if they are in the change contexts. The last one, for example,

assumes that the current behavior exhibited by a person represents the best choice available to them at the time.[1][2]. All of these methods and techniques (anchoring,



assumes that the current behavior exhibited by a person represents the best choice available to them at the time.[1][2]. All of these methods and techniques (anchoring,

representational systems) require superb sensory acuity and calibration skills, considered to be prerequisites to using any of these models. Several of the

presuppositions of NLP which relate directly to this, for example from William Ross Ashby, state 'there is no failure', only 'feedback'; an idea which was borrowed

from information theory about the importance of feedback loops to learning.[3] Another idea, is that the meaning of communication is the response it produces.[1]

With the 1980s, Grinder and Bandler fell out, and amidst acrimony and intellectual property lawsuits, NLP started to be developed haphazard by many individuals,

some ethically, and some opportunistically, often under multiple confusing brand names. During the 1990s, tentative attempts were made to put NLP on a more

formal and better regulated footing, in countries such as the UK. Around 2001, the law suits finally became settled.

Origins of the name

The developers of NLP, Bandler and Grinder, explain NLP follows Korzybski's ideas; that our maps of the world are distorted representations due to neurological

functioning and constraints. ([1] p12). “Information about the world arrives at the receptors of the 5 senses and is then subjected to various neurological transforms

(F1) and linguistic transforms (F2) even before our first access to the information, meaning we never experience an objective reality that hasn't been shaped by our

language and neurology. (Grinder, 2001, Pgs 127, 171, 222)[24]

Alternate brands

Individual trainers sometimes introduce or develop their own methods, concepts and labels, branding them as "NLP" [20]:

John Grinder teaches New Code of NLP

Richard Bandler himself now teaches his own offshoot of NLP, called DHE (Design Human EngineeringTM)

Anthony Robbins teaches NAC (Neuro Associative ConditioningTM)

Michael Hall teaches Neuro-SemanticsTM

Tad James teaches NLP under his company, Advanced Neuro DynamicsTM and developed the visually oriented Time Line TherapyTM process.

Margot Anand incorporates NLP into what she calls SkyDancing TantraTM which uses the process and modelling of NLP, and is not directly an NLP training

course.

Controversies and criticisms

NLP has been criticized by clinical psychologists, management scholars, linguists, and psychotherapists, concerning ineffectiveness, pseudoscientific explanation of

linguistics and neurology, ethically questionable practices, cult-like characteristics, promotion by exaggerated claims, and promises of extraordinary therapeutic

results.

Several reviews have characterized NLP as a "cult" [21], and mass-marketed psychobabble[22][23].

Sanghera, a columnist for Financial Times (London, 2005) writes, "critics say NLP is simply a half-baked conflation of pop psychology and pseudoscience that uses

jargon to disguise the fact that it is based on a set of banal, if not incorrect, presuppositions"[24].

Claims to science

Singer (1996) states that "NLP often associates itself with science in order to raise its own prestige" [25]. Winkin (1990) considers such promotion to be "intellectually

fraudulent" and compares NLP's association with Science to astrology's association to astronomy [26].[please verify the credibility of this source]

Singer (1996:172) [27] states that "none of the NLP developers have done any research to "prove" their models correct though NLP promoters and advertisers continue

to call the originators scientists and use such terms as science, technology and hi-tech psychology in describing NLP". CAP, a UK-based advertising body has issued

an advisory in relation to "Stop smoking claims by hypnotherapists" that "references to NLP should avoid implying that it is a new science" [28].

Psycholinguist Willem Levelt states that (translated into English by Drenth) "NLP is not informed about linguistics literature, it is based on vague insights that were

out of date long ago, their linguistics concepts are not properly construed or are mere fabrications, and conclusions are based upon the wrong premises. NLP theory

and practice has nothing to do with neuroscientific insights or linguistics, nor with informatics or theories of programming" [22][29].

Corballis [30] states that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability. NLP has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or

even the respectable subdiscipline of neurolinguistics".

NLP has been classed as a pseudoscientific self help development [29] [23][31][22], in the same mold as EST (Landmark

Forum) and Dianetics(Scientology). Self-help critic Salerno [32] associates NLP with pseudoscience, and has criticized

its promotion as self-help. Psychologists such as Singer [25] and management experts such as Von Bergen (1997) have

criticized its use within management and human resources developments.



Extraordinary and unsupported claims have been made by some NLP promoters, including claims of the heightening of

perception to allow a novice martial artist to beat an expert [33], and that it is possible to develop photographic memory

through the use of NLP [3].

According to Sala [34] , NLP's pseudoscientific associations include claims to rapid cures and treatment of traumas, the

use of popular new age myths such as unlimited potential, left/right brain simplicities, and past life regression.

In reference to NLP, Lilienfeld [31] states "the characteristics of pseudoscience are more specifically shown thus", for

example:

"The use of obscurantist language" (eg meta programs, parapragmatics, representational systems, submodalities etc)

"The absence of connectivity" [29]

"Over-reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence" [35]

"An overuse of ad hoc hypotheses and reversed burden of proof designed to immunize claims from falsification" [25]

"Emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation (eg reliance on asking how rather than why)"

"Absence of boundary conditions"

"Reversed burden of proof (away from those making claim (NLP promoters), and towards those testing the claim (Scientists))".

"The mantra of holism and eclecticism designed to immunize from verifiable efficacy" [31](Claiming that NLP is unmeasurable due to too many factors or to

simplistically “do what works”)[36].

"Evasion of peer review" (If claims were true, why were they not properly documented and presented to the scientific community?)[36]

Pseudoscientific arguments tend to contain several or all of these factors, as can be seen in this example [16] (http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax09.htm) that

shows ad hoc hypotheses and holistic argument as an attempt to explain away the negative findings, and an emphasis on confirmation and reversed burden of proof

etc.

Modern neuroscience indicates that NLP's notions of neurology are erroneous and pseudoscientific in regards to: left/right brain hemispheric differences [34][15][22],

the association of eye movements or body gestures to brain hemispheres. The idea that people have visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning styles which has little

substantative evidence .

Robert Carroll [20] states that it is impossible to determine a "correct" NLP model. NLP is also based on some of Freud's most flawed and pseudoscientific thinking

that has been rejected by the mainstream psychology community for decades[36].

Scientific analysis

Sharpley, Druckman, and the National Research Council have criticised NLP in research reviews which conclude it has failed to show its claimed efficacy in

controlled studies [25][37][31].

Beyerstein [38], Lilienfeld [31], and Eisner [36] express concern over the verification of certain aspects of NLP. On the questions of “does NLP work?” and “is NLP

effective?” Margaret Singer (1996) cited the NRC research committee who stated that there was no evidence of its claimed effectiveness. [27].

Von Bergen et al [39] state that "in relation to current understanding of neurology and perception, NLP is in error", and Druckman et al (1988) say that "instead of

being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous

factual errors".

The 1988 US National Committee (a board of 14 prepared scientific experts) report found that "Individually, and as a group, these studies fail to provide an empirical

base of support for NLP assumptions...or NLP effectiveness. The committee cannot recommend the employment of such an unvalidated technique"[40]. In addition,

Edgar Johnson, technical director of the Army Research Institute heading the NLP focused Project Jedi stated that "Lots of data shows that NLP doesn't work"[41].

Heap (1989) says "NLP has failed to yield convincing evidence for the NLP model, and failed to provide evidence for its effectiveness" [42].

Heap [42] says "the conjecture that a person has a preferred representational system (PRS), which is observed in the choice of words, has been found to be false

according to rigorous research reviews" [42][43]. "The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less

support" [42][43].

A single critique by Einspruch and Forman (1985) said that Sharpley's[44] review of NLP contained methodological errors. However, Sharpley refuted this and

provided further experimental evidence to demonstrate that NLP is ineffective and in error in both method and model[4].

Von Bergen et al [39] state that "NLP does not stand up to scientific scrutiny". Thus, objective empirical studies [42][45][46] and review papers [40][43] have consistently

shown NLP to be ineffective and reviews or meta-analysis have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment, and the reiterated statement is that there is no neuro-

Winkin 1990 and Beyerstein 1990 associate

NLP with the classic pseudoscience of

phrenology



shown NLP to be ineffective and reviews or meta-analysis have given NLP a conclusively negative assessment, and the reiterated statement is that there is no neuro-

scientific basis for any of NLP's claims, or any scientific support for its claimed efficacy [4][22][31][27][36].

Efran and Lukens [47] state that the "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy".

Eisner (2000) states that "NLP proponents have provided not one iota of scientific support for their claims" [36]

Devilly [48] states that "controlled studies shed such a poor light on NLP and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that

researchers found it unwise to test the theory any further". "NLP is no longer as prevalent as it was in the 1970s or 1980s, but is still practiced in small pockets: The

science has come and gone, yet the belief still remains and some people still enroll".

Beyerstein states that "bogus therapies can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment , and overestimating

some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures."[49] In Brianscams, Beyerstein states that when the New Age brain manipulators

such as NLP are challenged, "critics typically encounter anecdotes and user testimonials where there ought to be rigorous pre-and post treatment comparisons" [38].

Views on therapeutic classification

NLP is considered a "dubious therapy" by Dryden (2001) [50] and The Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies [51]. In Crazy Therapies (1996), Singer [27] states

that "the process involves pretending that a model works, trying it, then if you don’t get results, discard it and try something else". [27] [40]). Beyerstein (1990p31) [52]

considers NLP to be a fringe or alternative therapy. Devilly, a professor of psychology considers NLP to be an "alphabet" or "power therapy" similar to Thought

Field Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Emotional Freedom Technique and Traumatic Incident Reduction. According to Eisner, the

various claims NLP proponents make have no clinical support and are grossly missleading.

Irrespective of these classifications, NLP is used or suggested as an approach by a some mental health bodies, including the National Phobics Society of Great Britain

[53], MIND [54] , [55], the British Stammering Association [56], the Center for Development & Disability at the University of New Mexico Center for autism [57],[58].

Around 1978, NLP practitioner certification was set up as a 20 day program with the aim of training therapists to apply NLP as an adjunct to their professional

qualifications. In Europe, the European NLP therapy association (http://www.eanlpt.org/) has been promoting their training in line with European therapy standards.

Barrett 2001:239) says that NLP promoters sell a biofeedback GSR meter which is "cheaper and perhaps more effective than the Scientology E-meter".

Peter Schütz, Austrian management consultant, and psychotherapist who applies NLP to his profession, outlines the issues with varying length and quality of NLP

training, and the difference between the hobbyist courses and full length training, he outlines some criticism of NLP saying it has even been, "labeled in unfavorable

political ways (nazilinguistic programming)" [59]

Questionable applications

Currently, there is criticism from psychotherapists about the promotion of NLP within psychotherapy associations [31][36]. NLP certification for therapists in most

countries still does not require any professional qualifications [36].

Human resources: Human resource experts such as Von Bergen et al (1997) consider NLP to be inappropriate for management and human resource training

[17] (http://www.extension.csuhayward.edu/html/TTR_CRS.HTM) . NLP has been found to be most ineffective concerning influence/persuasion and modeling

of skills [40]. Hardiman and Summers claim NLP is dubious and not to be taken seriously in a business context [60][61]. Within management training there have

been complaints concerning pressured adoption of fundamental beliefs tantamount to a forced religious conversion.[62] [Quote from source requested on talk page to

verify interpretation of source] Since the divorce of Tony Robbins, despite his commercial promotion of "Perfect Marriage" counseling, many of his followers

became disenchanted [32].

Education: Beyerstein [38] states that a method should be supported using controlled studies before it is applied in education.

Cosmetic effect claims: NLP is applied to breast enhancement and penis enlargement. For example, the NLP practitioner, Goodman [63] sells NLP audio

recordings of the NLP swish pattern for enlarging penis size. Eisner [36] asks why, if these miraculous effects are true, have they not been properly

documented, nor presented to the scientific community? [36]

Occult and New Age practices: Winkin [26][please verify the credibility of this source] states that with its promotion with Tai Chi, Meditation, and Dianetics

(Scientology), NLP is in the margins of contemporary obscurantism. NLP practitioners sometimes attempt to model spiritual experiences, which inherently, are

lacking in scientific support. NLP's new age background often leads to it being sold in combination with shamanic methods of magic (such as by Richard

Bandler or Huna mysticism (notably by Tad James) .

NLP as a New Age approach

It has been suggested that this section may not be

relevant to the subject.

Please see the discussion on the talk page.



Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Psychologists Beyerstein and Lilienfeld classify NLP as a "New Age" development [64] [65], and Kelly [66] says NLP was involved in the foundation of the New Age.

According to Dilts [15], Grinder developed NLP rituals from the shamanic teachings of Carlos Castaneda, such as the NLP double induction process, and perceptual

positions, designed to move attention or energy to other realities.

Beyerstein and Lilienfeld, characterize NLP as a New Age therapy.

Cult allegations

Hunt says, NLP can be seen as “similar to new religions of eastern origin that trace themselves back through a progression of gurus, and to esoteric movements

claiming the authority of authenticity through their descent from previous movements". [67]

Barrett (2001:238) states that "Like many alternative religions, particularly the Estoeric movements, there is a career ladder within NLP. Many people find the

introductory seminar interesting and thirst for more. Practitioner training is the place to go next.

For these reasons NLP is sometimes referred to by journalists and researchers as a kind of cult or psychocult.[42][62] [68][69][70][71][36][4] A German educational

ministry banned the use of NLP in education and stated that it has a close similarity to Scientology.[69]

Critics say NLP is adopted as a pretext for applying ritual, authority control, dissociation, reduced rationalization, and social pressure to obtain compliance from the

cult's victim or to induce dependence.[70] According to Devilly[48] it is common for pseudoscientific developments to set up a granfalloon in order to promote in-

group rituals and jargon, and to attack critics. Thus, although NLP's effectiveness is disputed, it nonetheless operates as a fake science.

Ethical concerns

Ethical concerns of NLP’s encouragement towards manipulation have been raised due to NLP book titles such as "The Unfair Advantage: Sell with NLP" and “NLP

the New Art and Science of Getting What You Want”.

Therapy and coaching fields require an ethical code of conduct (eg: Psychotherapy and Counseling Federation of Australia Ethical Guidelines

(http://www.pacfa.org.au/scripts/content.asp?pageid=ETHICSPAGEID) ). It has been found that NLP certified practitioners often show a weak grasp of ethics [60].

In addition, Beyerstein [72] states that "ethical standards bodies and other professional associations state that unless a technique, process, drug, or surgical procedure

can meet requirements of clinical tests, it is ethically questionable to offer it to the public, especially if money is to change hands". NLP is also criticised for

unethically encouraging the belief in non existent maladies and insecurities by otherwise normal individuals[32]. Drenth 2003 explains that NLP is driven by economic

motives and "manipulation of credulity" of clients, and explains that "often pseudoscientific practices are motivated by loathsome pursuit of gain". Drenth clarifies this

with reference to the well known "financial exploitation of the victims of scientology, Avatar and similar movements".

NLP has also been described as a commercial cult, and has been criticised within the business sector for being coercive[62]. Its various forms, such as those promoted

by Grinder, and Tony Robbins are said to be ill conceived and coercive in some business settings [60].

See also

Philosophy relevant to NLP

Empiricism

Epistemology


Subject-object problem

List of cognitive biases

Consensus reality


Academic subjects relevant to NLP

Communication

General Semantics

Humanistic psychology

Linguistics

Transformational grammar

Conceptual metaphor

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

Other topics

Hypnosis

Large Group Awareness Training

Persuasion

MKULTRA

Paul McKenna



External links

What is Neuro-Linguistic Programming NLP (http://www.w1nlp.com/nlp.htm) - WestOne NLP

Article addressing the scientific criticism on NLP research (http://www.jobeq.com/articles/NLP_Research.htm)

Lee Lady's comments about history and development of NLP (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/history.html)

Criticism from Skeptic's Dictionary (http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html)

Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy & Counselling Association (UK) (http://www.nlptca.com/)

Professional Guild of NLP (http://www.professionalguildofnlp.com/)

NLP Articles (http://www.renewal.ca/articles.htm)

Notes and references

. 1 ^ a b c d e f Bandler, Richard & John Grinder (1979). [- Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming]. Moab, UT: Real People Press, p.15,24,30,45,52.. -

.

. 2 ^ a b Bandler, Richard & John Grinder (1983). [- Reframing: Neurolinguistic programming and the transformation of meaning]. Moab, UT: Real People Press.,

appendix II, p.171. -.

. 3 ^ a b c d

. 4 ^ a b c d Sharpley C.F. (1987). "Research Findings on Neuro-linguistic Programming: Non supportive Data or an Untestable Theory

(http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?

nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ352101&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b8005c1ac)

". Communication and Cognition Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1987 Vol. 34, No. 1: 103-107,105.

. 5 ^ a b c Dilts, Robert B, Grinder, John, Bandler, Richard & DeLozier, Judith A. (1980). [. Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I - The Study of the Structure

of Subjective Experience]. Meta Publications, 1980. ., pp.3-4,6,14,17. ..

. 6 ^ [1] (http://www.purenlp.com/whatsnlp.htm) .

. 7 ^ Druckman, Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques (1988) p.138 [2] (http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309037921/html/133.html)

. 8 ^ Robert Dilts. Roots of NLP (1983) p.3

. 9 ^ The term "Ecology" in this usage can also be seen in Gregory Bateson's 1972 collection Steps to an Ecology of Mind, published around the same time NLP

was being developed.

. 10 ^

. 11 ^ Bandler, Richard, John Grinder, Judith Delozier (1977). [- Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. Volume II]. Cupertino, CA:

Meta Publications., p.10,81,87. -.

. 12 ^ O'Connor, Joseph & Ian McDermott (1996). Principles of NLP. London, UK: Thorsons. ISBN 0-7225-3195-8.

. 13 ^ Source Andreas & Faulkner, 1994.

. 14 ^

. 15 ^ a b c

. 16 ^

. 17 ^ </ref name=cancer>[3] (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Neuro-Linguistic_Programming.asp?sitearea=ETO)

. 18 ^

. 19 ^ Steve & Connirae Andreas. . (http://www.achievingexcellence.com/p-ch_and4.html) . 1987. Retrieved on [[.]].

. 20 ^ a b Carroll, Robert T.. The Skeptic's Dictionary (http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html) . .. Retrieved on 2003.

. 21 ^ (Elich et al 1985 p.625)

. 22 ^ a b c d e

. 23 ^ a b Williams, W F. general editor. (2000) Encyclopedia of pseudoscience: From alien abductions to Zone Therapy,

(http://www.techdirections.com/html/pseudo.html) Publisher: Facts On File, New York.

. 24 ^ Look into my eyes and tell me I'm learning not to be a loser, Financial Times, London (UK), Sanghera. [url=http://news.ft.com/cms/s/770f7e96-15cd-11da-

8085-00000e2511c8.html]

. 25 ^ a b c d

. 26 ^ a b Winkin Y 1990 Eléments pour un procès de la P.N.L. (http://www.lcp.cnrs.fr/pdf/win-90a.pdf) , MédiAnalyses, no. 7, septembre, 1990, pp. 43-50.

. 27 ^ a b c d e (1996 p172)

. 28 ^ [4] (http://www.cap.org.uk/NR/exeres/5BF23A13-5B07-4C56-A54D-516A9237380E.htm)

. 29 ^ a b c

. 30 ^ Corballis, M. in Sala (ed) (1999) Mind Myths. Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain Author: Sergio Della Sala Publisher: Wiley, John

& Sons ISBN 0-471-98303-9 p.41

. 31 ^ a b c d e f g

. 32 ^ a b c

. 33 ^

. 34 ^ a b



. 35 ^ Krugman, Kirsch, Wickless, Milling, Golicz, & Toth (1985). Neuro-linguistic programming treatment for anxiety: Magic or myth?

(http://content.apa.org/journals/ccp/53/4/526) Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. Vol 53(4), 526-530.

. 36 ^ a b c d e f g h i j k

. 37 ^ Heap, M. (1988). Neuro-linguistic programming, In M. Heap (Ed.) Hypnosis: Current Clinical, Experimental and Forensic Practices. London: Croom Helm,

pp 268-280..

. 38 ^ a b c (1990 p.30)

. 39 ^ a b (1997 page 291)

. 40 ^ a b c d

. 41 ^

. 42 ^ a b c d e f Heap, M. (1989). Neuro-linguistic programming: What is the evidence? In D Waxman D. Pederson. I.

. 43 ^ a b c

. 44 ^

. 45 ^

. 46 ^

. 47 ^ (Efran & Lukens1990 p.122)

. 48 ^ a b

. 49 ^ (1997p20)

. 50 ^ Dryden. W. 2001 Reason to Change: Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103324026) Brunner-Routledge

0415229804

. 51 ^ Dobson (2001) The Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies p.438

. 52 ^

. 53 ^ [5] (http://www.phobics-society.org.uk/therapylocations.shtml)

. 54 ^ [6] (http://www.herts.ac.uk/services/counselling/How_to_Assert_Yourself.pdf) (PDF)

. 55 ^ [7] (http://www.usu.edu/health/eatingdisorders.htm)

. 56 ^ [8] (http://www.stammering.org/options_additional.html)

. 57 ^ [9] (http://cdd.unm.edu/discuss/resources/)

. 58 ^ [10] (http://www.asca.org.au/survivors/survivors_counselling.html)

. 59 ^ Peter Schütz[11] (http://www.nlpzentrum.at/institutsvgl-english.htm)

. 60 ^ a b c Hardiman

. 61 ^ Summers, Lynn. (Jan 1996) Training & Development. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development: Vol. 50, Iss. 1; pg. 30, 2 pgs

. 62 ^ a b c

. 63 ^ [12] (http://www.remotehypnosis.com/nlp4men.asp)

. 64 ^ Beyerstein.B.L (1990). "Brainscams: Neuromythologies of the New Age.". International Journal of Mental Health 19(3): 27-36,27.

