Richard Bandler Interview by Ronald Amsler 3/4

[sreeshankarlal1]

What does Richard rubbing the eyes frequently subconsciously mean?

[BananaSandwich1]

@sreeshankarlal1 it means he's got an ichy eye

[AlexanderTheHuge]

This guy is bigger than life!

[bullettme]

I like RB and the interview is great but I couldn't help noticing that he kept interrupting Ronald and once he even called him Ronnie! No offense to anyone but here you can feel the differences in cultures.

Nevertheless, thank you for posting, the information is much more important than anything else.

[JiggaNiggaFigga]

@bullettme

Yeah, funny that everybody instantly fell in love with Bandler. Not everything he says must be true, he might be a genius, but it doesn't mean he will make you genius. Maybe he got different plans? Am I the only one who noticed his often aggresive and arrogant style? He is smart, he is extremely smart but is he really so genuine, warm and altruistic that he wants to make you happier? Another Jesus?

[Djinnmeister]

@JiggaNiggaFigga The aggressive and arrogant style could well be to elicit a response in the listener(s).

[BananaSandwich1]

@JiggaNiggaFigga nice name

[imaginator]

I learned the most about NLP from Bandler and Anthony Robbins. The other NLP guys are all too textbook, too many jargons, such as Michael Hall and Bob B.

[theholybilbo]

Same for me. In my experience it's been Bandler, the genius for making it crystal clear cerebrally. Robbins,  the man for translating it into a total physical experience.

[johntkucz]

Actually I disagree. Bandler = Simple, yes. Grinder = complex, yes. But Gridner is much more elegant. Bandler is widgety.

[Niglo45]

I disagree : the One who _really_ understood, calculate, definite, transform... subjective experience of human being is Bandler.

The One who clearly defined all the submodalities of this subjective experience is still him.

The One who really modelled & improved the genius of Perls, Satir & Erickson is still Bandler !!!

The _real_ genius of NLP is Bandler !

[johntkucz]

@Niglo45 bandler is such a fat bloated crock of shit. he has a bad history. he was accused of murder (it's true; look it up). Some nlp is good. I have written a book on it, but the rest is cult rubbish of which I won't mingle nor waste my time.

[fistofpeanuts]

I'd rather say : Bandler = understandable hehe

[appolo08]

@johntkucz To quote Einstein, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." Remember! Elegance lies in simplicity NOT in complexity

[appolo08]

Unlike John Grinder, Richard Bandler keeps NLP simple (elegant) rather than complicated.

I think RB may be more of a genius than even Einstein because of his study of the structure of subjectivity.

[johntkucz]

Yeah I agree...but Both explain it well. Sometims you need the complex, sometimes the simple to understand something. I think i'd rather be learning neuroscience, physics, calculus, swimming, and playing soccer.

[kftkft]

@appolo08

Absolutely agree with you, just because he was a maths genius doesnt mean he also understands human nurology like rb does.

[whicheverwayable]

@appolo08 Believe me, this guy is not a genius but actually a conman using pseudoscientific jargon to make money. What works in NLP already exists in the science that Bandler disdains (incl cognitive psychology, neuroscience & linguistics which NLP doesn't follow). It's worrying that people refer to this man as a genius, when much of what he says about science is manipulated, biased and just plain nonsense in order for him to make money. NLP tools do work but can be explained better by science.

[appolo08]

@whicheverwayable As long as people keep trying to define NLP as science, NLP will always resemble pseudoscience. NLP is best defined as a behavioral technology rather than a science because science is about theorizing whereas a technology is about application. NLP was developed by modeling experts then drawing from other fields (such as linguistics, cybernetics, etc) to formalize the experts' behavioral and linguistic patterns.

[whicheverwayable]

@appolo08 Science is about knowledge which can be applied and the theories are tested. NLP is also about theories (look up what a theory is). I would argue that the tools that do work (and i have been using NLP for years and am aware of what works and to what extent) are similar to a lot of evidence based tools from other disciplines. Bandler gets a lot wrong yet makes a lot of money, he overgeneralises with science, we know certain things are less effected yet he tars it all with the same brush

[hansxxxx666]

Thanks for uploading this!!!