Editing Neuro-linguistic programming (section)

== Early development ==
According to Bandler and Grinder, NLP consists of a [[methodology]] termed ''modeling'', plus a set of techniques that they derived from its initial applications.{{sfnm|1a1=Bandler|1a2=Grinder|1y=1975|1p=6|2a1=Grinder|2a2=Bostic St. Clair|2y=2001|2loc=Chapter 2: Terminology}} They derived many of the fundamental techniques from the work of [[Virginia Satir]], [[Milton Erickson]] and [[Fritz Perls]].{{sfn|Bandler|Grinder|1979|p=8}} Bandler and Grinder also drew upon the [[scientific theory|theories]] of [[Gregory Bateson]], and [[Noam Chomsky]] (particularly [[transformational grammar]]).{{sfn|Bandler|Grinder|1975|p=6}}<ref name="Stollznow-2010" /><ref>{{cite book |last=Wake |first=Lisa |title=Neurolinguistic psychotherapy: a postmodern perspective |year=2008 |publisher=Routledge |location=London |isbn=978-0-415-42541-4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8wIy20m_u9kC}}</ref>

Bandler and Grinder say that their methodology can codify the structure inherent to the therapeutic "magic" as performed in therapy by Perls, Satir and Erickson, and indeed inherent to any complex human activity. From that codification, they say, the structure and its activity can be learned by others. Their 1975 book, ''The Structure of Magic I: A Book about Language and Therapy'', is intended to be a codification of the therapeutic techniques of Perls and Satir.{{sfn|Bandler|Grinder|1975|p=6}}

Bandler and Grinder say that they used their own process of modeling to model Virginia Satir so they could produce what they termed the Meta-Model, a model for gathering information and challenging a client's language and underlying thinking.{{sfn|Bandler|Grinder |1975|p=6}}<ref name="Clancy-1989" /> They say that by challenging linguistic distortions, specifying generalizations, and recovering deleted information in the client's statements, the transformational grammar concept of surface structure yields a more complete representation of the underlying deep structure and therefore has therapeutic benefit.<ref>John Grinder, Suzette Elgin (1973). "A Guide to Transformational Grammar: History, Theory, Practice." Holt, Rinehart and Winston. {{ISBN|0-03-080126-5}}. Reviewed by Frank H. Nuessel, Jr. ''The Modern Language Journal'', Vol. 58, No. 5/6 (September–October 1974), pp. 282–283</ref><ref name="Bradley-1985">{{cite journal |first1=E. Jane |last1=Bradley |last2=Biedermann |first2=Heinz-Joachim |title=Bandler and Grinder's neurolinguistic programming: Its historical context and contribution |journal=Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training |date=1 January 1985 |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=59–62 |doi=10.1037/h0088527 |issn=0033-3204 |oclc=1588338}}</ref> Also derived from Satir were anchoring, future pacing and representational systems.<ref name="Spitzer-1992">{{cite journal |last=Spitzer |first=Robert |title=Virginia Satir & Origins of NLP |journal=Anchor Point Magazine |issue=July |page=? |year=1992 |url=http://www.social-engineer.org/wiki/archives/NLP/NLP-Satir395.pdf |access-date=5 June 2013}}</ref>

In contrast, the Milton-Model—a model of the purportedly hypnotic language of Milton Erickson—was described by Bandler and Grinder as "artfully vague" and [[metaphor]]ic.{{sfn|Bandler|Grinder|1982|p=240}} The Milton-Model is used in combination with the Meta-Model as a softener, to induce "trance" and to deliver indirect therapeutic suggestion.{{sfn|Bandler|Grinder|1981}}

Psychologist [[Jean Mercer]] writes that Chomsky's theories "appear to be irrelevant" to NLP.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mercer |first1=Jean |editor1-last=Cautin |editor1-first=Robin L. |editor2-last=Lilienfeld |editor2-first=Scott O. |title=The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, Volume II |date=2015 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-0-4706-7127-6 |page=759 |chapter=Controversial Therapies |doi=10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp515}}</ref> Linguist [[Karen Stollznow]] describes Bandler's and Grinder's reference to such experts as [[namedropping]]. Other than Satir, the people they cite as influences did not collaborate with Bandler or Grinder. Chomsky himself has no association with NLP, with his work being theoretical in nature and having no therapeutic element. Stollznow writes, "[o]ther than borrowing [[terminology]], NLP does not bear authentic resemblance to any of Chomsky's theories or philosophies—linguistic, [[cognitive]] or political."<ref name="Stollznow-2010">{{cite journal |last1=Stollznow |first1=Karen|author-link=Karen Stollznow|year=2010 |title=Not-so Linguistic Programming |journal=[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|Skeptic]] |volume=15 |issue=4 |page=7 |url=http://www.skeptic.com/magazine/archives/vol15n04.html |access-date=1 June 2013}}</ref>

