[Neurons] 2010 Meta Reflections #1

[Richard Liotta]

Wow! Great and thought provoking responses to your thoughtful article
Michael.  I have a few thoughts to offer the discussion.

I believe that collaboration in NLP is possible.  Though I am discouraged
sometimes, I am also heartened by some things I see.  As a psychotherapist,
who took NLP training with lots of other therapists, they are interested in
new tools that can help people.  They don't care about the internal NLP
disputes if a method is effective in their work.  Multidisciplinary
treatment seems to be the norm in well functioning mental health and
addiction treatment settings I have seen, consistent with Carl Lloyd's
observations. There is respect for other approaches and usually interest in
what others do. The fact that much of the field of NLP is not this way is
simply bazaar to me!

Obviously the fractionation of the field of NLP does not serve it well.  It
seems that people leave the field because this becomes so distasteful.
Unfortunately it serves some territorial and marketing considerations well
apparently, to the detriment of the field of NLP and all of us ultimately.
To me part of the problem is that NLP is has become a commodity more than
the scientific or scholarly field it could be.  In academic discussions of
different approaches the wisest participants seem to implicitly realize that
"From dialogue and disagreement we all grow wiser, IF we listen and respect
differing views."  In academics discussion occurs in articles, both
scholarly and research oriented.  At least such discussions encourage people
to articulate their different views clearly. More of that would be a service
to the field of NLP as a whole.

Cognitive therapy for example certainly has different "camps," but they talk
to each other.  There are diverse theories in the field, but they are all
part of the "club."  I'm not saying this is necessarily the model we should
follow, they also exclude some ideas, but we have to do something
differently.  NLP too often is stuck at the petty level of why my club is
better than your club.  I have examined several of these "clubs" in recent
years by attending various trainings and there is some sophisticated
thinking going on in the field (admittedly I have avoided the Pure NLP
club!).  That has been heartening.  There are many NLPers out there who can
entertain difference without freaking out. Indeed there are many who are
curious, want to understand the differing views, so they can come to their
own informed understanding.

I also think that when quality research on NLP is done the landscape will
change. I am an active supporter on the NLP Research & Recognition Project
and many in the field support it's goals.  When some specific aspects of NLP
are validated the interest in the field will grow and expand.  The nature of
the discussion will change and the number of people who want to discuss it
will increase.  Perhaps when people outside of NLP start discussing NLP that
will push us to discuss it among ourselves and even work collaboratively.
That possible future is also heartening, but shouldn't be be ahead of the
curve and be collaborating now?

Optimistically it seems to me that there are many who see the problems in
the field of NLP that Michael is articulating.  Unfortunately some of them
keep it to themselves instead of stirring the pot.  Many of them have very
differing views about some fundamental aspects of NLP; but that is (or could
be) the energy that can help NLP thrive.  As Michael noted we need to "more
authentically operate from abundance" and discuss the issues of, and
direction of, NLP with any of our colleagues willing to embrace such a
dialogue.  Small steps, yes, but I am heartened by my belief that small
steps can create substantial change!

Rich Liotta, Ph.D.

www.changepathsblog.com
www.nlprandr.org
www.enrichmentact.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://eight.pairlist.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20100106/8a6e01d1/attachment.html>