| |
| |
| |
| |
This is the end of the Anchor Point article and responses.
I had originally submitted a response to Bolstad and Hall's responses which the editor decided not to publish. When I requested an opportunity to respond in a subsequent issue, the editor refused. Below is my response to Bolstad and Hall.
- S.A.
The two responses to my article beautifully exemplify and confirm many of the major points that I made in my article.
Bolstad's response is a“both/and” response, directed toward what I had written, agreeing with some sections, disagreeing with others, and giving specific contextualized examples and reasons for his views. This is the kind of respectful exchange that exemplifies a cooperative search for a broader and deeper understanding, and it is the kind of dialogue that I said was desperately needed and lacking in NLP.
In contrast, Hall's response is a digital, either/or response—he is right and I am wrong. The only argument that he provides to explain this difference of opinion is that what he really does is very different from what he has written in three different books that I referred to, and what I observed in a videotaped demonstration. I have since found essentially the same description of the “Meta-Yes/Meta-No” pattern in three more of Hall's books.
Hall states that I have “never attended a Neuro Semantic training,” as if that were a reason to dismiss my comments about his writing and a videotaped demonstration. In fact I have watched videotapes of an entire weekend training by Hall (which included the Meta-Yes/Meta-No demonstration that I referred to). I have also attended a demonstration by Hall of his “Mind to Muscle” pattern (which was equally underwhelming).
However, since all my comments were about his written descriptions (and a videotaped demonstration), what he says or does elsewhere is totally irrelevant. If Hall will provide me with a videotape of what he really does, I will be happy to find the time to review it.
Writing that what he really does in seminars is very different from what he has written in six different books is a very curious argument, one that casts a long, dark shadow over all his writing!
In addition, there are some serious contradictions in what he has written in response. In Paragraph (P) 2 he writes, “before we begin, we check the ecology of a limiting belief to make sure it is not (sic) toxic and not (sic) sabotaging.” Presumably Hall meant to describe what he does with a new empowering belief, rather than a limiting belief. This could be dismissed as a simple error, but for other, much more significant contradictions.
In P 6, Hall writes, “And in this pattern, there is a digital shift of either/or processing that we're working with.” However, in P 10 he writes, “The assertion that the process is digital is another misunderstanding. It is an analog process.”
Either it is an analog process or it is not, but Hall does not notice this contradiction. There are five other indications that Hall does not read and review what he has written, indicated by a (sic) in P 1, 5, & 9.
In P 9, Hall writes, “When the Meta-No or the Meta-Yes is referred to as being used “out of context,” it again shows that it is not understand (sic) in regards to the basic meta-stating process.” However, in the next sentence, he writes, “It is in that process that we take a thought, feeling, or physiology of a state, or a piece of that state, access it, amplify it, and then apply it into a different context,” which certainly is a description of using the Meta-No out of its original context.
It can be useful to transfer an analog resource experience from one context to another, as in the “change personal history” pattern (but only if it is done with careful attention to ecology/congruence). It is very different to attempt to do this with a digital Meta-Yes or No, which is at a higher logical level, as Hall indicates by using the word “Meta-.” However, in P 5, he describes these states as “primary,” while as “Meta” states, they have to be secondary.
Taken together, these errors and contradictions indicate that Hall simply does not carefully read and review what he has written, something that is characteristic of much of his other writing as well. (As a further irony, Hall teaches workshops in “Prolific Writing.”) It is interesting to speculate to what extent this lack of feedback also applies to his spoken words.
For yet another extensive example of Hall's confusion and lack of attention to detail, read my critique of of his article on the “kinesthetic swish.”
In P 2 Hall writes, “All (emphasis mine) the ecology is in the preparation step, is instructed in regard to this pattern.” I have already commented in my article that Hall's written descriptions of this first step are severely lacking in ecology, and this was also true in the videotaped example that I reviewed. The client demonstrated a lot of hesitation in both movement and speech as well as other nonverbal incongruities, which is inherent in the use of the “neurological No” (and Yes), as I have already written.
