Richard Bandler - introductory NLP training course. R

January 1978

PREFACE

Twenty years ago, when I was an undergraduate student, I studied education, psychotherapy and other methods of managing personality development from Abraham Maslow. Ten years later I met Fritz Perls and began to practice Gestalt therapy, which seemed to me more effective than other methods. Nowadays I believe that certain methods are effective when working with certain people who have certain problems. Most methods promise more than they can deliver, and most theories have little relation to the methods they describe.

When I first became acquainted with neuro-linguistic programming, I was simply fascinated, but at the same time very skeptical. At that time, I firmly believed that personal development was slow, difficult and painful. I could hardly believe that I could cure a phobia and other similar mental disorders in a short time - less than an hour, despite the fact that I had done it many times and found that the results were lasting. Everything you will find in this book is presented simply and clearly and can be easily verified in your own experience. There are no tricks here and you are not required to convert to a new faith. All that is required of you is to move away somewhat from your own beliefs, setting them aside for the time necessary to test the concepts and procedures in your own sensory experience. It won't take long - most of our statements can be verified in a few minutes or a few hours. If you are skeptical, as I was at one time, then it is thanks to your skepticism that you will check our statements in order to understand that the method still solves the complex problems for which it is intended.

NLP is a clear and effective model of human inner experience and communication. Using the principles of NLP, it is possible to describe any human activity in a very detailed way, allowing deep and lasting changes in this activity to be made easily and quickly.

Here are some of the things you can learn to do:

1. Cure phobias and other unpleasant sensations in less than an hour.

2. Help children and adults with learning disabilities overcome their respective limitations - often in less than an hour.

3. Eliminate unwanted habits - smoking, drinking, overeating, insomnia - in several sessions.

4. Make changes in the interactions that take place in couples, families and organizations so that they function more productively.

5. Heal somatic diseases (and not only those that are considered “psychosomatic”) in several sessions.

Thus, NLP has many claims, but experienced practitioners using this method realize these claims, achieving tangible results. NLP in its current state can do a lot, faster, but not everything.

…if you want to learn everything we have listed, you can devote some time to it. There are many things we cannot do. If you can program yourself to find something useful in this book, instead of looking for cases where our method does not find application, then you will certainly encounter such cases. If you use this method honestly, you will find many cases where it does not work. In these cases, I recommend using something else.

NLP is only 4 years old, and the most valuable discoveries have been made in the last year or two.

We have started a list of areas of application of NLP. And we are very, very serious about our method. The only thing we are doing now is researching how this information can be used. We were unable to exhaust the variety of ways to use this information or discover any limitations. During this workshop, we demonstrated dozens of ways to use this information. First of all, it structures internal experience. Used systematically, this information makes it possible to create an entire strategy for achieving any behavior modification.

Currently, the possibilities of NLP are much wider than we have listed in our five points. The same principles can be used to study people gifted with any extraordinary abilities in order to determine these abilities. Knowing this structure, you can act as effectively as these people with extraordinary abilities. This type of intervention results in generative changes through which people learn to create new talents and new behaviors. A side effect of such generative changes is the disappearance of deviant behavior, which might otherwise be the subject of special psychotherapeutic intervention.

English thrushes had immunity to smallpox long before

Jenner invented his vaccine; currently smallpox, which was killing thousands

lives every year, disappeared from the face of the earth. Likewise, NLP can

eliminate many of the difficulties and dangers of our present lives and make

learning and modifying behavior easier, more productive and

exciting process. So we are on the verge of

a qualitative leap in the development of experience and abilities.

What's really new about NLP is that it gives you the ability to know exactly what to do and have an idea of how to do it.

John O. Stevens

REFERENCE

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a new model of human communication and behavior that has been developed in the last 4 years, thanks to the work of Richard Bandler, John Grinder, Leslie Cameron-Bandler and Judith Delozier.

In its origins, neuro-linguistic programming developed on the basis of the study of reality by V. Satir, M. Erickson, F. Perls and other psychotherapeutic “luminaries”.

This book is an edited transcript of an introductory NLP training course taught by R. Bandler and D. Grinder. This course was conducted in January 1978. Some of the materials were taken from tape recordings of other seminars.

The entire book is organized as a writing workshop for 3 days. For simplicity and ease of perception of the text, most of the statements of Bandler and Grinder are given simply in text form without indicating names.

