The Magic of NLP Demystified

One of the most exciting discoveries of our times is NLP. This should be taught in high school! This book is an excellent example of how communication is different. It depends on who your are talking to. Are they a physical type or an emotional type? Do they communicate by audio, inference, or body language? The answer is yes and this book will show you that 7% of our communication is words and 83% is body language! tone of voice, facial figure! hand gestures and more. Do you really want what you said totally heard and communicated? Read this book!

This little gem has given me a great foundation to understanding NLP. Anyone interested in learning about or becoming involved with NLP should add this as a study-guide.

Some interesting ideas on understanding the Meta Model, a test that you can take to see your priorities on visual, auditories, auditory digital and kinesthetic or you can test another person to see their preference for V, A, Ad or K. Excellent for Doctors, ed

I am a biased reviewer, admittedly, since I am Byron's sister, and also the illustrator for the book. There is new material in this edition, as well as some new illustrations. This is the one to buy because Byron gets royalties for it, and does not for the older versions. It's a long story, but basically, this one is totally updated and includes some of the newer thinking in the field. Because it's a remarkable field with much new thought, having the newly revised edition is important, if you are truly interested in NLP. Many thanks!

Not written for anyone not heavily involved with NLP. Book has no real organization - seems to drift from one topic to another.

Thank you for putting out this book for us to increase our knowledge in understanding the VAK OG systems and simplifying the Meta Model. I enjoyed reading your book.

Great introduction to NLP which I use on my NLP practitioner course Dr Bridget

Brilliant book.

Great text emphasizing the foundational Meta Model updated with Michael Hall's Meta Model extensions. Lewis' Book was written with input from Frank Pucelik, one of the three co-founders of NLP. Lewis has written a great guide which views NLP as it was originally conceived- a model of communication.

A telling passage from the book is: “a definition of Self equals the consistencies in a client’s model of the world...with its built in errors and faulty assumptions.” This philosophical notion is enmeshed within Chomskian theory: “the surface structure is made of the same stuff as the deep structure, and since the transformational processes of creating this from deep structure experience are the same as processes used to create the client’s ‘boundary’ of their model of reality, the surface structure is an invaluable indicator of how the speaker perceives the world around them.” What sets The Magic of NLP Demystified apart as a secondary reference source about the Meta Model is the golden nugget potential it has to throw a light on NLP’s epistemology by offering some weighty clues into the workings of neurology. The interaction of the three constraints - inherent in the subject title NLP itself - of ‘neuro’, ‘social’ (linguistic) and ‘individual’ (programming of input, processing, storage, retrieval, output etc.) with the universal modelling processes, is a case in point. The modelling processes of deletion, distortion and generalisation might have an underlying neurological basis - after all, they are “...used to create the client’s ‘boundary’ of their model of reality [and] are made of the same stuff.” It would therefore seem likely, by my reckoning at least, there is more than a chance the neurological structures are of an equal form and shape (i.e. isomorphic) to the universal modelling processes - deduced from cross-referencing the text. Deletion’ (e.g. selective attention) for instance, could be connected with the neurological function of ‘absolute threshold’ that is the minimum amount of energy necessary to stimulate the sensory organs into firing off its signals to the central nervous system - anything outside this threshold is ignored. ‘Generalisation’ (e.g. an assumption) may equate with the neurological function of the ‘just noticeable difference threshold’ - the minimum amount of stimulation necessary to detect a difference between two different stimuli within the receptor organs acting as filters to our perception of the world. Isn’t generalisation but an absence of the required stimulation to make a full and considered artful set of distinctions between two contexts of thinking? Distortion (e.g. fantasy) could be said to relate to the neurological function of ‘recurrent inhibition’. This is how the senses receive information primarily about changes in the environment so they can easily move into recognition from redundancy. In other words mighten distortion have an advantage in seeking attention? Another set of neurological foundations could stem from the differences in the assimilation of analogue (VAKOG) versus digital simulation processes. It is stated that “the brain is neither analogue nor digital but works using a signal processing paradigm that has some properties in common with both” (Wiki). However, the analogue sensory systems are “more primitive and universal” [facilitating the unconscious] and “unable to portray negativity, time and number manipulations”; whereas digital re-representational systems are language based and symbolic using an “arbitrary assignment” of syntax (sequencing) and qualifiers to aid precision. What this amounts to is the brain’s left hemisphere probably acts as some kind of perceptual enhancer evidenced in the logic of cause-effect grammar that places an emphasis on the subject-predicate form. Whilst said to be more logical, analytical, and objective, left brain tendencies could be the root of the human tendency towards ‘thingification’ i.e. a type of dissociation resulting in ‘hypostatization’ (Marxism): this refers to an effect of ‘reification’ supposing that whatever can be named, or conceived abstractly, must actually exist, an ontological and epistemological fallacy (Wiki). Therefore, it wouldn’t be a bold statement to suggest dissociated states could have had an undue influence in defining entire cultural outlooks, particularly if you happen to be an Existentialist - “the ultimate totally uninvolved observer” according to Bandler; whereas, the 19th century Romanticist could be said to be digital’s analogue brother - the ultimate totally immersed participant! Though the Magic of NLP Demystified appears to be yet another book designed to prove substance to Satir’s postures, provide an overview of Bandler and Grinder’s violations and Hall’s extensions as well as a satisfactory explanation of NLP’s representational systems via the learning required to assess minimal physiological cues, e.g. accessing cue sequences of eye-scanning patterns, the book also affords opportunities to explore the consistent Self from “what is left out of the [client’s] model giving structure and form to the system” in revealing the deep structure expressed through the now infamous Meta Model. It could also provide rich clues into the neurology of subjectivitity for those who care to hallucinate too...