For a full understanding of our current national problem it is necessary to look into our past.
Consider the situation with regard to alcohol between 50 and 100 years ago in Scotland: -
Alcohol occupied a much lesser role in Scottish society. It is quoted that 25% of the males in Glasgow were teatotalers. This choice is now much less culturally acceptable. The public and private stigma of drunkenness was much greater. The temperance movement was still in existence and people were proud that they had signed the pledge. Travel abroad with exposure to different alcohol cultures and the opportunity to buy duty-free did not exist. There was no commercial radio advertising. Television did not exist and therefore television advertising did not exist. Alcohol was not sold in supermarkets and could only be bought in an off sales shop. Many public houses operated male only policies and were often not the most comfortable of places. Licensing hours were considerably restricted and extended licences virtually unheard of.
Pavement drinking with tables outside licensed premises did not exist. Relatively alcohol was far more expensive. The type and variety of different alcohol-based drinks was much restricted.
Cultural change since this situation has either in itself been too much for the Scottish population or the rate of change has been too great for the society to cope with. European societies incorporating greater use of alcohol, often but not always more appropriately, have developed over a thousand years. Scottish society is attempting to do this in 50 years and I think we have to accept that this is not working out. Whether this is for genetic or cultural reasons I do not know and I don't think it really matters.
In order for the situation to improve cultural attitudes and legislation must mirror the curve relevant to tobacco use over the last hundred years, with a rise and now a fall in popularity. Inevitably the curve for alcohol will be delayed in comparison but I hope we are now at a peak and will start to see an appropriate decline. However this will only happen if the government fully understands what is required and has the political will to take unpopular and difficult decisions with regard to alcohol.
By far the most important measures are those which attempt to change cultural attitudes. Severe advertising restrictions to include television, radio and billboards are a starting point. Many commercial radio stations such as Scot FM, aimed at young people, are loaded with alcohol advertising. Commercial and social events should be included. It is shameful that the major music festival for young people in Scotland, is sponsored by a drinks firm – T in the Park, and that football teams can still have alcohol advertising on their shirts. Advertising restrictions should include a ban on sponsorship.
To ensure effectiveness and fairness Scotland's whisky industry requires to be included and the inevitable commercial consequences accepted. This is necessary in changing attitudes throughout society and will be undoubtedly be unpopular and very difficult for any government. It is hypocritical that Scotland promotes the whisky industry in a climate where we suffer such problems with alcohol. The whisky industry and related tourist trade unfortunately requires to suffer. Perhaps we could replace it with a greater emphasis on golf. Potential developments in Aberdeenshire suggest that the Scottish government is keen to promote this.
The attitudes towards alcohol of the wealthy, the middle-aged and middle-classes require also to change to affect the necessary cultural change throughout Scottish society. Measures must affect them to the same extent as they do underprivileged young people. Their preferred alcohols whether they be malt whisky or Bordeaux wines require to be subject to the same restrictive measures as Buckfast and alcopops. A government statement to say that those who did not accept this must accept the consequences of the current alcohol situation would certainly clarify matters. The alcohol problem affects all ages and all strata of society and anything less than a full an acknowledgement of this is again hypocritical.
Licensing hours require to be restricted, and the number of licensed premises requires to be restricted and reduced through failure to renew licences. It is hoped that licence applications would fall off as licensed premises go out of business and the trade is seen as a poor business investment, and again this should be accepted as a necessary requirement. It would be helpful and would illustrate a clear policy if the government was to say that as a result of its wish to deal effectively with the Scottish alcohol problem it was to institute targets for reductions in the number of licensed premises.
The supermarket giants require to be tackled with an eventual aim of completely restricting all supermarket alcohol sales. Initially promotions should be banned, a lowest allowed price be set and this be kept high together with a legislated Restriction on display shelf space. This determined shelf space be small and equal in magnitude whatever the size of the shop or supermarket. Hours of allowed sale should also be severely restricted.
Alcohol consumption should be banned in all public places and public events. The situation of 100 years ago as described above implicitly accepted that Scottish society, for whatever reason, could not use alcohol responsibly and unless we accept that this situation remains our measures to tackle this problem will be largely ineffective.
There are a few measures which are red herrings and which will be ineffective in effecting the required cultural change. Some of these may seem on initial consideration to be attractive and possibly could become policy. They are largely based on erroneous beliefs such as; alcohol problems can be tackled by price measures alone; certain types of alcohol used by certain societal groups should be targeted; it is possible to effect significant change without losing jobs and causing hardship in the drinks and hospitality trade and the whisky industry; that measures carried out by the medical profession can have a significant cultural effect.
I trust the Scottish government will find this advice helpful and will give it due consideration.