SENSORY EXPERIENCE

Our workshop differs from other workshops on communication and psychotherapy in several existing parameters. When we started our research, we observed the activities of people doing their job brilliantly, after which they tried to explain what they were doing with the help of metaphors. They called these attempts theorizing. They could tell stories about a million holes and penetrations deep, you can find out that a person is like a circle, towards which numerous pipes and the like are directed from different sides. Most of these metaphors do not allow a person to know what to do and how to do it.

Some organize workshops where you can observe and hear someone competent in so-called “professional communication”; such a person will demonstrate to you that he really knows how to do certain things. If you are lucky and can keep your sensory apparatus open, you too will learn to do certain things.

There is also a certain group of people called theorists. They will tell you their beliefs about the true nature of man, what an “open, adaptable, authentic, spontaneous” person should be, etc., but they will not show you how anything can be done.

Most of the knowledge in psychology today is structured in such a way that it mixes what we call “modeling” with what is usually called theory, and we consider theology. The description of what people do is confused with the description of what reality itself is like. When you mix experience with theory and pack it into one package, you get psychotheology, which is developed in a system of “religious” beliefs, each of which has its own powerful evangelist at the head.

Another strange thing in psychology is the mass of people who call themselves “researchers” and have virtually no connection with psychologists! Somehow it happens that researchers do not produce information for practitioners. In medicine the situation is different. There, researchers structure their research in such a way that their findings can help practitioners in their actual practice. And practitioners actively respond to researchers, telling them what knowledge they need.

The next important feature that characterizes psychotherapists is that they come to psychotherapy with a ready-made set of subconscious stereotypes, which gives a huge probability of failure in their activities. When a psychotherapist begins work, he is primarily determined to look for inadequacy in the content. They want to know what the problem is so they can help the person find a solution.

This is always the case, regardless of whether the therapist was trained in an academic institution or in a room with a pillow on the floor. This also happens with those who consider themselves “process oriented.” Somewhere in the depths of their minds a voice constantly sounds: “Process, follow the process.” These people will tell you:

“Yes, I am a process-oriented psychotherapist. I'm working with the process. I'm working with the process. “Somehow the process turns into a thing - a thing in itself and for itself.

And one more paradox. The vast majority of psychotherapists believe that being a good psychotherapist means doing everything intuitively, which means having a developed subconscious mind that does everything for you. They don’t talk about it so directly because they don’t like the word “subconscious,” but they do what they do without knowing how they do it. It seems to me that actions performed with the help of the subconscious can be very useful and good. But the same psychotherapists say that the goal of psychotherapy is a conscious understanding of one’s problems, insight. Thus, psychotherapists are a group of people who claim that they do not know how they do something and at the same time are convinced that the only way to achieve anything in life is to know what a person's problems really are !

When I first began researching the process of psychotherapy, I asked therapists what effect they were trying to achieve by changing the topic of conversation, or by approaching the patient and touching him in a certain way, or by raising or lowering their voice. They responded something like, “Oh, I didn’t have any special intentions.” I then said: “Okay. Let us then, together with you, examine what happened and determine what the result was.” To which they replied:

“We don’t need this at all.” They believed that if they did certain things to achieve a certain result, they would be doing something bad called "manipulation."

We consider ourselves people who create “models”. We attach very little importance to what people say and very much importance to what people do. Then we build a model of what people do. We are not psychologists, not theologians or theorists. We don't think about what "reality" actually is. The function of modeling is to create a description that is useful. If you notice that we are disproving something you know from scientific research or statistics, then try to understand that we are simply offering a different level of experience here. We do not offer anything true, but only what is useful.

We believe that modeling is successful if it is possible to systematically obtain the result that the modeled person achieves. And if we can teach someone else to systematically achieve the same results, then this is an even stronger test of successful modeling.

When I took my first steps in the field of communication studies, I happened to attend a conference. There were 650 people sitting in the hall. A very famous person took the podium and made the following statement: “The most important thing we must understand about psychotherapy and communication is that the first step is to establish personal contact with the person with whom you are communicating.” This statement struck me in the sense that it had always seemed obvious to me. This man talked for another 6 hours, but never said how to establish this contact. He didn't point out any specific thing that anyone could do to better understand the other person, or at least create the illusion of being understood.

