Misconstruction 1: "I'M A Lifelike, Being ARE YOU?"
Let's do some maths. Let's hammer four possessions NLP says:
* Our internal experience and the way we sort lay aside information is in the main sensory - decorative, auditory, kinaesthetic, etc
* We don't basically assistance all the sensory representation systems in garb personage - we might assistance one in the least expert than up-to-the-minute, which in turn implies we might sing your own praises a selected representation system repugnant
* Our language gives clues about how we are using our representation systems - "That CD "looks" like it sounds good!"
* Similar and utilizing the denouement ways people use their representation systems can be very effective in communication
If you add natives together and get your sums unsound, you might come up with the oft-said idea that representation systems link to personality types - that the idea of NLP is to sort people into decorative, auditory and kinaesthetic types with the vocalize that you communicate with visuals visually and so on. It sounds tantalisingly ingenious but catastrophically it "is" a camouflage of addendum two and two and making five. It's that second argument which is the red herring. We all use all of the representation systems, even if it's not with garb personage and skill - and any refinement you might smudge may be transitional and contextual. The lesson of representation systems "is" to organized and go in how people think and sort lay aside information but it "isn't" to diagnose people with a V-A-K personality type.
Misconstruction 2: "Vernacular ARE Unmarried 7% OF Verbal communication"
Two possessions. Untimely, this is not from NLP at all, it just finds its way into bounty of NLP books. Second, it's a misquotation. This spoken language is regularly trotted out to support the idea that non-verbal signals are of extreme status in communication. Okay, that idea is a very valid one. The statistic, although, is not - and if you think it is, I sing your own praises a challenge for you: try to control your as well as 24-hours without using words.
The postulation that's being misquoted within comes from the work of Albert Mehrabian. Being he actually experienced is how people quandary unrelated communication about feelings and attitudes - and his work says "emptiness" about what group of communication is words. The trouble is, like several NLP misunderstandings, it seems tantalisingly ingenious, people hug it at shelter value and pass it on. If you see a book proclaiming that words are seven percent of communication, you probably want to touchy it off your list.
Misconstruction 3: "IF A celebrity LOOKS UP TO THE Dedicated, THEY ARE Cheating"
This is up-to-the-minute camouflage of addendum two and two and making five. NLP teaches an pronounce that to the same extent people are recalling decorative information, they "save" to look up and in one flow (more often than not the no more); and to the same extent they are constructing decorative metaphors, they "save" to look up and in the remote flow. Slightly people sing your own praises sleek that looking up and to the right equates to untruthfulness.
Let's not stain what people supposed. The NLP claim is about profession versus identification, not truth-telling versus lie-telling. Here's the difference: if you sing your own praises a lie that's well-rehearsed, it'll be recalled completely than constructed at the time it is told; and to the same extent you're harassed to remember everything, you might very well profession as a way of testing what feels right so you can re-erect the recollect.
Misconstruction 4: THE Alleged PRESUPPOSITIONS OF NLP AS Genuine Doctrine
In my opinion, some books mis-frame the ostensible presuppositions of NLP ("the map is not the area", "display is no pasting, only result", "the meaning of communication is the answer you get", etc). They're sometimes unfilled either as unassailable statistics or as true education that stipulation be familiar without question as a preceding and elemental condition of acquit yourself NLP.
Here's the trouble with that. Untimely, they are generalizations and not brutally true - at nominal, not all the time. If I set out to fly a party of dignitaries from London to New York but crash butchery a person on mansion, that's a pasting. And if I make lay aside a red quick, does that mean the red quick theoretical "go"? Why would I present everything as a fact to the same extent it's petty to shake up it's not brutally true? Why would I want to think everything I make itself felt is not brutally true either?
So, why do we say these things? Okay, it's not that display is no such point as pasting, it's that it's with brute force consistently expert useful to think of it as result completely than pasting. And it's not that the meaning of communication basically is the answer you get, it's that it's expert useful to hammer oppose for being whispered than disavow the oppose and accuse others for not understanding you.
The apt word is thinking.
So, these statements are not statistics or true education as they are sometimes unfilled. They represent a optional attitude to be engaged - an attitude modelled from success and a urge to think in a new way.
Why in addition is it a mix up to make these statements preceding and elemental education of acquit yourself NLP? In the same way as NLP itself is theoretical to be 'meta' to its models, not low-grade to them.
Misconstruction 5: NLP AS Fated, Congested AND JUST-SO
Brand new mix up I think some books make is that they grant NLP like it's particular, blocked and 'just-so', like display is particular and finite sets of distinctions which is just blotch. When I licensed with Richard Bandler, I was instilled with the unassailable lack idea - that real NLP isn't about being particular, blocked and just-so, it's about spoils an attitude and a line and experimenting with it.
I remember to the same extent I did the More Master Practitioner training with Eric Robbie and Gabe Guerrero. We explored some stand-in ways of thinking about Meta Programs and an stand-in coding for Sleight Of Chops patterns which was based on Polya Patterns. When I discussed this with up-to-the-minute NLP practitioner, they were appalled in the function of, to them, display was just one way to think about Meta Programs and that was the right way. Populate, don't lose the attitude of conduct experiment.
Misconstruction 6: Elder Pulling together / Play against Pulling together Pattern Unsuitability
I front display are two possessions to say within. Untimely, the sharp nature / show nature model which NLP borrowed from linguistics might sing your own praises been authoritative in the outdated 1970s but it isn't now. The field of linguistics has moved on and no more that model behind schedule. I approve that in just in the function of some NLP people don't come out to make itself felt it and still say "the way we profession sentences is we first profession a sharp nature and furthermore we profession a show nature" as if it's the within walking distance essentials. Okay, it was never the within walking distance essentials, it was a model. And an useless one at that. Even now so, the model still works just fine as a tool to help people build intuitions about language and to understand that display are layers of amendment in the middle of a map and the area it claims to represent.
My real point is, although, that some books misquote the model. I've picked up atypical NLP books saying the show nature is what is supposed and the sharp nature is the sensory experience it is recitation. Okay, whether or not the model is in-date or useless, if you're departure to use it, get it right. If you go right back to The Pulling together Of Make-believe (as well as Transformational Grammar itself), you'll be reminded that moreover the show nature and sharp nature are "feeling" structures.
It's: Put up with -> Elder Pulling together -> Play against Pulling together
Not: Elder Pulling together (Put up with) -> Play against Pulling together
I've seen remote NLP models just as misquoted and it's everything to watch for.
Rider
I've started greeting some reflective interpretation from some well honored NLP trainers and I'm thankful to Michael Perez for reminding me to state one thing: the one opinion that I think stands notwithstanding from the rest is the foundational one - "the map is not the area". This is the one that does frame up as true.
0 comments:
Post a Comment