Friday, 25 July 2008
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
A Doctor Writes About NLP
NLP originated when Richard Bandler, a student at Santa Cruz University, California was transcribing taped therapy sessions of the Gestalt therapist Frits Perls as a project for the psychiatrist Dr Robert Spitzer, who had originally commissioned Bandler to teach his son drums. Bandler believed he recognized particular word and sentence structures which facilitated the acceptance of Perls’ positive suggestions. Bandler took this revelation to one of his university teachers, Dr John Grinder, a linguist, and together they produced what they termed the ' Meta Model ', a model of what they believe to be influential word structures and how they work (one can think of it like a large multi-limbed protocol diagram). This they published as ' The Structure of Magic '. Much of it was very similar to and based on previous linguistic work by Grinder on transactional grammar which has since been superseded by the theories of Lakov, Chomsky and others. In the development they also modelled therapeutic sessions of the family therapist Virginia Satir. Perls died before the growth and popularisation of NLP and Satir was at best ambivalent about it in the years before her own death.
In collaboration with others, including the sociologist Gregory Bateson, Bandler and Grinder developed NLP by attaching a hodgepodge of theories of psychology, personal development and communication. These are too numerous to list completely but examples are: --
-- The Milton Model. Although perceiving some success in the application of the ' Meta Model ' (the co originators, as they have now agreed to be called the – see later for further information) found it did not deal with all situations and as suggested by Bateson they modelled the language influencing techniques of the hypnotist Milton Ericsson. This allowed NLP more options of approach. As opposed to the “Meta Model” which used language specifically Ericsson used very vague language so as clients could put their own interpretations on anything he said.
-- The Map/Territory Distinction. This is a concept originated by Alfred Korszybski, a 20th century Polish American scientific theorist and philosopher, in his large and opaque volume on the philosophy of science and thought published in 1921 entitled ' Science and Sanity '. This is now virtually forgotten and of no influence. In essence the Map/Territory Distinction simply says that things are not always what they seem. This is hardly an earth shattering insight!
-- Representational Thought Systems and Predicates. NLP proposes that people think preferentially in seeing, hearing or feeling terms and that the words they use, termed predicates, indicate their preferred system of thought. It is further proposed that matching predicates can increase rapport. This is a nice idea but has never stood up to any scientific analysis or testing and critics counter propose that it can actually make one more likely to be distrusted.
-- Eye Accessing Clues. This relates to ' Representational Systems ' and proposes that eye movements demonstrated momentarily before processing a thought indicate the representational system being used for that thought. Again there has never been any scientific evidence that this is true.
-- Theories of Personal Development and Achievement. -- audaciously expressed in the early NLP text ' Frogs into Princess ' was the contention that anyone can do anything any other human can do once they learn how to via the modelling techniques of NLP. This so-called classic work was transcribed from an early seminar given by Bandler and Grinder to psychologists by their follower Steve Andreas aka John O Stevens. This principle remains central to NLP teaching but has been toned down to allow rational acceptance. Again there is nothing revelatory about watching and learning! Bandler was nothing if not outrageous and extreme.
Bandler and Grinder and cohorts originally presented NLP to the psychological community in America. Due to its inherent deficiencies it failed to meet the potential promised. One would have thought that a panacea that had been about since the 70s would now be in widespread use! Much like the similar fairytale, EMDR, when challenged about the inability of NLP theories to stand up to rigorous scientific analysis the so-called NLP Community will say that NLP is not a science and should not be judged by scientific criteria. Something frequently said by apologists for nonsense therapies.
Emphasis then shifted to the business and personal development industries, ripe for the taking in America and without any real requirement for rigorous analysis of results achieved. NLP as now developed had attached many amusing parlour tricks, just the ticket for the lucrative seminar circuit. Anyone who has attended a course will know what these are. Here the goose really did lay the golden egg! But despite being promoted as ' New Technology of Achievement ' none of the advocates achieved anything except making money directly and indirectly from the promotion of NLP theories to others.
NLP grew out of the New Age and drug sub culture of the time of its origin as documented by McClendon in ' NLP -- the Wild Days '. By the mid-1980s Richard Bandler was divorced from his wife and hopelessly addicted to alcohol and cocaine which he used prodigiously. In 1986 he was accused and stood trial for the murder of Corinne Christiansen, a prostitute who acted as his bookkeeper. (This information is only available on the Internet at www.geocities.com/Bandlertrial where there is a reprint of an explanatory Mother Jones Magazine article -- but how many NLPers know this?). Around this time the popularity of NLP waned in America where it is now seen as lacking credibility.
