Yet more NLP BS

[remirol]

Intended by who? :eek:

What leads you to that conclusion?

By the person attempting to use NLP techniques, of course. Or the "transmitter", whatever you want to call him.

And what leads me to that conclusion is very simple -- the entire point of NLP is identical to the idea behind "subliminal advertising" (outlawed, I might note). It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

After all, why would you use NLP if it was as simple as saying "Hey, do you want to do X?" and the other person responds "Sure, let's do X!"? Everything about NLP involves hiding what the "transmitter" is attempting to do -- and the only reason to do that is to prevent the "receiver" from saying "no" in some fashion.

But words are _symbols_, labels which we each use to describe aspects of our _subjective_ experience.That doesn't mean that the meaning of those symbols isn't objective. In fact, if the symbols themselves weren't objective, language itself wouldn't exist. It is imperative for there to be a common framework for any communication to occur, and it is further imperative that any communicator use the symbols correctly if they wish to be understood.

Intentionally misusing the objective symbols is a form of deception.

[microdot]

And what leads me to that conclusion is very simple -- the entire point of NLP is identical to the idea behind "subliminal advertising" (outlawed, I might note). It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

After all, why would you use NLP if it was as simple as saying "Hey, do you want to do X?" and the other person responds "Sure, let's do X!"? Everything about NLP involves hiding what the "transmitter" is attempting to do -- and the only reason to do that is to prevent the "receiver" from saying "no" in some fashion.

Not according to the books I've read.


In fact, if the symbols themselves weren't objective, language itself wouldn't exist.

And if the symbols themselves were _entirely_ objective the question "What specifically did you mean when you said x? Would never arise.


Intentionally misusing the objective symbols is a form of deception.

Agreed.

[remirol]

Not according to the books I've read.

I would expect the snake oil salesmen to be less than truthful about their product, yes.

But, to be fair: how do _you_ believe NLP is supposed to work, according to those same books?

And if the symbols themselves were _entirely_ objective the question "What specifically did you mean when you said x? Would never arise.

Very little is perfect -- but that doesn't change that the symbols themselves are intended to be objective, not subjective. Besides, that particular question often isn't so much a request for clarification for the requester's sake as it is for the observers' sakes.

[microdot]

Very little is perfect -- but that doesn't change that the symbols themselves are intended to be objective, not subjective.

Yes, as you say, they are _intended_ to be objective and what's _intended_ and what actually happens are not always the same thing.

As I said earlier, I had to go and look up a dictionary definition of one of the words that you used in order to try to arrive at an _objective_ appreciation of the meaning of that word.

One of the problems with this is that the supposedly objective meaning of that word will vary depending on which dictionary I read, the context in which the word is used and who is using it (not an exhaustive list of variables).

Besides, that particular question often isn't so much a request for clarification for the requester's sake as it is for the observers' sakes.

Couldn't quite grasp what you were getting at here - could I ask you to expand a little?

(almost asked if you could clarify what you mean and then realised that might seem flippant) ;)

[remirol]

I would expect the snake oil salesmen to be less than truthful about their product, yes.

But, to be fair: how do _you_ believe NLP is supposed to work, according to those same books?

You missed this, BTW, and I'm not going to let it go quite so easily.

Yes, as you say, they are _intended_ to be objective and what's _intended_ and what actually happens are not always the same thing.

Of course. Sometimes people are misusing words because they don't know any better. And sometimes, they're misusing words because they _do_.

Either way, the misuse should be corrected, not handwaved away as "subjective".

Couldn't quite grasp what you were getting at here - could I ask you to expand a little?If I think someone is being intentionally vague, evasive, or otherwise trying to hide what they really mean, I will often attempt to draw that person out and encourage them to expand on their original thought, in the guise of asking for clarification. This is because people are more likely to tell the truth when they're not already on the defensive, and not incidentally prevents the whole 'strawman' dodge, since I can then point to their words and say "But you said 'X', right here."

This also makes it far more simple to demonstrate anything necessary to any observers. (Details obviously depend on what's being discussed, but someone's own words are typically far more useful than trying to read their mind.)

[microdot]

Originally Posted by remirol
I would expect the snake oil salesmen to be less than truthful about their product, yes.

But, to be fair: how do _you_ believe NLP is supposed to work, according to those same books?
You missed this, BTW, and I'm not going to let it go quite so easily.

LOL :D

Did you assume that I'd missed it because I didn't respond to it immediately?

I didn't miss it and I will respond to it when I have more time to think clearly (just got home from work and have a list of chores to attend to).

If I think someone is being intentionally vague, evasive, or otherwise trying to hide what they really mean, I will often attempt to draw that person out and encourage them to expand on their original thought, in the guise of asking for clarification. This is because people are more likely to tell the truth when they're not already on the defensive, and not incidentally prevents the whole 'strawman' dodge, since I can then point to their words and say "But you said 'X', right here."

This also makes it far more simple to demonstrate anything necessary to any observers. (Details obviously depend on what's being discussed, but someone's own words are typically far more useful than trying to read their mind.)

Thanks for that clarification - I think I understand better what you were getting at.

Back soon.....

[remirol]

Did you assume that I'd missed it because I didn't respond to it immediately?

No -- because you both didn't respond and didn't say something like the below...

I didn't miss it and I will respond to it when I have more time to think clearly (just got home from work and have a list of chores to attend to).OK, that's fair enough. I can wait. :)

Just as a point of information -- people on the JREF are probably more sensitive to direct questions that get "missed", simply because there's a lot of it that goes on, especially in some of the more controversial forums. It's probably a good idea to at least say "I'll get back to this" when you're going to respond to something later, if only to head off the suspicious sorts. Like me! :D

[microdot]

Just as a point of information -- people on the JREF are probably more sensitive to direct questions that get "missed", simply because there's a lot of it that goes on, especially in some of the more controversial forums. It's probably a good idea to at least say "I'll get back to this" when you're going to respond to something later, if only to head off the suspicious sorts. Like me!


OK. Fair point. Seems reasonable. I'll bear that in mind :)

But, to be fair: how do _you_ believe NLP is supposed to work, according to those same books?

IMO NLP is a fairly broad topic comprising a number of connected but different subjects which cannot be explained (encapsulated?) in a few short paragraphs.

For clarity though and to _hopefully_ facilitate further healthy debate I'm going to try to respond to this in as clear and concise a manner as I can.

For that reason this post may appear fairly broad-brush and that's a description I'd be comfortable with.

Remember that I'm expessing _my opinions_ based on the materials I've been studying for the past 12 months or so.

My top down or helicopter view is that NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.

Furthermore it is my view that people can use these models to study and enhance their own behaviour(s), make their communication with other people more effective and assist other people to do the same.

A specific example of one of these models is the NLP Communication Model which deals specifically with the subjectivity of human experience arising out of our use of our 5 senses (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory and Gustatory or our senses of sight, hearing, feeling, smell and taste if you prefer) to gather information from the outside world.

Any questions?

[JFrankA]

IMO NLP is a fairly broad topic comprising a number of connected but different subjects which cannot be explained (encapsulated?) in a few short paragraphs.

For clarity though and to _hopefully_ facilitate further healthy debate I'm going to try to respond to this in as clear and concise a manner as I can.

For that reason this post may appear fairly broad-brush and that's a description I'd be comfortable with.

Remember that I'm expessing _my opinions_ based on the materials I've been studying for the past 12 months or so.

If I may interject, that is very fair. (I'm kinda hesitant to interject because both you and Remirol are discussing this beautifully, IMHO.)


My top down or helicopter view is that NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.

Furthermore it is my view that people can use these models to study and enhance their own behaviour(s), make their communication with other people more effective and assist other people to do the same.

A specific example of one of these models is the NLP Communication Model which deals specifically with the subjectivity of human experience arising out of our use of our 5 senses (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory and Gustatory or our senses of sight, hearing, feeling, smell and taste if you prefer) to gather information from the outside world.

Any questions?

I would agree you, but there is one thing I would add. I think NLP supposed to be all you've said, but not only to communicate with others but to manipulate (suggest, command, inspire, etc) that other person.

[MikeSun5]

positive results
Exactly.

...I should have typed the appearance of positive results. DB is a conjurer/illusionist as well as a clever bastard. Sometimes things aren't as they seem. ;)

It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

Like it or not, this is an accurate representation of what NLP claims. Some of the "changeable" things claimed on microdot's page (http://www.microdot.net/nlp/why/index.htm) (the bits in bold), are things that a lot of people don't have much control over. It can be extremely difficult for some people to change certain behaviors, and this is what NLP claims it can do. Beliefs, fears, cravings, and addictions are things that most people have trouble changing, so NLP looks like a good product. The problem is there's no scientific evidence that shows NLP is any more of an effective treatment than say, crystal therapy.

For example, the method described in microdot's Swish Pattern (http://www.microdot.net/nlp/submodalities/swish-patterns.htm) article is no different from having someone lie on a couch, press a piece of blue quartz to their temple, and transfer the pizza cravings from their psyche to the crystal, then smash it with a hammer. Both methods may or may not work.
It's that 50/50 chance that gives NLP sellers their convenient way out (a standard in New Age woo). If it works, NLP gets a win. If it doesn't, you probably did it wrong and you should maybe try again. Or buy another book.

microdot's site says that "Swish patterns usually become fully automated after 3, 7, or 21 repetitions."
Hey, if at first you don't succeed... :boggled:


NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.

...and since everyone is different, the collection can't be universal or even mostly accurate. That's why NLP yeilds a success rate that's pretty much consistent with guessing.

Furthermore it is my view that people can use these models to study and enhance their own behaviour(s), make their communication with other people more effective and assist other people to do the same.

If we ignore NLP's claims of changing (or enhancing) behavior, and just go with increasing effective communication, it's still hard to buy. What is the point of a "collection of models of human behavior" when none can apply to everyone? NLP is supposed to give you an advantage in rapport and communication, but since everyone is different, a big list of the ways people act will leave you at square one anyway.

Besides, if NLP is all about subjective experience, what's all the business with reading body language and physical behavior? Doesn't make much sense...

[remirol]

IMO NLP is a fairly broad topic comprising a number of connected but different subjects which cannot be explained (encapsulated?) in a few short paragraphs.
...
My top down or helicopter view is that NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.

OK, that seems straightforward enough. (It's probably safe to just say "impression" or "opinion", by the way, rather than adding BidnessBuzzwords in on the front -- but this is just me nitpicking; I hear a lot of that every day and spend a lot of time cutting through it. :) )

Furthermore it is my view that people can use these models to study and enhance their own behaviour(s),What enhancements can it provide?

make their communication with other people more effective and assist other people to do the same.Effective in what way?

A specific example of one of these models is the NLP Communication Model which deals specifically with the subjectivity of human experience arising out of our use of our 5 senses (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory and Gustatory or our senses of sight, hearing, feeling, smell and taste if you prefer) to gather information from the outside world.Currently, I'm unaware of any other way to gather information from the outside world via any means _other_ than our five senses, so this isn't entirely earth-shattering new ground we're covering here -- and by definition what's inside a person's head is subjective to that person.

What exactly does this model consist of, again? I can't help but think that it's just a lot of fancy words all wrapping up a very simple concept, which is that "we experience the world through our five senses, and everyone will experience the world differently."

Any questions?Of course. :D

[microdot]

What, no hail of bullets? ;)

It's probably safe to just say "impression" or "opinion", by the way, rather than adding BidnessBuzzwords in on the front

I was merely trying to illustrate that the post would not be very detailed and IMO most people undertand metaphors like the ones I used. Sorry if it sounded like Buzzwords - not intented. :)

This post also is intended as an easily digestible chunk rather than a very detailed description.

What enhancements can it provide?

In a broad sense again the general idea is that you take 'problem' or limiting behaviours i.e. those which consistently prevent you from achieving objectives efficiently and effectively and modify those behaviours or replace them with new, more effective behaviours.

Effective in what way?

Various.

The Meta Model for example can be used to gain specificity in communication (what you might refer to as concrete terms)

The appreciation that your model of the world differs from the model of the person your communicating with (your individual subjective experiences will differ if you prefer) can oil the wheels of communication i.e. seek first to understand then to be understood rather than simply and quickly getting frustrated when the communication isn't going well).

To quote something from personal experience I realise that some of the various scientific studies mentioned in this thread found little support for Primary/Prefeferred Representational Systems but I _know_ that I'm primarily Visual and I _know_ I'm a terrible listener.

I apply this experience to assist me in communicating better i.e. where evidence suggests that the person I'm communicating with works well with visual material then I'll focus on using that mechanism and generally find that the communication is more effective and efficient for it. With people who like to describe things in detail, rather than doing, say, a sketch I make an extra effort to listen very carefully to what they are saying, take notes of salient points and use Meta Model questions to gather more specific detail where appropriate.

Currently, I'm unaware of any other way to gather information from the outside world via any means _other_ than our five senses, so this isn't entirely earth-shattering new ground we're covering here -- and by definition what's inside a person's head is subjective to that person.

I agree - nothing earth-shattering about it - and I'm really glad that you've said that as - to quote from the Presuppositions of NLP

--- snip --

All distinctions human beings are able to make concerning our environment and our behaviour can be usefully represented through the visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory senses.

--- snip ---

What exactly does this model consist of, again? I can't help but think that it's just a lot of fancy words all wrapping up a very simple concept, which is that "we experience the world through our five senses, and everyone will experience the world differently."

You've largely summed up the first two of the three parts of the model but many people don't even (or don't appear to) appreciate that simple fact - that we do all see the world differently. This in itself can lead to the protraction and ultimately the break-down of communications, particularly where processes such as negotiation are involved.

The second part postulates that between the point at which the data first enters through our five senses and the point at which it is stored in the brain the incoming data passes through a number of filters which distort, delete and generalise the data.

The third and final part of the model postulates that our Internal Representations (ways in which we represent the world to ourselves in our own mind - pictures, sounds, feelings etc.) of the world, our state (how we feel about those perceptions) and our physiology are all linked in such a way that they affect our behaviours.

