HONEST ABE'S
NLP BOOK REVIEWS

Written and Produced
by Andy Bradbury (author of "Develop Your NLP Skills", etc.)


Reviews: Part 29

 
 
 

The Title
Name(s) of the Author(s)
Publisher and ISBN Number [this will be for the paperback version except where the number ends with (Hb)]

More Magic of Metaphor
Nick Owen
Crown House   ISBN 1-90442-441-4
Although the publishers were kind enough to send me a copy of this book to review, no such review will be appearing on this site.  To be brief, the author has wrapped his stories up in great wodges of stuff relating to Spiral Dynamics (about which I know very little), and Ken Wilber's "4 Quadrant" Model (about which I know roughly the same).  Since I therefore have no way of knowing whether the contents are rubbish, brilliant or just okay I shall not be reviewing the book.

Return to:    

Magic of NLP Demystified
Lewis & Pucelik
Metamorphous Press   ISBN 1-55552-017-0
I cannot think of a less appropriate title for this book, since the front cover alone poses two mysteries:

  1. Why does it include NLP in the title when this really isn't a book about NLP?
  2. Why \re there two authors' names when the text of the book, from the Preface onwards, seem to indicate that only one person, Byron Lewis, should be held responsible?

The next mystery is why no one at the publishers spotted that the contents of the book are seriously confused, and do little or nothing to "demystify" anything, let alone NLP..
The underlying reason seems to be that the writer didn't think that Bandler and Grinder had done a terribly good job on NLP (as of 1979, when the book was written) and needed him to "put things 'right'."

If true, would this have anything to do with the fact that Pucelik was Bandler's co-researcher until Bandler started working with Grinder, after which time Pucelik seems to have faded out of the picture (i.e. before NLP even got the name "NLP")?
I had thought Pucelik opted to go his own way to pursue his own interests; and I believe both Bandler and Grinder still speak well of him.  So who knows?

(It seems that Lewis was also involved with the activities that led to the creation of NLP, but the details are not so easy to track down.)

Anyway, whatever the case may be, in pursuit of this lofty goal, much of the book is devoted to the authors's erroneous belief that "digital" is a "rep system."  Or a "communication category."  No, a "rep system."  Or maybe it is a communications ... Oh, forget it!
This is itself a piece of literary "sleight of hand" that goes something like this::

  • Start off describing Bandler and Grinder's 4-tuple (Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic, Olfactory and Gustatory - which are the five representational systems, which is why the "4-tuple" was, I believe, originally called the "5-tuple," before "olfactory" and "gustatory" were lumped together as one.)
  • Call the next chapter The Communications Categories Model - but jump straight into a discussion of the NLP representational systems.  Do NOT give any indication why you're talking about the rep systems as though they are your own handmade "communication categories".  If you don't mention that there is no basis for this switch then, with a bit of luck, no one else will notice it.
  • On no account explain what you mean by the words "category" or "system."  In fact keep using the terms as though they were synonymous.  That will make it really hard for the reader to figure which one you're referring to at any given moment and they'll eventually start to think they really are the same thing.

You think I'm joking?  Check this out:

"I have consolidated into a model four basic communication categories.  This model is organized around the four preferred representational systems.  These are the visual system, the kinesthetic system, the auditory tonal system, and the digital system."
(page 49.  Italics as in the original)

Did you spot the join?
Like, who says that the original 4-tuple ever needed "consolidating"?  And where's the separation between the "categories" and the "systems".  What has happened to olfactory and gustatory?  And who said that "digital" is a "representational system" in the first place - apart from the author of this book?
Actually Bandler and Grinder did, for a while - apparently on the basis that digital auditory was a rep system - argue that language should be treated as a rep. system in it's own right.  In practice, however, it is impossible to have language as an discrete rep system because words can only exist in written (visual) or spoken (auditory) format.

Anyway - it gets worse:

  • Introduce the Satir Categories - but miss one out and claim there are only four Satir Categories.  Of course there are five categories really, but since you've limited your model to just four pigeon holes something has to go!
  • Now start talking about behaviour as though what we do is who we are.  You can always stick in a few warnings about "beware the generalization" - just don't take any notice of your own warnings:
    "Remember, we all have the ability to 'be' any one or a combination of each of these categories [sic] at different times. ...
    "A person who is 'being' visual..."
    (page 57)

This is where the model really starts to turn rancid - as the authors link each of the Satir Categories (see: Satir categories in glossary) to the hatchet job on the four rep systems, which is kind of problemmatical because:

Remember I said there were in fact five Satir Categories, not four?  Well the category this model leaves out is called "Leveller", and it describes how reasonably mature people communicate.  In other words, the only "communication categories" mentioned in this "model" are those which relate to immature, negative styles of communication which cause problems.
That in turn leads to the assertion that whatever your primary rep sysyem may be, you will always use one of these negative styles of communication.  And if what you do is who you are ...

