What NLP is and is not
Around NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) there have always been quite a lot of different, both dirty and "clean" rumors, and in this regard, I, as a person professionally involved in this area of practical psychology, would like to add to this question raised by in the title of the article, some clarity. In particular, working in Ukraine, I often observe a situation when people gather for seminars on NLP with the following goals - one half to "learn to manipulate people" and the other half to "protect themselves from manipulation." Reading forums on the Internet, you often come across questions from people who want to learn something in this area, but are afraid that they will be "brainwashed", "programmed", etc. In Russia, where NLP came a little earlier, such questions are less common, and yet, you still have to often explain to people that NLP has little to do with religion or sects, etc. So I hope this article will help you understand the above issues and shed some light on how NLP can be useful for you personally, and where (if you insist on it) can be harmful. So ...
NLP as it is. 
To begin with, let's define what is this "Neuro-Linguistic Programming"? What is hidden behind this eerie
name? If you ask people who are doing this, you can hear all sorts of answers ... From "
Well ... This is such a cool thing that helps in communication ... And to deal with yourself " or "
This is .. . Well, like a tool for personal growth ... Like yoga ... "before"
This is a new method of psychotherapy "or"
A new tool of PR and political technologies that affects directly the human subconscious so that it is impossible to resist. "The latter idea, by the way, is well exploited by the media (especially the" yellow "editions), for which many thanks to them - on the one hand.
All these definitions of what NLP is, perhaps, have the right to exist (and in part even the last), but in my opinion, they touch only part of the essence. The two best and most comprehensive definitions I have heard from David Gordon and Frank Pucelik, people who, among others, stood at the origins of NLP and took part in its development. But in order to understand these definitions, it is necessary to tell briefly about how exactly NLP arose. And before I do that, I would like to tell you about an experience made around the 60s by behavioral psychologists.
The experiment was carried out on pigeons, and for this a special cage with a pedal was equipped, when pressed, incredibly grain was poured into the cage, which the pigeons loved very much. And it was planned to launch one pigeon there in order to investigate exactly how the pigeon will look for this pedal (and whether it will look for it at all), how it will behave when it finds it, whether it will press it again, etc. And the pigeon at this time was just mating. So, when psychologists launched him there, he, as you might guess, instead of looking for anything in this cage, began, fluffing up his tail and wings, dancing a mating dance, attracting females. And about 10 minutes later, he accidentally touched the desired pedal with his spur. The grain, as expected, fell, the psychologists are happy, the pigeon is happy, everything worked out. And so, after some time, scientists decide to repeat this experiment. With the same dove. And with the same cage. In full confidence that now, knowing the location of the pedal, the pigeon will follow directly to it, and will press on it with its foot, beak or something else ... And what do you think actually happened? Instead, the pigeon (apparently really recognizing the familiar cage) fluffed up its tail and wings and began to dance the mating dance. Repeating the dance he danced there last time. And since his "steps" were very similar to those that he danced in this cage the previous time, he also, after about 10 minutes, touched it with his spur ... really happened? Instead, the pigeon (apparently really recognizing the familiar cage) fluffed up its tail and wings and began to dance the mating dance. Repeating the dance he danced there last time. And since his "steps" were very similar to those that he danced in this cage the previous time, he also, after about 10 minutes, touched it with his spur ... really happened? Instead, the pigeon (apparently really recognizing the familiar cage) fluffed up its tail and wings and began to dance the mating dance. Repeating the dance he danced there last time. And since his "steps" were very similar to those that he danced in this cage the previous time, he also, after about 10 minutes, touched it with his spur ... the pigeon (apparently really recognizing the familiar cage) fluffed up its tail and wings and began to dance the mating dance. Repeating the dance he danced there last time. And since his "steps" were very similar to those that he danced in this cage the previous time, he also, after about 10 minutes, touched it with his spur ...