Then I took an active listening course. We were taught

to paraphrase what we hear from a person, which means to distort

heard. Subsequently, we turned to studying what in

actually done by people who are considered “luminaries” in

psychotherapy. When we compared two therapists such as V. Satir and M. Erickson, we came to the conclusion that it would seem difficult to find two more different ways of acting. At least I have never seen a more dramatic difference. Patients who worked with both therapists also claim that they had completely different experiences. However, if we consider their behavior and basic stereotypes and sequence of actions, they turn out to be similar.

In our understanding, the sequences of actions that they

used to achieve, let's say, dramatic effects,

very, very similar. They do the same thing, but they “package” it

completely different.

The same is true for F. Perls. Compared with

Satir and Erikson - he has fewer action stereotypes. But

when he acts strongly and effectively, he exhibits the same

the same sequences of actions as theirs. Fritz usually doesn't

strives to achieve certain results. If someone comes to

and says to him: “I have hysterical paralysis of my left leg,” then he will not

will directly strive for a certain elimination of this symptom.

Milton and Virginia are aimed at achieving a certain result,

which I really like.

When I wanted to study psychotherapy, I took a training course,

where the situation was this: you were dropped off on a desert island and

for a month, every day they bombarded us with information, expecting that it would be so

or else you will find something for yourself. The head of this

During the practical course, he had a very rich experience and was able to do things that none of us could do. But when he talked about what he was doing, we were by no means trained to do it. Intuitively, or as we say, subconsciously, his behavior was systematized, but he was not aware of how it was systematized. This is a compliment to his flexibility and ability to distinguish the useful from the unhelpful.

For example, we know very little about how a phrase is generated. Knowing how to speak, you somehow create complex structures from words, but you don’t know anything about how you do it, and you don’t make a conscious decision about what the phrase will be. You don’t say to yourself: “Okay, I’m going to tell myself something... First I’ll put a noun, then an adjective, then a verb, and at the end an adverb, so that, you know, it’s a little prettier.” But still speak - in a language that has syntax and grammar, that is, the rules are as clear and precise as mathematical ones. People who call themselves transformational linguists have spent a lot of public money and paper in order to define these rules. True, they do not say what can be done with them, but this does not interest them. They are not at all interested in the real world, and living in it, I sometimes understand why.

So, a person who speaks any language has an unmistakable intuition (linguistic). If I say: “Yes, you can understand this idea,” then your impression of this phrase will be completely different than if I said: “Yes, you can understand this idea,” although the words that make up both phrases are exactly the same. Something on a subconscious level tells you that the second phrase is formulated correctly, but the first is not. The modeling task we set ourselves is to develop a similar system of discrimination for more practical things. We want to highlight and show clearly what gifted therapists do intuitively or subconsciously, and formulate rules that anyone can learn.

When you come to a seminar, the following usually happens. The workshop leader says, “All you have to do to learn what I can as a skilled communicator is listen to what’s going on inside you.” This is true if you suddenly have the same thing inside you as the leader. And we're guessing that, in all likelihood, you don't have it. I think that if you want to have the kind of intuition that Erickson, Satir or Perls had, you have to go through a period of training to acquire it. If you go through such training, you can acquire such intuition, as unconscious and systematic as linguistic.

If you watch how V. Satir works, you will be bombarded with a huge flow of information - about how she moves, what tone she speaks, how she changes the subject, what sensory signals she uses to determine her position in relation to each family member etc. It is an incredibly difficult task to keep track of all the signals she gives off, her reactions to them and the reactions of family members to her intervention.

We don’t know what V. Satir actually does with families. But we can describe her behavior in such a way as to give this description to someone and say, “Here, take this. Perform such and such actions in such and such sequence. Repeat until this system of actions becomes a permanent part of your subconscious, and you can cause the same reactions as the Satyr. “We have not checked our description for accuracy or consistency with scientific evidence. We just want to understand whether our description is an adequate model of what we do, whether it works or doesn't work, whether you can use the same sequence of actions as Satyr and still achieve similar results. Our statements have nothing to do with “truth” or what “really happens.” But we know that our Satyr behavior model is effective. Working according to our descriptions, people learned to act as effectively as the Satyr, but each one's style remained individual. If you learn to speak French, you will still express yourself in this language in your own way.

You can use our knowledge to make decisions about acquiring certain skills that are likely to be useful to you in your professional activities. Using our models you can practice these skills. After a period of conscious practice, you can allow the new skills to function subconsciously. We all owe our ability to drive a car to conscious training. Now we can drive a car for long distances and not realize how we are doing it until some exceptional situation attracts our attention.