Hopefully there's nothing earth-shattering there either.

:)

[microdot]

JFrankA and MikeSun5 - apologies for not responding to your posts - I'm not ignoring you I'd just missed them.

Sometimes I check for new posts using my smartphone (saves the hassle of booting up the PC etc.) and I just jump to the last post on the last page.

I have a few things going on today (including building a bat box with my daughter) but I will get back to you.

If I may interject, that is very fair. (I'm kinda hesitant to interject because both you and Remirol are discussing this beautifully, IMHO.)

Thankyou :)

That single response is very welcome and more appreciated than you know.

[microdot]

...I should have typed the appearance of positive results.

OK, if that's what you meant.

DB is a conjurer/illusionist as well as a clever bastard. Sometimes things aren't as they seem.

You don't have to convince me of that ;)


It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.
Like it or not, this is an accurate representation of what NLP claims.

Sorry Mike (and remirol), I don't entirely agree. I think the subject is far more complex than that and to at least partially explain why I think that way I'll use a scenario which is entirely theoretical (I'll make it up as I go along) but which I believe is fairly common in the _real_ world.

Scenario

A person with a phobia of some kind, let's take a fear of swimming as an example. That person has negative feelings about swimming and water in general which may well lead them to decide to _not_ swim.

At the same time it's not uncommon for that person to have even more negative feelings - this time about what they are missing out on by not going swimming.

And for good measure they have some more negative feelings about the belief that they hold that they are powerless to do anything to get over, under, through or around this problem.

So far we have three sets of negative feelings and a person who has decided to _not_ swim but still wishes that they _could_ swim.

Assuming that they are physically capable of swimming, the thing that's stopping them from swimming is entirely in their head and thus _should_ be under their control.

Let's now imagine that this person has asked for our help and we've chosen to help them using NLP.

(I know you don't believe in the efficacy of NLP and that's your view and you're entitled to it - your view is not being questioned here - it's perfectly safe. All I'm asking you to do is suspend that belief just long enough to consider this theoretical scenario fully).

Before I continue I'll just pop in another quote here 'cos I think it fits wiith what I've said so far:-

Some of the "changeable" things claimed on microdot's page (the bits in bold), are things that a lot of people don't have much control over. It can be extremely difficult for some people to change certain behaviors, and this is what NLP claims it can do. Beliefs, fears, cravings, and addictions are things that most people have trouble changing, so NLP looks like a good product. The problem is there's no scientific evidence that shows NLP is any more of an effective treatment than say, crystal therapy.

I've crossed through a section of what you said because that's the only part that I don't fully agree with and I thought it better to separate it from the rest in this way rather than omit it and possibly give the impression that I was trying to put spin on your words ;)

On the subject of scientific evidence I can only say that the few articles I've seen which state that they are based upon or influenced by scientific studies came to, IMHO mixed conclusions.

I'm very glad that you've said all of the above because I now know that at least have some common ground for the purposes of this thread.

So, to recap, we have this imaginary person who has decided to _not_ swim but is capable of swimming, feels that their life is the poorer for not swimming and has asked for our help.

_IF_ we use NLP here to assist them we're not just getting them to do something that _we_ wish them to do and we're certainly not tricking them into it by...
bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

Even if some aspects of the NLP tools or our use of them is not immediately overt, if we're using them to provide the person we are assisting with a context in which their _natural response_ is to make the useful changes _they are looking for_ then I think that's a fair enough reason for bypassing their conscious decisions as you put it.

I realise I've been a little verbose on this but I wanted to try to make my point as clearly as possible.

I'll move on.

For example, the method described in microdot's Swish Pattern article is no different from having someone lie on a couch, press a piece of blue quartz to their temple, and transfer the pizza cravings from their psyche to the crystal, then smash it with a hammer. Both methods may or may not work.

At a conceptual level I would tend to agree. I suspect though that I'd draw less attention to myself in the pizza parlour by quietly doing a swish pattern in my head than you would with your crystal / hammer routine, and you would spend a fortune in crystals, especially if you had to do it 21 times :p (Plus _everyone_ knows that blue quartz doesn't work for cravings :p)

microdot's site says that "Swish patterns usually become fully automated after 3, 7, or 21 repetitions."
Hey, if at first you don't succeed...

OK, so the number of repetitions is possibly arbitrary but your advice is good - afterall practice makes perfect.


NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.
...and since everyone is different, the collection can't be universal or even mostly accurate.

At it's largest chunk size (broadest sense) NLP is predicated upon the belief that:-

--- snip --

All distinctions human beings are able to make concerning our environment and our behaviour can be usefully represented through the visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory senses.

--- snip ---

Which basically says that any measurements that we make of our world and our behaviour are taken using the senses of sight, hearing, feeling (visceral and tactile) smell and taste.

While not universal (some people are unfortunately blind for example) I think it's a concept that's fairly reasonable, inclusive and wide-ranging, don't you?

That's why NLP yeilds a success rate that's pretty much consistent with guessing.

Who says? :eek:

Is this _always_ true?

You do have evidence to back that up, don't you? ;)

Joking apart, I think this would only be true where the 'practitioner' paid absolutely _NO_ attention to the feedback they were getting.

Besides, if NLP is all about subjective experience, what's all the business with reading body language and physical behavior? Doesn't make much sense...

Not quite sure what you're getting at here?

I'm inclined to believe that you probably already realise that body language and physical behaviour are enormously important aspects of human communication for a whole host of reasons.

So if you want me to respond to that question you'll have to give me a little more to go on ;)

I would agree you, but there is one thing I would add. I think NLP supposed to be all you've said, but not only to communicate with others but to manipulate (suggest, command, inspire, etc) that other person.

Absolutely.

The only word I'm not entirely comfortable with is manipulate, but only because I'm not sure which definition you're applying to it i.e.

to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner

or

to manage or utilize skillfully

or

to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage

I strongly suspect that the more skeptical posters here on JREF when considering the uses of NLP which triggered this particular thread would apply the the third of the above definitions - and I'd probably agree with them if the practices were, let's say, unsavoury.

Even the first two definitions have negative connotations.

So I'm going to cherry pick ('cos I know how you guys like that ;) ) from definition number 1:-

to treat or operate in a skillful manner

Which I think is the way that an ethical Practitioner would use NLP - for ethically sound mutual benefit.

I imagine that most people have at some time in their lives tried to help another person with a problem or difficulty that they were really struggling with by talking it through with them and offering helpful suggestions. I also imagine that most people would invest significant energy/effort and take great care to ensure that any advice/guidance they offered was suitable/useful/fair/ethical/safe etc.

In doing so, in wanting to do our best to give helpful advice to people we care about, it's not uncommon for us to attempt to gently steer them from 'negative' ways of thinking to more 'positive' or useful ways of thinking.

Thus these efforts that we go to and behaviours that we exhibit _could_ accurately and fairly be described as manipulation and _certainly_ require that we operate in a skillful manner.

Doncha think?

:)

[Moochie]

About punctuation ambiguity:

http://www.psychdaily.com/encyclopedia.php?term=Punctuation+ambiguity



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

I won't detail the dozens of totally incongruous, seemingly unmotivated things I've done while reading this thread.


M.

[microdot]

I won't detail the dozens of totally incongruous, seemingly unmotivated things I've done while reading this thread.


M.

Thanks?:confused:

[Senex]

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.)

Hey, hey, hey... that command and a willingness to purchase dozens of seabreezes has proven statistically more effective than just my on-line Senex schtick alone. (I know, but like medicare, sometimes suplementing a good thing can't hurt ;))

And I never used the word tsunami.

[Lothario]

And what leads me to that conclusion is very simple -- the entire point of NLP is identical to the idea behind "subliminal advertising" (outlawed, I might note). It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.


It is true that the subliminal ads were outlawed, but apparently there's no evidence that they had any effect on the viewer... just like NLP.

http://www.skepdic.com/subliminal.html

Let's assume for a second that NLP does work. I imagine that the possibly of manipulating someone without their knowledge through the use of these techniques would forever change the way we relate to others. Not to mention that governments and intelligence services across the world would be willing to pay billions for it.
So, why is it still being taught in self-help seminars?

[Prometheus]

It is true that the subliminal ads were outlawed, but apparently there's no evidence that they had any effect on the viewer... just like NLP.

http://www.skepdic.com/subliminal.html

Let's assume for a second that NLP does work. I imagine that the possibly of manipulating someone without their knowledge through the use of these techniques would forever change the way we relate to others. Not to mention that governments and intelligence services across the world would be willing to pay billions for it.
So, why is it still being taught in self-help seminars?

Good point. If it worked, we should expect to see governments training diplomats in its use.

[Toke]

I guess it is the basic problem with a lot of revolutionary inventions.
They would change the world if in wide scale use.

And that is why "THEY" and/or "THEM" have a conspiracy to stop it.
Just think of the cures for cancer, the eternal lightbulb, 500mpg cars etc.:D

[Maia]

You know, I'm really embarassed about this now... okay, I guess there's no need to be, since I was a teenager then. Anyway, I read all of Wilson Bryan Key's books. (There's some info in the subliminal ads link.) I'llnever forget the front cover of The Clam Plate Orgy. It was a reproduction of the old Howard Johnson's ad for its clam plate, you see, and the idea was that it subliminally influenced people to... I don't know, order the clam plate, I guess... through wild sexual images imbedded in the clams. :boggled: He also testified at a weird court case against Judas Priest, and wrote several other books. He was quite the proponent of the "our children are going insane and committing mass murders because of subliminal messages in Coke ads" type argument. It all seemed to make sense at the time...

[Lothario]

It all seemed to make sense at the time...

That's the problem with most forms of woo. They all seem to make sense in the beggining... until your critical thought kicks in.

[JFrankA]

You know, I'm really embarassed about this now... okay, I guess there's no need to be, since I was a teenager then. Anyway, I read all of Wilson Bryan Key's books. (There's some info in the subliminal ads link.) I'llnever forget the front cover of The Clam Plate Orgy. It was a reproduction of the old Howard Johnson's ad for its clam plate, you see, and the idea was that it subliminally influenced people to... I don't know, order the clam plate, I guess... through wild sexual images imbedded in the clams. :boggled: He also testified at a weird court case against Judas Priest, and wrote several other books. He was quite the proponent of the "our children are going insane and committing mass murders because of subliminal messages in Coke ads" type argument. It all seemed to make sense at the time...

Don't feel badly. I fell for it too. In fact, when I first started getting into hypnosis, back in my college days, I completely fell for all the hypnosis/subliminal stuff.

It does seem to make sense on the surface. To be honest, that's where a lot of people look and don't bother digging into the information deeper, or even seeing the information from another angle.

It took me 40 years to be an atheist. It took me 20 years to figure out what hypnosis really was. I still find myself falling for woo, it's just normal, I think.

The thing is to not stop asking challenging everything. Including yourself. :)

.....err...I hope this mini rant was helpful.


ETA: In high school, I was the kid who believed in UFO's and knew a lot about them.........that bit all changed in college....

[Garrette]

ETA: In high school, I was the kid who believed in UFO's and knew a lot about them.........that bit all changed in college....Tommie Lee Jones found you with his red flashing light on a silver stick, did he?

[JFrankA]

Tommie Lee Jones found you with his red flashing light on a silver stick, did he?


:)


Actually, I went to college long before that. Dr. Carl Sagan found me with his "Cosmos".

[Senex]

I'llnever forget the front cover of The Clam Plate Orgy. It was a reproduction of the old Howard Johnson's ad for its clam plate, you see, and the idea was that it subliminally influenced people to... I don't know, order the clam plate, I guess... through wild sexual images imbedded in the clams. :boggled:

When I was in eighth grade a book called Subliminal Seduction was what all the cool kids were reading. I must admit -- I was a skeptic that S E X buried in the ice cubes would make you buy a particular brand of gin. Or that flashing "eat popcorn" two of seven frames per second would make a difference.

Now I worked at HoJo's while I was in college and young woman eating clams were sexually harrassing me, no bulloney (maybe it wasn't the subliminal stuff:rolleyes:)

[Lothario]

Now I worked at HoJo's while I was in college and young woman eating clams were sexually harrassing me, no bulloney (maybe it wasn't the subliminal stuff:rolleyes:)

Clams are said to have aphrodisiac properties :D. Nothing subliminal there.

[MikeSun5]

No, I don't have proof that NLP has the same success rate as guessing, but there's no evidence to the contrary, now is there? ;)

Scenario

A person with a phobia of some kind, let's take a fear of swimming as an example. That person has negative feelings about swimming and water in general which may well lead them to decide to _not_ swim....Assuming that they are physically capable of swimming, the thing that's stopping them from swimming is entirely in their head and thus _should_ be under their control....Let's now imagine that this person has asked for our help and we've chosen to help them using NLP....
So, to recap, we have this imaginary person who has decided to _not_ swim but is capable of swimming, feels that their life is the poorer for not swimming and has asked for our help...._IF_ we use NLP here to assist them we're not just getting them to do something that _we_ wish them to do and we're certainly not tricking them into it....

You forgot to tell us how NLP would solve the problem!! Talk about anticlimactic. :(

I realise I've been a little verbose on this but I wanted to try to make my point as clearly as possible.

If that's the case, I think I missed the point... Was it "NLP is pragmatic?" (http://www.skepdic.com/pragmatic.html)

(Plus _everyone_ knows that blue quartz doesn't work for cravings :p)

That made me snort Gatorade. Thanks.

[microdot]

Hiya MikeSun5 - hope you're well :)

You forgot to tell us how NLP would solve the problem!!

Incorrect.

Your statement incorrectly presupposes my intention - are you a mind reader? :p

That section of my post was my full response to:-



It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.
Like it or not, this is an accurate representation of what NLP claims.

and the point of that section of my post was to explain, as clearly as I'm able, why my opinion - ETA on that particular point - differed from yours and remirol's.



(Plus _everyone_ knows that blue quartz doesn't work for cravings )
That made me snort Gatorade. Thanks.

LOL - yeah, I was quite please with that one :D

Is Gatorade carbonated? I can't remember as I only tried it once and didn't like it.

