John Grinder, what's wrong with him? Debunking his BS on NLP & modelling. 

Do you also have a reason for your opinion, or do you just not like it?

@@JoostvanderLeij23 Your presentation is factually inaccurate to the core, your definition of the Meta Model only accounts for the deletions and one of the generalisations, you can work out which one, hopefully you will get a better understanding of the syntactic categories in the Meta Model and their functions. I could offer a lot more 'descriptive' feedback on the factual inaccuracies in your presentation. Based on your mind read in your response to me, I am unsure if you are familiar with descriptive feedback, I have not seen any evidence in your communication, verbal or written, yet that is descriptive and provides evidence for your claims

@@michaelcarroll8619 Okay, I take that as "no reason at all".

@@JoostvanderLeij23 you have taken it incorrectly then. The basis of my original post is to bring to the viewers' attention your video is full of factual inaccuracies and your knowledge is so poorly formed you are incapable of proving an accurate definition of the Meta Model, which was NLP's first model. Please provide your evidence to support your claim John Grinder is not a co -creator of NLP.

@@michaelcarroll8619 Yes, you say that the video is wrong, but you refuse that why it is wrong. That makes it an empty phrase. Did you watch the whole video by now or are you still judging based on the first 12 minutes? And you are clueless about what counts as a good reason. You ask me to prove a negative which is impossible. So if you look at modern NLP you can see that everything that John Grinder once brought to NLP has been erased as it turned out to be valueless and without merrit.

In my experience Richard Bandler is really quiet about what NLP is or what you can do with it. He rather talks about the people he worked with. Which some people think is over the top, I give you that.

Rumor has it that Grinder always asks an assistant to do any real demonstration.

that Grinder's claims are bs:- that we can all be peak geniuses by modelling. I have never heard of anyone becoming a peak performer through NLP

@@silentjellybean ok but he still teaches NLP on this channel - so what's his message? That NLP is useless?

@@mistahac I don't think it's use and can help people foster changes in their behaviour, perhaps in part through their wishful thinking. like 'I paid a lot of money, therefore this must have worked.'

Just John Grinder's claims. NLP is still very valuable if done correctly. For a free online NLP Practitioner where NLP is taught correctly, see: influence.amsterdam/2021/07/11/free-online-abc-nlp-practitioner/

@@mistahac NLP still works wonderful if one leaves out the BS. I teach it at the VU-university in Amsterdam and the Erasmus university in Rotterdam.

Do you have any arguments to state that John Grinder is the co-founder of NLP? So what is his definition of NLP? NLP techniques aren't produced by modelling.

​@@JoostvanderLeij23 Sure... First of all Richard Bandler acknoweledges John as the co-creator of NLP. Bandler and Grinder are the original co-creators of NLP. They regularly acknowledge each other as such. WIth regards to John's definition of NLP you can do a thorough search of the NLP academy website or youtube channel. Lastly modelling is the core activity of NLP that produced the techniques practitioners and coaches use today. The phobia process was modeled from people who naturally got over phobias. Anchoring was modeled from Milton. As NLP training has become diluted over time people have mistaken the techniques for the core activity. And this mistake has profound consequences for the field and for clients of NLP practitioners. Beginner practitioners can achieve great results applying techniques but advanced practitioners MODEL their clients issue sufficently to create custom intervention for each client. And while ill -informed trainers of NLP mistake the techniques for the technology the field does not continue to innovate and grow. Lastly, I want to apologize for saying that "this is the worst video I've seen on NLP." I don't think that comment was constructive.

@@perschan You are quite wrong. Acknowledging each other as co-creator is the result of a lawsuit. It doens't bind anyone else than the parties involved. The video is called "define NLP" for peet sake. Modelling created NLP, but NLP wasn't developed using NLP which of course is also impossible. If you had any real life experience with NLP you would know that nobody in the field models anything. If you disagree please point me to a model build with NLP in this century. Same goes for your claim of advanced practitioners who model. Point me to data that that works. Here is lots of data that NLP works very differently than you suggest: nlpprotoscience.org/ Apologies accepted. I took it as hyperbole. If one dishes out, one also need to take a punch or two.

Joost van der Leij Please present your evidence to support your claim John Grinder is not a co -creator of NLP.

@@michaelcarroll8619 You cannot prove a negative so it is fallacious to ask someone to do so. Of course John Grinder was part of the first things Richard Bandler did that led to the development of NLP. But, as is explained in the video, whatever John Grinder's contribution were in the 70s, they are no longer part of modern day NLP. If you disagree, let me know which parts of modern day NLP are directly contributed by John Grinder.

And why would this be a Fact?

lol @@JoostvanderLeij23