Environment
Dear Dr. Hartmann
Dear Dr. Hartmann,
Thank you very much for teaching us about neurolinguistic programming (NLP). I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you support this therapeutic technique and show us how it is used in marketing and to influence us politically.
I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to say that NLP is manipulative, for example, I simply remind them that knowing about NLP enables people to recognize when others such as ad men and politicians are trying to manipulate them, and that you can use it to have a positive influence on yourselves and others. End of debate. However, continuing to listen to your NLP lessons does raise a few questions. I need some advice from you regarding some other elements of NLP's lessons and how best to follow them.
1: For example, you say we should show respect for other peoples' models of their world. What if their model is clearly wrong, for instance if they put Europe where America should be, and they don't respect ours? Can't we use NLP to change their model?
2: You say that all behavior has a positive intent. I'm pretty sure Adolph Hitler didn't have a positive intent when he invaded all those countries and killed all those people. Does that mean that I can do whatever I like and you would consider it positive? I can think of a few people I'd like to see dead.
3: You explained how Milton Erickson used something called the handshake induction to get someone to say the exact opposite of what he had been saying before. Does that mean I should never shake hands with a politician? Can I use Mr. Spock's Vulcan Neck Pinch on them instead?
4: You say that we all have a mammalian brain. The problem is, I'm pretty sure that some of my neighbors have the brains of snakes or lizards or peas instead. How should I communicate with them?
5: You assert that everyone uses primarily one of three modalities: visual, auditory, or kinesthetic or feeling. Trouble is, my mother-in-law is blind to her own faults, won't hear a word said against her, and has no feeling for my suffering at her hands. Is there a fourth modality just for mothers-in-law?
6: You stated that if we want to establish rapport with somebody, we should use the kind of predicates that they use. Does that mean that if I need to talk to my father-in-law, I have to start swearing and using the F word every other word, as that seems to be the main way he has of expressing his views? How do I explain this to the rest of my family?
7: You set us homework of listening to how people speak, and using their metaphors when speaking back to them. Well, the judge told me that he felt that I was deserving of neither mercy nor compassion. When I told him I felt the same about him, he charged me with contempt of court. Where did I go wrong?
8: You told us that people generally make decisions based on feelings; that they organize their logic to agree with their feelings more often than they organize their feelings to agree with their logic. Well, my brother-in-law makes Mr. Spock look like a neurotic. Is that why none of his decisions never make any sense to me?
9. You advised us that if we're going to communicate with a group of people, we should try to craft our message in such a way that it touches all 3 of the sensory modalities. So, I told my fisherman brother-in-law I liked the feel of his tackle, I told my cat-owning mother-in-law I never tired of looking at her pussy [informal name for cat in Britain], and I told my father-in-law I loved hearing his story about the actress and the bishop. They all stormed out. What did I say? Are you sure about this strategy?
10. You explained how story is the most powerful teaching tool there is. Does this mean that we should tell stories instead of the truth?
11. You said to embed information in 2 or 3 levels of subplots deep in a story and people would go in a trance. Well, when I tell a story people tend to go to sleep anyway, however many levels I use. And to be honest, if a film has more than one subplot I tend to get lost anyway. Are you sure this is the best way to do it? Wouldn't the first level be better?
12. You mentioned something about framing, something to do with tax? I don't earn enough to pay much tax! I hope you don't intend to frame me for anything. I didn't do it! Aren't I in enough trouble already?
13. You describe how they anchored Dukakis to Willie Horton. I live along way from the sea, so I don't have easy access to an anchor. Can I use concrete boots instead?
I know that you, Dr. Hartmann, have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thanks again for reminding us that we need to see, hear and feel. I'll bear it in mind next time I'm on the run. I should have smelt that sheriff coming.
Yours, tongue firmly in cheek,
Sue N.
Thom's reply
Lessee:
1. Yes.
2. Hitler definitely had positive intent. He was working for 1000 years of peace, just like GW Bush. He believed a few (million) deaths were a small price to pay for such a noble goal.
3. Right. Yes.
4. We all have both, actually. Use the appropriate one at the appropriate time.
5. Yes, olefactory and gustatory. They're two of the second tier of modalities, along with balance and time.
6. Yes, for true rapport. Then tell the rest of the family what they can do to themselves.
7. Musta been your tonality. Think how Mae West would have said it to avoid the ticket.
8. Yes. This is true of some autistics, too (the model for Spock).
9. You're confusing technique with content. It's also possible to use a hammer to smash your thumb instead of build a house.
10. Sometimes it's useful. Erickson would sometimes exagerate to make a point. This is worth discussing on the air, actually.
11. No, they have to be embedded. Try sitting them on whoppee cushions to keep them awake.
12. Yes, you are.
13. Sure, but not on Dukakis.
Thom