One of the questions that has puzzled me the most since I seriously started studying NLP touches the definition of NLP itself.
I mean, who in the NLP community — generally beginning students — hasn’t asked herself “what is NLP?”
Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
What the heck does that mean?
What is that?
Bandler defines it one way. Grinder defines it another. Dilts yet another. Michael Hall yet another.
Bandler once said he made up the term to go around the taboo the law, as Bridget points to us in her comment below, which existed around hypnosis in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s. But essentially, it was hypnosis.
I think he was on to something. Really, Neuro-Linguistic Programming consists of a refinement or a more precise application of hypnosis. The terms used reflect that.
Giving suggestions, which is essentially the praxis of hypnosis, is the “programming” part.
“Neuro-Linguistic” points to the more precise use of language to effect the nervous system. Representational systems, submodalities, eye accessing cues, etc.
Essentially, NLP seems to spring up from hypnosis. More specifically, Ericksonian hypnosis.
What do you think of this?
Michael Watson, a neo-Ericksonian Hynotherapist and NLP trainer who practices in Florida, reminded me recently that in the 70s in California, only people licensed in medicine, dentistry, or psychology could legally practice hypnosis. Bandler had to call it something else or have the law down on all their heads.
Interesting to think that these days there are NLP trainers out there who certify practitioners without mentioning hypnosis, and others who claim to give training in it, but according to their students do not. You’ve gotta wonder what it is they think they’re doing with this stuff…