[MikeSun5]

and the point of that section of my post was to explain, as clearly as I'm able, why my opinion - ETA on that particular point - differed from yours and remirol's.

Well the next obvious questions: How would you use NLP to help that guy to swim? Which tactic or technique do you think an NLP therapist would start with?

Is Gatorade carbonated?

Hex no. One of the reasons I left Europe is all the bubbles in everything. ;)

[microdot]

Well the next obvious questions: How would you use NLP to help that guy to swim? Which tactic or technique do you think an NLP therapist would start with?

Well, the standard model for that would be what is known as the fast phobia cure.

[JFrankA]

IMHO, the whole phobia cure has one advantage that gives it a better chance to work. The person wants the phobia gone.

But if a person is using that same technique on a woman who has no interest in that person, it won't work.

[microdot]

IMHO, the whole phobia cure has one advantage that gives it a better chance to work. The person wants the phobia gone.

Absolutely :)

But if a person is using that same technique on a woman who has no interest in that person, it won't work.

Women - such uncooperative creatures :rolleyes:

[Eddie Dane]

IMHO, the whole phobia cure has one advantage that gives it a better chance to work. The person wants the phobia gone.

But if a person is using that same technique on a woman who has no interest in that person, it won't work.

Same with smoking.

I was at a party some months ago, one of the people there was really into NLP.

When he learned that I smoke (occasionally, at parties), he immidiately did me the "favour" of NLP-ing me out of my disgusting habit.

He did the whole re-framing thing, which in itself isn't bad. It made me feel bad about smoking.

Him: 'So, you smoke? That's sooo 1985'.
Me: 'Yeah, but only occasionally'.
Him: 'How many do you smoke then?'
Me: 'Uh, between three and five cigarettes a week, I guess.'
Him: 'So, that's what? two hundred cigarettes a year? Probably a lot more, counting holidays and such.'
Me: 'Hmmm, yeah probably. Oh look there's someone I know. I have to go talk to her now. Bye.'

Her: 'Oh my god. Were you talking to him? '
Me: 'Yeah, he tried to make me quit smoking'.
Her: 'Tell me about it. He came into my office two months ago and noticed a pack of cigarettes on my desk. Then he talked and talked and me say that I had now stopped smoking. He even talked me into throwing away the pack I had.'
Me: 'So, have you quit?'
Her: 'No but I smoke where he can't see it. I feel stupid, but I told him I'd quit'.
Me: 'have you got any cigarettes on you?'
Her: "Yes. But let's go smoke out front so he doesn't notice.'

[microdot]

Same with smoking.

I was at a party some months ago, one of the people there was really into NLP.

When he learned that I smoke (occasionally, at parties), he immidiately did me the "favour" of NLP-ing me out of my disgusting habit.

I take it that you didn't ask for his 'help'?

[Stray Cat]

When he learned that I smoke (occasionally, at parties), he immidiately did me the "favour" of NLP-ing me out of my disgusting habit.
I designed a sticker for just such occasions!

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/STOP-BREATHING.jpg

[microdot]

I designed a sticker for just such occasions!

How rude!

[JFrankA]

I designed a sticker for just such occasions!

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/STOP-BREATHING.jpg

As a non-smoker, I am compelled to say this:


I LOVE THAT SIGN!!!

[microdot]

As a non-smoker, I am compelled to say this:


I LOVE THAT SIGN!!!

:confused:

[Stray Cat]

How rude!
It's not rude, it's light hearted... If you wanna see really rude... try some 'Woo' on me. :rolleyes:

[microdot]

It's not rude, it's light hearted...

Try telling that to someone suffering from lung cancer as a result of passive smoking and see how light hearted they think it is. :(

[Stray Cat]

Try telling that to someone suffering from lung cancer as a result of passive smoking and see how light hearted they think it is. :(
Got any evidence that passive smoking is responsible for the lung cancer? :rolleyes:

[microdot]

Got any evidence that passive smoking is responsible for the lung cancer?

:slp:

[Stray Cat]

I'll take that as a no then?

And now tell me why "someone suffering from lung cancer as a result of passive smoking" would be in a smoking area!

[microdot]

And now tell me why "someone suffering from lung cancer as a result of passive smoking" would be in a smoking area!

And why wouldn't they? :confused:

[fuelair]

What do you think of these two characters:

Ross Jeffries, whose website is speedseduction.biz
Kenrick Cleveland, maxpersuasion.com

The first one claims to be able to hypnotize any woman into bed by using hypnotic patterns full of embedded commands (ericksonian hypnotic suggestions), which will describe a state (like arousal, for instance) and then link it to yourself by means of an anchor (if i understand correctly, the "anchor" has its origin in pavlovian psychology). I've looked through some forums and found guys claiming to have "created a hypnotized sex slave by using Speed Seduction", and stuff like that. Sounds like BS, but the reasoning behind it is quite clever.

The second guy has applied the same principles to sales. He has some videos on youtube where he's setting an "amnesia anchor" and his products claim to be able to destroy any objection from costumers, etc, etc.

The two nlp-spawns need debunking. What do you guys think?The first objection a salesman "destroys" is when I halt listening and leave.

[microdot]

The first objection a salesman "destroys" is when I halt listening and leave.

Sorry, I don't quite understand - which of your objections specifically is it that the salesman "destroys" when you halt listening and leave?

[MikeSun5]

It's not rude, it's light hearted...

I heard a comedian say this bit once:

ANNOYED PERSON: "Excuse me, but your cigarette smoke is bothering me."
SMOKER: "Yea, well it's killing me."

I don't smoke, but I say live and let die. If you don't like smoke, stand upwind.

Anyway, to get back on topic...

Well, the standard model for that would be what is known as the fast phobia cure.

The "fast phobia cure" is not mentioned on your website, so I looked it up on another NLP website (http://www.deep-trance.com/techniques/fast-phobia-cure.html). I'm amazed that people believe in this stuff. Here are the four three steps (I like how it starts with zero :)):

STEP ZERO: Calibrate to phobic response. You need the client to be able to have a phobic response there and then. There is no point doing the Fast Phobia Cure on experience which doesn't make the client phobic.

STEP ONE: Get client to see a black & white image of themselves JUST BEFORE having a phobic response.

STEP TWO: Get the client to imagine stepping out of themselves and going to a nearby safe place. Traditionally, this is the projection booth in the theatre. Allow them to watch black & white movie.

STEP THREE: Step back into self at the end of movie, re-add critical submodality colour and run backwards.

It's just that simple! :rolleyes:

I'm going to have to refer to JFrankA on this one. How in the hell do you "get" the client to do any of that stuff? I guess I just don't see how "getting a client" to imagine themselves jumping in and out of black and white/color movies would make your hypothetical patient want to swim.

Seriously, that stuff sounds as far fetched as the blue green crystal therapy idea.
I mean, "re-add critical submodality colour and run backwards." What in the hell IS that?? :boggled: Is that trying to remove the client's fear of swimming, or just replace it with severe confusion?

[Lothario]

Hex no. One of the reasons I left Europe is all the bubbles in everything. ;)

Most of the bubbly drinks we have here are courtesy of the Coca-Cola Company :D


The "fast phobia cure" is not mentioned on your website, so I looked it up on another NLP website (http://www.deep-trance.com/techniques/fast-phobia-cure.html). I'm amazed that people believe in this stuff. Here are the four three steps (I like how it starts with zero :)):


I have to quote a few lines from that website. First:



Richard Bandler has said that this step 'blows out the phobia - that once a client has done it, they can't ever run it forwards again.' I don't know if that's true. Bandler obviously has some understanding of neurology but I've no other reference for this.


Well, Bandler told me that this will cure people so i use it on people and they pay me their hard-earned money, but i'm not really sure if it works. Brilliant.



"Now, if you saw yourself running away from blue baked beans, what would that be like?"
She gave me a puzzled look and said "That would be silly."



Bingo. That would be silly. My thought exactly.

[microdot]

The "fast phobia cure" is not mentioned on your website, so I looked it up on another NLP website. I'm amazed that people believe in this stuff.

Well, Bandler told me that this will cure people so i use it on people and they pay me their hard-earned money, but i'm not really sure if it works. Brilliant.

I must confess that if that particlar web page was the only thing I'd read in order to find out more about the fast phobia cure I'd be confused too and it's probably a little unfortunate therefore that this particular site was the first one listed on Google's results for the search term fast phobia cure.

I'm not suggesting that this is the only article you considered but that would be a lovely example of that old enemy to critical thinking - good old Confirmation Bias.

Now I wouldn't want to be seen to be pointing you in a particular direction but there are other websites listed in the Google results which offer more detailed and easy-to-follow descriptions of the process if you care to look. :)

"Now, if you saw yourself running away from blue baked beans, what would that be like?"
She gave me a puzzled look and said "That would be silly."

Bingo. That would be silly. My thought exactly.

Just to put this in context I would point out that the lines you've quoted were cited as being spoken to a person with a phobia of baked beans (probably as irrational a fear as one could have).

I think the point that they are trying to make here is that being afraid of baked beans in general is silly.

Ergo, if the person with the phobia finds blue baked beans silly, why should they be afraid of regular coloured baked beans if the only difference between the two is colour?

[Maia]

The more I'm reading about the NLP version of getting rid of phobias the more confused I am, so for reference, standard treatment for simple phobias comes from cognitive behavioral therapy. It's basically exposure therapy. Figure out what frightens you the most and then expose yourself to it in controlled and escalating doses. If your phobias is spiders, for example, you'd eventually end up letting a (harmless) spider crawl all over your hand. It works very well for simple phobias; for long-term success, though, you really need to be sure that a simple phobia actually is all that you're dealing with. Compared to standard treatment, how does the NLP version stack up?

[JFrankA]

I heard a comedian say this bit once:

ANNOYED PERSON: "Excuse me, but your cigarette smoke is bothering me."
SMOKER: "Yea, well it's killing me."

I don't smoke, but I say live and let die. If you don't like smoke, stand upwind.

Anyway, to get back on topic...



The "fast phobia cure" is not mentioned on your website, so I looked it up on another NLP website (http://www.deep-trance.com/techniques/fast-phobia-cure.html). I'm amazed that people believe in this stuff. Here are the four three steps (I like how it starts with zero :)):



It's just that simple! :rolleyes:

I'm going to have to refer to JFrankA on this one. How in the hell do you "get" the client to do any of that stuff? I guess I just don't see how "getting a client" to imagine themselves jumping in and out of black and white/color movies would make your hypothetical patient want to swim.

Seriously, that stuff sounds as far fetched as the blue green crystal therapy idea.
I mean, "re-add critical submodality colour and run backwards." What in the hell IS that?? :boggled: Is that trying to remove the client's fear of swimming, or just replace it with severe confusion?


The theory is that the mind has attached a vivid, real, scary emotional response that stimulus. The stimulus/emotional response connection is reinforced every time it's felt. Also, it's irrational not only because there really isn't something scary to it, but because the person can't pinpoint exactly what happened and why the reaction.

So the idea is to give the stimulus another emotional response, and not only an emotional response but a very vivid image, sound, feel "memory" in the mind. Instead of making that person have the fear stimulus/emotion connection, that person is "distracted" with this other stimulus/emotion connection. The person keeps replaying that new stimulus/emotion connection. That takes away the power of the phobia.

I can say it does work with some people. Not all. To be honest, I tried it on myself (I have a very strange phobia) and it didn't work at all.

I think it works like hypnosis or anything else. Depends on the person's choice and desire.

[microdot]

Compared to standard treatment, how does the NLP version stack up?

Before I answer I'll just refresh something I said earlier in this thread:-

Remember that I'm expessing _my opinions_ based on the materials I've been studying for the past 12 months or so.

I'm not formally trained in any of these disciplines so what I post here is essentially my common sense thoughts on the subject.

And I've only read one book on CBT.

With that out of the way I'll attempt to answer your question as best I am able.


In a nutshell I think that the fast phobia cure sets out to achieve the same objective as the standard treatment using similar principles but in different ways.

Phobias are generally described as an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations

Note the key words extreme and irrational.

I've never suffered from a phobia myself but I'm inclined to believe that extreme fear would arouse the sympathetic nervous system and invoke a fight or flight type response leading the phobic person to respond by getting away from the source of their fear as quickly as possible rather than sitting and considering why this phobic response 'happens' to them.

Equally I'm inclined to believe that many, if not all phobics realise that both the level of fear that they experience _and_ their response to it is irrational and _still_ they feel powerless to do anything about it. They are at the effect side of the cause/effect equation and the only way they have to move themselves to the cause side of the equation (or gain 'control' if you prefer) is to avoid the stimulus of their phobia.

Therefore any phobia 'cure' most likely needs to focus on dealing with the person's response to the stimulus and possibly also their perception of that stimulus.

I googled amygdala fight flight to try to understand some of the 'brain processes' involved in the fight/flight response and found this page pretty useful - http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-nature/emotions/other/fear1.htm

It seems to suggest two 'pathways' that information can take in the brain in the process of 'creating fear' and that the pathway which involves the sensory cortex leads to more reasoned, controlled responses (Maia - please point me in the right direction if I've gone wrong here).

I'm not the most eloquent person in the world so I'm going to resort to a metaphor here for the phobic response, of a record (or an audio CD for those of you too tender in years to remember vinyl).

In my metaphor putting the needle on the record (why do the words when the drum beat goes like this pop into my head?) or pressing the Play button on the CD player is equivalent to the stimulus/trigger of the phobic response, the spider or the idea of swimming or blue baked beans or whatever.

Once the process has begun, because the brain processes involved are largely outside conscious control (Maia - please correct me if I'm wrong there) just like the stylus following the groove on the record and playing the music in exactly the same way every time, the outcome will always be the same.

If the phobic person can somehow scratch the record / CD it can never be played in the same way again and I think that's what any phobia 'cure' sets out to achieve.

