Yet more NLP BS [Archive] - Page 2

Senex

1st July 2009, 06:00 AM

:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPZH07THejo

Here it is. People commenting are saying that DB has hypnotized the guy before.

Of course, he does the usual NLP subliminal influence "you will stop seeing me" kind of thing for misdirection.

I wish i knew how he does these tricks.

You should understand that people who know they are part of an entertainment react differently than your unsuspecting 7-11 clerk would. Stage hypnotists (and famous mentalists with a camera crew) take advantage of their subjects choosing to play a role that they normally do not play. I've seen the Amazing Kreskin (who makes a point of saying that there is no such thing as hypnotism, he just calls it suggestion) scatter groups of spectators off the stage by suggesting he is invisible to them and he then lifts the microphone stand. Derren isn't breaking any new ground here.

Hi Senex, thanks for the recommendation. I just popped off to put it on my Amazon wish list but noticed it looks like there are two:
Influence: Psychology of Persuasion and
Influence: Science and Practice

Do you know if S&P is a sequel or a newer edition with a different subtitle?

BDd

I read Psychology of Persuasion. From wiki it looks like Science and Practice is a textbook version of the former. No point in paying extra for questions at the end of the chapters.

It's an excellent book. It won't make you a mentalist or help you pick up girls (unless you are creative). It will help you develop a radar to detect manipulation techniques aimed at you.

Ashles

1st July 2009, 06:37 AM

And there is no way in hell that you can use NLP or hypnosis to get a woman who has decided that she wouldn't go to bed with you if you were the last man on Earth in bed with you.

To achieve that you need nightclubs, bad hair and money. (http://www.charity-golf.com/peter.htm)

Lothario

1st July 2009, 07:24 AM

You should understand that people who know they are part of an entertainment react differently than your unsuspecting 7-11 clerk would. Stage hypnotists (and famous mentalists with a camera crew) take advantage of their subjects choosing to play a role that they normally do not play. I've seen the Amazing Kreskin (who makes a point of saying that there is no such thing as hypnotism, he just calls it suggestion) scatter groups of spectators off the stage by suggesting he is invisible to them and he then lifts the microphone stand. Derren isn't breaking any new ground here.

I watched a stage hypnosis show once, when i was a kid. The hypnotist had a couple of my friends on stage acting like complete idiots. At the time, i was quite impressed. They didn't remember anything afterwards.
I know we are not allowed to reveal tricks here, but how does one "suggest" he is invisible? There has to be some sort of formal induction, right? Otherwise we could all go around using these Jedi mind tricks like some NLP'ers suggest. "These are not the droids you're looking for".

JFrankA

1st July 2009, 11:18 AM

Senex

4th July 2009, 07:22 AM

I watched a stage hypnosis show once, when i was a kid. The hypnotist had a couple of my friends on stage acting like complete idiots. At the time, i was quite impressed. They didn't remember anything afterwards.
I know we are not allowed to reveal tricks here, but how does one "suggest" he is invisible? There has to be some sort of formal induction, right? Otherwise we could all go around using these Jedi mind tricks like some NLP'ers suggest. "These are not the droids you're looking for".

Having the "suggestion" you wouldn't remember anything afterwards makes it easier to lower your inhibitions during your hypnotic performance. You don't have to answer any embarrassing questions after. If you provided sufficient motivation I suspect perfect recollection would be available from your friends.

If you wish to become "invisible" to anyone you will need to perform some sort of formal induction in front of an audience. The heroic Milton Erickson couldn't perform an "I'm invisible" routine unless his patient felt accepting such a bizarre suggestion was in his own best interest or felt a need to please the wise doctor.

Well, as I and most everyone here has been saying all along, stage hypnosis is just a trick. Sometimes the person just plays along, sometimes the person believes it or is confused so much that they actually do follow the suggestion given by the stage hypnosis. Senex pretty much hit it on the head with his last post.

I'd enjoy watching you perform. In fact although I've never aspired to be a stooge, I know darn well I'd be a brilliant one. Let me perfect my moonwalk and I'll go on stage and do my Michael Jackson routine (at your suggestion of course :D )

JFrankA

4th July 2009, 07:50 AM

Having the "suggestion" you wouldn't remember anything afterwards makes it easier to lower your inhibitions during your hypnotic performance. You don't have to answer any embarrassing questions after. If you provided sufficient motivation I suspect perfect recollection would be available from your friends.

If you wish to become "invisible" to anyone you will need to perform some sort of formal induction in front of an audience. The heroic Milton Erickson couldn't perform an "I'm invisible" routine unless his patient felt accepting such a bizarre suggestion was in his own best interest or felt a need to please the wise doctor.

Again, quite right. I do the invisible thing a lot. One thing that helps it along is to not be in site of the person who is not seeing you. :)

For example, I have one routine where there are three chairs on stage. I have a guy sitting in the middle and two women on the side. The guy's chair is slightly more forward than the other two, and the women can reach out to touch each other and the guy. I also command that they don't get out of the chair.

Then I make the suggestion that the guy can't see the girls, but he can hear
and feel them. One girl gets slowly more and more aroused as the routine continues, while the other girl gets aroused at the word "slut" and completely against sex at the word "prude".

Then I let them go. The audience calls out the words and it's hilarious. And every time, the guy says he never sees the girls.

The point is that it's not only a "command", it's a magician's technique, helping the command along. :)

You know, I'm giving away secrets here that if I put it in a book or a DVD I could sell it at $30 a pop or something.....

I'd enjoy watching you perform. In fact although I've never aspired to be a stooge, I know darn well I'd be a brilliant one. Let me perfect my moonwalk and I'll go on stage and do my Michael Jackson routine (at your suggestion of course :D )

I'd love to have you in the audience. :) But I perform only adult shows - X rated - R rated at the very least. And usually at swing parties.

...so I already have a very willing audience and women willing to get naked. :)

Senex

4th July 2009, 08:33 AM

Again, quite right. I do the invisible thing a lot. One thing that helps it along is to not be in site of the person who is not seeing you. :)

For example, I have one routine where there are three chairs on stage. I have a guy sitting in the middle and two women on the side. The guy's chair is slightly more forward than the other two, and the women can reach out to touch each other and the guy. I also command that they don't get out of the chair.

Then I make the suggestion that the guy can't see the girls, but he can hear
and feel them. One girl gets slowly more and more aroused as the routine continues, while the other girl gets aroused at the word "slut" and completely against sex at the word "prude".

Then I let them go. The audience calls out the words and it's hilarious. And every time, the guy says he never sees the girls.

The point is that it's not only a "command", it's a magician's technique, helping the command along. :)

You know, I'm giving away secrets here that if I put it in a book or a DVD I could sell it at $30 a pop or something.....

I'd love to have you in the audience. :) But I perform only adult shows - X rated - R rated at the very least. And usually at swing parties.

...so I already have a very willing audience and women willing to get naked. :)

Wow, you have a great niche. Your participants come to the show with being naughty already in their mind. Your performance may only be limited by your imagination. I guess my moonwalk will only slow the show down :rolleyes:

I have had adventerous sexual partners but none who swing (but I never asked). I have no one to take to your performance.

JFrankA

4th July 2009, 01:51 PM

Wow, you have a great niche. Your participants come to the show with being naughty already in their mind. Your performance may only be limited by your imagination. I guess my moonwalk will only slow the show down :rolleyes:

Nah, it wouldn't maybe I should add an MJ thing. :)

Anyway, that's the point I was trying to make. My audience WANTS these things to happen. And here's the point as to why NLP and hypnosis doesn't work beyond what people want:

If I did a G-rated show in that environment, the hypnosis wouldn't go over well. And on the flip side, if I did my show for, let's say a church group, the hypnosis wouldn't work at all! :)

If NLP and hypnosis did work the way those huskers says it does, then the audience's attitude wouldn't matter at all...

I have had adventerous sexual partners but none who swing (but I never asked). I have no one to take to your performance.

Dude, no lie, having a girlfriend who loves to swing is the best. I have the greatest girlfriend in the universe. :)

Senex

4th July 2009, 05:15 PM

Nah, it wouldn't maybe I should add an MJ thing. :)

Oh yes, my moonwalking against topless women. I can't wait to compete :rolleyes:

Anyway, that's the point I was trying to make. My audience WANTS these things to happen. And here's the point as to why NLP and hypnosis doesn't work beyond what people want:

If I did a G-rated show in that environment, the hypnosis wouldn't go over well. And on the flip side, if I did my show for, let's say a church group, the hypnosis wouldn't work at all! :)

If NLP and hypnosis did work the way those huskers says it does, then the audience's attitude wouldn't matter at all...

I think I need to drive 25 minutes up I-84 and see this show and offer an unbiased opinion.

Dude, no lie, having a girlfriend who loves to swing is the best. I have the greatest girlfriend in the universe. :)

I never felt I had the greatest girlfriend until I thought about her in retrospect. I look forward to meeting yours ;)

Lothario

6th July 2009, 02:07 PM

I posted that knol link in one of the forums where i started asking about NLP. So far, i was surprised to see that a few people actually agreed with me. I'll let you guys know how it goes.

Lothario

8th July 2009, 08:00 AM

Only 14 replies and 200 views so far. Pro-NLP and Ross Jeffries' threads get a lot more attention than that. Surprisingly, two posters agreed with me. The rest presented the usual arguments (e.g. NLP can cure you in one session when years of regular therapy can't, NLP is goal oriented, it just does what works, etc). I was referred to a book by one Andrew Austin where he talks about his results using NLP on patients suffering from schizophrenia.
Nobody could present any real evidence that it works beyond placebo effect. Still, people seem more than willing to buy it.

Senex

10th July 2009, 01:51 AM

Nobody could present any real evidence that it works beyond placebo effect. Still, people seem more than willing to buy it.

Welcome to the club!

Lothario

10th July 2009, 12:36 PM

Hmm... what plausible explanation can we come up with for these alleged pick-up/sales sucess stories? Pure coincidence?

This reminds me of a Dave Chappelle sketch called "Great moments in pick-up history". Hilarious.

remirol

10th July 2009, 12:46 PM

"Staged".

Lothario

12th July 2009, 09:13 PM

"Staged".

Then how do some people perceive that it works? Take IKE, for instance. I don't think he was lying. He wasn't exactly going to convert new NLPers in this forum.

Ross Jeffries has been teaching these seminars since the 90's. They fill up for like 1500$ a pop. I've read one of his books and while these "patterns" have some elements that are more or less plausible (describe an emotional state and the girl will experience it, talk slowly, pause frequently to get her attention, etc), for the most part they are extremely creepy and full of these embedded commands and little "subliminal influence" wooish tricks.

Despite all the creepiness, i still run into random people who claim that "Speed Seduction works and is extremely powerful" and this guy is still in business after all these years.

Either a lot of otherwise intelligent people are insane, or i am.

JFrankA

13th July 2009, 08:00 AM

Then how do some people perceive that it works? Take IKE, for instance. I don't think he was lying. He wasn't exactly going to convert new NLPers in this forum.

Because he wanted it to and he believed it would. Humans are really very good at finding cause and effect when there isn't a connection. To be a little more clear, he believed it to work so that every success he had he credited it to NLP, but ignored the failures or had an excuse why it didn't work.

Ross Jeffries has been teaching these seminars since the 90's. They fill up for like 1500$ a pop. I've read one of his books and while these "patterns" have some elements that are more or less plausible (describe an emotional state and the girl will experience it, talk slowly, pause frequently to get her attention, etc), for the most part they are extremely creepy and full of these embedded commands and little "subliminal influence" wooish tricks.

Either Ross really believes it too, or he knows it doesn't and wants the cash. Or a strange combination of the two.

And again, see above. But let me put it to you this way. If you were a rich successful businessman/speaker, with a lot of money and confidence, wouldn't you have better luck with the ladies even if the advice you were doling out at $1500/pop was to put tuna fish sandwiches under your armpits when you go to bed?

Despite all the creepiness, i still run into random people who claim that "Speed Seduction works and is extremely powerful" and this guy is still in business after all these years.

*Sigh* See above. :)

Either a lot of otherwise intelligent people are insane, or i am.

No, no insanity involved. Just a willingness or a desperation or a gullibleness (if that is a word), or a strange combination of all three to believe that something like that would work.

A lot of intelligent, sane people believe that talking to some dead guy who was nailed to tree over 2000 years ago would cure a person who has cancer. Why not NLP and speed seduction?

Hey, I bet I can even market the advice of putting a tuna fish sandwich under your arms before you go to bed and people will buy it and swear by it :D

Lothario

13th July 2009, 10:33 AM

Hey, I bet I can even market the advice of putting a tuna fish sandwich under your arms before you go to bed and people will buy it and swear by it :D

Prove it! :D

remirol

14th July 2009, 09:26 AM

Then how do some people perceive that it works? Take IKE, for instance. I don't think he was lying.

Because not all people think rationally. And some people don't even realize they aren't thinking rationally.

Very few people even consciously realize what I mentioned above, for example, with regard to the camera's presence for filming these shots. That doesn't mean there isn't a cameraman there; it means that people watch these Youtube videos and are fooled into thinking that the only people present are Jeffries, the people around him, and his victims. But that simply isn't true -- and once you fully realize that truth, the next question must be "why aren't these people asking what the camera's for? why don't they even stop to look at it?"

The correct answer here is "because they already know what the camera's for" -- and if they know that, then they must have been spoken to before the actual time period that was filmed. And if that is true, then the film is clearly staged at least in part -- and very likely in total.

Either a lot of otherwise intelligent people are insane, or i am.Insane isn't the right word, but irrational would be.

Senex

16th July 2009, 11:49 AM

A lot of intelligent, sane people believe that talking to some dead guy who was nailed to tree over 2000 years ago would cure a person who has cancer. Why not NLP and speed seduction?

Why not indeed? It happens every day.

Because not all people think rationally. And some people don't even realize they aren't thinking rationally.

Very few people even consciously realize what I mentioned above, for example, with regard to the camera's presence for filming these shots.

The correct answer here is "because they already know what the camera's for" -- and if they know that, then they must have been spoken to before the actual time period that was filmed. And if that is true, then the film is clearly staged at least in part -- and very likely in total.

Insane isn't the right word, but irrational would be.

You're right up to the part about what the right word would be.

What is a word for people who want their (some at any cost) time in the spotlight.

Lothario

19th July 2009, 02:09 PM

What is a word for people who want their (some at any cost) time in the spotlight.

Exhibitionist?

JFrankA

20th July 2009, 11:00 AM

Exhibitionist?

Hey, don't knock exhibitionists!!!! They are the bread and butter of my act!!!! :)

Lothario

22nd July 2009, 08:33 PM

I'd love to have you in the audience. :) But I perform only adult shows - X rated - R rated at the very least. And usually at swing parties.

...so I already have a very willing audience and women willing to get naked. :)

Hey, don't knock exhibitionists!!!! They are the bread and butter of my act!!!! :)

And what a great show it must be! ;)

Lothario

23rd July 2009, 05:20 PM

This one is funny. I found a website (http://www.workingpsychology.com/nlp.html) that mentions a study that showed that NLP can make you less persuasive.

"This study compared NLP techniques such as pacing, metaphor, and phonemic devices to two much simpler non-NLP control conditions: a direct-information condition and a placebic information-only condition. No differences in attitudes were found among the conditions, but the non-NLP direct-information control condition demonstrated significantly more persuasion in behavioral measures, resulting in the opposite of what NLP practitioners would predict."

-- Dixon, PN; Parr GD; Yarbrough D; and Rathael M. (1986). Neurolinguistic Programming as a Persuasive Communication Technique. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(4), 545-550.

Oh, and i was just reading Ross Jeffries' blog and he posted an e-mail adress you can write to if you want to go pick-up chicks with him. That would be interesting.

remirol

24th July 2009, 08:06 AM

Oh, and i was just reading Ross Jeffries' blog and he posted an e-mail adress you can write to if you want to go pick-up chicks with him. That would be interesting.

There is no way in hell Ross would let me go with him as a either an ostensibly-impartial observer, or even as an adversarial observer who promised to not interfere. He's only interested in creating more positive testimonials, not an actual review of what's occurring. :)

Lothario

24th July 2009, 04:34 PM

There is no way in hell Ross would let me go with him as a either an ostensibly-impartial observer, or even as an adversarial observer who promised to not interfere. He's only interested in creating more positive testimonials, not an actual review of what's occurring. :)

You should try. I'm sure he'd love a skeptic view of his work :)

JFrankA

24th July 2009, 04:37 PM

There is no way in hell Ross would let me go with him as a either an ostensibly-impartial observer, or even as an adversarial observer who promised to not interfere. He's only interested in creating more positive testimonials, not an actual review of what's occurring. :)

You know... maybe I should go in. I mean, I do stage hypnosis. I can sing praises that this stuff works because I use it in my show, and then reveal that it's all hogwash.... I could be a SPY! :D

Lothario

24th July 2009, 07:08 PM

You know... maybe I should go in. I mean, I do stage hypnosis. I can sing praises that this stuff works because I use it in my show, and then reveal that it's all hogwash.... I could be a SPY! :D

That would be hilarious.

I'm surprised this guy doesn't get more skeptical attention. There are two articles on his website, one from playboy magazine, the other i can't remember. Both the journalists tried it out and came to the conclusion that "it works" :boggled:

remirol

25th July 2009, 05:17 AM

That would be hilarious.

I'm surprised this guy doesn't get more skeptical attention. There are two articles on his website, one from playboy magazine, the other i can't remember. Both the journalists tried it out and came to the conclusion that "it works" :boggled:

The problem is that they didn't define precisely _what_ was working. :) They actually may not have even known to separate the NLP claims from the plain ol' ordinary stuff you can do that works... or, well, it _is_ Playboy; they know part of their audience is desperate for anything female and will eat that stuff up.

Getting back to the original statement: I bet Brad Pitt can pick up tons of chicks using NLP. Just metric buttloads. But how much is the NLP involved? :)

Lothario

25th July 2009, 06:35 AM

Getting back to the original statement: I bet Brad Pitt can pick up tons of chicks using NLP. Just metric buttloads. But how much is the NLP involved? :)
I think it's safe to rule out looks in Jeffries' case (http://www.magicalpha.com/img/rossjeffries.jpg)
:eek:

remirol

25th July 2009, 06:37 AM

I think it's safe to rule out looks in Jeffries' case (http://www.magicalpha.com/img/rossjeffries.jpg)
:eek:

Humorous, but that's not actually what he looks like :) (don't forget, in the staged video he was shaved, dressed nicely, combed hair, etc.)

Lothario

25th July 2009, 01:30 PM

Wow yet ANOTHER believer. Check this out:
"I think NLP is a very real thing, and have learned the basics of it. Enough that i've used it more than once to arouse a woman DEEPLY! =) I've never used it during a pickup... But i've used it on mulitple women that i was already engaged in relationships with and it works very well in turning women on..."
"I absolutely do arouse women using NLP."

I don't get it... by now i must've seen hundreds of people who claim it works. Personally, i would be able to tell what is the effect of NLP and what is the effect of a regular conversation.

By the way, what do you think about these "generally supportive" studies listen on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming

remirol

25th July 2009, 11:13 PM

By the way, what do you think about these "generally supportive" studies listen on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming

I think that at the very top of the page there's the following notice:

The neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) of this article is disputed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute). Please see the discussion on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_studies_on_Neuro-linguistic_programming&action=edit&redlink=1). Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F) (August 2008)

...And then I think to myself "In the end, anyone can edit Wikipedia."

Senex

27th July 2009, 11:21 AM

This one is funny. I found a website (http://www.workingpsychology.com/nlp.html) that mentions a study that showed that NLP can make you less persuasive.
When I was of a certain age I would have bought into Darren Brown's NLP explanations when he went through that period of explaining his mentalism. It would figure that I would be less persuasive with the ladies than I already was :rolleyes:

What happened to that Iknoweverything rascal anyway :(

Because not all people think rationally. And some people don't even realize they aren't thinking rationally.

Even I am guilty of that.
Hey, don't knock exhibitionists!!!! They are the bread and butter of my act!!!!

hehehe... I picture you chastising your subjects not to disrobe until you make the suggestion.

JFrankA

27th July 2009, 11:35 AM

When I was of a certain age I would have bought into Darren Brown's NLP explanations when he went through that period of explaining his mentalism. It would figure that I would be less persuasive with the ladies than I already was :rolleyes:

What happened to that Iknoweverything rascal anyway :(

err...maybe we disproved his stance so well, he began to have doubt and ran away so he can keep believing...? :)

Even I am guilty of that.

We all are. :)

hehehe... I picture you chastising your subjects not to disrobe until you make the suggestion.

Ooooooo! I LIKE that one. May I use it? :D

Senex

27th July 2009, 12:40 PM

A true story. For three years I had no trouble bending metal for parties in college.

My fourth year I knew I was up against skeptics. I taught a freind of my mine what to do to bend metal and I passed by accepting prebent metal.

I'm not ashamed.

Lothario

27th July 2009, 09:02 PM

When I was of a certain age I would have bought into Darren Brown's NLP explanations when he went through that period of explaining his mentalism. It would figure that I would be less persuasive with the ladies than I already was :rolleyes:

Most of these guys have never even heard of Derren Brown and they still believe in it and claim to be sucessful using it. Seriously, see for yourselves:

http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/

This is one of those "pick-up artist" forums where i've been lurking and reading about good ol' Ross. Run a search on NLP or Speed Seduction.

What happened to that Iknoweverything rascal anyway :(

I think he's still working on the script.

Iknoweverything

5th August 2009, 04:34 PM

Hey!

Long time no speak. How we all doing ? made any progress ?

Maia

5th August 2009, 04:42 PM

Okay... (sigh) I have a sad, sad story to share. My dear friend "Brian" was visiting me on a break from med school, and he was telling me the sad, sad tale of how he bought a book (which shall remain nameless) which promised to reveal the secrets of enticing hordes of gorgeous women into bed. (I didn't have the heart to tell him about the time that a girlfriend and I almost got thrown out of Borders for reading the book to each other out loud and laughing hysterically.) Anyway, he asked me sadly if I thought it would work. I tried to give my opinion in diplomatic fashion, and we ended up finding instructional Youtube videos posted by the author of the book. Very similar to the subject of this thread. It was all so depressing. Brian kept telling me story after story of trying the various techniques, each with a worse ending than the last, and then asking me if I really, really thought it had no chance of working at all, complete with sad puppy-dog eyes, and I finally said, "Yes. It worked very well for the guy who wrote the book, because it cost $22.95 per copy." So that's my final opinion of this entire school of thought, I'm sorry to say.

