The stupidity of NLP today

I am worried about the level of competence today that NLP practitioners has, not just a begineer but even the well known trainers are showing an increasing rise of stupidity.

I saw one well known NLP trainer, one who has publish several NLP books and one modeled about self say something along the lines in regard to objections that "when all aspects of a person agree to a change" for me that sounds like multipel personality disorder?

I noticed on the blog that I wrote my last entry nov 1 2006, which by all accounts are way to long between blogs. I do better.

Objections due to anger or being resentful are still treated as back to the 80´s NLP?
I find it silly even strange to read such comments due to the nature of several aspects of yourself object to a change?
I find such ill adviced consulting border to recklessness and I strongly object to that sentement and when it comes from an NLP trainer as Steve Andreases then I guess my concern is justified.

I had a client a few years back, when I was invited by a man to write about his workshop back in 2003 I not only had a great time I also wrote some article about my experience and I also modeled the man Joseph Riggio. For those new to NLP Joseph is most known to run hypnosis seminars with John La Valle a man that runs seminars with Richard Bandler one of the co-foudners of NLP.
I attended the 2003 Designer Swish Workshop which for me allowed a new way of doing NLP.

The content of the seminar was more or less a simple variation of the swish pattern, it had two elements that did differ, one was the starting point and the other was a focus of attention on making a kinestetic one and even if NLPérs would say that a swish can be done kinesteticly this was done with an overlap.

The major difference in how Joseph works comes from a man called Roye Fraser, recently Roye passed away to the great unknown but when he was alive he created a different way to accomplish "change" in his Generative Imprint model.

So, I read this from Steve Andreases and he is a well known NLP practitioner and my brain just go, what?

What he did write was so old even archelogical where the models used was from the 80´s when the music and style of clothing was way different, when cellphones and computers and Internet wasnt out yet to the public in any bigger numbers.

I had a client a few years ago, this was relativly short after the workshop in denmark, this lady had some problems in her life, and she had gone trough 2 years of theraphy and counting and still was no where she wanted to be at in her life. No money to talk about, I agreed to see her and she was concerned due to the fee I charged. She came up to see me an hour trip for her, I sat there and defined who she was for a few hours. I never got any objections from her, not any aspects of her didnt agree to her change and all that bullshit.
Sure, she cried, she hated herself and felt stupid and I guess she was human after all.
However, by doing this I set the baseline to create the basis of what Roye Fraser was doing, Roye elicited someones blueprint in their physiology in how you would be at your absolute best, and created a great generalization to be like that at your absolute best in your life.

And guess what?

Problems steams from your state and how you focus your attention.

I write and read some of the NLP forums on the net, and the standard of NLP has degraded and so old models are still used and passed on that when pointed out they cant handle the critism at all, they take it personally and cant even do NLP on their own for themselves?

Aspects of yourself disagree?, gee, that sounds for me as multipel personality disorder and if you dont have it, well I guess with that model using such language you will get a chance of trying that out.
For me that is stupid NLP.

The lady came back a couple of months later, she had started to recovery, she wanted me to know she stopped going to theraphy after she had asked if she chould go there, I asked her "why do you ask?"
Well she said, I am feeling worse going there now after seeing you for the first time and I dont know what to do since I been going there for 2 years?
I said, well if your feeling bad going there, maybe that is your answer then?

She came back up a second time, we sat there and suddenly she had a flash of clarity, she just knew who she was and she didnt have any problems anymore.

Now, doing this model which I call the Riggiomodel after my modeling of Joseph Riggios working presentations in his seminars its strongly contrasted to the Steve Andreas saying about objections and aspects of who someone is.
Those statements dont fit my working order as I know it to be, for me I always been proud of NLP and the way I have used it and I dont do NLP and hypnosis much nowadays due to what I am doing now is the "new and improved NLP" that not many out there are doing, mainly a few of my hard core students.

NLP is a in what people call a deep shit state.
No one can offer a definition that is what I would call useful to the public. Many who do NLP are ashamed of using NLP and how to handle peoples reactions due to a lot of NLPérs are doing etichal and moral questionable activites and I dont blame them at all, as Anthony Robbins said in his seminar back in 1994, its all about the most efficent strategy, which can be if not set a balanced etichal and moral sound advice can be used to kill people due to that being the most efficient strategy at the time.

