Frogs Into Princes. Pages · · KB · REFRAMING: Neuro- Linguistic Programming and the Transformation of Mean- ing, by Richard Bandler . What People are saying about this book: "A readable, practical, and entertaining book about a challenging, original, and promising new discipline. I recommend. Frogs into Princes - Neuro Linguistic Programming. "Frogs Into Princes" Bandler, Richard - Frogs Into Princes - PDF Free Download frogs into princes.

Frogs Into Princes Neuro Linguistic Programming Pdf

Language:English, Portuguese, Hindi
Genre:Personal Growth
Published (Last):12.03.2015
ePub File Size:15.70 MB
PDF File Size:13.14 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Sign up for free]
Uploaded by: CORY

Thank you for reading frogs into princes neuro linguistic programming. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have search hundreds times for their chosen. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Shipped from UK, please allow 10 to 21 business days for arrival. Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming. princes neuro linguistic programming pdf, free nlp bandler richard grinder john frogs into princes neuro linguistic programming ebook download, free discover.

In the forward, the authors somewhat guiltily admit that this is "a record of a story that was told", and that they would like to "reassure the reader that the non-sequiturs, the surprising tangents, the unannounced shifts in content, mood or direction But here, they only serve to confuse and otherwise detract from what might have otherwise been an interesting message.

Onto content, then. The "book" is "organized" into three parts, each corresponding to one-day of the seminar. The subject matter of each day is somewhat disconnected, though the central theme of "content-free process therapy" is evident throughout. Let's examine each day in turn. Day 1: sensory experience Day one is all about sensory experience, and how to read the subtle cues that reveal the systematically different ways we each process, store, and access our feelings.

The idea here is that different information is stored using different "representational systems" visual, auditory, etc. The hope is that once you've determined which "representational system" a person uses, you can then employ this system to better communicate with them.

How, then, do people cue you in on how they're accessing information? Primarily with eye movements, it seems.

If they look down and to their right, they're accessing kinesthetic feelings; up and to their left, visually constructed images; and so on. Besides having a sort of pop-psychological appeal, this idea has something awesome going for it: it's a testable hypothesis. Unfortunately, the authors don't bother citing empirical evidence. Instead, they call out a person or two from the crowd, and give forceful, guided demonstrations: this is what you were thinking, Mary.

Isn't it? I guess I didn't find these primed, sample-size-of-one experiments very convincing. In fact, I did my own sample-size-of-one experiment with an unsuspecting subject: the results were less than spectacular.

[PDF] Frogs into Princes: Introduction to Neurolinguistic Programming Download Online

Some cursory googling indicates that experimental evidence is weak. There might be a rough correlation between eye movements and representation system, but otherwise - nothing to see here.

Day 2: changing personal history and organization Day two is a bit more concrete, from a therapeutic perspective: the author's start to talk about things to do in a therapeutic setting to help people resolve their issues. The authors start by noting that "the relationship between your experience and what actually occurred is tenuous at best Made up memories can change you just as well as the arbitrary perceptions that you made up at the time about 'real world events'.

The methodology here can be summarized as content-free guided meditation, with a dash of pavlovian conditioning. The therapist begins by asking the client to go back in time and relive the unpleasant experience. While this is happening, the therapist "anchors" the memory by say, touching the client in a certain way, or by taking on a certain tone.

The same thing is done with a behavior or emotional tool the client wishes they'd had at the time. Finally, the therapist "binds" the emotional resource to the unpleasant memory, essentially telling the client: 'next time you feel or see this the bad thing , feel this the resource anchor '. Note that throughout, the therapist has no idea what the "bad thing" is, nor what the "good resource" is - he or she simply gives content-agnostic process instructions.

This approach doesn't really resonate with me personally, but I can imagine it might work for some. Day 3: finding new ways Whereas day 2 is mostly concerned with overcoming phobias and coping with past memories, day 3 is all about modifying your current behavior. The main practice advocated here is called "reframing" - a "specific was of contacting the portion or part A few specific examples of things you can learn to accomplish are: These are strong claims, and experienced NLP practitioners can back them up with solid, visible results.

NLP in its present state can do a great deal, but it cannot do everything. There are lots and lots of things that we cannot do. If you can program yourself to look for things that will be useful'for you and learn those, instead of trying to find out where what we are presenting to you falls apart, you?

If you use it congruently you will find lots of places that it won't work.

Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming

And when it doesn't work, I suggest you do something else. NLP is only about four years old, and many of the most useful patterns were created within the last year or two.

We havent even begun to figure out what the possibilities are of how to use this material. And we are very, very, serious about that. What we are doing now is nothing more than the investigation of how to use this information.