. 65 ^ Lilienfeld,S.O. (2002). "Our Raison D’etre". The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 1(1): 20.

. 66 ^ {{cite book | author=Kelly.M.O | title=The Fireside Treasury of Light | location= | publisher=Simon & Schuster. | year=1990 | id=0671685058 |

pages=p.25,182

. 67 ^ Hunt, Stephen J. (2003) A Sociological Introduction, London: Ashgate p.195 ISBN 0-7546-3409-4

. 68 ^

. 69 ^ a b [13] (http://www.nlp.de/presse/deutschland/eb-0298.htm) (eg. NLP Rekaunt)

. 70 ^ a b Michael D Langone (Ed). (1993.). Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse. New York, NY: W W Norton &

Company. -.

. 71 ^ Tippet, Gary. "Inside the cults of mind control (http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general756.html) ", Melbourne, Australia: Sunday Age, 3 April

1994.

. 72 ^ (1999 p.26)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming"

Categories: Accuracy disputes | NPOV disputes | Articles with unsourced statements | Wikipedia articles needing style editing | Articles with sections needing

expansion | Wikipedia articles needing factual verification | Articles lacking sources | Cleanup from June 2006 | Human communication | Mind-body interventions |

Neuro-Linguistic Programming | Neuro-Linguistic Programming concepts and methods | Pseudoscience | Psychotherapy


All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)


19/10/2006 04:07 PMNew Code of NLP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 1 di 2file:///Users/ennio/Desktop/PNL/x-New%20Code%20of%20NLP%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.webarchive



(NLP)

Main articles










Related principles





People





New Code of NLP


New code of Neuro-linguistic programming (New code of NLP) is a

set of patterns, developed in the early and mid-80's by John Grinder,

one of the inventors of the original ("classic") NLP in attempt to

correct its initial design flaws. Judith DeLozier, Grinder's associate at

the time, is also credited as a co-creator of the new code in some of its

aspects.

Grinder and Bostic [1] name the following most substantial patterns

containing in the new code:

1. Multiple Perceptual positions, especially Triple Description (1st, 2nd

and 3rd position).

2. Explicit Framing (outcome, intention, consequence with relevancy

challenges).

3. Ordering relationships including hierarchies such as logical levels

(not to be confused with Robert Dilts' Neurological levels).

4. Timelines (which, according to Grinder, were developed initially as

an exercise in a joint seminar presented by Grinder and Dilts in the

early '80s, see more at Time Line Therapy).

5. The Verbal Package (a streamlined version of Meta-model) with

reduced questions, explicit framing and the more refined verbal

distinctions such as those named by the terms, description,

interpretation and evaluation.

6. A single four-steps format for change with a variable 3rd step. The 3rd step usually includes new code games,

designed to induce the high performance state. These games include The Alphabet game, the NASA game and

variants of Roger Tabb's trampoline exercises.

7. A therapeutic process called "Stalking to excellence".

8. Multiple forms of involuntary signals between conscious and unconscious.

9. Characterological adjectives.

At present, many (but not all) of the new code patterns are incorporated in NLP practitioner and Master-

practitioner courses held around the world, save those designed by Richard Bandler and his students/associates.

19/10/2006 04:07 PMNew Code of NLP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 2 di 2file:///Users/ennio/Desktop/PNL/x-New%20Code%20of%20NLP%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.webarchive

Books

Grinder, John & Judith DeLozier (1987). Turtles All the Way Down: Prerequisites to Personal Genius.

Scots Valley, CA: Grinder & Associates.. ISBN 1-55552-022-7.

Grinder, John & Carmen Bostic St Clair (2001.). Whispering in the Wind. CA: J & C Enterprises., -. ISBN

0-9717223-0-7.

External links

Whispering in the Wind book website (http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/)

New code review by Chris Collingwood (http://www.inspiritive.com.au/new_code_nlp.htm)

An article by Judith DeLozier about new coding (http://www.seishindo.org/judith_delozier.html)


. 1 ^ Grinder, John & Carmen Bostic St Clair (2001.). Whispering in the Wind. CA: J & C Enterprises. -.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Code_of_NLP"

Category: Neuro-Linguistic Programming

This page was last modified 11:00, 8 September 2006.


details.)


19/10/2006 04:08 PMJohn Grinder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 1 di 4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder



(NLP)

Main articles










Related principles





People





John Grinder


John Grinder, Ph.D. (1940 – ) is an American author, linguist, and

the co-creator (with Richard Bandler) of Neuro-linguistic

programming.

Contents

1 Biography

2 Development of Neuro-linguistic programming

3 Books

4 Academic Papers

5 See also

6 Notes and references

7 External links

Biography

John Thomas Grinder graduated from the University of San Francisco

with a degree in psychology in the early 1960's. Grinder then entered

the Military of the United States where he served as a Captain in the

US Special Forces in Europe during the Cold War; following this he

apparently went on to work for a US Intelligence Agency. In the late

1960's, Grinder went back to college to study Linguistics and in 1972

received his Ph.D. from the University of California, San Diego for his

work On Deletion Phenomena in English.[1]

In the early 1970s Grinder worked in George A. Miller's lab at Rockefeller University [2] and was then selected as

an assistant professor of linguistics at the newly founded University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) campus.

During his academic career, Grinder focused on Noam Chomsky's theories of transformational grammar

specialising in syntax. Other academic works include Guide to Transformational Grammar (co-authored with

Suzette Elgin, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973) and more recently, Steps to an Ecology of Emergence

(2005) [3] with Tom Malloy and Carmen Bostic St Clair.

Development of Neuro-linguistic programming

In 1972, while at UCSC, Grinder was approached by an undergraduate psychology student, Richard Bandler, who

requested his assistance to model Gestalt therapy. Bandler had spent a lot of time recording and editing recordings

of Fritz Perls (founder of Gestalt therapy) and had learned Gestalt therapy implicitly. Starting with Fritz Perls,



of Fritz Perls (founder of Gestalt therapy) and had learned Gestalt therapy implicitly. Starting with Fritz Perls,

followed by leading figure in family therapy Virginia Satir, and later the leading figure in hypnosis in psychiatry

Milton Erickson, Grinder and Bandler continued to model the various cognitive behavioral patterns of these

therapists, which they published in The Structure of Magic Volumes I & II (1975, 1976), Patterns of the Hypnotic

Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, Volumes I & II (1975, 1977) and Changing With Families (1976). This work

formed the basis of the methodology that became the foundation of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

Bandler and Grinder began hosting seminars and practise groups. These served as a place for Bandler and Grinder

to practice and test their newly discovered patterns while allowing them to transfer the skills to the participants.

Several books were published based on transcripts of their seminars including Frogs into Princes (1979). During

this period, a creative group of students and psychotherapists formed around Grinder and Bandler, who made

valuable contributions to NLP, including Robert Dilts, Leslie Cameron-Bandler, Judith DeLozier, Stephen

Gilligan, David Gordon.

In the 1980s Bandler, Grinder and their group of associates split acrimoniously, and stopped working together.

Following this, many members of their group went out on their own and took NLP in their own directions. Some

of Bandler and Grinder's books went out of print for a while due to legal problems between the co-authors.

Structure I & II, and Patterns I & II considered the foundation of the field were later republished. Bandler

attempted to claim legal ownership of the term Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), however it was eventually

deemed to be a generic term, and could therefore not be trademarked. Grinder and Bandler settled their claims

around 2001, clearing a platform for the future development of NLP as a legitimate field of endeavour. [4]

Strongly influenced by his mentor and anthropologist Gregory Bateson, between 1982-1987 John collaborated

with Judith DeLozier to develop the New Code of NLP. The patterns presented were designed to provide an

aesthetic framework that explicates the involvement of ecology and the unconscious mind in change work.

Ecology in NLP is about respecting the integrity of the system as a whole when assessing a change to that system;

the 'system' in this case is a person's model of the world and the consequences of that model in the person's

environment. Practically, this consideration entails asking questions like "What are the intended effects of this

change? What other effects might this change have, and are those effects desirable? Is this change still a good

idea?" The seminars were seminars trascribed and published in 1987, Turtles All the Way Down; Prerequisites to

Personal Genius.

The New Code of NLP has been further developed by John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair who founded,

Quantum Leap Inc.; a cultural change consultancy firm. Currently John and Carmen present some public

seminars on NLP internationally. In 2001, Grinder (with Bostic St Clair) published Whispering in the Wind with

"[a] set of recommendations as to how specifically NLP can improve its practice and take its rightful place as a

scientifically based endeavor with its precise focus on modeling of the extremes of human behavior: excellence

and the high performers who actually do it."[5] Grinder has since, strongly encouraged the field to make a

recommitment to what he considers the core activity of NLP, modeling. [6].

Books



Bandler, Richard & John Grinder (1975a). [- The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and

Therapy]. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books., -. 0831400447.

Bandler, Richard & John Grinder (1975b). [- The Structure of Magic II: A Book About Communication and

Change]. PaloAlto, CA: Science & Behavior Books., -. ISBN 0-8314-0049-8.

Grinder, John, Richard Bandler (1976). [- Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D.

Volume I]. Cupertino, CA :Meta Publications., -. -.

John Grinder, Richard Bandler, Judith Delozier (1977). [- Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H.

Erickson, M.D. Volume II]. Cupertino, CA :Meta Publications., -. -.

John Grinder, Richard Bandler (1976). [- Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming]. Science and

Behavior Books., -. -.

John Grinder, Richard Bandler (1979). [- Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming]. Moab, UT:

Real People Press., 194pp. ISBN 0-911226-19-2.

Grinder, John and Richard Bandler (1981). [- Trance-Formations: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the

Structure of Hypnosis]. Moab, UT: Real People Press., -. ISBN 0-911226-23-0.

Grinder, John and Richard Bandler (1983). [- Reframing: Neurolinguistic programming and the

transformation of meaning]. Moab, UT: Real People Press., -. ISBN 0-911226-25-7.

Grinder, John & Judith DeLozier (1987). Turtles All the Way Down: Prerequisites to Personal Genius.

Scots Valley, CA: Grinder & Associates.. ISBN 1-55552-022-7.

Grinder, John, Michael McMaster (1993). Precision. ScotsValley, CA: Grinder & Associates. ISBN 1-

55552-049-9.

Grinder, John & Carmen Bostic St Clair (2001.). Whispering in the Wind. CA: J & C Enterprises., -. ISBN

0-9717223-0-7.

Grinder, John, Carmen Bostic St Clair, Tom Malloy (Working title). RedTail Math: the epistemology of

everyday life. -, -. -.

Academic Papers

John Grinder, Paul Postal (1971). "[- Missing Antecedents, Linguistic Inquiry]". Mouton & Co., -: -.

John Grinder, Suzette Elgin (1972). "[- On Deletion Phenomena in English]". Mouton & Co., -: -.

John Grinder, Suzette Elgin (1973). "[- Guide to Transformational Grammar]". - -: -.

Malloy, T. E., Bostic St Clair, C. & Grinder, J. (2005). "Steps to an ecology of emergence

(http://www.psych.utah.edu/stat/dynamic_systems/Content/examples/Ecology-of-Emergence_Galley-

proofs_Malloy-et-al.pdf) ". Cybernetics & Human Knowing Vol. 11, no. 3: 102-119..

See also



Transformational Grammar

Neuro-linguistic Programming

Modeling (NLP)

Richard Bandler

List of NLP topics


. 1 ^ John Grinder, Suzette Elgin (1972). "[- On Deletion Phenomena in English]". Mouton & Co., -: -.

. 2 ^ [1] (http://www.nlpu.com/grindbio.htm)

. 3 ^ *Malloy, T. E., Bostic St Clair, C. & Grinder, J. (2005). "Steps to an ecology of emergence

(http://www.psych.utah.edu/stat/dynamic_systems/Content/examples/Ecology-of-Emergence_Galley-

proofs_Malloy-et-al.pdf) ". Cybernetics & Human Knowing Vol. 11, no. 3: 102-119..

. 4 ^ (See Appendix of Whispering in the Wind.)

. 5 ^ Grinder, John & Carmen Bostic St Clair (2001.). Whispering in the Wind. CA: J & C Enterprises, 127,

171, 222, ch.3, Appendix. -.

. 6 ^ [2] (http://www.inspiritive.com.au/jg.htm)

External links

Official Website of John Grinder; co-creator of NLP (http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/)

UK homepage for John Grinder (http://www.johngrinder.co.uk/index.htm)

1996 Inspiritive interview with John Grinder (http://www.inspiritive.com.au/grinterv.htm)

1997 Inspiritive interview with John Grinder (http://www.inspiritive.com.au/grinter2.htm)

2002 Interview with John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair

(http://www.whisperinginthewind.com/interview.htm)

2003 Video Interview with John Grinder (http://www.inspiritive.com.au/jg.htm)

Grinder's Biography on Robert Dilts web site (http://www.nlpu.com/grindbio.htm)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder"

Categories: American non-fiction writers | Neuro-Linguistic Programming writers | Neuro-Linguistic

Programming | University of California, Santa Cruz alumni | Living people

This page was last modified 16:15, 27 August 2006.


details.)


19/10/2006 04:27 PMJohn Grinder Bio Page

Pagina 1 di 2file:///Users/ennio/Desktop/PNL/s-John%20Grinder%20Bio%20Page.webarchive

-

The Bio of John Grinder.

John Grinder is a co-founder with Richard Bandler of the field of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.Having graduated from the University of San Francisco (USF) with a degree in psychology in the early1960's, Grinder entered the United States military service where he served as a Green Beret in Europeduring the Cold War. As a result of his gift for acquiring languages, he also spent time as an operativefor a well known US intelligence agency. Upon returning to college in later 1960's, Grinder studiedLinguistics, for which he received his Ph.D. from the University of California at San Diego.

John Grinder

As a linguist, Grinder distinguished himself in the area of syntax, working within Noam Chomsky'stheories of transformational grammar. After studying with cognitive science founder George Miller atRockefeller University, Grinder was selected as a professor of linguistics at the newly foundedUniversity of California campus at Santa Cruz. His works in the area of linguistics include Guide toTransformational Grammar (co-authored with Suzette Elgin, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973)and On Deletion Phenomena in English (Mouton & Co., 1972) and numerous articles.

At UC Santa Cruz Grinder met Richard Bandler, who was a student of psychology. Bandler beganstudying psychotherapy and invited Grinder to participate in his therapy groups. Grinder becamefascinated with the linguistic patterns used by effective therapists, and in 1974 teamed up with Bandler tomake a model, drawing from the theory of transformational grammar, of the language patterns used byGestalt Therapy founder Fritz Perls, family therapist Virginia Satir and Hypnotherapist Milton H.Erickson. Over the next three years Grinder and Bandler continued to model the various cognitivebehavioral patterns of these thereapists, which they published in their books The Structure of MagicVolumes I & II (1975, 1976), Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, Volumes I& II (1975, 1977) and Changing With Families (1976). These books became the foundation of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

Grinder is a co-author of numerous other books on NLP and its applications, including Frogs IntoPrinces (1979), NLP Volume I (1980), Tranceformations (1981), Reframing (1982), Precision (1980),Turtles All The Way Down (1987) and Whispering in the Wind with Carmen Bostic St. Clair (2001).

In addition to his ability to identify and model complex patterns of language and behavior, Grinder isknown for personal power and presence as a presenter and trainer. In recent years, Grinder has focused

19/10/2006 04:27 PMJohn Grinder Bio Page

Pagina 2 di 2file:///Users/ennio/Desktop/PNL/s-John%20Grinder%20Bio%20Page.webarchive

primarily on working as a consultant, applying NLP methods and principles in companies andorganizations.

John GrinderQuantum Leap245 M Mt. Hermon Rd., #277Scotts Valley, CA 95066

Comments or Problems

For information on Robert Dilts’ products and services, please see Upcoming Seminars or Robert’sProduct Page or return to Home Page. If you have problems or comments concerning our WWWservice, please send e-mail to the following address: [email protected].

This page, and all contents, are Copyright © 1998 by Robert Dilts., Santa Cruz, CA.

19/10/2006 04:08 PMJudith DeLozier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 1 di 2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_DeLozier



(NLP)

Main articles










Related principles





People





Judith DeLozier


Please expand (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Judith_DeLozier&action=edit) this article.

Further information might be found in a section of the talk page or at Requests

for expansion.

Judith DeLozier is a trainer and author in NLP. A member of

Grinder and Bandler’s original group of students, she contributed

extensively to the development of NLP models and processes.

DeLozier is best known for her years of work in the 1980s with the

co-founder of NLP, John Grinder, and their book Turtles All The Way

Down. John Grinder has since moved on to work with Carmen Bostic

St Clair.

After breaking with John Grinder, DeLozier continued to work in the

field of NLP. She became an associate member of the NLP

University. She published (with Robert Dilts) The Encyclopedia of

Systemic Neuro-Linguistic Programming and NLP New Coding in

2000, a comprehensive overview of the field of Neuro-Linguistic

Programming.

External links

Interview with Judith DeLozier

(http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/DeLozier.html)

2006 Interview with Judith DeLozier

(http://www.nlpiash.org/Conference2006/Site/Presentations/DelozierJudith.htm)

NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) and Coaching (http://www.nlpschedule.html)

Bio by Robert Dilts (http://www.nlpu.com/judybio.htm)

19/10/2006 04:08 PMJudith DeLozier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 2 di 2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_DeLozier

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_DeLozier"

Categories: Articles to be expanded | Linguist stubs | United States writer stubs | Neuro-Linguistic Programming

writers



details.)


19/10/2006 04:08 PMPerceptual positions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 1 di 2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_positions



(NLP)

Main articles










Related principles





People





Perceptual positions


Perceptual positions is a neuro-linguistic programming and

psychology term denoting that a complex system may look very

different, and different information will be available, depending how

one looks at it and one's point of view.

The idea of multiple perceptual positions in NLP was originally

inspired by Gregory Bateson's double description who purported that

double (or triple) descriptions are better than one. By deliberately

training oneself in moving between perceptual positions one can

develop new choice of responses. [1]

One basic example in NLP training involves considering an experience

(typically a relationship) from the perspective of self, other and a

detached third person in that situation. It could be something that has

occurred already or something that will occur in the future. This type

of exercise is useful in gathering information and often new choice in

the world become available without a deliberate intervention. Because

of the systemic nature of human's lives, often a person in a situation

cannot see answers that a person standing outside can. So by moving

between different perceptual positions, it is claimed that one can see a

problem in new ways, or with less emotional attachment, and thus

gather more information and develop new choices of response. For this

reason it is accepted that in many situations, multiple descriptions of

the situation are better than one.

The founder of NLP modeled this from Virginia Satir, the renowned

family therapist, who at times went so far as to hold what became affectionately known as "parts parties" where

she would guide a client to stand - literally - in everyone's shoes, until they understood better others position and

feelings in the matter.

Examples

A strike looks very different from the viewpoint of a CEO, a worker, a customer and a supplier. But the

problem is almost inevitably harder to solve if a person only appreciates their own viewpoint, and not those

of others involved.

Notes and References

. 1 ^ (Whispering in the Wind, Bostic St Clair & Grinder, 2002 p.247)

19/10/2006 04:08 PMPerceptual positions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 2 di 2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_positions

See also


Principles of NLP

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_positions"

Categories: Cleanup from June 2006 | Neuro-Linguistic Programming concepts and methods | Psychology stubs

This page was last modified 03:36, 18 July 2006.


details.)


19/10/2006 04:34 PMNeurological levels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 1 di 2file:///Users/ennio/Desktop/PNL/pe-Neurological%20levels%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.webarchive



(NLP)

Main articles










Related principles





People





Neurological levels


The Neurological levels were proposed by anthropologist Gregory

Bateson.

They form a hierarchy in which each level is progressively more

psychologically encompassing and impactful. In order of importance

(from high to low) these levels include:

spirit or strategic vision

identity

belief and values

capability

behavior

environment - all behavior occurs in some context

They were developed by Robert Dilts into the Dilts' Neuro-logical

levels (also known as the logical levels of change and the logical levels

of thinking) which are useful for assisting with or understanding

change from an individual, social or organization point of view.

The model as developed by Dilts has come under criticism from NLP

co-creator John Grinder for its logical incoherence: see Grinder and

Bostic's 'Whispering in the Wind'. NLP trainer Michael Breen is

another prominent critic, claiming that the utility of the model is not in

its structure, but can be explained adequately as an example of

anchoring.

External links

NLP Logical Levels, by Roger Ellerton (http://www.renewal.ca/nlp8.htm)

Neurological Levels of Learning

(http://www.trainer.org.uk/members/theory/process/neurological_levels.htm)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurological_levels"

Categories: Accuracy disputes | Articles lacking sources | Neuro-Linguistic Programming concepts and methods

This page was last modified 15:32, 18 June 2006.


details.)


19/10/2006 04:34 PMNeurological levels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 2 di 2file:///Users/ennio/Desktop/PNL/pe-Neurological%20levels%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.webarchive


19/10/2006 04:09 PMTime Line Therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 1 di 1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Line_Therapy

Time Line Therapy


Time Line Therapy, an offshoot of Neuro Linguistic Programming and Ericksonian Hypnosis. It was developed

by Tad James in 1985. His first book Time Line Therapy and the Basis of Personality, was published in 1988.

Because the book was published so soon to his break with Richard Bandler, who had been teaching timelines for

some time, many have claimed that James stole most of the ideas and simply put them in print first.

