Heidi Heron

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: nlp …mobbing etc #578
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply by Joe Cheal)

    This is excellent. Thanks Peter for bringing this to our attention (Melody and I were speaking about this topic only today!).

    Also congrats to Catalin, Melita and yourself for getting this published.

    Cheers,

    Joe.

    Joe Cheal.

    in reply to: No NLP in NLP Research and Recognition Project #574
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply from Bruce Grimley)

    Hi Lisa,

    Thank you for your email. I think the challenges the R&R program have had in this respect are really significant for the NLP community. It is something I found emerging in my research, that is the tendency for Gatekeepers to pay attention to the letters NLP and not the quality of work being presented and in doing so don a set of negative filters and reject much work associated with “NLP” preventing the credibility we would like in tertiary education and beyond. It seems to me it could be argued the work the R&R is doing and the strict adherence to research protocols could be deemed to have more in common with excellent clinical psychology practice than what has traditionally passed for NLP.

    I personally think being able to standardise a set of procedures, (Pattern), within a context and produce material to support the operationalisation and implementation….and finally to demonstrate the way forward supported by the research findings which emerge in appropriate peer reviewed journals would be a good way to go. However I fully appreciate many would say this is not NLP…..but Psychology.

    I personally think this situation raises a really interesting set of challenges which we need to address. I am waiting for a peer reviewed paper to be processed, however this really does take an age ( sometimes over a year in my experience) and I can appreciate the frustration this must cause when NLP practitioners see the evidence and experience it first hand on a regular basis……but I would suggest the two ideas; immediate experience and peer reviewed research are not mutually exclusive.

    With very best wishes for continued success,

    Bruce 

    Dr Bruce Grimley. B.Sc (Hons). M.Sc. Ph.D. Chartered Psychologist.
    Accredited Master Executive Coach.
    Master trainer in NLP.
    C.Psychol. AFBPsS. HCPC registered.

    in reply to: Standards of Training #572
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply and attachment from Jaap Hollander)

    Hi Anneke

    For the NLP-LS voting project we amassed a list of NLP-models and techniques.
    Maybe you can use that too. Standards will probably have a list.
    See attachement.

    Love
    Jaap

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Standards of Training #571
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply by Anneke Durlinger)

    Hi everybody

    At the Leadershipsummit we have taken the initiative to generate an overview of all the standards/curricula set by the different associations.

    This overview will offer transparency to all leadership summit members and can be subject of discussion in the next summit.

    It will also offer transparency to the next generation of NLP trainers, who want to engage themselves with an association, to check which standard complies with their own criteria and values.

    And the transparency will also inform all persons who want to follow a NLP training to get information about the different standards.

    I am waiting for the information of the different leadership members who committed themselves to deliver this information. (so this may be a kind remembering 🙂 )

    I will keep you posted.
    Happy greetings

    > And you know what: I am still very grateful for all that NLP has
    > brought me over the last thirty years, how I can utilize it for
    > myself and facilitate individuals and groups to create a more
    > ecological sound world, within the person and thus in the world
    > surrounding him/her.

    Anneke Durlinger

    in reply to: Standards of Training #570
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply from Lisa de Rijk)

    HI Hugh
    These are interesting thoughts.
    My emails earlier have picked up on some of this and I would like to address the hours issue here.
    For me it is about content, standards of training, standards of assessment, supervision and scope of practice both while in training and post training.
    As a leadership group it was clear at the summit that we can’t monitor or police the entire field, what we can do is be examplars.
    There is some work being done on curricula, but not standards per se. Does anyone want to take that on????
    Lisa

    Lisa de Rijk

    in reply to: Standards of Training #569
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply from Lisa de Rijk )

    Hi Anneke
    I think it would be worth considering standards and curricula separately.

    For example, one can teach basic anchoring, stacking, chaining, collapse in 30 mins to 1 hour. Would this cover theoretical underpinning, history, operant vs classic conditioning, neurological pathways, parasympathetic vs sympathetic arousal, scope of practice, which conditions is it unsafe to use for etc.

    I once did a 4 hour workshop at the NLP conference on anchoring and operant conditioning and then only briefly touched the surface.

    Curricula for a business audience would be different than for a therapeutic audience. So application would want to be considered.

