ReFRAMING NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF MEANING

Click Here For More Information

3 comments for “ReFRAMING NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF MEANING

  1. jsriggio@compuserve.com
    November 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM

    An NLP Trainer’s review – “Good book sometimes misguided.” Reframing is the art of shifting meaning. Bandler and Grinder put their attention on using communication, verbal and non-verbal, to shift meaning in their client’s models of the world. An emphasis is on using language and language patterns. In this regard they succeed admirably. However, where I think they go off track is in their descriptions of “parts” and what they call 6-step reframing, even one of the authors – Richard Bandler says he doesn’t do this anymore. I agree and add that it introduces fractionation and fragmentation in clients which isn’t useful or suggested. This has bred a continuing controversy in the NLP(tm) community of professionals. Some still use the “parts” model and some are beginning to move away from it in favor of more integral and wholistic methods. There are other books that do a better job of presenting reframing and utilzation of language patterns, but with this caveat in place I recommend the book to anyone seeking to deepen and widen their knowledge of the NLP(tm) model. If you want to go further in understanding where the model has gone since the authors wrote this book try some of the later books, especially “Time for a Change” by Richard Bandler and “Persuasion Engineering” by Richard Bandler with John LaValle. Both of these present the new forms of hypnotic language usage quite well within a more integrated model.

  2. Karl
    November 30, 2012 at 1:53 AM

    An Important Step for NLP

  3. John P. Schertzer "Caefu"
    November 30, 2012 at 2:15 AM

    Still relevant and a gold mine. A careful reading of this book will unearth a wealth of information, not only about remedial and generative models developed in early NLP, but also how and why models were designed as they were to begin with. If one keeps that in mind, as well as the primary presupposition (map/territory), there will be no vast discrepancy between old and new NLP, nor even DHE. You can see the roots right here. The authors themselves make a point in saying that the Six Step Reframing pattern, for instance, was only structured the way it was as a teaching tool, and that it should be forgotten once it was integrated with other communication processes. The Parts metaphor, they say, is only a one of a number of ways of mapping “as if,” perhaps only a way of “chunking” behavior. Bandler is cleverer than everybody thinks: if he doesn’t use parts as a metaphor, then what are all the “machines” he’s talking about? What about the spacial/visual representations of decision making strategies, et al? Aren’t they essentially the same thing? The problem is people tend to forget that these are not actuallities but only useful ways of talking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *