Faulkner and Breen, Outlaws of NLP

OK, I jest with the title. But only a little.

I’ve just listened to a conversation between Charles Faulkner and Michael Breen, a bonus for subscribers to Michael’s excellent Platinum Audio Club. Fascinating stuff from two genuine innovators in a field that’s got more than its fair share of ‘me too’ trainers.

Anyway, one bit I liked was Charles Faulkner saying how an early presupposition of NLP has got lost. It’s ‘If the model you’re using isn’t working, use another one‘.

Hmm, makes sense, huh? And how much of NLP does that tenet apply to? Faulkner suggests NLP consists of seven models that don’t actually connect, eg sensory acuity and strategies, but are lumped together. Breen says that there aren’t separate language models such as the Meta Model, Milton Model, Sleight of Mouth, and Clean Language: instead there’s just language itself, and ways to use it.

So, what aspects of NLP need to be quietly archived? And what could replace them that’s more useful, perhaps drawing on modern neuroscience or other ways of thinking? Perhaps, as Michael and Charles discuss, there’s much of value to be learned in older methods — John Grinder was suggesting people wanting to model should learn acting back in 1985, and there’s a wealth of valuable material gathered in centuries of acting technique. What other older disciplines have an edge over NLP as it is typically presented?

Faulkner and Breen, Outlaws of NLP

Speak Your Mind