Erickson and Satir and all successful therapists pay great attention to how a person imagines what he is talking about, using this information in a variety of ways. For example, imagine that I am Satir’s client and I tell her: “You know, Virginia, how... it’s hard for me... my situation is very difficult... My wife... was hit by a train... You know, I have four children, and two of them are gangsters... I I constantly think that I... can’t understand what’s going on.”

I don't know if you've seen Virginia work, but she works very, very beautifully. What she does seems like magic, even though I am convinced that magic has its own structure and can be accessed by all of you. One of the goals that she pursues when responding to that person is to approach, to join this person in his model of the world, approximately as follows: “I understand that you have something that oppresses you, and you, as a person, you don’t want the heaviness that you constantly feel inside yourself. You hope for something else."

It doesn't really matter what she says to him, as long as she uses the same words and tone of voice as the patient. If the same client were to go to another therapist, the dialogue might look like this: “You know, Dr. Bandler, I’m having a really hard time. You know, I can’t seem to cope with this on my own.”

"I see it, Mr. Grinder..."

“I think I did something wrong with my children, but I don’t know what exactly. I think maybe you can help me understand this.”

“Of course, I see what you are talking about. Let's focus on one specific aspect. Try to give me your own point of view on what happened. Tell us how you see the situation at the moment. "

"But...you know...I...I feel like...I can't seem to grasp anything."

"I see it. What is important to me, as became clear from your colorful description, is that it is important to me that we see the road along which we will walk together.”

“I'm trying to tell you that my life was full of difficult events. And I'm trying to find a way..."

“I see that everything looks destroyed... at least that's what your description suggests. The colors you paint everything in are not at all cheerful.”

Now you are sitting and laughing, and we cannot even say that we have exaggerated the colors compared to what is happening in “real life”. We spent a lot of time observing what was happening in psychiatric clinics and outpatient clinics. In our opinion, many therapists are confused in this way.

We came from California, where there are a lot of electronic companies. We had many clients who called themselves "engineers." I don't know why, but engineers usually have the same principles that make them resort to therapy. I don’t know why, but they come and say something like this: “You know, for a long time I felt on the rise, I had achieved a lot, but as I approached the top, I looked back and saw that my life was empty. Can you see it? That is, have you seen a person my age have similar problems? "

“Yes, I am beginning to grasp the essence of your thoughts - you want to change.”

“Wait a minute, I want to try to show you how I see the whole picture. You know..."

“I feel like this is very important. "

“Yes, I know that everyone is worried about something, but I want to make it really clear how I see the problem so that you can show me what I need to know in order to find a way out of the situation, because, Frankly speaking, I feel very depressed. Do you see how this could be?

“I feel like this is very important. There is a lot to grasp in what you say. We just need to work closely on it.”

"I'd really like to hear your point of view."

“But I don’t want you to avoid these feelings. Let us go ahead and let them flow freely, so that they will wash away this hell that you have depicted here.”

“I don’t see this getting us anywhere.”

“I feel like we have hit a barrier in our relationship. Would you like to discuss your resistance? "

Did you happen to notice a stereotype in these dialogues? We observed therapists who acted out this stereotype for 2-3 days. The satyr acts in a completely different way - she joins the client, while other psychotherapists do not. We have noticed one interesting trait in human beings. If they notice that some result of an action that they know how to perform does not produce results, they repeat it anyway. Skinner had a group of students experiment with rats in a maze for a long time. And someone once asked them: “What is the real difference between a person and a rat? “Not afraid to observe people, behaviorists immediately decided that an experiment was needed to solve this question. They built a huge human-sized maze, then recruited a control group of rats and taught them to go through a maze that had a piece of cheese in the center. A group of people were stimulated with a five-dollar bill. There were no significant differences between humans and rats in this part of the experiment. Only at the 95% probability level did they find that people learn somewhat faster than rats.

But the really significant differences came in the second part of the experiment, when the cheese and five-dollar bills were removed from the mazes. After several attempts, the rats refused to go into the maze. People couldn't stop! They were all running. And even at night they entered the labyrinth for this purpose.

One of the powerful routines that ensures growth and development in most areas of activity is the rule: if what you are doing is not working, do something else. If you are an engineer who has built a rocket and you press a button and the rocket doesn't take off, you change your behavior - you look for what changes in the design need to be made to overcome gravity. But in psychiatry the situation is different: if you are faced with a situation in which a rocket does not take off, then this phenomenon has a specific name:

"resistant client" You state the fact that what you are doing is not working and blame it on the client. This frees you from responsibility and the need to change your behavior. Or, if you are more humane, you "share the client's guilt for failure" or say that "the client is not ready yet."

