My supportive point and Dr. John Ginder

Historical Perspective:
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).

My supportive point:
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.

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.