Comments on: Neurolinguistic Programming: A Linguist Druid’s Review http://druidjournal.net/2006/08/08/neurolinguistic-programming-a-linguist-druids-review/ Guidance and Inspiration from Nature and the Ancient World. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:04:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Jeff Lilly http://druidjournal.net/2006/08/08/neurolinguistic-programming-a-linguist-druids-review/#comment-63366 Jeff Lilly Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:25 +0000 http://druidjournal.net/2006/08/08/neurolinguistic-programming-a-linguist-druids-review/#comment-63366 Oh yes, I see he was a linguist! Amazing! His use of linguistic theory was so <i>wrong</i> I assumed he'd had no formal training in it... How strange! Oh well -- as you say, the whole point is academic, isn't it! ;-) Oh yes, I see he was a linguist! Amazing! His use of linguistic theory was so wrong I assumed he’d had no formal training in it… How strange!

Oh well — as you say, the whole point is academic, isn’t it! ;-)

]]> By: Paula Kawal | Journey Inward Coaching http://druidjournal.net/2006/08/08/neurolinguistic-programming-a-linguist-druids-review/#comment-63357 Paula Kawal | Journey Inward Coaching Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:00:03 +0000 http://druidjournal.net/2006/08/08/neurolinguistic-programming-a-linguist-druids-review/#comment-63357 Hi Jeff, Most people in NLP will tell you that it is a really poor name that sounded good in the 70's :) John Grinder was a linguist...so that is probably where it got it's start in flawed theory and all! All this to say that NLP is really about learning how people interact with their world and to that end...it is a really good tool. I agree that "borrowed" respectability does little to actually promote the field. It's sad too, because NLP is a window and doorway to spiritual experiences...something that seemed to go by unnoticed by it's founders who were concerned with proving something that is, to some degree unknowable...scientifically. My guides led me to NLP so I can't say I was taking a "scientific" view of it ;) Much love, PK Hi Jeff,

Most people in NLP will tell you that it is a really poor name that sounded good in the 70’s :)

John Grinder was a linguist…so that is probably where it got it’s start in flawed theory and all! All this to say that NLP is really about learning how people interact with their world and to that end…it is a really good tool.

I agree that “borrowed” respectability does little to actually promote the field. It’s sad too, because NLP is a window and doorway to spiritual experiences…something that seemed to go by unnoticed by it’s founders who were concerned with proving something that is, to some degree unknowable…scientifically.

My guides led me to NLP so I can’t say I was taking a “scientific” view of it ;)

Much love,

PK

]]> By: Jeff Lilly http://druidjournal.net/2006/08/08/neurolinguistic-programming-a-linguist-druids-review/#comment-63347 Jeff Lilly Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:18:26 +0000 http://druidjournal.net/2006/08/08/neurolinguistic-programming-a-linguist-druids-review/#comment-63347 Hi Paula, thanks for giving your testimonial here. Since I wrote this article a year and a half ago, I've picked up a lot more about NLP here and there, and heard almost nothing but good things about it. In that respect, it's remarkable that it began from such a flawed understanding of linguistic theory -- a linguistic theory that was later abandoned by linguists! :-) I can't speak to the linguistics of Erickson or Satir; their wikipedia articles say almost nothing about their ideas about linguistics, except that Erickson appears linked to Lakoff, and then only connected with metaphor. However, the brief mentions of metaphor in the article have nothing to do with Lakoff's ideas about metaphor, which operate at the level of sentence construction. I am a little worried that Bandler, Grinder, and maybe the author of the wikipedia article are appropriating famous names and terminology from linguistics in order to give NLP an aura of scientific respectability. What I've seen of NLP seems to have nothing to do with actual linguistics at all. If so, this would naturally only serve to <i>undermine</i> their respectability, at least from the point of view of this linguist. :-) But again, this is not to say that NLP doesn't work -- I have every reason to believe you when you say it does! Hi Paula, thanks for giving your testimonial here. Since I wrote this article a year and a half ago, I’ve picked up a lot more about NLP here and there, and heard almost nothing but good things about it. In that respect, it’s remarkable that it began from such a flawed understanding of linguistic theory — a linguistic theory that was later abandoned by linguists! :-)

I can’t speak to the linguistics of Erickson or Satir; their wikipedia articles say almost nothing about their ideas about linguistics, except that Erickson appears linked to Lakoff, and then only connected with metaphor. However, the brief mentions of metaphor in the article have nothing to do with Lakoff’s ideas about metaphor, which operate at the level of sentence construction.

I am a little worried that Bandler, Grinder, and maybe the author of the wikipedia article are appropriating famous names and terminology from linguistics in order to give NLP an aura of scientific respectability. What I’ve seen of NLP seems to have nothing to do with actual linguistics at all. If so, this would naturally only serve to undermine their respectability, at least from the point of view of this linguist. :-) But again, this is not to say that NLP doesn’t work — I have every reason to believe you when you say it does!

]]>