CBT type treatments, as far as I'm aware in my admittedly limited experience, seek to 'scratch the record' by providing the phobic person with experiences which contradict their experiences to date i.e. where they are exposed to the stimulus and 'nothing bad' happens. Exposure levels start off at low levels and are gradually increased in a controlled manner to reinforce the idea that the stimulus need not be a direct cause for the phobic response and to improve confidence levels that this is something over which this person can gain/regain control.

The fast phobia cure (fpc) also sets out to scratch the record but does so in different ways.

Rather than directly exposing the phobic person to the stimulus which triggers their response, fpc is done entirely in the imagination i.e. you are completely safe because all you're doing is sitting comfortably and imagining this.

Another key element to the fast phobia cure is double dissociation (or disassociation - the spellings seem to be used interchangeably). This is usually effected by getting the phobic person to imagine themselves sitting safely in a movie theatre watching an old, scratchy, black-and-white movie of themselves having the experience which would normally trigger the phobic response. The intention behind this is, like the CBT type treatments, to provide some reference experience where the fear response is either much reduced or, ideally, does not arise at all.

If the experience of 'watching themselves' on the screen is still difficult in that it arouses the negative emotions which ultimately become the fear response, the phobic person can disassociate one level further by imagining themselves all the way back in the projector room watching themselves sitting in the movie theatre watching themselves on the screen.

(If you're getting slightly confused at this point I would firstly apologise for my poor writing and secondly say that this is why people might find it difficult to carry out this process entirely by themselves, at least the first time, and might find it easier for another person to guide them in the process).

The logic, IMHO, behind the black-and-white movie and the double disassociation is to do with the idea that our emotional responses to small, dark, distant images is less than to images which are big, brightly coloured and close up.

In the second part of the fpc the phobic person is usally asked to re-experience the movie but this time from the inside (associated i.e. through their own eyes rather than as an observer), and in full colour but to do this quickly and in reverse to 'scratch the record' further still. Quite commonly the person is asked to incorporate a silly sound track as another means of scratching the record.

As JFrankA put it:-

So the idea is to give the stimulus another emotional response, and not only an emotional response but a very vivid image, sound, feel "memory" in the mind. Instead of making that person have the fear stimulus/emotion connection, that person is "distracted" with this other stimulus/emotion connection. The person keeps replaying that new stimulus/emotion connection. That takes away the power of the phobia.

Hope I've managed to deliver some of what you were looking for and not simply added to your confusion :)

Any questions?

ETA - in a earlier posts MikeSun5 and Lothario linked to a website article which said this:-

STEP ZERO: Calibrate to phobic response. You need the client to be able to have a phobic response there and then.

Personally I think this is completely wrong and also avoidance of this is one of the reasons why the fast phobia cure is designed how it is.

One of the principles behind that design is that the process begin and end at places of safety with the specific intention of NOT triggering the phobic response, so that the person can focus on what they DO want i.e. remaining calm while studying the trigger experience from a 'safe' distance :), rather than focusing on what they DON'T want i.e. Don't be scared!, don't be scared!, don't be scared! :scared:.

NLP postulates that positive motivation (focusing on what we do want and moving toward it) leads to better results than negative motivation (focusing on what we don't want and moving away from it).

[fuelair]

Sorry, I don't quite understand - which of your objections specifically is it that the salesman "destroys" when you halt listening and leave?

Doesn't matter: they have, in the past, included "costs too much for the benefits", "doesn't have (s,y,z) features that I need", "no, that is not what I said" etc. As soon as the salesman tries to argue against my reasons for
not buying the product - when they are of that type - I am gone. I really only wish to deal with data presenters who can answer questions.:)

[Maia]

Before I answer I'll just refresh something I said earlier in this thread:-



I'm not formally trained in any of these disciplines so what I post here is essentially my common sense thoughts on the subject.

And I've only read one book on CBT.


I think you're better off that way. ;)


With that out of the way I'll attempt to answer your question as best I am able.


In a nutshell I think that the fast phobia cure sets out to achieve the same objective as the standard treatment using similar principles but in different ways.

Phobias are generally described as an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations

Note the key words extreme and irrational.


Pretty good summary, actually, except that you're kinda telescoping phobias and social anxiety disorder together.


I've never suffered from a phobia myself but I'm inclined to believe that extreme fear would arouse the sympathetic nervous system and invoke a fight or flight type response leading the phobic person to respond by getting away from the source of their fear as quickly as possible rather than sitting and considering why this phobic response 'happens' to them.

Yes and no. The second half of your idea actually does a good job of describing something which people with OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) might indeed spend a great deal of time doing, and OCD is certainly related to simple phobias. The difference is that OCD folks perform compulsions in response to the fear (which is produced by the obsessions.) One of the compulsions can be sitting around and endlessly trying to "get it all figured out."


Equally I'm inclined to believe that many, if not all phobics realise that both the level of fear that they experience _and_ their response to it is irrational and _still_ they feel powerless to do anything about it.



Yes! :)



They are at the effect side of the cause/effect equation and the only way they have to move themselves to the cause side of the equation (or gain 'control' if you prefer) is to avoid the stimulus of their phobia.

Therefore any phobia 'cure' most likely needs to focus on dealing with the person's response to the stimulus and possibly also their perception of that stimulus.

Very good!


I googled amygdala fight flight to try to understand some of the 'brain processes' involved in the fight/flight response and found this page pretty useful - http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-nature/emotions/other/fear1.htm

It seems to suggest two 'pathways' that information can take in the brain in the process of 'creating fear' and that the pathway which involves the sensory cortex leads to more reasoned, controlled responses (Maia - please point me in the right direction if I've gone wrong here).

I'm not the most eloquent person in the world so I'm going to resort to a metaphor here for the phobic response, of a record (or an audio CD for those of you too tender in years to remember vinyl).

In my metaphor putting the needle on the record (why do the words when the drum beat goes like this pop into my head?) or pressing the Play button on the CD player is equivalent to the stimulus/trigger of the phobic response, the spider or the idea of swimming or blue baked beans or whatever.

Once the process has begun, because the brain processes involved are largely outside conscious control (Maia - please correct me if I'm wrong there) just like the stylus following the groove on the record and playing the music in exactly the same way every time, the outcome will always be the same.

If the phobic person can somehow scratch the record / CD it can never be played in the same way again and I think that's what any phobia 'cure' sets out to achieve.

CBT type treatments, as far as I'm aware in my admittedly limited experience, seek to 'scratch the record' by providing the phobic person with experiences which contradict their experiences to date i.e. where they are exposed to the stimulus and 'nothing bad' happens. Exposure levels start off at low levels and are gradually increased in a controlled manner to reinforce the idea that the stimulus need not be a direct cause for the phobic response and to improve confidence levels that this is something over which this person can gain/regain control.



Yes, this is a good summary too... you're doing very well for only having ever read one CBT book, but the truth about CBT is that it honestly isn't all that complex, either. (We're not exactly talking about Freud or Pierre Janet or Onno van der Hart here...) Exposure techniques aren't straight CBT techniques, but they are derived from them.


The fast phobia cure (fpc) also sets out to scratch the record but does so in different ways.

Rather than directly exposing the phobic person to the stimulus which triggers their response, fpc is done entirely in the imagination i.e. you are completely safe because all you're doing is sitting comfortably and imagining this.

From the POV of exposure therapy, though, this is where it would fall apart. If the person is convinced that they're "completely safe", then they will never be forced to truly confront their anxiety and to learn that it's groundless.


Another key element to the fast phobia cure is double dissociation (or disassociation - the spellings seem to be used interchangeably). This is usually effected by getting the phobic person to imagine themselves sitting safely in a movie theatre watching an old, scratchy, black-and-white movie of themselves having the experience which would normally trigger the phobic response. The intention behind this is, like the CBT type treatments, to provide some reference experience where the fear response is either much reduced or, ideally, does not arise at all.

Nope, that's the central difference between the NLP concept and the exposure/CBT concept-- the fear response is actually increased with exposure therapy at first, because the client is going to be exposed to what causes them the greatest anxiety.

If the experience of 'watching themselves' on the screen is still difficult in that it arouses the negative emotions which ultimately become the fear response, the phobic person can disassociate one level further by imagining themselves all the way back in the projector room watching themselves sitting in the movie theatre watching themselves on the screen.

Same problem. In exposure therapy-- whether it's used for phobias or for OCD-- the fear, anxiety, and negative emotional response must be heightened initially, not reduced.



NLP postulates that positive motivation (focusing on what we do want and moving toward it) leads to better results than negative motivation (focusing on what we don't want and moving away from it).

The CBT response would be: this may very well be true for people who don't have phobias or OCD, but exposure therapy isn't meant for the general population. Actually, exposure therapy relies on a third type of motivation: focusing on what you're convinced you don't want and moving towards it, because your life has become a living hell of phobias, obsessions, and compulsions, and there is no other way out. Nobody would do this if they had a more pleasant choice.

Now, that having been said, I am not the world's biggest fan of CBT or anything derived from it, even though I try very hard to be fair to it as a theoretical school, because it does help some people. However, it cannot be applied to everyone. The simpler the problem which the client has, the better, but there's more to the story than that. A lot of people with simple phobias or OCD or even social anxiety disorder do so well with exposure therapy (if they can be persuaded to do it), because the entire point is to show them that there's really nothing behind their anxiety, as hard as it is to believe. Nobody knows why they have these anxiety disorders, and brain chemistry is probably at the bottom of it. There's really not a lot more to it. A significant percentage, however, have phobias and OCD because their primary issue is posttraumatic stress disorder and/or one of the dissociative disorders. Straight exposure therapy is a complete disaster in these cases, which is something that mental health professionals are only now starting to deal with in clinical practice (several excellent larger studies have recently backed it up, too.) Now, treatment for PTSD/DD... IMHO, it makes exposure therapy look like winning Powerball by comparison.

So could the NLP-type technique really be more helpful for comorbid OCD/PTSD? Better treatments are desperately needed, and certain aspects of it actually could be. Anything which uses the word "dissociation" is something which sounds a little iffy for PTSD/DD folks... However, the theater/film image is remarkably similar to a technique used for clients with dissociative identity disorder. I can see how there might be something valuable to be taken from it, overall. The only problem is that this could hardly be further from the way that the original authors meant it.

[microdot]

I've never suffered from a phobia myself but I'm inclined to believe that extreme fear would arouse the sympathetic nervous system and invoke a fight or flight type response leading the phobic person to respond by getting away from the source of their fear as quickly as possible rather than sitting and considering why this phobic response 'happens' to them.
Yes and no. The second half of your idea actually does a good job of describing something which people with OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) might indeed spend a great deal of time doing, and OCD is certainly related to simple phobias. The difference is that OCD folks perform compulsions in response to the fear (which is produced by the obsessions.) One of the compulsions can be sitting around and endlessly trying to "get it all figured out."


Yes, I see your point.

What I was trying to point out with this one is the idea that those suffering from phobias probably _avoid_ or are unable to consider their phobia from a meta position (or from another person's view-point if you prefer) because this in itself could well trigger the fear/fight/flight response.

From the POV of exposure therapy, though, this is where it would fall apart. If the person is convinced that they're "completely safe", then they will never be forced to truly confront their anxiety and to learn that it's groundless.

Again I can see your point and again I tend to think that the FPC is intended as a mechanism to 'unstick' the person and 'get the ball rolling' so to speak. In the event that the phobic person 'cannot' think about the phobic experience at all without that in itself forming a trigger I think the FPC affords them that opportunity at least. Yes, the FPC does not force them to confront their anxiety directly, rather it allows them to take a third person perspective on a _memory_ of that experience which hopefully, leads to some desensitzation and some useful learnings that they would not normally have access to.

In my youth I dated a girl who had a phobia of clowns. She only had to see a photograph of a Pierrot doll to turn pale and cold and burst into tears, and even trying to talk about this phobia in an environment completely devoid of anything to do with clowns seemed to trigger the same phobic response.

Ergo she was unable to condsider _why_ she had this phobia.

Perhaps the FPC would have afforded her that option without scaring the pants off her.


Nope, that's the central difference between the NLP concept and the exposure/CBT concept-- the fear response is actually increased with exposure therapy at first, because the client is going to be exposed to what causes them the greatest anxiety.

Good point well made :)

While I imagine the FPC can do the job by itself for some people, I have seen it used as a pre-cursor to exposure therapy.

In this context NLP would view the FPC as 'shaking / loosening the client's model of the world'.

However, the theater/film image is remarkably similar to a technique used for clients with dissociative identity disorder. I can see how there might be something valuable to be taken from it, overall. The only problem is that this could hardly be further from the way that the original authors meant it.

I am intrigued by your last sentence in the above quote.

Can I respectfully ask you to expand on that and perhaps share what _you_ think the authors meant by it?

ETA - are you saying that the potential use of an FPC-like treatment specifically for DID is far from the way the original authors meant it?

[Maia]

Yes, I see your point.


Again I can see your point and again I tend to think that the FPC is intended as a mechanism to 'unstick' the person and 'get the ball rolling' so to speak. In the event that the phobic person 'cannot' think about the phobic experience at all without that in itself forming a trigger I think the FPC affords them that opportunity at least. Yes, the FPC does not force them to confront their anxiety directly, rather it allows them to take a third person perspective on a _memory_ of that experience which hopefully, leads to some desensitzation and some useful learnings that they would not normally have access to.

In my youth I dated a girl who had a phobia of clowns. She only had to see a photograph of a Pierrot doll to turn pale and cold and burst into tears, and even trying to talk about this phobia in an environment completely devoid of anything to do with clowns seemed to trigger the same phobic response.

Ergo she was unable to condsider _why_ she had this phobia.

Perhaps the FPC would have afforded her that option without scaring the pants off her.


Well, I can tell you what a lot of strict cognitive-behavioral theorists would say... some variation on "suck it up." Any kind of reassurance only perpetuates obsessive behaviors, and blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes: Exposure therapy involves a huge increase in fear and anxiety at the beginning, but clearly, you do sit down with a therapist and work out a controlled exposure hierarchy and so forth. However, I'm not the biggest CBT fan on the planet, either. I think it's been overused and overapplied for clients who really don't respond to the techniques all that well.

