用 NLP 洗腦 - NLP 內容

3. NLP 研究語言如何影響我們的行為。

語言影響我們如何思考，行動，反應，感受。例如，一位行政人員在明天之前要做一個非常重要的決定。但他對這個決定信心不是很大，在他的大腦內無意識地出現類似的說話:"真係唔知點做" "真系唔係咁容易"! 事實上，他習慣地透過這些說話使他大腦內的神經網絡封閉。透過 NLP 的訓練，他建立了完全不同的內向溝通程式，他會自然地問自己 "我需要知道什麼資料才能做這個決定"? "可以有什麼不同的選擇?" "如果這個決定最終導致失敗，會出現在什麼地方等......" 這些問題能夠開啟他大腦內新的神經網絡，使他更快找出答案。我們透過五官眼，耳，鼻，舌，身，攝取外界訊息，NLP 學者發現人類透過大腦內的心智模式 (Mental Model) ，把信念，價值，規條進行刪減，扭曲，一般化等程序而成為我們描述外界事物的語言。故此，受過訓練的 NLP 執行師能夠從對方的說話了解他的心智模式，從而有效進行輔導影響別人，改變對方信念。

NLP 提供系統化的語言工具達致上述效果包括:

a. 檢定語言模式 (Meta Model)

是 NLP 最重要的技巧之一，是由 NLP 創始人李察‧賓達拉 (Richard Bandler) 和約翰，葛瑞德(John Grinder) 在 1975年發展出來的一套語言技巧。他們透過模仿完形治療法 (Gestalt Therapy) 創始人費茲士.波爾士 (Fritz Perls) 及家庭治療大師 (Family Therapy) 維珍尼亞沙維雅 (Virginia Satir) 在治療過程當中的發問方式從受導者口中得悉對方的內心世界的運作。同時他們有另外一套的發問方式，令受導者重組他們的心智模式，從而改變對方的心態及行為。運用檢定語言模式在自己身上面，能夠使思考更清晰，有效地修正自己的心智模式，從而更容易解決問題消除困擾。

b. 巧妙回應話術 (Sleight of mouth)

這套語言技巧是由 NLP University Dr. Robert Dilts 發展出來的。他發現人類歷史中出現的偉大領袖，智者，包括耶穌，甘地，馬克思等，均能透過語言展現出非凡的說服能力，改變世界的固有信念。Dr. Robert Dilts 發現他們都有一些共通的語言模式。他透過觀察及模仿整理出一套獨特的語言技巧，能夠在短時間之內改變對方的信念。大大加強說服能力。

c. 其他語言技巧包括米爾頓語言模式(Milton Model)， 換框法(Reframming)，正面詞語(Positive Wordings)等。

4. NLP 的前提假設

NLP的理論及技巧建築在以下的前題假設(NLP Presupppositions)上 :
1. 沒有兩個人是一樣的。
　 No two persons are the same.
　 　
2. 一個人不能控制另外一個人。
One person cannot change another person.
　 　
3. 有效用比有道理更重要。
　 Usefulness is more important.
　 　
4. 只有由感官經驗塑造出來的世界，沒有絕對的真實世界。
　 The map is not the territory.
　 　
5. 溝通的意義決定於對方的回應。
　 The meaning of communication is the response one
gets.
　 　
6. 重複舊的做法，只會得到舊的結果。
　 Repeating the same behavior will repeat the same result.
　 　
7. 凡事必有至少三個解決方法。
　 There are at least three solutions to every situation.
　 　
8. 每人都選擇給自己最佳利益的行為。
　 Every one chooses the best behavior at the moment.
　 　
9. 每人都已經具備使自己成功快樂的資源。
　 Every one already possesses all the resources needed.
　 　
10. 在任何一個系統裡，最靈活的部份便是最能影響大局的部份。
　 In any system, the most flexible person has the control.
　 　
11. 沒有挫敗，只有回應訊息。
　 There is no failure, only feedback.
　 　
12. 動機和情緒總不會錯，只是行為沒有效果而已。
　 Intentions and emotions are never wrong, only the behavior has not been effective.
　 　
13. 有選擇總比沒有選擇好。
　 Choice is better than no choice.
　 　
14. (心靈焦點的力量) 你所注視的地方會給予能量, 無論這個地方是負面或者是正面。
　 (The law of mind focus) Where your mind focus, where you give energy.