Other authors who have developed timelines significantly include Robert Dilts who uses timelines in his book

"Changing Belief Systems with NLP", and Richard Bandler who introduced the concepts of building timelines

and multiple timelines, and who has released a tape titled "Multiple Timelines".

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Line_Therapy"

Category: Uncategorized from September 2006



details.)


19/10/2006 04:09 PMMetamodeling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pagina 1 di 3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-model

Metamodeling


(Redirected from Meta-model)

This is the concept of metamodeling in computer science and related disciplines. For the language patterns

known as the Meta-model in Neuro-linguistic programming see Meta model (NLP).

In computer science and related disciplines, metamodeling is the construction of a collection of "concepts"

(things, terms, etc.) within a certain domain. A model is an abstraction of phenomena in the real world, and a

metamodel is yet another abstraction, highlighting properties of the model itself. This model is said to conform to

its metamodel like a program conforms to the grammar of the programming language in which it is written.

Common uses for metamodels are:

As a schema for semantic data that needs to be exchanged or stored

As a language that supports a particular method or process

As a language to express additional semantics of existing information

Contents

1 Definition

1.1 Types of meta-models

1.2 Model Transformations

1.3 Relationship to ontologies

2 See also

3 References

Definition

The following discussion can be viewed as a detailed application of metamodeling techniques, related to Model

Driven Engineering. In data engineering and software engineering, the use of models is more and more

recommended. This should be contrasted with the classical code-based development techniques. A model always

conforms to a unique metamodel. One of the currently most active branch of Model Driven Engineering is the

approach named model-driven architecture proposed by OMG. This approach is based on the utilization of a

language to write metamodels called the Meta Object Facility or MOF. Typical metamodels proposed by OMG

are UML, SysML, SPEM or CWM. All the languages presented below could be defined as MOF metamodels.

Types of meta-models

For software engineering, several types of models (and their corresponding modeling activities) can be

distinguished:



Meta-Data Modeling (MetaData Model)

Meta-Process Modeling (MetaProcess Model)

Model Transformation Language (see below)

Zoos of metamodels. A library of similar meta-models has been called a Zoo of meta-models in paper

(http://www-adele.imag.fr/~jmfavre/papers/TowardsABasicTheoryToModelModelDrivenEngineering.pdf) .

Several meta-model zoos may be found at: AtlanticZoo (http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/am3/zoos/) . Some are

expressed in ECore. Others are written in MOF 1.4 - XMI 1.2. The metamodels expressed in UML-XMI1.2 may

be uploaded in Poseidon_for_UML, a UML CASE tool.

Model Transformations

One important move in Model Driven Engineering is the systematic use of Model Transformation Languages.

The OMG has proposed a standard for this called QVT for Queries/Views/Transformations. QVT is based on the

Meta-Object Facility or MOF. Among many other Model Transformation Languages (MTLs), some examples of

implementations of this standard are AndroMDA, VIATRA, Tefkat or MT.

QVT (Transformation Model). In the case of MOF/QVT, a model transformation is also a model. This

means that the transformation language should be defined by a precise metamodel. An example of a model

transformation language based on a precise metamodel is ATL.

Relationship to ontologies

Meta-models are closely related to ontologies. Both are often used to describe and analyze the relations between

concepts [Söderström2002].

Ontologies express something meaningful within a specified universe of discourse by utilizing a grammar for

using vocabulary. The grammar specifies what it means to be a well-formed statement, assertion, query, etc.

(formal constraints) on how terms in the ontology’s controlled vocabulary can be used together. [Metamodel-b]

Meta-modeling can be considered as an explicit description (constructs and rules) of how a domain-specific

model is built. In particular, this comprises a formalized specification of the domain-specific notations. Typically,

metamodels are – and always should follow - a strict rule set. [Metamodel-a]. “A valid metamodel is an ontology,

but not all ontology are modeled explicitly as metamodels” [Metamodel-b].

See also

Model Driven Engineering (MDE)

Model-driven architecture (MDA)

Domain Specific Language (DSL)

Domain-Specific Modeling (DSM)

ATL (ATL)

VIATRA (Viatra)

XML transformation language (XML TL)



Requirements analysis

MOF Queries/Views/Transformations (MOF QVT)

Transformation language

MODAF Meta-Model

References

[Booch1999] Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I. (1999). The Unified Modeling Language User Guide.

Redwood City, CA: Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.

[Gigch1991] J. P. van Gigch. System Design Modeling and Metamodeling. Plenum Press, New York, 1991

[Bezivin2006] J. Bezivin. On the Unification Power of Models. Software and System Modeling (SoSym)

4(2):171--188. http://www.sciences.univ-

nantes.fr/lina/atl/www/papers/OnTheUnificationPowerOfModels.pdf

[Ernst2002] What is meta-modeling? http://www.metamodel.com/staticpages/index.php?

page=20021010231056977 . 11.10.2002

[Ernst2003] Johannes Ernst. What are the differences between a vocabulary, a taxonomy, a thesaurus, an

ontology, and a meta-model? http://www.metamodel.com/article.php?story=20030115211223271 .

10.10.2002

[Söderström2002] E. Söderström, B. Andersson, P. Johannesson, E. Perjons, and B. Wangler. Towards a

Framework for Comparing Process Modelling Languages. Lecture Notes In Computer Science; Vol. 2348.

Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Pages:

600 – 611, 2002

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamodeling"

Categories: Software engineering | Systems engineering



details.)


19/10/2006 04:10 PMWhispering in the Wind

Pagina 1 di 1http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/

WHISPERING IN THE WIND is a rich, entertaining andprecise presentation of a number of topics and issues thatdefine the enterprise called Neuro-LinguisticProgramming (NLP).After NLP's turbulent infancy and a waywardadolescence, we are treated to a comprehensive and in-depth presentation by one of the co-creators of NLP,John Grinder, and a brilliant new voice in the community,Carmen Bostic St. Clair. Their ability to balancemetaphor, formalisms and down-to-earth examples of thepowerful processes that drive NLP is unequaled. Thisbook represents the coming of age for the excitingadventure called NLP.

"Steps to an Ecology of

Emergence" Read this article by

Thomas E. Malloy, Carmen Bostic

St Clair, and John Grinder

Read "The Sins* of the Fathers":

an article by John Grinder and

Carmen Bostic St. Clair

This document requires

the free Adobe Acrobat

Reader. You can

download a copy here

Any special requests should be addressed to

[email protected]

All information on this web site (unless otherwise stated) is © copyright 2002 - 2006 John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair of

CB and JG publishing. All rights reserved. The information provided on this site, including John Grinder's and Carmen Bostic St

Clair posts in the forum are strictly for provided on this site for personal use only and may not be reproduced and disseminated

in any format without explicit permission.

Steps to an Ecology of Emergence 1

Steps to an Ecology of Emergence

Thomas E. Malloy1,3, Carmen Bostic St Clair2, and John Grinder2

IN PRESS: Cybernetics and Human Knowing

This version of the manuscript is formatted for web posting

RUNNING HEAD: Steps to an Ecology of Emergence

CONTACT: Thomas E. Malloy, University of Utah, Department of Psychology, 380

South 1530 East Room 502, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0251, [email protected], www.psych.utah.edu/dysys


Abstract. To begin to take steps to a mental ecology of emergence we first establish two fundamental assumptions from the methodology of transformational grammar—the

centrality of human judgment based on direct experience and the proposition that the systematic nature of human behavior is algorithmically driven. We then set a double criterion for understanding any formalism such as emergence: What is formalism X, that

a human may know it; and a human, that s/he may know formalism X? In the cybernetic sense, the two are defined in relation to each other. In answer to the first question, we

examine emergence as a formalism, using Turing’s work as a defining case and an NK Boolean system as a specific working model. In answer to the second question, we frame the knowing of emergence in a Batesonian epistemological approach informed by

modern developments in discrete dynamic systems. This epistemology specifies mental process as the transformation of differences across a richly connected network. The

relational reference point which integrates the two sides of the cybernetic question is human judgment of perceptual similarity which links emergent hierarchies in a formal NK Boolean model to hierarchies of perceptual similarity based on direct experience.

KEYWORDS: Emergence, Perceptual Categories, Dynamic Constancy, Hierarchies, Boolean Models, Epistemology, Knowledge, Bateson, Kauffman


Steps to an Ecology of Emergence

I have said that what gets from territory to map is transforms of

differences and that these (somehow selected) differences are elementary ideas.

But there are differences between differences. Every effective difference denotes a demarcation, a line of classification, and all

classifications are hierarchic. In other words, differences are themselves to be differentiated and classified. In this context I will only touch lightly on

the matter of classes of difference, because to carry the matter further would land us in the problems of Principia Mathematica.

Let me invite you to a psychological experience, if only to demonstrate the frailty of the human computer. First note that differences

in texture are different (a) from differences in color. Now note that differences in size are different (b) from differences in shape. Similarly

ratios are different (c) from subtractive differences. Now let me invite you... to define the differences between "different (a)," "different (b)," and "different (c)" in the above paragraph.

The computer in the human head boggles at the task. --Gregory Bateson (1972), pp. 463, 464.

Model-based Intuitions about Emergence In 1952 Alan Turing, in study of embryology, published a groundbreaking paper

that laid the foundation for the concept of emergence. Within the constraints of a formal mathematical symbol system, he derived insights into morphogenesis—how form self-organizes from the interactions among well-defined processes. He found that forms

observed in nature (dappled patterns, radial whorls seen in leaves around stems) resulted naturally from the interplay of coupled nonlinear equations that in themselves had no

hints of the higher order characteristics of the emergent forms. Turning’s paper has become among the most seminal of the twentieth century (Keller, p. 108). Fifty years later this insight can now be more easily understood through more accessible formalisms,

often derived from the languages of computing (e.g., Holland, 1998, p. 103, p. 125). For example, the gliders generated by simple rules in Conway’s cellular automaton, Life

(e.g., Holland 1998, p. 138) skate across a computer screen, transforming and reforming as they interact. Gliders have become a canonical example of emergence. Furthermore, simple cellular automaton rules can produce gliders that generate other gliders (see

http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/emergence/index.html). The distinction between the level of generating processes and the level of wholes

that emerge is the basis of the idea of emergent hierarchies. If interacting processes produce wholes with novel characteristics not found in those lower level processes and if the wholes are themselves processes that can interact and so produce even higher level

wholes with yet again novel characteristics, then we have an outline of a process for emergent hierarchies. Candidates for emergence were fundamental to Bateson’s


epistemology (1979, chapter 3), although he did not use that term. The case of difference, that “there must be two entities such that the difference between them… can

be immanent in their relationship” (1979, p. 644), is particularly relevant to this discussion. Other candidates discussed by Bateson for what might now be called

emergence are binocular vision, beats and moiré patterns. Boolean Dynamic Systems

To specify how emergent levels develop in a model and, more critically, how those model-defined levels relate to human perception of those emergent levels we will

use a computer simulation, E42, which generates NK Boolean dynamical systems (Kauffman, 1993, p. 188). NK Boolean systems are a network of N nodes (the “entities” whose relationship generates difference in Bateson’s terms) each of which takes input

from K other nodes in the network. These systems are Boolean because each node has only two possible states (0 or 1) and therefore are based on difference. As such, NK

Boolean systems create a simulation context which can be mapped to the fundamentals of Bateson’s difference-based epistemology (see Malloy, Jensen, & Song, in press). Moreover, E42 is capable of differentiating differences in differences thereby generating

emergent model-based hierarchies corresponding to those in the opening quote. Under very broad constraints the reverberation of differences in NK Boolean

networks falls into repetitive cycles called basins or attractors—that is, the system will cycle back to the same overall state in a given number of iterations. The number of iterations in such a cycle is called the basin length. This spontaneous falling into cycles

is what Kauffman (1995) calls “order for free.” That is, if you grant that biology can be construed as a vast network of transformations of difference, then under certain general

conditions it will self-organize into complex cyclic patterns. As Turing demonstrated, these cyclic patterns can be expressed as form; and their emergence from the interactions of lower- level processes is what he meant by morphogenesis.

Figure 1. Camouflage-like striped patterns. The first four columns (a to d) are four basins from the same

dynamic system. The fifth column (e) is a basin from a different dynamic system.

Figure 1 shows static snapshots of basin patterns from two small Boolean systems generated pseudo-randomly by E42. Note that these patterns are dynamic and result from

the system cycling over and over in the same basin. Panels (a) through (d) are all from


the same dynamic system. Panel (e) shows a basin from a different pseudo-randomly generated system; panel (e) is included merely to show that there are many pseudo-

randomly generated ways to getting the appearance of striped camouflage. Figure 1 shows the sort of camouflage pattern found by Turing but generated from a very different

mathematical basis. This approach to form as a self-organized persistent whole generated by the interplay of underlying processes pioneered by Turing has been a prime basis for defining

emergence as a phenomenon and is still consistent with modern criteria (e.g., Holland, 1998, p. 225). Forms, in this tradition, are not things but rather processes, although as

with leaf patterns or animal spots, forms may be persistent enough to be taken as if they are things. In fact, as Turing indicated, they are ongoing processes, more like a stationary wave in a mountain stream which may appear to stable, even static, but is in each

moment holding its form by the interactions of fluid processes. Kauffman (1993) proposes that, along with natural selection, the self-organization

of emergent form is a co-principle in the evolution of life. As an example of how this might work, note that the forms in panels (a) through (d) in Figure 1 all self-organize from interaction of Boolean processes and are from the same dynamic system. Let these

forms represent four kinds of camouflage that self-organize from the Boolean idealization of genetic interaction (Kauffman, 1995, p. 74, 104). Given that these forms can emerge

from the interaction of genes, then natural selection, depending on environmental pressures, would act to favor one form over another; the lighter camouflage (a) might be favored in areas with long winters while the zebra- like striping (c) may be favored in

open grasslands. If something like the Boolean idealization is what happens in genetic interaction, then the rich patterning observed in life is not the improbable result of chance

acting in long random walks of natural selection but the inevitable and expected result of self organization (Kauffman, 1995, p. 71ff). Natural selection, in such a model, has only to explain which form survives; it does not have to explain the genesis of form, which as

Turing in 1952 demonstrated, can emerge from process interactions.

Critiques of Emergence More elusive and more controversial has been the use of these model-generated insights and definitions as explanatory devices for “actual” phenomena. Keller (2002)

provides a convincing history of the lack of success in developmental biology of mathematical models in general and of Turing’s morphogenic ideas in particular. In

short, the contention is that the processes that generate the patterns of hair on a zebra are nothing like the processes underlying Turing’s derivations or E42’s simulations. That is, the processes which generate levels in a model are sometimes conflated with processes

that generate corresponding levels in the phenomena (Goldstein, 2002). Goldstein also summarizes other issues in the definition of emergence. Emergence is often

characterized negatively (an emergent characteristic is not found in the processes that generate it). Frequently emergent levels seem arbitrary due to a lack of detailed specification of how processes generate emergent levels; it is one thing to say that cells

interact to produce tissues; but without detailed process specification, tissues may be an arbitrarily chosen emergent whole for the interaction of cells. Finally, Goldstein (2002)

and others have noted that emergent phenomena of interest arise naturally while models


such as glider guns are carefully designed and therefore unlike natural phenomena. We will return to these issues later, after our ideas are more developed.

Intuition as a Legitimate Methodology

We are primarily concerned here with epistemology and with Bateson’s notion of ecology of mind. How might hierarchies of differences (see quote which begins this paper) and therefore hierarchies of pattern emerge in a mental system? There are several

crucial epistemological frames to establish in answering that question. As a start, our epistemological approach has two fundamental assumptions (Bostic-St. Clair & Grinder,

2001). Both of these assumptions are explicit in Chomsky's transformational grammar. Let us first focus on the paradigmatic centrality of human judgment based on direct experience (what Chomsky calls intuition). As an example, consider the sentence,

“This pig is ready to eat.” Is the sentence ambiguous, that is, does it have more than one meaning? Both the answer to that question and the definition of the linguistic

phenomenon of ambiguity in Chomsky’s paradigm depend on the linguistic intuitions of native speakers of English as they experience that sentence. The second assumption (also explicit in Chomsky’s paradigm) is that human

behavior is systematic in the sense of being rule-based; moreover, in the linguistic paradigm, it is assumed that native speakers have internalized the grammatical rules of

their native language so that their intuitive judgments are based on these rules. A monolingual speaker of English, while able to make judgments about important linguistic phenomena in English, would fail to do so when presented with Spanish or Chinese

sentences. The grammatical rules of a language must be well- learned before a person’s direct experience with a sentence leads to appropriate natural language intuitions.

Chomsky’s transformational grammar is a mapping from natural language phenomena such as ambiguity onto explicit models, namely, recursive rule systems of great simplicity and formal power. It is worthy of note that learning and internalizing

these mathematical rule systems produced model-based intuitions which allowed researchers to determine with little effort what the actual claims of the model are and

what would constitute a counterexample to the model’s claims so as to make mapping from rule system to linguistic phenomena open to challenge and refinement based on intuition. Notice that there are two kinds of intuitions in this discussion: Those resulting

from internalizing the grammatical rules of a natural language and those resulting from internalizing the rules of a mathematical model (which Chomsky then mapped onto the

language phenomena). In this epistemological framework, the intuitions about emergence based on Turing’s math required a deep commitment to learning the symbolic language system he used. The same is true in the more accessible ideas based on neural

nets and their generalization to emergence, (e.g., Holland, 1998). Even the relatively simple logic of a Boolean system (see Appendix) requires a fair commitment to learning

its formal language (Kauffman 1993). In any case, intuition, be it based on internalizing grammars or internalizing formal models, is a key element of our epistemology.

In this paper we propose NK Boolean systems as a simple set of recursive rules

that generate hierarchies of differences in differences which can be mapped onto visual forms and validated against perceptual intuitions. We will not ask you, the reader, to

generate model-based intuitions by internalizing the rules of Boolean math (equivalent to Chomsky’s recursive rules); we will, however, ask you to check your natural perceptual


intuitions about emergent hierarchies of visual forms (equivalent to linguistic phenomena like ambiguity). If you want to develop model-based intuitions for Boolean systems see

Malloy, Jensen and Song (in press) where we lay out the requisite logic of such systems or examine a short summary in the Appendix. Our strategy here is to let computer

simulations do the work of realizing the Boolean models’ processes by mapping their logic onto visual forms and then allowing you to check your own natural perceptual experience about the emergent hierarchies which result.

The Embodiment of Mind

How can we address emergence within an epistemology soundly rooted in systems framework? Warren McCulloch (1965) suggested a possible direction. The cybernetic conceptualization of neural nets as a basis for mental process was pioneered

(Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1993, p. 38) by McCulloch & Pitts, 1943. Later, enmeshed in a culture which deeply presupposed the Cartesian mind-body split, in our

era manifested as the hidden homunculus of cognitivist theories, McCulloch articulated a general framework for the embodiment of mind (1965). He revised the Psalmist spiritual question, “What is a man that Thou shouldst know him?” to a stringent double criterion

(1961): “What is a number, that a man may know it, and a man, that he may know a number?” Here, in this question stated in cybernetic form, a formalism and a description

of human epistemology are known in relation to each other. Properly to define emergence by this relational criteria is to propose formalisms for emergence in relation to a description of human knowledge.

McCulloch (1965, p. 6) uses Russell’s definition of a number: “A number is the class of all those classes that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with it.” As an

example, he notes that “7 is the class of all those classes that can be put into one-to-correspondence with the days of the week, which are 7.” He further notes that while some mathematicians may question whether this is all that a number means, it is

sufficient for his purposes which is to define a number in such a way that, like linguistic ambiguity, most people can have intuitions about it since most people have internalized

rules of mathematics well enough to generate intuitions about such a definition of number. For the other side of his question, he refers to his earlier work with Pitts and summarizes the theoretical importance of it. He maps people’s intuitions about number

onto a recursive rule system of great power. In doing so he lays the ground-work for the now familiar argument that the logic of neural nets is sufficient for knowing in general

and for knowing numbers in particular. Both Holland (1998, p. 96ff) and Varela, Thompson, & Rosch (1993, p. 155ff) develop examples of models (neural nets, cellular automata) clearly enough that most people can have model-based intuitions about them.

McCulloch proposed and then met a stringent double standard: He specified a double—(a) a description of what is known (a number) and (b) a model of the

epistemology of the knower (neural nets)—in such a way that both terms of the double could be mapped to each other. McCulloch’s double requirement that we be explicit about the relationship between a formalism and a description of human knowledge is

critical. What are the processes which underlie formalism X that it may be known by a human, and the processes of human knowing that s/he may know formalism X? To

meta-frame this discussion in Turing’s metaphor, and to point at what we think


McCulloch and later Bateson were asking us to think about, we ask, “What forms emerge from the coupled interactions of the above processes?”

That a Human May Know It

What is the formalism named E42? We will aim here for an intuitive answer to that question. The details of how Boolean systems work along with their correspondences to Bateson’s epistemology can be found in Malloy, Jensen and Song (in

press). As a start, let us examine how the images in Figures 1 and 2 represent the behavior of E42. Recall that an NK Boolean system consists of N nodes, each taking

input from K other nodes. This input consists of either a 0 indicating that the other node is OFF or a 1 indicating that the other node is ON. At any time, T, every node in the system uses a logical operator whose arguments are its inputs to decide if it will be ON or

OFF for the next iteration (T+1). For example, if a node has two inputs and its operator is the logical AND operator, then it will be ON during the next iteration (T+1) only if

both its inputs are ON during the current iteration (T). If another node is using the logical INCLUSIVE OR operator then it will be ON at T+1 if either one input or the other or both are ON at time T. If a node is using the logical EXCLUSIVE OR (XOR) operator

then at T+1 it will be ON if its two inputs are the different (that is, either {0,1} or {1,0}); conversely it will be OFF if its two inputs are the same (that is, either {0,0} or {1,1}).