Its not enough to read the books or listen to advice from the co-founders either, they left NLP in a state of deep shit and havent to my knowledge done much about to clean up the field.
And even if they couldnt do that at least they could set what they consider to be a clear definition of NLP.
Richard Bandler one of the co-foudners of NLP states, "Its an attitude and leaves a trail of techniques behind", meaning what?
His he stupid also?
Its a study of the subjective experience the human has and what can be calculated from that?

COME ON!

As an NLP practitioner myself, trained some and mostly doing what I done over the years I find it a responsability to inform anyone who cares to listen that as it is atm the state of NLP is in deep shit.

John Grinder the other co-founder said once, NLP has to evolve, build new models, to replace and or update the old models used within the NLP field.
I liked that.
I took that as a prime directive for myself.
I would update and replace old models as I came across them or found out stuff myself.

So I have.

And I am telling that objections and aspects of a person are silly and old archlogical models in how I teach and do the Riggiomodel which is a new and improved and updated NLP.
Its just not called NLP due to the nature people make associations to the same logical level of error, smacking what I do as the same as others are doing called NLP.

I coach a pro golfer, with the aim to get him into the europeantour golfing circuit. He had the unfortunate luck to have had injuries the last two seasons and the last one being so serious it was a question of if he was going to play at all.
However, he is doing what I been teaching and its affecting not just his golf but his life and the quality of it.

I am deeply concerned due to that people who have done NLP for a long time and those that founded NLP should provide guidelines that at least should be considered to be clear enough for people to understand and get. (John Grinder tried at least with the book whispering in the wind)

One of the issues is that NLP is a process oriented methodology, its not about and to keep it simple, right or wrong but more of how did you arrive at the conclusion that it was either right or wrong?
The how to arriving at the decision to be made "right or wrong" is the domain of NLP.
The how to makes it possible for an NLP practitioner to study how people think and act and what they based their decisions on.

This becomes a moral and etichal ground for many who judge NLP.
If the decision to rape and kill this female 15 year old english girl when they where on a holiday are for NLP the domain, not the end result (rape and murder) since even if tragical and horrible the how to this murderer and rapist made his decision to do what he did is what an NLP practitioner would elicit and bring to light. By doing so, we could understand more how people think and act under such circumstances that a educational program could be set in motion with this knowledge to provide people with choices and train themselves and others to not rape and kill people before they would commit such a horrible act.

I read the newspapers, I see that this girl was in a fight with her parents, she was left behind to cool of while her parents took a trip, and when they came back they found their daughter dead, she was found drowned and it was called an accident. Her parents never gave up, said it was murder and had to document this and finnaly the case was closed 3 weeks later when they find the guy who did it.

Now, people will behave and respond to rape and murder and the result and have beliefs and opinions about the right and wrong about this, but if we talk about the process to arrive at such decisions to be made we cant use the content that the result has or the layering of beliefs in what is right, wrong, morally correct or etical, we can do only do that particular to the situation and rape and murder is in my book wrong in any case I come across. However wrong or right the way someone ends up deciding this to be an act are a domain to be mapped using NLP, the basis of the profiling of FBI in regard to serialkillers. Undertsnading the thinking and behaviour of serialkillers and mapping the interests and background have done wonders in finding them earlier than before.
That is the strength of NLP to bring a guide and a map in how someone does what they do and to use that to be able to replicate a result over time.

That level of definition which John Grinder says are important to understand, is that people in NLP can understand that the substance of a stone as an object and that the form of the stone defines it as we normally would do as a stone. The difference is the form and process. Substance allow us to process the stone to dust, to a diamond from coal but the names we use also defines the stone, the coal or the diamond and that for an NLP practitioner are vital distinctions to know about and understand how they works.
Not clear?

Dont be alarmed due to the nature in how we understand stuff is all about making a distinction in our mind and able to sort them according to category.
Since NLP is a derivate of epistomology the how we know things, we can say that first there is nothing, then an impulse then a response to that impulse and then again several more responses until it reaches consiousness that we become aware.
Then we train ourselves to cope with the surrondings to understand what is going on.

This means when an NLP trainer as Steve Andreas states that, the aspects of the person, which can be understanded as, this "aspects" are alive and work independly of each others by implication are a disorder to multiple personality. This confuses me to hell that someone would even write something like that. That people object to change?
I worked a long time over 12 years with NLP and I have never found that people object to change.
Now if someone are resentful, bitter, angry and really an asshole for the moment, I dont see that as an objection to change since a lot of people do things really bad when they are having feelings that overwhelms them.