JFrankA

5th August 2009, 04:54 PM

remirol

5th August 2009, 06:43 PM

Hey!

Long time no speak. How we all doing ? made any progress ?

Yes. We proved it was all staged bunk.

How about you? any progress on that script?

Lothario

5th August 2009, 08:47 PM

Hey!

Long time no speak. How we all doing ? made any progress ?

Hey, Ike! Long time no see! How's the script going? :)

Okay... (sigh) I have a sad, sad story to share. My dear friend "Brian" was visiting me on a break from med school, and he was telling me the sad, sad tale of how he bought a book (which shall remain nameless) which promised to reveal the secrets of enticing hordes of gorgeous women into bed. (I didn't have the heart to tell him about the time that a girlfriend and I almost got thrown out of Borders for reading the book to each other out loud and laughing hysterically.) Anyway, he asked me sadly if I thought it would work. I tried to give my opinion in diplomatic fashion, and we ended up finding instructional Youtube videos posted by the author of the book. Very similar to the subject of this thread. It was all so depressing. Brian kept telling me story after story of trying the various techniques, each with a worse ending than the last, and then asking me if I really, really thought it had no chance of working at all, complete with sad puppy-dog eyes, and I finally said, "Yes. It worked very well for the guy who wrote the book, because it cost $22.95 per copy." So that's my final opinion of this entire school of thought, I'm sorry to say.

Yup, that sounds like Ross Jeffries alright. It's good to finally see a woman posting on this thread.

Eddie Dane

6th August 2009, 12:41 AM

Maia

6th August 2009, 06:17 AM

From reading The Game, I have a decent overview of the various approaches on offer.

Ross Jeffries must be the worst of them all because he relies on NLP.

At least Mystery and others are about making contact in certain way, saying something intriguing and getting a conversation going.

I pity the poor lads that walk up to a chick and try this NLP crap.
The other approaches might get them of the hurdle of actually making contact, and that is a good thing. The NLP approach will work so badly that it might scar them for ever.

I suspect some of RJ's victims will remain virgins well into middle age.

Oh, my God... that's IT!!! I have an idea for a new book! I could make millions, MILLIONS I tell you!

It's based on the premise that the reader has already read all of the other books, tried all of the other techniques, and spent lots of money on all of the other worthless crap. A few chapters would be dedicated to analyzing why each approach doesn't work. THEN I'd present MY plan (can't tell y'all that; you'd have to pay for the book.) The difference is that it would be "from a sympathetic woman's point of view", and every page would ooze with empathy for the poor lost souls who'd failed with the other books. Think of all the memes this could combine! Sympathetic mom/sister/Dear Abby figure, girlfriend, schoolmistress, the voice of reason... the possiblities are endless.

So what do you think? Who'd pay $22.95 for the book? And how about the seminars? And the DVD's? :cool:

Toke

6th August 2009, 07:24 AM

Sounds like a great idea:D, are you sure no one have made it already?

Eddie Dane

6th August 2009, 08:26 AM

Oh, my God... that's IT!!! I have an idea for a new book! I could make millions, MILLIONS I tell you!

It's based on the premise that the reader has already read all of the other books, tried all of the other techniques, and spent lots of money on all of the other worthless crap. A few chapters would be dedicated to analyzing why each approach doesn't work. THEN I'd present MY plan (can't tell y'all that; you'd have to pay for the book.) The difference is that it would be "from a sympathetic woman's point of view", and every page would ooze with empathy for the poor lost souls who'd failed with the other books. Think of all the memes this could combine! Sympathetic mom/sister/Dear Abby figure, girlfriend, schoolmistress, the voice of reason... the possiblities are endless.

So what do you think? Who'd pay $22.95 for the book? And how about the seminars? And the DVD's? :cool:

Your idea sounds a lot better then the premise to Ross Jefries' books and -although I know that you were kidding- think that you could make money with it.

Get some training in public speaking, wear something tight and hit the seminar path. That's where the money is.:D

Maia

6th August 2009, 01:06 PM

Sounds like a great idea:D, are you sure no one have made it already?

Well, considering how many versions there are and have ever been of the original (Ross Jefries/Mystery/those weird ads that used to be in the back of old comic books/God only knows what bizarre crap), I doubt that it matters. I'll never forget some of the Youtube videos we found on that fateful night (okay, I guess it wasn't particular fateful, except that it gave me this idea). One was of some random man with a hideous goatee giving an extremely low-rent seminar to an audience of solemnly listening guys--- every so often, the camera would cut to a blond skank with two inches of dark roots in a spandex top, nodding earnestly. It was impossible to tell if she was actually in the same room or not (my guess is not). Then there were the "Mystery" videos; did the world really need to find out that he looks exactly, but EXACTLY like Vanilla Ice circa 1990? And what was with the insane-looking hat? This hat was supposed to be a pickup tool?? I've seen escapees from an inpatient psych ward with better hats!!

Anyway. Maybe I should give that seminar circuit idea more thought... the social work job outlook certainly isn't anything to write home about at the moment....:rolleyes:

Lothario

6th August 2009, 01:33 PM

Then there were the "Mystery" videos; did the world really need to find out that he looks exactly, but EXACTLY like Vanilla Ice circa 1990? And what was with the insane-looking hat? This hat was supposed to be a pickup tool?? I've seen escapees from an inpatient psych ward with better hats!!

More like Tommy Lee meets the lead singer from Jamiroquai.

MikeSun5

6th August 2009, 06:22 PM

So what do you think? Who'd pay $22.95 for the book? And how about the seminars? And the DVD's? :cool:

I think you're selling yourself short, Maia. Go for the money. Desperate people are, well... DESPERATE. The original list price (http://www.amazon.com/Game-Penetrating-Secret-Society-Artists/dp/0060554738/ref=pd_sim_b_4)for The Game was $35, and I just saw The Revelation (http://www.varevelation.com/package.html) being sold for just under $500!!! :eek:

A friend of mine sent me the .pdf of the Revelation. I had no idea I was skimming through something so expensive. Take a look at Mystery, Ross Jeffries, Matador, Tyler Durden, any of them. Name a pickup artist, and what do they all have in common? They are some sleazy-ass dudes. I've said it once, I'll say it a billion times: their tactics only "work" on drunk club-chicks.

Wearing a stupid hat and ski goggles might let you talk to Lady GaGa on South Beach, but try sliding up to a cute girl at a department store with painted fingernails and snakeskin boots asking her if she saw the fight going on outside. Chances of nailing her? Zero.

Maia

6th August 2009, 07:36 PM

Morbid curiosity is not always a good thing, because it drove me to click on that pdf link. It all began with a large photo of "Mystery" dressed like a reject from Pirates of the Caribbean as adapted for an inpatient psych ward musical that the patients had all refused to participate in, which really should have warned me. However, as with that big wreck involving a truck full of country hams that bounced all over Briley Parkway, I could not look away.

Making some new friends in Chicago . . . (images of "Mystery" sucking face with two girls who have apparently been shot up with animal tranquilizers)

I may need to enter a Dominican convent now. Or perhaps no number of Salve Reginas could ever get this out of my mind again.

It contains my entire method for physical escalation... from that first touch... to kiss... all the way to the bedroom, in excruciating (and perhaps yet again offensive!) detail.

Because the details include the mental picture of "Mystery" being involved, the level of offensiveness would likely make a toxic sludge collision in a sewage plant look good.

[Yes, The Game didn't tell you *HALF* of the crazy techniques we unleashed on unsuspecting L.A. girls in those days.

Where are the LAPD with their tasers when you really need them???

You may not know, but I've even received offers of up to $10,000 for one-night, in-field intensive training.

(*snip*)
Lovedrop's exclusive "Free Gay Lunch" story, and how you can add to the vibe of the set.

Something tells me that this may cause well-adjusted gay men to run screaming for the closet all over America.

After all there are only 78 copies of Revelation left - I don't have to worry about 78 of you being pissed off about a name!

So with any luck, only 78 hapless nerdboys have now been scarred for life.:eek:

Lothario

6th August 2009, 07:36 PM

Wearing a stupid hat and ski goggles might let you talk to Lady GaGa on South Beach

This line made me laugh. You could have picked any celebrity, yet you chose Lady Gaga. Nice pick.

I've recently seen some videos that were more geared towards meeting women during the day, basically a lighter version of Mystery Method, without the negs and a lot of that stuff. The "guru" had a couple of hidden cam videos where he walked around UCLA collecting a bunch of phone numbers.

What they don't tell the reader in these books is that their technique is ultimately a numbers game: the guy i mentioned claimed he had slept with around 250 women. It sounds impressive until the moment he mentions that in order to do this he had to approach over 10000 women (presuming he is telling the truth).

MikeSun5

6th August 2009, 08:18 PM

It all began with a large photo of "Mystery" dressed like a reject from Pirates of the Caribbean as adapted for an inpatient psych ward musical that the patients had all refused to participate in, which really should have warned me.

:D Good stuff. Captain D-Bag Jones.

. . . (images of "Mystery" sucking face with two girls who have apparently been shot up with animal tranquilizers)

And there you have it... Pickup Arts 101 :alc:

So with any luck, only 78 hapless nerdboys have now been scarred for life.:eek:

The target demographic for these books are guys who have little to no social or sexual experience. Lothario was dead on when he mentioned the numbers game. Imagine this: you're a nerd who has never approached a woman before. Wanting some attention, you buy a ridiculously overpriced program, get a haircut and a new shirt, and introduce yourself to 100 drunk women. The odds of getting a girl or at least some phone numbers are pretty good. When you compare the 5 new phone numbers to the zero you had before, you're going to attribute your results to the Mystery Method or whatever the hell...

I've got a better tagline for those books: Turning nerds to douchebags, one by one.

Lothario

6th August 2009, 08:46 PM

The target demographic for these books are guys who have little to no social or sexual experience. Lothario was dead on when he mentioned the numbers game. Imagine this: you're a nerd who has never approached a woman before. Wanting some attention, you buy a ridiculously overpriced program, get a haircut and a new shirt, and introduce yourself to 100 drunk women. The odds of getting a girl or at least some phone numbers are pretty good. When you compare the 5 new phone numbers to the zero you had before, you're going to attribute your results to the Mystery Method or whatever the hell...

Yeah. I'm pretty sure i can do the same using no method at all. If i can find some nerdy guys to buy my crappy products so i can make a living out of it i can just approach girls all day long. I'll be the next Wilt Chamberlain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_life_of_Wilt_Chamberlain) in no time!

Maia

6th August 2009, 08:57 PM

Now THERE is actually an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Nighty-night! ;)

Senex

7th August 2009, 12:23 PM

Hey!

Long time no speak. How we all doing ? made any progress ?

Yes, everyone can agree NLP is woo.

Maybe as a NLP believer you can offer a list of great romantic NLP relationships.

Maia

7th August 2009, 12:29 PM

Yes, everyone can agree NLP is woo.

Maybe as a NLP believer you can offer a list of great romantic NLP relationships.

No! NO!!! You're encouraging him! Now he actually may TELL us! Photoshopped images of himself with "Mystery" may be attached! Outfits may be worn! Run away, run away...

Lothario

7th August 2009, 12:36 PM

Maybe as a NLP believer you can offer a list of great romantic NLP relationships.

It's said that Marc Antony used the "incredible connection" pattern on Cleopatra.

Senex

7th August 2009, 12:57 PM

No! NO!!! You're encouraging him! Now he actually may TELL us! Photoshopped images of himself with "Mystery" may be attached! Outfits may be worn! Run away, run away...

hehehe... we always encourage the woo. That's how we all learn. I suspect Iknoweverything will not resort to photoshopped images. Iknoweverything believes he has a happy life. His woo will make him ignore difficult questions instead of outright misleading us. He truly is sold on the woo he has bought into. Those girly boy outfits he wears are NLP approved not photoshopped.

Eddie Dane

7th August 2009, 03:18 PM

It's said that Marc Antony used the "incredible connection" pattern on Cleopatra.

Meh.

I once told a chick that I had a good fifty percent chance of taking over a superpower, if only she would support me with her armies to win the civil war.
Then if we'd win, she could be my queen.

She had me thrown out by a bouncer.

Senex

7th August 2009, 03:28 PM

Meh.

I once told a chick that I had a good fifty percent chance of taking over a superpower, if only she would support me with her armies to win the civil war.
Then if we'd win, she could be my queen.

She had me thrown out by a bouncer.

What a b****! What a wonderful world we could live in if women would only meet us half way.

Toke

7th August 2009, 03:41 PM

That mystery thing reminds me of something I overheard.
Some women considering arranging a Jonny Deph makeup evening, involving wine and lots of makeup.

MikeSun5

7th August 2009, 06:36 PM

Iknoweverything believes he has a happy life. His woo will make him ignore difficult questions instead of outright misleading us. He truly is sold on the woo he has bought into.

You have to be sold on it in NLP. You've got to say it the way you want it (http://www.microdot.net/nlp/communication/positivity.htm). :rolleyes:

***Disclaimer: Reading too much information on the link provided will lower your IQ substantially. NLP is crap/garbage/nonsense dressed up as science. Please do not let the expensive vocabulary words fool you.***

Lothario

8th August 2009, 12:03 PM

You have to be sold on it in NLP. You've got to say it the way you want it (http://www.microdot.net/nlp/communication/positivity.htm). :rolleyes:

***Disclaimer: Reading too much information on the link provided will lower your IQ substantially. NLP is crap/garbage/nonsense dressed up as science. Please do not let the expensive vocabulary words fool you.***

This one (http://modernjedi.com/nlp-music/)is my personal favourite: the Modern Jedi NLP Theme Song. Watch and sing along, folks!

Maia

8th August 2009, 02:54 PM

Now now. No need to call names. You DO understand that the bar girl who wouldn't lend army support was the poor unfortunate in the "Making New Friends in Chicago" pic whom Mystery was attacking with his Slobbering Tongue of Doom, don't you? It's a really sad fate, because that's the untold story of all of Mystery's conquests... they all end up the same way once the cameras stop rolling...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/335544a7df36c6b137.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17170)

Lothario

8th August 2009, 03:33 PM

Now now. No need to call names. You DO understand that the bar girl who wouldn't lend army support was the poor unfortunate in the "Making New Friends in Chicago" pic whom Mystery was attacking with his Slobbering Tongue of Doom, don't you? It's a really sad fate, because that's the untold story of all of Mystery's conquests... they all end up the same way once the cameras stop rolling...

My guess is that the night after she got picked up by Mystery, she returned to the club to be picked up by some other pick-up artist. Those 200+ women have to come from somewhere.

Maia

8th August 2009, 04:36 PM

Ohhhh... no, the punch line was the icon. After the trauma of Mystery and his slobbery tongue of doom, she decided to become a lesbian nun. I do have fun with Photoshop. :)

Seriously, y'all, do you want to save anywhere from $29.95 to $500.00 to $10,000 (for that one-night, in-field intensive training)?

Mystery, Ross Jeffries (ICK ICK ICK!!), and their ilk are pretty much the epitome of creeping horror, the unholy Apocalypse of Death, and other un-nice things. Running far, far away from them would be a good idea. Whether or not any of the techniques would work on drunk skanks with personality disorders and various and sundry social diseases in a sleazy bar, though, I really couldn't tell you.

MikeSun5

8th August 2009, 07:54 PM

Whether or not any of the techniques would work on drunk skanks with personality disorders and various and sundry social diseases in a sleazy bar, though, I really couldn't tell you.

Think about it... Mystery gets paid $40,000 to take out 4 guys to the afore-mentioned sleazy bar, he drops $1,000 on the bar and says all girls drink free.
It's not hard for him to
1. get ahold of a drunk skank with a personality disorder to make out with him while someone snaps a pic on their camera phone.
2. get ahold of a skank drunk enough to have a slurred conversation with a nervous, sweaty geek with a shiny shirt and a new tattoo.

Watch a few clips of him and his boys "in action" from that VH1 show they used to do. It's total sleazebaggery. I know so many women that would throw up in their mouths when approached by these d-bags (http://www.eseduce.com/wp-content/MysteryThePickupArtistDenTek.jpg). Unfortunately, I also know a few women who would not.

Lothario

8th August 2009, 09:09 PM

Although i'm sure that Mystery would get laughed at and possibly killed in any night club where i live, i can see why some women would fall for the palm reading and those gimmicks they use. What i can't understand is how someone would fall for this (notice the embedded commands):

"You know the other day we were talking about how sometimes one can suddenly find themselves feeling really connected to someone.
Me, it happens rarely but when IT IS HAPPENING, I often find I wasn't aware of it until afterwards and you realize it was the start of something amazing. Something you'll always cherish for the rest of your life.
I mean sometimes a person can just be looking at someone and suddenly for whatever mysterious reason, feel a connection so powerfully taking place, a connection that just lets you know that this person is going to be really special in your life where you find yourself so easily imaging being with this person in that special way two people can be together who feel that growing attraction, but then sometimes you don't even NOTICE AND FEEL ITS TAKEN PLACE .. NOW WITH ME I find though that later when you LOOK BACK ON THE WONDERFUL, DELIGHTFUL THINGS THAT TOOK PLACE and suddenly you realize how ENCHANTED YOU FIND YOURSELF FEELING HMMMMM, its like you FALL UNDER A SPELL and you FEEL SWEPT OFF YOUR FEET and you loose your sense of time and space NOW, as if your ENTIRE WORLD IS THIS PERSON (IN FRONT OF YOU), like you're LOOKING/listening to your FUTURE as you just continue to LISTEN SO CAREFULLY.
And I think you may not FEEL THAT CONNECTION INSTANTEOUSLY, but even over short conversation like this one ... a person can find themselves starting to naturally realize that this person is someone who totally meets their criteria for someone you want to spend time with in that special way. In a way that makes you feel mmmm you know what I mean.
And you RECOGNIZE WITHOUT EVEN THINKING ABOUT IT that you really are looking forward to spending more time with this person and the more you allow yourself to feel this the more you begin to think of other things (point to yourself) that can be so delightful. And you begin to feel so safe and uninhibited so that you know its OK to just let yourself go and imagine having your fantasies really come true .. NOW WITH me thats how I sometimes SEE IT THAT WAY."

MikeSun5

8th August 2009, 10:43 PM

JFrankA

9th August 2009, 04:45 AM

This one (http://modernjedi.com/nlp-music/)is my personal favourite: the Modern Jedi NLP Theme Song. Watch and sing along, folks!

That should've come with a warning, Lothario:

"You've watched it! You can't un-watched it!" :)

JFrankA

9th August 2009, 08:02 AM

Now imagine the above ^^ being spoken by this tall glass of water, (http://www.ioffer.com/img/item/912/122/91/9abgdHG8kLLfybe.jpg) or a sexy dreamboat like this guy. (http://ampontan.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/geek-2.jpg)

mmmm... irresistable, am I right, ladies? They're simply oozing machismo.

Anyway, the "embedded commands" are the pickup artist equivalent of a magician's misdirection. I'm sure nobody falls for that stuff -- I think Lothario is right. The little cold reading magic tricks they do are a far better way to create interest, but embedded commands are ridiculous.
Example:
"Don't think of a motorcycle."
Did you just think of a motorcycle? I made you do that with NLP. :rolleyes:
If you're under hypnosis, and you're open to suggestion because you want to feel a certain way, then I'll say maybe embedded commands might have some use (and I'm really stretching it here), but otherwise that stuff is as fake as magic.

Besides, if I'm charging you X amount of hard-earned cash to "teach" you how to manipulate women, I'm going to have a whole filing cabinet full of retarded scripts to hand out.

That's what I've been saying all along. Very well put.

Here's one of the big secrets of performing stage magic and stage hypnosis. The audience is there because they want something "magical" to happen. When an audience shows up to be entertained, half my job is done.

And that applies to what Lothario has been saying all along about NLP and the picking up girls thing. You do the "techniques" to a whole bunch of women, eventually you're going to find one that likes the way you look, or is desperate, or just simply drunk enough to want it to work. It's a numbers game.

Hell, it's the same techniques cons use. And they play the numbers game too. They are very aware of who would make a good mark or not.

I've said it before: NLP and the magic of picking up girls is bunk. It's a numbers game mixed with the desire to believe and momentary confusion of the receiver.

Maia

9th August 2009, 01:51 PM

There's one very good thing about all of this. It's inspired me to start working on a motion graphics project again. :) I used to do professional motion graphics and I've really missed it. I'd love to get back into it with a consumer program, just for fun... AfterFX, I think... Anyway, I really think I'm going to make a new (2 minute, or so) video which answers the existential question: "Should You Spend $500.00 on The Revelation?" (Hint: the answer is "no.") It'll be a parody of NLP programs, and I'll post the link once I put it up on Youtube. :)

Lothario

9th August 2009, 03:16 PM

Now imagine the above ^^ being spoken by this tall glass of water, (http://www.ioffer.com/img/item/912/122/91/9abgdHG8kLLfybe.jpg) or a sexy dreamboat like this guy. (http://ampontan.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/geek-2.jpg)

mmmm... irresistable, am I right, ladies? They're simply oozing machismo.

The funny thing is that it's not completely without happy customers. Like i've been saying, some people do believe that NLP is the reason behind their sucess stories.

Anyway, the "embedded commands" are the pickup artist equivalent of a magician's misdirection. I'm sure nobody falls for that stuff -- I think Lothario is right. The little cold reading magic tricks they do are a far better way to create interest, but embedded commands are ridiculous.
Example:
"Don't think of a motorcycle."
Did you just think of a motorcycle? I made you do that with NLP. :rolleyes:
If you're under hypnosis, and you're open to suggestion because you want to feel a certain way, then I'll say maybe embedded commands might have some use (and I'm really stretching it here), but otherwise that stuff is as fake as magic.

There's also a sneaky "anchor" when he talks about "the person in front of you" and suggests you point at yourself. That, according to Jeffries, will associate yourself with the strong feelings the woman is going through as you recite the pattern.
IIRC from the psychology 101 classes i took in high school, this is taking Pavlov's conditioning study, dumbing it down A LOT and applying it just like that to human beings. 'Cause we all know how easy it is to manipulate people in comparison to dogs, right?

JFrankA

9th August 2009, 04:09 PM

Maia

9th August 2009, 07:25 PM

In order for it to qualify as NLP, of course, you'd need one of these. (http://www.tomheroes.com/Comic%20Ads/classic%20ads/hypno_coin.htm) :)

Oh,and don't miss this (http://www.Athenainstitute.com), whatever you do! I really think we need to get Ross Jeffries and Dr. Winnifred Cutler together.