The XOR operator thus detects difference and is related to Bateson’s difference-based epistemology in important ways. Any logical operator can be used a system constructed by E42 and which operator actually is used by each node is decided pseudo-randomly

when the system is first built. For more details see the Appendix or Malloy, Jensen and Song (in press).

The behavior of an E42-generated Boolean system can be represented as a historical trace of the states (ON or OFF) of all its nodes across time. Examine Figure 2, which has finer detail than Figure 1, and shows output from a different pseudo-randomly

generated dynamic system than those that generated Figure 1. This system has N = 35 nodes. The 35 nodes run up vertical axis while time (iterations) runs along the horizontal

axis. Look at Figure 2 (a), basin 40. The first column shows the state (ON = black square and OFF = white square) for each the 35 nodes arrayed as a vertical vector. The second column shows the state of each node for the next iteration, and so on. Figure 2 (a)

shows one particular basin, basin 40, into which that the system falls. Panel (a) shows 24 iterations on the horizontal axis; this is enough for the system to cycle through “basin 40”

four times—that is, the length of the basin cycle happens to be six iterations, and we have four cycles through that basin. Six iterations per cycle times four cycles yields 24 iterations on the horizontal axis of Figure 2 (a). Once in a basin such as that shown in

Figure 2 (a) the system will stay there forever unless it is perturbed. Figure 2 panels (b) through (d) show three other basins (each cycling 4 times).

The representation of dynamics as a historical trace generates a pattern resulting from the behavior of a system across time; more specifically, it shows the differences in the states of the full set of nodes (vertical axis) as they change across time (horizontal

axis). These changes over time are the dynamic component of system’s behavior. The 2-D patterns generated by changes in the states of an array of nodes (ordinate) over time

(abscissa) are perceptible to humans as coherent wholes when a system is cycling in a basin. In Figure 1, these patterns are evocative of the visual experience of striped


camouflage, and it was this sort of coming- into-being of form a cross time which was the central point of Turing’s paper. In Figure 2, the patterns are more abstract.

Figure 2. Four basins from a pseudo-randomly generated dynamic system. Panels (a) and (b) are perceived

as similar as are panels (c) and (d).

Recall that we described two kinds of intuitions, those that come from internalizing a model (such as Chomsky’s) and those that come from encountering

phenomena such as linguistic ambiguity. The intention here is to represent the workings of the Boolean model in a way that you may have intuitions from the model without the considerable effort of internalizing its rules. We are examining here the first half of

McCulloch’s questions: What is (one example, at least, of) a dynamic system that a human may know it? Representing the processes of a Boolean model as a visual

historical trace allows you to have visual intuitions about the logic of the model without needing to internalize that logic. On that basis, we will later ask you to check your intuitions about visual hierarchies which are candidates for emergence.

Dynamic Constancies for Differences in Differences over Time

An interesting aspect of Figure 2 is that, in the judgment of humans, patterns

generated by basins 40 and 90, panels (a) and (b), resemble each other but are distinct from the patterns of basins 11 and 67, panels (c) and (d), which in turn resemble each

other. Here we are using the linguistic methodology and you are asked to examine Figure 2 and make your own judgments.

For a discussion of the nature of emergent hierarchies, these obvious perceptual

judgments are crucial. Before we examine that issue, we first will consider one more issue that is technical—the discrete first derivative. The E42 system can perform

operations parallel to the thought experiment proposed by Bateson (1972, p. 463, 464)


involving hierarchies of difference. Figure 2 shows four basin patterns that result from the historical trace of the differences in a system across time. Change over time implies

the possibility of a change in change over time (that is, the discrete analogue of the first derivative). In essence, E42 takes the discrete first derivative to determine whether the

differences over time that generate one basin are themselves the same or different than the differences over time that generate another basin. The details of this process are found in Malloy, Jensen and Song (in press).

The discrete first derivatives of the basins in Figure 2 (a) and (b) are identical; so too are the derivatives of the basins shown in Figure 2 (c) and (d). That is, the

differences in differences over time are the same in panels (a) and (b) and likewise are the same in panels (c) and (d). Patterns that have the same first derivative—panels (a) and (b) or, alternately, panels (c) and (d)—look similar to humans.

Emergent Hierarchies in Model and in Perception

In Figure 2 we have two possible levels of a proposed emergent hierarchy. The first level is realized by the basin patterns (zebra stripes in Figure 1 or the more abstract patterns in Figure 2) that are generated by the interaction of the Boolean processes. This

level of emergence is the one proposed by Turing in his study of morphogenesis and is essentially the same level of emergent form as Conway’s gliders in the game of Life.

The second proposed emergent level is realized by the appearance in Figure 2 of categories of form generated by the model using the first derivatives taken on those forms. In our methodology, these model-generated levels are calibrated against the

reader’s perceptual judgments. Figure 3 shows a more interesting example consisting of six basins from yet

another pseudo-randomly generated dynamic system that has 36 nodes. The length of a basin in Figure 3 is four iterations; so four times through four iterations yields the 16 iterations shown on the horizontal axis for each basin. Based on identical first

derivatives, the model places the six basins into three categories of two basins each: category 9 (basins 59 and 68), category 1 (basins 31 and 36) and category 2 (basins 49

and 34). (The system has more basins and more categories, which are not shown here.) All basins in the same category have identical discrete first derivatives; and all basins in different categories have different first derivatives.

Using the criterion of human intuition akin to the linguistic paradigm you are asked to examine your own perceptual judgments about two interesting perceptual

observations with implications for the concept of emergent hierarchies. Both perceptual observations are related to what we will define as the principle of dynamic constancy. First, basins within a category are more similar to each other than they are to basins in

other categories; this is the same point noted above in Figure 2. This first point is particularly applicable in category 9 where basins 59 and 68 are perceptually hard to

distinguish and in category 2 where basins 49 and 34 are nearly as difficult to distinguish. The only weakening of this point is in category 1 where basins 31 and 36 have some elements that are perceptually quite distinct, distinct enough that some people might not

put them in the same category. In fact, there are boundary conditions for this phenomenon (that categories based on first derivatives correspond to human perceptual

judgments); these boundary conditions, while important, do not invalidate the phenomenon and are discussed in depth at www.psych.utah.edu/dysys.


Figure 3. Dynamic Constancy. Six visual forms placed into three categories based on identical first

derivatives. The three categories are themselves placed into two meta-categories based on identical second

derivatives.

Second, and of great interest for conceptualizing emergent hierarchies, is that,

taken as a whole, some categories are more similar to each other than they are to other categories. To be concrete, notice that the basins in category 9, while closely resembling

each other, are quite distinct from the basins in categories 1 and 2. In contrast, the four basins in categories 1 and 2, taken together, are relatively similar to each other. They certainly resemble each other more than they do the basins in category 9. It is as if there

is a possibility of meta-categories consisting of categories that are similar to each other. Could not the four basins in categories 1 and 2 be placed together, all in the same higher-

level category? The answer, at least the answer provided by the Boolean model, is yes. How would the model do this? A first derivative implies a second derivative. Up to this point we have used the

first derivative to examine the differences in the differences of the states of a system as it iterates across time. Now we will use the second derivative to examine the differences in

the differences in the differences in the states of the system across time. In doing so what we find is that categories 1 and 2 (meta-category B in Figure 3) have identical second derivatives, while category 9 (meta-category A in Figure 3) has a distinct second

derivative. This model-based processing of differences in the states of the system over time once again generates categories tha t correspond to human perceptual judgments.

Now we have three potential levels in a candidate for an emergent hierarchy. The first level is the genesis of form from the interaction of generating processes. The next


level is the emergence of categories of form generated by the processes involved in taking differences in differences over time. The third level is the emergence of meta-

categories of form based on taking differences in differences in differences over time. These levels, precisely defined in the realm of the model, correspond to human

perceptual judgments. We propose that this is one way to operationalize Bateson’s hierarchy of differences outlined in the opening quote. The categories are examples of cases where changes over time themselves do not

change. We call the perceptual similarity of patterns in such categories the principle of dynamic constancy and propose it as a new principle of perceptual grouping to be added

to the well-known Gestalt principles of grouping (for a modern discussion, see Palmer, 1999). We have now discussed in general terms what E42 is that a human may know it.

The answer, then, to McCulloch’s first criterion is that E42 is a formal model whose differences over time generate forms such that the differences in the differences in those

forms generate a hierarchy of levels that can be known by humans through judgments of perceptual similarity.

The Human Reference Point Let us return to our epistemological frame with a quote from Bostic St Clair and

Grinder (2001): The linguist manipulates the syntactic, phonological, and semantic forms and judges and/or asks native speakers to judge whether the

consequences are a well- formed sentence in the language, an ambiguous string or any one of an array of numerous othe r possibilities. The relevant

reference point by the very nature of the research is internal to the bearer of the internal grammar – the native speaker himself. To put the matter in a somewhat different form, suppose that we

succeeded in constructing an instrument that purportedly arrived at the same judgments for visual inputs as those possessed by normally sighted

people. How would we know whether the instrument worked? The answer clearly is that we would accept the instrument as

accurate if and only if the responses of the instrument matched those of normally sighted people. In other words, we would calibrate the

instrument by using precisely the same set of judgments (intuitions) reported by the people involved that we presently use in the absence of such an instrument.

Thus in fields where the patterning under scrutiny is patterning of the behavior of human beings, the reference point and the source of the

judgments will necessarily be the human being (p. 76).

How could it be otherwise?

In this framework, the correspondence between the hierarchical levels of the model and human perceptual judgments integrates the two sides of McCulloch’s

relational loop. It is the human that is the relational center when formalisms are generated and known.


What is Human Knowledge that a Human May Know Dynamic Systems?

We now address epistemological issues in the second part of McCulloch’s question: What is a human that s/he may know a formalism? We will present one thread

of thought in this regard. The conceptualization of knowledge in terms of the “all or none” character of “difference” goes back in its modern computationally-based form at least to McCulloch

and Pitts (1943). The fundamentals of neural nets that they laid down have undergone various stages of elaboration and development by theorists like Hebb (1949), Holland

(1975) and Valera, Thompson and Rosch (1993) among many others. And the rigorous focus on difference as the defining epistemological relationship was developed extensively by Bateson (1972, 1979), and continued in our own work by DeLozier and

Grinder (1987) with application as a teaching method by Malloy (2001). Influenced by McCulloch’s thinking (see M. C. Bateson, 1991), Gregory Bateson

(1979, p.p. 89, 102, 106) proposes that difference is the basis of mental process which itself has six criteria:

(1) Mind is an aggregate of interacting parts or components. (2) The

interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference. (3) Mental process requires collateral energy. (4) Mental process requires circular (or

more complex) chains of determination. (5) In mental process the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms (i.e., coded versions) of the difference which preceded them. (6) The description and classification of

these processes of transformation discloses a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena.

The second, fourth, fifth, and sixth criteria are particularly relevant to emergent hierarchies of a mental ecology as operationalized here by perceptual categories resulting

from the analysis of differences in differences. McCulloch directs our attention to the relationship between any formalism and

the specification of an epistemology within which that formalism could be known. Bateson’s descriptions of mental process, connected as they are to McCulloch’s foundations of neural network theory, act as a starting point for an epistemology that

would allow humans to know emergent phenomena. Based on that starting point we have given Bateson’s descriptions more specificity by modeling them with a Boolean system.

This modeling allowed the specification of what is meant by taking differences in difference and produced model-based hierarchies of visual pattern. This model-based hierarchy in turn corresponds to human judgments of similarity—the reference point for

connecting model-based emergent hierarchies with emergent hierarchies in perception.

Critical Concerns Revisited Earlier, we focused on three critiques of emergence as a concept. One is that the

processes that underlie hierarchies can be under-specified, vague and post hoc with the result that the emergent levels which are named are arbitrary. In the case of the

perceptual categories presented here, the Boolean generating processes, including discrete derivatives, produce hierarchies in the visual output of E42 model that are well-


specified, thus the model-based categories which emerge are not arbitrary but a deterministic result of Boolean logical processes. The second critique is that the levels in

model and the levels in the actual phenomena are conflated and then the processes that generated the emergent levels in the model are assumed to be the same as the processes

that generate the levels in the actual phenomenon. This is a deeper scientific issue, applying to all models and theories whether they address emergence or other concepts. It amounts to confusing the map with the territory. In our case this would be equivalent to

assuming that the transforms of differences generated the E42 model are the same as the transformations taking place in a human perceptual system which generate corresponding

levels of similarity judgments. This critique cannot, indeed should not, be dismissed in any definitive sense. It is crucial to keep a well-defined distinction between, on one hand, a model, and how it works, and, on the other hand, the phenomenon, and how it

works. A productive and positive approach to this second issue is offered by Bateson

(1979, p. 76) who defines explanation as the mapping of a tautology onto a description of some phenomenon. Bateson considers such a mapping from tautology to description as an example of the gains in knowledge that result from multiple versions of the world.

What we have offered here is a (Boolean) logical tautological system mapped onto Bateson’s description of a hierarchy of differences which opened this paper. The intent is

not to confuse the tautology with Bateson’s descriptions nor with the processes of human perceptual physiology. Rather the intent is to generate gains in insight and utility that could result from putting the two into relationship, much in the spirit of McCulloch

double-sided question. Thus the formal hierarchies of emergence based on differences in differences in the model are set into relationship with a Bateson’s description of a human

as knower; and, finally, human perceptual judgments are used as the reference point for evaluating the utility of that relationship itself. The third critical concern was that emergent phenomena of interest arise naturally

while models are carefully designed. Taking Bateson’s framing of explanation as a mapping of a tautology onto a description of a phenomenon this will always be the case.

Verbal or mathematical, the model or the theory that we map onto our descriptions of the world are by definition a human artifice. The hope is that some utility emerges from such mapping from artifice to nature. In this discussion hierarchies of differences in

differences generated by E42 have been mapped onto visual form and hierarchies of perceptual similarity in those forms. The utility of gliders and glider guns in cellular

automata theory depends on what they are mapped onto and how the mapping is done. But even if gliders are taken as a general metaphor, they may be of great value.

Emergence as Metaphor The importance of metaphor’s function in a mental ecology is both pervasive

and useful. An important metaphor, at least in western civilization, which is proper to religion and certain areas of philosophy and metaphysics, is the designer metaphor—that an all-knowing, all-powerful being designed the universe. Something, split off from and

separate from the biological world, designs the biological world. Proper as it may be in religion and other disciplines, the designer metaphor is not proper to science. Turing set

out to defeat the “argument from design,” in the life sciences. The concept of emergence which his work eventually led to is a powerful metaphorical alternative to the metaphor


of designer. In this function it allows discourse about many human ideas and experiences without the necessity of proposing a designer. Keller (2002, p. 90) documents that

Turing intended for once and for all to “Defeat the argument from Design.” He provoked an alternative framework to theories and discourses that presupposed life needed

ultimately to be explained by a designer. As we’ve argued in the previous section, there is no paradox here; a mathematical proof that form can emerge from the interplay of processes is no more paradoxical in its use as a tautology to map onto natural phenomena

than are other tautologies, whether they be the idea of a designer or idea of reductionist causality (see below).

The power of the emergence insight is that wholes self-organize themselves as a natural function of the interplay of the processes that make them up. Turing and others have, at least within the realm of logic and mathematics, offered proofs of this. This is a

logico-mathematical concept of great generality and power. Science doesn’t follow the chain of causality back to the being, who external to the world, designed and created the

world. It does use, however, a reductionist metaphor to follow causality down to sub-atomic particles or back through time to the big bang. While such chains might well someday be literal, tracing every link rigorously, in fact currently that is not possible; and

the reductionist chain is primarily metaphorical, coloring in the background the way we think about what is important in theory and data. The metaphorical frame of emergence

offers an alternative background, supplanting long chains of metaphorical reductionist causality with local neighborhoods of process levels within which phenomena of interest self-organize into emergent wholes to be studied and understood in relation to those

neighborhoods of process. As Keller (2002, p. 102) summarizes it, “Turing’s work… offered a way out of the infinite regress…” In fact, within the emergence metaphor, the

reductionist cha in can never be complete because there will always be gaps in that chain where sub-processes self-organize into higher- level processes whose characteristics cannot be found in the sub-processes.

As Kauffman argues, the underlying concepts of science influence scientists and nonscientists alike every day in metaphorical ways.

The vast mystery of biology is that life should have emerged at all, that the order we see should have come to pass. A theory of emergence would account for the creation of the stunning order out our windows as a natural

expression of some underlying laws. It would tell us if we are at home in the universe, expected in it, rather than present despite overwhelming odds

(Kauffman, 1995, p. 23). In a general day to day context, having a way of understanding that leaves can form in an

elegant whorl around a plant’s stem as a natural consequence of the processes of plant physiology or that organs might emerge out of tissues and tissues out of cells is a useful

alternative both to thinking about life as designed by an external entity and to thinking in the materialist tradition of biology as a machine, a linear sequence of cause and effect. If formalisms, such as numbers, emerge as characteristics of neural networks, then, by

metaphorical generalization, mental processes, ideas, the whole of mental ecology can be cast as an emergent characteristic of the processes of human (and all) biology—mind and

body are an integrated whole. And they are integrated as a whole both in a metaphorical way and in a way that is susceptible to study through formal models, in whatever degree


of specificity is required by a scientific question. They are integrated in a way which is “neither mechanical nor supernatural” (Bateson and Bateson, 1987, chapter 5). As such,

the metaphor of emergence serves as a functional addition to the mental ecology of western society, with potential for contributing to integrating the mind-body split and

moving toward mind and nature as a necessary unity (Bateson, 1979). A final gain of great potential value which results from using dynamic systems tautologies like E42 to map onto descriptions of knowledge is that in a dynamic systems

approach mental process will self-organize. If “ideas” are thought of as dynamic basins, then knowledge need not always be learned incrementally; rather, interactions with the

environment within such a model are likely to provoke mental process to self-organize into ideas. The flash of insight is what is expected and works hand in hand with incremental learning. Insight and incremental learning might correspond in a general

way to the modern insight that evolution is shaped by both self-organization and by natural selection.

Steps to an Ecology of Emergence How might hierarchies emerge in a mental ecology? To answer that question we

have used McCulloch’s double criteria: What is emergence, that humans may know it, and human knowledge, that they may know emergence? In the cybernetic sense, the two

are defined in relation to each other. In answer to the first question, we have examined emergence as a formalism, using Turing’s work as a defining case and an NK Boolean system as a specific working model. In answer to the second question, we have framed

the knowing of emergence in a broad Batesonian epistemological approach informed by modern developments in neural nets and discrete dynamic systems models. This

epistemology specifies mental process, both verbally and in computer simulations, as the transformation of differences across a richly connected network. As the relational reference point which integrates the two sides of McCulloch’s cybernetic question, we

have used human judgments of perceptual similarity to link emergent hierarchies formally found in an NK Boolean model to hierarchies of perceptual similarity in human

knowledge.

APPENDIX

E42 builds Boolean systems consisting of N (4 = N = 400) binary nodes (0, 1). On any iteration (T), each node accepts input (either 0 or 1) from K (2 = K = 5) other

nodes in the system. Let the Boolean value “1” mean a node is “ON” and “0” mean a node is “OFF.” Each node has a logical truth table which determines what its value will be on iteration T+1 as a function of the inputs it receives on iteration T. NODES.

Consider as an arbitrary example a minimal system that has N=4 nodes and K=2 inputs to each node. Name the four nodes, in order, A, B, C, D. WIRING. Let node A take input

from nodes C and D; let B also take input from C and D. Let nodes C and D each take input from nodes A and B. LOGICAL OPERATORS. Node A uses an OR gate to determine if it is ON at T+1; that is, it will be ON at T+1 if either C or D or both are ON

at T. Node B uses an EXCLUSIVE OR (XOR) gate; that is, it will be ON at T+1 if either node C or node D (but not both) are ON at T. Node C uses an AND gate; that is, it will

be ON at T+1 only if nodes C and D are both ON at T. Node D uses an OR gate. The operators in this example are arbitrary. STATE VECTORS. To keep track of the


changing states for all four nodes we define a state vector. At time T, the state vector, S(T), is defined such that the first position in the vector represents the state of A, the

second position the state of B, and so on. In this way the expression S(1) = {1100} means that, at time T=1, A = 1, B = 1, C = 0, and D = 0. Define a state space as a matrix

of all possible state vectors; in this example the state space is the set of vectors from {0000} to {1111}. STATE TRANSITIONS. As a dynamic system, the system’s state vectors can change over time (T). These changes are deterministically derived from the

wiring and logical operators of the system. For example, if at T the system is in state vector {1000}, where only node A is in state 1, then at T+1 the system will go to {0001}

where only node D is in state 1, where 1 = ON. This transition can be derived using the logical operators acting on inputs. Given {1000} at T, at T+1 node A will change to 0 (since nodes C and D are both 0 at T). On the other hand, node D will change from state

0 at T to state 1 at T+1 because D takes on state 1 if either A or B or both are a 1, which is the case at time T. By similar reasoning, nodes B and C do not change states. Other

state transitions are left to the inspection of the reader. For convenience, we list all state transitions: {0000} => {0000}; {0001} => {1100}; {0010} => {1100};{0011} => {1000};{0100} => {0001};{0101} => {1101};{0110} => {1101};{0111} =>

{1001};{1000} => {0001};{1001} => {1101};{1010} => {1101};{1011} => {1001};{1100} => {0011};{1101} => {1111};{1110} => {1111};{1111} => {1011}.