Bandler has attempted unsuccessfully to sue Grinder and others for multi-million-dollar intellectual property rights related to what is termed NLP knowledge. The two masters of communication now appeared only to communicate via their legal teams! Both of the co originators and others have now developed new variants of NLP which they claim tell the whole truth, including the bits the original theories missed out and which are essential to understanding and development. Bandler now advocates ' Human Design Engineering ', Grinder has developed ' New Code NLP ', Tony Robbins has 'Neuro Associative Conditioning ', and Michael Hall promotes ' Neurosemantics ' to name but a few.
Bandler and Grinder now spend an increasing amount of time in other countries such as Britain. Others such as Paul McKenna have jumped on the bandwagon, or should I say mounted the gravy train! Ever mindful of the need for new markets the unsubstantiated theories of NLP are promoted with vigour and panache and defended perhaps with just a little of the wrath of Scientology towards those who dare to shout “ the emperor has no clothes!” NLP is gaining influence in medicine somewhat mirroring the popularisation of Mesmerism in 19th-century medicine. NLP is just as unscientific. I write this because I believe its growing influence requires to be challenged. ( This is already happening in the fields of education and management. For example in the informative and rational blog of the educationalist Donald Clark.) I am concerned about the credibility of the medical profession.
Interestingly NLP is not nearly so popular in France where Norbert Vogel has been active in challenging its unscientific assertions and in any case its promise of a quick fix and advancement and achievement without talent and years of hard work is contrary to the French way of thinking.
In all such situations there are those who have an investment. NLP Practitioners and Master Practitioners have invested time and money attending courses and obtaining their grand titles but most importantly they have invested their credibility -- this they will defend vigorously. Nevertheless I believe this misguided fashion will fizzle out and if this hastens that process just a little then I am pleased.
As an addendum may I end with the following guide to ' Therapeutic and Personal Advancement Philosophy ' wealth creation.
-- keep your philosophy vague, make it all things to all men.
-- appropriate the ideas of others if they are useful, add some pseudoscience. It provides mystique!
-- promise much but make inevitable failure to achieve everything due to the followers’ inability to fully comprehend and apply your miraculous techniques.
-- keep the most essential techniques just around the corner as the next development.
-- get your “disciples” to record your words of wisdom, do not do it yourself.
-- create immunity for your theories from expected forms of criticism. “ It's not science so it should not be judged as such!”
-- find a niche but be flexible, modify your theories for the market, emphasise the aspect most attractive to any particular group.
-- move to a new group of suckers once one group dries up!
-- if possible suppress any damaging information.
-- be selfish, allow as few gurus as possible, protect this position by lawsuits if necessary.
-- promote your own brand and protect it also with lawsuits if necessary.
-- don't forget the ritual and messianic aspects but modify according to target group, needs and expectations. NLP’s elegance is that includes just a little pinch of these!
-- create stakeholders, treat them well, give them status, make them feel they have special knowledge. They are the foot soldiers of your empire!
--- make hay while the sun shines. The vagaries of therapeutic fashion are fickle. Your influence and income will eventually wane.
In collaboration with others, including the sociologist Gregory Bateson, Bandler and Grinder developed NLP by attaching a hodgepodge of theories of psychology, personal development and communication. These are too numerous to list completely but examples are: --
-- The Milton Model. Although perceiving some success in the application of the ' Meta Model ' (the co originators, as they have now agreed to be called the – see later for further information) found it did not deal with all situations and as suggested by Bateson they modelled the language influencing techniques of the hypnotist Milton Ericsson. This allowed NLP more options of approach. As opposed to the “Meta Model” which used language specifically Ericsson used very vague language so as clients could put their own interpretations on anything he said.
-- The Map/Territory Distinction. This is a concept originated by Alfred Korszybski, a 20th century Polish American scientific theorist and philosopher, in his large and opaque volume on the philosophy of science and thought published in 1921 entitled ' Science and Sanity '. This is now virtually forgotten and of no influence. In essence the Map/Territory Distinction simply says that things are not always what they seem. This is hardly an earth shattering insight!
-- Representational Thought Systems and Predicates. NLP proposes that people think preferentially in seeing, hearing or feeling terms and that the words they use, termed predicates, indicate their preferred system of thought. It is further proposed that matching predicates can increase rapport. This is a nice idea but has never stood up to any scientific analysis or testing and critics counter propose that it can actually make one more likely to be distrusted.
-- Eye Accessing Clues. This relates to ' Representational Systems ' and proposes that eye movements demonstrated momentarily before processing a thought indicate the representational system being used for that thought. Again there has never been any scientific evidence that this is true.
-- Theories of Personal Development and Achievement. -- audaciously expressed in the early NLP text ' Frogs into Princess ' was the contention that anyone can do anything any other human can do once they learn how to via the modelling techniques of NLP. This so-called classic work was transcribed from an early seminar given by Bandler and Grinder to psychologists by their follower Steve Andreas aka John O Stevens. This principle remains central to NLP teaching but has been toned down to allow rational acceptance. Again there is nothing revelatory about watching and learning! Bandler was nothing if not outrageous and extreme.