Another problem in psychiatry is discovering and naming the same thing several times. What Fritz and Virginia are doing has been done before them. The concepts used in transactional analysis (for example, “resolution”) were known from the work of Freud. The interesting thing is that in psychiatry names are not conveyed.

When people learned to read, write and transmit information to each other, the amount of knowledge began to increase. If someone studies electronics, then first he masters everything that has been achieved in this field in order to go further and discover something new in the process.

In psychotherapy, we first assume that a person goes to school, and after graduating, he begins to engage in psychotherapy - there are no ways to train psychotherapists at all. All we do is provide them with clients and claim that they have a “private practice”, that is, they practice privately.

In linguistics there is the concept of “nominalization”. Nominalization occurs when we take a process and describe it as a thing or phenomenon. In doing so, we will greatly confuse ourselves and those around us if we do not remember that we are using a representation rather than a part of the experience.

This phenomenon can be useful. If you are a member of the government, then

you have the opportunity to talk about such nominalizations as, for example,

"national security" - people will start to worry about this

safety. Our president went to Egypt and replaced the word

imperialism is acceptable, and now we have become friends with Egypt again. All he did was replace the word.

The word “resistance” is also a nominalization. It describes the process as a thing, without mentioning how it functions. The honest, involved, authentic therapist from the last dialogue would describe his patient as cold, unemotional, and so removed from all feelings that he is unable to even communicate effectively with the therapist. The client really resists. The client will go to look for another psychotherapist, since this psychotherapist needs glasses, he sees absolutely nothing. And of course, they are both right.

So, have any of you noticed that stereotype that we talked about (that will really be the starting point for us in our movement)?

Woman: In the last dialogue, the client uses mainly visual words, for example: “look, see, show, look.” The therapist uses kinesthetic words: “take, grasp, feel, heavy.”

The person you meet for the first time thinks, throughout

probability, in one of three systems of representations. He may be inside

generate visual images, experience kinesthetic

feelings or saying something to yourself. Define the system

representations can be achieved by paying attention to the process words (verbs, adverbs and adjectives) that a person uses to describe his internal experience. If you pay attention to this, you can tailor your behavior to produce the desired response. If you want to establish good rapport with a person, you must use the same procedural issues that they use. If you want to establish distance, you can deliberately use words from a different representational system, and this was the case in the last dialogue.

Let's talk a little about how language functions. If I ask you, “Are you comfortable? “, you have a definite answer. The prerequisite for an adequate response is that you understand the words I am telling you. Do you know how you understand, for example, the word “convenient”?

Woman: Physically.

So, you understand the word physically. With this word, you feel that certain changes are happening inside your body. These changes come from the associations that arise within you when you hear the word “comfortable.”

She felt that she understood the word "comfortable" through internal changes in her body. Have any of you noticed how he understands this word? Perhaps some of you have visual images of yourself in a comfortable position - in a hammock or in the grass in the sun.

Or you hear sounds that you associate with this word:

the murmur of a stream or the sound of pine trees.

To understand what I am telling you, you must take words that are just arbitrary designations for parts of your personal experience, and open access to their meanings, i.e., some meanings of the word "comfortable." This is our simple understanding of how language functions. We call this process transdesiration search.

Words are triggers that evoke certain experiences in our minds and not others.

There are seventy words for snow in the Eskimo language. Does this mean that the Eskimos have a different sensory apparatus? No. I believe that language is the concentrated wisdom of people. Among the infinite number of elements of sensory experience, language selects what is repeated in the experience of the people who create the language, and what they consider necessary. Using 70 words to represent the word “snow” makes sense given the types of activities they carry out. For them, survival itself is tied to snow, and so they make very subtle distinctions. Skiers also have many words for types of snow.

O. Huxley in his book “The Doors of Perception” notes that by learning a language, a person becomes the heir to the wisdom of all those people who lived before him. But he, this person, also becomes a victim in a certain sense of the word: of the entire immeasurable variety of internal experience, only some of its elements receive a name and therefore attract a person’s attention. Other, no less important, and perhaps more dramatic and useful elements of experience, being unnamed, usually remain at the sensory level, without intruding into consciousness.