BASINS. From this list of all possible state transitions we can start the system in any state vector and follow the flow of its deterministic process from one state vector to another. For example, starting with vector {0111}, we find the following flow: {0111}

=> {1001} => {1101} => {1111} => {1011} => {1001)… Note that {1001} has now repeated; therefore the system will loop back to {1001} every four iterations, cycling

endlessly through {1001} => {1101} => {1111} => {1011} => {1001}... This is called an attractor cycle or basin of length 4. Call this Basin 1. The first vector in this example, {0111}, is called a tributary because if the system falls into that vector it will only pass

through it once on its way to Basin 1. Basin 1 has four other tributaries: {0101}, {0110}, {1010}, {1110}. The reader can confirm that this minimal system has two other basins.

Basin 2 = [{0001} => {1100} => {0011} => {1000} => {0001}...]. Basin 2 has two tributaries: {0100}, {0010}. Basin 3 = [{0000} => {0000} => …]. External or internal “perturbations” are required to provoke the system to escape from a basin. In confirming

the above logic, we recommend that the reader create truth tables for the logical operators, make a table of state transitions, and visualize both the wiring and the basin

structure with sketches.


References Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: Chicago University

Press. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton

Press. Bateson, G. & Bateson, M. C. (1987). Angels fear: Toward an epistemology of

the sacred. New York: MacMillan.

Bateson, M. C. (1991). Our own metaphor. Washington, D. C.: The Smithsonian Press.

Bostic-St. Clair, C. & Grinder, J. (2001). Whispering in the wind. Scotts Valley, CA: J & C Enterprises. DeLozier, J. & Grinder, J. (1987). Turtles all the way down. Grinder, DeLozier

Associates. Bonny Doon, CA. Goldstein, J. (2002). The singular nature of emergent levels: Suggestions for a

theory of emergence. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences. 6, 293-309. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in

evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaufman, S. A. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-

organization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Keller, H. F. (2002). Making sense of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Malloy, T. E. (2001). Difference to Inference: Teaching logical and statistical reasoning through online interactivity. Behavior Research Methods Instruments &

Computers, 33, 270-273. Malloy, T. E., Jensen, G. C., & Song, T. (In press). Epistemology and evolution: Expressing Bateson’s epistemology with Boolean networks. Nonlinear Dynamics,

Psychology, and the Life Sciences. McCulloch, W. S. (1961). What is a number, that a man may know it, and a man,

that he may know a number? General Semantics Bulletin, nos. 26, 27, pp. 7-18. McCulloch, W. S. (1965). The embodiment of mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT. Press.

McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. H. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 3, 115-133.

Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision Science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Turing, A. M. (1952). The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 237, 37-72. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The embodied mind.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


Footnotes 1. Department of Psychology, University of Utah

2. Quantum Leap: http://www.quantum-leap.com/ 3. Contact: Thomas E. Malloy, University of Utah, Department of Psychology, 380 South

1530 East Room 502, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0251, [email protected], www.psych.utah.edu/dysys 4. Page numbers for Mind and Nature refer to the 2002 Hampton Press edition.

19/10/2006 04:12 PMThe Sins of the Fathers

Pagina 1 di 8http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/art_sins.htm

The Sins* of the Fathers

by Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder

In a rather remarkable burst of activity and in a relatively short space of time (1973 – 1979), RichardBandler and John Grinder created a series of models that included three of the most highly regardedpsychotherapists/psychiatrists in the English speaking world: Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir and Milton H.Erickson. This collaboration between Grinder and Bandler literally created the discipline known asNeuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). All this is uncontroversial and has achieved a status approachingmythology.

The core activity that characterized the activities of these two men, the co-creators of the technologyknown as NLP, was modeling – a complex set of activities that can be understood in its final analysis asthe ability to map tacit knowledge (behavioral competency) onto an explicit, transferable representation.This modeling expresses itself in a collection of patterns known in NLP circles as a model. By whateveraccidents of personal history (see Whispering in the Wind by Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder,especially the section entitled Personal Antecedents of NLP, pages 120 - 138, where Grinder offers hisrepresentation of these accidents) Grinder and Bandler had developed a set of skills that allowed them tosucceed in mastering significant portions of the patterning of these highly recognized therapeuticcommunicators and of codifying these patterns.

While a presentation of the intricacies of modeling, NLP’s core activity and the method used by Bandlerand Grinder in the joint studies that established NLP, are well beyond the scope of this short article, thereader is invited to a presentation both of various aspects of modeling and vivid l.//and highly specificdescriptions of some of the contexts of discovery which came from this historical era (Whispering in the

Wind, the section entitled Contexts of Discovery, pages 140 – 197 and especially pages 179 – 197, seewww.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com).

Looking back from the perceptual position of 2002, especially with the advantage of having created asecond code for NLP application, it is clear that there are certain flaws in the coding of what has come tobe known as the classic code (roughly, the set of patterns coded by Grinder and Bandler during theircollaboration 1973 – 1979). Our purpose in this article is to briefly identify what these flaws are and topropose a simple strategy for correcting them.

We find it prudent to open this portion of the article with a highly personal statement by one of the co-creators of NLP:

Personal Statement by John Grinder

The creation of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) represents a superb example of

collaboration. I could not have created NLP by myself nor do I believe, could have Richard

Bandler. Each of us brought specific talents and capabilities to the endeavor, not the least of

which was the ability to work as a team. For some six years, we worked side by side as



researchers, provoking, supporting, challenging and amusing one another in our efforts to

codify excellence in terms that made it available to the rest of the world.

Both as individuals and as a team, we followed the strategy of Acting As If impeccably and

offered one another continuing challenges, stimulation and feedback as we developed the

representations of the patterns that presently define the Classic Code in NLP. While it may

be possible to distinguish partially the initial strengths of each of us, there was a deep

cross-training that occurred in our collaboration through which we learned from one

another how to carry out the extraordinary feats that have set the historical standard for

NLP practice – both at the level of modeling as well as in its applications. I therefore

recognize with pleasure the essential historical contribution of Richard Bandler as the co-

creator alongside myself of the technology of NLP, and I specifically offer him even now my

congratulations and best wishes in his continuing work.

Those readers in search of a model of excellent collaboration will do well to step past the

present state of affairs between us and focus on the work accomplished by the two of us in

the period 1973 through 1979.

Whispering in the Wind by Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder, page 120

As I (JG) hope the above statement makes clear, I am quite proud of the patterning that Bandler and Iaccomplished together. We were breaking entirely new ground and managed to make a significantcontribution. Nevertheless, as part of this trial and error experimentation, we made decisions, especiallyin the coding phase of our collaboration that in retrospect require correction. We will proceed by offeringand then analyzing a prototypic anchoring format – a generalization over the set of anchoring patternscoded and presented in the classic code and in wide use in applications in NLP:

Prototypic Classic Anchoring NLP Pattern

1. Identification (consciously) by the client of the change to be made (presentstate)

2. Identification (consciously) of the difference the client desires – this can takethe form of identifying the desired state or the resource the client wishes toapply to the present state to change it or simply the specific behavior that theclient desires to experience in the context in which he or she wants the changeto occur

3. Accessing of both the present and the desired states/resource (typically eachare anchored) – the sequence of accessing and anchoring depends on theperceived needs of the client and the style of the agent of change and is, ingeneral, not a critical ordering

4. Making the connection (e.g. integrating, sequencing, stacking, chaining,future pacing…) between the present state and the desired state or resource ornew behavior, typically through the manipulation of anchors.

5. Test the work for effectiveness (anchors, in the street…)

A moment’s thought will reveal that this generalized (or prototypic) format covers formats as diverse ascollapsing anchors, change personal history, time lines… Thus the remarks that follow are perfectly



general and applicable to all anchoring formats that we are familiar with.

Consider what is being proposed here; and more interestingly, what is missing. From the above format, itis clear that the conscious mind of the client is being assigned a series of tasks:

the selection of the change to be made (present state)

the selection of the desired state, desired resource or specific behavior to bepositioned through anchoring in the context in which the client desires thechange to occur

As we commented in Whispering (page 214)

At some point in the anchoring format and completely consistent with the ethicsof NLP application (which requires that the NLP practitioner confine his or hermanipulations to the process level and leave the content entirely to the client),the NLP practitioner will ask the client to decide what the desired state (goal,objective) for the change work will be. Notice that this is a call for the client tomake a conscious decision.

At some point further on in the format and equally consistent with the ethics ofNLP application, the practitioner will ask the client to decide what behavior orstate or resource he or she would like to implement to replace the undesirablebehavior. Once again, this decision is one made consciously by the client.

These are important decisions and it is unfortunate in the extreme that theclassic code assigns the responsibility for these decisions to the client’sconscious mind – precisely the part of the client least competent to make suchdecisions

More telling is the complete absence of any explicit involvement of the unconscious mind in any portionof the format. Given the efficacy and ecological quality of the patterns made explicit by Grinder andBandler in their modeling of Dr. Milton H. Erickson, this is somewhat startling.

Now allow us to reassure the reader that the absence of any explicit involvement of the unconsciousmind is not to be confused with the absence of actual involvement of the unconscious mind. The absenceof any explicit involvement is an issue of adequate coding while it is difficult to imagine any significantchange occurring without the actual active involvement of the unconscious mind.

Said differently, the involvement of the unconscious mind was always a critical part of the therapeuticencounter for Grinder and Bandler. How specifically, you ask? Let us count the ways!

Nearly all the intermediate objectives in the process of change such as rapport (ensuring the unconsciousis attentive), so-called gathering information (map manipulations), determination and utilization of theavailable representational systems and their repetitive sequences (strategies, for those readersindoctrinated in NLP terminology)… are best accomplished non-verbally. The ongoing physiologicalresponses to the actions of the agent of change are the reference point around which the simultaneousmanipulation of states occurs – please note that this happens for both parties: the client and the agent ofchange. Anchoring is, after all, a symmetrical relationship.

Even in publications expressly patterning verbal productions (The Structure of Magic, for example) thereare numerous warnings to the reader about the importance of non-verbal communication. In parallel with



the verbal component of communication, there are complex non-verbal messages on offer. Thus theemphasis on the importance of calibration as a fundamental skill set – consider the set of spontaneousidiomatic signals available even in a “normal” conversation. And most of all beware of blind pilots!

The flaw then is in the coding rather than in the behavior. In particular we can identify the failure tocapture and make explicit a crucial aspect of the interaction between client and agent of change.However, given that NLP is the modeling technology par excellence for complex human behavior, onewould expect that such a crucial assignment of responsibility would be explicitly directed to theresources in the client that are most capable of performing them – in this case, the unconscious mind asopposed to the conscious mind. Further the agent of change’s relationship with the client’s unconsciousas well as the relationship between the conscious and unconscious processes in the client surely deservesexplicit representation.

We turn our attention to the process of coding and its consequences. In Whispering in the Wind, we pointout that there are no known algorithms for mapping from a complex set of behaviors (of excellence inNLP) onto an explicit representation or model. This portion of the modeling experience remains atpresent an art form deeply embedded in the world of heuristics. Further, it is not difficult to demonstratethat given a comprehensive record of some highly valued behavior (the performance of a genius, say asin NLP modeling) and well specified criteria for success (efficacy – the patterning actually getstransferred - and efficiency – the transfer occurs in a relatively efficient manner), there still remainsmultiple possible models of this behavior of excellence; each of which meet well-specified criteria. Thiscan be understood as an excellent demonstration of multiple perceptual positions or multipledescriptions. However, our point here is different.

Let us characterize the puzzle as a punctuation issue. Let us assume that the modeler has already met thecriteria of having assimilated the patterning of the model unconsciously – with all conscious filters (allmappings (characterized as f 2 in Whispering) subsequent to the 4-tuple or First Access suspended). Thisis a more precise way of stating that Bandler and I set aside all conscious attempts to understand whatwe were imitating until we had achieved mastery of the patterning we were pursuing. Further, let usassume that the modeler has demonstrated the consistent ability to elicit from the world the same set ofresponses the model does with roughly the same quality and within the same time frame. How is themodeler to punctuate these now assimilated complex behaviors to arrive at an explicit model of thepatterning of excellence – one that meets the criteria of efficacy and efficiency? Or equivalently, how isthe modeler to select some portions of the behavior and represent them and to completely ignore others?What is the optimal level of specificity of the model?... Any modeler will recognize that the ability toanswer these questions through action will determine in large part the success or failure of the modelingendeavor.

As we pointed out above, the punctuation imposed by Bandler and Grinder in the original studies ingenius took a couple of turns that we suggest constitute errors of coding. The argument proceeds fromconsequence. In the classic code, Grinder and Bandler made certain decisions in punctuating thesequences of behavior displayed by their various models. We focus on the absence of any coding of theinvolvement of the unconscious mind. From the point of view of the client (and apparently for manyNLP practitioners) the process pattern used in the intervention simply does not identify the unconsciousmind explicitly as an active agent in this process. However as we commented above, no significantchange will occur without the active involvement of the unconscious mind. The result is mystification.The punctuation fails to identify and make explicit the active involvement of the unconscious. Onehighly unfortunate consequence is that when the client attempts self-application – a step towardachieving independence from the agent of change – a goal that surely is deeply embedded in the ethicalpractice of NLP – the procedure fails. Often the client will arrive at any number of false conclusions:



I need the agent of change to make effective change

I am too inexperienced/stupid/untrained… to accomplish these changes by myself

One of the consequences of such mystification is that clients fail to achieve the independence they seek.

Consider the issue from the perceptual position of a well-intentioned would-be practitioner of NLP:sometimes pattern X from the classic code works like a dream and at other times, it works not at all. Andmost damaging, the would-be practitioner has no clue as to what the difference that makes the differenceis. Since nowhere in the format or pattern is the explicit involvement of the unconscious mind specifiednor how specifically it is to be involved.

These then constitute coding errors which in their enthusiasm at the time, Grinder and Bandlercommitted as they worked to create the fundamental patterns of change application during theircollaboration. All these flaws proceed from the initial punctuation by the modelers. Grinder and Bandlerso assumed that ability to establish and maintain a high state of rapport with the unconscious of theclient and to monitor the idiomotor signals of the client in order to detect acceptance or rejection of thevarious behaviors that were being proposed and acted upon, that they failed to make this critical aspectof the patterning explicit. - with the resultant mystification we described above in both clients andwould-be practitioners.

Punctuating the change encounter without identifying the appropriate assignment of responsibility formaking the decision regarding desired state, resource or new behavior and most tellingly without makingexplicit the involvement of the unconscious results is a mystification of the entire process.

Fortunately addressing this flaw, once identified, is rather simple. We propose that these coding flawscan be most easily corrected if the following guidelines are respected.

1. there is a re-assignment of responsibilities such that the unconscious mind is actively andexplicitly involved in the decision regarding the selection of desired state, new resourceand/or preferred behavior.

2. there is an explicit way to involve the unconscious mind in these decisions

There are multiple ways that these could be accomplished. Perhaps the simplest is to insist onestablishing of a set of involuntary signals that (ideally) the client has access to which allow him or herto present any decision to the unconscious mind for ratification. Thus, the practitioner could follow thesame classic formats as before but insert a verification procedure by which the client uses the involuntarysignals to verify that the unconscious accepts (or rejects) the decision being made consciously, step bystep. In fact, historically, through calibration skills, this is precisely what typically occurs in a well-conducted change session, with the agent of change intuitively accepting the responsibility formonitoring the non-verbal signals (the naturalistic version of the involuntary signal system) foracceptance or rejection of each move in the dance of change. When discussed at all, this is usuallyunderstood to be an ongoing congruency check. The point is that as long as the agent of change takesthis role and responsibility and neither the agent or the client is explicit that this monitoring ongoingcongruency check is being conducted, the client will remain mystified (and possibly the agent of changeas well) as to how well the change patterning works in the presence of the agent of change and howpoorly things proceed when self-application is attempted.

A signal system, verified to be involuntary – such as the class of signal systems developed in 6 stepreframing - would serve well here. There are, of course, stronger and weaker versions of this solution to



correcting this coding flaw. One might request of the unconscious the actual taking of these importantdecisions (offering responses visually and auditory – both verified by the involuntary kinesthetic signals)rather than having the conscious mind make such decisions and present them to the unconscious mindfor acceptance or rejection. Either strong or weak versions of this reform would make explicit theinvolvement of unconscious mind in the process of change. In this sense, then, while Grinder andBandler attended most carefully to the idiomotor signals naturally occurring in the exchange betweenthem and clients, they failed to identify this as a specific requirement in their coding of the patterning ofthe change process.

We would be remiss not to encourage readers to develop and explore the myriad ways that this explicitinvolvement of the unconscious in making these decisions. As an example, in the new code (developedinitially by John Grinder and Judith Delozier in the mid-80s and further developed by John Grinder andCarmen Bostic St. Clair in the 90s), the preferred method is the development of a know-nothing state.The client is supervised in developing a high performance state (typically through the agency of a newcode game) that is then connected (through a version of future pacing – an extremely effectivedeployment of anchoring) with the context in which the client desires that the change occur. Indeed, thevisual and auditory stimuli that define the context of application are the re-activating anchors. At no timedoes the client attempt to consciously formulate what differences (neither the desired state, the newresource nor the preferred behavior) they desire to occur in that context. Thus at the end of the session,the client knows something important has shifted but typically has no conscious access to the specificdifferences that are available. They are literally in a know-nothing state with respect to the changesmade. This know-nothing state will resolve into specific behavior only when the context of application ispresent - that is, when client next re-enters the context and without any conscious effort on her or hispart, the auditory and visual stimuli re-activate the high performance state and clients find themselvesperforming in new and creatively effective ways. Since the changes occur at the level of state (the highperformance state replacing the client’s previous response state), there is a strong tendency for theclient’s behavior to continue to vary in the context selected as various aspects of that context shift. Thisis clearly a generative approach to making change.

This brings us to one additional design flaw in the classic code: the absence of effectivecontextualization. While at the time of the collaboration between Bandler and Grinder, there was littleexplicit attention paid to framing and the preparation and management of context. The preferred way ofknowing whether the choices being exercised by the client was, as detailed above, the ability to run anongoing calibration for congruity. If the client selected an inappropriate new behavior, the agent ofchange would detect an objection from the unconscious in the form of some idiomotor signal.

The required distinction is that of distinguishing between 1st and 2nd order changes. Briefly, a secondorder change is required whenever any one or more of the following three markers are present:

1. an addiction

2. a physiological symptom

3 a behavior with significant secondary gain involved

The first two of these criteria are well-defined; the third requires much development (see Whispering in

the Wind, section The Breakthrough Pattern pages 198 – 227 for a fuller discussion). All changes that arenot second order changes are first order changes – the complement set of the set of second order changes.

Let’s take as an example a man who has a drinking disorder – an alcoholic – or to people who desire tolose weight. It can be usefully applied to any addiction. In the typical case, an investigation of the



client’s past would reveal that he has succeeded in stopping drinking for limited periods of time but thenreturns to the bottle. If we were to make explicit what the payoffs – secondary benefits or secondarygains – of this behavior are, we would discover one or more of the following:

he drinks to relax

he drinks to escape the pressures of everyday life

he drinks to achieve a state of sociability

…

Suppose that we focus on the positive intention of achieving access to a state of relaxation. This positiveintention is the name of a set – namely, the set of all behaviors that offer the client access to a state ofrelaxation. This set will, by definition, always include the original behavior.

Ways of Achieving a State of relaxation

b1, b2, b3,……………, bi, bi+1,…………, bi+j (alcoholism),……………………,bn

In other words, within the set of ways to achieve states of relaxation, we find a large number ofbehaviors, b1 (sports), b2 (reading), b3 (meditation), bi (drugs), bi+1 (yoga), bi+j (alcoholism), bn-1(breathing exercises), bn (community service)... Once we have specified (partially at least) what themembers of the set are, the change task is greatly simplified: simply select three or more behaviors fromthe set to replace the behavior in question – in this case, alcoholism.

In a classic addiction case, such as alcoholism, there is typically more than a single payoff or secondarygain involved. The practitioner is cautioned then to divide the change work into a series of sessions, onefor each of the positive intentions and their associated payoffs. Thus, the application of this step leadsnaturally to the generation of a series of sets, each defined by each of the positive intentions behind thebehavior to be changed.

Once again, without the active explicit engagement of the unconscious mind, there is little likelihood of asuccessful change. Thus the judicious use of the positive intention behind the behavior to be shifted(excessive drinking) as the context from within which the new behaviors will emerge is a powerful wayof organizing the resources both of the client (the unconscious resources typically) and of the agent ofchange as well.

The know-nothing state from the new code represents another way of creating the effectivecontextualization – the use of the entire set of visual and auditory stimuli that define the context as there-activating triggers that allows the unconscious to select the new experiences appropriate in theidentified context.



Our intention in this short presentation has been to call the NLP application community’s attention to aset of coding flaws made by Grinder and Bandler in their initial collaboration. We have suggested anumber of ways to correct these punctuations. In particular, we strongly urge practitioners of NLPapplication to consider the consequences of the these coding errors and select their own preferred waysof correcting them by insisting on the re-assignment of the responsibilities for decision making, theexplicit involvement of the unconscious mind and the use of contextualization to achieve a certainprecision within the process of change. Correcting these flaws will simultaneously remove themystification from these processes and facilitate our clients achieving independence of us – always aworthy goal as part of the process of change. As this presentation has been quite brief, we invite readersinterested in exploring these issues in greater depth to have a look at Whispering in the Wind

(www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com)

Carmen Bostic St. Clair John Grinder

You can see further extracts of Whispering in the Wind and participate in an online discussion about theissues raised in this article by visiting www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com

* We are indebted to Jeisyn Murphy (www.Got-NLP.com) for pointing out to us that one of the originalmeanings of the term sin was in the context of Greek archery where it simply meant that the archer hasmissed the target. This is perfectly in accord with our intentions behind our usage here. Both JeisynMurphy and Michael Carroll ([email protected]) offered comments that were of value to mein writing this article.

