Bill Goodrich wrote:
> Technically, the only "point" with NLP is to produce models of subjective
> experience and competence and also techniques based on those models.
> While many of those techniques are effective for making remedial and
> generative changes in other-than-conscious patterns of thought and
> action, others are more useful for other, unrelated purposes.
>
> NLP is not particularly useful for "pouring the Pacific ocean through"
> that particular (7 +/- 2) funnel.
>
> I'm curious: where did you get your training? For comparison, I got
> both my P and MP at NLP Comprehensive (Boulder, Colorado) and I draw
> on learnings from several Regional Conferences as well as my previous
> backgrounds in psychology (the Ph.D.) and hypnotherapy.
>
> W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
I believe you.
Sure, NLP is about making models of subjective experience.
But then the question is "Why bother?"
When I say "get control of their thoughts" I'm referring to
"learning to drive your own bus" -- To use your "concious mind" to
send your "unconcious mind" in new directions.
As to OCD being a tendency, of course it is -- but that does not
mean the only way to change the person is to give them drugs
which alter their neurochemistry. (and i'm not saying that you
are necessarily suggesting that).
And yes, if you give a person testosterone they will think about
sex more (and grow more facial hair :) It's not that it's one
way or the other, it's that both things have an affect on *each
other* (thoughts and neurochemistry -- as well as an unknown number
of other things that these things influence and that they are
influenced by). It's called thinking of a person as a system of
interactions (this is what cybernetic models are about)
I'm saying lets teach people how to use their thoughts to control
their brain chemistry (since it does have an effect -- and there
is plenty of research into hypnosis that demonstrates that) instead
of teaching them that there is something wrong with them. I know
they teach that presupposition of NLP at NLP Comprehensive because
I got my practitioner there ("People are not broken -- they work
perfectly")
I'm saying that we're both wrong. I don't know what the heck this
thing is that psychology calls "OCD". I do know that psychology
thinks that *it* knows, and that's the biggest joke I've ever heard
[36 lines left ... full text available at <url:http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/go?choice=message&table=05_1997&mid=3299679&hilit=HYPNOSIS> ]
--------------------------------
Article-ID: 05_1997&3278807
Score: 78
Subject: Re: This is for theists everywhere