Bandler and Grinder and cohorts originally presented NLP to the psychological community in America. Due to its inherent deficiencies it failed to meet the potential promised. One would have thought that a panacea that had been about since the 70s would now be in widespread use! Much like the similar fairytale, EMDR, when challenged about the inability of NLP theories to stand up to rigorous scientific analysis the so-called NLP Community will say that NLP is not a science and should not be judged by scientific criteria. Something frequently said by apologists for nonsense therapies.
Emphasis then shifted to the business and personal development industries, ripe for the taking in America and without any real requirement for rigorous analysis of results achieved. NLP as now developed had attached many amusing parlour tricks, just the ticket for the lucrative seminar circuit. Anyone who has attended a course will know what these are. Here the goose really did lay the golden egg! But despite being promoted as ' New Technology of Achievement ' none of the advocates achieved anything except making money directly and indirectly from the promotion of NLP theories to others.
NLP grew out of the New Age and drug sub culture of the time of its origin as documented by McClendon in ' NLP -- the Wild Days '. By the mid-1980s Richard Bandler was divorced from his wife and hopelessly addicted to alcohol and cocaine which he used prodigiously. In 1986 he was accused and stood trial for the murder of Corinne Christiansen, a prostitute who acted as his bookkeeper. (This information is only available on the Internet at www.geocities.com/Bandlertrial where there is a reprint of an explanatory Mother Jones Magazine article -- but how many NLPers know this?). Around this time the popularity of NLP waned in America where it is now seen as lacking credibility.
Bandler has attempted unsuccessfully to sue Grinder and others for multi-million-dollar intellectual property rights related to what is termed NLP knowledge. The two masters of communication now appeared only to communicate via their legal teams! Both of the co originators and others have now developed new variants of NLP which they claim tell the whole truth, including the bits the original theories missed out and which are essential to understanding and development. Bandler now advocates ' Human Design Engineering ', Grinder has developed ' New Code NLP ', Tony Robbins has 'Neuro Associative Conditioning ', and Michael Hall promotes ' Neurosemantics ' to name but a few.
Bandler and Grinder now spend an increasing amount of time in other countries such as Britain. Others such as Paul McKenna have jumped on the bandwagon, or should I say mounted the gravy train! Ever mindful of the need for new markets the unsubstantiated theories of NLP are promoted with vigour and panache and defended perhaps with just a little of the wrath of Scientology towards those who dare to shout “ the emperor has no clothes!” NLP is gaining influence in medicine somewhat mirroring the popularisation of Mesmerism in 19th-century medicine. NLP is just as unscientific. I write this because I believe its growing influence requires to be challenged. ( This is already happening in the fields of education and management. For example in the informative and rational blog of the educationalist Donald Clark.) I am concerned about the credibility of the medical profession.
Interestingly NLP is not nearly so popular in France where Norbert Vogel has been active in challenging its unscientific assertions and in any case its promise of a quick fix and advancement and achievement without talent and years of hard work is contrary to the French way of thinking.
In all such situations there are those who have an investment. NLP Practitioners and Master Practitioners have invested time and money attending courses and obtaining their grand titles but most importantly they have invested their credibility -- this they will defend vigorously. Nevertheless I believe this misguided fashion will fizzle out and if this hastens that process just a little then I am pleased.
As an addendum may I end with the following guide to ' Therapeutic and Personal Advancement Philosophy ' wealth creation.
-- keep your philosophy vague, make it all things to all men.
-- appropriate the ideas of others if they are useful, add some pseudoscience. It provides mystique!
-- promise much but make inevitable failure to achieve everything due to the followers’ inability to fully comprehend and apply your miraculous techniques.
-- keep the most essential techniques just around the corner as the next development.
-- get your “disciples” to record your words of wisdom, do not do it yourself.
-- create immunity for your theories from expected forms of criticism. “ It's not science so it should not be judged as such!”
-- find a niche but be flexible, modify your theories for the market, emphasise the aspect most attractive to any particular group.
-- move to a new group of suckers once one group dries up!
-- if possible suppress any damaging information.
-- be selfish, allow as few gurus as possible, protect this position by lawsuits if necessary.
-- promote your own brand and protect it also with lawsuits if necessary.
-- don't forget the ritual and messianic aspects but modify according to target group, needs and expectations. NLP’s elegance is that includes just a little pinch of these!
-- create stakeholders, treat them well, give them status, make them feel they have special knowledge. They are the foot soldiers of your empire!
--- make hay while the sun shines. The vagaries of therapeutic fashion are fickle. Your influence and income will eventually wane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)