Imaginal Disc NLP Group

(A draft proposal by Steve Andreas)
September 2006

Introduction

          The field of NLP is not yet really a “field” at all, but much more like the state of physics 200 years ago, with scattered people here and there making discoveries and communicating with a few others. There is not yet any widely-agreed upon basis for what is or isn’t NLP, no agreed-upon criteria for examining a new distinction or pattern, determining whether it is ecological, etc.

          The U.S. has been without a national NLP organization for over 8 years. Canada has had a small organization for some years now, and in other countries similar “umbrella” organizations have come and gone.

          However, the meetings of all these organizations past and present (at the best of times) have essentially been sales or product shows, like the expositions held periodically by organizations selling stoves or patio furniture, and there has been little or no coordination between these various groups.

          In contrast, scientific organizations like the American Chemical Society, or the American Physical Society, are not sales organizations, and do not endorse products or commercial enterprises selling products or services. They set standards for consistent naming of phenomena and processes described by their field, criteria for evaluating new discoveries and processes, and publish articles that have been peer-reviewed, and meet their scientific criteria.

Imaginal Disc (a metaphor)

          When an insect larva enters the pupal stage, almost all of its body cells literally dissolve into a sort of nutrient “soup” inside the chrysalis or cocoon. Imaginal discs are small groups of cells that do not dissolve, and gradually reorganize this “soup” into the structure of the butterfly or moth.

          “Imaginal” also has nice connotations of imagination, creativity, transformation, etc.I’m hoping that the Imaginal Disc NLP group can reorganize the current “soup state” of NLP into something more organized that can fly.

Purpose (Mission Statement)

          To further the development, consistency, coherence, and legitimacy of the field of NLP by studying and discussing proposals and making recommendations to the field in regard to naming, descriptions, and definitions of patterns or phenomena, criteria for describing or presenting new models, concepts, distinctions, patterns, etc.

Principles of agreement

(To be modified by discussion and agreement, prior to adoption.)

1. The proposed list, “Major Presuppositions of NLP”
    
2. That all discussion be limited to the description and demonstration of events, theories, methods, or patterns.
    
3. To focus and facilitate discussion of substantive issues, a list of logical fallacies will be used to define the kinds of argument that will not be permitted in the group’s discussions and deliberations. For instance, arguments directed at any person, their bad intent, their lack of authority or experience, etc. 
    
             e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
    
4. The importance of supporting appropriate research into NLP methods to establish a credible basis for the field by testing, and examining theories, patterns, and demonstrations of patterns to either improve them or discard them, in the same way that is done in the hard sciences, at all three levels: epistemology (how we know), methodology (theories), and technology (specific behavioral patterns).
    
5. The importance of congruence and ecology in making lasting changes that fit in well within the person’s other behaviors and outcomes, and establishing specific sensory-based behavioral criteria for determining incongruence when a pattern is demonstrated.
    
6. The group, after discussion, deliberation, and agreement by a substantial majority of members, will make recommendations to the NLP community regarding naming, criteria, processes, ecology, etc. These recommendations will only be binding on the persons or organizations that freely agree with their importance and usefulness.
    
             These are the kind of criteria that are established in any field of science in order to test theories and their applications, while avoiding personal attack, “political” stands, and other fallacious arguments and distractions.
    

What the Imaginal Disc NLP Group
will NOT do

1. The group will not endorse or recommend any person, practitioner, trainer, training program, training center or other commercial organization.
    
             Any such person or organization willing to adhere to the Group’s recommendations may so state, with any exceptions clearly described, as long as their behavior is congruent with those recommendations.
    
             If any such person or entity is found to depart from the recommendations of the group, it will be first warned and asked to correct the specific guidelines violated. If the entity fails to correct the situation promptly, they will be asked to remove their statement of adherence in all future media.
    
2. The Group will not address ethics, the appropriate uses to which NLP technology is put. For instance, the field of chemistry addresses how chemicals react, but the appropriate uses of that knowledge are determined by laws, politics and other public policies.

Membership

          Anyone can be a member of the group, simply by agreeing to support and adhere to the principles listed above (including such modifications, deletions, or additions to this proposal as the membership shall determine) in both their media materials and their behavior.

Membership dues:  I suggest starting very small, perhaps $20 per year to pay someone to do the clerical work to get things started. After some experience with the costs of setting up a web site forum for discussion, office help, other tasks and expenses, etc. and some experience with how well the Group actually functions in relation to its stated purpose, dues can be reviewed and adjusted.