Between the first and second reflection of experience there is usually

divergence. Experience and the way of presenting this experience to oneself

to a person, these are two different things. One of the most mediated

ways of representing experience is to reflect it using words. If

I will say “On the table that stands here there is a glass, half full.”

filled with water,” then I will offer you a series of words, arbitrary

characters. You may agree or disagree with my

statement, since in this case I am appealing to your

sensory experience.

If I use words that do not have direct referents in sensory experience (although you have a program that allows you to require from me other words that are closer to sensory experience), then the only thing left for you if you want to understand what I am saying is - is to resort to your past experience, finding referents in it.

Your experience matches mine to the extent that we share the same culture with its basic premises. The words must be consistent with the model of the world that your interlocutor has. The word "contact" has a completely different meaning for a person from the ghetto, a member of the middle class, and for a representative of one of the hundred families belonging to the ruling elite. There is an illusion that people can understand each other, although words always correspond to different elements of experience for each person, hence the difference in their meaning.

I believe that a psychotherapist should behave in such a way that the client creates the illusion that you understand what he is saying. But I want to warn you against this illusion.

Many of you, when meeting a client for the first time, already have some intuitive impressions about him. Perhaps there is a client for you about whom you know at first glance that the psychotherapeutic process here will be very difficult, that it will take a very long time before you can help him make the choice that he strives for, although you are still completely clueless you don’t know what this choice is. At first glance, you get a completely different impression about other clients - you know that it will be interesting to work with them and you will try to satisfy yourself in your work. You anticipate excitement and adventure as you explore new ways of behaving with them. How many of you have had a similar feeling? I'll ask you here. Do you know when you have an experience like this?

Woman: Yes.

What is this experience? Let me help you. Start by listening to my questions. The question I will ask you is one of those questions that I want to teach you all to ask. Here it is: “How do you know that you are feeling an instinctive hunch” (the woman looks left and up). Yes, that's how you find out about it. She didn't say anything, that's what's interesting. She experienced the answer to the question I asked non-verbally. This process is similar to the process that occurs when we experience an intuitive insight. This was the answer to my question.

What you can take away from our seminar is at least this: you will receive answers to our questions to the extent that your sensory apparatus is tuned to notice the answers. The verbal or conscious part of the response is rarely relevant.

Let's now go back and recite the question again. How do you know when you are experiencing a gut feeling?

Woman: Well, maybe I should go back to the previous dialogue. I tried to put the answer into some form. This was a symbol for me.

What symbol? Was it something you saw, heard or felt?

Woman: I kind of saw it in my head...

Richard Bandler is a PR master.

Video of the work and biography of one of the founders of NLP, Richard Bandler.

If you get acquainted with the life of the founder NLP, then the question arises, what is more interesting is the teaching itself or Bandler’s biography! Read, watch videos and articles and learn from the master.

Biography. Richard Bandler is an American writer and co-author (with John Grinder) of neurolinguistic programming.

He received a bachelor's degree in philosophy and psychology from the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1973, and a master's degree in psychology from Lone Mountain College in San Francisco in 1975. Does not have a doctorate.

History of the creation of NLP

Bandler met John Grinder (the second founder of NLP) while a student at the University of Santa Cruz. Soon after, they met Gregory Bateson, who had a significant influence on the development of NLP, firstly by providing the philosophical basis for it and, secondly, by introducing its creators to Milton Erickson. Bandler's behavior earned him a negative reputation among his neighbors. His antisocial behavior and addiction to cocaine became widely known. 1974 marked the peak of Bandler and Grinder's collaboration to create models of language patterns used by Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls and later Milton Erickson. The result was the books “The Structure of Magic” volume 1-2 (1975, 1976), “Milton Erickson's Hypnotic Technique Templates” volume 1-2 (1975, 1977) and “Changing with Families” (1976). In 1980, Bandler's company, Not Limited, earned more than $800,000, and Bandler and his wife, Leslie Cameron-Bendler, were thriving. By the end of 1980, the collaboration between Bandler and Grinder (they lectured together, conducted trainings, wrote books) unexpectedly ended, and his wife filed for divorce.

Corina Kristen case

Paula Bandler, Richard Bandler's second wife, died in Orlando, Florida on February 27, 2004.

Trial with John Grinder.