    Standards then is about competence. How competent is a person in utilising anchoring in a given context and how do we measure that?
    I hope this helps deliberations.
    Best wishes in this exciting discussion
    Lisa

    Lisa de Rijk

    in reply to: Standards of Training #568
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply from Anneke Durlinger)

    Hi everybody

    At the Leadershipsummit we have taken the initiative to generate an overview of all the standards/curricula set by the different associations.
    This overview will offer transparency to all leadership summit members and can be subject of discussion in the next summit.

    It will also offer transparency to the next generation of NLP trainers, who want to engage themselves with an association, to check which standard complies with their own criteria and values. And the transparency will also inform all persons who want to follow a NLP training to get information about the different standards.

    I am waiting for the information of the different leadership members who committed themselves to deliver this information. (so this may be a kind remembering 🙂 )

    I will keep you posted.

    Happy greetings

    And you know what: I am still very grateful for all that NLP has brought me over the last thirty years, how I can utilize it for myself and facilitate individuals and groups to create a more ecological sound world, within the person and thus in the world surrounding him/her.

    Anneke Durlinger

    in reply to: Standards of Training #567
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply from Lisa de Rijk)

    HI Marcel
    It is good to hear this, and as you say this accesses those wanting rigour and quality.
    Lisa

    in reply to: Standards of Training #566
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply from Marcel Genestar)

    Dear colleagues:

    I share my experience in Spain.

    We are the only school that offers certification in NLP double accreditation (AEPNL, ie, the Spanish association, and IANLP).

    Indeed, this election causes many people interested in a short and cheap course, reject our proposal. But at the same time, it is positioning us as the most prestigious school in this field. And it allows us access to another type of customer: people seeking rigor and quality.

    It is the price we need to pay.

    As communicated to Michael a few months ago, unfortunately I did not attend the meeting in London. Good job.

    Best regards

    Marcel Genestar
    http://www.pnlplus.es

    in reply to: Standards of Training #565
    Heidi Heron
    Keymaster

    (reply from Hugh Comerford)

    With regards to Lisa’s question of ‘are we brave enough’…on the one hand, ethically and morally, I don’t believe we really have any choice – we HAVE to address the issue because our credibility has been damaged for decades because it either wasn’t addressed or at least not to the point where it had impact. And of course on the other hand, we simply accept that the lack of adherence to proper training standards is one very strong reason the field has little credibility and stop complaining about it.

    Let’s be honest – Wikipedia has done an excellent job of discrediting the field and NLP ‘Certification’ trainings that are objectively sub-standard have absolutely done the same thing. I’ve mentioned this before to this group – I’ve had people take competitor’s (very expensive) trainings (to Master Prac level) then came to me saying they didn’t know what they were doing and could I help. What is the impact on the field of an inept practitioner? I would say it’s enormous but only becomes visible when people slam NLP as a modality because of their personal experience….and then people like us may try to fix the problem created by colleagues who don’t seem to care much beyond sales and marketing.

    (I have stories of a local trainer browbeating people into giving their credit card details using absolutely shitty NLP manipulative techniques for their short, overprices course)

    In my (perhaps very isolated) case I bought the company that trained me and with it came a 12-day course curriculum which, over the years, I have deliberately expanded to 20 days specifically for this reason; to address credibility in the market and in the greater world. Make no mistake, it hurts me financially because I lose people to the shorter courses…but that’s because I’m quite alone in this. At least in Canada…but also in a large chunk of the USA from what I can tell.

    What we can do as individuals and as a group is to commit to provide excellent Certification trainings which meet or exceed the generally accepted standards, market toward that distinction and importantly then resist the market pressure and temptation to cut down on the quantity/quality of the offerings.

    I understand there was a group at the Summit very interested in INCREASING the standards of the field.

    In that vein, here’s a provocative suggestion: If everyone in THIS group adapted their curriculum to properly meet the 120 hour minimum for Practitioner (as well as all the other standards), or to a standard we can all agree to conform to, we would collectively be making a very strong statement and taking a definite step toward credibility for the field.

    It is a statement that I personally feel needs to be made. To paraphrase Dilts, we need to become the type of group we aspire in our best selves to belong to.

    Best,

    Hugh

Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 38 total)