I highly doubt that anybody who writes about NLP tecniques was thinking about treatments for the dissociative disorders, mostly because that's a very cutting-edge subject in the psychiatric community and it really hasn't filtered down much yet. But there is no standard evidence-based treatment yet (as exposure therapy is for phobias and OCD, or straight CBT is for mild to moderate depression). We need all the ideas we can get! ;)

[microdot]

Well, I can tell you what a lot of strict cognitive-behavioral theorists would say... some variation on "suck it up." Any kind of reassurance only perpetuates obsessive behaviors, and blah, blah, blah. :rolleyes: Exposure therapy involves a huge increase in fear and anxiety at the beginning, but clearly, you do sit down with a therapist and work out a controlled exposure hierarchy and so forth.

So it's essentially a case of face your fear and do it anyway then?

[JFrankA]

So it's essentially a case of face your fear and do it anyway then?

It's really the only way to beat any fear. Especially the irrational ones....

[JFrankA]

Coincidentally, the most recent issue of Playboy mentions Mystery in their advisor section. So I thought I'd post it here.


Q: A Friend suggests I increase my success rate by pursuing less-attractive women than the gorgeous ones I chase now. He also says success will boost my confidence so I can return to hitting on babes. Yet the pick up artist Mystery says you must have standards. He says a woman "expects that a guy with potential will be selective". So who's right?

A: Based on the research we've seen, (and written about-see "The Look of Love," March 2008), a person generally ends up with someone with about the same level of attractiveness, intelligence, wealth and social status. Mystery and other PUAs rely on the fact that hot women aren't used to being gently ignored, so the average guy creates a sense of mystery about what he has to offer. But there is more to a relationship than having a woman on your arm who turns every head in the room. You want to find a partner you find attractive from several angles. That doesn't mean you can't pursue someone who is universally hot, only that you should also be open to finding beauty in unexpected places. Bottom line: There are millions of women we'd love to sleep with but far fewer we'd like to sleep with a lot.

[MikeSun5]

I'm not suggesting that this is the only article you considered but that would be a lovely example of that old enemy to critical thinking - good old Confirmation Bias.

It would be a lovely example of confirmation bias. ...if the other pages I read weren't saying pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Now I wouldn't want to be seen to be pointing you in a particular direction...

You mean a website that thinks NLP is a real science? No, of course not... ;)

...but there are other websites listed in the Google results which offer more detailed and easy-to-follow descriptions of the process if you care to look.

Okay, I'll take the bait...
Here's another site (http://www.planetnlp.com/nlp_exercise_phobia_cure.html) that explains the same nonsensical movie theater "technique."
Another site (http://www.nlpboise.com/nlp-fast-phobia-cure-cured-my-phobias-cures.php) has the same nonsense, and goes as far ast to claim the "fast phobia cure" can cure phobias in 10 minutes.
Here is an actual script (http://www.hypnosisaudiocds.com/NLP-Fast-Phobia-Cure-article.php) of a "fast phobia cure," complete with hypnotic language patterns and cues as to when to drop anchors.

So far that's 4 websites saying pretty much the exact same thing about this supposed "fast phobia cure." Confirmation Bias, or just straight up confirmation? hmmmmmm.....

I simply don't see any reason to believe that this "fast phobia cure" method would be any more effective than my crystal therapy phobia cure.

[microdot]

Hiya Mike - hope you're well :)

It would be a lovely example of confirmation bias. ...if the other pages I read weren't saying pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

OK, so we've established that you've read some explanations of the fast phobia cure on some other websites - good! :)

Apart from the fact that pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME THING is an oxymoron, the sweeping generalisation that you've made isn't entirely accurate - there are considerable differences between the various descriptions offered, and some of them are still on the vague side.

You mean a website that thinks NLP is a real science? No, of course not...

No, rather a website which could provide more background information and answer the specific questions you asked earlier.

Of the pages that you linked to I thought this one (http://www.hypnosisaudiocds.com/NLP-Fast-Phobia-Cure-article.php) offered the clearest description and also the description which best matched that published in the original texts by Bandler / Grinder.

I simply don't see any reason to believe that this "fast phobia cure" method would be any more effective than my crystal therapy phobia cure.

Nobody asked you to?

If they are both effective then they are both effective.

I'm going to have to refer to JFrankA on this one. How in the hell do you "get" the client to do any of that stuff? I guess I just don't see how "getting a client" to imagine themselves jumping in and out of black and white/color movies would make your hypothetical patient want to swim.

Seriously, that stuff sounds as far fetched as the blue green crystal therapy idea.
I mean, "re-add critical submodality colour and run backwards." What in the hell IS that?? Is that trying to remove the client's fear of swimming, or just replace it with severe confusion?

So, assuming that you've read JFrankA's response(s) and the discussion I had with Maia, have your questions been answered?

[Maia]

Coincidentally, the most recent issue of Playboy mentions Mystery in their advisor section. So I thought I'd post it here.
The funniest part of that letter has got to be that Playboy sounds as if they're rather critical of (rather than uncritically enthusiastic about)Mystery's techniques.
ETA: Anyway, more later about the other posts.

[Lothario]

Apart from the fact that pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME THING is an oxymoron, the sweeping generalisation that you've made isn't entirely accurate - there are considerable differences between the various descriptions offered, and some of them are still on the vague side.


If NLP is science, shouldn't descriptions for any given procedure be exactly the same? If you ask a bunch of surgeons how to perform a particular surgery, you'd expect them to go through the same steps. Otherwise, patients die.

Take CBT, for instance. You can rephrase it all you want, but it all comes down to 1) realizing how your thinking is wrong 2) exposing yourself gradually to the situations you are afraid of. It's simple, it's common sense and there's not much room for vagueness and different descriptions. No "imagine yourself in a black and white movie" either.


Nobody asked you to?

If they are both effective then they are both effective.


Hmm... crystal therapy is effective? Well, if you believe in it and the problem you are trying to solve is not that serious, then yes, it can be "effective".

What about prayer? Is it effective too?

The funniest part of that letter has got to be that Playboy sounds as if they're rather critical of (rather than uncritically enthusiastic about)Mystery's techniques.
ETA: Anyway, more later about the other posts.

Isn't it ironic that a magazine that features only beautiful, sexy women will tell its readers that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? :D

[MikeSun5]

If they are both effective then they are both effective.

True, but I contend that neither are. It's one thing to picture yourself swimming in black and white or breaking crystals in the comfort of a therapist's office to overcome your fear of water, it's another thing to stand in front of water and not be scared.

So, assuming that you've read JFrankA's response(s) and the discussion I had with Maia, have your questions been answered?

I guess so... JFrankA explained the mechanisms by which the imaging portion of the FPC is supposed to work, and Maia explained that the FPC was a dressed up version of CBT's exposure therapy minus the exposure.

As far as my opinion of NLP, I think I'm pretty much where I was to begin with. It is not a science, it just sounds like one.

NLP is a placebo that can be put on the same shelf as acupuncture, homeopathy, crystal therapy, reiki, and psychic healers. I think the human mind can heal/fix/manipulate itself, and really all one needs is a catalyst. Pick your poison.

Really my only gripe about NLP is it's attempts to align itself with some sort of scientific validity, when it's about as scientific as prayer.

[microdot]

If NLP is science, shouldn't descriptions for any given procedure be exactly the same? If you ask a bunch of surgeons how to perform a particular surgery, you'd expect them to go through the same steps. Otherwise, patients die.

Yes the descriptions should be the same. Unfortunately some of the sites MikeSun5 linked to have incorrect explanations of the process.

Take CBT, for instance. You can rephrase it all you want, but it all comes down to 1) realizing how your thinking is wrong 2) exposing yourself gradually to the situations you are afraid of. It's simple, it's common sense and there's not much room for vagueness and different descriptions. No "imagine yourself in a black and white movie" either.

I sometimes cringe a little when I read the words dangerous thinking in these forums because all too often they are used simply for effect or to add perceived weight to one person's argument by criticising the thought processes of others. On the other hand I think that to simply say that a person's thinking is wrong could be unproductive and possibly dangerous.

Fear in and of itself is not 'wrong thinking' - it's one of the things that helps to keep us alive in dangerous situations.

In the case of the swimming phobia a level of fear is still a healthy thing to have insofar as if you're not careful you could drown.

Usually that fear is balanced with experience, past and present, which allows us to make relatively accurate judgements about the level of danger and our ability to deal with it safely. In the phobic response the balance is less than equal / acceptable and fear wins.

Hmm... crystal therapy is effective?

Could be - who knows?

Isn't it ironic that a magazine that features only beautiful, sexy women will tell its readers that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?:D

LOL - perhaps there's a subliminal message there i.e. Have the best of both worlds - settle for a less attractive woman in real life as, afterall, you can still buy our magazine and look at more attractive women

True, but I contend that neither are. It's one thing to picture yourself swimming in black and white or breaking crystals in the comfort of a therapist's office to overcome your fear of water, it's another thing to stand in front of water and not be scared.

NLP is a placebo that can be put on the same shelf as acupuncture, homeopathy, crystal therapy, reiki, and psychic healers. I think the human mind can heal/fix/manipulate itself, and really all one needs is a catalyst.


I'm slightly confused. If I've correctly understood what you've written:-

1. You're prepared to accept that placebo works
2. You're not prepared to accept that something with another name but which you identify _as_ placebo works.

Have I understood correctly?

And yes, picturing yourself swimming is not the same as standing in front of water and not being scared - no surprise there.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that often a phobic person can't even _think_ about the thing they are scared of without it triggering the phobic response.

If just thinking about it scares them, facing their fear head-on is going to be a pretty awful experience for them, very difficult for them and hence they are less likely to do it.

I guess it's about a balance between the fear and the desire/ability to overcome it.

If something, NLP, crystals, prayer, or whatever assists a person in shifting that balance to the point where the desire outweighs the fear and thus enables them to make the change then I think that something has value and is valid.

I think the human mind can heal/fix/manipulate itself, and really all one needs is a catalyst.

How _do_ you think it does that and what, in your opinion would constitute a catalyst?

Really my only gripe about NLP is it's attempts to align itself with some sort of scientific validity, when it's about as scientific as prayer.

So you completely discount / disregard something purely on the basis that you think it portrays itself as something which you think it's not?

In the office we have one of those calendars with a 'thought for the day' on each page.

Yesterday's said Think wrongly if you wish, but always think for yourself.;)

[Lothario]

If something, NLP, crystals, prayer, or whatever assists a person in shifting that balance to the point where the desire outweighs the fear and thus enables them to make the change then I think that something has value and is valid.


Like someone pointed out earlier, the big difference is that NLP is a huge industry that sells seminars, cds and books to help you learn the techniques when it amounts to nothing more than a placebo. Crystals are cheap. Prayer is for free. If they are all placebos, why should I choose the most expensive one?

[microdot]

If they are all placebos, why should I choose the most expensive one?

ETA - nobody said that you should!

As far as I was aware the main themes of the debate concern the validity/efficacy of NLP, whether or not it can be described as 'science' and whether people who use it for financial gain at the expense of others should be made to sit on the naughty step.

All of your choices are entirely your own and no concern of mine :)

As I said earlier:-

IMO NLP is a fairly broad topic comprising a number of connected but different subjects which cannot be explained (encapsulated?) in a few short paragraphs.

If what you said in the above quote represents your full and complete appreciation of NLP then I have to say that your view is grossly over simplified.

And just for the record and to clear up any confusion I disagree that NLP is placebo.

In the ideal world choosing what works best would be of more importance than which costs least.

I've never bought crystals myself so I'll take you at your word as to their relative cost and yes, in monetary terms prayer is free but both of these things rely purely on faith.

NLP on the other hand is predicated upon the belief that we are responsible for our own outcomes - _we ourselves_ - not some pill, real or fake, not some mystical mineral power and not blind faith in some deity or other.

NLP involves practices which, in laymans terms, involve such simple, real, practical, measurable things as:-


Setting goals
Taking positive action to achieve those goals
Monitoring and measuring your progress through sensory awareness
Modifying your behaviours as required to achieve your goals


I find it somewhat difficult therefore to make the same 'apples-for-apples' comparison that you appear to have made.

[Maia]

Well, I think that y'all are really going to have to fight this out amongst yourselves, but I will say this: if anyone wants to actually prove that a method works better than placebo, the only way to do it is to submit it to accepted methods of testing. With any therapeutic method, however, it clearly isn't possible to do double-blind testing, which is the gold standard. CBT does have the best body of evidence backing up its efficacy for certain conditions, and although the most reliable studies are on depression, exposure therapy is one flavor of it that also has been shown to work well for most people with OCD/simple phobias. The figure which is most commonly seen as a success rate for OCD is about 80% (Grayson, 2003). Of course, this sample is only drawn from people who are willing to enter studies and perform exposure therapy in the first place, and I do have to say that anyone with a co-occurring condition (besides OCD) never, ever makes it into these studies. Still, for these people, they're really not going to get anywhere unless they're willing to confront the fear head-on. Exposure therapy may sound rather insane once you understand how it really works, but there's no other way.

The biggest problem I have with it is that studies show just how disastrous the outcomes are for people whose OCD/phobias are co-occurring with PTSD. And that's where I do think that the NLP techniques should at least come with a warning to check with your doctor before you go around blithely trying these at home if you've ever had psychological problems, because they could get some people into real trouble, just as exposure therapy can.

ETA citation:

Grayson, J. (2003). Freedom from obsessive-compulsive disorder: A personalized recovery program for living with uncertainty. Penguin Group: New York.

[MikeSun5]

I'm slightly confused. If I've correctly understood what you've written:-

1. You're prepared to accept that placebo works

Most definitely. That's been proven (see Placebo Effect :)).

2. You're not prepared to accept that something with another name but which you identify _as_ placebo works.

Not sure what youre asking... In the context of this conversation, NLP is identical to acupuncture. NLP admittedly doesn't work on everyone. Neither does acupuncture. NLP attempts to link itself to science with no proven evidence. So does acupuncture. NLP attempts to distance itself from being explained by placebo effect. So does acupuncture. NLP (unlike all other sciences) doesn't evolve as theories are tested and disproven. Neither does acupuncture.

