Ask Sue Knight

Sue,

I just read your and Garry‘s -dated- exchange about the unproven-ness of NLP. I think you do a splendid job of redefining NLP: NLP is the process of modelling the structure of subjective experience.

But you are too coy when dismissing the eye accessing cues as not being NLP, but rather a result of it. That is not how it is presented by prominent NLP:ers and every book on NLP on my shelf.

You are also not very rigorous when citing your own experience from hundreds of companies as proof of NLP:s worth. There are all kinds of reasons why those companies´ experience may have been positive, such as their own intentions, internal politics, your likability, your common sense etcetera. What I am wondering is whether NLP works, not whether you get good feedback in a particular context.

Am I unfair in demanding double blind trials rather than anecdotal evidence without control, even if in the hundreds? You put anecdotal evidence on equal footing with experimental trials, as if it were just a matter of personal preference for either. I do not think they are because anecdotal evidence makes no effort to hold all other factors equal other than the one studied. That is a requisite to proving anything at all ina complex environment.

Bye for now, Frederik

Dear Frederick, well first of all I am sorry that I have taken a while to reply to this. Probably because I found it so thought provoking. I really valued your views. Thank you for your feedback on my reply article to Garry Platt. I enjoyed writing that as it really tested me to see his point of view.

Now does NLP work - interesting question that carries a lot of presuppositions for example that NLP is a topic with an independent identity. When John Grinder and Richard Bandler modelled people like Milton Eriksson and Virginia Satir they discovered that it was not what they did but the way that they did it. And so it is with NLP. It is a process of finding out what is the difference between great and good and what ultimately works. To say does NLP work is to make it a static subject I believe. I may be the wrong person to ask as for me the goal is to find what makes that difference and my use and understanding of NLP changes all the time in that process. I work to enable individuals and companies find their own greatness and if something else were to do it better then that would be my choice and I guess therefore it would be a part of NLP too if it makes that difference!

Regarding the eye accessing cues. Well I believe that they were first discovered by Robert Dilts. I may be wrong but if so then they would not have been a part of the original work and discoveries by John and Richard. I am open to feedback on this. But I still come back to the way that I think of NLP and that it is the process of discovery and anything else such as eye accessing cues are a tool to do that - a significant tool but just a tool

I look forward to any reply that you may send me.

Sincerely,
Sue Knight

Dear Sue,

Thank you very much for your reply and your refreshing lack of dogmatism.

As I understand you are open to define NLP as anything that works in a particular context. That is again a positive and undogmatic definition but it is not very helpful since it means that there is no context free method that can be reused, and hence, nothing worth teaching or learning for future situations.

For example: The NLP method of modelling Eriksson is only useful if the same principles (which?) could be used to model Satir, in another context. And a level down, Erikssons meta model is only useful if it can be reapplied elsewhere, that is if it is context free to some degree.

NLP has to be defined for people to agree on what it is, teach and learn it. The defintion has to be held static for as long as it takes to test its usefulness and possibly improve on it.

When you say that Bandler and Grinder discovered that the key is not WHAT you do but HOW you do it I agree, so would most people regarding mastering anything. The problem is that the word HOW just means again WHAT, namely WHAT you do IN DETAIL. The only thing NLP says here is that to usefully describe any skill you must get down to detail. All would agree, but not very helpful. This is where using the detailed level of submodalities comes in, which could be a central part of the NLP method.

A specific question from me therefore would be:

If we define NLP as a method to model perceptions by describing them in terms of detailed sensory impressions called submodalities, and to conciously alter those submodalities, do the perceptions actually change, permanently? (It should have been clinically tested since it would cure people of bad memories, improve their mastery of most skills and also be a formidable tool for influencing other people).

Imagine someone being able to describe the submodalities of being focused and charismatic, regardless of context, and being able to train for it with permanent results. That would be better than finding the fountain of youth.

Thanks again for your reply!

Frederik

Dear Frederik wow well I will get back to you on this one again after some thought. But just to say that what I learn when I model can indeed be used in other contexts and that is the value of modelling but that does not mean that that is generally true. NLP is a process of feedback and choice - are you aware of the TOTE? Yes submodalities are key as are eye movements in terms of accessing the detail of what and how we are doing what we are doing at a subconscious level so that we can reproduce it and teach it to others. If ever you can and want to come and see some modelling in action Frederick come along to a day on our Master Practitioner and I will show you what I mean. There may be more thoughts to come!!!

Sincerely,
Sue Knight

Dear Sue,

Thanks for your swift response. I would love to come and see the modelling in action, I do not live in the UK, so it will need some planning.

I will quite certainly be very excited from the power of the methods and the change that happens in such situations. An important question that may remain is how permanent such change is and to what degree it is the power of meetings rather than the power of NLP methods that produces change.

This may seem to be a fine point but to me it is important to know ehether it is the NLP methods that deliver results or if it is the psychological context that would be present in a faith witness meeting, for example.

If you have more thoughts in due course I would love to keep in touch.

Frederik