Eddie Dane

10th August 2009, 12:23 AM

Ashles

10th August 2009, 02:44 AM

Hey!

Long time no speak. How we all doing ? made any progress ?

I'm still interested in reading that script you promised us.

Maia

10th August 2009, 06:09 PM

I've got one. :) Kind of inspired by that 1980’s Mr. Subliminal character on SNL.

(The Setting: A unsuspecting woman is walking into a Whole Foods in the early evening after an aerobox class, just across from a YMCA.)

UW:I wonder if there’s any of that quintuple Tortuous Death by Chocolate Cake left.

(Suddenly, an NLP True Believer jumps out from behind a bush and blocks her path.)

NLP TB: Heather! Brianna… Jessica… Brooke… well, whatever. Anyway. You’re the one I’ve been waiting for all my life! (He wears a scuba mask, flippers, a joker hat with jingle bells on the ends similar to the ones sold at RenFests, a raccoon jacket, plaid bellbottoms, and eight-inch platform shoes with goldfish in the plexiglass heels, and carries a pimp cane that looks just like Lucius Malfoy's.) You know, sometimes you just feel the most amazing spiritual connection, and you can just tell that YOU WANT TO ASK ME BACK TO YOUR PLACE AND--

Unsuspecting Woman: (looking around nervously) Um—
NLP TB: We could have the most special, amazing, spiritual connection, and then you’ll GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY—

UW: (backing away slowly) The police never seem to be around when you really need them…

NLP TB: We could chase puppies together, hold hands while we stroll into the sunset, have long, meaningful conversations where we gaze deeply into each other’s eyes and then you TWIRL ROUND AND ROUND ON THAT STRIPPER POLE LIKE A LOLLIPOP--

UW: (digs in purse) Where’s that mace I had…

NLP TB: (dangles an authentic 1950’s ordered-from-the-back-of-a-Superman-comic-book hypnocoin in front of UW’s face) Wait! This always works! You are getting sleepier and sleepier, more and more relaxed with each passing moment… you will obey all my commands… you will start walking around with your arms stretched straight out in front of you like an escapee from an MST3K zombie flick any second now… (looks up hopefully) So, do you want to have sex yet?

(Just then, a large white van pulls up and comes to a screeching halt. Several large, burly men jump out, quickly wrestle NLP TB to the ground, and get the straightjacket on.)

Psychiatric Orderly: Sorry about that, miss. We just can’t seem to keep him in the high-security ward.

NLP TB: Dang! How did they find me so fast this time?!

(The van pulls away.)

UW: Hmmm…. Something tells me that either I was saved by the hand of Providence, or someone invented an experimental GPS tracer based on DNA and instantaneously rewired it to match that nutball and relay the signal to the state psychiatric hospital.

Helpful Geek (currently working on his PhD in astrophysics and the mysterious subatomic particles found only in fried SPAM—he’s been hovering on the sidelines): The second option, pretty much.

UW: My hero!

HG: Here’s the last piece of chocolate cake. I saved it for you (hands it to her).

UW: Have the outermost fields of quantum physics fused with psychic mindreading abilities?

HG: No. I overheard you verbalizing your innermost thoughts, that’s all.

UW: You know, this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Lothario

10th August 2009, 06:59 PM

I forgot to mention earlier than the Modern Jedi NLP song is supposed to contain some NLP language patterns. Did anyone feel different? I felt dumber, but i'm not sure that counts.

Eddie Dane

11th August 2009, 12:29 AM

The outfit thing:

Now that several pictures have been posted of Mystery and his hangers-on, it perhaps useful that I give some background to their outrageous outfits.

Mystery is a magician who incorporates quite al lot of evolutionary psychology in his methods. I don't know if he really believes in these rationalisations or if they are a form of misdirection.

Anyway: The theory behind the weirdo clothing is called peackocking. As you may have guessed from the name, they think that certain animals make sure they get noticed.
The correct explanation must of course be that some animals show their genetic superiority by diverting nutrition towards feathers and such. Animals that have such a surplus and can also survive despite being much more visible to predators, are obviously strong and very popular with the ladies.

Mystery's "peackocking" theory basically states that you have to make yourself the centre of attention. you can't pick anyone up if nobody notices you.

As you can tell, this challenge is bulldozed out of the way in a remarkably unsubtle manner.

Again, this is a method that I suspect will not work outside certain clubs.

Senex

11th August 2009, 05:42 AM

I am dying to see this! Maia, you are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters on this forum :)

I've got one. :) Kind of inspired by that 1980’s Mr. Subliminal character on SNL.

(The Setting: A unsuspecting woman is walking into a Whole Foods in the early evening after an aerobox class, just across from a YMCA.)

NLP TB: We could chase puppies together, hold hands while we stroll into the sunset, have long, meaningful conversations where we gaze deeply into each other’s eyes and then you TWIRL ROUND AND ROUND ON THAT STRIPPER POLE LIKE A LOLLIPOP--

Don't think you are invulnerable to NLP young lady. Senex is very masculine.

Lothario

11th August 2009, 11:51 AM

Mystery is a magician who incorporates quite al lot of evolutionary psychology in his methods.

I would like to know how much of this evolutionary psychology they claim to use is real and how much of it is bogus.

Maia

11th August 2009, 12:09 PM

I would like to know how much of this evolutionary psychology they claim to use is real and how much of it is bogus.

As we all know, Mystery received his PhD in clinical psychology from Columbia in 2002. He did his post-doctoral work with the prestigious Cambridge Health Alliance at Harvard and has since published many scholarly research papers on the subject of evolutionary psychology in the Journal of Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, and--

(Zoooooooommm--- hold on---)

We have now returned from Bizarro Universe. :)

Anyway, it's basically all bogus. I do know more about the subject than Mystery does, which is NOT saying a lot, and a.) he takes a few ideas he doesn't understand and throws them around in a meaningless way b.) nobody knows if it actually has anything to do with human behavior and c.) in animal behavior, "peacocking" actually is observed at least as often in the context of male displays designed to attract the same sex. Yep, gay peacocks are everywhere. I don't think this is exactly what Mystery is trying to sell.

But, you know, this is a fascinating topic jump up and down eighteen times and yell 'ole'!. Yes, it really does get the mind working convert to flying spaghetti monster worship. One can only imagine what amazing wonders the frontiers of NLP will open next, and where it will lead the human mind "hand over ALL the Chocolate Death Cake IMMEDIATELY and nobody gets hurt!!!

remirol

11th August 2009, 12:49 PM

b.) nobody knows if it actually has anything to do with human behavior

Isn't evolutionary psychology still effectively 'experimental' -- ie. the EPs are basically doing a lot of observing of inherited behavior and characteristics and doing a lot of speculating about how the observations may be related?

Lothario

11th August 2009, 02:29 PM

As we all know, Mystery received his PhD in clinical psychology from Columbia in 2002. He did his post-doctoral work with the prestigious Cambridge Health Alliance at Harvard and has since published many scholarly research papers on the subject of evolutionary psychology in the Journal of Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, and--

(Zoooooooommm--- hold on---)

We have now returned from Bizarro Universe. :)

Anyway, it's basically all bogus. I do know more about the subject than Mystery does, which is NOT saying a lot, and a.) he takes a few ideas he doesn't understand and throws them around in a meaningless way b.) nobody knows if it actually has anything to do with human behavior and c.) in animal behavior, "peacocking" actually is observed at least as often in the context of male displays designed to attract the same sex. Yep, gay peacocks are everywhere. I don't think this is exactly what Mystery is trying to sell.

LOL!

To be fair with Mystery, a few concepts that he throws around do have scientific credibility. For instance, i've seen studies that confirm "social proof" (if you arrive at the club with two beautiful women, other women will find you more attractive than they would if you were to arrive alone). "Kino" also seems to have some merit. I heard about an experiment where this guy would go around asking people favors and his sucess rate increased whenever he lightly touched them.

P.S. Olé!

Maia

11th August 2009, 04:11 PM

Now, you have to understand that an expert in this area I am not. However, I do a lot of research in other and highly unrelated areas. :) So I took a brief look to see what I could come up with. All I can say is that Psychinfo, Pubmed, and Pubmed Central were singularly unhelpful. Scholarly studies don't tend to be formulated in such a way as to ask questions like "If you show up at a club dressed like a reject from a puppet show of Pirates of the Caribbean with two skanks already on your arm, will other women find you more attractive?" ;) It's more likely to be something along the lines of:

D.G Biron, L Marché, F Ponton, H.D Loxdale, N Galéotti, L Renault, C Joly, and F Thomas. (2005). Behavioural manipulation in a grasshopper harbouring hairworm: a proteomics approach. Processes in Biological Sciences,272(1577), 2117–2126.

In relation to human beings, you might get studies theorizing about the reasons why bystanders tend to be friendly to recipients of aggression, or how social conflict models can inform us about models of psychopathology, or how psychopathology in great apes might relate to human mental disorders. So I didn't have any luck finding that study, although I don't have any doubt that somebody did do it somewhere. I'd be interested for sure in seeing it if you can remember where it was, Lothario. (Would you like some salsa?) :)

But again, as others have pointed out too, it depends on who you're trying to attract. I don't personally know anyone (of the female gender, I mean) who would be more rather than less interested in some guy who showed up with two women already hanging off of him, not to mention the pirate ripoff/weird hat/scuba mask/pimp cane thing. Especially if it involved an event held at the library.

JFrankA

11th August 2009, 04:41 PM

LOL!

To be fair with Mystery, a few concepts that he throws around do have scientific credibility. For instance, i've seen studies that confirm "social proof" (if you arrive at the club with two beautiful women, other women will find you more attractive than they would if you were to arrive alone).

I've heard that too, but I'd like to actually see the study of it. From anedotal experience, if you bring a woman to a strip club with female strippers, the strippers will hang around longer... :D

But as to making a man more attractive because he has a "wing-girl" hanging on him, I'd really like to see a serious study done on that.

"Kino" also seems to have some merit. I heard about an experiment where this guy would go around asking people favors and his sucess rate increased whenever he lightly touched them.

P.S. Olé!

I have heard (not read the evidence), that simply giving a reason for a favor increases the chances of people granting favors over just simply asking. So perhaps, just adding anything to the "can you do me a favor" question would cause an increase.

I still of the opinion that this whole thing is nothing more than simple psychological tricks that you can learn by studying stage magic. There are ways to momentarily distract the "critical thinking" of a person. Note the word I used: "distract". It's nothing more than that. Any "sustaining of distraction from critical thinking" is up to the desire of the recipient.

What these people are doing is taking basic, simple techinques and blowing them up into a miracle. Just doesn't work that way.

JFrankA

11th August 2009, 04:48 PM

Just did a little searching. Things look bad for us guys no matter what!!! :D

http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/2/378

Sheesh!!! Not even alcohol helps us guys!!! We are dooooooooooooomed!!!!! :D

Lothario

11th August 2009, 09:44 PM

In relation to human beings, you might get studies theorizing about the reasons why bystanders tend to be friendly to recipients of aggression, or how social conflict models can inform us about models of psychopathology, or how psychopathology in great apes might relate to human mental disorders. So I didn't have any luck finding that study, although I don't have any doubt that somebody did do it somewhere. I'd be interested for sure in seeing it if you can remember where it was, Lothario. (Would you like some salsa?) :)

I can't find the actual study. I did find a news article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/1377411/Why-women-prefer-married-men.html)that mentions it.

Just did a little searching. Things look bad for us guys no matter what!!! :D

http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/2/378

Sheesh!!! Not even alcohol helps us guys!!! We are dooooooooooooomed!!!!! :D

I'll get my "revenge" as soon as i get my NLP practicioner certificate. I'll just need 5 minutes alone with Megan Fox. She'll be head over heels in love with me if i can anchor properly. Do you guys think i should wear goggles? :D

Eddie Dane

12th August 2009, 01:21 AM

I've heard that too, but I'd like to actually see the study of it. From anedotal experience, if you bring a woman to a strip club with female strippers, the strippers will hang around longer... :D

But as to making a man more attractive because he has a "wing-girl" hanging on him, I'd really like to see a serious study done on that.

I have heard (not read the evidence), that simply giving a reason for a favor increases the chances of people granting favors over just simply asking. So perhaps, just adding anything to the "can you do me a favor" question would cause an increase.

I still of the opinion that this whole thing is nothing more than simple psychological tricks that you can learn by studying stage magic. There are ways to momentarily distract the "critical thinking" of a person. Note the word I used: "distract". It's nothing more than that. Any "sustaining of distraction from critical thinking" is up to the desire of the recipient.

What these people are doing is taking basic, simple techinques and blowing them up into a miracle. Just doesn't work that way.

You're right about the stage magic tricks.

Mystery is a magician, so no surprise there.

When I said: 'uses a lot of evolutionary biology', I probably should have said: 'uses a lot of scientific sounding rationalisations for his approach' .

Since you do stage hypnotism, you probably have the whole system in focus.
Choosing the 'victim' (someone willing to be hypnotised) , using suggestion etc. etc.

ETA: Walking into a club with a pretty girl on your arm probably has lots of effect. It is the reason that book covers often say: 'International best-seller' or 'one million copies sold'.
The mechanism is well used in marketing. "If other people like it, I'll probably like it too". See Cialdini's book: Influence.

JFrankA

12th August 2009, 02:44 AM

You're right about the stage magic tricks.

Mystery is a magician, so no surprise there.

Most likely true. Probably he read all the mentalist tricks he could find and came up with this scam.

When I said: 'uses a lot of evolutionary biology', I probably should have said: 'uses a lot of scientific sounding rationalisations for his approach' .

Since you do stage hypnotism, you probably have the whole system in focus.
Choosing the 'victim' (someone willing to be hypnotised) , using suggestion etc. etc.

Well, that's the key to the whole thing: finding someone willing. :)

ETA: Walking into a club with a pretty girl on your arm probably has lots of effect. It is the reason that book covers often say: 'International best-seller' or 'one million copies sold'.
The mechanism is well used in marketing. "If other people like it, I'll probably like it too". See Cialdini's book: Influence.

That's a good point.

I'm trying to think of the reverse. If a girl comes into a bar with a guy on her arm, does that make her more attractive? I can remember being attracted to some girls who had boyfriends, but I can't honestly say that they were more attractive.

Eddie Dane

12th August 2009, 05:12 AM

I'm trying to think of the reverse. If a girl comes into a bar with a guy on her arm, does that make her more attractive? I can remember being attracted to some girls who had boyfriends, but I can't honestly say that they were more attractive.

Frustratingly, I've become more popular with the ladies since I got married.
It's just that:

A. someone thinks I'm good enough to marry, so I must be a good catch.
B. We tend to crave what we can't have.

JFrankA

12th August 2009, 11:36 AM

Frustratingly, I've become more popular with the ladies since I got married.
It's just that:

A. someone thinks I'm good enough to marry, so I must be a good catch.
B. We tend to crave what we can't have.

Those two things I go along with, and I'll go on to say that those attitudes aren't restricted to females. I think both genders have these attitudes. :-)

MikeSun5

13th August 2009, 12:13 AM

I don't personally know anyone (of the female gender, I mean) who would be more rather than less interested in some guy who showed up with two women already hanging off of him, not to mention the pirate ripoff/weird hat/scuba mask/pimp cane thing.

You would be surprised. I immediately thought of two places down here in South Florida where Mystery would probably have decent luck with his craziness. South Beach and the Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood. Both locations have tons and tons of bars and clubs populated by scantily clad drunk girls. I have seen people "peacocking" before and yes, others will come up to them simply to comment on their choice of clothing. (Mystery Method spoiler alert!) It's then up to the "peacocker" to hold their attention and ensure they don't leave, thus adding to their "social proof" by apparently "holding court" and being the center of attention. This obviously doesn't work on a regular basis, because (JfrankA, Lothario, all together now...) it's a numbers game.

If I had no shame, a viking helmet and a scrolling marquee belt buckle, I guarantee that I could go to the casino here on a Saturday and meet 500 women. Easily. How many of those girls are drunk enough and stupid enough for me to take home? Hell, even if it's 0.2%, I win.

Anyway, I don't doubt Mystery's claims (what was it, 250 women out of 10,000?). Obviously Mystery thinks $500 for a book and $10K for an in-field seminar is worth a staggering 2.5% success rate. Imagine if he didn't use NLP!!

A. someone thinks I'm good enough to marry, so I must be a good catch.
B. We tend to crave what we can't have.

I know anecdotal evidence is frowned upon at the JREF, but I can attest to the "forbidden fruit" syndrome also. Wing-girls are great. :)

Eddie Dane

13th August 2009, 03:15 AM

I know anecdotal evidence is frowned upon at the JREF, but I can attest to the "forbidden fruit" syndrome also. Wing-girls are great. :)

If I had been aware of this phenomenon, I'd just bought a wedding ring instead of taking the whole package with sharing my space, intrusive Italian family and flowery design elements in my interior.

*goes back to nursing midlife crisis*

Lothario

13th August 2009, 09:46 AM

If I had no shame, a viking helmet and a scrolling marquee belt buckle, I guarantee that I could go to the casino here on a Saturday and meet 500 women. Easily. How many of those girls are drunk enough and stupid enough for me to take home? Hell, even if it's 0.2%, I win.

Anyway, I don't doubt Mystery's claims (what was it, 250 women out of 10,000?). Obviously Mystery thinks $500 for a book and $10K for an in-field seminar is worth a staggering 2.5% success rate. Imagine if he didn't use NLP!!

It wasn't Mystery. I heard those claims from a guy called Sinn, a former Mystery Method student who now sells his own products. His "magic formula" is slightly different from Mystery's and according to my friends, it's the state of the art of pick-up artistry. If i can find the "algorithm" i'll post it here. With a 2,5% sucess rate, this guy just can't be wrong. Right? ;) (As i think about it, 2,5 is a really low sucess rate, isn't it? Like, below average?)

By the way, i've seen pictures of this guy with some ugly women... hedious actually.

I know anecdotal evidence is frowned upon at the JREF, but I can attest to the "forbidden fruit" syndrome also. Wing-girls are great. :)

I can vouch for this. I can also vouch for the fact that it works both ways.

Anyway, this is all common sense. Once a product becomes in short supply in the market, prices rise. The same goes for dating and relationships :).

Prometheus

13th August 2009, 12:29 PM

...
I know anecdotal evidence is frowned upon at the JREF, but I can attest to the "forbidden fruit" syndrome also. Wing-girls are great. :)

It's not just anecdotal anymore, apparently:

http://www.synergy-pr.com/files/JESP72009%281%29.pdf

Maia

13th August 2009, 01:55 PM

Thank you for the link! :) However... I can think of one major difference in the way I'd have done that study: screening participants for their scores on various psychological tests, and conducting statistical analyses on the relationships which various test scores had to the findings of the study. Without that, the methodological problems are just too great to come to any real conclusions, IMHO. Still, I agree that it's interesting-- although it may not be in the way that anybody would want!

Some people, both male and female, are undoubtedly more interested in what they can't have when it comes to dating partners, but the question is the relationship this desire has to the psychological profile of the person in question. I can tell y'all right now, as a psychiatric social worker who's worked with clients who have borderline personality disorder, that when it comes to a very extreme form of the "wanting the romantic partner you can't have" syndrome, it's a real red flag for BPD. Guys... since that seems to be the gender balance on this particular thread... let me give you a head's up... you do not want to end up in a relationship with a woman who has BPD or any of its milder forms, trust me. It can seem flattering at first, but by the time you've called the cops for the thirty-eighth time in a row because she's sitting outside your house every single night at three in the morning...BPD really is an illness and I don't want to make light of it at ALL, but when researchers don't do psychological screening on their subjects, they don't really even know what it is they're studying (and it's actually kind of a pet peeve of mine.) See how you're getting all this free advice? :) I could be charging $500.00 for this! (No, I couldn't. I couldn't live with myself, and I'd have to wear some bizarre outfit and have a web page... maybe an antique diving helmet... (http://www.giftstumped.com/2007/11/01/antique-diving-helmets-for-nautical-lovers/)

MikeSun5

13th August 2009, 07:10 PM

Some people, both male and female, are undoubtedly more interested in what they can't have when it comes to dating partners...

All too true, but it's amazing how many people are willing to jump that fence. Of course, seeing is believing (http://www.ashleymadison.com).

I wonder if Ross Jeffries is on that site?

Lothario

13th August 2009, 10:08 PM

Ah, here it is. It's a little off-thread, but this is the most recent version of Mystery Method:

"You open with situational comfort.
You break rapport, to start the girl investing.
You expand on that by small hoop qualifying.
You reward her qualifying by running attraction material.
You test for attraction by compliance tests/escalation.
You capitalise on her compliance, by medium hoop qualifying.
You reward her qualifying by moving into rapport comfort.
You break rapport again, to make her invest more (usually break is sexual)
You expand on her investment by large hoop/sexually qualifying.
You reward her qualifying by escalating, moving into sexual comfort.

Any time she doesn't comply, you cycle back to where you were. If she doesn't small hoop comply, you cycle back to situational comfort.

If she doesn't medium hoop/compliance qualify, cycle back to attraction. In this case, remove touch completely and cycle back as this is mostly escalation compliance.

If she doesn't large hoop/sexually qualify, cycle back to rapport comfort.

As you can see, qualification is the key to this model, along with rewarding. She qualifies herself, and you reward, then increase the qualification etc. Sinn's model is difficult, as it is not linear and is a cycle, so I can't do it justice without a diagram, as some of the phases 'overlap'. To describe it best, breaking rapport and qualification 'overlap'; attraction and qualification 'overlap'; sexual comfort and qualification 'overlap.

Breaking rapport and qualification overlap: when you break rapport, you generally do it by teasing. The nature of teasing is that the girl is less cool than you in some way. By breaking rapport you are 'qualifying' her to prove otherwise.

Attraction and qualification overlap: when you run attraction material, you test to see if she is attracted by moving her/asking for compliance, or physically escalating. This is compliance qualification. You are 'qualifying' her to accept your escalating touch.

Sexual comfort and qualification overlap: when moving towards sexual comfort, you are constantly 'qualifying' her sexuality, primarily to turn her on so she feels comfortable getting sexual with you."

I can't make any sense out of this. I am too dumb to be a pick-up artist.

remirol

14th August 2009, 05:02 AM

All I can really take from what he's saying is: that guy has some serious misogyny issues.