19/10/2006 04:15 PMTranscript of Michael Carroll's interview with John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St. Clair

Pagina 1 di 6http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/interview.htm

Michael Carroll interviews John Grinder &

Carmen Bostic St Clair about Whispering in the

Wind.

Michael: What motivated you to write Whispering in the Wind?

John and Carmen: It is quite peculiar, the confluence of events that led to its writing. As most readersknow, Richard Bandler filed a legal action (two, in fact) in 1996 against initially one of the co-authorsof Whispering (John Grinder) and subsequently against both of the co-authors of Whispering and severalother NLP notables. This action alleged a number of things intimately connected with the origins andpractice of NLP (for the resolution of these legal claims, see Appendix A of Whispering). Preparing anadequate response to these allegations required a deep and thorough review of the historical periodscited. This activity alerted the two of us to the overall development (or from our point of view, the lackof it in some cases) of the field of NLP. Once we worked our way through the material, it became veryobvious to us what had succeeded and what had failed in the enterprise and that some precise proposalswere in order if the enterprise was to thrive.

NLP modeling has been and still remains unique historically in the study of our species - in particular, inits unwavering focus on one extreme of human functioning we call excellence. This approachdistinguishes itself from other research strategies typically found in psychology and other recognizeddisciplines in a number of ways. Among those features sharply distinguishing NLP from otherrecognized disciplines is the deep commitment during its unique modelling strategy to an unconscious(relatively free of intellectual and linguistic filters) assimilation of the patterning to be captured from themodel who has inspired the modelling. As detailed in Whispering, this deep non-cognitive identificationbetween the modeller and the model is sustained until the modeller demonstrates his ability to replicatethe effectiveness of the model for that set of patterns that are the focus of the modelling activity. Thislearning strategy (unconscious modeling) has informed human affairs for centuries (consider, forexample, the medieval European guilds) and is the ongoing basis for the most fundamental and cruciallearning that occurs in childhood. Its explication allows recognition of the validity and power of suchunconscious learning strategy and therefore, through its precise representation in Whispering establishesa welcome (and in our opinion, necessary) counterweight to the left brain dominant learning strategiesfound in nearly all educational systems in the world. It is interesting to note that one of us (co-authorCarmen Bostic St.Clair) won a national (USA) educational award in the '60s for designing andimplementing a series of participatory patterns that embody the principles of such unconscious learning.

Another important distinction in Whispering is the insistence on a discrete model for the analysis ofmajor portions of human behavior - especially those at the extreme such as the focus of NLP -excellence. We argue that the application of a statistical analytic strategy in this arena (and further on)clearly obscures rather than illuminates the data sets.



There is, of course, a more personal dimension involved in writing this book. The strategies, tools andtechniques of NLP represent an opportunity unlike any other for the exploration of human functioning, ormore precisely, that rare and valuable subset of human functioning known as genius. Each of us as co-authors are committed to advancing the field of NLP, if for no other reason than it offers a uniqueresearch strategy to capture and promote excellence in human affairs - a potential that we have realizedcross culturally in our consulting work within large systems all over the western world. In the absence ofalternatives to the unique approach at the heart of NLP - modelling - we both felt it would be asignificant loss should this endeavour go awry - thus, the motivation for working up a specific set ofrecommendations for putting the enterprise on an effective path to success. From our point of view, sucha loss would be very much like the loss of an entire species, with its unique contribution to the largersystem.

Michael: Why the title?

John and Carmen: It's a metaphor just like the cover of the book itself. Again, we had multiplemotivations. The title satisfies certain aesthetic criteria we share - whimsicality, for example. Further, itis our experience that so much attention, energy and time is devoted in present NLP activities tomarketing that in the roar of that activity, it struck us both that our voices could well be lost in thecacophony of such furious activity as well as the well-known fact that in certain contexts, whispering isa far effective way of securing people's attention and therefore constitutes an effective mode ofcommunication.

Without the wind, sediment settles and becomes trapped in the pockets within the crevices of the terrain.Then a gust of wind once again frees them to move to places unimagined.

Michael: From reading the book and knowing you both - I have observed you work together excellently as a team. Can you describe your differing roles in the writing of thebook?

John & Carmen: The question of effective collaboration is of great importance to both for us personallyand professionally as well as of equal importance in other contexts such as business, teams, seminars,consulting, research…

It is not easy given our total involvement in the research and writing of Whispering to tease out ourdiffering roles. Clearly, as you state in your introduction to the book, Carmen provoked, dissected andmade sense out of much of the initial experiences and contexts of discovery that John as the co-creatorof NLP participated in with Richard Bandler. Equally clearly, there are segments of Whispering whereJohn is simply describing his personal recollections of discoveries. Indeed, the new patterning and freshmodes of analysis reflect some 12 years of collaboration between the two of us. Perhaps the collaborativestyle is best described as reciprocal - there is no section of the book that does not reflect the ideas, workand the personal touch and style of each of the co-authors.

All this further points to the fact that there is no explicit model of collaboration and to the possibility ofmodeling the process of collaboration itself as a brilliant contribution.

Michael: In the first section of the book you write about NLP as a higher order epistemology, can youexplain?

John and Carmen: Well, now, that is a key issue - and as you well know, we worked very hard to findan appropriate way of conveying what we mean by this characterization.

To begin with, it is important to have a common starting point - epistemology as we use the term in this



work refers to the systematic study of how we know what (we think) we know and the rules of evidencethat support such knowledge or not. In brief, we propose that various scientific disciplines operate withdistinctive domains. Their domains are distinctive not only in the sense of the data that are to bedescribed and ultimately explained in these various disciplines but also in the sense of their relationshipsto their epistemological distance from the world about us. For example, in physics, and more particularlyin those aspects of research in physics where instrumentation and measurement play a crucial role, thepatterning is literally about the patterning of the physical universe relatively free (how free depends onthe answers not yet available to questions about the epistemology of instrumentation) from humanperceptual categories imposed by the fundamental neurological and linguistic categories through whichwe perceive the world about us darkly.

Psychology, on the other hand, has nothing (with the notable exception of endeavors such aspsychophysics) to do with such matters as the patterning explored by physics but has a focus on thepatterning available subsequent to human neurological and linguistic (as well as other coding) filtering.

In particular, NLP application in no way touches on the world of patterning explored by physics but has asits focus the world created by the transforms of the human nervous system and language. The domain of

NLP application is representations, pure and simple, and is incapable of making contributions to theexploration and mapping of the world about us. This has both limiting and liberating consequences asdescribed in our book.

Michael: You treat the readers to the first ever-published work describing the intellectual and personalstrands of historical influence that enabled/inspired the original NLP modelling projects. Can you brieflyshare with the readers the major influences and the specific way such influences made an impact?

John & Carmen: It is quite easy to list the influences. They include: Chomsky and the generativegrammar movement, Bateson, Erickson, Automata Theory, Logic… We will pass here on any attempt tocharacterize which specific portions of the work of these people/disciplines mentioned are relevant andhow specifically they impacted the creation of NLP. We devote some 80+ pages in Whispering itself tothis task. Our intention in explicitly presenting these influences is to invite the interested researcher tocheck the sources with perhaps two motivations in mind:

. 1 to verify for themselves that the assimilated materials were properly extracted for application inNLP patterning

. 2 to mine the influences described for gems that we might have overlooked in our historical raidingparties.

Michael: Have you noticed a common trait in the geniuses you modelled and worked with?

John and Carmen: Yes, of course, there are a number of such "traits". At a relatively abstract levelthere is much communality among the various geniuses who have inspired NLP modelling projects andare the source for many of its patterns. We will mention one such characteristic.

However, we register a warning to the readers- both in regard to this interview and to the book itself.The idea of a trait independent of context is a dangerous one. It is much akin to inviting some extra-terrestrial to describe the game of tennis, restrict this being to observations covering only half of thetennis court and then criticize this being for failing to arrive at a useful description of the game of tennis.Traits are strange occidental creatures that have their tentative existence only in the limited consciousminds of western trained observers. They exist only in a world that contains the presuppositions that onecan segment an essential unity into parts, study the parts individually, discover whatever patterning isavailable within each of the parts in question and then assemble the patterning of the parts as if they



somehow represent the patterning of the original whole phenomenon. We trust that it is sufficient toexplicate this presupposition to alert the reader to the dangers involved. If not, such a reader is urged toread the extended epistemological critique offered in RedTail Math: the epistemology of everyday life -

modelling (working title) by Bostic and Grinder to be published in 2003.

There is one trait or characteristic - called focus - that is common to each and every genius we have hadthe pleasure of working with. Suppose that we define focus as the ability to choose to fix one's attentionexclusively on certain variables immediately relevant to task and to maintain that focus independent ofthe remaining elements that constitute your context. Those elements not relevant to the task simply donot exist for the genius when committed to her or his task.

Please note the questioning-begging nature of our response in the above paragraph. For example, how doyou know which elements in the context are relevant and which simply constitute distractions thatdissipate the attention of the person performing the task? How specifically (assuming that you canidentify the relevant variables) do you achieve and sustain such focus in a practical sense? Does the setof relevant variables shift from context to context (yes, of course) and how do you know which differingcontexts require which shifts to which variables (good question!)? How are such shifting foci ondifferent variables actually achieved?

For us, these are simultaneously a critique of our own response and an indictment of the segmentationstrategy so common in the west and so impoverished in some of its consequences.

Michael: You refer to the six step reframe as "The Breakthrough Pattern" why is this so?

John and Carmen: As we detail in Whispering, six step reframing contains precisely the differences thatcorrect the design flaws of many of the Classic Code patterning originally done by Grinder and Bandler.For example, the explicit inclusion of unconscious patterning (inspired by Erickson) as an essential andintegral part of the change process and the re-assignment of certain classes of choices by the client (e.g.the desired state) from the conscious mind to the unconscious mind serve as examples. It is almostunthinkable that Bandler and Grinder missed this requirement for effective and ecological changeformats. In fact, as described in our book, it is clear that the actual work done by these two men (Grinderand Bandler) both in their public demonstrations as well as their private work typically included the useof unconscious processes. However, this usage was not coded into the classic code models andapparently became lost in the down line generations of students who did not have direct access to suchdemonstrations. In other words, this commitment to the wisdom of unconscious processes while presentin the behaviors (especially ongoing calibration) of the two men who created NLP were not coded in thepatterning and thus remained unexplicated, unmodelled tacit knowledge that was subsequently lost in thetranslation to new practitioners

This particular format - six step reframing - serves both as a template for the critique of the classic codework by Grinder and Bandler and as a design guide for the New Code as well as much work done by theauthors in their consulting activities and seminars - this is part of the sense of a breakthrough patternintended by us.

Please read and evaluate the extended critique of the classic code in Whispering and especially therecommendations about how specifically to convert classic code formats into effective and ecologicalformats for change work. Six step reframing is an example of how to ensure effective and ecologicalchange - please remember it is simply an example (and one produced unconsciously by a specific personin responding to a specific context of discovery). There are dozens of ways to use the insights providedhistorically by six step reframing without the necessity to continue practicing this particular ritual.



Michael: You write about the "New Code"(your latest work). How does the "New Code" differ from the"Classic Code?"

John and Carmen: Yes we have introduced new distinctions and patterning in the New Code and itdoes not represent our latest work. As we state in the Preface to Whispering, our intention for writing thiswork does not include a presentation of our most recent work - these models will be presented in aseparate publication.

The New Code differs from the Classic Code by a specific set of distinctions such as the one mentionedin the previous question. For example, the clients' conscious minds are not involved in the developmentof the desired state, the resources and behaviours to be developed…, these matters are assigned toprecisely the clients' unconscious processes. This set of differences is detailed in Whispering.

Michael: You make several recommendations to the NLP community to take action on. How would youlike to see NLP evolve in the future?

John and Carmen: First of all, as you mention in your framing for this interview, we propose thatunless significant effort is committed to the further modeling of geniuses and the patterning of excellencethat they represent, NLP will be reduced to NLP application, and quite likely within a decade or twosimply incorporated into other still developing fields of inquiry. It is literally impossible at present toattend a well-organized management training in the west without encountering patterns such as the metamodel, representational systems or anchoring as integrated elements of the program whether credit isgiven to its original coding in N LP work or not. Such integration is to be applauded. However it doeshighlight the issue of where new and revolutionary patterning will come from. Our response is quitesimple - a renewed commitment to modeling, the core activity of NLP, will provide such a source.

Michael: You have invited curious NLPers to participate in an online discussion in a specific forum wehave set up to debate the contents and proposals laid out in Whispering in the Wind. What role do youthink online discussion can play in the future of NLP?

John & Carmen: We are uncertain about the contribution and are somewhat concerned that establishingthe website (www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com) will inadvertently exclude portions of the communityfrom participating. Be that as it may, it would be foolish in the extreme not to use this remarkably quickand nearly ubiquitous form of electronic communication to promote a lively discussion and exchangeamong NLP practitioners. Our hope is that by establishing this website, we are empowering members ofthe practicing NLP community to create their own context and advance the quality of work in the field.

Michael: How would you like that discussion to evolve?

John & Carmen: As the interests and competencies of the NLP community dictate - naturally, our ownpreferences and desires with respect to the development of the field of NLP are well documented withinWhispering itself. As we state in the book, the field of NLP has survived the personalities of its co-creators and the recommendations we offered are simply those of two concerned individuals within thatcommunity, Bostic and Grinder. The future of the discipline of NLP is much larger than the concerns ofthese three people and will ultimately succeed or fail through action or inaction of the majority of themembers of the NLP community.

Michael: What other suggestions would you like to make to the NLP community, besides treatingthemselves to a copy of Whispering in the Wind?

John & Carmen: We will rest our case as presented in Whispering - perhaps one final and somewhat



urgent suggestion: do something, do anything even if it's perceived as "wrong", act!

To participate in the ongoing discussion by the NLP community and to order your copy of Whispering inthe Wind visit www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com

Michael Carroll is the founder & course director of the NLP Academy, a London based company that is

committed to advancing the field of NLP through collaboration partnership, community and ongoing

commitment to personal and professional excellence.

Michael is currently collaborating with John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair with

www.nlpwhisperingintheind.com a web site established by John, Carmen and Michael to facilitate the

ongoing discussion that the book Whispering in the Wind will stimulate.

E mail: [email protected] +44(0)20 8402 1120

19/10/2006 04:16 PMMichael Carroll's review of Whispering in the Wind

Pagina 1 di 2http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/art_carroll.htm

Whispering in the Wind

by Michael Carroll

A Review of John Grinder's and Carmen Bostic St Clair's new book

John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair have co-authored a new book Whispering in the Wind. I wasprivileged to be the first person in the NLP community to read the book and what a privilege it was. Sorich is the content I am now reading it for the third time. As an NLP Trainer I am thrilled by thepotential offered to the NLP community by the recommendations laid out in Whispering in the Wind.Carmen and John urge us NLPers to take steps for NLP to become a legitimate research community soNLP can take its rightful place alongside other approaches in the studying of human functioning.

This book is essential and fascinating reading for NLP practitioners, modellers and trainers who willdiscover many interesting previously unpublished accounts of NLP history. John and Carmen use nearly30 years of hindsight to critique some of the original models codified by Grinder & Bandler. Theydescribe how they are working to update some of the original principles of NLP in the format of whatthey call the New Code. They also make some specific recommendations that they consider important forNLP to grow & thrive.

The curious NLPer will discover from reading Whispering in the Wind important NLP information,previously unpublished, which could only be written by one of the co - creators of NLP accompanied byanother excellent modeller. Every page, and there are 381 of them, carries a potent message, insight or areal NLP nugget of information. You will be taken on a journey deep into the past where you willdiscover insights into the strong working relationship Grinder & Bandler formed, how they came to worktogether in the first place, and how they collaborated so well for seven years. You will learn about themany intellectual influences, rarely mentioned in current NLP writings, which underpin the original NLPModels. Lots of detail is also given to the contexts surrounding the major modelling projects Grinder &Bandler conducted. We are treated to important John Grinder autobiographical content, so interestedreaders can appreciate the influences from John's personal life that mapped over to his professional lifeand his hypnotic fascination with excellence. The NLP world is indebted to Carmen Bostic St Clair forextricating much of the information from John (summarised above), that otherwise might have remainedin his head for many years to come.

Carmen and John are explicit with their presentation of the epistemology underlying NLP. They offeruser-friendly terms updating the old "four tuple". The principle of "the map is not the territory"(Korsbyski), is also challenged and refined. They lay out a format for presenting hierarchies to avoidsome of the past confusion around the subject of so called logical levels. In doing so they distinguishbetween logical levels and logical types and the differing hierarchies present at various stages ofneurological mapping, i.e. iconic part-whole relationships and logical inclusion and constrictionrelationships. John and Carmen propose that these distinctions are essential for a clean higher orderepistemology and make explicit formal coding of the patterning of geniuses. Carmen and John offer a

19/10/2006 04:16 PMMichael Carroll's review of Whispering in the Wind

Pagina 2 di 2http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/art_carroll.htm

description of the "New Code of NLP, suggesting some improvements where flaws in the originalpatterning of the "Classic Code" is obvious.

In Whispering in the Wind John and Carmen define NLP as "the modelling of behaviours of geniuses."This is consistent with the definitions proposed by them at their seminars (or some variation of thatstatement). In Whispering in the Wind, Carmen and John seem to have partially accepted NLP in itspresent form (strong emphasis on application) and attribute this to the ineffectiveness of the co-creators(Grinder & Bandler) to make clear and precise what NLP is. John and Carmen stress the importance of

distinguishing between NLP Modelling and NLP Application. They mark out the two as I have done in thisreview in superscript. They say that unless the NLP community can put the emphasis back on modellingthere is danger that the field of NLP may just fade away.

Carmen and John state that modelling can be modelled in number of ways and they map out a minimumset of phases for conducting modelling projects. A standardised format for presentation and evaluation ofnew patterns is also proposed with suggestions of how to introduce new models into the internationalNLP community. John and Carmen are also very generous in pointing to areas where they consider thatfurther modelling projects can be undertaken to build on the original modelling work of Bandler &Grinder. From reading Whispering in the Wind you will learn a lot about modelling as it is featuredexplicitly in many of the chapters and implicitly in all chapters.

To summarise: this is the only NLP book that covers in detail the past, the present and future of NLP. Itis written from the vantage point of one of the co-creators accompanied by an excellent modeller whohas the vantage point of directly modelling and questioning the co creator. Below I ask them somequestions about Whispering in the Wind and how they came to write this new NLP classic.

Michael Carroll is the founder & course director of the NLP Academy, a London based company that is

committed to advancing the field of NLP through collaboration partnership, community and ongoing

commitment to personal and professional excellence.

Michael is currently collaborating with John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St Clair with

www.nlpwhisperingintheind.com a web site established by John, Carmen and Michael to facilitate the

ongoing discussion that the book Whispering in the Wind will stimulate.

E mail: [email protected] +44(0)20 8402 1120

19/10/2006 04:17 PMDifferentWorlds

Pagina 1 di 8http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/art_DifferentWorlds.htm

Different Worlds

by John Grinder

A response to M. Hall’s article entitled An Answer to John Grinder

#1

I find myself in the somewhat awkward position of responding to the work and writings of a person –Michael Hall - that have nearly no intrinsic interest to me. I will respond to the best of my ability on thisparticular occasion since he took the time and courtesy to address certain comments made by CarmenBostic St. Clair and I in our recent book, Whispering in the Wind (seewww.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com).

I have the impression that Mr. Hall and I are working in entirely different fields with profoundlydifferent criteria for presentation, argumentation and evidence, and with significantly different purposes.In Whispering in the Wind (Bostic and Grinder, 2002), we note, for example, that the term Neuro-

Linguistic Programming itself - NLP) has become something of a wild card. We offer the suggestion thatpublications and discussions would be significantly improved in their coherence and quality by the

simple device of identifying whether the aspect of NLP involved is NLP modeling, NLP application or NLPtraining.

Nowhere in his article does Mr. Hall identify which of these domains he is operating in nor is it clear to

me that he is operating in any of these. Clearly, NLP modeling is not the issue as there are no commentsby Hall that touch on this, the heart of the NLP activity. Hall refers to his own productions as NeuroSemantics - perhaps this is the point. We are operating in entirely different fields – an observation thatwould go a long way toward explaining the confusion I experience when reading Hall’s productions.

I offer the following responses: there are five points that I can distinguish that Mr. Hall presents and towhich I am willing to make a response. These are:

. 1 Authorship:

I did not write Whispering in the Wind (www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com) – I co-authored this bookwith Carmen Bostic St. Clair. It is a collaborative effort in the finest sense of the word. I would requestthat Hall recognize this simple fact..

. 2 Korzybski’s work:

Korzybski produced a rich piece of work: indeed, one that is capable of supporting multipleinterpretations. We had and have no intention of proposing that the man who established themap/territory distinction does not understand the map/territory distinction as Mr. Hall states. Rather what



we propose is a more refined representation of the complexities in the mapping from receptor to whathas come to be known as mental maps (the term is unfortunately as it suggests mental as a separatecategory thereby supporting implicitly the Cartesian split). Quoting Mr. Hall,

“FA is John's new terminology. It stands for First Access and refers to how we first access

the outside world, not through our language or even representation systems, but prior to

that, through the sense receptors of our eyes, ears, skin, and other end receptors.”

