NLP focuses on behaviour of excellence, in a way that works with each individual’s uniqueness to bring about rapid and effective change. It can apply almost in every area where the level of human capability equates to the level of individual and group success.
New Code NLP is best contrasted with (its origin) Classic Code, and reviewing the differences between new code and classic code NLP. The main difference is in terms of emphasis.
New Code NLP first began by John Grinder (classic code NLP co-creator) with Judith DeLozier, and has been further developed in recent years by Grinder with Carmen Bostic St. Clair. A significant difference between New Code NLP and Classic Code is the specification of the roles of conscious attention and the unconscious mind.
Until the ‘breakthrough process’ which was 6 Step Reframe, the practitioner’s application of classic code NLP was oriented towards conscious manipulation of internal representations (visual images, sounds, and sensations). An outcome was chosen by the practitioner in isolation and potentially according to the practitioner’s model of the world. The chosen process was designed to shift the client from the present state to the desired state. Ecology was included in those days, but if this was not framed well, or calibrated properly by the practitioner some of the outcomes may have had unfortunate consequences to the person’s lifestyle, family or social system. Some of these unwanted outcomes only became apparent through feedback in real time or not at all.
In the classic code, practitioners work at the level of behaviour. Because the client’s state is often unresourceful, the client doesn’t usually have access to better choices when consciously thinking about the options they want in areas of their life. In contrast, New Code NLP usually enables the practioner to work witht the client in a much more resourceful state to create new choices for clients. It is usually more useful to engage the unconscious mind when a client is choosing outcomes and resources. The unconscious has access to a greater range of possibilities than the conscious mind. The unconscious already notices patterns, metaphors and can consider multiple time frames, within logical levels and from various perceptual positions. The unconscious mind has the capacity to imagine future scenarios and include likely consequences, both negative and positive. It can access intents, solutions and many other resources and carries a rich amount of information from our colective experiences through life.
When we engage the unconscious mind in forming outcomes and choosing resources, the change that the client actually chooses always respects that person’s ecology. Ecology in this context considers the broader scope of possible consequences (benefits and costs) of any action, including change. When we include consequences, we can test resources before the change and ensure the entire well being of the person and the systems in which they operate. Unfortunate consequences are identified early on so the process can be altered to fit the needs of the person.
A useful way of thinking about the difference between new code and classic code NLP is in terms of emphasis.
Whilst there are many different practitioners and trainers, we cannot generalize too much. As I review what is often taught, and the practitioners I have worked with in various contexts, I have found that classic code practitioners emphasize technique, if-then-do logic and a series questions that lead a client into their being slotted into their own categories. Some enthusiasts further attempt to simplify processes to further categorize not only people, but their responses – ie. some of the training says “if they say x then process for x types, if they say y, then use this process… you’re only ever going to get either of these two answers to this question… everybody falls into these categories at some level…”.