According to [[André Muller Weitzenhoffer]], a researcher in the field of hypnosis, "the major weakness of Bandler and Grinder's linguistic [[analysis]] is that so much of it is built upon untested hypotheses and is supported by totally inadequate data."{{sfn|Weitzenhoffer|1989|p=304}} Weitzenhoffer adds that Bandler and Grinder misuse [[formal logic]] and mathematics,{{sfn|Weitzenhoffer|1989|pp=300–301}} redefine or misunderstand terms from the [[linguistics]] [[lexicon]] (e.g., [[nominalization]]),{{efn|{{harvnb|Weitzenhoffer|1989|pp=304–305}}: "I have chosen [[nominalization]] to explain what some of the problems are in Bandler and Grinder's linguistic approach to Ericksonian hypnotism. Almost any other linguistic concept used by these authors could have served equally well for the purpose of showing some of the inherent weaknesses in their treatment."}} create a scientific façade by needlessly complicating Ericksonian concepts with unfounded claims,{{efn|{{harvnb|Weitzenhoffer|1989|p=307}}: "As I have mentioned in the last chapter, any references made to left and right brain functions in relation to hypnotic phenomena must be considered as poorly founded. They do not add to our understanding of nor our ability to utilize hypnotic phenomena in the style of Erickson. Indeed, references such as Bandler and Grinder make to these functions give their subject matter a false appearance of having a more scientific status than it has."}} make factual errors,{{efn|{{harvnb|Weitzenhoffer|1989|p=306}}: "This work [''Trance-formation''], incidentally, contains some glaring misstatements of facts. For example, [[Freud]] and [[Mesmer]] were depicted as contemporaries!"}} and disregard or confuse concepts central to the Ericksonian approach.{{efn|{{harvnb|Weitzenhoffer|1989|p=306}}: One of the most striking features of the Bandler/Grinder interpretation is that it somehow ignores the issue of the existence and function of suggestion, which even in Erickson's own writings and those done with Rossi, is a central idea."}}

More recently, Bandler has stated, "NLP is based on finding out what works and formalizing it. In order to formalize patterns I utilized everything from linguistics to [[holography]] ... The models that constitute NLP are all formal models based on mathematical, [[logic]]al principles such as [[Predicate logic|predicate calculus]] and the mathematical [[Holography#Mathematical model|equations underlying holography]]."<ref>{{cite web |last=Bandler |first=Richard |title=NLP Seminars Group – Frequently Asked Questions |website=NLP Seminars Group |url=http://www.purenlp.com/nlpfaqr.html |year=1997 |access-date=8 August 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130622080317/http://www.purenlp.com/nlpfaqr.html |archive-date=22 June 2013}}</ref> There is no mention of the mathematics of holography nor of holography in general in Spitzer's,<ref name="Spitzer-1992" /> or Grinder's<ref>{{harvnb|Grinder|Bostic St. Clair|2001}}.</ref> account of the development of NLP.

On the matter of the development of NLP, Grinder recollects:

{{blockquote|text=My memories about what we thought at the time of discovery (with respect to the classic code we developed—that is, the years 1973 through 1978) are that we were quite explicit that we were out to overthrow a [[paradigm]] and that, for example, I, for one, found it very useful to plan this campaign using in part as a guide the excellent work of [[Thomas Kuhn]] (''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'') in which he detailed some of the conditions which historically have obtained in the midst of [[paradigm shift]]s. For example, I believe it was very useful that neither one of us were qualified in the field we first went after—psychology and in particular, its therapeutic application; this being one of the conditions which Kuhn identified in his historical study of paradigm shifts.<ref>{{cite web |last=Grinder |first=John |others=Interviewed by Chris Collingwood and Jules Collingwood |title=1996 Interview with John Grinder PhD, co-creator of NLP |website=Inspiritive |url=http://www.inspiritive.com.au/grinterv.htm |date=July 1996 |access-date=8 August 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130428225949/http://www.inspiritive.com.au/grinterv.htm |archive-date=28 April 2013}}</ref>}}