The individual in that case are in a state of not having words to describe the experience they are having. That is why people often resort to using words that later regret they used but in the heat of the moment, people are not rational and actually rarely if ever clear to even consider any other option.

What is going on is that if you like to get a change you dont know how the experience is like when your having it.
I guess jumping into a water from a bridge I would check the depth of the water and also how cold/warm it would be before I rush into a dive.
So if provided with the experience and the state, people have never in my experience objected to the change.

When my client the lady had the experience of who she was, all her problems went away.
She then knew how this experience was like and there could be no objection due to sorting this out for her allowed her to be who she was. The good thing was I never had to work and resolve her objections.

This is also the basis of Roye Frasers generative imprint model, to elicit the absolute best of you, the blueprint the physiology when everything is just absolutly at the best and then becoming better and better over time. (Great it is)
Now, this way to do change are not about change, its all about transformation to another level of existence.
Some tried to model Roye and his work, they came up with coretransformation which defeats the purpose of the model that Roye was working with.

In coretransformation you elicit the core state that lies beneath the problem or issue you have.
Now, that is a problemoriented approach to change and a failure in regard to model Roye in my opinion that if you elicit the basis of your absolute best without any elicitation, pacing or whatever that alone will be enough to allow a transformation that shift the level of experience in life to more of the good in every level with more joy, happines etc..
I know so by trying out the modeling I done of Joseph Riggio, to elicit such a state of experience where the problems are not even considered to be a problem has not any objection built within to that at all and no aspects of the person are voicing concerns as they might do if you use old NLP models.

NLP and to define the model and how it to be used and when the co-founders cant agree what NLP was and have become and has taken a life on its own as John Grinder and Carmen says in their book I guess they defeat the very NLP principle they themselves are trying to convey.
Moving away from the process to an artistic view that a model and its process can have life.
That seems for me that they are doing a similiar error as Steve Andreas did.

The artistic view however is the basis for a lot of sports, ice-scating and other sports based on how well the sport are performed and how well the aspects of beaty are considered within that performance are another area of human perception, not contained within the epistomology as we know NLP resides within but a whole different field called "ontology" the nature of the stuff exists out there.

We can then say, that ontology is the form of NLP that shapes how we percive things to be and the how to manipulate the substance of a rock is NLP as a process and create dust or diamonds are just a wider application of NLP.

Ontology is how the being of things exist, trying to answer what something is.
Not the process that leads to that conclusion ie using NLP to map that.

Who are we, what are we when we are at our absolute best?
Its evident that this state elicited and set for the individual changes how they percive the stone.
Its now a beautiful example of the wonder of nature for the individual after the stateshift.

This now allow for a transformation to occour from a positive consideration, mark here, not starting from a problem, nor analyzing the situation and the context, just eliciting who you are at your very absolute best.

This allow a shift in how your organized in your physical body.
This means for the NLP interested that the submodalites an NLP keep track of shifts their positions trough time and space in such a manner they cant be tracked and mapped using conventional means as calibration.
Joseph here adds adumbration, in a sense an advanced way to calibrate the effects of a particular position in space and time in a futurebased position.

This means that we elicit the future you and future absolute best and you can have it today.
Nice heh?

This can be mapped and tracked using the difference in perspective that ontology has within its field due to how we as humans are able to be future based and understand our actions before we do them.
Not that many animals on Earth can do that.

Coretransformation is an NLP filtered modeling, and not one done without prejudice beacuse the modelers did fail to follow the basis of NLP Modeling to create the results without filtering ie beliefs etc..and then to work with problems with that model seems for me to defeat the purpose that Roye Fraser had in his own models.

For me this comes to an important consideration due to define what something is and then to define the process that leads to what something is often are confused and then applied often without greater consideration and understandable I get that people just do what they are taught or have read and then we must for advancement question the basis in what we do to find out if it is like that or if someone had a filter of perception in the way. (beliefs)

I question the stupidity of NLP trainers, they get insulted for some reason, failed to use NLP to not taking it personally?

As I have written, if I am wrong about what I propose I dont care since at least I proved things to be true, but the fun is, if I am right everyone including the co-founders got to follow what I am proposing.
Its a win win for me no matter what I do ;)

Now its time for me to go out and enjoying the spring warmth and the water on the roads and splashing of water from the cars.

To next time.

/Robert Johansson
Riggiomodel