Maia

14th August 2009, 07:13 AM

Mystery? Yeah, probably. But for some weird reason, I keep imagining hula hoops. Mystery in a PotC puppet show-reject outfit trying to keep small, medium, and large hula hoops all going at once. It's not a pretty picture. :P

JFrankA

14th August 2009, 02:33 PM

MikeSun5

14th August 2009, 09:39 PM

Basically it turns the idea of meeting women into a video game and this method is the walkthrough.

Ouch. Truth hurts. Unfortunately, the walkthrough is only for the drunk-American version of the game. Doesn't work on PAL systems.

There's a lot of "come here - go away play" that the guy supposed to do, and a lot of guys feel that women play this game.

Also, there's a bunch of "back up" plans, so the guy feels like he's reinforced.

These seem to be the key selling points (if there are any at all). They shill the idea that if you have these "tactics," you'll be successful. One thing that most girl-hungry nerds overlook is the fact that a lot of the "tactics" are simply NORMAL CONVERSATION dressed up as pickup artist techniques. Hell, if I used clever words and bullet lists to recreate a regular conversation between people, I could probably sound like a shrink or something. For example, here's how people meet each other, but it could look like a pickup tactic if it was dressed up a little more:

-- Introduction. Make eye contact when you introduce yourself, shake hands and repeat their name back to them when they say it.
-- Be polite. Give the person the attention and respect that you would like to have them give you. Make sure to smile.
-- Become familiar. Ask questions to learn about the person. Answer questions they ask of you. Try not to be too talkative, but speak up if there are lulls or awkward pauses in the conversation.

...I was going to go on, but this is getting super redundant. :D

Lothario

15th August 2009, 02:35 PM

These seem to be the key selling points (if there are any at all). They shill the idea that if you have these "tactics," you'll be successful. One thing that most girl-hungry nerds overlook is the fact that a lot of the "tactics" are simply NORMAL CONVERSATION dressed up as pickup artist techniques.

Actually, like i've said before, they claim it's more than normal conversation. For instance, Mystery claims that "negging" will make the girl self-conscious, thus decreasing her social value while increasing yours. Ross Jeffries claims that his NLP speech patterns will make the girl go under some sort of hypnotic trance. This guy Sinn claims that "qualifying" (asking her about her qualities, what she does, etc) will make it seem like she's proving herself and not the other way around, therefore making her more attracted.

Basically, they all claim that these psychological tricks will give you an edge over the competition.

The big questions, IMO, are 1) Is there any real psychology behind it and 2) Can they really increase your odds or is it just a matter of how many women you approach?

Maia

15th August 2009, 03:03 PM

Actually, like i've said before, they claim it's more than normal conversation. For instance, Mystery claims that "negging" will make the girl self-conscious, thus decreasing her social value while increasing yours. Ross Jeffries claims that his NLP speech patterns will make the girl go under some sort of hypnotic trance. This guy Sinn claims that "qualifying" (asking her about her qualities, what she does, etc) will make it seem like she's proving herself and not the other way around, therefore making her more attracted.

Basically, they all claim that these psychological tricks will give you an edge over the competition.

The big questions, IMO, are 1) Is there any real psychology behind it and 2) Can they really increase your odds or is it just a matter of how many women you approach?

Well, all I can tell you is what I told "Brian" on the night of the long conversation about the Mystery Method: girls who stick around after the "negging" are the ones who don't like or value themselves very much. Ross Jeffries is insane, IMHO... Sinn is just taking a normal part of human conversation and making it sound like an occult secret... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm doing storyboards on Sunday afternoon for that NLP parody YouTube video. :)

JFrankA

15th August 2009, 03:43 PM

Well, all I can tell you is what I told "Brian" on the night of the long conversation about the Mystery Method: girls who stick around after the "negging" are the ones who don't like or value themselves very much. Ross Jeffries is insane, IMHO... Sinn is just taking a normal part of human conversation and making it sound like an occult secret... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm doing storyboards on Sunday afternoon for that NLP parody YouTube video. :)

I am very anxious to see this, Maia.

MikeSun5

15th August 2009, 05:50 PM

Disclaimer: I'm not a shrink, so you won't get the answers you're looking for from me. ;)

The big questions, IMO, are 1) Is there any real psychology behind it

I think 90% of what they talk about is pure filler. Just nonsense to take up pages so they can charge a lot. Some of the techniques may have some validity, but I'd compare it to Derren Brown's way of hypnotizing and suggesting. Since that stuff isn't effective on everyone, it's best for DB to start with a whole bunch of people and narrow down his search until he finds someone cooperative. In Mystery and Ross' case, substitute the word "cooperative" for "intoxicated with low self esteem."
Most of what they say is shady, but a few of the things almost seem like they'd work. An example is what they call "time distortion." That's when you meet someone - say at a bar - and you go across the street to grab a bite, then go for a walk to the beach to a different bar/club, etc. Supposedly this will leave the person with a bunch of different memory scenes of you to choose from, thereby making them think they spent more time with you than they actually did. That almost sounds like psychology. :)

2) Can they really increase your odds or is it just a matter of how many women you approach?

I'd go with the latter. Try the PUA techniques on 10 women as opposed to 50 women, and I'd imagine the percentage would be higher on the 50.

Since everyone is different, no one set of "instructions" can be a skeleton key for all girls. I'd like to see Ross Jeffries, Mystery, Sinn, and anyone else who claims to have their own method go to like the Pussycat Dolls tryouts or something and go toe-to-toe on picking up women. If what they say is true, they should all be able to pick up the same girls with their various tactics. What I think would actually happen is that they'd have a super low success rate, but all with different girls.

Lothario

15th August 2009, 10:11 PM

Anyway, I'm doing storyboards on Sunday afternoon for that NLP parody YouTube video. :)

Remember to post the link once you're done!

Senex

16th August 2009, 11:39 AM

Now, you have to understand that an expert in this area I am...However, I do a lot of research in other and highly... ...related areas. :) So I took a brief look to see what I could come up with. All I can say is that Psychinfo, Pubmed, and Pubmed Central were singularly unhelpful. Scholarly studies don't tend to be formulated in such a way as to ask questions like "If you show up at a club dressed like a reject from a puppet show of Pirates of the Caribbean with two skanks already on your arm, will other women find you more attractive?" ;) It's more likely to be something along the lines of:

D.G Biron, L Marché, F Ponton, H.D Loxdale, N Galéotti, L Renault, C Joly, and F Thomas. (2005). Behavioural manipulation in a grasshopper harbouring hairworm: a proteomics approach. Processes in Biological Sciences,272(1577), 2117–2126.
This (slightly - for time) edited version of your text puts your research in doubt.
Maia:
In relation to human beings, you might get studies theorizing about the reasons why bystanders tend to be friendly to recipients of aggression, or how social conflict models can inform us about models of psychopathology, or how psychopathology in great apes might relate to human mental disorders. So I didn't have any luck finding that study, although I don't have any doubt that somebody did do it somewhere. I'd be interested for sure in seeing it if you can remember where it was, Lothario. (Would you like some salsa?) :)
Hey, I'm the salsa guy :mad:
Maia:
But again, as others have pointed out too, it depends on who you're trying to attract. I don't personally know anyone (of the female gender, I mean) who would be more rather than less interested in some guy who showed up with two women already hanging off of him, not to mention the pirate ripoff/weird hat/scuba mask/pimp cane thing. Especially if it involved an event held at the library.
You don't frequent my library evidently.

I've heard that too, but I'd like to actually see the study of it. From anedotal experience, if you bring a woman to a strip club with female strippers, the strippers will hang around longer... :D

But as to making a man more attractive because he has a "wing-girl" hanging on him, I'd really like to see a serious study done on that.
Yes, yes, the partnered taken JFrankA always wants to know what he missed.

Frustratingly, I've become more popular with the ladies since I got married.

yes, since you were married geriatric women started liking B Movie sci-fi fans.

Some people, both male and female, are undoubtedly more interested in what they can't have when it comes to dating partners, but the question is the relationship this desire has to the psychological profile of the person in question. I can tell y'all right now, as a psychiatric social worker who's worked with clients who have borderline personality disorder, that when it comes to a very extreme form of the "wanting the romantic partner you can't have" syndrome, it's a real red flag for BPD. Guys... since that seems to be the gender balance on this particular thread... let me give you a head's up... you do not want to end up in a relationship with a woman who has BPD or any of its milder forms, trust me. It can seem flattering at first, but by the time you've called the cops for the thirty-eighth time in a row because she's sitting outside your house every single night at three in the morning...BPD really is an illness and I don't want to make light of it at ALL, but when researchers don't do psychological screening on their subjects, they don't really even know what it is they're studying (and it's actually kind of a pet peeve of mine.)...
Yadda, yadda, yadda...

See how you're getting all this free advice? :) I could be charging $500.00 for this! (No, I couldn't. I couldn't live with myself, and I'd have to wear some bizarre outfit and have a web page... maybe an antique diving helmet... (http://www.giftstumped.com/2007/11/01/antique-diving-helmets-for-nautical-lovers/)
hehehe... You're way behind the times. Nautical helmets are out and mermaid costumes are in :rolleyes:

You clearly need a disciplinarian mentor before you offer your ersearch on the internet :mad:

remirol

16th August 2009, 03:41 PM

Yep, that was creepy.

OK, I doubt our local NLP apologist is going to show up and give us a script. Ta, y'all.

microdot

17th August 2009, 01:54 PM

You have to be sold on it in NLP. You've got to say it the way you want it. :rolleyes:

***Disclaimer: Reading too much information on the link provided will lower your IQ substantially. NLP is crap/garbage/nonsense dressed up as science. Please do not let the expensive vocabulary words fool you.***

Hey - that's my website :D

If it's not too much trouble, I'd like to ask a few questions.

How do you know that people will suffer substantially lower IQ from reading too much information on that link?

How much is too much?

How substantial will the IQ lowering be?

What are 'expensive vocalbulary words'?

Thanks :)

Eddie Dane

18th August 2009, 12:36 AM

yes, since you were married geriatric women started liking B Movie sci-fi fans.

Disturbing isn't it?
Do you think it's something they put in the water?

Senex

18th August 2009, 08:53 AM

Disturbing isn't it?
Do you think it's something they put in the water?

No, it's the cadence of Oprah's interviews with fantasy writers. They have gotten to her. She's putting subliminal NLP messages over the airwaves. She clearly has been re-animated.

Moochie

18th August 2009, 10:40 AM

I think it's safe to rule out looks in Jeffries' case (http://www.magicalpha.com/img/rossjeffries.jpg)
:eek:

I looked at that picture and immediately found tuna-fish sandwiches in my armpits.

M.

Lothario

18th August 2009, 03:26 PM

microdot

19th August 2009, 10:41 AM

Who knows how and why it works?

All I was really looking for was answers to a few questions :)

Senex

19th August 2009, 10:58 AM

Who knows how and why it works?

All I was really looking for was answers to a few questions :)

microdot, trust me, all the answers you seek can be found in the Conspiracy theories thread.

I think it's Maia's turn to speak.

microdot

19th August 2009, 11:56 AM

There seem to be a number of threads in the Conspiracy Theories forum - were you referring to a particular thread? :confused:

Senex

19th August 2009, 01:30 PM

There seem to be a number of threads in the Conspiracy Theories forum - were you referring to a particular thread? :confused:

Sometimes life's answers are fluid. I think this week you can find life's answer's in the JFK autopsy thread.

Maia

19th August 2009, 03:00 PM

Hey - that's my website :D

If it's not too much trouble, I'd like to ask a few questions.

How do you know that people will suffer substantially lower IQ from reading too much information on that link?

How much is too much?

How substantial will the IQ lowering be?

What are 'expensive vocalbulary words'?

Thanks :)

Question #1:

Because morbid curiosity drove me to click on that link, and I actually watched IQ points escape out the window as I was compelled to read on by the sheer appalling train wreckiness of it all. That's how.

Question #2:

Anything.

Question #3:
Enough so that some IQ restructuring was required. (Could I have those lost points back....?)

Question #4:

What are 'expensive vocalbulary words'?

Well,I really couldn't tell you what "vocalbulary" words are, which probably has a great deal to do with the fact that "vocalbulary" is not a recognized adjective in the English language.

As for "how and why it works," (sic) it really might be better not to even start going there. I've already used up my snarkiness quotient for the day. (Do we really need to bring up Mystery's slobbering tongue of doom again?)

MikeSun5

19th August 2009, 09:52 PM

Hey - that's my website :D

If that's true, then this thread is going to get GOOOOD. :popcorn1

How do you know that people will suffer substantially lower IQ from reading too much information on that link?

Since NLP relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, I can use anecdotal evidence to answer your question. It happened to me. The longer I read, the further from actual science and psychology I drifted. I believe that accepting the claims of NLP as fact will - in essence - lower your intelligence.

How much is too much?

Any more than the first page or two.

How substantial will the IQ lowering be?

Depends on the amount of information read.

What are 'expensive vocalbulary words'?

An example I can think of right off the bat without even looking is "submodalities." Sounds like a science word, but it isn't. It's a nonsense word that sounds like something a shrink would say.
NLP practitioners need words like that and misuse other words like "presuppositions" in order to create a false sense of scientific validity.

I think a lot of NLP "techniques," like the pickup artist "techniques" happen like this:
1. the practitioner notices something that happens during a conversation
2. the practitioner notices the same thing happen in a different conversation
3. the practitioner claims this happens in all conversations
4. the practitioner conducts a few studies
5. the practitioner throws out all results that don't support the original claim
6. the practitioner presents anecdotal and/or biased evidence to support the claim

Lothario

19th August 2009, 10:00 PM

Hey - that's my website :D

Can we get Ross Jeffries to post on this thread? That would be awesome.

Eddie Dane

20th August 2009, 12:32 AM

I'm currently reading Tricks Of The Mind by Derren Brown.

The book was recommended to me by several fellow JREFers and I'd like to thank them for that. it is excellent.

Brown devotes a whole section to hypnosis and suggestion and also does a whole chapter on NLP. I'll sum up his conclusions:

NLP is pseudo-scientific claptrap with some techniques that have merit.
These techniques are not unique to NLP (can anyone back this up?)
The techniques that Brown thinks useful are:

Changing your body posture to match the state you want to be in (don't slouch when you want to feel assertive and empowered)
Taking control of (traumatic?) memories by playing movie director and "replaying" them in your head. Turn the sound down, drain the colour from it etc. Styling choices to make it less intense.
Taking control of empowering memories by playing director and turning up the sound, intensifying the colours, putting cool music under it.
The Swish pattern has merit according to Brown.

Note that these are considered USEFUL, without exaggerating the claims. it's like with the exercise equipment they sell on TV. Yes, an Ab-Shaper will help you do sit-ups. No, it doesn't turn you into an eighteen-year old beefcake fitness model in five minutes a day.

Brown thinks the following techniques absolute crap:

Mirroring someone's posture to create rapport (they'll think you're a freak)*
Classifying people as Visual, Auditive etc (We are all all these things)
Reading eye movements (of no practical use, has been scientifically tested)
Ever more complicated programs (sell more courses to the believers!!!!)

*Brown suggest his own, far more subtle method of mirroring.

MikeSun5

20th August 2009, 03:23 AM

I'm currently reading Tricks Of The Mind by Derren Brown.

The book was recommended to me by several fellow JREFers and I'd like to thank them for that. it is excellent.

Brown devotes a whole section to hypnosis and suggestion and also does a whole chapter on NLP. I'll sum up his conclusions:

NLP is pseudo-scientific claptrap with some techniques that have merit.
These techniques are not unique to NLP (can anyone back this up?)
The techniques that Brown thinks useful are:

Changing your body posture to match the state you want to be in (don't slouch when you want to feel assertive and empowered)
Taking control of (traumatic?) memories by playing movie director and "replaying" them in your head. Turn the sound down, drain the colour from it etc. Styling choices to make it less intense.
Taking control of empowering memories by playing director and turning up the sound, intensifying the colours, putting cool music under it.
The Swish pattern has merit according to Brown.

I'd say that's only somewhat accurate. You've got to understand that DB is a SHOWMAN. He relies on being in control, and every person he "uses NLP on" knows who he is (and therefore they know he's in control). He employs a large group of people to find suitable "candidates" for his acts. He then puts the candidates through various tests and questionnaires to narrow down the group. If you start with a field of 2000 people who want to be on Derren's show, and you widdle the group down to 3 highly suggestible people, one of those three encounters will probably yield some good footage. I think that DB is showing misdirection even in explaining the methods of his effects. If he came out in a book and said the reason that NLP clip of him and Simon Pegg on youtube worked was because "I got lucky," mentalists around the world would have freaked the hell out. But since he said it was a billet switch and NLP, it sounds perfectly legit. (I personally think it was a good script, luck, clever editing, AND ye olde billet switch)

Also, when a "victim" is chosen by a hypnotist/magician/mentalist to "perform" in front of a crowd, the "victim" will usually play along. JFrankA would know more about that.

microdot

20th August 2009, 05:49 AM

Well, I asked for answers to my questions and I certainly got them so thanks for those :)

Maia - I'm detecting a note of hostility in your response and I'm not quite sure why - was it something about my spelling?

I'm currently reading Tricks Of The Mind by Derren Brown.

The book was recommended to me by several fellow JREFers and I'd like to thank them for that. it is excellent.

I also have a copy, in my admittedly small library, of Tricks of The Mind and I agree that it's a fascinating read. I also tend to agree with many of DB's views around NLP and related subject matter as I believe he proffers reasonable, balanced arguments based on careful observation and first hand experience.

You may be surprised to know that I'd also tend to agree with DB's take on the use of matching and mirroring to establish rapport. I've taken part in sales negotiations where the sales person has slavishly matched / mirrored every aspect of my posture and it was very obvious to me. On the other hand there have been many occasions where I've been engaged in conversations with people, felt strong rapport with them and subsequently noticed that there are considerable similarities between the body postures we have naturally and individually adopted.

In such circumstances i.e. where I've felt rapport with a person and noted the similarities in our individual postures I've also noted that an intentional posture change on my part has been replicated shortly thereafter by the other person. Thus I'm still inclined to believe that is a commonly and naturally ocurring behavioural pattern.

I think that DB is showing misdirection even in explaining the methods of his effects.

Having read the book and watched a number of his TV programs I'd come to much the same conclusion myself.

In the opening of many of DB's television programs he emphasises that misdirection is a key ingredient in achieving his results. Even when he's explaining the techniques that he supposedly uses to achieve those results I get the distinct impression that there are other layers of misdirection being utilised, and IMHO the book is written in the same style. I think the book is very purposely and carefully written in a thought provoking manner to evoke curiosity and encourage readers to come to their own carefully formed conclusions.

I think a lot of NLP "techniques," like the pickup artist "techniques" happen like this:
1. the practitioner notices something that happens during a conversation
2. the practitioner notices the same thing happen in a different conversation
3. the practitioner claims this happens in all conversations
4. the practitioner conducts a few studies
5. the practitioner throws out all results that don't support the original claim
6. the practitioner presents anecdotal and/or biased evidence to support the claim

With regard to the overall theme of this thread I imagine there are more than a few people out there who are using NLP type techniques wrapped in circular reasoning in order to line their wallets and that the six steps outlined by MikeSun5 are likely to align quite closely with the strategies employed by such individuals in achieving their desired objectives.

Which leads me back, tongue in cheek, to the response to one of my earlier questions.

The question was - How do you know that people will suffer substantially lower IQ from reading too much information on that link?

The response included - It happened to me.

Now, I must confess to being somewhat 'nit-picky' here, but isn't that a prime example of point 3?

3. the practitioner claims this happens in all conversations

Doncha think?

JFrankA

20th August 2009, 07:48 AM

Well, I asked for answers to my questions and I certainly got them so thanks for those :)

Maia - I'm detecting a note of hostility in your response and I'm not quite sure why - was it something about my spelling?

I can't speak for Maia, and I hope she corrects me if I'm wrong, but the hostility is the fact that most women are not pawns that one can use tricks to simply get into bed. Most women who are worth it don't play the game.

'Sides, we guys are notorious for making, and please excuse the reference, "fish stories" out of our "conquests".

I also have a copy, in my admittedly small library, of Tricks of The Mind and I agree that it's a fascinating read. I also tend to agree with many of DB's views around NLP and related subject matter as I believe he proffers reasonable, balanced arguments based on careful observation and first hand experience.

Derren has written quite a few books other than "Tricks of the Mind". This is a book written by a stage performer trying to give a personal history and "Magic 101" lesson along with it. He is brutally honest in it, he's hiding nothing. A lot of the memory tricks and things in the book was exactly as how Eddie Dane beautifully put it.

Note that these are considered USEFUL, without exaggerating the claims. it's like with the exercise equipment they sell on TV. Yes, an Ab-Shaper will help you do sit-ups. No, it doesn't turn you into an eighteen-year old beefcake fitness model in five minutes a day.

A magician's real talent, though, is taking that mundane, useful, little known stuff and presenting it in a way that is "magical".

The thing about Derren, or any stage magician worth her/his salt, is that once the lights are off, once he's off-stage, he will break character. He will not let his "magic" go into real life. Penn & Teller do that, Randi does that, any real professional magician will drop the "fourth wall", and without revealing the secret of the trick of course, admit that there's nothing "magical" going on.

You may be surprised to know that I'd also tend to agree with DB's take on the use of matching and mirroring to establish rapport. I've taken part in sales negotiations where the sales person has slavishly matched / mirrored every aspect of my posture and it was very obvious to me. On the other hand there have been many occasions where I've been engaged in conversations with people, felt strong rapport with them and subsequently noticed that there are considerable similarities between the body postures we have naturally and individually adopted.

In such circumstances i.e. where I've felt rapport with a person and noted the similarities in our individual postures I've also noted that an intentional posture change on my part has been replicated shortly thereafter by the other person. Thus I'm still inclined to believe that is a commonly and naturally ocurring behavioural pattern.

Maybe, but then, you wanted it to work. Here's part of the problem. You believe and want it work so you associate it. Gotta do a real, double blind test with you NOT participating, just observing and see what really goes on.

Having read the book and watched a number of his TV programs I'd come to much the same conclusion myself.

Definitely. But then, he's performing. He's brilliant at creating something magicians call "Duel-Reality".

(No, not a magical woo, just very clever misdirection).