We have been unable to exhaust the variety of ways to put this stuff together and put it to use, and we don't know of any limitations on the ways that you can use this information. During this seminar we have mentioned and demonstrated several dozen ways that it can be used. It's the structure of experience.

When used ii systematically, it constitutes a full strategy for getting any behavioral gain. Actually, NLP can do much more than the kinds of remedial work entioned above. The same principles can be used to study people who " unusually talented in any way, in order to determine the structure of that talent.

That structure can then be quickly taught to others to give them the foundation for that same ability.

This kind of intervention results in generative change, in which people learn to generate and create new talents and behaviors for themselves and others.

A side effect of such generative change is that many of the problem behaviors that would otherwise have been targets for remedial change simply disappear. In one sense nothing that NLP can accomplish is new: There have always been "spontaneous remissions," "miracle cures," and other sudden and puzzling changes in people's behavior, and there have always been people who somehow learned to use their abilities in exceptional ways.

What is new in NLP is the ability to systematically analyze those exceptional people and experiences in such a way that they can become widely available to others.

Milkmaids in England became immune to smallpox long before Jenner discovered cowpox and vaccination; now smallpox—which used to kill hundreds of thousands annually—is eliminated from human experience. In the same way, NLP can eliminate many of the difficulties and hazards of living that we now experience, and make learning and behavioral change much easier, more productive, and more exciting.

We are on the threshold of a quantum jump in human experience and capability. There is an old story of a boilermaker who was hired to fix a huge steamship boiler system that was not working well.

After listening to the engineer's description of the problems and asking a few questions, he went to the boiler room.

He looked at the maze of twisting pipes, listened to the thump of the boiler and the hiss of escaping steam for a few minutes, and felt some pipes with his hands. Then he hummed softly to himself, reached into his overalls and took out a small hammer, and tapped a bright red valve, once. Immediately the entire system began working perfectly, and the boilermaker went home.

This is what the boilermaker sent him: For tapping with hammer: For knowing where to tap: This is an exciting book, and an exciting time. Steve Andreas formerly John O.

Stevens IV A Challenge to the Reader In mystery and spy novels, the reader can expect to be offered a series of written clues—fragmentary descriptions of earlier events. When these fragments are fitted together, they provide enough of a representation for the careful reader to reconstruct the earlier events, even to the point of understanding the specific actions and motivations of the people involved—or at least to reach the understanding that the author will offer at the conclusion of the novel.

Navigation menu

The writer of such a novel has the obligation to provide enough fragments to make a reconstruction possible, but not obvious. This book is also the written record of a mystery story of sorts. However, it differs from the traditional mystery in several important ways. This is the written record of a story that was told, and storytelling is a different skill than story-writing.

From such artistry come the desirable experiences of surprise and delight—the discovery that we know much more than we think we do. We delight in creating those kinds of experiences in our seminars.

And while the record that follows may have contained enough clues for the participant in the seminar, only the more astute reader will succeed in fully reconstructing the earlier events. As we state explicitly in this book, the verbal component is the least interesting and least influential part of communication.

Yet this is the only kind of clue offered the reader here. The basic unit of analysis in face-to-face communication is the feedback loop. For example, if you were given the task of describing an interaction between a cat and a dog, you might make entries like: And to some extent, any particular behavior by the cat becomes understandable only in the context of the dog's behavior.

If for some reason your observations were restricted to just the cat, you would be challenged by the task of reconstructing what the cat was interacting with.

The cat's behavior is much more difficult to appreciate and understand in isolation. We would like to reassure the reader that the non-sequiturs, the surprising tangents, the unannounced shifts in content, mood or direction which you will discover in this book had a compelling logic of their own in the original context. If these otherwise peculiar sequences of communication were restored to their original context, that logic would quickly emerge.

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Therefore, the challenge: Is the reader astute enough to reconstruct that context, or shall he simply enjoy the exchange and arrive at a useful unconscious understanding of a more personal nature? John Grinder Richard Bandler Sensory Experience There are several important ways in which what we do differs radically from others who do workshops on communication or psychotherapy. When we first started in the field, we would watch brilliant people do interesting things and then afterwards they would tell various particular metaphors that they called theorizing.

They would tell stories about millions of holes, or about plumbing: Most of those metaphors weren't very useful in helping people learn specifically what to do or how to do it. Some people will do experiential workshops in which you will be treated to watching and listening to a person who is relatively competent in most, or at least part, of the business called "professional communications.

If you are fortunate and you keep your sensory apparatus open, you will learn how to do some of the things they do.

