WHAT’S IN AND WHAT’S OUT

This is a follow-up on Colin’s excellent Trainers’ Reflection (#13) on The Dilution of Neuro-Semantics. Colin has surfaced the question: How do we determine what is and what is not Neuro-Semantics? He also identified some of the key problems with this: lack of consistency in the field, lack of quality, confusion over what one is allowed to present and what one should not present, mixing items that are conflicting, etc. These problems create a weakening of the Neuro-Semantic brand, the lessening of the value of a Neuro-Semantic Certificate, the weakening of the community, etc. None of that is good; none of that helps any of us, and it certainly doesn’t help us as a whole.

Colin also presented five categories for helping us adequately evaluate when we want to bring something new or different into Neuro-Semantics. I’ve re-states his points as Questions:

1) Be a skeptic and counter-example what you want to bring in. Is this really Neuro-Semantics? How is it not Neuro-Semantics? How is it something else?