Specific proposals

          The following proposals are intended to provide examples of the kind of issues that the Group might consider and recommend, starting with some of the simplest, and most easily agreed upon, saving more complex issues for later, when we have established a firm, and more-or-less unanimous foundation and direction for the Group.

1. Replace “representational system” with modality. “Modality” is word that is widely used and accepted in the larger world of education, and the change would also be consistent with the widespread use of “submodalities” to describe the smaller elements within a modality.
   
    
2. Change the term “ecology check” to “congruence check,” in recognition (John McWhirter) that what has been called an ecology check is actually only a check of the someone’s internal congruence. An actual ecology check would require checking with all the important people in the person’s life in all their major life contexts, something that would be desirable, but is rarely possible.
    
3. Accept Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder’s recommendations for “Presentation of Patterning” (see below):
    
   Presentation of Patterning
    
             We urge that all patterns proposed in NLP modeling and presented in the field, either in the literature or through oral presentation, satisfy the following three minimal requirements (or their equivalents)—specifically:
    
   1. Description of the pattern:  a sensory-grounded description of the elements in the pattern and their critical ordering (that is, the sequence in which those elements are to be applied—historically, in NLP, this has taken the form of steps in a format which define what the practitioner is to do first, second. . .).
       
   2. Consequences of using the pattern:  a sensory-grounded description of what consequences the practitioner can anticipate through a congruent application of the pattern.
       
   3. Selection criteria:  the identification of the conditions or contexts in which the selection and application of this pattern is appropriate (as known at the time by the modeler)—for example in the field of change work, making the distinction between the pattern’s appropriateness for 1st and 2nd order changes. This description should include any contraindications (conditions under which the pattern is expressly NOT to be selected and applied). (Whispering in the Wind, pp. 53 and 351)
       
                St. Clair and Grinder also propose an even more important fourth criterion for presenting a new pattern:
       
                The careful reader will have already noted that the phrase a relatively sensory-based description of occurs as part of each element of the proposed presentation format. This phrase points to the fact that it is doubtful in the extreme whether an adequate vocabulary exists for describing anything of significance in human patterning in sensory-based terms. 
       
                The practical question remains in full force—how are we to present the results of our modeling and patterning in such a way that others can understand and appreciate what we are in fact, proposing?
       
                There is a quite practical solution to this question that has significant appeal—suppose that in addition to the presentation of the three minimum elements proposed above, we as a community, accept the requirement that the NLP practitioner proposing a new model or patterning submit along with the above delineated elements in a verbal description, a video in which the practitioner demonstrates one or more specific examples of the model or patterning being proposed. (Whispering in the Wind, pp. 351-352)
       
4. Discontinue the use of the word “collapsing” used to describe triggering two anchors simultaneously, and replace that word with integrating anchors. (When two anchors are triggered sequentially, the result is chaining, rather than integration.)
    
5. Recommend changing the designation of perceptual positions from 1, 2, 3 or 1st, 2nd, 3rd to self, other and observer, a change that has already been adopted by some in the field. The latter terms have the advantage of immediately identifying the position, while numbers have to be decoded.
    
6. Recognize that every change, no matter how beneficial, will have undesired consequences, so it is important to explore them, evaluate their significance, and whenever possible, adjust the change to minimize them. 
    
             Accordingly, every pattern or process should have an explicit congruence check at the end, in addition to an ongoing congruence check throughout the different steps in the process.
    
7. Discontinue the term “chunking,” which has been used indiscriminately to describe both scope inclusion and categorical inclusion, and replace it with those terms. “Chunking up” would become either “enlarging scope” or “categorizing at a higher or more general level.” “Chunking down” would become either “reducing scope” or “categorizing at a more specific level.”
    
8. Recommend the adoption of the definition of logical levels based on the mathematical principle of class inclusion, (described in Whispering in the Wind, pp. 285-301) or categorical inclusion, (as described in Six Blind Elephants, volume I, chapter 5). This would be consistent with logical syllogisms, symbolic logic, and other uses of the term “logic.” While others have described logical levels—notably Robert Dilts and Michael Hall—both those authors have explicitly denied that they use the principle of class inclusion, and neither has offered an operational definition that could be used to determine logical levels.

Reminder: This draft proposal is offered as a basis for discussion and preliminary agreement to create a group that can serve to develop coherence, basic agreement, and communication in the field of NLP. It is written in electrons, not stone, and it is intended as a beginning, not an ending.

          To this end, I would welcome input from anyone prior to the initial formational meeting scheduled for September 30, particularly suggestions for issues to be raised and discussed.

Steve Andreas
andreas@qwest.net