Dr. Richard Bandler Co-Developer of NLP, DHE®, and NHR® official site. If you have any questions about our products or services, our team is ready to answer any of your questions. So feel free to get in touch with us. My knowledge of DHE began with my trainings with Richard Bandler who was beginning to come up with the idea in the early s.
|Published (Last):||14 May 2008|
|PDF File Size:||17.44 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.17 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
That DHE has produced no specific patterns for achieving new outcomes or baneler new directions for people—and that nobody is presenting anything dge has arisen from the DHE model arises concern whether its theoretical foundations are sound. The Ten Years of DHE have not only produced nothing of value, but has depersonalized lots of people with the machine-heavy metaphors in the training.
Whether you agree or disagree with the following analysis and conclusions, I only ask that you read with an open mind. If you can answer any of the tough questions raised here—I would be delighted to receive your data, documentation, and response. This paper was originally three articles. What are the possibilities?
And that became the driving idea in DHE. Yet, after ten years of conducting DHE workshops and experimenting with hallucinating control grids, globes, binoculars, x-ray glasses, lightning bolts, etc. I now think it is time to explore the validity and legitimacy of this model. I offer these as an NLP trainer and as someone who cares about the credibility of this field.
Richard Bandler – Wikipedia
In reviewing DHE, I well know all about the challenge of demonstrating the validity of a model. I say that having personally been involved dhw the development of the model, Meta-States, the Matrix model, and the Axes of Change model.
Over the years, I have had to answer these kinds of questions about what I have been doing, how Meta-States function as a model properly, the basis of its validity, its grounding in the cognitive-behavioral sciences, and the patterns that have uniquely dhee from it.
Actually, answering these kind of tough questions has enabled me to continue to refine the model so that the products and processes that it has generated become even more useful and practical. Accordingly, I think it appropriate now to ask the same of DHE. After all, lots of people are asking these questions anyway. My knowledge of DHE che with my trainings with Richard Bandler who was beginning to come up with the idea in the early s. He introduced the hallucinating of grids in my Trainers Training, as well in some of the materials that I worked with to create some books for Richard.
I also conferred with several Neuro-Semantic trainers who vandler been through the actual trainings multiple times.
A Critique of the Strengths and Weaknesses of DHE
In thinking about the process of exploring the validity of any model, I will first clarify what I mean by a model and the necessary factors that make up an operational model that a person can use to accomplish something.
NLP has all of these features and in the following chart, you can see that we can describe Meta-States using these terms as well. A theoretical background, foundation, hypothesis, etc.
What processes and mechanisms? Adaptation of NLP Ps. The specific tools that provide immediate application for using the Model or System to achieve something. How do you reframe meaning, swish to a new image, re-imprint a painful memory?
One observes experts in order to then models their skills, states, and strategies. The other starts from scratch, hallucinates preferred experiences and skills and then calculates what that will be like. From that grand idea which I must admit, is a fascinating ideaBandler and associates have been playfully exploring the possibilities.
This describes one of the strengths of DHE. It encourages new and expansive flexibility of the mind. It opens up new vistas for dreaming and imagining.
Are there any other ideas of hypotheses driving DHE? You may find this amazing, but there are no other thematic ideas or premises that I know about. Postulating inventing programs from scratch is the only governing idea in DHE.
A Critique of the Strengths and Weaknesses of DHE |
Yet this dichotomy falsely assumes that there is nothing in NLP regarding the directionalizing of the brain, or the creation of a sense of direction. But is that really true? What has it built? Now that would be something. Korzybski would call that the unsanity of using your nervous system as an animal uses his—confusing levels, confusing map and territory. This would not be a good thing. Truly, we can create maps that allow us to invent new things, do new things, but still what we do inside our heads differ from what we end up creating on the outside.
Here we come upon a blank wall. What has been added? What does that mean? One fan described it by saying the hde. Now I would not give that speaker above a high grade for specificity or clarity of expression. That dh like the processes of alignment, checking objections, fitting into a hierarchy of values, etc. We engage in this process in Meta-States by exploring 16 possible state-upon-state structures involving how mental frames interface with one another.
I think that perhaps we ought to do the same in Meta-States, invent new sensationally robust terms. None that I can tell. Just more of the same with a focus on hallucinating things in trance. And it is this lack of specificity, lack of offering descriptions for how to use the so-called model that questions the very foundations of DHE.
After all, if a designer cannot offer specific ways to use a model, what are the followers to do? How can they know or discern the legitimate versus illegitimate uses of the model? Where is the binocular pattern for improving eyesight to such an incredible degree that humans can see details a mile or two down the road that could only otherwise be achieved by a pair of binoculars? Bandler has often claimed to be able to do that.
But where is the pattern? Where is the evidence that he can do that or anyone else can do that? Since the first review, Bandler himself became diabetic. Where is the Diabetic Cure pattern? But no, sorry; it does not. What do we actually have in the DHE exercises? Most of the exercises that we have seen, heard about, and experienced are very similar to those that Master Practitioners and Trainers experienced with Richard Bandler in the late s.
In fact, most of DHE is just that—hypnotic inductions to try on and experiment with altered realities. I would consider that one of the strengths of DHE, and even recommend it for that.
It does enable participants to become more playful, to explore more, and to push away self-imposed limitations. Using DHE people can create visual hallucinations, many pleasureful states, a sweet hypnotic voice, and much more. Yet there are also lots of unfounded assumptions and unsubstantiated claims.
There are numerous assumptions of DHE that are just simply unfounded. Let me start with the one that I have done the most study on. At the time I bought the idea as well. Bodenhamer and I published The Structure of Excellence: Yet this continues to be the story and main focus in DHE. Yet the challenge I have put to the DHE trainers is this.
Name one structure that has been so designed, marketed, and is now available for replication in human minds?
And that there are none shows the emptiness of the approach. It just does not work. Yet worse, it goes in the wrong direction. It goes down, instead of up. The Meta-Modalities of your internal movie which are full of pictures, sounds, sensations, smells, and tastes are the Cinematic Features of the Movies which we can step back from and edit in as an editor of our movies.
How could they be both? Another troubling assumption in DHE is that via hypnotic trances, the DHE trainer can totally bypass your conscious mind and do straight-on installation at the unconscious level. Actually, this is an old saw for Bandler. From the beginning of NLP, he downplayed the conscious mind. After dhd, it can only process seven plus or minus two chunks of information at a time Miller, So why bother with it?
Yet when it comes to the installation of high level concepts and principles into muscle, every expert in every field has to go through the learning process of apprenticing him or herself to the discipline and use the neurological mechanisms of repetition, nandler, and patterning of the muscles. We do that with bandlre, skating, riding a bicycle, playing basketball or tennis, driving a car, piloting a plane. The muscle memory that later results then has well trained intuitions.
We then attain the level of unconscious competence. Indeed, you may find all of the strategies for how to sit in the cockpit, look at the gauges, and move the steering mechanisms. So in modeling we ask the pilot. In addition, there are all kinds wild and totally unsubstantiated claims, from growing limbs, hallucinating binoculars and microscopes and being able to see a mile away or at the microscopic level, increasing IQ from toetc. Some of these claims need no comment. What do the IQ numbers for an adult mean anyway?
So what does that mean for someone 40 or 55? How would we calculate the IQ number for 63? As for growing back limbs, I think we need to have the hospital and doctor who did the original amputation provide some documentation on that one.