Not quite, July 19, 2002

Unfortunately, I cannot concur with the other reviewers. What I had hoped for was one book that accomplished two things: (1) organize the many concepts and techniques described by Bandler et al through their books, many of which were edited seminar transcripts and (2) update for me the current usage and experience from the field since the earlier days of NLP. This book succeeds in some respects and fails in others.

For example, the section of the chapter on the representational systems–those through which we sense our external context or world–is very good. It provides exercises that are useful in acquiring the language of that concept. It provides lists of visual predicates, words that help us particularize the sensations, such as verbs, adjectives and adverbs. It also provides common predicate phrases to illustrate how we use language dynamically, such as “appears to me” and “pretty as a picture.”

In contrast, in the section of the chapter on the submodalities, the authors alter the original NLP paradigm by applying less sophistication. For those readers unfamiliar with the original, this may prove difficult to comprehend, but it proves extremely important. One of the signal changes in the original model was the notion that behavior resulted from our individual model or map of some memory, which in turn derived from some inexact perception of a modal, or sensory, experience. For example, we know that two people do not experience the same context the same way; e.g., some people believe that Ben Laden is a monster, others a savior. The same may be said about things as well as people; e.g., automobiles, public transportation, pit bulls, skyscrapers, SUVs, etc.

What Bandler et al posited was two notions, viz., (1) that we could CHANGE behavior WITHOUT knowing what the constituent elements of the embedded experience were, and (2) the experience was something akin to an equation, with formal aspects-and here it gets a bit complex for those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with higher mathematics. The old psychology paradigm (think of Freud) was hierarchical: unconscious, subconscious, conscious. Similarly, Maslow’s paradigm was hierarchical, from basic needs through self-actualization. The NLP paradigm was different. It argued that our experience was more like a mathematical equation: Experience = X(Visual) + X(Auditory) + X(Kinesthetic) + X(Gustatory / Olfactory) + C, where X is a function. The reason this was different (and important) was that changing a single sub-modality-perhaps the one represented by the primary representational system-could have a significant influence on behavior due to the absolute power of the ‘X’ function (which we could never discover).

What these authors have substituted is the prior hierarchical-and in my estimation, inferior-paradigm. The problem with the hierarchical model is it assumes an additive influence of sensory experience on memory, and thus behavior. I do not concur that our experiences are that simplistic. The difficulty with the original NLP model-that is, the feature that I thought troubling-was that changing a single behavior has the hazard of influencing other (unknowable) behaviors in some ways. In other words, our personality is “meta” (to use the authors’ meaning) to our specific behaviors-i.e., our personality derives from our behaviors. A more positive change from these authors would have been to figure out if the Calculus paradigm applied (Can we accelerate change?), or most important, if we could modulate one unknown constant such as C.

Finally, Bandler would argue that we could leave the inter-behavior incongruities to our unconscious, since we are creative and flexible. This makes more intuitive sense to me. What causes the OLD psychological models to be ineffective is their search for the ultimate answer as to why we behave as we do, e.g., What is the absolute source of one’s antipathy to authority figures? Frankly, I do not give a damn. If I want to change a behavior, I want to change it. Period. I do not want to spend years searching through my childhood memories. (Sound familiar?) We operate on the basis of maps, not territory, Perceptions, not Truth (with apologies to Plato). If that new behavior does not work, I will change it again. My mind is creative enough, if I do not inhibit it. In sum, you can choose between Bandler’s sophistication and religion’s Ultimate Answer.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

|

 Comment