Historical Perspective: My supportive point:
I worked (closely?) with Grinder from the early mid-70s until 1979. I called the meeting at Bandler's house in Feb of 1978 with the purpose of naming what we'd been calling the Patterns of B & G. Bandler emerged from that meeting with the name NeuorLinquistic Reprogramming which soon to become NLP (within a week the "re" was dropped from reprogramming) . This name followed Noam Chomsky’s idea in one of his then current books. Chomsky is a linguist who was Alfred Korzybski's protégé. In my view Grinder was Chomsky’s protégé. In this time-frame NLP had largely been about modeling (soon it largely turned to franchising performance clones with a few exceptions: Grinder, Andreas, Dilts, Gordon, McWhirter and maybe more).
Grinder is a brilliant linguist! I don't use the worked brilliant loosely. There is no one on the planet whom Grinder could not model. I agree with you that claims to contrary are preposterous. So, if the person made a claim that he could not be modeled by Grinder, this tells us more about the lack of skill and understanding of the gentleman in question, than Dr. John Grinder.
My supportive point:
There are no replies to this message.
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.