In addition, ecology/congruence is not something that can be done in one beginning step and then ignored. Like rapport, it must be continually checked and maintained throughout a process, and the best check is incongruity in the client's nonverbal behavior.
In P 6, Hall mentions two other topics: “the meta-levels of a belief, and how that differs from a mere thought,” and “eight kinds of negations,” but since Hall doesn't say anything about how these topics are relevant to any part of my article, it is impossible to respond to them intelligently.
In the same P 6, Hall writes of “the digital shift of either/or processing in Steve's Thresholding pattern.” There are several different threshold patterns, but none of them are mine; Probably Hall is referring to Richard Bandler's “Last Straw Threshold Pattern.” (1, ch. 6) Threshold patterns are indeed digital, and because of this they must be used with great care and caution.
In P 4, Hall mentions “the Bateson and Korzybski distinctions about logical levels or types.” Although he again does not say how that is relevant to any part of my article, I would like to comment on it. The “Theory of Types” was introduced by Whitehead and Russell (4) almost a hundred years ago, and has been used more recently by Bateson, Dilts, Hall, and others as a foundation for understanding human communication. G. Spencer Brown proved this theory unnecessary, to Russell's satisfaction in 1967, well over 35 years ago, yet many still use this outdated theory as a basis for their conclusions.
“The theory was, he (Russell) said, the most arbitrary thing he and Whitehead had ever had to do, not really a theory but a stopgap, and he was glad to have lived long enough to see the matter resolved.” (3)
Russell's pleasure at having a key theory of his corrected is a beautiful example of the scientific attitude that puts truth first, and ego last.
Hall's response consists almost entirely of negations of what I wrote (I count 30 of them), rather than positive alternative statements. In P 5, there is a sentence with three negations: “That a video may exist where it appears sufficient time was not spent doing that with a given person does not mean that we do not emphasize ecology.” For those who are familiar with the importance of positive outcomes and statements, it will be obvious that this statement is meaningless, since it doesn't say what it does mean, only what it doesn't.
Finally, most of Hall's responses are not directed at the substance of what I wrote, but are directed toward me, personally, and my “misunderstanding” in particular. Hall repeatedly refers to my “misrepresentations,” (P 1, 2) “(not) understand,” and “lack of understand” (sic) (P 1) “does not seem to know or realize,” (P 4) “Without an understanding,” P 7 “mis-understood, and mis-perceived thoroughly,” (P 7) “it is not understand,” (sic) (P 9) “another misunderstanding,” and (P 10) “lack of understanding.” (P 11) It is as if he thinks that if he repeats this allegation often enough it will become true, even without any supporting evidence.
It is one thing to disagree with what someone writes; it is quite another to accuse someone of “misrepresentation,” diverting attention from the real issues. While Hall accuses me of misrepresenting, mis-understanding, and mis-perceiving his work, he doesn't present specific counter-arguments or alternative understandings which could be the basis of a productive discussion.
In P 1 Hall also attacks my motives, “Mr Andreas wants to find fault with Meta-States.” I do not “want to find fault” with anyone; I want to advance understanding in the field of NLP. This accusation is a further diversion from the real issues.
In P 11 Hall goes on to write, “This does not represent an honest seeking first to understand before critiquing.” When someone disagrees with me, I can ask for more information, so that we can come to some kind of mutual understanding, but when someone calls me dishonest, that is totally beyond any legitimate discussion of issues.
To summarize, Hall accuses me of misrepresentation, wanting to find fault, and dishonesty. Over 2,000 years ago the Romans described in detail quite a variety of fallacious arguments; one of the most well-known is Argumentum ad Hominem, “argument directed at the man,” which is described in detail on the following link:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#homine
I sent this link to Hall in a previous email communication in regard to my original article, but apparently he did not find it compelling.
Personal attacks are exactly the kind of irrelevant argument that distracts from the serious practical and theoretical issues facing NLP, and prevents the exploration and resolution of the differences in understanding that different people have.
I repeat my plea for an open, vigorous, and respectful dialogue about the theory and practice of NLP, separate from personalities, so that the “field” can take its first awkward steps toward becoming a respected branch of science.
| |
| |
| |
|
|
