The author feels obliged to declare the issue of NLP (for all those who have not been blessed by Wisdom yet: Neuo Linguistic Programming) leaves him a little undetermined. He thinks it is very hard to make up one's mind, for as a matter of perspective NLP can be regarded either as ingenious or as blunt. Luckily modern complexity does not oblige us to take the wrong side.
But let us proceed by turns: NLP appeals to various disciplines to substantiate (or sell) its concepts (or chimeras). 'Neuro' refers to the comparatively new cognitive sciences which conceive mind activities to be neuronally based, thus redefining the old Ghost in the Machine problem. 'Linguistic' appeals to traditional Linguistics, especially Linguistic Semantics dealing with word meanings. 'Programming' of course borrows from Artifial Intelligence and computer science. Depending on our inclination and tolerance we might consider it to be an interesting case of interdisciplinary thinking or a hollow-sounding jumble of superfially understood terms from highly specialized disciplines. Anyway, the reference is quite manifold (or vague).
NLP claims (with a similarly vague reference to second order cybernetics or constructivist approaches) human beings actively create their environmet. This means it can be altered. Accordingly, human beings can change their perspectives of things, too – provided they make their brains perceive reality differently. They are recommended to re-programme their way of thinking. To make sure they will, experts in NLP enter the scene. The aim is to create new associations, thus clearing anxieties, negative thinking, aversions of second language acquisition or other persons, nicotine addictions etc. To manage it, the coach first has to observe his client very diligently, adapt to his patterns of speaking (Linguistics!), generate confidence. Then it is said to be possible to redefine negative experiences as something positive, for instance risks as chances, shortcomings as strong points.
In order to secure (or simulate) the necessary expertise, NLP doctrine has invented an interesting arsenal of innovative terms; here we hear of rapport, there it is spoken about reframing. Objective observing is meant to be guaranteed by dividing the client's visual focus into different sections (left, middle, right; up, middle, down). They are meant to tell the coach what the client is thinking, even if he is not aware of it.
Like any intervention in a person's psychic state NLP is not undisputed. It is not only about the notorically problematic responsibility the coach has taken over in therapeutic contexts, but also about passing on that knowledge to amateurs; amateurs who either wish to programme themselves in order to succeed or to use their skill to smoothly direct other persons – in, say, the professional realm. The fact that dazzling (to say the least) coaches have advanced the method from the side-entrance to fill the city halls contributes to the dubious image of NLP. The coaches seem to be too powerful manipulating associations with the force of his skills. Critics insist on telling difficulties in distinguishing NLP from brain-washing. That is why an ethics code serving as a voluntary self-obligation to all those apprentices in magics seems indispensable to segregate the black sheeps.
As mentioned in the beginning, the author is uncertain what to think of NLP. However, it is not due to its ethical ambiguity. Quite the contrary, cultivating dubiety is an aspect in favour of it. We have to acknowledge it has been an ingenious move to claim one's product is somewhat dangerous; for implicitly it has been presupposed the product does create effects. To put it differently: by discussing if the effects of NLP are good or evil we assume there are any effects at all. And it is just this assumption, this presupposition, the authors takes the liberty to doubt. Somehow he feels reminded of the film distributors' knack to guilelessly warn the audience in the 1950s the latest thriller could harm people having heart trouble.
Whoever is interested questions whether it is right to manipulate people. Nobody wonders whether it is possible to manipulate them; whether the announced effects my not rather be due to group dynamics which induces people who struggle for self-knowledge and job promotion to gather in seminar rooms, in city halls where they repete everything the man on the stage screams. The author is not quite sure about it, but he cannot help but suspect that circus or amusement park attractions are more honest. So this is what makes the negative part of NLP. And what creates uncertainty about the ingenious bag of tricks.
But let us proceed by turns: NLP appeals to various disciplines to substantiate (or sell) its concepts (or chimeras). 'Neuro' refers to the comparatively new cognitive sciences which conceive mind activities to be neuronally based, thus redefining the old Ghost in the Machine problem. 'Linguistic' appeals to traditional Linguistics, especially Linguistic Semantics dealing with word meanings. 'Programming' of course borrows from Artifial Intelligence and computer science. Depending on our inclination and tolerance we might consider it to be an interesting case of interdisciplinary thinking or a hollow-sounding jumble of superfially understood terms from highly specialized disciplines. Anyway, the reference is quite manifold (or vague).
NLP claims (with a similarly vague reference to second order cybernetics or constructivist approaches) human beings actively create their environmet. This means it can be altered. Accordingly, human beings can change their perspectives of things, too – provided they make their brains perceive reality differently. They are recommended to re-programme their way of thinking. To make sure they will, experts in NLP enter the scene. The aim is to create new associations, thus clearing anxieties, negative thinking, aversions of second language acquisition or other persons, nicotine addictions etc. To manage it, the coach first has to observe his client very diligently, adapt to his patterns of speaking (Linguistics!), generate confidence. Then it is said to be possible to redefine negative experiences as something positive, for instance risks as chances, shortcomings as strong points.
In order to secure (or simulate) the necessary expertise, NLP doctrine has invented an interesting arsenal of innovative terms; here we hear of rapport, there it is spoken about reframing. Objective observing is meant to be guaranteed by dividing the client's visual focus into different sections (left, middle, right; up, middle, down). They are meant to tell the coach what the client is thinking, even if he is not aware of it.
Like any intervention in a person's psychic state NLP is not undisputed. It is not only about the notorically problematic responsibility the coach has taken over in therapeutic contexts, but also about passing on that knowledge to amateurs; amateurs who either wish to programme themselves in order to succeed or to use their skill to smoothly direct other persons – in, say, the professional realm. The fact that dazzling (to say the least) coaches have advanced the method from the side-entrance to fill the city halls contributes to the dubious image of NLP. The coaches seem to be too powerful manipulating associations with the force of his skills. Critics insist on telling difficulties in distinguishing NLP from brain-washing. That is why an ethics code serving as a voluntary self-obligation to all those apprentices in magics seems indispensable to segregate the black sheeps.
As mentioned in the beginning, the author is uncertain what to think of NLP. However, it is not due to its ethical ambiguity. Quite the contrary, cultivating dubiety is an aspect in favour of it. We have to acknowledge it has been an ingenious move to claim one's product is somewhat dangerous; for implicitly it has been presupposed the product does create effects. To put it differently: by discussing if the effects of NLP are good or evil we assume there are any effects at all. And it is just this assumption, this presupposition, the authors takes the liberty to doubt. Somehow he feels reminded of the film distributors' knack to guilelessly warn the audience in the 1950s the latest thriller could harm people having heart trouble.
Whoever is interested questions whether it is right to manipulate people. Nobody wonders whether it is possible to manipulate them; whether the announced effects my not rather be due to group dynamics which induces people who struggle for self-knowledge and job promotion to gather in seminar rooms, in city halls where they repete everything the man on the stage screams. The author is not quite sure about it, but he cannot help but suspect that circus or amusement park attractions are more honest. So this is what makes the negative part of NLP. And what creates uncertainty about the ingenious bag of tricks.
No comments:
Post a Comment