I may have been somewhat imprecise about the details of this experience, but it does a good job of illustrating the following idea. Let's imagine that now other pigeons come to that pigeon and ask him what to do to get that delicious grain in this cage. Most likely, the pigeon will tell them something like "Well, you know ... If you give yourself up to the dance with all your soul and body ... And completely get involved in what you are doing, mentally imagining the female of your dreams, trying with every cell to make the dance more beautiful so that she came ... Then in 10 minutes the pigeon skies will open up, and as a sign that you are doing everything right, they will encourage you with delicious grain. "Well, or something like that. Because, most likely, the pigeon did not even suspect about any pedal. He thought about dancing,
Why am I all this? And here's what. There are quite a few (but still a minority) effective, successful people in the world ... Whether in art, in science, in business, in other areas of human activity ... Masters. Geniuses. Sometimes what they do is like magic, so different from what the "average" other people do. Many would have given half their lives to achieve the same outstanding results as easily as they do. But, if you ask effective people, successful people, geniuses in something, how exactly they achieve their excellent results, then, most likely, you will receive a speech from the series "If you completely surrender to the dance ..." Sometimes - if these people specifically talk about this thought, you might get from them a description of some "pa", but it is unlikely that the answer will give you such a description, after which you will be ready to say that you have now learned to do the same. Perhaps, thanks to this, the conviction was born that "It is given to some, but to the majority it is simply not given ..." So, as a rule, they did not try to repeat it ... There are other cases when the Master is trying to convey his art to his students in some way, but only some of them manage to learn it. You yourself, I am sure, can remember similar cases. From this, the same conclusion is usually drawn, that "some have been given, but the majority ...". But, if we recall the experience with the pigeon, then, perhaps, we will draw a different conclusion - perhaps the Master himself does not know about those "pedals" that ensure its effectiveness? And when he talks about what to do, trying to teach others, only talks about "dancing"? And that is precisely why he (and those students who also accidentally discovered those "pedals" on this way) succeeds, but the rest do not?
So, in the early 1970s, a group of researchers from the University of Santa Cruz playfully challenged this cultural belief that "some are given, most are not." It all started with Bandler (mathematician, musician, programmer) and Grinder (by that time already a fairly well-known professor of linguistics). They were interested, and they, just for themselves, investigated the work of the geniuses of psychology and psychotherapy. Among them were Fritz Perls (the creator of Gestalt therapy), Milton Erickson (an amazing personality, a man who turned around the views of hypnosis, whose contribution to the understanding of hypnosis can only be compared with the contribution of Einstein to physics) and the world famous Virginia Satir (the real genius of family psychotherapy). These are the people whose work research began with NLP, and then there were many other Masters ... Many books about NLP tell about this in detail, but here we are only interested in two things. First, Grinder, Bandler, and colleagues in their research focused on what these effective psychotherapists actually do, not what they say about it. And secondly, what is to be modeled thanks to this, ie it was possible to describe and repeat their work, consistently achieving the same outstanding results. Not that it was already so easy, it took several years, a lot, a lot of analysis of audio and video recordings of the work ... But, as Frank Pucelik says, it was fun, something like a game, they quickly learned what was not almost no one could, and there was no need to specifically motivate or force anyone to do it. And like that, playfully, early NLPers challenged the human belief that " If you want to know about how to be sick with schizophrenia or paranoia - psychology had a lot of descriptions of this, if you want to have a phobia, any psychologist will tell you a lot about this too ... But descriptions of human success , grace, skill, perfection and efficiency are not was generally. So, the task that the first NLPers set for themselves is to create such a description. And, as it turned out in the process of creating this description, in how these "pedals" work and what they are, it is of great importance how successful and effective people perceive the context of their work, what and why they do, their subjective experience in this context. In fact, if you can figure it out, you have more than half described and repeated their success. So the second definition of NLP, (which reflects the same But descriptions of human success, grace, skill, perfection and efficiency are not was generally.
This is what NLP is. Not a set of techniques, not a type of psychotherapy, not a PR tool, not a way of effective communication, but the study of the structure of subjective experience, or, if you prefer, the study of human perfection. Deal?
NLP as it is not.