In the opening of many of DB's television programs he emphasises that misdirection is a key ingredient in achieving his results. Even when he's explaining the techniques that he supposedly uses to achieve those results I get the distinct impression that there are other layers of misdirection being utilised, and IMHO the book is written in the same style. I think the book is very purposely and carefully written in a thought provoking manner to evoke curiosity and encourage readers to come to their own carefully formed conclusions.

He's not performing in the book. He's being very honest. I've read a couple of his other books and they are more for advanced magicians. As I said, he's giving a basic "Derren Brown Magic 101" in this book.

With regard to the overall theme of this thread I imagine there are more than a few people out there who are using NLP type techniques wrapped in circular reasoning in order to line their wallets and that the six steps outlined by MikeSun5 are likely to align quite closely with the strategies employed by such individuals in achieving their desired objectives.

Which leads me back, tongue in cheek, to the response to one of my earlier questions.

The question was - How do you know that people will suffer substantially lower IQ from reading too much information on that link?

The response included - It happened to me.

Now, I must confess to being somewhat 'nit-picky' here, but isn't that a prime example of point 3?

Doncha think?

Perhaps you have a point there. We are all guilty of it. However, the difference is that MikeSun isn't asking for any money for his opinion. He's trying to direct people away from someone who is actually trying to con a poor guy into believing that this will make him get women.

And yes, I believe if someone does read your website and then decide to shell out a lot of money for one of those courses by Mystery and the others, then he is being stupid.

This whole NLP and hypnosis things is simply this, in order of importance:

1. Desire - from the person receiving the NLP/hypnosis
2. Confidence - from the person doing the NLP/hypnosis
3. Confusion - from the person doing the NLP/hypnosis
4. Belief - from the person receiving the NLP/hypnosis

That's it. Enough to con people or entertain them for a night (if you know misdirection and sleight of hand), but not enough to have "any woman you desire" or "sell anything you want to anybody".

That's the difference.

Senex

20th August 2009, 09:17 AM

Hey - that's my website :D[
I apologize. I assumed a link to a site I didn't check out probably didn't belong to someone who took credit for it hours later. I mocked you for the wrong reasons. Sorry.

I'd say that's only somewhat accurate. You've got to understand that DB is a SHOWMAN. He relies on being in control, and every person he "uses NLP on" knows who he is (and therefore they know he's in control).

This is true. If microdot wants to put his faith into "NLP" effect's DB has performed I suspect we can get around the "don't expose" rule to save one young man's mind from NLP.

Ohhhh... no, the punch line was the icon. After the trauma of Mystery and his slobbery tongue of doom, she decided to become a lesbian nun. I do have fun with Photoshop. :)

Tell me that's not true! :rolleyes:

I'm currently reading Tricks Of The Mind by Derren Brown.
It's more woo than you think.

I can't speak for Maia, and I hope she corrects me if I'm wrong, but the hostility is the fact that most women are not pawns that one can use tricks to simply get into bed. Most women who are worth it don't play the game.

'Sides, we guys are notorious for making, and please excuse the reference, "fish stories" out of our "conquests".

Oh, what a suck up. That's NLP 101.

microdot

20th August 2009, 10:01 AM

Aaargh! By the time I've finished typing my responses and clicked the Submit Reply button my session seems to have timed out and I lose everything. Is there a mechanism to stop that happening?

Many thanks JFrankA for your candid responses :)

If I may be allowed I would just like to say that I did not arrive at this forum with the intent of offending anybody or of supporting those persons who would seek to manipulate others for their own financial gain by selling them 'magic beans'.

I arrived here after reviewing the visitor logs for my website and thought it would be interesting to find out more about the opinions expressed here and, hopefully, engage in some lively debate.

So far I'm enjoying the experience and hope to continue doing so :)

If I may continue:-

Maybe, but then, you wanted it to work. Here's part of the problem. You believe and want it work so you associate it. Gotta do a real, double blind test with you NOT participating, just observing and see what really goes on.

This gave me pause for thought and also raised a couple of questions for me which I'll share with you if I may.

On the occasions where I noticed the similarity in posture with people I felt in rapport with, I'm not aware that I was actively looking for it. It was something that I noticed mid-conversation and that I found pleasantly surprising.

True, I then consciously adjusted my posture and looked for the other person to follow and, more often than not, saw what I was looking for.

In the absence of laboratory conditions though the evidence of my senses is all I have to go on.

I agree that double blind testing is a useful way to elimate, as far as possible, the effects of subjective experience on the measured results of experiments but I can't work out how my acting as just an observer would achieve this.

Surely, if your assertion is correct, even as a 'believer/observer' I would still be looking for it to work and thus would bias the results?

This whole NLP and hypnosis things is simply this, in order of importance:

1. Desire - from the person receiving the NLP/hypnosis
2. Confidence - from the person doing the NLP/hypnosis
3. Confusion - from the person doing the NLP/hypnosis
4. Belief - from the person receiving the NLP/hypnosis

Whilst I think you have some valid points here I think NLP is a much broader subject than you might appreciate. I realise that this thread relates to a particular use of NLP but IMHO there's rather more to it than the idea of 'speed seduction'.

I apologize. I assumed a link to a site I didn't check out probably didn't belong to someone who took credit for it hours later. I mocked you for the wrong reasons. Sorry.

Thankyou Senex, I respectfully accept your apology even though it seems to imply that while you feel you mocked me for the wrong reasons, I am still meritous of your mockery? :(

This is true. If microdot wants to put his faith into "NLP" effect's DB has performed I suspect we can get around the "don't expose" rule to save one young man's mind from NLP.

Sorry - dont understand :( Could I ask you to clarify?

Thanks again to everyone for allowing me to participate :)

Ashles

20th August 2009, 10:48 AM

I'm currently reading Tricks Of The Mind by Derren Brown.
It's more woo than you think.

Can you qualify that statement? Why is it 'more woo' than Eddie thinks?

Lothario

20th August 2009, 10:53 AM

If I may be allowed I would just like to say that I did not arrive at this forum with the intent of offending anybody or of supporting those persons who would seek to manipulate others for their own financial gain by selling them 'magic beans'.

Whilst I think you have some valid points here I think NLP is a much broader subject than you might appreciate. I realise that this thread relates to a particular use of NLP but IMHO there's rather more to it than the idea of 'speed seduction'.

The problem is i don't think there is anything more to it than that. NLP is just a tool for those who prey on other people's insecurities (although i understand that you don't support that). Use NLP and you'll solve all your problems. Buy this book and you'll seduce women. Take this course and you'll be a better salesman.

Everytime it was put to the test under a controlled environment, it failed. Matching PRS, mirroring, persuasion, eye cues, everything. Normally, you would expect the practicioners to come up with hard data of their own to support the theory. What did they do? They came up with excuses like "we don't deal with science, we just do what works" or "it takes a lot of training to understand the subtleties of NLP".

Also, if NLP is science, why is it that nobody fails in these courses? As long as you attend the classes, you become a NLP practicioner or master trainer. Shouldn't a student be required to prove that he learned NLP and is qualified to go use it and teach it to others? Like DB said, i think NLP resembles a pyramid scheme with Bandler sitting happily at the top.

microdot

20th August 2009, 11:45 AM

The problem is i don't think there is anything more to it than that. NLP is just a tool for those who prey on other people's insecurities (although i understand that you don't support that). Use NLP and you'll solve all your problems. Buy this book and you'll seduce women. Take this course and you'll be a better salesman.

What problem, for whom?

Sorry to say that not only do I not support your argument, I largely disagree with it too.

While NLP / NLP like techniques probably are used in the way you describe, that's not the only use they can be put to and thus I think it's inaccurate to say that they are 'for' that one particular purpose.

However, as I like to use whatever information I can get my hands on to allow me to take a balanced view I would like to find out more about the tests you refer to if you could point me in the direction of any suitable information, ideally online, I'd be most grateful.

Also can I ask how you know that nobody fails the courses?

Sorry to be a 'nit-picker' but given that the thrust of your argument seems to be that anyone connected with NLP makes sweeping statements based on nothing other than anecdotal evidence I feel compelled to question the basis of your assertions a little more deeply.

Senex

20th August 2009, 01:52 PM

Aaargh! By the time I've finished typing my responses and clicked the Submit Reply button my session seems to have timed out and I lose everything. Is there a mechanism to stop that happening?
No, that's what is considered by the JREF as hazing of the newbie. Myself, I'm old school with my hazing.

Thankyou Senex, I respectfully accept your apology even though it seems to imply that while you feel you mocked me for the wrong reasons, I am still meritous of your mockery? :(

Sorry - dont understand :( Could I ask you to clarify?

Thanks again to everyone for allowing me to participate :)

hehehe... no need to thank anyone for being allowed to participate -- the darn rules insure it. Look at it like this, you're a newbie posting pro woo NLP on an anti-NLP thread -- you should have a thick skin.

Many times NLP advocates have a favorite video they invoke to show the powers of NLP. I know you can't post links yet but you can post how others can link it it for you ( (I recommend some swish technique).

Ashles says:Can you qualify that statement? Why is it 'more woo' than Eddie thinks?

Maybe I was hoping Eddie would ask me himself :rolleyes:

Anyway, Brown has rightly distanced himself from NLP since writing that book.

Does anyone believe a video of Derren Brown they can link to shows NLP at work? Please provide the link and I am certain as a would be - could have been, someone with a sophisticated mentalism library can explain a more mundane answer. I have to work around the no exposing rules but I have in the past.

Lothario

20th August 2009, 02:11 PM

What problem, for whom?

For the people spending money learning NLP or paying for NLP-based therapy, when there's no proof of it's efficacy other than anecdotes.

However, as I like to use whatever information I can get my hands on to allow me to take a balanced view I would like to find out more about the tests you refer to if you could point me in the direction of any suitable information, ideally online, I'd be most grateful.

I posted this knol a while ago. I think it's quite accurate:

http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2#[/URL]

I even found one of the studies, conducted by Druckman and Swets for the National Research Council, online: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1025&page=R1 (http://knol.google.com/k/joe-greenfield/neurolinguistic-programming/2j6nlcky7q5vo/2)

They came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of NLP's efficacy.

Michael Heap's review is also available online: http://www.mheap.com/nlp.html

Also can I ask how you know that nobody fails the courses?

DB mentions it in Tricks of the Mind. Also, you might want to take a look here:

http://www.ppimk.com/NLP-certification.html

"Each level of certification has specified attendance requirements. However in addition to be fully engaged in the experience, courage, openness and the determination to work through the issues that arise are the required personal qualities for those wishing to gain NLP accreditation."
Attending the classes and showing "experience, courage, openness and determination to work through the issues that arise" alone won't get you a psychology degree. Apparently, it will get you NLP accreditation.

[U]

Sorry to be a 'nit-picker' but given that the thrust of your argument seems to be that anyone connected with NLP makes sweeping statements based on nothing other than anecdotal evidence I feel compelled to question the basis of your assertions a little more deeply.

No problem. Perhaps I have a wrong image of NLP because my first contact with it was through a group of friends that got into the whole "pick-up artist" and "speed seduction" thing. But the truth is all I see are dubious applications of NLP and anecdotes instead of evidence.

Ashles

20th August 2009, 02:53 PM

Can you qualify that statement? Why is it 'more woo' than Eddie thinks?
Maybe I was hoping Eddie would ask me himself :rolleyes:

So... no then.

Senex

20th August 2009, 03:29 PM

So... no then.

No... so then share what you learned about NLP from Derren Brown's book.

Ashles

20th August 2009, 03:37 PM

No... so then share what you learned about NLP from Derren Brown's book.

So you agree that you can't back up your statement that the book 'Tricks of the Mind' is 'more woo' then Eddie Dane thinks it is? Fair enough.
I'm not sure how that leads on to a question about what I leaned from NLP from Derren Brown's book. But anyway...

What I 'learned' from the book agreed with what I had 'learned' from having a degree in Experimental Psychology - that it was pretty much bollocks.

And the few bits he agreed with (such as body posture and memory interpretation) are not the sole purview and invention of NLP.

I ge the impression you think Derren Brown was somehow promoting NLP in that book.
Have you actually read the book?

Ashles

20th August 2009, 03:48 PM

Anyway, Brown has rightly distanced himself from NLP since writing that book.

Does anyone believe a video of Derren Brown they can link to shows NLP at work? Please provide the link and I am certain as a would be - could have been, someone with a sophisticated mentalism library can explain a more mundane answer. I have to work around the no exposing rules but I have in the past.

From this is really seems to me like you think Derren Brown is promoting NLP (or at least was in his book).
He in fact treats it very skeptically.

And also let me quote you some text from the book (which you will be familiar with, having, I'm sure, actually read it)

I now have a lot of NLPers analysing my TV work in their own terms, as well as people who say that I myself unfairly claim to be using NLP whenever I perform (the truth is I have never mentioned it).

JFrankA

20th August 2009, 04:38 PM

No... so then share what you learned about NLP from Derren Brown's book.

I said it before, Senex, this isn't a book about learning NLP or hypnosis or anything like that. This is more of a "Derren Brown Magic Instruction 101" type of book.

Also, even though in his performances he makes it look like NLP and hypnosis, but that's a performance. In a perfromance, anything goes.

For example, I do a trick in which I say I use a new technique called "Numeric-Linguistic Communication" (Don't "Google" it. It doesn't exist. I made it up.) to predict a seven digit number that a spectator will pick based upon a bunch of personal question I ask that spectator beforehand and observe her reactions.

I sell "Numeric-Linguistic Communication" for all it's worth during my performance. But that's a performance. It's my job to fool people. That's Derren's job in his shows. That's anyone's job who is doing this for entertainment purposes.

The line is crossed when the "stage lights are off", so to speak. People who come to me after I'm done and ask for more information on "Numeric-Linguistic Communication" I tell them straight out that it doesn't exist and it was part of the trick.

Derren does that as well. He's written a few books and all of them are magic instruction books, not woo books. Brown has distanced himself from NLP long before "Tricks of the Mind". Maybe not onstage, but that's a stage. He is a magician.

Let me put it this way: Derren has never wrote a book, or has a website or offer lessons in NLP or any other thing that says it will "make you sell better" or "meet women" or anything like that. All his books and videos are stage magic instructions.

MikeSun5

20th August 2009, 07:18 PM

The question was - How do you know that people will suffer substantially lower IQ from reading too much information on that link?

The response included - It happened to me.

Now, I must confess to being somewhat 'nit-picky' here, but isn't that a prime example of point 3?

Doncha think?

:D That response was me 1.) realizing I got busted by the creator of a website I dissed, and 2.) trying to get out of it still looking good.

As far as you being nit-picky... Hell, you're in the right forum for that. :)

At any rate... I mentioned earlier that NLP relies heavily on anecdotal evidence. Here's some more nit-picking:

In the absence of laboratory conditions though the evidence of my senses is all I have to go on.

Unfortunately this is the bane of NLP. Since it performs so badly under scrutiny, anecdotal evidence is the only "proof" that NLP works.

I agree that double blind testing is a useful way to elimate, as far as possible, the effects of subjective experience on the measured results of experiments but I can't work out how my acting as just an observer would achieve this.

You acting as an observer would give you solid evidence that is not anecdotal.

Surely, if your assertion is correct, even as a 'believer/observer' I would still be looking for it to work and thus would bias the results?

As a believer, your preconceptions wouldn't change the results, but they would probably make you reject them as evidence if the results weren't what you wanted. Unfortunately this is another common problem among NLP supporters: rejection of contrary evidence.

Similar to hypnosis, acupuncture, and homeopathic medicine, the patient of NLP must be aware of the practitioner's intentions for it to work. If you don't know it's being used, it won't "work."

Microdot - you mentioned how you felt rapport with someone that you noticed later was mirroring your posture. Perhaps you felt rapport simply because they were friendly? Maybe they had a pleasant face? Mimicking posture and body language can be subconscious. People copy others' body postures and nervous ticks in conversations all the time (hands on hips, arms folded, wiping eyes, etc). It's not always a person consciously trying to use NLP on someone, no matter how much the believer believes.

I then consciously adjusted my posture and looked for the other person to follow and, more often than not, saw what I was looking for.

More often than not, you saw what you were looking for.
That's exactly the point.

Senex

20th August 2009, 10:23 PM

So you agree that you can't back up your statement that the book 'Tricks of the Mind' is 'more woo' then Eddie Dane thinks it is? Fair enough.

Oh, so you're using the hiding behind Eddie Dane defense. I could point out flaws in the book -- instead I will just point out how your attack on me is similar to OJ's defense.

JFrankA: I said it before, Senex, this isn't a book about learning NLP or hypnosis or anything like that. This is more of a "Derren Brown Magic Instruction 101" type of book

Yes, an instruction book Ashles has clearly run with. I may miss my next train stop with Ashles at large.

Eddie Dane

21st August 2009, 02:21 AM

Senex,

Derren Brown thinks NLP is BS. He was taken in by it when he was younger, took a course and was sorely disappointed. He specifically mentions the absence of any kind of exam at the end of the course and all participants send on their merry way with a NLP certificate.

He does go into some techniques used within NLP that have some merit.
But look at the list of useful techniques:
* Changing your body posture to match the state you want to be in (don't slouch when you want to feel assertive and empowered)
* Taking control of (traumatic?) memories by playing movie director and "replaying" them in your head. Turn the sound down, drain the colour from it etc. Styling choices to make it less intense.
* Taking control of empowering memories by playing director and turning up the sound, intensifying the colours, putting cool music under it.
* The Swish pattern has merit according to Brown.

These are all straightforward visualisation techniques or a simple way to get you psyched for a meeting.
You could come up with your own techniques and they would probably work.

For example: My dad came into a position of considerable responsibility at the tender age of 25. Negotiations scared him and he came up with the method of "staring himself down" in the mirror.
Meaning that if he was facing a tough negotiation, he would stand in front of the mirror and tell himself 'you are not going to give in to those bastards' etc.
Now, does that make him some kind of NLP master? These are simple methods of self suggestion that people come up with all by themselves. NLP simply made them into a "system", exaggerates the effect and charges money for it.

BTW: my father is a very good negotiator, but that hinges on a LOT more than talking to the mirror. (product knowledge, market knowledge, social intelligence, charm, verbal ability etc.)

Maybe DB shouldn't have included the techniques in the same section of the book as NLP, as they are so natural and straightforward that they have probably been used since humans grew a neo cortex.

ETA: Derren Brown also mentions the very negative effects that the NLP cult can have on relationships.
He relates an anecdote about a friend who's teenage daughter would like to have a normal open talk with her dad about some issues.
The friend kept deflecting all criticism from his daughter by using NLP manipulation techniques on her. Needless to say, these didn't work at all. When the girl got frustrated and angry, the friend asked her: 'So, how do you know that you're angry at me?'.
The girl walked out of the room in frustration at yet more NLP crap being thrown at her.

So, NLP cannot just keep you from getting laid. It can also screw up your family life.

Eddie Dane

21st August 2009, 02:39 AM

Ashles

21st August 2009, 02:43 AM

Oh, so you're using the hiding behind Eddie Dane defense.No, I'm usi the old "Please back up the specific claim you just made" 'defense' (defense of what?)

But okay, let's ignore Eddie altogether. You state: I could point out flaws in the book
Okay, please do so. That is exactly what I was asking
-- instead I will just point out how your attack on me is similar to OJ's defense.

Actually your defense is more applicable in that you want to avoid backing up your statement tht the book is 'more woo than you think' so you are attempting to distract the conversation away from that.
So, can you explain that statement or not?
Or will this become another one of those unconvincing "Oh I know how Derren does it all but I'm not allowed to say" discussions?
Yes, an instruction book Ashles has clearly run with. I may miss my next train stop with Ashles at large.

This doesn't really make any sense. In what way have I 'run with it'? That it thinks NLP is bollocks and so do I?
That it contains genuinely effective memory tricks and methods?
Please try to explain what you are saying more clearly, if possible without recourse to unclear analogies that do not clarify whatever point you are trying to convey.{

microdot

21st August 2009, 02:47 AM

Unfortunately this is the bane of NLP. Since it performs so badly under scrutiny, anecdotal evidence is the only "proof" that NLP works.

After a cursory glance, some of the information found on some of the links kindly provided by Lothario would appear to back that up. I'm going to spend more time studying them more thoroughly so may not post here for a little while - which doesn't mean that I've gone away ;)

I then consciously adjusted my posture and looked for the other person to follow and, more often than not, saw what I was looking for.

More often than not, you saw what you were looking for.
That's exactly the point.

Yes, I consciously looked for something and yes, on a number of occasions, not every single time but on a number of occasions I saw it.

In highlighting the point that I saw what I was looking for, are you suggesting that I imagined it?

Can a person observe / measure something without looking for it?

While you're busy 'not looking' for something, how would you know it didn't happen anyway?

Again I am nit-picking and partly that's because I'm not a scientist and can't see a way past this particular argument.

Maybe someone can steer me in the right direction (without looking for it tough :p)

Senex

21st August 2009, 04:08 AM

Oh yes,

For some quality entertainment, look up some Derren Brown stuff on Youtube in which he pretends to use NLP.

Then read the comments, where the NLP faithful try to pick apart which techniques Derren uses in the clip.

It's a hoot.:D

I did. One time on Youtube there was a dozen pages of conjecture on an affect that was a simple envelope switch. When I pointed out it wasn't woo but a slight -- I was shouted down (That thread has since been taken down)

No, I'm usi the old "Please back up the specific claim you just made" 'defense' (defense of what?)

7500+ posts and you still don't get it.

Did you notice Maia changed her avatar? It's not about me and if I read some stupid book. (and you call yourself a skeptic :rolleyes:)

Ashles

21st August 2009, 04:36 AM

7500+ posts and you still don't get it.

So you can't back up your comment. That's fine. Just wanted to be clear on that.

Did you notice Maia changed her avatar? It's not about me and if I read some stupid book.

So you didn't actually even read the book then? That's fine. Just wanted to be clear on that.

(and you call yourself a skeptic :rolleyes:)

Yup.
Look at how your statements crumbled under the focus of only a tiny application of skepticism.

Senex

21st August 2009, 04:39 AM

So you can't back up your comment. That's fine. Just wanted to be clear on that.

So you didn't actually even read the book then? That's fine. Just wanted to be clear on that.

Yup.
Look at how your statements crumbled under the focus of only a tiny application of skepticism.

7505+ posts and you still don't get it :rolleyes:

Ashles

21st August 2009, 04:46 AM

7505+ posts and you still don't get it :rolleyes:

Oh I get it - you can't back up your comment.

Don't worry we all get it very clearly.