The philosopher [[Robert Todd Carroll]] responded that Grinder has not understood Kuhn's text on the [[history of science|history and philosophy of science]], ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions''. Carroll replies: (a) individual scientists never have nor are they ever able to create ''paradigm shifts'' volitionally and Kuhn does not suggest otherwise; (b) Kuhn's text does not contain the idea that being unqualified in a field of science is a prerequisite to producing a result that necessitates a ''paradigm shift'' in that field and (c) ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' is foremost a work of ''history'' and not an instructive text on ''creating'' paradigm shifts and such a text is not possible—extraordinary discovery is not a formulaic procedure. Carroll explains that a ''paradigm shift'' is not a planned activity, rather it is an outcome of scientific effort within the dominant paradigm that produces [[scientific data|data]] that cannot be adequately accounted for within the current paradigm—hence a ''paradigm shift'', i.e. the adoption of a new paradigm. In developing NLP, Bandler and Grinder were not responding to a paradigmatic crisis in psychology nor did they produce any data that caused a paradigmatic crisis in psychology. There is no sense in which Bandler and Grinder caused or participated in a paradigm shift. "What did Grinder and Bandler do that makes it impossible to continue doing psychology ... without accepting their ideas? Nothing," argues Carroll.<ref name="Carroll-2009">{{cite web |last=Carroll |first=R. T. |author-link=Robert Todd Carroll |publisher=[[The Skeptic's Dictionary]] |url=http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html |title=Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) |access-date=25 June 2009 |date=23 February 2009}}</ref>

=== Commercialization and evaluation ===
By the late 1970s, the [[human potential movement]] had developed into an industry and provided a market for some NLP ideas. At the center 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 have said that in addition to being a therapeutic method, NLP was also a study of communication and began marketing it as a business tool, writing that, "if any human being can do anything, so can you."<ref name="Clancy-1989">{{cite journal |last1=Clancy |first1=Frank |last2=Yorkshire |first2=Heidi |year=1989 |title=The Bandler Method |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DOcDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22 |journal=[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]] |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=22–28 |issn=0362-8841 |access-date=26 April 2024 |via=}}</ref> After 150 students paid $1,000 each for a ten-day workshop in [[Santa Cruz, California]], Bandler and Grinder gave up academic writing and started producing popular books from seminar transcripts, such as ''Frogs into Princes,'' which sold more than 270,000 copies. According to court documents relating to an intellectual property dispute between Bandler and Grinder, Bandler made more than $800,000 in 1980 from workshop and book sales.<ref name="Clancy-1989" />

A community of psychotherapists and students began to form around Bandler and Grinder's initial works, leading to the growth and spread of NLP as a theory and practice.<ref>{{cite book |title=Social Engineering |publisher=John Wiley & Sons Inc |last1=Hadnagy |first1=Christopher |last2=Wilson |first2=Paul |access-date=24 May 2013 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9LpawpklYogC |date= 2010 |isbn=978-0-470-63953-5}}</ref> For example, [[Tony Robbins]] trained with Grinder and utilized a few ideas from NLP as part of his own [[self-help]] and motivational speaking programmes.<ref>{{cite book |title=Sham: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless |year=2006 |publisher=Crown Publishing Group |isbn=978-1-4000-5410-7 |last=Salerno |first=Steve |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lmmxX81cEmMC}}</ref> Bandler led several unsuccessful efforts to exclude other parties from using NLP.{{citation needed|date=May 2024}} Meanwhile, the rising number of practitioners and theorists led NLP to become even less uniform than it was at its foundation.<ref name="Stollznow-2010" /> Prior to the decline of NLP, scientific researchers began testing its theoretical underpinnings [[empirical]]ly, with research indicating a lack of empirical support for NLP's essential theories.<ref name="Witkowski-2010" /> The 1990s were characterized by fewer scientific studies evaluating the methods of NLP than the previous decade. [[Tomasz Witkowski]] attributes this to a declining interest in the debate as the result of a lack of empirical support for NLP from its proponents.<ref name="Witkowski-2010" />