Now more about what NLP is NOT. This needs to be clarified because, with all of the above (which I will refer to periodically), I guess there may still be some questions / associations left. Naturally, primarily associated with the word "Programming" present in the title of this area of knowledge. It, again, has to do with the structure of subjective experience. From the point of view of NLP, it consists of certain components. A large part of these components is manifested in the structure of the language. From there the word "linguistic" is in the title. These components have to do with how the human brain works. Often we can even tell by the structure of the language, by some other non-verbal signs, which parts of the nervous system are involved in the processing of this or that information. From there the word " but one makes a delicious and fragrant borscht, and the other has something that even dogs do not eat very willingly ... What is the difference? In the way one and the other cook the same ingredients. If I had my way, I might call NLP not NLP, but "Neuro-Linguistic Cooking". It's tastier this way, in my opinion. But I was not there, and the word "Programming" just as accurately reflects the essence. So the name - all the same, the study of the structure of subjective experience, and not to "zombie", "deprivation of will" or whatever other associations may arise, with the word "programming" in the context of human communication. Grinder, by the way, said that, perhaps, the name is not entirely successful, now it is clear that it scares people a little, but then, when it was born, they thought little about it. Remember the 70s, the heyday of cybernetics, a young, promising science. The word "programming" is incredibly popular, about the same as the words "perestroika" and "glasnost" in the second half of the 80s, early 90s. There are (already!) Many legends telling how such a name was born for this area of practical psychology, but in any case, this name quite accurately reflects the essence of the name.
Since we have touched on such associations, it is also worth mentioning here that NLP is not any kind of sect. Let's see what elements must be present in the sect in order for it to have the right to bear the "proud name" of the sect:
- A community of people who regularly gather in a certain place, in one way or another bring money there, some of which invariably go to the organizers / founding leaders of the sect.
- A set of rules (perhaps some of these rules are unwritten) that members of this community must follow. Most of these rules are some kind of taboos that members of the sect must follow, and in general there are often more responsibilities than rights. Sometimes it is in the rules in a veiled form, for example, rights are something abstract, and duties are always very specific. Like, guys, you have the right to love, faith and hope. And the duty is not to tell anyone what you do here and to bring $ 100 every week. What is more - rights or responsibilities?
- Members of the community in one form or another (lectures, meditations, distribution of books, long-term vigils so that people are not allowed to sleep, and at the same time they are continuously lecturing) are imposed on beliefs about how the world works and about God. Often it also includes ideas about the role of the organizers of the sect in this structure of the world.
- Those who have long been in the sect have a DUTY to recruit newcomers. How to do this is also stipulated by some rules.
Of course, I most likely did not mention all the signs of sects. But this is more than enough. Let's see if there is any of this in NLP. So, point 1. In NLP, when you participate in a training seminar on NLP, you really enter into a community of people who gather in a certain place for a certain amount of money. What are you doing there? Learn. If you go to a university for paid foreign language courses, you will also gather in a certain community for a certain amount of money. The organizers of these courses will indeed receive some of this money. What is the difference from a sect? The founders will not receive a dime out of this money. If you are taking paid English courses, then English philologists do not get a penny from you. If you are at an NLP seminar, then neither Grinder nor Bandler, nor Gordon and Pucelik, no matter how I respect them, they will not get anything from this money either. To be fair, it is worth mentioning that Richard Bandler, however, tried to get some royalties from the use of the name "NLP" but this venture failed miserably. Although Bandler still writes the name of NLP as "NLP?" Although, it is worth saying that over the years he has developed such an elegant, and, at the same time, different from all the others style of NLP application, that perhaps it really deserves the "?" I have never seen anyone else who worked the way he did. But for the fact that you learned NLP (unless, of course, you did not learn from him), he will not receive any money. It is not built into NLP. To be fair, it is worth mentioning that Richard Bandler, however, tried to get some royalties from the use of the name " and, at the same time, different from all the others style of NLP application, that perhaps it really deserves the "?" I have never seen anyone else who worked the way he did. But for the fact that you learned NLP (unless, of course, you did not learn from him), he will not receive any money. It is not built into NLP. tried to get some royalties from using the name "NLP" but this venture failed miserably. Although Bandler still writes the name of NLP as "NLP?" Although, it is worth saying that over the years he has developed such an elegant, and, at the same time, different from all the others style of NLP application, that perhaps it really deserves the "?" I have never seen anyone else who worked the way he did. But for the fact that you learned NLP (unless, of course, you did not learn from him), he will not receive any money. It is not built into NLP. tried to get some royalties from using the name "NLP" but this venture failed miserably. Although Bandler still writes the name of NLP as "NLP?" Although, it is worth saying that over the years he has developed such an elegant, and, at the same time, different from all the others style of NLP application, that perhaps it really deserves the "?" I have never seen anyone else who worked the way he did. But for the fact that you learned NLP (unless, of course, you did not learn from him), he will not receive any money. It is not built into NLP. but even if you see such an inscription, it does not mean that you are getting "real NLP? from Richard Bandler". Although, it is worth saying that over the years he has developed such an elegant, and, at the same time, different from all the others style of NLP application, that perhaps it really deserves the "?" I have never seen anyone else who worked the way he did. But for the fact that you learned NLP (unless, of course, you did not learn from him), he will not receive any money. It is not built into NLP. but even if you see such an inscription, it does not mean that you are getting "real NLP? from Richard Bandler". Although, it is worth saying that over the years he has developed such an elegant, and, at the same time, different from all the others style of NLP application, that perhaps it really deserves the "?" I have never seen anyone else who worked the way he did. But for the fact that you learned NLP (unless, of course, you did not learn from him), he will not receive any money. It is not built into NLP. I have never seen anyone else who worked the way he did. But for the fact that you learned NLP (unless, of course, you did not learn from him), he will not receive any money. It is not built into NLP. I have never seen anyone else who worked the way he did. But for the fact that you learned NLP (unless, of course, you did not learn from him), he will not receive any money. It is not built into NLP.
Let's go further. Clause 2. Community rules. In addition to the generally accepted, unwritten, which are just the rules of decent behavior (like not coming to class drunk as a lord, or not hitting each other with pestilence ..., in the sense of a person), you will not find any other rules at NLP seminars. If you are forbidden to talk about something in NLP courses, or to have sex, for example, then do not believe it, this is not NLP. In NLP, it is generally not accepted (although this is also not a taboo, it can be done, only then - it will hardly be NLP) directiveness, orders with punishments for non-compliance. You may be told that it is useful to do this and that, because it leads to such and such effective results, but it's not useful, because the results will be the opposite. And they will also offer to try, so that you are convinced of this on your own experience. But to compel you and order, no one will deprive their own will. If something like that happens where you study NLP - run away from there, it is someone hiding behind the promoted brand "NLP", although in fact, it is most likely a sect. And find other courses. Perhaps in this place someone will ask "What about hypnosis?" Hypnosis is most often associated with orders, will suppression, etc. About hypnosis a little later, okay?
Point 3. NLP does not impose beliefs on people at all. Moreover, he never uses means, such as not letting people sleep for many hours, constantly "hovering their brains." In general, if you find yourself in a place where they do it, then this is EXACTLY a sect. And it has nothing to do with NLP, whatever they call it. Once again - if you are really FORCED to do something - it is a red light for you to suspect that something is amiss. The key word here is "Forcing." NLP courses are usually "offered." Do you feel the difference? If you don't want to do / accept something, don't. You will not receive any condemnation or punishment if you do not want to follow something. So, in NLP seminars, no one will
force you accept any beliefs. And even more so to instill any values, make you love, appreciate or hate something. There is little to offer conviction at all. But those that offer - they are
exactly offered. These are described in almost all books "Basic presuppositions of NLP". And if you don't want to separate them - whatever, NLP techniques work without them. Moreover, according to my observations, most of the NLP professionals do not share them. But I will soon have a separate article on this topic. In any case, you can read them in some book in advance if you want to be ready to meet them. In fact, these presuppositional beliefs are very good. They were identified again based on the analysis of successful and effective people. This is what the most outstanding people believe in, one of the most powerful things that motivates them and allows them to achieve such outstanding results. Although most things in NLP will be given to you without believing in it, it is just that with basic presuppositions efficiency comes out as if by itself. And I repeat once again - they will not impose them on you. Because effective people rarely impose anything, and NLP, you remember, is the study of efficiency, perfection.
