| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Dilts Logical Levels! (pseudo-science) |
| Posted by: | John Schertzer |
| Date/Time: | 18/08/2003 20:04:18 |
|
Ryan, "I'd say that we in the NLP community are more aware that out models are simply that - models. While researchers often unwittingly take their models to be "reality" I certainly know a number of Fruedian psychologists who do, as did Ptolemy above. Anyone have other examples?" Knowing both Freudians and NLPers, I would say there is equal guilt, if you want to make it an agnostic's contest. Actually, I know some Freudians who are very skeptical of theory, but who find the process very useful. In fact it seems more like Ericksonian therapy, from what I know about it, than what most people think of analysis. Lots of people like to take pot shots at Freudian's and sure, you can be a stupid Freudian the same way you can be a stupid anything, but tt's the tradition Erickson, Perlz and Satir were trained in, and everybody forgets that. Sure, they all broke off and had their own theories in the end, but the work is the work, not matter what ideas are rolling around in your head. Somehow there were some useful behaviors transmitted from generation to generation. One can argue that NLP, as therapy, is a fourth generation analysis with the drive theory dropped out of it. best, JS |