Michael Hall

Hall’s characterization of FA is flawed. This is not “John’s new terminology”, it is a proposal crafted byCarmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder as part of an attempt to make explicit an important researchdistinction. In the quote above, moreover, Hall specifically excludes any representational systemsrepresentations from FA. How it is possible to have access to any internal representations (FA) withoutrepresentational systems remains beyond my apparently limited imagination. Carmen Bostic St. Clair andI did not make any such proposal as a perusal of pages 9 – 49 and again on page 57 where the readerwill find,

In previous work in NLP, especially by Grinder and/or Bandler (in, for example, Patterns of

the Hypnotic Patterning of Milton H. Erickson, M. D. or Neuro-Linguistic Patterning, or

Turtles All the Way Down), this privileged level of representation was referred to as the 4-

tuple.

Whispering in the Wind, page 57

The 4-tuple has for decades been the point in the neurological processing where the representationalsystems first are displayed and become available for consideration both at the conscious and unconsciouslevels of functioning.

Hall correctly points out that Korzybski posited a series of levels of abstraction. However, and this isprecisely the point, these levels of abstraction proposed by Korzybski are mute with respect to the

refinements proposed in Whispering. In particular, we distinguish between two sets of transforms: f 1,consisting of all those transforms that occur between receptor and our first access (FA) to the resultant

neurological events; and f 2, the set of transforms that occur post FA (for example, linguistic mappings).We argue extensively that these two sets of transforms operate by distinct processes (see especially pages28 – 40 in Whispering) – what Bateson was fond of referring to as two distinct logics. To fail torecognize this distinction (either in the form we propose in Whispering or some even more refinedversion of this) will constitute a grave flaw in any research program. All the quotations from Korzybskioffered by Mr. Hall are congruent with this conclusion.

. 3 The meta model:

Hall poses an apparent contradiction concerning our critique of his putative expansion of the metamodel. He begins by quoting from The Structure of Magic, volume I

"... our Meta-Model covers only a portion of the verbal communication which is possible..." (p. 107)

"... we suspect that some of the research currently being conducted in Generative Semantics ... will beparticularly useful in expanding the Meta-Model further." (p. 109)

The first quote refers simply to the fact the meta model was created by Bandler and myself for the



express purpose of re-connecting the words presented by a client that fail to refer to the actual reference

experiences from which they are presumably derived (through f 2 transforms) with the attendant positiveconsequences of involving clients in actively expanding their maps and consequently generating new setsof choices in precisely those portions of their maps where they lack choice. This meta model is a metamodel for the specification of language.

Bandler and I were well aware of this express purpose of our creation. Further, we were perfectlycontent to note there exists a rich set of meta models (in the linguistic sense) for achieving otherpurposes. This was the motivation for the comment we made that Hall quoted. Indeed, the two volumework entitled The Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. written by Bandler and myself (J.Delozier is a co-author for the second volume) contains precisely such an example – a distinct linguisticmeta model whose purpose is to structure verbal communications that enhances responses at the level ofthe unconscious mind – a point that Dr. Erickson had a complete grasp of as well.

Hall’s selection of the second quote from Magic has an interesting historical flavor. In late 60s and early70s, I was a member of a group of linguists (Postal, Ross, McCawley, G. Lakoff…) whose purpose wasto extend the formal power of the work developed initially by Noam Chomsky in syntax into an arenacalled semantics with the same rigor that we had succeeded in patterning portions of the syntacticcomponent. A slightly more radical objective in this endeavor was to demonstrate that the line initiallydrawn by Chomsky establishing a boundary condition between syntax and semantics was artificial andthat while this boundary had served an excellent historical purpose it now constituted an obstacle tofurther development in transformational grammar. The group involved worked under the name ofGenerative Semantics.

These were heady times, and Bandler and I predicted that an extended formal analysis of semantic issueswould reveal additional distinctions worthy of incorporation into the meta model that we had expresslycreated for the purpose of specifying language forms. Our prediction was not confirmed – in fact, theentire Generative Semantics enterprise collapsed not long after the publication of Magic.

As Carmen Bostic St. Clair and I describe in Whispering, out of the ashes of this fiery collapse, an entirenew field has arisen – cognitive linguistics which offers fascinating studies that cross precisely that lineof division between syntax and semantics that was the target of the work of the Generative Semanticists.Carmen Bostic St. Clair and I will forego any prediction concerning future contributions of cognitivelinguistics to NLP (in any of its aspects) and content ourselves with an invitation for NLP practitionersto note advances in this field in hopes of discovering patterning of utility in our endeavor.

It is prudent to mention to the reader unfamiliar with the history and current status of models inlinguistics and related fields that there is no connection between this historical movement in linguisticscalled Generative Semantics and General Semantics (Korzybski’s work and movement) nor betweenGenerative Semantics and Neuro-Semantics (Hall’s title for his own work).

In his article Hall then poses his contradiction,

Hmmmm, "useful in expanding the Meta-Model further" was Grinder1975 and Hall1997, a point that

Grinder2001 now has problems with and argues conflicts against. Now he wants to reduce the modelrather than expand it. Of course it is perfectly fine to change one's mind. I have no problem with that.But how fine is it to encourage "expanding the Meta-Model further," provide the justification for it, andthen demand that I have to justify it now without reading my justifications for it or remembering that hehimself began NLP on the note of expanding it?

Michael Hall



I have not changed my mind in this matter. I still find myself in full argument with Grinder1975.

Further, Hall is being quite disingenuous here as the material quoted comes from a section in Whispering

which also contains specific comments that would resolve his contradiction: namely,

Rather than expand a model already proven effective in securing some outcome, X, the task of a modeler

is to attempt to reduce the model consistent with achieving X – that is, to demonstrate that X can be

achieved with fewer distinctions or more efficiently…

Therefore, we would propose that anyone who wishes to argue for the inclusion of additional verbal

patterning would accept the challenge of motivating their inclusion in the model. More specifically, such

motivation would demonstrate that there are useful outcomes in addition to X that the inclusion of these

proposed additional patterns allows that strictly speaking are not achievable through a congruent

application of the original model. The only other motivation we can imagine would be a proposal to

replace some or all of the patterns in the original model by some other set of patterns that are more

efficient or more effective in achieving X.

Whispering, page 186

I offer a somewhat larger frame and then respond with more precision to this apparent contradiction. Aswe argue extensively in Whispering, NLP from its inception has been a technology for modeling thatextreme of human functioning called excellence. Of late, it has drifted more than a little, with vastly

more attention and time given to applications and training. Of course, NLP application is a worthy and

useful activity – indeed, if there were no application work occurring, the justification for NLP modeling

would come into serious question.

At its core, then, NLP modeling is the mapping of tacit, implicit knowledge onto an explicit andtransferable model. By definition, all models are reduced versions of the thing they purport to represent.The challenging processes involved in mastering a set of patterning through the unconscious uptake ofthe patterning of excellence from the initial model (the person displaying the patterning of excellence –Dr. Erickson, for example) through the coding of such patterning once the modeler has demonstrated hisor her ability to elicit from the relevant portions of the world of experience the same responses withroughly the same quality and within the same time frames constitutes the fundamental task for themodeler.

In the case of the modeling of the verbal behaviors of Perls and Satir by Bandler and myself, forexample, our task was to distill the effective portions of their verbal behavior out of the vast array ofverbal productions they used into explicit and learnable patterns of verbal specification. This mapping,clearly a reduction of the set of verbal utterances used by these two famous therapists, had as its purposethe presentation of the minimal effective set of verbal distinctions in a form easily learnable by interestedparties.

The question, then, is what would justify the inclusion of additional patterning in the meta model. Whilethe quote from Whispering presented above is to me adequate, apparently it was not effective. I willtherefore expand on it as follows: there are two clear methods for justifying such additions to the meta

model. Both of them involve the identification of some syntactic pattern, s i, that occurs in the speechpatterns of clients but which is not effectively challenged by any one (or any sequence) of the 13 verbal

patterns that constitute the meta model. Given the identification of s i, we could subsequently propose aspecifying pattern (a challenge to this identified syntactic form that is effective into re-connecting it tothe reference experiences from which it was originally derived).



I identify two possibilities that would justify or motivate an argument for the addition of a verbalspecifying pattern to the meta model:

a. the strong case: the identification of some syntactic pattern, s i, which when challenged for specificityproduces a refinement in the mental maps of the clients in a way that enriches it and generates newchoices. To be fully compelling (the strong case considered here), the argument would have todemonstrate that no application of any pattern or any sequence of patterns already present in the metamodel effectively challenges this particular syntactic pattern

b. The weak case: the demonstration that there exists some syntactic pattern, s i, in the language of clientsfor which the pattern of specification proposed for inclusion in the meta model is superior by some

explicit criteria for the specification of s i – more precisely, superior to the application of any pattern orsequences of patterns already present in the 13 distinctions in the meta model.

In this second case, there already exists challenges in the meta model that are applicable to s i but theargument would run that the new challenge proposed for incorporation into the meta model makes themodel more efficient or more effective (by some set of explicit criteria). While less compelling than thestrong case above, it would be a worthwhile contribution. At a minimum, it would offer practitioners astylistic option. Remember, being more efficient is ultimately a question of style. Erickson was notparticularly efficient when measured by the number or depth of changes per hour or per hundred wordsuttered or per metaphor, but then he never professed much interest in such efficiency measures – he hada quite distinct style.

I take it that the criteria for additions to the meta model are now perfectly explicit and invite anyoneinterested in the challenge to make a proposal.

Now, a critique by Hall demonstrating that the functional consequences of what Bandler and I presentedin The Structure of Magic, volume I could be achieved with fewer distinctions would have beeninteresting. But his movement is, unfortunately, in the opposite direction. I therefore take thisopportunity to offer a challenge presented by Carmen Bostic St. Clair and myself in Whispering that isrelevant to this process of finding the minimum number of distinctions that deliver the specification so

critical to clients in NLP applications:

In our own work, it has become clear to us (Bostic and Grinder) that it is possible to achieve X, the sameset of outcomes achievable by the meta model with only two of the original verbal patterns – the nounspecifier and the verb specifier. We propose this as the minimum set. Further, we note as we argue in thetext (see especially chapter 1, Part III), that there are competing requirements in the modeling of suchphenomena – for example, while it is possible (according to our claim) to achieve every outcome thatwas achievable with the full original meta model with the reduced set of two mentioned above, it may befar more effective for training purposes to include patterns other than the minimal set.

However each trainer decides to approach the presentation of verbal patterning, we leave the challenge

before the community: identify an outcome that is achievable with the original meta model that is not

achievable with the reduced set proposed here.

Whispering, page 186/187

By the way, a perusal of the “extensions” to the meta model by Hall (see, for example, appendix B,pages 105 – 108, Advanced Flexibility Training, 2000, “patterns” 14 through 22) by any mildly well-trained NLP practitioner will reveal that all of the examples offered there are well-handled by the set of



patterns in the original meta model. The peculiar thing is that insofar as the “extensions” offered areintelligible, many of them explicitly use the original meta model patterns – thus, it is far from clear whatHall thinks he is doing. Here are a couple of examples from his “extensions” (please note that these areHall’s examples, not mine):

Pattern 15. Static words (SW)

Science says that…

The amazing extension by Hall for challenging this sentence is,

What science specifically?

Pattern 16. Over/under defined terms (O/U)

I married him because I thought he would make a good husband.

The original meta model challenge would be

A good husband, how specifically?

which gets you there a quicker than Hall’s

What behaviors and responses would make a good husband for you?

I leave the analysis of Hall’s other alleged “extensions” to the meta model as an exercise for the reader.All of them fail the explicit tests presented above for extending the meta model. Thus, the “extensions”to the meta model proposed by Hall fail to meet either the strong or the weak case versions and aretherefore entirely unmotivated.

The challenge to determine whether the minimalist strategy (the two questions identified in the quoteabove) is also left to the reader.

4. Meta-states:

The proliferation of meta states offered by Hall may or may not be useful for him. In general, I confessthat I am somewhat suspicious about proposals that move us further away from FA or direct experience –the only reliable source of correction for our errant musings. However, of far more significance than mypersonal response to such endeavors, consider the following:

I take it that it is uncontroversial to state that the term meta is roughly translatable as about and that anystatement containing the term meta (for example, meta state) will require a specification of what it ismeta to. Another (and I hope, equally uncontroversial) way of glossing the term meta is in terms ofscope. I will accept Hall’s favorite application of the term meta for purposes of illustration. Thus a metastate is a state that is about X, or equivalently, has X in its scope (it covers X). Presumably, then, in the

case where X itself is another state, we have the situation where the meta state, m i, for X is a state about

the state X (or again, equivalently, m i has state X in its scope.

Note that m i with respect to X in this schema will have some (possibly all) of the features that state Xhas plus something else (the meta contribution apparently). Now as far as I can determine there are noconstraints on what this something else might be. When I actually examine the examples that Hall offerswhat strikes me is that he appears to be using this meta relationship to sort out various aspects of the



original state X – roughly along the lines that Bandler and I proposed in far simpler and more sensorygrounded formats in The Structure of Magic, volume II some decades ago. The “addition” proposed byHall is to do this is some form of a hierarchy (the about relationship). This inherently hierarchicalordering is as yet undefined. It is clearly not, a logical level hierarchy - it fails the tests presented inWhispering for such hierarchies (see Hierarchical Ordering in Whispering page 285 and succeedingpages and especially Logical Levels beginning on page 294).

Until some explicit mapping is offered by Hall for his about relationship, it is impossible to determinewhat he is talking about and therefore to intelligently evaluate his proposed contributions – we trust thatthere will be more substance to this than his claim about “extensions” to the meta model.

There are two statements by Hall in the section about meta states in his article that I find easy agreementwith,

“Perhaps this riotous proliferation of higher states is the magic and dynamic of what's emerging inNeuro-Semantics.”

Good, perhaps so - clearly in Neuro-Semantics, there are lots of meta states. May they find a securehome there.

“I show how that meta-states can be sick, morbid, and toxic and the very structure of self-sabotage.”

I sincerely hope that Hall enjoys his continued focus on meta states in Neuro-Semantics.

. 5 Logical levels:

I found nothing in Hall’s remarks relevant to the request/challenge offered in Whispering so I willcontent myself with simply repeating,

If there is some serious intention involved here, specification of the terms, psychologically encompassing

and impactful is required to allow the rest of the world of NLP to participate intelligently in the

discussion.

Whispering in the Wind, page 347

What Carmen Bostic St. Clair and I were requesting from Mr. Hall in Whispering is an explicit mappingfrom these undefined terms, psychologically encompassing and impactful onto some relatively sensorybased representation that would allow us and others to appreciate what is being proposed and therebyarrive at an intelligent decision about their utility.

Final Comment

In a recent publication (cited previously as Advanced Flexibility Training, 2000, page 48) Hall states,

The Uncertainty Principle (Heisenberg, 541) This fundamental principle in science enables us to adopt a

style for more comfortably living with change.

For those readers unfamiliar with Heisenberg’s excellent work, his Uncertainty Principle refers to afundamental limit to measurement. Crudely put, one cannot measure with precision both the location andthe energetic state of a particle. How Hall gets from this basic finding in physics (the material, non-living world) to his above rendition is so far beyond my willingness to imagine, that I will simply pass.



The gloss by Hall of Heisenberg’s work has about as much value as his comment on page 8 (Advanced

Flexibility Training) that,

… the grandfather of NLP, Count Alfred Korzybski….

Is Hall seriously proposing that all the modeling of excellence and the ensuing explicated patterns ofexcellence that Bandler and I coded in creating NLP were somehow already in Korzybski’s work?Korzybski coded a powerful perception – the map-territory distinction. Congratulations and full stop!

I have no interest in pursuing additional conversations with Mr. Hall (I am wary of his use of #1 in thetitle of his article, Response to John Grinder #1) as I am presently of the opinion that NLP (in all itsaspects) has a minimum overlap with Neuro-Semantics.

I wish him well in his endeavors and respectfully request that he clearly distinguish in the future betweenthese two endeavors – only one of which I wish to pursue.

John Grinder

Co-creator of Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Note: Thanks to Carmen Bostic St. Clair, Jeisyn Murphy (www.Got-NLP.com) and Michael Carroll(www.nlp-academy.com for their helpful comments on this article.

19/10/2006 04:17 PMWolfgand Walker reviews Whispering

Pagina 1 di 2http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/art_WolfgangWalker.htm

Review of Whispering in the Wind

(a new book by Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder)by Wolfgang Walker (NLP Berlin-Brandenburg)Germany

I'd say that I experience Whispering in the Wind similarly to the ending of a long cold and dark winteron the first sunny day in spring - probably not too good a metaphor for two (at least for the most part)congenial minds living in sunny California. So let me state it in other terms: Whispering in the Wind tome is like a spring of clean, clear and sparkling water in an originally beautiful landscape increasinglycontaminated with muddy puddles. Although the advertisements in NLP still claim to sell the beautiful landscape for an adventurousjourney, I strongly felt a more and more increasing gap between the sold image and the actual reality inthe NLP scene as I observed it. And after all my experiences as a member of the board of the GermanNLP association (from 1998 until 2001) made clear to me, that most of us had left the path that seemedto be intended in former days …But let me go back to Whispering in the Wind. In my opinion this work is outstanding and somethingvery special in quite a few regards:1. As far as I have an overview of the publications in NLP, I would say that Whispering in the Wind isthe first book since more than 20 years that follows the series of fundamental NLP books that ended withthe publication of Neuro-linguistic Programming, Volume I in 1980. I am aware of the fact that therewere some important contributions to the NLP field by various gifted people throughout the last 20years, but from my perspective Whispering in the Wind is the only book since 1980 that makes the effortto add something new to the basics of NLP in a serious and precise manner. So I'll take my hat off toyou both!

2. I also was sadly aware of the lack of theoretical work underpinning and developing furtherNLPmodelling and NLPapplication (quite a good differentiation). But I was never wondering about that... Why? ... The answer is quite clear to me: When I carried out my own investigations about the originsand backgrounds of NLP that resulted in the publication of Abenteuer Kommunikation in 1996, I foundthat this lack of theoretical work in NLP was a natural consequence of the fact, that the core piece thatconstitutes a (more or less) scientific field was never published by Bandler and yourself (John) - at leastwasn't published in a sufficient way. That's why I'm extremely glad since some days.

From my perspective one of the most remarkable features of Whispering in the Wind is that - for the firsttime - it enables a serious theoretical discourse about the basics of NLP. You both have put some stakesin the field of NLP that will serve as attractors for a theoretical discussion among interested NLPers andresearchers. For the first time now it is possible to find precisely formulated starting points for a rationaldiscourse - as well among NLPers as from the academic side. I hope that future will show howcourageous, wise and fruitful for the further development of NLP this step has been, because byformulating the theoretical underpinnings of NLP in such a precise manner you did also open up the

19/10/2006 04:17 PMWolfgand Walker reviews Whispering

Pagina 2 di 2http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/art_WolfgangWalker.htm

whole field for a critical examination of the attractors you put in place. I'm very hopeful that this willbring a dialectic evolution of the field with it. 3. What I also want to appreciate very much is the wide range of topics you systematically covered inthis book. This great variety of issues will hopefully help a lot to stimulate a variety of talented people tostart a serious discourse about this all. The remaining question is: Where? ... After Peter Winnington hasfinished the publication of NLP World, I don't see a new forum for the international NLP scene yet.Maybe the web and more specifically the website (www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com will open up newpossibilities here. What's also missing up to this day is a kind of (better small than big) conference - onlywith selected people who would like to contribute something to the discourse you both have (re-)opened.Such a conference would possibly bring enough material with it to be published for a broader public.And the more controversial and intelligent these discussions are, the more everyone will see that NLPisn't just a belief system and a series of hypnotic inductions from two weird Californian guys who hadtaken too many drugs. I think the reactions to the contents of Whispering in the Wind will show, if thischaracteristic of every scientific discipline will show up in the NLP field one day.

4. Let me also remark how impressed I am by the personal narratives of the early days you havepublished. I think that these stories provide a special pleasure for me personally as you (John) publishmaterial like that for the first time yourself. Sure - there were some glimpses one could get on the wilddays through stories in your published workshops. And one or the other participant published somestories in articles or books. But one never knew if these incidents did really happen or if they were justuseful metaphors in a specific context. Also enlightening for me was your discussion about formalthinking and the influence of Chomsky's work on NLP. That's been the first time I read something fromNLPers about these issues that sounds competent.

To sum it up I'd like to say that I hope the worldwide NLP scene will recognize what this book really is -a historical milestone in the development of NLP. And if this work will be taken note of in the way itdeserves it, I'm very hopeful that it will help to put an end to the increasing tendency to erode themeaning of the term "NLP" by mixing it up with everything.

Maybe this book should have been published twenty years ago. But one never knows. If there still isenough commitment and substance in the NLP scene, this somewhat belated publication will turn out asa second chance for the whole project called "NLP".

And by saying that, I'd like to ask my fellow NLPers worldwide to join into the discourse you bothopened and put the attractors that are set now to a critical and constructive examination. Let's go for it!


Pagina 1 di 2http://www.nlpwhisperinginthewind.com/ext_BookExtracts.htm

Table of Contents (expanded version - excerpt)

The Lull Before the Storm

1. Preface

2. Prologue: offers some simple opening remarks about thecurrent context in which we find NLP and some typicalcontemporary perceptions of it.