Not surprisingly, the authors are unable to keep the text within the bounds of commonsense.
According to this book, the "digital representational system", or the "digital category" (depending on which page you're on), is language (p.68).
Oh really?  Then what sense can we make of this section heading:

"Using the Language of the Representational Systems"
(page 57)

For the true rep systems this simply means the predicates which indicate the various rep systems, as in "words which indicate that you're thinking visually," for instance.  In the case of the alleged digital rep system it means "using the words that indicate the words you're using".
Yeah, right.

As it turns out, the writer apparently doesn't quite understand what "digital" means, leastways not in the computing sense, which is something he drags into his chapter on the meta model, which includes a lengthy box headed: "Analog-Digital: The Computer Metaphor."
According to the explanation therein, a calculator, for example, is a "digital computer" because:

it "...functions by transforming both the instructions and the data into numbers (symbols)"

An "analog computer", on the other hand, is supposedly one which:

"operates on a program through which it runs information (input) in order to obtain results."

Apparently this means that:

"...a bathroom scale or sliderule [ask your parents] [or] the sophisticated guidance system of a rocket..."

Are all examples of an "analog computer"!
Which is complete rubbish.

All computers work by generating "numbers" and processing them.  The reality is simply that in an "analog" computer the numbers would be in the form of variations in the current, whereas in a "digital" computer all numbers are stored in binary format and are generated by turning the current on (="1") and off (="0").
I realise that 1979 was at the very start of the "computer age", but my copy of this book is of the "revised" edition of 1990.  Which suggests to me that the author was as confused then as he was when the book first came out.

Mind you, I'm not that impressed by the claim that this is a "revised" edition apart from the title - see below).  After all, it still has a reference to endnote 8 in Chapter III (page 102), even though there are only seven end notes for that chapter.  And you'd have thought someone might have spotted the shortcomings in these profound observation second time round:

Modal Operators.  Modal operator is a linguistic term meaning "modal operator" or "mode of operation."  They define the boundaries of the person's model of the world.  To extend beyond these boundaries is to invite some catastrophic expectation over which the speaker believes he has no control.
(page 93. Italics as in the original.)

Leaving aside the question of why the author thought it necessary to explain that "modal operator" means "modal operator", I must confess to being puzzled by the claim that "modal operator" also means "mode of operation."
For example, "should" and "ought" are modal operators, in the NLP sense of the term, so what on earth is meant by "She's operating in 'should' mode", or "He's operating in 'ought' mode"?
And if I look at the clock one evening and say to myself: "I ought to read that report tonight, but I think I'll leave it 'til tomorrow," that means I'm "[defining] the boundaries of [my] model of the world" and have a "catastrophic expectation" of what will happen if I don't do what I "ought" to do?
What a load of twaddle.

It is interesting to note that the original version of this book was entitled Meta Principles of Communication and Change: A Model for a Process Theory of Personality.
In my 'umble opinion, the only reason the revised version has "NLP" on the cover is to try to cash in on the rise of interest in NLP at that time.  It certainly "borrows" a number of ideas from NLP - but in most cases - as demonstrated above - apparently only in order to create a right "dog's dinner."  There are, to be fair, a few passages in the book which make good sense, and twenty-five years ago that might have been considered adequate justification for publication.  Nowadays there are far too many decent books on NLP around to warrant any kind of positive recommendation.
Quite frankly I think it's a complete waste of time and money whatever the title.
Definitely one to avoid at all costs.

Return to:    

The 5 Paths to Persuasion
Miller, Williams ans Hayashi
Warner Business Books   ISBN 0-446-53239-8
Although, on the surface, this book is totally unconnected with NLP, it is likely to be of interest, and use, to anyone interested in the practical application of NLP techniques, especially in relation to decision-making in business.

