| |
NLP arose out of the philosphical roots of Lingusitics and systems theory. They hold that all experiences are subjective and further that man can not have any objective knowledge of reality. Where did you come up with this? I haven't heard anyone say this.
NLP adherents are bad about taking ideas from others, giving no credit, and mixing together the worst grab-bag of new age ideas. It just has no coherent philosophy of psychology. Except for when they are using language to effect clincal change, their use of language is sloppy. Plenty of people (including Objectivists) take ideas from others. What are some of the "worse" "new age ideas"? Some people in the NLP community, such as Ross Jeffries, despise new age thinking.
What is your evidence of sloppy language use? NLP is all about using language to effect change. It's about how you talk to people. It's about the words you use. I think perhaps you have just met some of the bad apples in the NLP community, but they are a minority.
What NLP does have are some good techniques. That is exactly what it does. It has techniques that help you get what you want out of life. While Branden just tells you to "have self-esteem," NLP actually gives you techniques for gettting it.
A lot of self-help is total crap. It tries to help you decide what you want. It tries to teach you to be happy with what you have. NLP actually helps get things that you do want. It doesn't help you define goals, but actually helps you reach them. It helps you move from a state of dissatisfaction to a state of satisfaction.
The theories and philosophical foundations of both NLP and Cognitive therapy contradict the principles of Objectivism. But both of them have many acceptable and valuable tools, techniques, and individual insights. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of pyschological stuff in Objectivism is a complete disaster. NLP has helped me. Objectivism definitely has not. I have also gotten much more support from people in the NLP community that I have in the Objectivist community.
I should note that I have only read one Branden book, Six Pillars of Self-Esteem. I haven't read any more of his books because I thought so little of it. I have also read his articles that appeared in the newsletters.
Branden's psychology is fully compatible with Objectivism - it one of the very few, maybe only consistent and fundamental philosophies of psychology. But there is this problem called the scientific method. If you try Branden, it fails. If something fails, I don't use it. If it works, it does.
Branden see a person as capable of heroic achievements whereas Ellis and NLP approach people as programmable automata. Branden may believe that, but he doesn't give you any tools for accomplishing anything heroic. NLP does see you as "programmable." It also teaches you how to program yourself.
For example, Branden could never teach you how to use hypnosis to relieve allergies. NLP does. Branden could never teach you how to cure phobias. NLP does.
Furthermore, Branden could never produce something as useful as some of the courses and materials produced by Ross Jeffries and Vince Kelvin. I'm going to meet both of them at a conference in Dallas this weekend!
|
|
Nobody can waste your time without your consent. If somebody wasted your time, then this is really another way of saying that you weren't focused enough, and assertive enough, to close (or limit) the conversation or interaction with the other person who allegedly 'wasted your time.' How you word things, including to yourself, can be very important. I suggest NOT saying to yourself, 'He wasted my time.' It's better to think of it as, 'I wasted my time with him.' This self-responsible wording will encourage correct thinking, i.e., thinking that assumes you have control over your life, your destiny ... and your time.