In 1996, one of the founding fathers of NLP and the “great communicator” (as he considered himself) Richard Bandler sued another founding father of NLP, John Grinder, and a number of other NLP trainers in an American court, accusing them of misappropriating his intellectual property - NLP and demanding compensation, we quote: “in an amount determined by the court, in no case less than 10 million dollars from each.” In 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled: “R. Bandler misled the public, through the licensing agreement and promotional material, by claiming to be the sole owner of NLP intellectual property and the only person entitled to determine membership in the NLP community." A little later, Bandler lost a similar case in the UK and was forced to declare bankruptcy in July 2000. The same story in detail and with links is in the English version of Wiki; in the Russian version all the facts are omitted.

P.S. Richard, despite all his efforts, could not cope with hypnosis, apparently it was not possible. Typical Bandler performance. The topic of the technique of quickly immersing in a trance is stated. It seems that everything is clear, there must be hypnosis. But no! Richard, already at the zenith of his fame, tries to hypnotize volunteers from the audience. It looks fun, but it doesn’t smell like hypnosis. Among the people on stage, the reactions of the dark-skinned girls clearly indicate that something is going wrong. We must give Bandler credit, without immersing anyone, he continues to make the audience laugh. This is talent!

PREFACE

When I first became acquainted with neuro-linguistic programming, I was simply fascinated, but at the same time very skeptical. At that time, I firmly believed that personal development was slow, difficult and painful. I could hardly believe that I could cure a phobia and other similar mental disorders in a short time - less than an hour, even though I had done it many times and found that the results were lasting. Everything you will find in this book is presented simply and clearly and can be easily verified in your own experience. There are no tricks here and you are not required to convert to a new faith. All that is required of you is to move away somewhat from your own beliefs, setting them aside for the time necessary to test the concepts and procedures of NLP in your own sensory experience. It won't take long - most of our statements can be verified in a few minutes or a few hours. If you are skeptical, as I was at one time, then it is thanks to your skepticism that you will check our statements in order to understand that the method still solves the complex problems for which it is intended.

Here are some of the things you can learn to do:

1. Cure phobias and other unpleasant sensations in less than an hour.

2. Help children and adults with learning disabilities overcome their respective limitations – often in less than an hour.

3. Eliminate unwanted habits - smoking, drinking, overeating, insomnia - in several sessions.

4. Make changes in the interactions that take place in couples, families and organizations so that they function more productively.

5. Heal somatic diseases (and not only those that are considered “psychosomatic”) in several sessions.

Thus, NLP has many claims, but experienced practitioners using this method realize these claims, achieving tangible results. NLP in its current state can do a lot, faster, but not everything.

NLP is only 4 years old, and the most valuable discoveries have been made in the last year or two.

In a sense, the achievements of NLP are not new, there have always been “spontaneous remissions”, “unexplained cures”, and there have always been people who have been able to use their abilities in extraordinary ways. English thrushes had immunity to smallpox long before Jenner invented his vaccine; Currently, smallpox, which claimed thousands of lives every year, has disappeared from the face of the earth. Likewise, NLP can eliminate many of the difficulties and dangers of present lives and make learning and behavior modification an easier, more productive and exciting process. Thus, we are on the threshold of a quantum leap in the development of experience and abilities.

What's really new about NLP is that it gives you the ability to know exactly what to do and have an idea of how to do it.

John O. Stevens

REFERENCE

In its origins, neuro-linguistic programming developed on the basis of the study of reality by V. Satir, M. Erikson, F. Perls and other psychotherapeutic “luminaries”.

This book is an edited transcript of an introductory NLP training course conducted by R. Bandler and D. Grinder. This course was conducted in January 1978. Some of the materials were taken from tape recordings of other seminars.

Richard Bandler - Use your brain for change

Richard Bandler. Use your brain for change
So, we bring to your attention the translation of another book on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. This time - a solo by Richard Bandler, who, together with John Grinder, heads this relatively new (about twenty years old) direction in practical psychology.

Richard Bandler, John Grinder - Inducing Trance

The topic of our classes is hypnosis. We could immediately start a debate about whether there is such a thing at all, and if there is, then in what sense it should be understood. But since you paid the money and came here for the hypnosis seminar, I won’t argue about it.

Richard Bandler, John Grinder - Reframing - personality orientation using speech strategies

You've already learned the six-step reframing model. In this model, you connect to a part of the psyche, determine its positive purpose, and then create three alternative behaviors that satisfy that purpose. This is an excellent model for all sorts of purposes, working in a wide variety of cases.