How _do_ you think it does that and what, in your opinion would constitute a catalyst?

I don't know, but I'm as close to 100% sure as one can get that it's NOT because of NLP. As far as what constitutes a catalyst... hell, whatever the person needs. An ex-girl of mine had back pains and she went to doctors, chiropractors, and massage therapists. Nothing worked. She was a woo-believer, and one day her mother gave her the number of a psychic healer. She would sit in the bedroom for 20 min. at a time while a lady "healed" her over the phone. Guess what? Her back quit hurting. She was so convinced that the lady was legit, she had me get "healed" once for an injury. I sat on the phone in silence for like 10 minutes and nothing happened. I swear I could hear mouse clicks. That con artist was probably playing frickin Minesweeper while charging however many bucks a minute.

I don't believe in that crap, but my ex did. It worked on her, too. I'm convinced it was a matter of stress or something, but she believed in it so it worked.

That's like NLP. It'll only work if the patient believes in it (and believes it's being used on them).

So you completely discount / disregard something purely on the basis that you think it portrays itself as something which you think it's not?

Nope. I just know it won't work for me because I believe it's crap. Just like acupuncture.

I do however, take issue with the claims that NLP is not a placebo but a legitimate science. These claims are intentionally misleading to generate revenue. That's called a con.

I've never bought crystals myself so I'll take you at your word as to their relative cost and yes, in monetary terms prayer is free but both of these things rely purely on faith.

NLP relies on faith. If someone didn't have knowledge about it and/or didn't know it was being used on them, it wouldn't work.

The list you made about the NLP practices isn't new. All of those things are common life-coaching techniques that have been around LONG before NLP decided to stamp it's name on them.

Eliminate the plagarized material, and NLP is left with anchors, embedded commands, swish patterns, and a bunch of other woo.

[Edx]

Anchors are woo?

[JFrankA]

Anchors are woo?

See here's the thing about NLP. There are some very legitimate psychological tricks that really do work that NLP blows up into something that just won't work.

Anchoring is one of them. It's almost like that Anchoring and Conditioning are mixed into this one big "technique".

The act of touching someone, for example, on the right shoulder while saying something favorable, might increase the chances of that person having a favorable response every time that person is touched during the conversation.

What the problem is that it doesn't always work. It depends on a few things. The mood of the receiver, for one. And that's the major one. There are also things like the place that the person is being touched might be sore, or maybe the person just simply finds it annoying. The other thing about this is that it's extremely temporary. Even if it did work, it won't last. I am willing to bet that by the time the person on the recieving side went to lunch, did some work, watched tv, the anchor would be gone and long forgotten.

Now sometimes it does work well. For example, I use it in my shows once in a while, but then again, I have a major advantage for it to work for me. First off, it's a show, something people want to see something amazing happen. The audience I choose to experience this are willing and wanting to believe me. So the people are open and receptive to what I am doing and I've eliminated most of the forces working against me. Even with that, it is very temporary. People's memories are incredibly bad.

But here's the flip side of the coin. If these two people regularly see each other, and the two people really like each other, and anchoring was done and reinforced, eventually it would work. But now we are talking about conditioning. Conditioning works with a stimulus/reward (or stimulus/take pain away) pattern repeated quite a lot.

It seems to me that NLP has taken this simple psychological trick, mixed it with conditioning and called it "Anchoring". I think that a lot of NLP "techniques" are like that.

[microdot]

Hiya guys :)

NLP admittedly doesn't work on everyone.

Ipso facto is does work for some people - glad we agree on something :)

NLP attempts to link itself to science with no proven evidence.

I'm not sure that it does. I think that some people come to that conclusion because it overlaps areas which they consider to be the exclusive domain of 'science' and something which can only be considered and discussed in 'scientific' terms.

NLP attempts to distance itself from being explained by placebo effect.

I'm not sure where you get this from but I would agree that trying to compare those two things is like trying to compare apples and bananas.

NLP (unlike all other sciences) doesn't evolve as theories are tested and disproven.

Unlike all other sciences? Didn't think you considered NLP as science ;)

In any case as NLP is predicated upon the study of subjective experience, and the fact that we gather and process information though our five senses, how do you think it should evolve? Alongside human evolution? If a sixth sense has been proven I've not heard about it.

That's like NLP. It'll only work if the patient believes in it (and believes it's being used on them).

People change the ways in which they think all the time and for many different reasons. If I flip your argument on it's head for a minute then nothing that I say to another person could ever change the way they think unless I've first explained to them what 'technique' I'm using?

Nope. I just know it won't work for me because I believe it's crap.

Phew! At least then you don't dismiss it out of hand :)

You'd be absolutely right too. I doubt whether any of the 'talking therapies' could achieve optimum results without the cooperation of the person on the receiving end - no surprise there. Just like if I gave some perfectly useful advice to a friend which would help them achieve a desired outcome they could simply choose to ignore it.

I do however, take issue with the claims that NLP is not a placebo but a legitimate science. These claims are intentionally misleading to generate revenue. That's called a con.

NLP is not simply placebo.

Magicians mislead people in order to generate revenue.

(Derren Brown threads anyone :D)

Is that a con?

Maybe it is, but it's one we're willing to accept in return for entertainment.

It's only a _bad_ when those being mislead are unaware of the fact and suffer as a result of it and, where that is the case i.e. the characters which gave rise to this thread, we are in agreement.

As far as generating revenue is concerned, I'm inclined to believe that there are very few training providers out there who don't derive a revenue from their work, if only to cover their costs.

How about if an NLP trainer sets themselves up in business and _promises_ not to call what they are doing 'science'? Would that be acceptable to you?

The list you made about the NLP practices isn't new. All of those things are common life-coaching techniques that have been around LONG before NLP decided to stamp it's name on them.

Yes, and they were around LONG before 'life-coaching' (whatever that means) decided to stamp _it's_ name on them too :D

Deciding what you want, taking action to achieve it, monitoring your progress as you go.....doesn't almost every single person on the planet do those things many times every single day? Haven't people been doing that since they first walked on the Earth?

If you don't believe me, try picking up a cup without doing any of those things ;)

So, in a sense nobody owns those 'ideas' or 'processes' and in another sense we all do because we all do them automatically anyway because - they work!

Yet strangely, something which we do automatically and unconsciously in order to get out of bed, shower, dress etc. etc. we don't necessarily do _consciously_ and with volition in order to achieve other goals in life - hence why they are written down and made explicit in countless books around the world.

See here's the thing about NLP. There are some very legitimate psychological tricks that really do work that NLP blows up into something that just won't work.

I like the really do work but I'm not wild about the trick.

Trick - a cunning or deceitful action or device

You see the negative connotations in that one word :(

What's wrong with, say processes or actions?

Anchoring is one of them. It's almost like that Anchoring and Conditioning are mixed into this one big "technique".

Not surprising given that anchoring is based on the concept of stimulus/response ;)

What the problem is that it doesn't always work.

Few things in life do :)

It depends on a few things.

Most things in life do :)

So it works some of the time and depends on a few things - something else we agree on :)

The other thing about this is that it's extremely temporary. Even if it did work, it won't last. I am willing to bet that by the time the person on the recieving side went to lunch, did some work, watched tv, the anchor would be gone and long forgotten.

Have you ever heard a piece of music from your past that was special to some person or some set of circumstances at that particular time in your life and instantly been 'transported' back to that time/place/person?

Or smelled a particular scent which you associate with a particular person or place and 'relived' the memories you have connected with that scent?

Some anchors last a long time.

For me one such anchor is a piece of music called The Model by Kraftwerk.

It was the first time I'd heard such precise, crisp electronic music played on a _proper_ hi-fi. Don' think I've ever heard vinyl sound so good since then.

Whenever I hear it I can vividly picture the room I was standing in when I first heard it, the furnishings, carpets, decor and the hi-fi it was playing on, the table that was sitting on.....

Now sometimes it does work well. For example, I use it in my shows once in a while, but then again, I have a major advantage for it to work for me. First off, it's a show, something people want to see something amazing happen. The audience I choose to experience this are willing and wanting to believe me. So the people are open and receptive to what I am doing and I've eliminated most of the forces working against me. Even with that, it is very temporary. People's memories are incredibly bad.

So, if I understand you correctly, anchoring works better under certain circumstances. Something else we agree on :)

People's memories are incredibly bad

Naughty JFrankA with your sweeping generalisations :p

One could argue that some people have 'better' memories than other people.

OR one could argue that because people experience their world _subjectively_ that they pay attention to and hence remember different things.

And one could also argue that different people place differing values / levels of importance / significance on the things they choose to remember which may or may not affect their retention of those things.

Certainly one could say that memory is _selective_.

Most memory enhancing techniques that I've come across involve increasing the number of neural pathways in the brain that are associated with a particular memory.

I'm not a scientist but I imagine that the more neural pathways that we activate when we make a memory, the more neural pathways activate when we try to recall that memory, making the memory easier to recall.

Now, maybe I'm taking a leap of faith here but I'm inclined to believe that this is probably why anchoring probably works better when it involves multiple sensory inputs i.e. sight, sound, touch, taste, smell and self talk (what we say to ourselves in our own mind).

Just a hunch.

:D

[Lothario]

Have you ever heard a piece of music from your past that was special to some person or some set of circumstances at that particular time in your life and instantly been 'transported' back to that time/place/person?

Or smelled a particular scent which you associate with a particular person or place and 'relived' the memories you have connected with that scent?

Some anchors last a long time.

For me one such anchor is a piece of music called The Model by Kraftwerk.

It was the first time I'd heard such precise, crisp electronic music played on a _proper_ hi-fi. Don' think I've ever heard vinyl sound so good since then.

Whenever I hear it I can vividly picture the room I was standing in when I first heard it, the furnishings, carpets, decor and the hi-fi it was playing on, the table that was sitting on.....


I think nobody's stating that this type of association doesn't exist. For instance, whenever i go near the place where my grandmother (who raised me when i was a kid) died, i instantly get depressed. So, in a way, i have "anchored" (for lack of a better word) that place with what I felt when she passed away.

However, i don't think you'll make me depressed by touching my shoulder a couple of times while mentioning her. You will get punched in the face though ;).

People are not dogs. You can't take Pavlov's study and apply it just like that to human beings. Just because i go to a restaurant two days in a row it doesn't mean i'll come back every day for the rest of my life because i got fed.

EDIT:

P.S. What's wrong with your avatar, JFrankA? Is that DB? ;P

[microdot]

I think nobody's stating that this type of association doesn't exist.

Good :)

And even if they were it would mean very little because these absolutely are observable phenomena for the vast majority of people on the planet.

There's a stimulus - a sight, a smell, something you hear or whatever which triggers a response in one or more of your sensory channels.

NLP uses the word anchoring as a label for this type of phenomena.

No big deal so far as I can see :confused:

So you can probably appreciate why I find such sweeping generalisations as NLP is BS a little irksome.

However, i don't think you'll make me depressed by touching my shoulder a couple of times while mentioning her. You will get punched in the face though ;).

:yikes: Not the face! Have some compassion man!

And of course my touching your shoulder wouldn't constitute an anchor for that experience as it wasn't part of the experience and thus has no linkage to it.

There's no reason that I can think of though why new anchors cannot be associated with past experiences so that the linkage will be present going forward, although I'm happy to concede that the new anchor might not be as strong as some of the anchors made during the original experience, especially if that experience was a particularly emotional one.

People are not dogs. You can't take Pavlov's study and apply it just like that to human beings. Just because i go to a restaurant two days in a row it doesn't mean i'll come back every day for the rest of my life because i got fed.

Absolutely, although you may change your mind if you met some of my neighbours :D

I think you would agree though that you'll be more likely to frequent those restaurants that fed you particularly well, or had particularly pleasant surroundings and staff, or that have links with important people / events in your life - all of which are anchors which affect the ways in which you think and feel about those places.

On a serious note though, and with due respect, I'm sorry to hear that your grandmother passed. Sounds like you guys were pretty close. :hug4

[Lothario]

On a serious note though, and with due respect, I'm sorry to hear that your grandmother passed. Sounds like you guys were pretty close. :hug4

It's okay, she passed away a couple of years ago actually. I just mentioned it because it's the clearest, most vivid "anchor" i could find in my life.

I never disagreed that "anchors" or whatever you want to call do exist, and we all experience it one way or another, whether it's a song that reminds you of someone or like in my case, a place that reminds you of a traumatic event.

What i can't believe is that you can manipulate someone by touching them at a particular time in a conversation or by pointing at a specific spot, like some people advertise.

Check out what these slime balls claim they can do using "anchors" (and sorry, i don't know how to embed):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha0OJP2XIyw

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

[JFrankA]

I don't have much time, (seeing my son today! :) ) but I did want to reply to you.


I like the really do work but I'm not wild about the trick.

Trick - a cunning or deceitful action or device

You see the negative connotations in that one word :(

What's wrong with, say processes or actions?

Because tricks is what it is. I go onstage, I perform tricks that's cunning and deceitful, and people cheer (I hope!!!!) and pay me to do more. Nothing wrong with the word.



Not surprising given that anchoring is based on the concept of stimulus/response ;)

Correct, it's based on conditioning, but it seems to me like anchoring is "instant conditioning - just add unusual touch".


So it works some of the time and depends on a few things - something else we agree on :)

But NLP teaches that anchoring works period. It doesn't. It does if the person receiving the NLP wants it to work. That's a big thing. Anchoring will not make a woman who isn't interested to suddenly have "good feelings" about you.

Now conditioning is a different story. First off, conditioning take a very long time to take effect, it's done under controlled conditions and in a controlled setting. Anchoring involves none of these things.


Have you ever heard a piece of music from your past that was special to some person or some set of circumstances at that particular time in your life and instantly been 'transported' back to that time/place/person?

Or smelled a particular scent which you associate with a particular person or place and 'relived' the memories you have connected with that scent?

That's conditioning, not anchoring. Huge difference.


Some anchors last a long time.

For me one such anchor is a piece of music called The Model by Kraftwerk.

