Free for AllAccording to a website which advertises a later (and renamed) edition of Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religions (dealt with here): DAVID V BARRETT has been a teacher of Religious Studies and English, a computer programmer and intelligence analyst for the British and American governments, and a journalist. He has been a full-time freelance writer since 1991. As an author he now researches and writes mainly on religious and esoteric subjects. In 1997 he began working on a PhD in Sociology at the London School of Economics, studying new religious movements. But although Barrett could not have had a Ph.D in the relevant area when his book was first published, at least one academic - see The Mystic Sociologist - was apparently so impressed by Barrett's work that he included an abbreviated but otherwise very lightly edited version of Barrett's article on NLP into his own book on Alternative Religions. Which is how Barrett ended up on a FAQ about academics. (Note: According to the author's details at the front of a much more recent book - A Brief History of Secret Societies (Robinson Publishing, London:2007) - makes no mention of any Ph.D.) Misleading AssumptionsAssumption No. 1Barrett's article (about 2 pages long), starts with two rather vague assertions that: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is an approach rather than an organization; it is used by several different human potential movements." It seems like a straightforward opening, but what does it mean? What does Barrett mean by "an approach." And what is it he thinks NLP is an "approach" to? We might also ask what point there is to the comment that: "it is used by several different human potential movements"? The reason for NLP's inclusion here is twofold. First, several movements which have a spiritual element, such as Insight (see p. 239) openly use NLP techniques and have NLP Masters among their leaders." Impressive, huh? Until you realise that this is nothing but a rather tacky smear tactic. Or perhaps a carry over from his involvement with science fiction? Does Barrett know of some reason why anyone should not "openly use NLP techniques"? Why does he use the pulp fiction-like phrase "[they] have NLP Masters among their leaders" rather than the simple and straightforward statement: "Some of their leaders have taken the NLP "Master Practitioner" training? Does he know so little about NLP that he doesn't understand that having an NLP Master Practitioner certificate simply means that the holder has been on a certain course? And when he says that "[NLP] is used", does he mean that these other groups use the NLP modelling process, or one or more of the NLP-related techniques and/or one or more of the NLP-related applications? And whichever he means, is he claiming that they are used on their own, or in conjunction with other techniques and processes? Because to quote leading NLP trainer John LaValle, NLP plus anything else is not NLP. In fact, from Barrett's comments in his article on Insight, he obviously thinks that: "Insight draws on a number of different approaches, including Gestalt, Core System Psychology and Neurolinguistic Programming" (Barrett, p. 239). Which raises the rather obvious question: Which is rather strange. Because if one of Barrett's two reasons for including NLP in his book is that: ... several movements which have a spiritual element, such as Insight (see p. 239) openly use NLP techniques ... Then why aren't Gestalt and Core System Psychology included in Barrett's book? Because they aren't? NLP is what NLP is, in just the same way that a hammer is a hammer. Assumption No. 2Barrett's second assumption is equally untenable. As he says in his first paragraph: "The information here was provided by John Seymour Associates, who offer NLP consulting and training, mainly in London and Bristol." This is where the inadequacy of Barrett's approach really shines through. We don't even know if he actually spoke to anyone at John Seymour Associates (JSA). Given his lack of informed knowledge of NLP it seems quite possible that Barrett has merely read one or two of the company's brochures. Plus he has dredged a few quotes from the first edition (1990) of O'Connor and Seymour's book Introducing NLP (see p. 312. Not surprisingly, then, Barrett's article really isn't worth the paper it's printed on as an accurate portrayal of anything outside of a single UK training company. Assumption No. 3Barrett's third assumption is a typical example of a transderivational lock-out, that is to say, the assumption that words only have one meaning - YOUR meaning. Thus Barrett tells us that his second "reason" for including NLP in his book is because: ... although it should be stressed once again that NLP itself is a process, a set of techniques [sic], a methodology, and not a religious movement or even a religious belief system, its function is similar to that of a religion, particularly many of the 'alternative' religions covered in this book." It turns out that Barrett is an arch-offender when it comes to the "is of identification" error described by Alfred "the map is not the territory" Korzybski - which seems to lie at the root of his view of the world. That is to say, Barrett seems unable, or at least unwilling, to recognize that "superficially similar to" isn't generally taken to be synonymous with "the same as" except in the case of unrational reasoning. Anyway, Barrett continues, presumably as an explanation of the above claim by quoting from Introducing NLP: "'NLP offers specific and practical ways of making desired changes in our own and other' behaviour. It is about what works.'&bbsp; Similar sentiments can be found in many of the Esoteric religious movements, both those within the Western Mystery Tradition and those that follow a more Eastern path, such as the School of Economic Science and the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky offshoots. So there you go - Barrett thinks he recognizes "similar sentiments" - though he is careful to avioid giving any concrete examples of the allegedly "similar" functions or sentiments, so we really have no idea whether his claims have any basis whatever. Nevertheless he then goes on to present the "similarities as facts and therefore NLP must, of course, be the same as A, B, XX and thingummy. And so it would be but for one rather crucial fact - "Doing what works", as used in NLP, means nothing like the same as it means in the various groups Barrett names, or fails to name. On the contrary, In NLP, as explained by Bandler and Grinder: "As modelers, we're not interested in whether what we offer you is true or not, whether it's accurate or whether it can be neurologically proven to be accurate, an actual representation of the world. We're only interested in what works." It would take a pretty overwrought imagination to turn that statement into anything even vaguely akin to "Esoteric religionsd", "Western Mystery Tradition" or "the School of Economic Science