17 Deadly Sins of Russian NLP

Author: Alexey Leontiev

This is a widely discussed article that many NLP practitioners have pondered over. Not everyone may believe everything written here, but every reader will recognize its value.

Stas Ukolov stopped by. We chatted for a long time and did a lot of thinking. Both of us are at a stage in our NLP development where we notice everything that DOESN’T WORK in NLP. This probably happens to everyone learning something new: at first, you’re amazed by the results and generalize what you’re learning to every context. Then comes the next phase—when you realize that what you’re learning DOESN’T WORK everywhere.

Here’s what we came up with:

1. NLP doesn’t deliver on its promises. (This probably started with Bandler, though I could be wrong.) What’s promised (for example, by trainers at seminars) often isn’t delivered. Later, this is brushed off with clever explanations.
   Note: When I say NLP, I mean Russian NLP practitioners as we know them. Of course, there are exceptions, but this is the general trend.
2. This is connected to the “Practitioner” and “Master” courses, which are filled with presuppositions (not just the basic NLP ones, but many others). Most trainers, it seems, aren’t even aware of the presuppositions they’re embedding.
3. NLPers are less likely to identify what another person actually needs and give it to them. Instead, they offer what they think the person needs, and if the person tries to refuse, they use manipulative tactics.
4. This starts right at the beginning of NLP training. The average person comes to a “Practitioner” course to become more successful, solve problems, learn to attract women, talk to their boss, manage communication, or learn hypnosis to show off, etc. Instead, they’re sold psychotherapy training. There are many techniques in the “Practitioner” training designed to preempt and neutralize reactions like, “Why do we need six-step reframing with visual compression?” In other words, people are sold something different from what they came for, and this continues throughout their training. For example, the last Horst training was advertised as a modeling seminar, but modeling made up maybe a third of it. Again, NLP doesn’t deliver on its promises here.
   Note 1: I’m talking about the “Pligin-Entus” style Practitioner and similar courses.
   Note 2: I understand that with extra effort, you can achieve the goals people come to NLP for. But why not design the “Practitioner” course to meet the audience’s needs? Or at least make the advertising more honest about what the course is really about.
   Note 3: I know some people do come specifically to improve their psychotherapy skills. But what percentage is that?
5. NLP lacks a true modeling model (even though everyone says NLP = Modeling). This is more proof that NLP doesn’t deliver on its promises. Many have written about this already.
6. NLP lacks a model for identifying presuppositions in speech. (Yet it claims to work with them.) There’s also no model for identifying beliefs. Many NLP Masters accept emotionally stated beliefs without questioning them. And when these beliefs are hidden under a layer of presuppositions, almost no one tries to look beneath the surface—they just accept them.
7. NLP lacks a model (or even a definition) of responsibility.
8. NLP lacks a model (or even a definition) of ecology.
9. There’s no model for constructing or recognizing meta-messages. Even the concept of a meta-message isn’t clearly defined—I know at least three different definitions.
10. The same goes for concepts like “values,” “criteria,” and many others.
11. In the area of beliefs, it’s important to distinguish between “verbal beliefs” and “real beliefs.” Let me explain: “Verbal beliefs” are common among NLPers. These are usually the basic NLP presuppositions. NLPers say things like, “The universe is friendly,” “It’s useful to focus on intention, not behavior,” “The map is not the territory,” etc. These are their “verbal beliefs.” If you ask them if they believe these things, you’ll likely get a congruent “Of course!” But if you observe their behavior, you’ll see that most people act as if their map is the territory, and if reality doesn’t match, they think something’s wrong with reality. They go out at night (or imagine your own scary context) and start fearing the “friendly universe,” getting into conflicts without considering the other person’s positive intent. So, judging by behavior, you can guess their “real beliefs”—that the universe is hostile (at least in many places), that “positive intent” is just a phrase, and that “my map is correct, and there’s something wrong with the territory.”
12. There are big questions about the basic presuppositions themselves. Who identified them, and how? How, if NLP has no model for identifying presuppositions? And how do we use them, for what purpose? To prove something, like axioms in geometry? We don’t have to believe in them as axioms—change the axioms, and you get a different geometry. Or (as many trainers do in the “Practitioner” course), do we recommend them as “rules to follow,” hoping they become people’s “real beliefs”?
13. Stas shared an interesting thought: The presupposition “all maps are equal, and there’s no map that’s more correct or better” (which is also promoted in NLP) is extremely harmful and leads to schizophrenia. If you take it further, you don’t need to change your map, even if it’s very different from shared reality and only brings you negative effects. You don’t need to check it against experience or change it, because it’s just as good and correct as any other. You can ignore feedback if you believe all maps are equally useful.
14. Manipulative tactics (“spins”) are dangerous. NLP Masters, noticing someone’s map doesn’t match theirs, start using manipulative tactics in conversation. This often destroys rapport (in terms of values or even behavior), drains the other person’s resources, and, most importantly, defeats the purpose of using these tactics. I’ve seen this pattern in all trainers, from Annie Entus (I know I’m criticizing a sacred cow of Russian NLP, but I stand by my words) to myself. Maybe trainers are a bit better at using these tactics for the right reasons, but not always.
15. In NLP, it’s common to “lovingly steal” ideas and more from others. I don’t see anything wrong with this, but I’d personally appreciate it if NLPers credited the source or at least admitted the idea isn’t their own.
16. Imagine a small child learning to walk. First, they learn to stand while holding onto something. Then, they let go for a moment. Then, they stand without holding on. They can’t walk yet, but if you give them a push, they might take a few steps before falling. Now, look at certification for, say, the NLP Master course (though this applies to Practitioner and Trainer certifications too). Certification is usually a good push for beginners who have just learned to stand on their own. So, they take a few steps. Those who fall immediately get a participant certificate. Those who manage a couple of steps are caught and told, “Wow, you demonstrated the skills—you can walk!” and are given a Master (Practitioner, Trainer) certificate.
    I claim that in the Master course, this happens with skills like multi-position description, calibrating strategies by TOTE, changing the boundaries of the self, and so on. These skills are not stable for most Masters at the time of certification. And for many, they don’t develop further in life (there’s usually no incentive—they’re already “good enough”).
    Note: The example of the child taking a few steps but not yet walking was lovingly stolen from LJuser.