There's also a group of people who are theoreticians. They will tell you what their beliefs are about the true nature of humans and what the completely "transparent, adjusted, genuine, authentic," etc. Most knowledge in the field of psychology is organized in ways that ttix together what we call "modeling"—what traditionally has been called "theorizing"—and what we consider theology.

The descriptions 5 of what people do have been mixed together with descriptions of what reality "is. What has developed in psychology is different religious belief systems with very powerful evangelists working from all of these differing orientations. Another strange thing about psychology is that there's a whole body of people called "researchers" who will not associate with the people who are practicing!

Somehow the field of psychology got divided so that the researchers no longer provide information for, and respond to, the clinical practitioners in the field. That's not true in the field of medicine. In medicine, the people doing research are trying to find things to help the practitioners in the field. And the practitioners respond to the researchers, telling them what they need to know more about. Another thing about therapists is that they come to therapy with a set of unconscious patternings that makes it highly probable that they will fail.

When therapists begin to do therapy they look for what's wrong in a content-oriented way. They want to know what the problem is so that they can help people find solutions. This is true whether they have been trained overtly or covertly, in academic institutions or in rooms with pillows on the floor. This is even true of those who consider themselves to be "processoriented. Look for the process. I work with the process. There is another paradox in the field.

The hugest majority of therapists believe that the way to be a good therapist is to do everything you do intuitively, which means to have an unconscious mind that does it for you. They wouldn't describe it that way because they don't like the word "unconscious" but basically they do what they do without knowing how they do it.

They do it by the "seat of their pants"—that's another way to say "unconscious mind. The same group of people, however, say that the ultimate goal of therapy is for people to have conscious understanding—insight into their own problems.

So therapists are a group of people who do what they do without knowing how it works, and at the same time believe that the way to really get somewhere in life is to consciously know how things work! And their answer was "Oh, I have no idea. Are you interested in exploring and finding out with me what the outcome was? What we essentially do is to pay very little attention to what people say they do and a great deal of attention to what they do.

And then we build ourselves a model of what they do. We are not psychologists, and we're also not theologians or theoreticians. We have no idea about the "real" nature of things, and we're not particularly interested in what's "true. So, if we happen to mention something that you know from a scientific study, or from statistics, is inaccurate, realize that a different level of experience is being offered you here.

We're not offering you something that's true, just things that are useful. We know that our modeling has been successful when we can systematically get the same behavioral outcome as the person we have modeled. And when we can teach somebody else to be able to get the same outcomes in a systematic way, that's an even stronger test.

When I entered the field of communication, I went to a large conference where there were six hundred and fifty people in an auditorium. And a man who was very famous got up and made the following statement: And everybody in the audience went "Yeahhhh!

Make contact. We all know about that one. He never mentioned one single specific thing that anybody in that room could do that would help them in any way to either have the experience of understanding that person better, or at least give the other person the illusion that they were understood. I then went to something called "Active Listening. Then we began to pay attention to what really divergent people who were "wizards" actually do.

When you watch and listen to Virginia Satir and Milton Erickson do therapy, they apparently could not be more different. At least I couldn't figure out a way that they could appear more different.

People also report that the experiences of being with them are profoundly different. However, if you examine their behavior and the essential key patterns and sequences of what they do, they are similar. The patterns that they use to accomplish the rather dramatic things that they are able to accomplish are very similar in our way of understanding. What they accomplish is the same. But the way it's packaged—the way they come across—is profoundly different.

The same was true of Fritz Peris. He was not quite as sophisticated as Satir and Erickson in the number of patterns he used. But when he was operating in what I consider a powerful and effective way, he was using the same sequences of patterns that you will find in their work.

Fritz typically did not go after specific outcomes. If somebody came in and said "I have hysterical paralysis of the left leg," he wouldn't go after it directly. Sometimes he would get it and sometimes he wouldn't. Both Milton and Virginia have a tendency to go straight for producing specific outcomes, something I really respect.

When I wanted to learn to do therapy, I went to a month-long workshop, a situation where you are locked up on an island and exposed every day to the same kinds of experiences and hope that somehow or other you will pick them up.

The leader had lots and lots of experience, and he could do things that none of us could do. But when he talked about the things he did, people there wouldn't be able to learn to do them.

Intuitively, or what we describe as unconsciously, his behavior was systematic, but he didn't have a conscious understanding of how it was systematic. That is a compliment to his flexibility and ability to discern what works.