and the Gurdjieff/Ouspensky offshoots". Except that, as we saw at the start of this article, Barrett has a special interest in "religious and esoteric subjects" - and his view of the world may therefore be heavily influenced by the Man with a Hammer syndrome. If only Barrett had had a reasonable working knowledge of NLP he might have realised that his article on the School of Economic Science (pages 148-155) contains nothing which bears any resemblance whatever to the activities of NLP. Instead his comments merely add yet more weight to the argument that as far as NLP is concerned, Barrett simply doesn't have the evidence to support his claims. But then Barrett throws a major 'wobbly'. After quoting more material (presumably from O'Connor and Seymour's book - no proper references are given), he goes completely into reverse. "A Neo-Platonist or a Christian Scientist ..." Is Barrett saying these two groups are the same, or simply that he has trouble telling them apart? "... might say much the same thing, ..." How similar is "much the same thing", I wonder. "... in surprisingly similar language ..." Similar how? And how similar? "... - though possibly for different reasons." So with no explanation of what he means by "suprisingly similar language", but a closing admission that the alleged similarity is entirely hypothetical, why did Barrett bother to make the claim at all? This question becomes even more obvious when we read the next two sentences: "What ultimately distinguishes NLP from any of these religions or religious philosophies is that NLP teaches you how to know yourself and better yourself. Esoteric religions teach you to know yourself, and through knowing yourself, the God within, to know better the God without." Even here, Barrett fails to notice that the phrase "know yourself" in NLP has a very different meaning to "know yourself" in the various religious and esoteric groups he is talking about. Had he distinguished between the two he would have had no basis for including NLP in his book. At this point in his article, for no apparent reason, Barrett wanders off into a brief discussion of est and Exegesis (which he does not attempt to link to NLP), before closing the article with a rather confused mish mash of details that refer specifically to JSA, their proucts and pricing (in 1995), together with a final attempt to link NLP to religious/esoteric groups. "Like many alternative religions, again particularly the Esoteric movements, there is a 'career ladder' within NLP. 'Many people find that experiencing the Introduction Seminar creates an enthusiasm and thirst for more. Practitioner training is the place to go next.'" (Quoted in Barrett, p.238. Original source not given.) Here we have proof positive of Barrett's utterly blinkered view of NLP resulting from looking at the practices of only one training company. Had he looked further afield he might have realised that whilst many companies offer "taster" evenings, days or weekends, these are designed to stimulate interest in the company. They are not a fixed element of NLP training and their existence tells us nothing about the nature of NLP itself. After giving the price of JSA's 20 day practitioner training, Barrett compounds his earlier error regarding courses, thus: "Another set of courses, Trainer Training, is for teachers, lecturers, workshop leaders or anyone else wanting to improve their presentation skills. It should not be confused with Assisting and Coaching, and Apprentice Trainer, which teach Practitioners to become NLP Trainers themselves. There are certificates and diplomas for NLP Trainers. Above that there are certified Advanced Practitioners, Master Practitioners and Master Trainers." Sorry, Mr Barrett, but (even assuming that you read the brochure correctly) outside of JSA trainings that is pretty much complete twaddle. For example, many NLP training companies do offer training in general presentation skills - but I doubt that many of them describe such a course as "Trainer Training". Most of the courses I am aware of simply call them presentation skills courses! And in any case, did Mr Barrett not stop to read his own writing?: "Another set of courses, Trainer Training, is for teachers, lecturers, workshop leaders or anyone else wanting to improve their presentation skills. It should not be confused with Assisting and Coaching, and Apprentice Trainer, which teach Practitioners to become NLP Trainers themselves." So if Barrett has got this right, the so-called "Trainer Training" isn't about training trainers at all, that is left to the "Assisting and Coaching, and Apprentice Trainer" courses. And by implication - "There are certificates and diplomas for NLP Trainers", no one below NLP Trainer gets any certificates or diplomas? Anyway, we now come to what is effectively Barrett's last gasp on the question of NLP and Eastern religions. And it's a doozy: "Interestingly, the brief biographies of NLP Trainers always give the names of the people they have themselves trained under. This could be seen as similar to new Eastern-origin religions tracing themselves back through a progression of gurus, and Esoteric movements claiming the authority of authenticity through their descent from previous movements." Well Mr Barrett might be able to make that link, but the first question that comes to mind is: How on earth can he assert that "NLP Trainers always give the names of the people they have themselves trained under" if he has previously stated that his information comes from a single training company? Who did the research, and where did Barrett access it? Secondly, I confess I do not understand how showing your clients/customers that you yourself have had proper training can be made to equate to "a progression of gurus" or "descent from previous movements". " ... similar to new Eastern-origin religions tracing themselves back through a progression of gurus, and Esoteric movements claiming the authority of authenticity through their descent from previous movements." It seems that Mr Barrett is as unfamiliar with Eastern attitudes as he is with the details of NLP. That is to say, Many Easterners have a far greater regard for tradition and lines of descent than most Westerners. And this extends into all areas of life where it is relevant, not just in religious and esoteric movements. The sarangi maestro Ustad Sabri Khan counts among the most renowned musicians in India. He is descended from lines of distinguished musicians on both sides of his family. By virtue of belonging to the Sainia Gharana [Sainia school of music], he can trace his musical tradition back to Mian Tansen, the great vocalist at the court of the Mughal Emperor Akbar." Which is probably as accurate an illustration of the limited value of Barrett's comments as anything else in his article. |
|
ReferencesBarrett, D.V., Sects, 'Cults' and Alternative Religion. Blandford, London:1996. pp.237-239 Barrett, D.V., The New Believers. Cassell & Co., London:2001. pp.26 and 431-434
|