Point 4. Nobody has ever forced newcomers to recruit for NLP courses. Again the same keyword. Do you want to tell your boyfriend or girlfriend about NLP, tell me, invite. If you don't want it, don't. The organizers will recruit people on their own, through advertising here and there, etc. Again, about the same happens in foreign language courses.
So, out of 4 points by which one can identify a sect as a sect - NLP has not passed. But perhaps someone will say: "There is no smoke without fire? If NLP seminars are really so similar to foreign language courses, where did such associations come from?" Here's what I think is coming from. In most foreign language courses, students sit at their desks for long hours, learn something, listen to the monotonous voice of the teacher (sometimes not even alive, but generally from a tape on a tape recorder). And of course, they return home tired, often with porridge in their heads, and often not in the brightest mood. In NLP (and now in some courses in foreign languages) a different form of education has been adopted. There people play different games - exercises, communicate a lot, move, laugh, joke, get a lot of experience ... And they return home, perhaps tired, but satisfied, smiling ... Not like an academic course, right? You know, psychologists have established quite a long time ago that people learn faster this way. Although - this is also a matter of style. I was told that in Switzerland, the form of NLP education is also such an academic, with textbooks, desks, a clearly expressed teacher and homework. And in Switzerland, naturally, it never occurs to anyone to compare NLP with a sect. But they study there - much longer. a clearly expressed teacher and homework. And in Switzerland, naturally, it never occurs to anyone to compare NLP with a sect. But they study there - much longer. a clearly expressed teacher and homework. And in Switzerland, naturally, it never occurs to anyone to compare NLP with a sect. But they study there - much longer. but satisfied, smiling .. Not like an academic course, right? You know, psychologists have established quite a long time ago that people learn faster this way. Although - this is also a matter of style. I was told that in Switzerland, the form of NLP education is also such an academic, with textbooks, desks, a clearly expressed teacher and homework. And in Switzerland, naturally, it never occurs to anyone to compare NLP with a sect. But they study there - much longer. a clearly expressed teacher and homework. And in Switzerland, naturally, it never occurs to anyone to compare NLP with a sect. But they study there - much longer. a clearly expressed teacher and homework. And in Switzerland, naturally, it never occurs to anyone to compare NLP with a sect. But they study there - much longer. right? You know, psychologists have established quite a long time ago that people learn faster this way. Although - this is also a matter of style. I was told that in Switzerland, the form of NLP education is also such an academic, with textbooks, desks, a clearly expressed teacher and homework. And in Switzerland, naturally, it never occurs to anyone to compare NLP with a sect. But they study there - much longer. a clearly expressed teacher and homework.
So NLP is not a sect, okay?
Okay, I promised some clarification about hypnosis. Again, for most people, hypnosis can be associated with orders, deprivation of will, etc. Just with what, according to my words, NLP does not exist. Yes, for many centuries hypnosis was considered something between slavery and magic, and for some 30-40 years this image is not so easy to destroy. Good. But, the fact is that there are at least 2 forms of hypnosis - directive and non-directive (Ericksonian, named after the aforementioned Milton Erickson). And in directive hypnosis really one person is "ordered", "given commands", and he, being in a trance, fulfills them.
As if not by their own will, but by the will of the hypnotist. There are 2 important "buts" here. First, if you know all of the above, you should also know that in directive hypnosis, people are divided into people who are hypnotizable and non-hypnotizable. Moreover, the first is TOTAL according to various estimates 10% -20%. So whether a person will obey your orders or not depends not on you, if you are a directive hypnotist, but on him. It depends on whether he is one of those 10% who will be ready to trust you enough to fall into a trance only at your command or not. Your result is in his hands. So ask yourself -
your Whether this is the result,
your there are commands and orders
your is it will? This is the first "but". The second is partly due to the previous "but", partly with rumors that the hypnotized will do
everythingon the orders of the hypnotist. What will they say to him. "Oh, is that all? I read about one interesting research experience when a directive hypnotist said to a person in a trance" You have a gun in your hands. (in fact, he had nothing in his hands) Go and shoot at such-and-such. "The hypnotized one walked towards such-and-such, continuing to remain in a trance and pretending to shoot. Then he was told again," You have a gun in your hands. (And this time he really was given a real pistol in his hands.) Go to someone and shoot him. "And here the hypnotic did not obey orders. He shivered, cried, but did not walk and did not shoot. I, unfortunately, now I cannot indicate the source where I read it, but having some experience of working with trance myself, I can say that if you offer a person in a trance something that he will never do, because it is contrary to his values - he will either fall asleep or come out of a trance and start arguing with you. So I repeat once again, is the hypnotist's will?