It was the first time I'd heard such precise, crisp electronic music played on a _proper_ hi-fi. Don' think I've ever heard vinyl sound so good since then.

Whenever I hear it I can vividly picture the room I was standing in when I first heard it, the furnishings, carpets, decor and the hi-fi it was playing on, the table that was sitting on.....

Sorry, that's mixing up memory with anchoring. Hearing a piece of music during a special event and remembering that moment is a far cry from meeting someone in a bar who touched your shoulder when saying something pleasant. A memory sticks to someone if the event associated with it means something special to the person. Anchoring someone in a bar or in a sales pitch would mean nothing.


So, if I understand you correctly, anchoring works better under certain circumstances. Something else we agree on :)

Better than what? I said it only works when the person receiving the anchoring wants it to work and if there is something very personal going on at the same time. Conditioning doesn't need that, but those circumstance greatly improve conditioning.


Naughty JFrankA with your sweeping generalisations :p

I am very naughty. Very proud of that. :)


One could argue that some people have 'better' memories than other people.

OR one could argue that because people experience their world _subjectively_ that they pay attention to and hence remember different things.

And one could also argue that different people place differing values / levels of importance / significance on the things they choose to remember which may or may not affect their retention of those things.

Certainly one could say that memory is _selective_.

All that is exactly what I am saying. That's why our memories are crap. And this doesn't show that anchoring works. With all the better/worse memories, experiencing it subjectively, different value and levels, how could anchoring work?


Most memory enhancing techniques that I've come across involve increasing the number of neural pathways in the brain that are associated with a particular memory.

I'm not a scientist but I imagine that the more neural pathways that we activate when we make a memory, the more neural pathways activate when we try to recall that memory, making the memory easier to recall.

That may be true, but how do you know, by meeting someone at a bar, or at a store to sell something, etc, how to build more pathways to that memory? I mean, there are times you can say one thing wrong and BAM you're on your ear. Or if the person doesn't even want to go to that memory at the moment, how do you bypass it? By anchoring?


Now, maybe I'm taking a leap of faith here but I'm inclined to believe that this is probably why anchoring probably works better when it involves multiple sensory inputs i.e. sight, sound, touch, taste, smell and self talk (what we say to ourselves in our own mind).

Just a hunch.

:D

And how well do you know the memory? And even if you know the memory well and if you can simulate something like that, it won't work in a noisy bar with a bunch of distractions.

See, this is my point. (and please take no offense), you have mixed up conditioning and memory of a special event (I don't remember the name of that), and mixed into a pot, added a dash of faith and you got anchoring. The instant technique that makes anyone you want feel good by a touch.


P.S. What's wrong with your avatar, JFrankA? Is that DB? ;P


Very good!!! You win! I did that in reply to a certain Derren Brown hater.

...now can you see the other thing in my avatar? :)


...and to embed youtube videos type ["yt"] youtubevideolink ["/yt"] without the quotes.

[microdot]

Hiya JFrankA :)

This will be a relatively short post as I just want to touch on a couple of points.

As I'm struggling to agree with a number of your points and as you use anchoring sometimes in your show I think it would help me to understand your points better if you would be willing / able to describe how you use anchoring and what you use it for.

But NLP teaches that anchoring works period. It doesn't. It does if the person receiving the NLP wants it to work. That's a big thing. Anchoring will not make a woman who isn't interested to suddenly have "good feelings" about you.

One of the reasons that it wouldn't make the woman interested is that anchoring depends on the person already being in the state to be anchored _before_ the anchor is set (unless of course you want to anchor disinterest ;))

And the successful setting of the anchor is also much more likely when you have rapport - something which we don't have with this fictional woman (but hopefully something you have with your audience ;))

All that is exactly what I am saying. That's why our memories are crap. And this doesn't show that anchoring works. With all the better/worse memories, experiencing it subjectively, different value and levels, how could anchoring work?

I didn't _say_ that it showed that anchoring works. You keep referring to the anchor stimulus as a touch on the shoulder - a single stimulus in a single sensory channel. What I _was_ saying was that the simultaneous use of multiple sensory channels is conducive to the effective setting of the anchor.

Sorry, that's mixing up memory with anchoring.

Sorry, I don't think it is.

The two are intimately linked anyway.

In my example the music is the anchor/stimulus and my vivid/immersive _memory_ is the response.

And it didn't take a long time for that tune to become linked to that memory either - it was a one-time event, which doesn't fit with your assertion that conditioning take a very long time to take effect.

...you got anchoring. The instant technique that makes anyone you want feel good by a touch.

No.

If that's the only outcome that you think anchoring is used for then you are, I'm afraid, very mistaken.

(and please take no offense)

Absolutely none taken JFrankA - I think we share a very similar outlook with regard to healthy debate and I, just like you, am more than happy to have my views challenged.

If you ever offend me I'll let you know ;)

Hope you have a geat time with your son :D

[Lothario]

...now can you see the other thing in my avatar? :)



Hmm... a 3 of spades?

[JFrankA]

Hiya JFrankA :)

This will be a relatively short post as I just want to touch on a couple of points.

As I'm struggling to agree with a number of your points and as you use anchoring sometimes in your show I think it would help me to understand your points better if you would be willing / able to describe how you use anchoring and what you use it for.

Okay, this is ancedotal, but here's an example.

As part of my act, I do walking around magic and hypnosis. I take a guy and point out a beautiful woman, my arm around his shoulder, like a good friend would do, and point out her shoes. I do that a lot with that guy throughout the night. Within an hour or so, he's walking around to every beautiful woman and asking about her shoes, taking an interest in them more than any man would comfortably be interested. Even asking women to take off the shoe so he can hold it up and describe why the shoe is so special. Sometimes, depending on how suggestable he is, I just touch his arm and he's off.

Now there are times, when I do a show and a guy I've done that to will say that I did the "shoe-thing trick" on him. Now he remembers the trick, but a) the effect wore off by the next morning, and always, whenever someone has come up to me, they've got it wrong as to what I the stimulus was to set him off. Now, admittingly, it's not all that many people, three or four, but it's been consistant.

They do remember the effect, the whole shoe thing, but what implaments the effect is always nearly forgotten. And that's because it is happening during a circumstance where the guy wants it to happen. It made him the life of the party and he got the attention of many beautiful women. (You won't believe how many woman love to have their shoes noticed by guys). And it worked because he believed it would happen.

But once the night was over, he remembers the experience, but not the details of how it came to be. If anchoring worked, those guys would not only react what triggered the event, but it would still work. Never does.



One of the reasons that it wouldn't make the woman interested is that anchoring depends on the person already being in the state to be anchored _before_ the anchor is set (unless of course you want to anchor disinterest ;))

I disagree. The only thing that makes it work, and on a permanent basis, is if the person recieving wants it to work. If there is no desire, there is no effect. That is true with hypnosis, that is true with any NLP.


And the successful setting of the anchor is also much more likely when you have rapport - something which we don't have with this fictional woman (but hopefully something you have with your audience ;))

Yes, I agree. That's because the better one has a rapport with, the more likely they want it to work. As a performer, I have instant rapport.


I didn't _say_ that it showed that anchoring works. You keep referring to the anchor stimulus as a touch on the shoulder - a single stimulus in a single sensory channel. What I _was_ saying was that the simultaneous use of multiple sensory channels is conducive to the effective setting of the anchor.

I'm using the shoulder touch as an example. But without desire on the recipient's part and repeated consistant stimulus/constistant reward, it's not going to last.



The two are intimately linked anyway.

In my example the music is the anchor/stimulus and my vivid/immersive _memory_ is the response.

And it didn't take a long time for that tune to become linked to that memory either - it was a one-time event, which doesn't fit with your assertion that conditioning take a very long time to take effect.

Conditioning is one thing. What you are talking about right now is another. True, there are memories that happen from one occurance, but those kind of memories that usually have a lot of emotion attached to it. How can someone duplicate that in a bar with someone they've just met? How does someone know how to find the right "previous positive anchors" in such a situtation? Further, if the recipient doesn't want it to work, how do you even build rapport? I mean, even in my shows, I eliminate using people who don't want to be part of the show. I only choose the most eager, suggestable people. That's key to my show.



If that's the only outcome that you think anchoring is used for then you are, I'm afraid, very mistaken.

Again, I was using that only as an example for the situtation presented in the topic, i.e. meeting women and ...well...(women of the world, please forgive me), "scoring" with them. Can you give an example of how anchoring would work in a bar setting to meet a woman?


Absolutely none taken JFrankA - I think we share a very similar outlook with regard to healthy debate and I, just like you, am more than happy to have my views challenged.

Oh good. Hard to find someone who can truely debate. :) Thanks!


If you ever offend me I'll let you know ;)


Please do, and remember, I never mean any offense so if I ever do, I apologize in advance. Like you, I like to see all sides of the coin because I like to have my views challenged as well.


Hope you have a geat time with your son :D

We did. We played World of Warcraft for hours then went to the state fair!


Hmm... a 3 of spades?

YES!!! Who says there's no such thing as subliminals?

....well, me for one. :)

[microdot]

Hiya JFrankA :)

Thanks for the explanation, it's given me some food for thought and, of course, more questions.

But once the night was over, he remembers the experience, but not the details of how it came to be. If anchoring worked, those guys would not only react what triggered the event, but it would still work. Never does.

How do you know what he remembers and how do you know it never works after the night is over? Do you always conduct post-show debriefs?


One of the reasons that it wouldn't make the woman interested is that anchoring depends on the person already being in the state to be anchored _before_ the anchor is set (unless of course you want to anchor disinterest )
I disagree. The only thing that makes it work, and on a permanent basis, is if the person recieving wants it to work. If there is no desire, there is no effect. That is true with hypnosis, that is true with any NLP.

But surely if it's permanence _relied_ on desire, the response wouldn't happen automatically, they'd have to _remember_ to do it every time?

Returning for a moment if I may to my personal example of a particular piece of music invoking a vivid and immersive memory, I don't remember at the time having any desire whatsoever that every time I heard that piece of music in the future this memory would automatically pop into my head an amazing techni-colour.

And it happens automatically.

So I still have to disagree with you on that one.


And the successful setting of the anchor is also much more likely when you have rapport - something which we don't have with this fictional woman (but hopefully something you have with your audience )
Yes, I agree. That's because the better one has a rapport with, the more likely they want it to work. As a performer, I have instant rapport.

Wow! As a performer, I have instant rapport I wish I had your confidence!

Your argument only seems to include for scenarios where the anchoring is explicit i.e done with the full knowledge of the person being anchored. So therefore you must explain to the shoe-guy before you touch his shoulder exactly what you are doing and why, and how great it's going to be (so he can want it to work). Do you do that with the audience present?

I'm using the shoulder touch as an example. But without desire on the recipient's part and repeated consistant stimulus/constistant reward, it's not going to last.

I think I've explained why desire isn't always a necessary part of the equation.

Where I can agree with you is that many anchors persist longer with periodic reinforcement. And still there are many anchors which seem to persist for very long periods of time without reinforcement.

True, there are memories that happen from one occurance, but those kind of memories that usually have a lot of emotion attached to it.

Pretty much agree with that.

How can someone duplicate that in a bar with someone they've just met? How does someone know how to find the right "previous positive anchors" in such a situtation?

It is incredibly unlikely that they could and - for clarity - I never said otherwise.

Can you give an example of how anchoring would work in a bar setting to meet a woman?

First meeting? From a cold start? No, I couldn't.


Hope you have a geat time with your son :D
We did. We played World of Warcraft for hours then went to the state fair!

Excellent! Much better use of your time than stuck behind a keyboard ;)

[Senex]

Still, for these people, they're really not going to get anywhere unless they're willing to confront the fear head-on. Exposure therapy may sound rather insane once you understand how it really works, but there's no other way.

Let's consider this (Grayson, 2009 unpublished...)

Posting using a topless avatar may help posters whom you wish to help much more than instead choosing to recommend woo exposure therapy.

[Lothario]

Let's consider this (Grayson, 2009 unpublished...)

Posting using a topless avatar may help posters whom you wish to help much more than instead choosing to recommend woo exposure therapy.

LOL!

[JFrankA]

But once the night was over, he remembers the experience, but not the details of how it came to be. If anchoring worked, those guys would not only react what triggered the event, but it would still work. Never does.

How do you know what he remembers and how do you know it never works after the night is over? Do you always conduct post-show debriefs?


I do another show, they happen to be there, and they tell me! "Hey, you're the guy that made me chase shoes!!!!! You touched my neck or something and I just couldn't get my eyes off girl's shoes!! That was funny!" kind of thing. It's not often, but the few that have told me have never gotten "the touch" correct. I know what it is, of course, because it's the same in every routine. I do shows for a specific audience (adult parties) in a small area, (New England) and I don't do that many. So it's sometimes the same audience.

I disagree. The only thing that makes it work, and on a permanent basis, is if the person recieving wants it to work. If there is no desire, there is no effect. That is true with hypnosis, that is true with any NLP.

But surely if it's permanence _relied_ on desire, the response wouldn't happen automatically, they'd have to _remember_ to do it every time?
Returning for a moment if I may to my personal example of a particular piece of music invoking a vivid and immersive memory, I don't remember at the time having any desire whatsoever that every time I heard that piece of music in the future this memory would automatically pop into my head an amazing techni-colour.
And it happens automatically.
So I still have to disagree with you on that one.


What you are talking about is an event memory. A bunch of things happening at once that produced a scene that you desire to remember. But even with that, there's desire. Now, did you say "I want to remember this moment?" No, most likely not. However, there was some desire on your part to remember the moment.
Here's an example of what I mean, keeping with the topic: if I meet a girl in a bar who is not interested in me in any way, no amount of hypnosis, NLP, etc, etc, that I use on her will make her change her mind. However, if that same girl is drunk, or if she wants to get revenge on a boyfriend, or anything reason in which the desire isn't with me but with the situtation and I'm just a convience, then it may help in getting her interested. This is what I mean by desire.
NLP promises that you can change the minds of anyone (and here's the important things) no matter the circumstances and no matter what the desire of the recipient is. NLP can do no such thing. Even when I do my shows, I only pick people who are willing to come up on stage.