Richard Bandler - DHE Seminar

I also know very well that there are cameras everywhere in the White House. I know the guys who work there in the security service. Don't forget that I worked for these people at one time. And I have to tell you, it's quite unpleasant. In the end, they got this message from me: “You can’t allow me access to classified materials because I tell everyone everything.” For example, well...

Richard Bandler, John Wall - Creating Beliefs

In this book, based on Bandler's practical seminars, the founder of neuro-linguistic programming talks about the art of trading. NLP as a way of life allows you to become a successful salesperson who offers every client exactly what they need.

Biography of Richard Wayne Bandler (Richard Wayne Bandler)

Richard Wayne Bandler was born in New Jersey on February 24, 1950. A couple of years later, the Bandler family moved to California, where Richard lived in San Jose, in one of its poorest parts.

By the mid-60s, Bandler was an active member of the hippies, known for their protests, and participated in a number of major rock concerts.

The talented Fremont High School student was noticed by Robert Spitzer's wife, Becky. Spitzer at that time was a reputable psychiatrist and president of the publishing house Sciens & Behavior Books. Subsequently, the Spitzers supported Bandler’s abilities in every possible way, and then he was involved in work in the publishing house, where, in particular, he prepared video and tape recordings for therapeutic seminars.

Richard Bandler began his academic career with two years of study at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills. Spitzer reports that Bandler was extremely intransigent and did not agree to compromise, often driving teachers to despair.

After graduating from college, Richard Bandler entered the University of California, Santa Cruz. The Spitzers by that time owned land near Santa Cruz, on which they allowed Bandler to build a house, where Richard lived for some time.

Over time, Richard Bandler's special interests included the sciences that study human behavior. He devotes time to the latest methods of therapy, Rolfing, and family therapy.

In the spring of 1972, Richard Bandler organized courses on the practice of Gestalt therapy. At first, he led the groups himself, later John Grinder joined the process, whom Bandler introduced to the features of the therapeutic process, so that after two months Grinder was ready to lead the groups on his own.

Bandler's and Grinder's experimentally oriented groups became an integral part of activity in Santa Cruz. The personality of Richard Bandler became the basis for the high popularity of these groups.

Richard Bandler meets Virginia Satir, founder of Whole Family Therapy. From 1972 to 1974, Richard Bandler took an active part in Virginia Satir's training sessions, being responsible for audio and video recording. Virginia's therapeutic knowledge greatly delighted Richard, and he introduced her methods of work to his groups.

In 1974, Bandler and Grinder began implementing the Meta Model project, which became the basis of neurolinguistic programming. There are a number of permanent participants in the project, each of whom later became a well-known figure in NLP.

The collaboration between Richard Bandler and John Grinder peaked in 1974. Scientists are aimed at developing models of language patterns, the result of which is the books “The Structure of Magic”, “Patterns of Milton Erickson’s Hypnotic Techniques”, “Changing Together with Families”.

In 1980, Richard Bandler's company, Not Limited, earned more than $800,000, and Richard and his wife, Leslie Cameron-Bendler, were thriving. However, the collaboration between Bandler and Grinder, as well as Richard's marriage, unexpectedly ended at the end of 1980. Leslie Cameron-Bandler alleged that Richard was verbally and physically abusive. By 1983, Not Limited declared bankruptcy.

Richard Bandler continues to use cocaine and alcohol in monstrous quantities; in 1986, he was accused of murdering Corny Kristen, a prostitute. At the trial, Richard Bandler skillfully copies the voice, gestures, and facial expressions of another suspect, James Marino, as a result, the court, not being able to determine the culprit, frees both.

In 1996, Richard Bandler sued Grinder and some other members of the NLP community, accusing them of misappropriating his intellectual property - NLP, claiming very impressive compensation. However, in 2000, by a decision of the US Supreme Court, Richard Bandler's claim was rejected with reasons. Bandler loses a similar trial in the UK and declares himself bankrupt in July 2000.

Bandler's rapprochement with Grinder began towards the end of 2000. In their joint statement, they acknowledge the co-authorship of neurolinguistic programming technology and their mutual contribution to the development of NLP.

These days, Richard Bandler lectures, continues to consult, and writes books on NLP. His main work is the development of the concept of submodalities. Bandler independently developed such technologies as Neuro-Hypnotic Repatterning, Neuro-Sonics, Design Human Engineering, Persuasion Engineering. Their meaning is the subject of ongoing debate among NLP practitioners and students.

Currently, Richard Bandler is collaborating with John LaValley, Michael Breen and Paul McCana, a variety hypnotist.