In NLP terms, what the authors have done is model the behaviour of more than 1,500 managers, checking their positions on a dozen "meta programs" to discover their basic decicision-making strategies.  After all, as the authors point out early on in the book:

If you don't understand how people make decisions - the kinds of information they need and the order in which they need it - how effective can you be in influencing their thinking?
(page 8)

A very reasonable question - from which you might (correctly) guess that this book is mainly concerned with ifluencing as applied to business sales, and major business sales in particular.  Which is why the authors have chosen major figures from the US business community as exemplars of the five styles of decision making:

  • Charismatics (like Jack Welch, Richard Branson and Oprah Winfrey)
  • Controllers (such as Ross Perot and Martha Stewart)
  • Followers (Carly Fiorina (ex-HP computers) and Peter Coors (Coors beer))
  • Skeptics (for example Ted Turner and Larry Ellison (Oracle)), and
  • Thinkers (such as Bill Gates, Michael Dell and Alan Greenspan).

Unfortunately this concentration on big names and big business obscures the fact that there are plenty of ideas in this book which are just as useful and applicable to the daily lives of us ordinary folk.
Indeed, I got the distinct impression that the authors had painted themselves into something of a corner by taking this approach, because they are careful to say, and repeat, and repeat ... that detecting someone's decision making strategy is far from easy.  In practice, however, I suspect that it is only hard because they've tried to model people who aren't readily available for modelling.  So whilst it is true that the book is rather short on "how" to detect people's strategies, it is my impression that someone reasonably proficient in the relevant NLP techniques would actually find it quite easy to deal with that short-coming, and could quite easily apply the ideas in this book.

As to the book itself (as distinct from the ideas), I found it an enjoyable read, even if ut sometimes shows the weaknesses of having three authors.  For example, at one point in the book we are told:

"... the Yankees' record of success speaks for itself.  The team is a perennial contender in the postseason, and the franchise is one of the most lucrative in any sport."
(page 145)

Which would have been a whole lot more impressive if we hadn't already been told:

"Once, we made the point that professional baseball needs reforms because certain teams like the Yankees have huge budgets and are consequently perennial contenders in the playoffs."
(page 97)

Oops!

Anyway, the occasional blooper notwithstanding, and looking at it specifically in the context of readers with at least a basic knowledge of NLP, I'm happy to give this book a strong recommendation:   *  *  *  *  *

Return to:    

Perfecting the Art of Telesales Spiced with the Magic of Neuro-Linguistic Programming
Brenda Spiller
Charles Books   ISBN 0-9519019-5-8
In a nutshell, in my opinion, this book (though it is in fact only three years old), belongs to a different age; an age in which confrontation and high pressure salesmanship were still pretty universal.
For example, take this advice from the Recommendations on page 107:

I would certainly go through the "I want to think about it" objection handling technique at least once to help you to decide if [the person you're speaking to] is telling the truth. ... In fact, I think it is relevant to say at this point that it is wise to attempt to overcome any objections at least twice before giving up.  However, pay attention to the reaction of your prospect.  Never antagonise him by being too persistent - use common sense and be sensitive.

Well, I'd certainly agree with that last sentence, even if the author doesn't show much awareness that "attempt[ing] to overcome objections at least twice before giving up" (my highlighting) is itself likely to seem "too persistent" and contrary to "common sense and ... sensitivity" to many people.

Even before I read Sharon Drew Morgan's book Selling with Integrity (several years ago) and various later books on "customer-focused" selling, I had already learned from experience that this "beat their objections" approach to selling was stressfull all round and highly ineffectual compared with some other approaches.
And having stated my position, I'll simply say that the first part of the book, on telesales, did nothing for me whatsoever.

And come to that, neither did the second half of the book, which is mainly about the "added spice" of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

Personally I found the style of the book vacuous - huge amounts of white space, rather bland thumbnail sketches all over the place, and no depth whatsoever as far as I could see.  And despite taking up around a hundred pages, the section on NLP was so basic as to be next to useless.
Indeed, I was left wondering how much the author actually knows about NLP, beyond the absolute basics.  The research certainly doesn't seem to show much care.  Thus that old chestnut - Mehrabian's 7%-38%-55% study - is rolled out again, and as usual it is presented as an absolute rule for all communication, with not a hint at the qualifying factors.  But this author has a new twist on the subject - she attributes the relevant research to Ray Birdwhistle (the founder of the study of kinesics, whose surname is correctly spelled: Birdwhistell).

Whilst recognising that telesales is a distinct area of activity in it's own right, in my opinion there are plenty of good to excellent books around which cover telephone manner, cold calling, etc., including several which incorporate NLP techniques and which I would place streets ahead of this lacklustre offering.
Recommendation - A heavily padded waste of money.

Return to:    

 

Please click HERE to return to the main book list.

Andy Bradbury can be contacted at: bradburyac@hotmail.com