This is about directive hypnosis, which is not used in NLP. Well, or practically not used. Just because it only works with 10% of people. Non-directive, Ericksonian hypnosis, presupposes not the relationship between the boss (the hypnotist giving orders) - the subordinate (the hypnotist executing the orders), but cooperation. And it is often unclear who is in a greater trance - the hypnotist or the hypnotized. The trick is that in a trance, we have access to many resources of the unconscious (it is then that we go there, in a trance, and go), and the unconscious has just the strongest mechanisms of our protection to ensure our safety. And the instinct for self-preservation is far from the only one, and even, perhaps, not the strongest of them. And along with this, here we get to the disadvantages of NLP. (Otherwise, based on my text, you might get the impression that there are some solid advantages). With Ericksonian hypnosis, associations are often associated with the use of non-directive hypnosis by gypsies. And, despite all the unconscious mechanisms of ecology, the Gypsies have not yet died out, which means we continue to give money to the Gypsies as we gave it ... And we come to a more global question, can NLP tools be used for some not very bright purposes? Or maybe even prohibit NLP, since it is so effective? And how does someone use it somewhere ... which means that we continue to give money to the Roma as we did ... And we come to a more global question, can NLP tools be used for some not very bright purposes? Or maybe even ban NLP, since it is so effective? And how does someone use it somewhere ... which means that we continue to give money to the Roma as we did ... And we come to a more global question, can NLP tools be used for some not very bright purposes? Or maybe even ban NLP, since it is so effective? And how does someone use it somewhere ...
Good. Let's deal with the gypsies first. They are simpler.
I must say right away that I am still on the side of unconscious defense mechanisms, in the sense that they work much better than gypsies. According to my observations in relation to gypsies, people are divided into 3 types. The first ones always give money to the gypsies. I have a suspicion that these people are giving them money, because they believe that if they do not give it, then something worse will happen to them. So the fact that they give the Roma money is precisely the result of the work of unconscious security mechanisms. Then they can regret it a thousand times (consciously), but while somewhere deeply, deeply believe that not giving the gypsy money will turn unkind for them, they will continue to do so. The second people - once "burned" having lost their money, and no longer give. (I am one of them). Also normal. Once it was possible to deceive the defense of the unconscious, and then it learned. With the help of Ericksonian hypnosis, one can deceive a person in the short term. But he won't let you do this with him anymore. This is how the unconscious learns from its mistakes. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. and then it learned. With the help of Ericksonian hypnosis, one can deceive a person in the short term. But he won ' t let you do this with him anymore. This is how the unconscious learns from its mistakes. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. and then it learned. With the help of Ericksonian hypnosis, one can deceive a person in the short term. But he won't let you do this with him anymore. This is how the unconscious learns from its mistakes. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies. Well, about their defense mechanisms, too, everything is clear. And the third type of people - who never gave money to gypsies.
So, NLP tools and tools can be used for unkind, let's say, purposes. And I suppose that this is the main drawback of NLP and this is what various opponents of this direction are afraid of. Yes, maybe only in the short term, once, but you can. And even taking this into account, I will allow myself to disagree with those who believe that NLP should be banned altogether. Moreover, I am sure that on the contrary, it should be popularized in every possible way. Let me explain why.