Senex

21st August 2009, 04:54 AM

Oh I get it - you can't back up your comment.

Don't worry we all get it very clearly.

7507 and counting :rolleyes:

Please stay on topic and keep the tone civil. Thank you.

Ashles

21st August 2009, 05:02 AM

7507 and counting :rolleyes:

When a poster is forced to retreat into a childish position such as this rather than even try to debate like an adult or attempt to defend their own comment (or have the honesty to admit error) then there is no point in continuing.

I will let you have the last word which I assume will be something brilliant such as

"7509 and counting :rolleyes:"

Well done. Putting that old 'E' in the JREF. :rolleyes:

Senex

21st August 2009, 05:13 AM

When a poster is forced to retreat into a childish position such as this rather than even try to debate like an adult or attempt to defend their own comment (or have the honesty to admit error) then there is no point in continuing.

I will let you have the last word which I assume will be something brilliant such as

"7509 and counting :rolleyes:"

Well done. Putting that old 'E' in the JREF. :rolleyes:

Hit a sore spot, did I.

microdot

21st August 2009, 07:24 AM

ETA: Derren Brown also mentions the very negative effects that the NLP cult can have on relationships.
He relates an anecdote about a friend...

...So, NLP cannot just keep you from getting laid. It can also screw up your family life.

Am I missing something here or did Eddie Dane just quote an anecdote as evidence that NLP can screw up a person's family life?

Yet if a proponent of NLP backs up their claims with using anecdotal evidence that's a bad thing?

:confused:

remirol

21st August 2009, 07:33 AM

Am I missing something here or did Eddie Dane just quote an anecdote as evidence that NLP can screw up a person's family life?

Yet if a proponent of NLP backs up their claims with using anecdotal evidence that's a bad thing?

There's a small but important difference here. Eddie cited a case where using NLP screwed up a person's family life. That means "can" is valid (yours and Eddie's use); what would be invalid is to say that it "will" screw up your family life (we can't possibly know from a single example).

The problem is that NLP promoters and sellers (funny, that) don't phrase their techniques from the perspective of "can", they phrase them from the perspective of "will". And if you're trying to show that something works often enough to justify "will", you need to use something other than anecdotal evidence... such as any form of proper scientific study.

JFrankA

21st August 2009, 07:33 AM

Am I missing something here or did Eddie Dane just quote an anecdote as evidence that NLP can screw up a person's family life?

Yet if a proponent of NLP backs up their claims with using anecdotal evidence that's a bad thing?

:confused:

I know why you're confused, and I don't blame you. It seems to me that there are suddenly two discussions on this thread.

Eddie was saying that Derren doesn't believe in NLP and was pointing that out to Senex by relaying an anecdote Derren's book, showing that Derren doesn't believe in NLP.

Now I don't know why we're getting into the discussion of whether "Tricks of the Mind" is a book about woo. As I said before, it's simply a "Magic 101" book for non-magician.

....and let me make this clear, when I say "magic", I mean the performing kind...... :)

Ashles

21st August 2009, 07:50 AM

Now I don't know why we're getting into the discussion of whether "Tricks of the Mind" is a book about woo. As I said before, it's simply a "Magic 101" book for non-magician.

Not just that there are sections about magic, but also sections about memory, skeptical discussion of NLP - and in one section Derren talks about his own journey from strong Christian believer to skeptic, and his strong skeptical position.

I don't think it's fair to call it just a "Magic 101" for non-magicians, as that section is only a part of the book (maybe 20-30%).

It is a book that discusses "woo" (I hate that word) to some extent, both the paranormal and pseudoscientific kinds (e.g. NLP).

microdot

21st August 2009, 08:27 AM

The problem is that NLP promoters and sellers (funny, that) don't phrase their techniques from the perspective of "can", they phrase them from the perspective of "will". And if you're trying to show that something works often enough to justify "will", you need to use something other than anecdotal evidence... such as any form of proper scientific study.

Thanks for that sanity check.

While I actually wanted to be wrong I was starting to get the impression that the following rules were being applied:-

1. Any claims that you make must be backed up by scientific evidence
2. Anecdotal evidence is unacceptable... unless it can be used to prove MY claims

Still, probably unfair of me to make such an assertion based on a single post.

I'm busily reading through some of the material from the links that Lothario posted and the information is very interesting.

I would just like to point out that my own approach to using NLP tehniques, and anything that I've written about it is from a perspective of "can" rather than "will".

I base this on the concept that we're all unique and that, regardless of whether a 'technique' has scientific backing or not, there is no one single approach that will yield exactly the same results every time for every person (a concept that I believe was alluded to earlier in this thread).

I know why you're confused, and I don't blame you. It seems to me that there are suddenly two discussions on this thread.

Indeed.

I know I've been guilty of nit-picking at the 'arguments' of other members during my brief spell here but hopefully I've done it from a perspective of respect for the views of others and in the spirit of healthy debate.

It is a little disappointing to see the amount of time that seems to be spent in the pursuit of 'character assassination' rather than on the subject matter at hand.

Anyways - off to study further the material provided by Lothario.

Will be back here soon to share my perspective.

microdot

21st August 2009, 09:25 AM

I know what woo is - it's an autobiography by Ric Flair :duck:

Maia

21st August 2009, 03:59 PM

I do have to hand it to microdot for this much-- that's the funniest thing anybody's said in this thread for awhile. ;)

Anyway, "mirroring" is a very standard psychological technique, and it's particularly used a lot in client interviewing (Ivey & Ivey, 2007). Back to Mystery, though, because that's where it began. Actually, I think the way that these techniques is sold is, if anything, more insulting to men. The constant message is that you'll never succeed with women on your own-- you'll end up spending every night alone on that old couch with the stuffing hanging out, playing GTA IV, cardboard Domino's boxes with congealed cheese all over the floor unless you shell out $500.00 for the complete set where Mystery reveals all the secrets of big pimping (and dressing like a reject from a PotC puppet show). You're just not good enough as you are (and if you don't follow Mystery's every command, there are apparently about a bazillion ways to screw up at any given moment.)

You see, here's my theory: society always wants to sell this kind of thing to us. The message changes somewhat for each gender-- I actually think we're seeing more of the NLP-type BS because it's not as easy to sell the female version as it used to be; The Rules was the last really big mainstream success, and it was remarkably vile-- but the ultimate goal is the same. It is not in society's interest for anyone to be a unique individual,whether male, female (or other, I guess. Maybe they'll start doing transgender NLP next.)
They don't want us to figure out that we can be ourselves, and they want to scare us into thinking that if we don't toe the line, if we don't do as we're told, if we don't follow the rules, then we'll be miserable failures. What annoys me the most is when I see someone like Mystery, who dresses up the entire thing as some display of individualism, but I don't see the other NLP practioners doing anything differently (they're just not wearing the psychotic costumes. Also, no slobbery tongue of doom.)

JFrankA

21st August 2009, 04:57 PM

You see, here's my theory: society always wants to sell this kind of thing to us. The message changes somewhat for each gender-- I actually think we're seeing more of the NLP-type BS because it's not as easy to sell the female version as it used to be; The Rules was the last really big mainstream success, and it was remarkably vile-- but the ultimate goal is the same. It is not in society's interest for anyone to be a unique individual,whether male, female (or other, I guess. Maybe they'll start doing transgender NLP next.)
They don't want us to figure out that we can be ourselves, and they want to scare us into thinking that if we don't toe the line, if we don't do as we're told, if we don't follow the rules, then we'll be miserable failures. What annoys me the most is when I see someone like Mystery, who dresses up the entire thing as some display of individualism, but I don't see the other NLP practioners doing anything differently (they're just not wearing the psychotic costumes. Also, no slobbery tongue of doom.)

If I may add to that, there's another thing I noticed years ago when I worked at the phone company (on the land lines--- remember those??? :) )

(And please, I mean no offense to any gender, this is just simply my observation and a hypnothesis I have about this very subject).

A lot of men who called 900 numbers called sex lines, a lot of women, though, called the psychic lines.

When it comes woo being sold, be it books or seminars, etc, it seems to me that woo that promises "success at getting a lot of girls" is aimed at men, whereas the woo that promises "success at getting a loving partner" is aimed at women.

MikeSun5

21st August 2009, 07:54 PM

Yes, I consciously looked for something and yes, on a number of occasions, not every single time but on a number of occasions I saw it.

In highlighting the point that I saw what I was looking for, are you suggesting that I imagined it?

Not exactly. I'm saying that subconsciously mirroring body posture is so common in normal human conversation, that if an NLP beliver is looking for someone doing it in the context of NLP, and then they notice them doing it, one of the first conclusions reached would be NLP.
"Oh... so that's why I like this guy. He was using NLP on me the whole time."

Can a person observe / measure something without looking for it?

Observe, of course. Measure, probably not.

While you're busy 'not looking' for something, how would you know it didn't happen anyway?

You may not. Unless the "something" is NLP. :D

Am I missing something here or did Eddie Dane just quote an anecdote as evidence that NLP can screw up a person's family life?

Yet if a proponent of NLP backs up their claims with using anecdotal evidence that's a bad thing?

:confused:

I don't think Eddie Dane was claiming he could influence people by matching their breathing and imbedding commands. I'm just saying posts in a JREF forum aren't exactly the same as putting up a website teaching people what they assume is actual science.

I would just like to point out that my own approach to using NLP tehniques, and anything that I've written about it is from a perspective of "can" rather than "will".

I base this on the concept that we're all unique and that, regardless of whether a 'technique' has scientific backing or not, there is no one single approach that will yield exactly the same results every time for every person (a concept that I believe was alluded to earlier in this thread).

The fact that you say this is HUGE. It's been said over and over that the reason NLP and pickup artist techniques don't work on everyone is because everyone is different. It's good you acknowledged that.

I am of the opinion that NLP techniques only "work" on those who are well versed in the subject, and know what to expect. Using the swish technique or anchors on someone who has no idea what you're up to will have no effect. It will just make you look weird.

Still, probably unfair of me to make such an assertion based on a single post.
Nothing new to the JREF. ;) Welcome.
It is a little disappointing to see the amount of time that seems to be spent in the pursuit of 'character assassination' rather than on the subject matter at hand.
...again, welcome. :(

microdot

22nd August 2009, 01:32 AM

:)

Which is one of the reasons why, when I'm writing about something like NLP I tend to use phrases such as:-

Remember I'll be describing as if real something which is actually a theoretical model which, if it were true, would produce the results we observe.

IMHO NLP et al tends to be 'demonized' more than it probably deserves but, given the claims some of it's proponents make with regards to it's potential uses and results I can see why.

Is it possible that when it's used as a theoretical framework to enhance inter-personal communication for win-win outcomes that it's not such a bad thing?

(I realise the above question has the ring of a sales spiel but it's not intentional - it's just my thought processes expressed in written form)

@Maia - as we say over here in Blighty - Ta Very Much :)

MikeSun5

22nd August 2009, 02:09 AM

Is it possible that when it's used as a theoretical framework to enhance inter-personal communication for win-win outcomes that it's not such a bad thing?

I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't say.

What I can say is this: verbage like the bolded part of your question is the type of pseudo-scientific vocabulary that is so prevalent in NLP. It really sounds good, but doesn't make all that much sense. Try rephrasing it and you'll see what I mean:

Therapist: "Today I'd like to work on enhancing your inter-personal communication for win-win outcomes."
Patient: "Okay... How should we do that?"
Therapist: "We shall use a theoretical framework."
Patient: "I want my theoretical money back."

I'm kind of wandering off topic. NLP may very well have some therapeutic validity. It's possible that NLP is simply a placebo that instills confidence in people who didn't have it before (by people, I mean NLP practitioners). Most NLP practitioners I've spoken with are completely confident of themselves and their science art. Maybe the benefits of NLP are more for the practitioner than the person it's being "used" on.

Of course the psychological applications --- or lack thereof -- would be venturing into new territory. What was originally being debated (and got destroyed, IMO) was the idea of NLP being used to pick up women and make more sales.

JFrankA

22nd August 2009, 03:31 AM

I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't say.

What I can say is this: verbage like the bolded part of your question is the type of pseudo-scientific vocabulary that is so prevalent in NLP. It really sounds good, but doesn't make all that much sense. Try rephrasing it and you'll see what I mean:

Therapist: "Today I'd like to work on enhancing your inter-personal communication for win-win outcomes."
Patient: "Okay... How should we do that?"
Therapist: "We shall use a theoretical framework."
Patient: "I want my theoretical money back."

I'm kind of wandering off topic. NLP may very well have some therapeutic validity. It's possible that NLP is simply a placebo that instills confidence in people who didn't have it before (by people, I mean NLP practitioners). Most NLP practitioners I've spoken with are completely confident of themselves and their science art. Maybe the benefits of NLP are more for the practitioner than the person it's being "used" on.

Of course the psychological applications --- or lack thereof -- would be venturing into new territory. What was originally being debated (and got destroyed, IMO) was the idea of NLP being used to pick up women and make more sales.

Mike's right.

Here's the thing, and Eddie said it before. There are one or two basic things in NLP that may aid in building a better rapport in a conversation, but it will not be THE THING that will land you all the women you want or sell ice to Eskimos.

It's like this. Some time ago, the media reported that dark chocolate is healthy for you. Basically it may aid in reducing your blood pressure and maybe the bad cholesterol. Great. But does that mean that you should have a steady diet of it? Eat it with every meal? When the doctor says your blood pressure is going up, you should grab a piece of dark chocolate instead of exercising off the extra weight?

This is what NLP and hypnosis is like. A little psychological trick, mixed with confidence, yeah, it may aid in getting you to take that girl home, but it is NOT the reason.

I don't care what anyone says, there is no way in the universe, other than out and out drugging a her, that you can get a woman to go home with you if she has no desire to. Same goes for selling things to people.

Toke

22nd August 2009, 08:10 AM

On one ship I gave a block of high quality dark chocolate and a page printed out from the internet explaining how chocolate belonged in the bottom of the food pyramid to a stewardess. [/OT]

:popcorn1

remirol

22nd August 2009, 08:28 AM

IMHO NLP et al tends to be 'demonized' more than it probably deserves but, given the claims some of it's proponents make with regards to it's potential uses and results I can see why.

I would expect that if so many NLP proponents weren't also trying to sell things, it wouldn't get such a bad rap, I agree. Unfortunately, it's firmly in the "snake oil" section right now because of that -- so it's going to have to dig itself back out if it wants to be taken seriously.

Is it possible that when it's used as a theoretical framework to enhance inter-personal communication for win-win outcomes that it's not such a bad thing?That sentence is incredibly unfortunately phrased and, frankly, says absolutely nothing. Here's the problems I see, just for starters:

* "theoretical framework" <-- jargon, needs definition
* "enhancing interpersonal communication" <-- doublespeak
* "win-win outcomes" <-- business jargon, effectively meaningless
* "not such a bad thing" <-- double negative, confusing

After translation, what you've actually _said_ there... sort of... is:

"Is it possible that NLP is good if it's used as $JARGON to make it easier for people to talk to each other?"

And given that $JARGON is meaningless without an elaborate definition, the entire question is meaningless. It's not even possible to answer the question hypothetically, because "theoretical framework" might mean "sticking ping pong balls in someone's mouth" for all we know. (In which case, the answer would be "no.")

(I realise the above question has the ring of a sales spiel but it's not intentional - it's just my thought processes expressed in written form)

:eye-poppi :covereyes

If you *really* think like this, my suggestion is: Stop Immediately. Start thinking in concrete terms, and you'll be far more successful in life. If someone on my team wrote that sentence in an email, I would first assume they were joking, and second pull them aside and tell them to see Office Space -- and then to quit trying to talk over people's heads, and stick to coherent thoughts.

Lothario

22nd August 2009, 12:12 PM

:)
IMHO NLP et al tends to be 'demonized' more than it probably deserves but, given the claims some of it's proponents make with regards to it's potential uses and results I can see why.

Is it possible that when it's used as a theoretical framework to enhance inter-personal communication for win-win outcomes that it's not such a bad thing?

I'm not sure what you mean by "theoretical framework to enhance inter-personal communication for win-win outcomes".

This is what NLP and hypnosis is like. A little psychological trick, mixed with confidence, yeah, it may aid in getting you to take that girl home, but it is NOT the reason.

This is a dangerous sentence. Exactly what psychological tricks are you talking about?

Toke

22nd August 2009, 12:33 PM

I guess that whatever trick that gets you barhopping will beat staying home. But paying $500 for it will go from your beer budget:confused:. There is something wrong here.

JFrankA

22nd August 2009, 01:14 PM

This is a dangerous sentence. Exactly what psychological tricks are you talking about?

Exactly what I've been saying throughout this whole thread: confusion.

...but again, remember what I actually said: "it may aid". Then again, it most likely will aid in making you annoying. :)

MikeSun5

22nd August 2009, 06:54 PM

I guess that whatever trick that gets you barhopping will beat staying home. But paying $500 for it will go from your beer budget:confused:. There is something wrong here.

:eek: I didn't think of that... Why not keep your beer budget if you're only picking up drunk girls anyway?

..............

What happened to Iknoweverything? Probably hanging out with models and getting rich, huh?

Lothario

22nd August 2009, 10:11 PM

:eek: I didn't think of that... Why not keep your beer budget if you're only picking up drunk girls anyway?

..............

What happened to Iknoweverything? Probably hanging out with models and getting rich, huh?

500 bucks buy a lot of beer!

By the way, do you guys have like an endless supply of drunk girls in the States? Someone has to take pictures with all the pick-up artists around.

MikeSun5

22nd August 2009, 11:59 PM

By the way, do you guys have like an endless supply of drunk girls in the States? Someone has to take pictures with all the pick-up artists around.

Yea, the supply of hot dumb American drunk chicks will never run out. Of course, saturation varies by location, but they're not hard to find at all. :D My proof: Girls Gone Wild will never stop making videos.

It's the hot smart ones that are elusive (here in South Florida, anyway). ;) They're so elusive that Bigfoot and UFOs take pictures of them.

JFrankA

23rd August 2009, 06:35 AM

500 bucks buy a lot of beer!

By the way, do you guys have like an endless supply of drunk girls in the States? Someone has to take pictures with all the pick-up artists around.

Plus, you got a camera, you tell the already drinking girls that you are from such-and-such production and you want to video them for whatever production/product you're making and bang: your success rate SOARS. It doesn't matter exactly what for, you have a camera, a crew (even a crew of one works) and you're making a video.

Remember, desire is a major part of the whole thing. They may not desire you, but they do desire the attention. (See? Another magician technique: Misdirection).

A great example of this is that recently, a hypnotist was claiming that he had come up with a new induction method that's supposed to be the fastest way to induce someone. Turns out that one of the key to this induction is to have a person with a camera follow and film you doing it.

Lothario

24th August 2009, 02:57 AM

Yea, the supply of hot dumb American drunk chicks will never run out. Of course, saturation varies by location, but they're not hard to find at all. :D My proof: Girls Gone Wild will never stop making videos.

It's the hot smart ones that are elusive (here in South Florida, anyway). ;) They're so elusive that Bigfoot and UFOs take pictures of them.

Hmm... right. I suppose that explains a lot.

I once met a really cute, nice girl from Miami in Brazil. She was with her boyfriend (who was brazilian) though :(. At the time, i didn't know it was such an endangered species, or I would have brought back pictures to post here on the forum :).

Edx

25th August 2009, 06:31 AM

NLP is garbage. It's simply a magic bean for self-help gurus and a misdirection tool for mentalists. I began reading about that stuff a long time ago, curious about psychology and intent on learning NLP. Most of the common techniques they claim (anchoring, swishing, etc.) aren't effective if your "target" isn't aware of what you're doing.

Those speed seduction techniques of Ross Jeffries are just silly ways of breaking the ice in bars just like all the other cornballs in the "Pickup Artist" community. Getting drunk girls into bed is a matter of finding the dumb ones, not hypnosis.

Here's Derren Brown "using" NLP for mind-control (edit: Watch for the "anchors"):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg

NLP's only real practical application is entertainment.

Now hold on, those techniques works as does hypnotherapy but obviously people hype it out of all proportion to pretend it can do more than it can.

Clearly Derren Brown and other similar mentalists can indeed influence people so he's doing that somehow.

Edx

25th August 2009, 06:34 AM

Eddie was saying that Derren doesn't believe in NLP and was pointing that out to Senex by relaying an anecdote Derren's book, showing that Derren doesn't believe in NLP.

He does though if I recall correctly from the book, its just he thinks some of the claims are hyped.

edit: ah I may see i may have misremembered according to other replies in this thread.

Edx

25th August 2009, 06:48 AM

edit: double post

remirol

25th August 2009, 07:30 AM

Now hold on, those techniques works as does hypnotherapy but obviously people hype it out of all proportion to pretend it can do more than it can.

Which NLP techniques, specifically, work, and to what efficacy?

(As far as hypnotherapy, i'd challenge you to source evidence that hypnotherapy 'works', as well as define 'works', but that should happen in a different thread to avoid derailing this one)

Clearly Derren Brown and other similar mentalists can indeed influence people so he's doing that somehow.

Correlating that "somehow" into "NLP", however, is the task here, and it should be supported by some form of evidence.

Senex

25th August 2009, 03:34 PM

Now hold on, those techniques works as does hypnotherapy but obviously people hype it out of all proportion to pretend it can do more than it can.

Clearly Derren Brown and other mentalists can indeed influence people as well as you would hope hypnotherapists can influence their patients.

Unfortunately hypnotherapists can't possibly compete. We're not trying to discredit hypnotherapy (reasonably non-invasive like woo should be given a chance over more expensive methods, like Freudian therapy, why not?) but hypnotherapy (which is a placebo, like chiropractors) can't compete with mentalists. I just saw on A&E Chris Angel just get a poolfull of of people to strip all their clothes off on his suggestion, but I believe, as Chris Angel said, great lengths were gone through to assure no one was exploited :rolleyes:

Chris Angel once passed out fliers (a piece of paper to read) on his show and all a person had to do was read it while shopping at the mall and they would drop to the ground in a hypnotic trance. Every shopper did. Of course what that piece of paper said can't be found on the internet. Chris Angel has a monoloply on papers that when read will debilitate you.

In my opinion Derren Brown is a better showman than Angel -- but I haven't seen a Brown show where women need a modesty bar over their private parts. Maybe I need to reconsider my hypnotist hero :rolleyes:

Real therapeutic hypnotists can't do this. TV mentalists cheat.