Part I: A Freshening Wind

Chapter 1: Epistemology - an explicit presentation of the epistemology underlying NLP. The reader iswarned that this section requires close attention. While it is possible to appreciate many portions of thesucceeding material without an explicit understanding of the epistemology presented in this section, weconsider it crucial to any serious student of the technology. We argue for a sharp distinction between theset of neurological transforms that process the incoming data stream from the world up to the pointwhere we as humans first gain access to it (primary experience) and the set of transforms subsequent tothat point, focusing on the linguistic mapping and their effects (secondary experience). Korzybski'sfamous map/territory distinction is challenged and refined. Some of the implications for NLP areexplored.

Chapter 2: Terminology: a number of key terms in NLP and in particular for this book are defined withcommentary.

Chapter 3: Intellectual Antecedents of NLP: here we identify and characterize the most influentialsources of the strategies, methodologies and patterning that deeply influenced the co-creators, JohnGrinder and Richard Bandler, and the processes that they used during the creation of NLP.

Chapter 4: Personal Antecedents: a representation from the point of view of one of the two co-creatorsof NLP of the personal characteristics that played an important role in the discovery processes thatcreated the field of NLP. The reader is reassured that the accidents of one person's tortuous personalhistory represents only one (and a quite unlikely one) way of achieving the skills necessary to engage inthe modeling of excellence.

Part II: The Eye of the Storm

Chapter 1: Contexts of Discovery: a series of historical narratives with commentary in which the readeris invited to consider how specifically the initial modeling of genius and the associated activities thatcreated the field of NLP occurred. Special attention is paid to the contexts and processes of discovery.

Chapter 2: The Breakthrough Pattern: we make explicit the features of NLP that distinguish it fromother systems of change. We then offer a historical narrative, describing the emergence of thebreakthrough pattern that casts a revealing light on certain unfortunate choices made by Bandler andGrinder in their enthusiastic initial coding of the patterns of excellence in the NLP's classic code. Afteran analysis of the breakthrough pattern, we offer a critical analysis of the classic code illuminated by thedifferences revealed in the breakthrough pattern.



Chapter 3: The New Code: we establish the historical context in which the New Code emerged. This isfollowed by a presentation of design strategy behind its creation and a teasing out of some of theimplications. The new code change format is presented with a specific new code game. The topic ofmultiple perceptual positions with special emphasis on that privileged set of perceptual positions - TripleDescription - is offered.

Part III: A Steady Sea Breeze

Chapter 1: Some Key Issues in NLP modeling

a. Coding issues: the presentation of a number of issues associated with coding, including the tensionbetween elegance in Modeling and pedagogical requirements.

b. Ordering Functions: a study in the ordering relationships common found in NLP patterning.Distinctions are drawn between linear and hierarchical orderings and a number of different relationshipsby which such orderings are created are examined.

c. Logical Levels and Logical Types: a brief excursion in the historical development of the notion oflogical type. This is followed by an analysis and a proposed reform of usage, given the distinctionsuncovered and explicated

Chapter 2: Some Key Issues in NLP application and NLP training

a. Sorting functions: the beginning of an explicit strategy for knowing, given a specific presentingproblem, how to select the appropriate pattern for an effective intervention.

b. Chunking and Logical Levels: the development of a careful argument beginning with ordinarychunking exercises and resulting in the precise sorting of two of the most common ordering relationshipsin hierarchies: logical level (generated by logical inclusion) and part/whole hierarchies. Severalapplications are described.

c. Form and Substance: Process and Content: a preliminary effort to make explicit one of the keydifferentiators in NLP activities, both modeling and application.

Chapter 3: Recommendations: an invitation to consider a series of specific recommendations to the NLPcommunity of how specifically the quality of work in NLP can be improved and what specific steps weas a community might take to ensure that NLP takes its rightful place in making useful and insightfulcontributions to an appreciation of how we as humans function, with, of course, special focus onperformances of excellence. This discussion is followed by a commentary on how the patterning of NLPmight be applied in wider social contexts.

One final suggestion on the use of this book - one of the co-authors, Grinder, worked as a professionallinguist prior to participating along with Bandler in the creation of NLP. In the tradition of linguistresearch, there is a tendency to put in the footnotes some of the most interesting observations, albeit onesthat have yet to be adequately explicated. While footnotes in a book are typically considered somethingof a requirement and incidental to the material - we have chosen to follow the tradition of linguistics.Our footnotes offer commentary and description that are quite rich and we urge the reader to considerthem carefully…



Authors' Guide for the Reader/Preface to

Whispering in the Wind (excerpt)

It is with great excitement and pleasure that we offer this book to the Neuro-Linguistic Programming(NLP) community. Its publication seems to us to be most timely. The legal controversies surroundingNeuro-Linguistic Programming have been recently settled in such a way that there are at present nofurther obstacles to an intelligent and appropriate professional development of this field that holds suchgreat promise (see appendix A for documents detailing the legal settlements that have cleared the way forthis development).

NLP has been carried on the wind to all corners of the earth in the short time it has existed. The initialwork by its co-creators, John Grinder and Richard Bandler, was done in the mid - 70's in California. Thepatterning coded by them in their initial modeling of geniuses has been translated into many languages,adapted to a large number of cultures and integrated into countless domains of application. It has touchedprofoundly the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, making positive contributions to the quality oftheir lives.

Our motivations for writing this book are multiple. First, we were moved by a concern about theemphasis and direction that NLP has recently taken. In particular, we refer to the lack of modeling - thevery activity that defines the core of this discipline NLP. Our thought was that if we could identifycleanly the primary strands of influence, both intellectual and personal, that shaped the context in whichNLP was formed, it would give some depth to the enterprise. Further, there is nowhere available anypublished descriptions of the processes by which the initial modeling that created the field of NLPoccurred. Similarly, the contexts in which these processes occurred have never been revealed. It hardlyseems appropriate (and it is certainly not effective) to exhort people to do something without offeringsome guidance on how to accomplish it.

We begin by identifying the epistemology underlying the entire enterprise of NLP. We subsequentlypresent the principle threads, both personal and intellectual, that were woven together to create thisfabric of many colors.

We then select and describe a series of key incidents in the modeling activities that created NLP. Ourintention for so doing is that by presenting such narratives, we could point to specific strategies (bothliterally and metaphorically) that have proven effective in the modeling of excellence. In particular, wedevelop extended descriptive narratives that define what philosophers of science refer to as contexts ofdiscovery. Our intention, then in this enterprise, is to encourage others to think and act with clarity inresponding to the tremendous opportunities that the technology called NLP offers to intrepid explorers.Such enlightened self-interest will hopefully drive the further development of the field as a naturalconsequence.

Without an appreciation of its foundation, historically and epistemologically, there is a tendency for anew discipline such as NLP to drift on the wind. We present a number of tether points, strong enough toresist inappropriate drift but with enough slack to allow flexibility and some grace in its movement.

Finally, we offer extended commentary on the practice of NLP and how we as a community might refineand extend such practice. These include specific proposals about how to improve the actual applicationof the patterning created through modeling processes. We conclude with a set of recommendations abouthow we might organize ourselves as a legitimate research community, and a commentary on its possible



application to wider social contexts.

The discipline of Neuro-Linguistic Programming had a reasonably spectacular infancy and has, more orless, survived a tumultuous adolescence. We propose that it is now time to establish it as a professionaldiscipline taking its rightful place along side other approaches to the study of human functioning. NLPhas and will continue to contribute significantly to the study of human behavior and in particular, to thatextreme form of human behavior we refer to as excellence. The field is far more important than the twomen who founded it: it now has a life of its own. In part, what follows is an attempt to make transparentcertain aspects of its creation and development if for no other justification than to allow it to movebeyond the personalities of its co-creators.

Whispering is not a typical NLP book - in particular, those seeking another how-to presentation of NLPpatterning of excellence should look elsewhere. The book assumes a certain level of familiarity withNLP patterning and concerns itself with larger and more profound issues - ones that, in our opinion, willdetermine whether NLP reinvigorates itself and continues to develop or simply is swept away on thewind.

Nor will we use this book to offer a report of the patterning in large organizations - corporations,institutes and governments - that has been the focus and principal activity of Quantum Leap and itsprincipals, Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder during the last decade. Our intention here is quitedifferent…



Part I: The Freshening Wind

Chapter 1: Epistemology

A marsh hawk swoops swift and graceful over the damp meadow and then with a shrill cry falls like abroken dream precipitously to the earth… only to rise again triumphant in the hunt, its prey graspedfirmly in its talons.

For that suspended moment we witness without words, filled with rich textured sensory knowledge,confirmed in our identification with living things. We are for this brief passage of time close to our non-human companion species. Our eyes focus with precision, capturing and savoring the grace, speed andprecision of the falcon, our ears tune themselves to the sounds of the desperate movements of the prey'sfutile attempt at escape and the last wisps of the morning sea fog giving way before the rising sun coolsour face and hands even as we silently and smoothly shift position to follow the unfolding drama beforeus. We are alive; we are present. We witness without emotion, without judgment…

" Did you notice the way he turned on his wing to fall upon the rabbit?"

asks our companion… and the moment vanishes along with the coastal fog and we are again human, forbetter or for worse.

Whether we respond to the question or simply nod, the web is rent; the identification passes on the wind.The query throws open the gates to a gust of images, sounds and feelings triggered by the words,generated without effort, indeed, without choice. The images of the specific way in which the harriercompletes the drama are now replayed, not for appreciation but for comparison and analysis.

Did he pivot on his right wing or his left?

You remember seeing clearly the flash of the white band across his tail during the pivot and nowexamining your images, you realize that he actually turned on his right wing before falling upon hismark. The word rabbit drags a long sequence of sounds, images and feelings ranging from an incrediblelaunch by a jackrabbit you once saw out in the high chaparral through the warm furry sensations of thefirst time you, as a child held a small rabbit.

But wherever the words take you, they most assuredly take you out of the moment: the marsh hawk andthe rabbit, the morning's mists and the rising sun, and all the experiences of those suspended momentsare lost in a maelstrom of associations that rush through your awareness dimly, converting this uniqueexperience into another entry in the associated files within your neurology. Through language, thespecific has transformed itself into the general.

Later that day, you will hesitate, only partially aware of the difficulty, as you relate the story to a friendand attempt to remember whether the last squeal you remember hearing occurred before the hawkdropped out of sight or immediately afterwards, whether the wind rose from your left or right, whetherthis marsh hawk was larger or smaller than the one you saw last week or whether the rabbit was fullygrown… Sensory impressions sink into memory as you reconstruct that moment.

But did that moment actually happen? Did the mist cool your face or did a complex heat and moisturedriven interchange occur between skin and air that reduced the temperature of your face and hand? Did



you see the marsh hawk out there in the meadow or in the area known as V-1 on your occipital lobe?

Why, of course, that moment happened…as surely as the sun rises. There is, of course, the problem offinding an educated person who will agree that the sun did actually rise as opposed to the earth havingturned on its axis to reveal the sun precisely where it always was with respect to the earth.

Neurology and language - those two great sets of transforms that both separate us from, and connect usto, the world around us. Thus do neurology and language make fools of us all, each and every one of us!…




Chapter 2: Terminology

Neuro-Linguistic Programming NLP

(NLP) is a modeling technology whose specific subject matter is the set of differences that make thedifference between the performance of geniuses and that of average performers in the same field oractivity. In this sense, the objective of modeling studies in NLP is to explicate in a transferable andlearnable code these sets of differences. 1 The core activity, then, is the mapping of tacit knowledge ontoan explicit model. This meta-discipline was created by John Grinder and Richard Bandler in the early70's.

Modeling, Application or Design

In actual usage over the last several decades, the term NLP has come to refer to the general set ofactivities that includes not only modeling, but applications of the product of the core activity of modeling- the patterns of excellence coded from the sets of differences discovered - as well as the teaching andtraining of these patterns. In part, the drift in the meaning is a measure of the ineffectiveness of the co-creators to make clear and precise what NLP is.

The required distinction is the same as the distinction between physics and engineering, or medicalresearch and clinical practice, or chemistry and pharmacology. Physics, for example, is the study of thepatterns that govern the physical phenomena about us. Such studies over centuries have resulted in thecoding of certain patterns, principles, laws of nature… An engineer designing a bridge will draw uponthis body of tested and verified patterning (especially the computational formulae) to carry out his work.He is said to be applying the principles of physics in order to work how specifically the bridge should beconstructed. Physics - the study of the fundamental patterns of physical phenomena - can be applied inmultiple instances from bridge building to the design of extraterrestrial vehicles. Such examples areapplications of physics, pure and simple.

Comparably, the modeling of geniuses done by Grinder and Bandler created the field of NLP, resultingin a series of models of excellence. These models coded patterns that govern the patterns of interactionsamong people in certain contexts (change work, hypnosis…). A business consultant addressing achallenge within a client company will draw upon the patterns. She will be said to be applying this bodyof tested and verified patterns in order to determine how specifically to resolve the challenge. NLP - thestudy of the fundamental patterns of excellence in human performance - can be applied (in the context ofbusiness practice, for example) to management practice, strategic planning, personnel, recruitment, newproduct design… Such examples are applications of NLP, pure and simple.

The meta model can, for example, be usefully understood to be an application of the modeling oflinguistic patterning inspired by Transformational Grammar.

It is important to note that in the coding of a large number of patterns in the initial modeling done byGrinder and Bandler is a set of variables. These variables (for example, state), inherent in each of thecoded models, constitute an initial vocabulary out of which the patterning of excellence is composed.Such variables may function as the design variables for creating and testing additional patterns. Whilethese may be largely variations on the patterning initially discovered and coded by Bandler and Grinder,



it is possible to use them to develop genuinely new patterning and models. The new code (covered inPart II under The New Code) is an excellent example of pure design, a pure manipulation of thesevariables. Thus, we identify the distinction between modeling and design.

Indeed, from our limited point of view, there is little activity in the general field known as NLPmodeling that strictly speaking should be so labeled. In fact, part of the motivation for writing this bookis our concern that unless the distinction we are presently proposing is recognized and more importantly,the activity of modeling becomes in fact a significant activity of what is loosely called NLP, thetechnology of modeling that produced such powerful patterning will simply fade away. It is, for example,almost impossible to attend a high quality management seminar in the USA or Western Europe withoutencountering any number of NLP coded patterns of excellence such as representational systems or muchof the verbal patterning. Thus, unless renewed activity in modeling and the coding of new patterning ofexcellence becomes the touchstone for NLP, then it is quite likely that the patterns of excellence initiallymodeled and coded will simply be incorporated in the various applications areas. Once such anintegration is completed, there will be no justification for anything called NLP.

Thus we are faced in this book with a difficult linguistic issue - how shall we refer to NLP and itsvarious activities. If we adopt the common usage of the term NLP, the critical point concerning modelingis lost. If we insist on the distinction between NLP modeling and NLP application, we are swimmingupstream in the river of usage.

So, may we swim strongly! …




Chapter 3: The Intellectual Antecedents of NLP

General Background for the Western Scientific Paradigm

We begin this section on intellectual antecedents with a provocative statement from a recent book thatcontextualizes our largest historical frame as we work our way toward more and more specific influenceson the development of NLP.

Steven Shapin in his monologue The Scientific Revolution (1996) lays out with broad brush strokes thehistorical development of certain ways of thinking, certain modes of perception and understanding thathave characterized the more or less systematic attempt by our species to investigate and arrive at someuseful representation of the world in which we live.

In his reconstruction, Shapin has identified certain styles of thinking (implicit epistemologies) about theworld and the way it works, starting with the classic Greek paradigms usually attributed to Socrates andAristotle and has traced their wanderings through various developments in the Middle Ages through theevents of the 17th century - a point in time that many commentators about the development of sciencehave claimed as the origin of the modern scientific method. Shapin is careful to eschew such broadclaims, instead stating with a charmingly deliberate provocation in the first sentence of the introductionto his book,

There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution and this is a book about it.

Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution, page 1

Our intention in presenting the intellectual antecedents of NLP is to engage the reader in thinking abouthow epistemologies change or evolve. The historical development of science is a model of the evolutionof man's thinking and perceptions - a model of how mental maps can and do change.

Have you ever thought about awakening in a time when there were few explanations about the physicalworld surrounding you? Imagine that you are a youngster of five years living on a farm near a river, thefurthermost farm at the end of a long dusty dirt track - your closest neighbor is a six-day horseback rideaway.

On this particular day, everyone is busy with chores - you have just finished yours. It is one of those hotsticky summer days; you are hot, sweaty and thirsty. You know the land well, and especially a partiallyshady area with a pool of cool water. You walk to the clear pool of water with a light sandy bottom.You satisfy your thirst.

As you rest cooling off in the shade of the trees, you idly drop a stone into the clear pool. You watch ittumble lazily, and, as it rests on the bottom, you notice that the stone appears larger than when you heldit in your hand. You toss in another stone. This time your attention is on the water's surface, you noticeconcentric circles radiating from the point where the stone entered.

You sit there and think about what you have just experienced. You see the reflection of the trees and thesun in the pool. Those images blur at almost the same instant that you feel a slight breeze ruffling yourhair. You hear the rustling of the leaves in the trees above you. Your eyes still focused on the pool



perceive a slight dimming of the brightness of the reflection of the trees and the sun. Curious, you turnand look up to see a cloud partially obscuring the sun. From experience, you deduce that it might beginto rain, so you start walking towards home.

As you walk, you smell a strong odor and you hear the raspy caws and then see ravens circling above.You walk toward the smell and the birds. You see a partially eaten carcass of a young fawn. The entrailsare exposed. There are flies.

What questions are in your mind? What explanations do you hallucinate? What theories do you project?What do you think you have just learned about the world in which you live? What are your conclusionsabout that part of the natural world that you have just experienced? What proofs do you seek - if any?Are there patterns in what you have observed? How do you generalize the patterns? The answers to thesequestions would be dependent upon the processes by which you place your attention, your personalexperiential history, your ability to think in a systemic manner, your mental maps of your world, yourability to make generalizations, and your curiosity - to even notice, anyway…



Part II: The Eye of the Storm

Chapter 1: Contexts of Discovery

It is a rare and somewhat humbling experience to witness the birth of a new field of human investigation,even more so to participate in such an event. Typically we learn about the history of such events throughtextbooks or popularizations. In such accounts, we are treated to a rational even compelling account of arelentless parade of events, each coherent in its own right, marching past us, linked by an impeccablelogic, and leading inevitably to inspiring conclusions, smoothed out by hindsight, freed of the chaos andconfusion inherent in any such enterprise.

You will not find in such accounts recognition of the role of the random, the unconscious cunning, theoutrageous irreverence necessary to shatter old habits of perception, the awkward first steps, theunjustified and congruent acting As If, the bemused recognition of a wholly flawed hypothesis, the long,deep, quiet, desperate nights, the fortuitous personal friendships and connections, the quickening thataccompanies powerful and wholly unexpected consequences, the camaraderie that holds the enterprisetogether, the dead ends, the leaps of logic, the irrational and unjustified assumptions, the accidents ofpersonal history and not least, the gifts and accidents of unconscious metaphor - all of which in the endallow you to stumble over the distinctions that then become the fundamental variables of the newdiscipline because in the end against all odds, it does succeed.

This was the implicit complaint that I attempted to register in writing the preface to a popular account ofNLP application called Introducing NLP,

These two men, O'Connor and Seymour, have set out to make a coherent story out of an outrageousadventure. The jungles through which Richard and I wandered are bizarre and wondrous. These fine andwell-intentioned men will show you glimpses of an English rose garden, trimmed and proper. Both thejungle and the rose garden carry those own special attractions.

What you are about to read never happened, but it seems reasonable, even to me.

John Grinder, Preface to Introducing NLP, 1989

The kind of descriptions that you find in historical accounts of the founding of a discipline arereconstructions, whether found in popularizations such as the above reference or in textbooks. Suchhighly selective, sanitized, and tidy accounts are in part designed to promote the prestige of the field (andsell books); in part a marketing effort to stimulate, inspire and ultimately recruit the most able of the nextcrop of students from our finest universities as the researchers of tomorrow.

We have a quarrel with such mystification of process- it seems a grave mistake to place giants before usas inspiring figures that loom too large for us to emulate - well beyond our personal talents and reach.Science is not so fragile as to be shaken by an honest account of actual meandering and surprisingaccidents that nearly inevitably accompany an event as monumental as the discoveries that culminate inthe founding of a new field of inquiry.

Each scientific discipline has its methodologies and properly so. As Kuhn has compellingly pointed out,these mopping up operations in the course of what he calls normal scientific activity are as domestic asdiscoveries are wild. 1



To hide the accidents of discovery serves neither the scientific community nor the larger society thatlooks increasingly to this community for guidance when making decisions and allocating resources.Discovery has no algorithms; it proceeds by processes themselves thus far obscure and unmapped.

Philosophers of science distinguish what they call the context of discovery as a special topic in theirstudies. But it is people who make monumental, world shaking, paradigm busting discoveries - peoplelike each of you and each of us. In Personal Antecedents (chapter 4, Part I) and in what follows we offera narrative of a series of discoveries and the contextual elements that played various roles in thosediscoveries. It is our attempt to make transparent some of the contexts of discovery and the processes bywhich NLP was created.

Our hope is that by doing so, you will recognize that much depends on commitment as well as talent. It isour intention that the reader identify through these descriptions how specifically you might participate inthis great adventure. The two men who created this field may have through accidents of their personalhistory acquired unusual skills and processes but once made explicit, such resources come within reachof anyone committed to learning and willing to act impeccably.



Table of contents

Preface

Epistemology

Terminology

Intellectual Antecedents

Contexts of Discovery

The Milton Model

Documents

History of neuro -linguistic programming · History of neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19/10/2006 04:45 PM [3]