Extract from : wikipedia

Neuro-linguistic programming

NLP originated when Richard Bandler, a student at University of California, Santa Cruz, was listening to and selecting portions of taped therapy sessions of the late Gestalt therapist Fritz Perls as a project for Robert Spitzer.[17][18] Bandler believed he recognized particular word and sentence structures which facilitated the acceptance of Perls' therapeutic suggestions. Bandler took this idea to one of his university lecturers, John Grinder, a linguist. Together they studied Perls's utterances on tape and observed a second therapist Virginia Satir to produce what they termed the meta model, a model for gathering information and challenging a client's language and underlying thinking.[19]

The meta model was presented in 1975 in two volumes, The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy and The Structure of Magic II: A Book About Communication and Change, in which the authors expressed their belief that the therapeutic "magic" as performed in therapy by Perls and Satir, and by performers in any complex human activity, had structure that could be learned by others given the appropriate models. They believed that implicit in the behavior of Perls and Satir was the ability to challenge distortion, generalization and deletion in a client's language. The linguistic aspects were based in part on previous work by Grinder using Noam Chomsky's transformational grammar.[20]

Challenging linguistic distortions, specifying generalizations, and recovery of deleted information in the client utterances, the surface structure, was supposed to yield a more complete representation of the underlying deep structure, and to have therapeutic benefit.[21] They drew ideas from Gregory Bateson and Alfred Korzybski, particularly about human modeling and ideas associated with their expression, "the map is not the territory".[22][23]

Satir and Bateson each agreed to write a preface to Bandler and Grinder's first book. Bateson also introduced the pair to Milton Erickson who became their third model. Erickson also wrote a preface to Bandler and Grinder's two-volume book series based on their observations of Erickson working with clients, Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, Volumes I & II.[24] These volumes also focused on the language patterns and some non-verbal patterns that Bandler and Grinder believed they observed in Erickson. While the meta model is intentionally specific, the Milton model was described as "artfully vague" and metaphoric; the inverse of the meta model. It was used in combination with the meta model as a softener, to induce trance, and to deliver indirect therapeutic suggestion. In addition to the first two models, Bandler, Grinder and a group of students who joined them during the early period of development of NLP, proposed other models and techniques, such as anchoring, reframing, submodalities, perceptual positions, and representational systems.

At the time, the human potential movement was developing into an industry; at the centre of this growth was the Esalen Institute at Big Sur, California. Perls had led numerous Gestalt therapy seminars at Esalen. Satir was an early leader and Bateson was a guest teacher. Bandler and Grinder claimed that in addition to being a therapeutic method, NLP was also a study of communication, and by the late 1970s Grinder and Bandler were marketing it as a business tool, claiming that "if any human being can do anything, so can you". After 150 students paid $1,000 each for a ten-day workshop in Santa Cruz, California, Bandler and Grinder gave up academic writing and produced popular books from seminar transcripts, such as Frogs into Princes, which sold more than 270,000 copies. According to court documents, Bandler's NLP business made more than $800,000 in 1980.[19]
[edit] Applications
[edit] Psychotherapeutic

The early books about NLP had a psychotherapeutic focus especially given that the early models were psychotherapists. As an approach to psychotherapy, NLP shares similar core assumptions and foundations in common with some contemporary brief and systemic practices,[25][26][27] such as solution focused brief therapy.[28][29] NLP has also been acknowledged as having influenced these practices[27][30] with its reframing techniques[31][32] which seeks to achieve behaviour change by shifting its context or meaning,[33] for example, by finding the positive connotation of a thought or behaviour.

The two main therapeutic uses of NLP are: (1) use as an adjunct by therapists[34] practicing in other therapeutic disciplines, and (2) as a specific therapy called Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy[35] which is recognized by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy[36] with accreditation governed at first by the Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming[37] and more recently by its daughter organization the Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association.[38]
[edit] Other uses

While the original goals of neuro-linguistic programming were therapeutic, the patterns have also been adapted for use outside psychotherapy for interpersonal communications and persuasion including business communication, management training,[39] sales,[40] sports,[41] and interpersonal influence,[42] used for coaching, team building, public speaking, negotiation,[43] and communication. The UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development includes a number of NLP courses including an application of NLP to coaching in its 2010 training programme.[44] A range of books have been published related to the application of NLP to coaching.[45]
[edit] Criticism and controversy
[edit] Empirical validity

