April 2002 Practitioner Training review: Bandler, McKenna and Breen
This was my third training with the Bandler/McKenna/Breen trio, the previous two being Practitioner-level trainings in NLP and DHE<TM>, both in September, 1997.
Before the training I was apprehensive about the number of trainees: 600. However it seems that when the group is in rapport (sheep-mode), teaching 600 isn't much more difficult than teaching 100. Apparently, between 40 and 100, seminars can get bogged down with too many questions.
The setting was the huge Novotel in Hammersmith, 5 mins from the Tube or £165 for a double room.
Michael Breen and Paul McKenna started off, with Michael giving an excellent preframe that unfamiliarity (eg crossing your arms the other way) means you're learning. Comfort probably means you're learning zilch.
Richard Bandler made an early appearance at 11:30am. Introduced as the High Priest of NLP, he burst into the room looking healthier (if almost as large) than I've ever seen him and immediately launched into his favourite tirade subject: psychiatry. He seemed much more relaxed too.
It took half an hour for him to get the room warmed up and, after that, put on an excellent performance. Many of the old stories came out (when Richard is talking about his ex-clients, why are they usually the ones on video?) but this time in much more detail. It made me wonder if he is deliberately closing loops for people who have attended previous trainings and opening ones that trainees can later close by themselves.
Richard did a couple of impressive NHR-style anxiety reversals and was unusually
patient with all his demonstration subjects. In fact, he was being very nice,
period. This made his aggressive/vulgar outbursts all the more effective:
an impromptu Gestalt pastiche where he said "fuck you, chair" whilst
casually flicking a kick at it...
And eventually pretending to snap at the hesitant demonstration subject: "So
are you going to answer my fucking question?"
Another was a guy who had occasional bad headaches. Richard asked him: "How
do you know when to do this?" The guy said he didn't.
"You have no idea when one is coming?" "No".
"You get them in your sleep?" "Yes, they wake me up".
"So this is completely unconscious?" "Yes".
"Then your conscious mind is no fucking use here whatsoever." Arm
catalepsy ensued...
On Wednesday morning, Michael matched Richard's performance with a magnificent 'Prometheus Rising' tease about "Of course, none of you are stuck in your own reality tunnel" etc. He also gave an eloquent description of maps and defined NLP as finding out "how maps function."
As he walked off the stage I told him: "That was very cool."
"Which bit?" he asked. "All of it!" I replied.
He acted disappointed and walked off. I caught his eye later and gave him some more specific feedback. He smiled and told m:e "It's not about what you say or do. It's about the response." It's funny how your interpretation of something that has become almost mundane can become that much more significant in the appropriate state and frame.
The trainers seemed to have divided out the teaching: Michael doing the more explicit teaching, Paul doing the feelgood trancework and Richard doing whatever Richard usually does.
But Michael was also using all the tools in the "unconscious installation" toolbag. Especially on the last day, Michael gave the most eloquent description of how to use the Meta-Model patterns to solve problems. He made clear for the first time (that I've experienced) the usual aim: uncovering the limitations that make the person unable to perceive any solutions to their problem. And that we need to lead them _outside_ their reality tunnel and which patterns are most likely to achieve that.
One of the unfortunate prerequisites for training with Richard is his compulsory 'license agreement' which precludes you from training others in NLP or applications of NLP without Richard's consent. It also obliges you to pay his legal fees regardless of whether he takes you to court or not. I suspect most trainees didn't even read it.
I spoke to a couple of people who had justifiable criticisms of the trainings.
These were:
1. Too many people, not enough individual attention and that the front row
was being hogged by the same people.
As an assistant I thought there would be a lot more of helping the delegates
and a lot less admin work (which can take forever if you really push it).
The trainers never suggested talking to the assistants who were a valuable
resource in my opinion.
2. Focus on therapy issues - whilst less than most practitioner trainings,
Richard still spent a lot of time talking about psychiatry and most of one
day was spent on phobias.
3. Cultish atmosphere - Richard is rarely accused of humility and all the
trainers induce powerful states.
The trainers even start and finish with a musical intro and outtro, and there
are the usual consequences of that.
I really liked the previous Practitioner training I did 4.5 years ago. But
I got the feeling that I got a lot more from it than most.
I also believe this was a much better training for most people than the one
I took. All the trainers have improved significantly, especially Michael,
who I learnt more from than even Richard...
Both Michael and Richard have got a lot more subtle with their covert installations. And with Michael teaching to the conscious mind a lot, I think most of the delegates walked away with a reasonable grasp of NLP.