Most NLP tools are tools that in one way or another increase the effectiveness of communication. And most of the dangers and "fears" around NLP are related to this. If someone's communication becomes fast, beautiful and graceful, many become afraid of it. What if a person starts to use this efficiency in order to deceive people? But let us recall examples from history when humanity invented some means to improve communication. Writing. People who could write at first were considered magicians ... People who could write were afraid. And what if they write something like that ... But now - nothing, everyone thinks that writing is a blessing, and they use it with pleasure. Then - typography. The same story. Not everyone supported this idea. Especially were against those who were afraid that the books will start spreading false or harmful information. "Warlock" - you know this term? And there were many opinions like "Books have always been considered the property of the elite, has the world turned upside down and now everyone will use them? What if they publish something bad?" And besides, there was a huge army of book scribes who were being robbed of their work. And, again, now printing is one of the greatest achievements of our civilization, and we are happy to use its fruits. Now something similar is happening with the Internet. The Internet is also a new way to communicate, more efficient. Allows you to deliver information very quickly to almost anywhere in the world. And if you have heard - and here voices of opponents are heard. What if terrorists communicate on the Internet? In Afghanistan, the Internet has long been banned on pain of DEATH. What if something unrighteous will be sent over the Internet? Many states are trying to control the access of their citizens to the world wide web. At least to control, because they can no longer ban it. And at the same time, let's weigh how much the Internet can bring us, and how many dangers. What is more? First - otherwise people would not use it. And I think that in 100 years such things as a ban on the Internet will not occur to people at all. And everyone will use it with pleasure, as a familiar means, as they use typography or writing now. And with NLP in 100 years, too, I suppose the same thing should happen. Because there are more kind people. Have you ever seen so that the course "NLP Practitioner" practically in its entirety would go out into the street and extort money from passers-by? Or did he immediately go to deceive people and do all sorts of bad things? Me not. And I think that this will never happen. History shows that in the long run, the beaver wins the fight between the beaver and the donkey.
So let's not be afraid of NLP. On the contrary, the sooner we popularize it, the more it will benefit people.
At this point in my article, there is perhaps the only question that should be touched upon in order to dot all the “i's” in this topic. Well, or not all, but at least those that I managed to notice. Many people associate NLP with "Manipulation". Remember, at the very beginning, I wrote that I often observe a situation when half of those who come to NLP courses want to "learn to manipulate", and the other half "defend against manipulation." Now I will try to explain why neither one nor the other is impossible. Or, if you want, you do both of them all the time. The most beautiful explanation for this I have heard from Frank Pucelik. I'll give him here.
The point is that communication and manipulation are one and the same thing. While you get used to this thought, I will allow myself to turn to the explanatory dictionary again. The word "manipulate" means skillfully to do something with your hands. And again, as with the word "Programming"
nothing more. Even if we transfer this into the context of communication, in my opinion, it turns out to be manipulated - this is good. Is it bad to communicate skillfully and gracefully? However, in everyday life, the word "manipulate" can mean forcing people to do something, again "against their will", etc. You know - as soon as you enter into communication, you MAKE it the interlocutor (s) to react to yourself. They cannot help reacting if they perceive, see or hear you. They may be silent at the same time, but non-verbally they still cannot help but react. “Against your will,” you still won't succeed, because they choose exactly what kind of response they give you, but you force them to give it to you. So, I congratulate you, you are manipulating. And now you have 2 choices. Either you choose to be responsible for the results of your communication, and then you, most likely a skillful communicator, or you prefer to blame everything on the opposite side. Like - he's a fool, but I was just natural. It doesn't matter what exactly you choose, in any case you are manipulating. It's just that in the first case you do it in the encyclopedic sense (ie skillfully), and in the second - in the everyday one (you just make the person react to you and that's it). So, communication is manipulation, and therefore if “learning to manipulate” in the sense of “learning to communicate” still sounds, then “defending against manipulation (ie, from communication)” is rather meaningless. It's just that in the first case you do it in the encyclopedic sense (ie skillfully), and in the second - in the everyday one (you just make the person react to you and that's it). So, communication is manipulation, and therefore if “learning to manipulate” in the sense of “learning to communicate” still sounds, then “defending against manipulation (ie, from communication)” is rather meaningless. It's just that in the first case you do it in the encyclopedic sense (ie skillfully), and in the second - in the everyday one (you just make the person react to you and that's it).
Thus, I hope I managed to dispel some of the rumors around NLP. I believe that having information is better than having rumors, and I hope this article was useful to you in obtaining this information.
Author: A. Leontiev