JFrankA said:Eddie was saying that Derren doesn't believe in NLP and was pointing that out to Senex by relaying an anecdote Derren's book, showing that Derren doesn't believe in NLP.

And Senex was pointing out how easy it is to manipulate others in a similar way as your heroic Derren Brown who has in the past suggested to young and suggestive people that NLP is alive and well. Didn't I get a heretofore thoughtful poster upset by mearly mentioning the number of his posts? Isn't that a fine example of manipulation? (Even the moderators gave a warning to the wrong party).

JFrankA

25th August 2009, 04:21 PM

Unfortunately hypnotherapists can't possibly compete. We're not trying to discredit hypnotherapy (reasonably non-invasive like woo should be given a chance over more expensive methods, like Freudian therapy, why not?) but hypnotherapy (which is a placebo, like chiropractors) can't compete with mentalists. I just saw on A&E Chris Angel just get a poolfull of of people to strip all their clothes off on his suggestion, but I believe, as Chris Angel said, great lengths were gone through to assure no one was exploited :rolleyes:

Chris Angel once passed out fliers (a piece of paper to read) on his show and all a person had to do was read it while shopping at the mall and they would drop to the ground in a hypnotic trance. Every shopper did. Of course what that piece of paper said can't be found on the internet. Chris Angel has a monoloply on papers that when read will debilitate you.

In my opinion Derren Brown is a better showman than Angel -- but I haven't seen a Brown show where women need a modesty bar over their private parts. Maybe I need to reconsider my hypnotist hero :rolleyes:

Real therapeutic hypnotists can't do this. TV mentalists cheat.

I agree with you on this.

And Senex was pointing out how easy it is to manipulate others in a similar way as your heroic Derren Brown who has in the past suggested to young and suggestive people that NLP is alive and well. Didn't I get a heretofore thoughtful poster upset by mearly mentioning the number of his posts? Isn't that a fine example of manipulation? (Even the moderators gave a warning to the wrong party).

Here, I don't quite agree with you. Here's why.

Derren Brown doesn't promote NLP. He is what you called him. A showman. Period. He doesn't promote any NLP books, and as I've said before, all the books and videos he's done are all magician subjects. Never once does he promote woo.

Now in his shows, he might seem to be doing woo, but then that's a show. Anyone actually believing his shows are real are, sorry to say, incredibly gullible and lazy. All one has to do is read about him outside the show, and it's plain that he doesn't promote NLP (or any woo) at all.

As a personal note, yes, Derren Brown is one of my heros - but he is a magician hero. His showmanship and magician skills and knowledge are something that inspire me to be a better performer.

And my take on manipulation, well, yes, manipulation exists to a point. There are degrees of such, but it's not hypnosis or NLP. Are you saying that you think that NLP is real.....?

Edx

25th August 2009, 05:06 PM

Which NLP techniques, specifically, work, and to what efficacy?

I must admit to talking from what I remember from Derren Browns book, which apparently I have misremembered so I cant be sure the techniques Im vaguely remembering is actually NLP. After reading more posts in this thread I see I had been giving NLP too much credit

(As far as hypnotherapy, i'd challenge you to source evidence that hypnotherapy 'works', as well as define 'works', but that should happen in a different thread to avoid derailing this one)

No need for a new thread. As someone else said hypnotherapy is placebo, but I think of it like this. All other woo that "works" uses placebo, it isnt really working the body is making itself better. But hypnotherapy doesnt claim to use some woo power, it uses whatever it is that creates the placebo effect to work. It works for me because affirmations and anchors do indeed work, and 30 or so mins of concentrated positivity does help. Theres nothing inherently woo about hypnotherapy (though I know some do use woo and make hyped claims)

Maia

25th August 2009, 05:35 PM

I must admit to talking from what I remember from Derren Browns book, which apparently I have misremembered so I cant be sure the techniques Im vaguely remembering is actually NLP. After reading more posts in this thread I see I had been giving NLP too much credit

No need for a new thread. As someone else said hypnotherapy is placebo, but I think of it like this. All other woo that "works" uses placebo, it isnt really working the body is making itself better. But hypnotherapy doesnt claim to use some woo power, it uses whatever it is that creates the placebo effect to work. It works for me because affirmations and anchors do indeed work, and 30 or so mins of concentrated positivity does help. Theres nothing inherently woo about hypnotherapy (though I know some do use woo and make hyped claims)

Okay, now I've got to jump in. I still don't understand what it is that "works" and what's being "helped." Please explain this point.

Edx

25th August 2009, 05:59 PM

Okay, now I've got to jump in. I still don't understand what it is that "works" and what's being "helped." Please explain this point.

Hypnosis puts you into a more suggestable state, its basically just a kind of more controlled meditation. Now, once in that suggestable state you are more open to the positivity the hypnotherapist gives you. I think of it like this, the placebo effect still works its just the body/mind healing itself rather than any woo trying to claim credit. Hypnotherapy doesnt claim anything other than your own body is doing the work. Because its a placebo the more you want it to work the better it will work. As I said "anchors" and "affirmations" do work to help "rewire" the mind (for lack of a better term) so I dont see that there is any inherent problem with Hypnotherapy. If someone says its placebo, I say "of course!"

Lothario

26th August 2009, 02:11 PM

How's the video coming along, Maia?

Hypnosis puts you into a more suggestable state, its basically just a kind of more controlled meditation. Now, once in that suggestable state you are more open to the positivity the hypnotherapist gives you. I think of it like this, the placebo effect still works its just the body/mind healing itself rather than any woo trying to claim credit. Hypnotherapy doesnt claim anything other than your own body is doing the work. Because its a placebo the more you want it to work the better it will work. As I said "anchors" and "affirmations" do work to help "rewire" the mind (for lack of a better term) so I dont see that there is any inherent problem with Hypnotherapy. If someone says its placebo, I say "of course!"

So, if it's a placebo, how do Derren Brown and Ross Jeffries use it on unsuspecting "victims"?

JFrankA

26th August 2009, 04:49 PM

How's the video coming along, Maia?

So, if it's a placebo, how do Derren Brown and Ross Jeffries use it on unsuspecting "victims"?

'Cuz Derren Brown isn't using hypnosis. He's using surprise, confusion and suggestion.

Ross Jeffries, I suspect, is using confidence, confusion, alcohol and numbers... :)

Maia

26th August 2009, 05:48 PM

How's the video coming along, Maia?

So, if it's a placebo, how do Derren Brown and Ross Jeffries use it on unsuspecting "victims"?

I have the storyboards done and started on it in AfterFX, but then real life intervened. This is my clinical week, so a few time-consuming projects had to be put on hold. :) I shall return to it, however.

I'm curious about the "unsuspecting victims" aspect of the entire NLP project as well. Remember the scene in John Waters' original Hairspray when Penny Pingleton's parents were trying to keep her from the forbidden interracial relationship? A psychiatrist was advancing on her with a spinning hypocoin, as I recall... I would be willing to bet it was an NLP technique. :rolleyes:

Edx

26th August 2009, 06:41 PM

So, if it's a placebo, how do Derren Brown and Ross Jeffries use it on unsuspecting "victims"?

What someone else said. I also remember Derren Brown saying something like very little hypnosis was actually used in his tv show.

Notice that even when Derren does his stage show and uses hypnosis he even gets the participants to perform tasks in order to see which of them are the most suggestible. You cant make anyone do anything they dont want to do with hypnosis, it isnt mind control.

MikeSun5

26th August 2009, 09:14 PM

Now hold on, those techniques works as does hypnotherapy but obviously people hype it out of all proportion to pretend it can do more than it can.

Clearly Derren Brown and other similar mentalists can indeed influence people so he's doing that somehow.

I know 400+ posts is a lot to read, but your statements ^^ have been thoroughly demolished earlier in this thread. Many times over. No offense. :)

Chris Angel once passed out fliers (a piece of paper to read) on his show and all a person had to do was read it while shopping at the mall and they would drop to the ground in a hypnotic trance. Every shopper did. Of course what that piece of paper said can't be found on the internet. Chris Angel has a monoloply on papers that when read will debilitate you.

It probably said something to the effect of, "Drop to the ground right now and you'll be seen on a popular TV show. Watch Mindfreak. Thursdays, 8pm eastern on A&E."

JFrankA

26th August 2009, 09:31 PM

It probably said something to the effect of, "Drop to the ground right now and you'll be seen on a popular TV show. Watch Mindfreak. Thursdays, 8pm eastern on A&E."

That's what my paper says too..... :D

Senex

27th August 2009, 02:15 PM

I agree with you on this.
As all thoughtful people should.

Here, I don't quite agree with you. Here's why.

Derren Brown doesn't promote NLP. He is what you called him. A showman. Period. He doesn't promote any NLP books, and as I've said before, all the books and videos he's done are all magician subjects. Never once does he promote woo.

As a personal note, yes, Derren Brown is one of my heros - but he is a magician hero. His showmanship and magician skills and knowledge are something that inspire me to be a better performer.

And my take on manipulation, well, yes, manipulation exists to a point. There are degrees of such, but it's not hypnosis or NLP. Are you saying that you think that NLP is real.....?
How can you come to that conclusion? I was saying that Brown may inadvertenly promoted NLP woo (just do a search of Brown on this site and you will see how many people believe in NLP because of him.) I'm the last guy who believes in NLP. I mock believers in NLP.

I know 400+ posts is a lot to read, but your statements ^^ have been thoroughly demolished earlier in this thread. Many times over. No offense. :)

hehehe...

It probably said something to the effect of, "Drop to the ground right now and you'll be seen on a popular TV show. Watch Mindfreak. Thursdays, 8pm eastern on A&E."
That's the truth!
Lothario:So, if it's a placebo, how do Derren Brown and Ross Jeffries use it on unsuspecting "victims"?
JFrankARoss Jeffries, I suspect, is using confidence, confusion, alcohol and numbers... :)
That's it!

JFrankA

27th August 2009, 03:35 PM

How can you come to that conclusion? I was saying that Brown may inadvertenly promoted NLP woo (just do a search of Brown on this site and you will see how many people believe in NLP because of him.) I'm the last guy who believes in NLP. I mock believers in NLP.

Forgive me, please, Senex, I was purposely teasing you to make a point.

People will assume a lot of things about anybody even if you scream in their face that what they are assuming isn't true. This goes for magicians, hypnotists, actors, people on the phone, etc. etc.

I think I've said this before in this thread, but even when I say to an audience that what I do is a trick, that I don't have "powers", that I am not in the league with satan or god or whatever, that I can't stop people from smoking, etc, etc. I still get people after the show asking me to help to them stop smoking, talk to their dead loved one, tell their future, etc. etc.

There's going to be people who are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what. So if someone wants to believe that NLP is real, that person might point to Derren Brown and say "See? That's how HE does it!!!", when in actuallity Derren a) will call NLP bunk if you ask him, b) has publically stated it was bunk c) Never says he uses NLP in his performances and d) has never ever promoted it.

And that's why I asked you that question. Because personally, I've responded to people who believe I can do miracles with exactly your response, "How can you come to that conclusion?"

No matter how much you debunk a trick, even if you show them the secret, there are going to be people who will "believe" because for whatever reason, they want to.

MikeSun5

27th August 2009, 08:16 PM

...I say to an audience that what I do is a trick, that I don't have "powers", that I am not in the league with satan or god or whatever, that I can't stop people from smoking, etc, etc. I still get people after the show asking me to help to them stop smoking, talk to their dead loved one, tell their future, etc. etc.

:D That's hilarious. They're like children.

I mock believers in NLP.

Speaking of which... where are Iknoweverything and microdot? :confused: It's not too exciting to sit here and agree with you two, Lothario, and Maia. No offense.

I'd like someone to explain how anchors and swish patterns work if the person doesn't know what you're up to.

Lothario

28th August 2009, 12:36 AM

Speaking of which... where are Iknoweverything and microdot? :confused: It's not too exciting to sit here and agree with you two, Lothario, and Maia. No offense.

I'd like someone to explain how anchors and swish patterns work if the person doesn't know what you're up to.

IKE and microdot were not true believers. We need a heavyweight NLP cult member. We need Bandler. Ross Jeffries would do fine too. Can we e-mail them? Please? :D

P.S. How do i change screen name? I picked this one because of the whole "influence women subliminally" thing but it's just silly.

microdot

28th August 2009, 04:00 AM

Speaking of which... where are Iknoweverything and microdot? It's not too exciting to sit here and agree with you two, Lothario, and Maia. No offense.

:D:D:D

You're probably not going to believe this but I'd come to that same conclusion a few days ago and I thought I'd lurk for a while and see where the thread went.

Without people to disagree with these threads do tend to dry up don't they :rolleyes:

For me my presence here has less to do with the question of whether I'm a true believer or not, and more to do with WIIFM (What's In It For Me)?

Sadly, so far, not as much as I'd hoped :(

Given our relative positions in the debate the fun moments are, sadly, all too often outweighed the sniping.

microdot

28th August 2009, 04:01 AM

How many posts do I need before I can get an avatar?

microdot

28th August 2009, 04:18 AM

:eek: 50 posts!

remirol

28th August 2009, 04:56 AM

:eek: 50 posts!

I suggest lurking in Community... OK, no, not _lurking_, but you get the idea. Shemp even has a thread designed for the purpose. Blame Shemp.

Also, if you really want to jump your post count, bicker with people in Forum Management. Some of the members who post there will argue something back and forth for 100s of posts. :mghissyfit

:popcorn1

JFrankA

28th August 2009, 05:16 AM

I've always wanted to change that little saying under my name, but I could never see how to do that. "Graduate Poster" sounds so....dry.

P.S. How do i change screen name? I picked this one because of the whole "influence women subliminally" thing but it's just silly.

I don't know how to change your screen name, but I do love your avatar, Lothario.

err...forgive me for being dumb, but how does "Lothario" "influence women subliminally"? (I'm not being sarcastic. I really don't know...)

Toke

28th August 2009, 05:19 AM

Check the tread "custom title please"
A name change is not as easy, it can confuse others.

microdot

28th August 2009, 05:22 AM

;)

I have been known to bicker but I usually end up feeling bad and achieve little.

For me healthy debate wins every time.

Lothario

28th August 2009, 06:28 AM

I don't know how to change your screen name, but I do love your avatar, Lothario.

err...forgive me for being dumb, but how does "Lothario" "influence women subliminally"? (I'm not being sarcastic. I really don't know...)

Hehe you're not being dumb at all, i just didn't explain correctly. I don't post on other forums, so i didn't really have a screen name. Since i joined this forum to ask about this whole speed seduction/pick-up artist community nonsense, the first name i could come up with was Lothario. A Lothario is a ladies' man, like a Don Juan or Casanova.

It's really cheesy (and no, i don't live up to it), but if it's hard to change, i'll just keep it. Forget i said anything :).

Anyway, microdot, what did you think of the information i provided about NLP?

remirol

28th August 2009, 06:31 AM

Hehe you're not being dumb at all, i just didn't explain correctly. I don't post on other forums, so i didn't really have a screen name. Since i joined this forum to ask about this whole speed seduction/pick-up artist community nonsense, the first name i could come up with was Lothario. A Lothario is a ladies' man, like a Don Juan or Casanova.

It's really cheesy (and no, i don't live up to it), but if it's hard to change, i'll just keep it. Forget i said anything :).

You could always change it to "Lutherio" -- aka the guy who tries to pick up chicks by nailing pamphlets to the doors of bars and dance clubs. :D

Lothario

28th August 2009, 06:39 AM

You could always change it to "Lutherio" -- aka the guy who tries to pick up chicks by nailing pamphlets to the doors of bars and dance clubs. :D

Didn't he write the book "The ninety-five theses of pick-up"?

microdot

28th August 2009, 07:21 AM

Anyway, microdot, what did you think of the information i provided about NLP?

I haven't read through it all yet but what I have read was very interesting and certainly worth the effort - thanks again for the links.

In fact I must confess that I think the only thing I've read through in it's entirety was the article by Michael Heap.

Whilst that article generally seemed to support the skeptic's position it didn't, IMHO, decisively agree with the 'black-and-white' argument certain individuals have made that NLP is - in their words - BS.

Thanks again for the links :)

Senex

28th August 2009, 02:36 PM

Forgive me, please, Senex, I was purposely teasing you to make a point.
Another one who doesn't know the rules:rolleyes: You need 1500+ posts before you can tease me -- and I'd rather be teased by the subjects of your show than by you.

I think I've said this before in this thread, but even when I say to an audience that what I do is a trick, that I don't have "powers", that I am not in the league with satan or god or whatever, that I can't stop people from smoking, etc, etc. I still get people after the show asking me to help to them stop smoking, talk to their dead loved one, tell their future, etc. etc.
I remember my modest minor college party metal bending (that I stole completely from Uri) occasionally put me in a similar position.

No matter how much you debunk a trick, even if you show them the secret, there are going to be people who will "believe" because for whatever reason, they want to.
Well, that depends on the trick.

Hehe you're not being dumb at all, i just didn't explain correctly. I don't post on other forums, so i didn't really have a screen name. Since i joined this forum to ask about this whole speed seduction/pick-up artist community nonsense, the first name i could come up with was Lothario. A Lothario is a ladies' man, like a Don Juan or Casanova.

It's really cheesy (and no, i don't live up to it), but if it's hard to change, i'll just keep it. Forget i said anything :)-

When the internet was in its infancy I picked Senex as my monicker. It means dirty old man in Latin (see Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to the Forum). It didn't apply to me then but as I age I realize you stick with your first instinct. It turned out very suitable.

Maia

28th August 2009, 02:42 PM

You could always change it to "Lutherio" -- aka the guy who tries to pick up chicks by nailing pamphlets to the doors of bars and dance clubs. :D

Hahaha! A greatly needed laugh at the end of this week. Much appreciated, Remirol. :) (Pictures Martin Luther in a leisure suit...) Anyway, that does seem to be a rather unfortunate feature of these forums, in a way. Why should it be so difficult to keep a thread going without disagreeing violently about something? :rolleyes: Do we need to conjure up a troll?

JFrankA

28th August 2009, 04:00 PM

Another one who doesn't know the rules:rolleyes: You need 1500+ posts before you can tease me
Oooooooooooooooooooooo... so close!!!!!! I'm at 1457!!! Damn. Does that mean that I lose 100 posts???? :)

-- and I'd rather be teased by the subjects of your show than by you.

If you are ever at one of my shows, Senex, I'll be happy to make that happen for you. :)

I remember my modest minor college party metal bending (that I stole completely from Uri) occasionally put me in a similar position.

Well, that depends on the trick.

Nah. People can make a big deal even out of a simple card trick.

Toke

28th August 2009, 04:03 PM

Nah. People can make a big deal even out of a simple card trick.
The numbers game in more than one way.:)
http://xkcd.com/628/

JFrankA

28th August 2009, 04:05 PM

Hahaha! A greatly needed laugh at the end of this week. Much appreciated, Remirol. :) (Pictures Martin Luther in a leisure suit...) Anyway, that does seem to be a rather unfortunate feature of these forums, in a way. Why should it be so difficult to keep a thread going without disagreeing violently about something? :rolleyes:

Sorry, Maia, I think it's a guy thing.........

Do we need to conjure up a troll?

No thanks, we men are able to troll ourselves without any help!!!!! :D

JFrankA

28th August 2009, 04:10 PM

The numbers game in more than one way.:)
http://xkcd.com/628/

Don't knock it. When I start one of my routines, I ask a random spectator to name a card, then pull the top card from the deck. If it's not the card named (a 51 out of 52 chance, obviously) I crack a joke like "Wouldn't it be cool if that was your card?" or "Damn, I did that wrong again!" or something like that. They laugh, they feel more at ease, and it breaks that tension of "oh, I bet he's going to blow a trick...".

But if that one out of fifty-two chance hits, it is GOLD. The audience is convinced you can walk on water, and performing becomes that much easier.

Either way, it's a win-win outcome for me. :)

Toke

28th August 2009, 04:19 PM

Either way, it's a win-win outcome for me. :)
I am surprised, I thought the 51 times would pose too big a problem. Guess I know too little of showmanship.:con2:

Except that it is the most important skill for a performer.

MikeSun5

28th August 2009, 07:25 PM

Without people to disagree with these threads do tend to dry up don't they :rolleyes:

Yup. :( That's why there are so many people who are like, "Well that depends on your definition of 'disagree.'" When there's nothing important left to argue about, nitpick something stupid like common word definitions.

What's In It For Me?

What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?

microdot

29th August 2009, 03:00 AM

What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?

Maybe I'm missing your point but I would point out didn't actually arrive here with the intention of explaining to anybody how NLP works. Nor do I think I've tried to do that in any of my posts.

Put bluntly, why should I bother, or if you return to my original question, what's in it for me?

:confused:

MikeSun5

29th August 2009, 03:27 AM

Maybe I'm missing your point but I would point out didn't actually arrive here with the intention of explaining to anybody how NLP works. Nor do I think I've tried to do that in any of my posts.

Put bluntly, why should I bother, or if you return to my original question, what's in it for me?

:confused:

CONFUSION!!!! :clap: You are most definitely missing my point. Not to be devious, but you've proven my point. :D Here's my previous post with the special bit highlighted:

What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?

Embedded commands (like other NLP techniques) do not work unless you know exactly what is going on. If they did, your last post would have been an explanation. ;)

remirol

29th August 2009, 05:21 AM

(Pictures Martin Luther in a leisure suit...)

No! No! Bad Maia! :eye-poppi

Anyway, that does seem to be a rather unfortunate feature of these forums, in a way. Why should it be so difficult to keep a thread going without disagreeing violently about something? :rolleyes: Do we need to conjure up a troll?

This is always the inherent problem with any forum. Most of us have plenty of stuff to do with our time, so... we look through a thread, find that others have said something we agree with, and said it well, and so we don't need to say much in response. Most of us _also_ don't have the AOL fetish where we insist on replying "ME TOO!" or "I AGREE!" to everything... so threads move reasonably slowly.

And, beyond it all, most of us are talking about something we don't believe works in the slightest bit... which means it's about as interesting a theoretical discussion as whether or not ants fart.

In short: for a discussion/debate board to actually maintain the cut-and-thrust of informed* discussion or debate, you need people on both sides of the debate.
:duel

We are fresh out of staunch NLP supporters at the moment, sadly. :D

* Yeah, OK, "half-informed" in many cases.

microdot

29th August 2009, 08:28 AM

CONFUSION!!!! You are most definitely missing my point. Not to be devious, but you've proven my point. Here's my previous post with the special bit highlighted:

Originally Posted by MikeSun5
What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?
Embedded commands (like other NLP techniques) do not work unless you know exactly what is going on. If they did, your last post would have been an explanation.

