NLP is simpler to be described as Surgery of Thought Process.

It is just as much a surgery because you are breaking into someone else established patterns at the neuro chemical level and carving a new path!

Well but what is surprising is you can do it conversationally and people do it all the time without realizing it.

Just for a moment jump into the fantasy world of Star Trek. You can transport someone – when a Ship is stationed, when it is at impulse speed and at warp speed.

Now any trekkie would know that it is easy to do transportation at orbit or at impulse speed but a select few can transport at warp speed.

The question to the practitioners – Do you want to do your work only using Hypnosis or a semi focussed session without hypnosis. I think the real skill is to do it when the mind is jumping between thoughts like in warp speed faster than light!

We all have seen Bandler do it . Some live and some in videos. The point I am trying to make is that first it is possible to get any specific result without having to use formal hypnosis as long as you are quick enough. Well this is already documented in the famous book by Bandler and Grinder on Traceformations.

What I am more interested in brining to attention is that we are all neuro surgeons at warp speed. Which means you are altering peoples thought patterns some permanent some momentary – You want it or not – The question is how purposeful do you want to be?

Especially if you are trained on NLP by any worthy book or seminar. You are already always influencing people at the Neurological level even outside your awareness. The question really is how much of the influence are you happy about? Or in the first place even aware of.

Lastly, to those who take the initiative to make purposeful neurological changes conversationally. Keep this in mind, more specifically if you are a practitioner – Every time Bandler finishes with someone the person is glowing like a lit candle! You don’t have to squint your eyes to notice the change. It is right there. And also Bandler tests his work even when it is done conversationally.

In the past few months I have some observations and learnings on this. But to summarize I would say the pre requisite for Conversation Neurological Programming is

  • Stealth (Humour, Creativity, Provocation, Confusion – all this can help – depending on your style)
  • Speed (For – Elicitation, Anchoring, Post Hypnotic Suggestions)
  • Precision (Many tactics – 1 Outcome – Strategy Elicitation using TOTE – Test Operate Test Exit)
  • Repetition(In different states, different contexts, creativity can come a long way to hide repetition)
  • Rapport(Ofcourse 🙂 )

To all those staring out – don’t be fooled – NLP is a lot of practice.

Example of NLP instructions go as follows

1) Establish Rapport

2) Elicit Desired State

3) Anchor

4)…

This is the equivalent of telling a surgeon

1) Open the Stomach

2) Remove the stone

3) ….

Well it is easier said! But everyone knows that for a surgeon to do the above requires a lot of precision and a steady state of mind.

NLP is no different.

So how do you learn?

Simple – By making the world your practice ground!

Even when you are not actively practicing. Notice!

All the patterns of NLP are out there. You can notice it in every conversation.

Start noticing patterns, observe interactions between people, notice the dynamics.

Its everywhere!

Save

9 COMMENTS

  1. You say that doing NLP is “breaking into someone else established patterns at the neuro chemical level and carving a new path!”

    Is there any peer-reviewed scientific evidence for this?

    • @Aaron

      For Starters – Structure of Magic Volume I (1975) – Makes a compelling case of neurological changes using language. It has been peer reviewed by the famous Gregory Bateson!

      Ofcourse Structure of Magic is only represents the Meta-Model which by itself is a very small portion of NLP.

      There is more information on NLP and Neurological Changes explicitly in the more recent book by Dr. John Grinder Whispering in the Wind.

      Ofcourse Dr.Bandler also states it without saying in his books like Trance-Formation. Since he calls every change a new experience in the neurology.

  2. I should have been more specific. Apologies. By peer-reviewed research, I meant research articles in scientific journals. I’ve noticed that the evidence for NLP’s efficacy is mostly anecdotal and there is little if any scientific evidence amounting to a statistically significant change in experimental to control groups.

    • It depends on What in NLP you are looking for a research article on. NLP borrows and uses concepts from many fields. So research articles for things that NLP claim can be found in journals of Neurology, Cybernetics etc. Some of the famous theories which have received scientific awards and are popularly found in research articles that NLP is build upon include double bind, TOTE, logical types and logical levels…

      Specific reference to scientific publication can be found in the book – “Whispering in the Wind”

      The book also has reference to some interesting experiments in control groups.
      And as far as I can tell it is the only book that addresses the position of NLP in scientific context. Every other book focusses only on the skill which is where my attention also is 🙂

  3. Then I shall leave you be. For as far as I can tell, there is no scientific evidence to support the claims of NLP. The experiments by Christopher Sharpley in the late 80s and early 90s show this clearly. The United Stated Research Council has also concluded based on a research committee’s report that NLP has insignificant empirical evidence. It is simply not evidence-based practice. There’s a paper by Norcross et al in 2006 which interviewed mental health professionals and academics in psychology and psychotherapy in the US and of the professionals who had any clue about NLP, all of them agreed that it was “possibly and probably discredited”.

    NLP in itself as an approach to psychotherapy is bogus. It is but a pseudoscience. So, the claim that NLP has anything to do with neuroscience or neurology is utterly flawed. NLP practitioners mske very specific claims which demand an evidence-base, and NLP just doesn’t have the science to back it up.

    • I think I didn’t convey the intended message. I just gave you reference of references for scientific ground of NLP. How can you make a judgement even before you verify them? I agree NLP practitioners make a lot of claim that aren’ t true. But that’s like saying everyone lies! The challenge is distilling the truth from the lies and not generalizing 🙂

  4. I’ve read the assumptions on which NLP rests its case. And those very assumptions have been challenged by academics and health professionals. NLP fails to provide adequate evidence of its efficacy as espoused by its creators Bandler and Grinder.

    The fundamental question I’m asking is about whether NLP is based on sound scientific theory? The “eye movement” model and the “primary representational system” model put forward by Bandler and Grinder both have little to no experimental evidence. And academics everywhere seem to agree that NLP is not a scientific technique even though its proponents may use scientific terms such as “neuroscience”, “metamodeling”, “micromodeling”, “neurological levels” and so on. NLP is not based on neuroscience and neither is it neurosurgery.

  5. Several scientific studies have confirmed the underlying principles of NLP like Anchoring, Micro Muscle Mirroring, Pacing & Leading. If you are still interested I can provide you references. And regarding the objective of this post – “It is to drive a point that you don’t need altered states to execute to any of the NLP patterns”. The Warp Speed is definitely nothing more than a Metaphor – it can’t be – there is nothing like that. Just in the same way – Neuro Surgery is a Metaphor. The articles does not claim NLP to be Neuro Surgery or Conversations to be passage at warp speed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here