I Don't Even Know What NLP is Anymore

If I take John Grinders recommendation that NLP is first and foremost a modeling technology. Technology either developed or stumbled upon by Bandler and Pucelik. By John Grinders own admittance the coding of the technology is more of an "art" than an agreed form of re-presentation to be communicated to others with the intention of those others performing at an approximate level as the original modelee. I can honestly see nothing logical or NLP ish about some of John Grinders chosen influences for the New code – Dan Casteneda, Tito Sampos for example. Yet there are aspects of New code that are invaluable and forward thinking. And, there are aspects of other schools which are also invaluable and forward thinking now looking back such as Christina Halls take on time. I’m not looking for some either/or arguments here (please don’t and please be respectful), more of a kind of who/what criteria gets to decide what is NLP is and what isn’t NLP when its blatantly based upon modeling, and then subsequent codifying of the original model. Some of the "original" NLP stuff wasn’t even based on modeling such as eye accessing cues… If I modeled Shinzeng Young would meditation then be a part of NLP? Is NLP a modeling technology or is it more to do with the coding of it that’s important after modeling based on some sort of criteria or both or what? What if I modeled John Grinders coding ability would that solve the whole issue?

I Don’t Even Know What NLP is Anymore

Speak Your Mind