Sorry MikeSun5 - I'm still scratching my head here :confused:

Are you saying that your text contained an embedded command (presumably the section that you've highlighted nicely in yellow) and that my response was the outcome of some experiment to prove a point of some kind?

Surely, if you subscribe to the general concensus of opinion which seems to pervade these boards, in the absence of laboratory conditions, double-blind testing etc. etc. etc. it neither proves nor disproves anything at all.

ETA -

it's about as interesting a theoretical discussion as whether or not ants fart.

You could try sprinkling talcum powder on them as a means to aid the detection of the tiny clouds of escaping gas :idea:

Lothario

29th August 2009, 01:11 PM

(Pictures Martin Luther in a leisure suit...)

You heretic! Don't you know that... nobody expects the Spanish inquisition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY&feature=related)? :D

Moochie

29th August 2009, 02:51 PM

<snip>

When the internet was in its infancy I picked Senex as my monicker. It means dirty old man in Latin (see Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to the Forum). It didn't apply to me then but as I age I realize you stick with your first instinct. It turned out very suitable.

Happened to you too, eh?

:D

M.

Eddie Dane

29th August 2009, 03:28 PM

When the internet was in its infancy I picked Senex as my monicker. It means dirty old man in Latin (see Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to the Forum). It didn't apply to me then but as I age I realize you stick with your first instinct. It turned out very suitable.

The only thing that could stop me from becoming a dirty old man is death.

MikeSun5

29th August 2009, 05:38 PM

Are you saying that your text contained an embedded command (presumably the section that you've highlighted nicely in yellow) and that my response was the outcome of some experiment to prove a point of some kind?

Yep. Won't stand up in court, but it was funny (to me).

Really though, I wanted to liven this thread up a bit since it's on it's way out. See post #468. :slp:

microdot

30th August 2009, 02:18 AM

Brown thinks the following techniques absolute crap:
Mirroring someone's posture to create rapport (they'll think you're a freak)*
Classifying people as Visual, Auditive etc (We are all all these things)
Reading eye movements (of no practical use, has been scientifically tested)

I've been re-reading Derren's Tricks Of The Mind book and have just reached the section on Hypnosis and NLP.

He does indeed pour derision on the idea of slavishly copying a person's every move in order to establish rapport.

Then he goes on to describe to the reader how it's possible to match/mirror/pace/lead the postural aspects of the behaviour of a person sitting at another table in a restaurant (only in their peripheral vision though) such that their response will be to feel rapport with him and then come over and talk to him.

On the subject of reading eye movements he does indicate that the general thrust of the argument is borne out some of the time in real life and that he is unsure how useful or reliable it really is.

After questioning the reliability of some of the scientific testing of eye patterns he goes on to say that some people undoubtedly conform to eye movement patterns with notable reliabilty.

He subsequently makes reference to one of his TV programs, The Heist in which the eye patterns displayed by the participants asked to remember images as part of the Linking System memory technique are "pretty much according to the NLP model" and "almost a text book demonstration"

Incidentally, any fans of Mr Brown may like to know that he has a new TV series in the UK in the form of four Friday night specials, commencing Friday 11th September on Channel 4.

Not sure if those of you in the USA can get your hands on our Channel 4 but you may be able to watch the progams online using their On Demand service - 4OD - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown/4od

ETA - Ooh, while I remember, I recall a post around these parts which had a link to a great list of Task Motivators. Unfortunately the search function on these boards (unless I'm not using it properly) seems to be about as effective as playing pool with a rope. If anybody can point me in the right direction I'd be most grateful. :)

Toke

30th August 2009, 12:35 PM

The only thing that could stop me from becoming a dirty old man is death.
I recently bought "A sensous dirty old mann"* by isac Asimov, great book, I have just lend it to my father.:D

*You are not quite quoting him, but close enough.

Senex

31st August 2009, 11:44 AM

Oooooooooooooooooooooo... so close!!!!!! I'm at 1457!!! Damn. Does that mean that I lose 100 posts???? :)
No, it just means you got spanked -- and not in the good way ! ;)

=JFrankA;5055277
If you are ever at one of my shows, Senex, I'll be happy to make that happen for you. :)

I've often been called naive before but I believe you :rolleyes:

Happened to you too, eh?

:D
M.
Yes it did and I won't look back.
The only thing that could stop me from becoming a dirty old man is death.

That's wisdom.

Edx

31st August 2009, 05:20 PM

JFrankA

1st September 2009, 05:06 AM

I've been re-reading Derren's Tricks Of The Mind book and have just reached the section on Hypnosis and NLP.

He does indeed pour derision on the idea of slavishly copying a person's every move in order to establish rapport.

Sorry, you're cherry picking. For example:

Then he goes on to describe to the reader how it's possible to match/mirror/pace/lead the postural aspects of the behaviour of a person sitting at another table in a restaurant (only in their peripheral vision though) such that their response will be to feel rapport with him and then come over and talk to him.

That whole mirroring thing is prefaced with the following quote from the book:

Some have a very NLP flavour. As I have suggested, if we remove from the NLP equation the grinning, flaccid course-junkies, delusional flower-fairies and ridiculous tactile businessmen, and some of the taken-as-read wild claims made by NLPers at all levels, there are some sensible enough tools and techniques from that world which are worth knowing about, as long as you don't become a True Believer.
I remember an interview in the Observer in the nineties with a hypnotist where the interviewer started to fell something odd was taking place. He soon realized that the interviewee was copying all his body movements. The rest of the article was concerned with how strange and unnatural the interviewer found his subject, and how he kept testing the hypnotist by crossing and uncrossing his legs, moving his hands and so on, to see him immediately follow suit. What I loved about the article was that the technique the hypnotist was employing (the mirroring of body posture) is classic NLP, and like so much of classic NLP if failed because it had been turned into a 'technique'.
Most people, when they are getting on well, will be in a state of unconscious 'rapport'. They will tend to mirror each other's body language and so on without realizing it.

He goes on later to ask the question Rapport may create those things (mirroring), but the question is, do those things automatically create rapport?

His answer: (And no, I'm NOT typing the whole book for you guys. Gotta read it :) )
Even if the mirroring is done a little more subtly, the idea that by then employing these 'rapport' techniques in a social situation you are guaranteed to come across as likable and trustworthy is clearly daft.

He's not promoting NLP, he's telling you something that he uses in his performances, but it's not guaranteed and it's not NLP. Remember: this works because the person receiving WANTS it to. Key thing. As a magician, anyone who participates in his performance WANTS to participate and WANTS it to work.

On the subject of reading eye movements he does indicate that the general thrust of the argument is borne out some of the time in real life and that he is unsure how useful or reliable it really is.

After questioning the reliability of some of the scientific testing of eye patterns he goes on to say that some people undoubtedly conform to eye movement patterns with notable reliabilty.

Yes, he does say that but he doesn't say it works or that it's been proven (again directly from the book):

The eye movement hypnothesis has been tested many times by scientists, and routinely it is shown not to hold up. However, it is difficult to know whether this is because the claims are not true or the tests were not conducted fairly; NLPers naturally blame the experiments. The tests normally go as follows. The subject is not told what is being looked for, and is asked a series of questions the scientist believes will elicit a clear visual, auditory or kinaesthetic response - "What would it feel like to swim in noodles?" - and note where the subject's eyes then move. Problematically, a question like this could of course elicit a visual response first (the subject pictures himself in noodles) or even an auditory one (the subject repeats the question to himself or runs through an answer), which would theoretically cause a different eye movement before the expected 'kinaesthetic' one. Although the 'correct' movement then might follow, this may not be noted in the results. Without examining the exact protocol of the experiments, its' very hard to tell how effective they are at testing these claims. Equally, thought, if they are this difficult to test by observers who are trying to take as objective a stance as possible, one could argue that they can hardly be called reliable by biased NLPers who are making no such attempt. My suspicion is that if eye movement was really as reliable as NLPers say, there would be fare more positive results in tests.

He then basically says that it's not a bad idea to keep the eye movement chart in the back of your mind. He doesn't say that it absolutely works. He says it may, not sure, not proven.

He subsequently makes reference to one of his TV programs, The Heist in which the eye patterns displayed by the participants asked to remember images as part of the Linking System memory technique are "pretty much according to the NLP model" and "almost a text book demonstration"

Yes he does, but that is directly AFTER what I had just typed. He's teaching the hypnothesis with the attitude of "it's not proven, it may or may not work. Here's an example."

This is the thing about Derren Brown, and again to my point. He definitely does NOT say that NLP works. There are things he uses in his performances to enhance the effect, or help him achieve the effect, but in real life situations most of the time you come off as looking stupid. The only real way it works is because the person you're doing it to WANTS it to work. People are looking at the surface and not bothering to dig deeper.

When someone goes to Derren's show or watches his program or participates in a trick, they WANT it to work. The mind is more accepting, and the critical thinking goes down or even away. Add a little showmanship and misdirection, and magically these techniques work!

And here is my second point. It backfires. Proof is in your post and in Edx's post. I've shown you direct quotes from Derren's book stating that he thinks NLP is bogus. Still you believe he promotes it. Edx, by your post, now has a confirmation. You believe he promotes it because you WANT to, (No offense meant, please, just making a statement), it's what you were looking for. It's why people come to me after the show and ask me to use my "powers" to help them lose weight or whatever.

People hear what they want to hear. People believe what they want to believe, even if you scream into their face that what you do is a performance and not reality and in reality it doesn't work.

Incidentally, any fans of Mr Brown may like to know that he has a new TV series in the UK in the form of four Friday night specials, commencing Friday 11th September on Channel 4.

Not sure if those of you in the USA can get your hands on our Channel 4 but you may be able to watch the progams online using their On Demand service - 4OD - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown/4od

I can't get it. I have to be in the UK. :( But thanks for the link anyway. :)

microdot

1st September 2009, 05:48 AM

Sorry, you're cherry picking. For example:

Would you rather have me type out the whole book?

The fact is that I was responding to Eddie Dane's earlier post.

He also didn't type out the whole book and IMO, his precis didn't paint a balanced view of the opinions expressed in the book.

That whole mirroring thing is prefaced with the following quote from the book:......

Which is why I said:-

He does indeed pour derision on the idea of slavishly copying a person's every move in order to establish rapport.

i.e. agreeing with the previously expressed view.

He's not promoting NLP, he's telling you something that he uses in his performances, but it's not guaranteed and it's not NLP.

I never said that he was promoting NLP.

What I do think is that he's giving himself a Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

He mocks NLP true believers but then is quite happy to explain how he uses techniques that are found in NLP (whether he labels it NLP or not is of no significant relevance as far as I'm concerned).

He then basically says that it's not a bad idea to keep the eye movement chart in the back of your mind. He doesn't say that it absolutely works. He says it may, not sure, not proven.

Yes, I know, AND he directs the reader to one of his programmes which, as I said earlier, he quotes as a text book example of it.

Call me a skeptic but it seems to me that he wants the best of both worlds.

This is the thing about Derren Brown, and again to my point. He definitely does NOT say that NLP works.

As far as I can see he doesn't say anything one way or the other.

As I've said before, he seems quite happy to pour derision on 'NLP True Believers' and then, almost in the next breath, explain in detail how he has used techniques described in NLP.

ETA - and, if it's not NLP, why does he put it in the same section of his book as the stuff on NLP? Why not put it in a section of it's own?

Shame you can't get to see the upcoming series of TV programs - on the advert he says he's going to reveal how he achieves the effects featured in the programs :)

Lothario

1st September 2009, 05:54 AM

What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?

Just a minor note...

What MikeSun is doing here is not an embedded command, it's what NLPers call punctuation ambiguity. The theory is that you will unconsciouly receive the message "there was absolutely nothing you wanted to do more..." because your subconscious does not acknowledge the question marks or full stops.

An embedded command is when you separate parts of a sentence by slightly shifting your tonality as you speak. They say that affirmations have a neutral tonality, questions have an upward shift towards the end of the sentence and orders have a downward shift. So, an embedded command would be something like "I like this forum because people here tend to... (lower tonality) do as I say.

Again, the theory is that the subconscious will recognize the tonality shift and perceive the final part of the sentence as being an order.

P.S. I can't get Derren's show either. I'll have to wait until someone puts it on youtube :)

microdot

1st September 2009, 06:22 AM

What MikeSun is doing here is not an embedded command, it's what NLPers call punctuation ambiguity.

Punctuation ambiguity is not something I've come across in my studies of NLP.

For me the punctuation in MikeSun's example is one of the reasons why what he wrote could never work as an embedded command.

That and the fact that he used past tense, had no rapport (sorry Mike - nothing personal, I just find forums suffer just like email in this regard) and used something which clashed completely with my world model.

Here it comes - :bricks:

Eddie Dane

1st September 2009, 06:36 AM

microdot

1st September 2009, 06:45 AM

Rofl :D

JFrankA

1st September 2009, 07:07 AM

Would you rather have me type out the whole book?

The fact is that I was responding to Eddie Dane's earlier post.

He also didn't type out the whole book and IMO, his precis didn't paint a balanced view of the opinions expressed in the book.

Which is why I said: i.e. agreeing with the previously expressed view.

Okay. I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

I never said that he was promoting NLP.

What I do think is that he's giving himself a Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

He mocks NLP true believers but then is quite happy to explain how he uses techniques that are found in NLP (whether he labels it NLP or not is of no significant relevance as far as I'm concerned).

Yes, I know, AND he directs the reader to one of his programmes which, as I said earlier, he quotes as a text book example of it.

Call me a skeptic but it seems to me that he wants the best of both worlds.

As I've said before, he seems quite happy to pour derision on 'NLP True Believers' and then, almost in the next breath, explain in detail how he has used techniques described in NLP.

As far as I can see he doesn't say anything one way or the other.

But that's just it: it's not techniques "found" in NLP. It's psychological tricks that could work (given the right circumstances) that NLP blows out of proportion.

And I think it's unfair to say it's a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" simply because, such in the case with eye movements, he basically says that it's a good trick on stage, (read: special, controlled circumstances), but he seriously doubts it works in real life situations.

He's trimming away the "fat" of NLP and giving the basic hypothesis. He is saying "I don't know" (which is the basis of being a skeptic) and letting you know the hypothesis so you make you can see the difference between what the hypothesis is and what the NLP build up is. He's saying "here it is without the hype, give it a try but if you try this in real life situations, the most likely outcome is that you will look like a fool."

Look I've said it before, sometimes these thing do work: when the receiver WANTS it to work. That's the key difference between a magician's performance and real life.

ETA - and, if it's not NLP, why does he put it in the same section of his book as the stuff on NLP? Why not put it in a section of it's own?

It's under "Hypnosis and Suggestion" which NLP is a part of. The chapter is about suggestion. The book is a magic 101 book. He out and out says that NLP doesn't work, then describes the psychological trick. NLP has taken these basic tricks, that work under certain circumstances, and blown it up into something that will always work.

That's the difference.

Shame you can't get to see the upcoming series of TV programs - on the advert he says he's going to reveal how he achieves the effects featured in the programs :)

Yeah, like Lothario, I'm waiting on youTube.... :)

microdot

1st September 2009, 07:19 AM

Okay. I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

Respectfully accepted.

...that NLP blows out of proportion.

I don't entirely agree. I will agree that there are people out there who make outrageous and insubstantiated claims about it.

He out and out says that NLP doesn't work,....

Does he?

I'm going to have to check now if he specifically says that anywhere....;)

ETA - should I mention the two different descriptions Derren offers for what essentially amounts to the swish pattern? :duck:

ETA - I say essentially amounts to - it's pretty much verbatim :duck:

Lothario

1st September 2009, 09:28 AM

About punctuation ambiguity:

http://www.psychdaily.com/encyclopedia.php?term=Punctuation+ambiguity

Embedded commands are below me.
I repeat, they are below me

(embedded command as actually taught by some "pick up expert". Undoubtedly resulting an unprecedented tsunami of oral sex for the nerd that employed it.)

The problem with most people is they just can't take new directions (read: nude erections)

Embedded commands as taught by the same pick-up expert you mentioned. :D

microdot

1st September 2009, 09:43 AM

About punctuation ambiguity:

http://www.psychdaily.com/encycloped...tion+ambiguity

Thanks for the link :)

A snippet from that page reads -

--- snip ---
The two sentences are joined by a phonologically ambiguous word, in this case hand.

--- snip ---

I suspect that this type of ambiguity relies on the words being vocalised rather than being in print where the punctuation can be clearly seen and acted upon in the normal way.

Perhaps JFrankA can add something of value here?

MikeSun5

2nd September 2009, 06:17 PM

Embedded commands are below me.
I repeat, they are below me

(embedded command as actually taught by some "pick up expert". Undoubtedly resulting an unprecedented tsunami of oral sex for the nerd that employed it.)

Kind of reminds me of when it sounds like Ali G is saying "Fair enough," but he's really saying, "Hairy muff." I say that often and it's seldom noticed. :D

I will agree that there are people out there who make outrageous and insubstantiated claims about it.

Like, "NLP has practical uses."

If it works, then at best NLP is a placebo. ...because (all together now):

Look I've said it before, sometimes these thing do work: when the receiver WANTS it to work.

Derren Brown is right to trim the fat...

microdot

3rd September 2009, 12:01 AM

Derren Brown is right to trim the fat...

To reveal and deliniate the lean meat of those things he's used and got positive results from.

I agree.

MikeSun5

3rd September 2009, 03:08 AM

To reveal and deliniate the lean meat of those things he's used and got positive results from.

I agree.

Uh... positive results after intensive screening, a huge number of attempts, and let's not forget the kicker: ...entertainment TELEVISION.

Derren Brown is not "trimming the fat" on a science show. Tricks of the Mind is not exactly a scientific course book at a university, either.

microdot

3rd September 2009, 04:28 AM

positive results

Exactly.

remirol

3rd September 2009, 04:45 AM

Exactly.

I'm not sure you're really keeping all of the conversation in context at this point. You might want to go back and reread a bit.

That said, this is also a lot of speculation over what's essentially hearsay; the validity of NLP is determined primarily by scientific studies, not by one magician's opinion.

JFrankA

3rd September 2009, 05:17 AM

Uh... positive results after intensive screening, a huge number of attempts, and let's not forget the kicker: ...entertainment TELEVISION.

Derren Brown is not "trimming the fat" on a science show. Tricks of the Mind is not exactly a scientific course book at a university, either.

This is what I've been saying all along. All his shows are just entertainment, just showmanship. That's it. Don't take anything on his show as "real" because his job, like any magician's, is to basically con you but to have you enjoy it.

His books, though, are all magic books. Even "Tricks of the Mind" which, I still say is a Magic 101 book for non-magicians.

The difference between Derren Brown and someone like Mystery. Derren isn't selling a method to make you pick up girls. Derren is taking a trick and keeps it as entertainment. People like Mystery takes a trick and blows it up to a "way of life".

I suspect that this type of ambiguity relies on the words being vocalised rather than being in print where the punctuation can be clearly seen and acted upon in the normal way.

Perhaps JFrankA can add something of value here?

The idea is to implement it any way you can: vocalized, written, whatever as long as it's there and there a lot of them. The bottom line about this method, is to confuse the receiver. (See, there's that word again!) Confusion makes a person's "critical mind" (so to speak), tend to drop away while that person is figuring out what the confusion is. Therefore, someone who is confused is more open to suggestion.

The hypothesis is that with this ambiguity, you can confuse a person and slip in a command at the same time.

I find it works best as comedy, for example:

"Let's eat Grandpa!"
"Let's eat, Grandpa!"
...commas save lives.

:D

microdot

3rd September 2009, 05:29 AM

I'm not sure you're really keeping all of the conversation in context at this point. You might want to go back and reread a bit.

Hiya remirol - my eyes are just fine thanks ;)

Therefore, someone who is confused is more open to suggestion.

The hypothesis is that with this ambiguity, you can confuse a person and slip in a command at the same time.

Slip in a command, or a theraputic suggestion? Or helpful advice? Or in fact any kind of suggestion that the person could find useful if they acted upon it?

remirol

3rd September 2009, 05:58 AM

Slip in a command, or a theraputic suggestion? Or helpful advice? Or in fact any kind of suggestion that the person could find useful if they acted upon it?

Those are all commands.

It's also important not to conflate the desired effect with the action; leads to an "ends justifies the means" scenario. One person's "helpful advice" may be the worst thing ever to another.

microdot

3rd September 2009, 06:04 AM

Those are all commands.

It's also important not to conflate the desired effect with the action; leads to an "ends justifies the means" scenario. One person's "helpful advice" may be the worst thing ever to another.

Is a suggestion the same thing as a command?

Other than that, I completely agree.

ETA - I had to look up the meaning of conflation :D

remirol

3rd September 2009, 06:11 AM

Is a suggestion the same thing as a command?

In the type of circumstances we're discussing ("embedded directive")? Yes.

microdot

3rd September 2009, 06:23 AM

remirol

3rd September 2009, 06:52 AM

In the type of circumstances we're discussing ("embedded directive")? Yes.
Hmmmm.

This got me thinking.

On the one hand I agree.

On the other hand I think that from the perspective of the transmitter (person issuing suggestion / command) and their expectation of the outcome(s), suggestion and command have differing meanings.

Oh, I'm sure the transmitter would dearly like to think of it differently. But we are talking about the _intent_ of manipulating another human to do something you want them to. Whether you have their best interests at heart is completely different from the act you're performing -- and that is that you're giving them a command.

Put another way: suggestion implies that the 'receiver' has options. In the context of NLP, it is intended that the receiver have no options.

ETA - I know you value 'concrete terms' thinking but I don't think human behaviour and subjective experience can be classified entirely in that way i.e. all meaning is subjective and context dependent.Human behavior and subjective experience are tricky to work with, yes, but I can't agree that _all_ meaning is subjective and context-dependent. That's the sort of statement that, if I were a con, I'd totally love to have be true. It would allow me to say anything I want and then come back around later and say "Ah, but that's not really what I _meant_, see."

Actions, at least, are concrete. A person did a thing. Now, _why_ the person did that thing is far more complex, agreed -- but in the end, the person still did the thing. And to an extent, we need to try to do something similar with speech -- the words you say need to be, first and foremost, the _words you say_, and we need to treat them that way.

When we become apologists for other people's words is when we find ourselves being manipulated by them most.