In the early 1980s, NLP was hailed as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling,[46] and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology. In the mid-1980s, reviews in The Journal of Counseling Psychology[47] and by the National Research Council (1988; NRC) committee[42] found little or no empirical basis for the claims about preferred representational systems (PRS) or assumptions of NLP. In an article published in 2005, psychologist Grant Devilly stated that at the time it was introduced, NLP was heralded as a breakthrough in therapy, and advertisements for training workshops, videos and books began to appear in trade magazines. The workshops provided certification. However, controlled studies shed such a poor light on the practice, and those promoting the intervention made such extreme and changeable claims that researchers began to question the wisdom of researching the area further.[46]

The experimental research that does exist was mostly done in the 1980s and 1990s, and on the whole was unsupportive of the central assumptions and core models of NLP.[citation needed] It consisted of laboratory experimentation testing Bandler and Grinder's hypotheses[48] that a person's preferred sensory mode of thinking can be revealed by observing eye movement cues and sensory predicates in language use.[43] A research review conducted by Christopher Sharpley which focused on preferred representational systems, in 1984,[49] followed by another review in 1987 in response to a critique published by Einspruch and Forman,[50] concluded that there was little evidence for its usefulness as an effective counseling tool. Reviewing the literature in 1988, Michael Heap also concluded that objective and fair investigations had shown no support for NLP claims about "preferred representational systems".[14]

A research committee[42] working for the United States National Research Council led by Daniel Druckman came to two conclusions. First, the committee "found little if any" evidence to support NLP's assumptions or to indicate that it is effective as a strategy for social influence. "It assumes that by tracking another's eye movements and language, an NLP trainer can shape the person's thoughts, feelings, and opinions (Dilts, 1983[51]). There is no scientific support for these assumptions."[52] Secondly, the committee members "were impressed with the modeling approach used to develop the technique. The technique was developed from careful observations of the way three master psychotherapists conducted their sessions, emphasizing imitation of verbal and nonverbal behaviors... This then led the committee to take up the topic of expert modeling in the second phase of its work."(Druckman, 2004)[52] Von Bergen et al. (1997) state that "the most telling commentary on NLP may be that the latest revision of his text on enhancing human performance, Druckman (Druckman & Bjork 1991) omitted all reference to Neurolinguistic Programming."[53] These studies, in particular Sharpley's literature review, marked a decline in empirical research of NLP, and particularly in matching sensory predicates and its use in counsellor-client relationship in counseling psychology.

NLP practitioners and academics Tosey and Mathison have argued that the experimental approach is not always appropriate for researching NLP, instead proposing that NLP should be researched phenomenologically.[54][55] Gareth Roderique-Davies (2009) stated that "Phenomenological research is free from hypotheses, pre-conceptions and assumptions, and seeks to describe rather than explain. Given the claims made by proponents of NLP, this adds little to the credibility debate and would produce reports concerning the experience from the perspective of the individual rather than confirmation of the claimed efficacy. The fact remains that NLP proponents make specific claims about how NLP works and what it can do and this compels providing evidence to substantiate these claims." He argued that the proposal to conduct phenomenology research using NLP modeling "constitutes an admission that NLP does not have an evidence base and that NLP practitioners are seeking a post-hoc credibility."[56]
[edit] Scientific criticism
See also: NLP and science

Michael Corballis (1999) stated that "NLP is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability".[57] NLP adapted many scientific sounding terms, such as eye accessing cues, metamodeling, micromodeling, metaprogramming, neurological levels, presuppositions, representational systems, and submodalities, which Barry Beyerstein wrote was intended to obfuscate and to give the impression of a scientific discipline.[58] According to Canadian skeptic Beyerstein (1995) "though it claims neuroscience in its pedigree, NLP's outmoded view of the relationship between cognitive style and brain function ultimately boils down to crude analogies."[59] According to Efran and Lukens (1990), claiming that "original interest in NLP turned to disillusionment after the research and now it is rarely even mentioned in psychotherapy"(p. 122).[60]