For example, you all know very, very little about how you are able to generate language. Somehow or other as you speak you are able to create complex pieces of syntax, and I know that you don't make any conscious decisions. You don't go "Well, I'm going to speak, and first I'll put a noun in the sentence, then I'll throw an adjective in, then a verb, and maybe a little adverb at the end, you know, just to color it up a little bit.

There's a group of people called transformational linguists who have managed to take large amounts of tax dollars and academic space and figure out what those rules are.

They haven't figured out anything to do with that yet, but transformational grammarians are unconcerned with that. They are not interested in the real world, and having lived in it I can sometimes understand why. When it comes to language, we're all wired the same. Humans have pretty much the same intuitions about the same kinds of phenomena in lots and lots of different languages.

If I say "You that look understand idea can," you have a very different intuition than if I say "Look, you can understand that idea," even though the words are the same.

There's a part of you at the unconscious level that tells you that one of those sentences is well-formed in a way that the other is not. Our job as modelers is to do a similar task for other things that are more practical. Our job is to figure out what it is that effective therapists do intuitively or unconsciously, and to make up some rules that can be taught to someone else. Now, what typically happens when you go to a seminar is that the leader will say "All you really need to do, in order to do what I do as a great communicator, is to pay attention to your guts.

My guess is you probably don't. You can have them there at the unconscious level, but I think that if you want to have the same intuitions as somebody like Erickson or Satir or Peris, you need to go through a training period to learn to have similar intuitions. Once you go through a conscious training period, you can have therapeutic intuitions that are as unconscious and systematic as your intuitions about language.

If you watch and listen to Virginia Satir work you are confronted with an overwhelming mass of information—the way she moves, her voice tone, the way she touches, who she turns to next, what sensory cues she is using to orient herself to which member of the family, etc.

It's a really overwhelming task to attempt to keep track of all the things that she is using as cues, the responses that she is making to those cues, and the responses she elicits from others. Now, we don't know what Virginia Satir really does with families. However, we can describe her behavior in such a way that we can come to any one of you and say "Here. Take this. Do these things in this 10 sequence.

Practice until it becomes a systematic part of your unconscious behavior, and you will end up being able to elicit the same responses that Virginia elicits. All we do in order to understand whether our description is an adequate model for what we are doing is to find out whether it works or not: We will be making statements up here which may have no relationship to the "truth," to what's "really going on.

After being exposed to it and practicing the patterns and the descriptions that we have offered, people's behavior changes in ways that make them effective in the same way that Satir is, yet each person's style is unique. If you learn to speak French, you will still express yourself in your own way. You can use your consciousness to decide to gain a certain skill which you think would be useful in the context of your professional and personal work.

Using our models you can practice that skill. Having practiced that consciously for some period of time you can allow that skill to function unconsciously.

You all had to consciously practice all the skills involved in driving a car. Now you can drive a long distance and not be conscious df any of it, unless there's some unique situation that requires your attention.

One of the systematic things that Erickson and Satir and a lot of other effective therapists do is to notice unconsciously how the person they are talking to thinks, and make use of that information in lots and lots of different ways. For example, if I'm a client of Virginia's I might go: Things have been, they've been heavy, you know.

Just, you know, my wife was What she does is very 11 magical, even though I believe that magic has a structure and is available to all of you. One of the things that she would do in her response would be to join this client in his model of the world by responding in somewhat the following way: You have different kinds of hopes for this.

If the same client were to go to another therapist, the dialogue might go like this: You know, it's just like I cant handle it, you know And I thought maybe you could help me grasp it, you know? I see what it is you're talking about. Let's focus in on one particular dimension. Try to give me your particular perspective.Several ideas and techniques have been borrowed from Castaneda and incorporated into NLP including so-called double induction [20] and the notion of "stopping the world" [] which is central to NLP modeling.

When you watch and listen to Virginia Satir and Milton Erickson do therapy, they apparently could not be more different. Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the Transformation of Meaning. Stollznow writes, "[o]ther than borrowing terminology , NLP does not bear authentic resemblance to any of Chomsky's theories or philosophies — linguistic, cognitive or political.

Nothing," argues Carroll. The two main therapeutic uses of NLP are: 1 as an adjunct by therapists [72] practicing in other therapeutic disciplines; 2 as a specific therapy called Neurolinguistic Psychotherapy [73] which is recognized by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy [74] with accreditation governed at first by the Association for Neuro Linguistic Programming [75] and more recently by its daughter organization the Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy and Counselling Association.

Using the principles of NLP it is possible to describe any human activity in a detailed way that allows you to make many deep and lasting changes quickly and easily.

ELVINA from Raleigh
Look over my other articles. I have always been a very creative person and find it relaxing to indulge in bandy. I relish reading books colorfully .