My feelings are mixed.  I would describe by own view as ‘open but cautious’.  Open, because it contains a heady mixture of philosophy, psychology, and self-help applications that I personally find attractive.  But I’m still cautious, very cautious.  Here are a few quick reasons why:

1. There isn’t a single, satisfactory definition of NLP. As a trainer-philosopher, this makes me nervous.  It is possible to take some of the most advanced theories and systems ever dreamed of and reduce them to a succinct definition – whether postmodernism, Marxism or whatever.  This implies that the meaning of the term is clear and distinct.  NLP can’t do this.  It is usually defined in terms that are are either so all-encompassing as to be useless (e.g. “the science of achievement”) or so fragmented as to point in a thousand different directions.
2. There isn’t much in NLP that is unique to NLP. So you open a book on NLP and ask yourself, ‘What is this really about?’  Well, there’s a bit on ‘mirroring‘…but this is a well-known technique of body language.  Then there’s something on self-motivation… but Emotional Intelligence already covers that.  The same goes for everything NLP has to say about learning styles, metaphors, memory, rapport-building, re-framing and the rest.  Even it’s central technique – modelling – was used by the likes of Maslow (my wife’s hero!) long before NLP came on the scene.  So I ask, What exactly does NLP do that other things don’t?
3. I don’t apprecaite the use of the word ‘progamming’. The human mind is neither a (sort of organic) computer, nor is it very much like a computer…in everything that matters.  NLP seems little more than a modern verion of the old behaviourist theory with its ‘stimulus/response’ model and its reliance on ‘operant conditioning’.  I find it interesting that Tony Robbins has called his own version of NLP ‘Neuro-Associative Conditioning’.  Such methods grew out of the training of animals in experiments.  They therefore exclude all that is vital to specifically human existence – freedom, conscience, an aesthetic sense, and intuition to name a few.
4. It doesn’t impress me when the founders of NLP can’t even live it out. The two founders of NLP – Richard Bandler and John Grinder – have been involved in a number of lawsuits about the ownership of their theory.  There were also the messy matters of divorce, bankruptcy and even a murder trial.  The NLP movement has splintered since then.  So much for rapport-building!  If they can’t provide a model of excellence in communication between themselves, I fail to see how they can dare to do so for anyone else.  As Jimmy Swaggart – another one who can’t practice what he preaches – might say: Physician, heal thyself!

Having said all this, people I respect have gained much through NLP to help others.  My mind is not closed.  Maybe I need to stop reading NLP books and go to one of their workshops to experience it directly.

If I can afford it, that is…

So I throw this challenge out there.  If any NLPers are reading - invite me to one of your seminars, make me a true believer, and I’ll blog you a golden write-up for free!  Any takers?

I’ve been thinking for a while about the ideal sort of human being, the target we should aim at in our way of life.  Why?  As some of you know, I train and consult in Business Ethics among other things.  One of the ethical theories that’s undergoing something of a renaissance in the field is the ‘virtue ethics‘ of Aristotle.  Unlike most other views of what is good, Aristotle’s isn’t based on moral codes or consequences but rather character.

For Aristotle, virtue is a skill that is developed by constant practise.  I like that idea.  Aristotle gave a name to the person who could master this skills – the great-souled man.  This is someone who claims much and deserves much, who owes no-one anything, is self-sufficient and independent, says what he wants and fears nothing.  Essentially, he is a paragon of all the other virtues.  Plus, he – always a he - walks slowly and speaks in a deep voice, apparently.

So I started thinking.  Are there any other examples of this sort of ‘perfect pattern human being’ set forth by philosophers or psychologists?

I could think of three others:

Nietzsche’s Superman – This is mostly a future style of human being who will overcome present human imperfections by the creative genius of willing his own values.  Examples are Goethe, De Vinci and Julius Caesar.

Plato’s Philosopher-King – These were the guardians of Plato’s ideal state.  They were supposed to be a mix of supreme thinkers and supreme politicians – an almost impossible combination - with lots of physical training thrown in too.

Maslow’s Self-Actualized Person – This is someone who has developed or realised all their latent potential.  Such people are motivated out of a desire for growth rather than a sense of deficiency, and accept themselves fully.

So my question is – can you think of any other examples?  I would like to add to this list if I could.