Heap states that generalizations about the mind and behavior, such as those purported by NLP proponents, can only be arrived at through prolonged, systematic, and meticulous investigation of human subjects using empirical procedures. Heap (1988) stated "There is just no other way of doing this". In general, authors in the field of NLP have rarely expressed an interest in providing a coherent theory; instead, they often state their primary aim in modeling "what works". They also claim there is ample evidence for NLP as an eclectic approach drawing from existing "cognitive-behavioral approaches, Gestalt therapy, hypnotherapy, family therapy, and brief therapy.[61]

John Grinder offers a counterexample arguing in retrospect that the meta-model, for example, drew from his expertise in transformational grammar and empirical work in collaboration with Bandler between 1973 and 1975.[23] Tosey and Mathison state "the pragmatic and often anti-theoretical stance by the founders has left a legacy of little engagement between practitioner and academic communities".[43][62]

Norcross et al. (2006) conducted a Delphi poll of American doctoral-level mental health professionals and academics in psychology and psychotherapy in which 73.3% of respondents reported that they were familiar with NLP as an approach and, on average, rated NLP for the treatment of mental and behavioral disorders between possibly and probably discredited. The ratings given by psychologists from the cognitive and behavioral orientations were significantly less favourable towards NLP than those from the humanistic and psychodynamic orientations.[63] A follow-up study by Norcross et al. (2008) found that NLP for the treatment of drug addiction was rated as among the top ten most discredited of the interventions included in the study.[64]
[edit] Intellectual property disputes

In the 1980s, shortly after publishing Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I[65] with Robert Dilts and Judith Delozier, Grinder and Bandler fell out. Amidst acrimony and intellectual property lawsuits, the NLP brand was adopted by other training organizations.[42] Some time afterwards, John Grinder collaborated with various people to develop a form of NLP called the New Code of NLP which claimed to restore a whole mind-body systemic approach to NLP[23][66] Richard Bandler also published new processes based on submodalities and Ericksonian hypnosis.[67]

In July 1996, after many years of legal controversy, Bandler filed a lawsuit against John Grinder and others, claiming retrospective sole ownership of NLP, and also the sole right to use the term under trademark.[68][69] At the same time, Tony Clarkson (a UK practitioner) successfully asked the UK High Court to revoke Bandler's UK registered trademark of "NLP", in order to clarify legally that "NLP" was a generic term rather than intellectual property.[70]

Despite the NLP community's being splintered, most NLP material acknowledges the early work of co-founders Bandler and Grinder, as well as the development group that surrounded them in the 1970s. In June 2001, the lawsuits were settled with Bandler and Grinder agreeing to be known as co-founders of NLP.[citation needed]
[edit] Practitioner standards

Since 1978, a 20-day NLP practitioner certification program had been in existence for training therapists to apply NLP as an adjunct to their professional qualifications. As NLP evolved, and the applications began to be extended beyond therapy, new ways of training were developed and the course structures and design changed. Course lengths and style vary from institute to institute. In the 1990s, following attempts to put NLP on a regulated footing in the UK, other governments began certifying NLP courses and providers; for example, in Australia, a Graduate Certificate in Neuro-linguistic programming is accredited under the Australian Qualifications Framework.[71] However, NLP continues to be an open field of training with no "official" best practice. With different authors, individual trainers and practitioners having developed their own methods, concepts and labels, often branding them as "NLP",[72] the training standards and quality differ greatly.[73] The multiplicity and general lack of controls has led to difficulty discerning the comparative level of competence, skill and attitude in different NLP trainings. According to Peter Schütz, the length of training in Europe varies from 2–3 days for the hobbyist to 35–40 days over at least nine months to achieve a professional level of competence.[73]

In Europe, the European NLP therapy association has been promoting its training in line with European therapy standards.

In 2001, neuro-linguistic psychotherapy, a derivative of NLP, was recognized by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy as an experimental constructivist form of psychotherapy.[74]

Today, there are many competing organisations offering varying forms of NLP training and certification in what can be a lucrative business. The Guardian reported that in 2006 that a seven day course by Paul McKenna's company for 600 delegates produced £1m of revenue.[75] Many variants of the practice are found in seminars, workshops, books and audio programs in the form of exercises and principles intended to influence behavioral and emotional change in self and others. There is great variation in the depth and breadth of training and standards of practitioners, and some disagreement between those in the field about which patterns are, or are not, "NLP".[47][76]