Yes, I agree. That's because the better one has a rapport with, the more likely they want it to work. As a performer, I have instant rapport.

Wow! As a performer, I have instant rapport I wish I had your confidence!

But I do. Think of it: the group pays me to perform, people want me to do well (so they get entertained), some of them have been drinking (so they are more open to suggestion) and it's a pretty open crowd (they want an "adult" show). How could I not have rapport?

Your argument only seems to include for scenarios where the anchoring is explicit i.e done with the full knowledge of the person being anchored. So therefore you must explain to the shoe-guy before you touch his shoulder exactly what you are doing and why, and how great it's going to be (so he can want it to work). Do you do that with the audience present?
Yes, the people do know they are being anchored..well..tranced, hypnotized, whatever you want to call it. It's my job as a performer. They expect and want (desire) for something to happen. I pretty much tell them what to do and they follow the suggestion. I do this as a walk around, so there's people are people watching.


I think I've explained why desire isn't always a necessary part of the equation.

You've explained it, but I do not agree with you at all. Basically, you cannot make anyone do what they don't desire to do. No desire, no effect.

I'm sorry, I don't have time to answer the rest of the post. I will later, I promise.

[Senex]

LOL!

That's as close to being a goddess as this site will see ;)

[Lothario]

However, if that same girl is drunk, or if she wants to get revenge on a boyfriend, or anything reason in which the desire isn't with me but with the situtation and I'm just a convience, then it may help in getting her interested.

If the girl is drunk or wants to get revenge on her boyfriend, then NLP will play no part in it, because she will do it anyway, won't she? :)

What evidence is there that NLP did anything to help me get the girl?

[JFrankA]

If the girl is drunk or wants to get revenge on her boyfriend, then NLP will play no part in it, because she will do it anyway, won't she? :)

Depends on her desire. Is her desire for revenge so strong that she will use any guy as means to it? If it is, then you can say boo to her and you "score". (Once again, women reading this forum please forgive me for that term). If not, then you don't. She may not be aware of her desire, but in the end, it's her choice. You cannot change someone's desire by talking to them.

Now if she's drunk or high, that's a different story. She's not thinking as critically as she would if she were sober.

The point is, which I've been saying all along, is that one cannot override somoene else's desire unless you've suffiencently confused them. Alcohol is a great "confuser". :)


What evidence is there that NLP did anything to help me get the girl?

There isn't. That's my point.

[microdot]

You cannot change someone's desire by talking to them.

Sure you can - it's called persuasion. :)

ETA - and persuasion doesn't _require_ confusion - alcohol/drug induced or otherwise.

[JFrankA]

Sure you can - it's called persuasion. :)

ETA - and persuasion doesn't _require_ confusion - alcohol/drug induced or otherwise.

.....then persuasion becomes annoyance. The person gives in just because they desire to shut the "persuader" up. Doesn't mean they've changed their drsires.

Maybe I should have included annoyance as part of my list along with confusion that can override desire. :)

(Err, no, Microdot, I am NOT hinting that you are annoyance. You seriously are not, IMHO)

[microdot]

(Err, no, Microdot, I am NOT hinting that you are annoyance. You seriously are not, IMHO)

:mad: Annoyance FAIL - M-U-S-T---T-R-Y---H-A-R-D-E-R :mad:

LOL :D

.....then persuasion becomes annoyance. The person gives in just because they desire to shut the "persuader" up. Doesn't mean they've changed their drsires.

Maybe I should have included annoyance as part of my list along with confusion that can override desire. :)

Ha! I knew you were going to say that!

Persuasion isn't _necessarily_ synonymous with harassment matey ;)

Sure, if you're dead-set against doing something and I go on-and-on-and-on-and (well, you get the idea) using words to persuade you to change your mind then you may indeed get annoyed and comply simply for a peaceful life. And in such circumstances my words have still changed your desires - there's been an increase in your desire to shut me up :D

Equally there will be other situations where you're simply not inclined to do something, or hadn't even _thought_ about doing that particular thing, or were not even _aware_ that the possibility existed, and a few choice words about possible features, benefits etc. of doing that thing will be all that is needed to change your desire signficantly in a positive direction.

Or imagine that I told you I would give you a million dollars if you can hop on one leg for an hour (I won't), wouldn't your desire change as a result of my words? In this case my words have _created_ a desire that you didn't have before because you were completely unaware that the opportunity even existed.

If I go on to say that, to get the million dollars, you have to do the hopping on bare footed on a pile of broken glass your desire for the money may or may not decrease, but now you've got to weigh that desire against the desire not to injure yourself.

ETA - or imagine that I asked you to walk blindfold across a tightrope which I told you was six inches above the ground and you completely believed me and set off walking.

If I told you half way across that I'd lied and that you were actually 100 feet above the ground I very strongly suspect that your desire to _not_ fall from the wire would increase exponentially.

Hopefully you can understand why, IMHO, not only is it very easy to change a person's desires using words, it's something that happens naturally all the time.

Anyways - time to eat.

Apologies for not responding yet to your responses to my earlier questions - I will do so shortly :)

[JFrankA]

:mad: Annoyance FAIL - M-U-S-T---T-R-Y---H-A-R-D-E-R :mad:

LOL :D



Ha! I knew you were going to say that!

Now you're mind reading! :)


Persuasion isn't _necessarily_ synonymous with harassment matey ;)

Agreed.


Sure, if you're dead-set against doing something and I go on-and-on-and-on-and (well, you get the idea) using words to persuade you to change your mind then you may indeed get annoyed and comply simply for a peaceful life. And in such circumstances my words have still changed your desires - there's been an increase in your desire to shut me up :D

Equally there will be other situations where you're simply not inclined to do something, or hadn't even _thought_ about doing that particular thing, or were not even _aware_ that the possibility existed, and a few choice words about possible features, benefits etc. of doing that thing will be all that is needed to change your desire signficantly in a positive direction.

Or imagine that I told you I would give you a million dollars if you can hop on one leg for an hour (I won't), wouldn't your desire change as a result of my words? In this case my words have _created_ a desire that you didn't have before because you were completely unaware that the opportunity even existed.

If I go on to say that, to get the million dollars, you have to do the hopping on bare footed on a pile of broken glass your desire for the money may or may not decrease, but now you've got to weigh that desire against the desire not to injure yourself.

ETA - or imagine that I asked you to walk blindfold across a tightrope which I told you was six inches above the ground and you completely believed me and set off walking.

If I told you half way across that I'd lied and that you were actually 100 feet above the ground I very strongly suspect that your desire to _not_ fall from the wire would increase exponentially.

Hopefully you can understand why, IMHO, not only is it very easy to change a person's desires using words, it's something that happens naturally all the time.

Okay, now I think we are arguing on the same side kind of.

I will agree that one can present one desire that may be more desirable than the original one given, I'll go along with that.

I'll even say that if someone didn't want a product but if a salesperson brings out the benefits, that could make that person buy the product. But once again, that's replacing one's desire with another.

But, that is NOT changing someone's desire. That is merely replacing it.

See what I mean?

[microdot]

Now you're mind reading! :)

More like predicting rather than trying to tell people what they are thinking based on my own projection ;)

Okay, now I think we are arguing on the same side kind of.

I will agree that one can present one desire that may be more desirable than the original one given, I'll go along with that.

I'll even say that if someone didn't want a product but if a salesperson brings out the benefits, that could make that person buy the product. But once again, that's replacing one's desire with another.

But, that is NOT changing someone's desire. That is merely replacing it.

See what I mean?

I'm sorry Frank - I really don't see what you mean - sounds like semantics to me :confused:

Perhaps I'm just being a bit dimwitted?

Maybe you can clarify for me how you perceive replacing one desire with another as different from changing a desire?

[JFrankA]

More like predicting rather than trying to tell people what they are thinking based on my own projection ;)

Once again, we're arguing the same side. What I was doing was assuming a reaction based on what I've seen before. :)


I'm sorry Frank - I really don't see what you mean - sounds like semantics to me :confused:

Perhaps I'm just being a bit dimwitted?

Nope, you're not. Again, we are arguing on the same side using different terms.


Maybe you can clarify for me how you perceive replacing one desire with another as different from changing a desire?

Let me try it this way.

We are debating a topic. You are arguing from side A, and me from side B. You point out points 1, 2 and 3 from side A. I point out points 1, 2 and 3 from point B.

Then you say something, let's say point 4 that combines points 2 and 3 from side A and explain it to me. Now I say "Okay, I think you are right and I was wrong", and agree with you.

Why did I change my opinion to side A?

What you did wasn't change my desire so that I desired to agree with you, what you did was give me a point that played on my desire to have the more correct idea, which is a stronger desire than my desire to be right.

See what I mean? In other words, I had a desire, "to be right", we discuss the topic, I agree with you not because you changed my basic desire but because you found another desire that I have and I decided, rather unconsciously, that the second desire was more important to me than the first.

If, for example, you were talking to my father, the second desire isn't nearly as important than the first, and he wouldn't agree with you no matter what points you've presented. (Believe me...he's like that).

A person cannot actually change the desire that another person has (unless they use conditioning, confusion and/or brainwashing). However, by guessing or by knowing another person well, one CAN replace one desire for a possible stronger one.

Does that make more sense?

[microdot]

Does that make more sense?

Your explanation makes perfect sense and I think it has given me some insight into your way of thinking, but I still think we're arguing semantics.

Whatever way we look at it, the outcome is still the same - the person does something which differs from what they would have done had we not used those words.

In your model, if I've understood you correctly, a person has a number of basic desires and the aggregate level of those desires at any one time will govern their behaviours.

Ergo, if they do something differently based on my speaking some words to them, you are saying that it is the level of one or more desires that has changed rather then the nature of the desires themselves.

Is that a reasonable summary of what you're saying?

[JFrankA]

Your explanation makes perfect sense and I think it has given me some insight into your way of thinking, but I still think we're arguing semantics.

...okay, another way of saying arguing on the same side....


Whatever way we look at it, the outcome is still the same - the person does something which differs from what they would have done had we not used those words.

I disagree. The outcome is simular, but not the same. Those words didn't affect the actual desires of that person, but changed the focus to a different (perhaps more important to that person) desire.

Those words did not make that person reject their desires, nor did those words make that person's particular desire less or more important. In my opinion, this a very important distinction because one is a person controlling another person with words, the other is a person persuading another person with words.


In your model, if I've understood you correctly, a person has a number of basic desires and the aggregate level of those desires at any one time will govern their behaviours.

Ergo, if they do something differently based on my speaking some words to them, you are saying that it is the level of one or more desires that has changed rather then the nature of the desires themselves.

Is that a reasonable summary of what you're saying?

The level of a person's specific desires hasn't changed, but what is desired has changed.

[Pedro De Mello]

Well, I don't believe in NLP as long as they REFUSE to test their claims in a scientific manner... Honestly, I think NLP is just a fancy name for guys who want to learn how to talk to girls don't feel so "ignorant" or whatever...

However, I must ADMIT that before I even heard about NLP I always did some kind of NLP (or whatever you want to call it...) myself... for years... I just don't write about it because I don't believe it would work on someone who is not WILLING in the first place.

For instance, when I want to ask a girl out and I know she is "maybe yes-maybe not" into me and I want to sound cool (or safe...) I don't ask:

"Do you want to come to the movies with me tonight?"

Instead of it I ALWAYS say:

"I'm going to the movies tonight. You can come if you want to."

Well, this is maybe absurd and I'll NEVER say it is scientific or certain, still is something that makes me feel more comfortable, because it's like I'm saying "I'm already going, wheter you go or not..." making the girl think that I already have plans that are not happening because of her but instead it is something that she can join if she wants... in this way she thinks I have a life of my own (I wish I had...)

Now... I seriously hope NLP has nothing to do with this kind of nuances! By the way, I'm the author of the "NLP? - I wonder if you guys can help me with what I'm looking for." thread and, as I was advised, I have since been studying real Linguistics and real Psychology. The concept of Framing bas been very helpful to me. Look it up on Wikipedia, I can't post URL's: Framing (Social Science)

But I honestly think you can't make a person do something they are not WILLING to do...

[MikeSun5]

For instance, when I want to ask a girl out and I know she is "maybe yes-maybe not" into me and I want to sound cool (or safe...) I don't ask:

"Do you want to come to the movies with me tonight?"

Instead of it I ALWAYS say:

"I'm going to the movies tonight. You can come if you want to."

Well, this is maybe absurd and I'll NEVER say it is scientific or certain, still is something that makes me feel more comfortable, because it's like I'm saying "I'm already going, wheter you go or not..." making the girl think that I already have plans that are not happening because of her but instead it is something that she can join if she wants... in this way she thinks I have a life of my own (I wish I had...)



...and you could sell that tactic to hopeless dummies for lots of money.

Claiming that positive interaction with women is a result of NLP rather than common knowledge was the whole issue in this here zombie thread.

[Iknoweverything]

back here by chance...

Seriously....hahahh

There is better things to do with your superior brain powers I promise!..

[Senex]

back here by chance...

Seriously....hahahh

There is better things to do with your superior brain powers I promise!..

I'm certain of that. Did you change jobs or has your current job management changed? Now instead of NLP you are undoubtedly managing your life by objectives or by Pareto something or by six sigma...

That stuff is all bulloney (well, maybe not the Perato rule, there is something to that 80-20 stuff). Offer facts about your current magical thinking or admit you were run off this site by critical thinking despite being trained by highly compensated woos who tricked your company into sending you to their mind-control courses that you all too quickly believed.

[Eddie Dane]

I'm certain of that. Did you change jobs or has your current job management changed? Now instead of NLP you are undoubtedly managing your life by objectives or by Pareto something or by six sigma...


:confused:

People use Pareto for self help purposes?

How is that supposed to work?

[ZirconBlue]

:confused:

People use Pareto for self help purposes?

How is that supposed to work?

You can eliminate 80% of the time wasted on a forum by ignoring 20% of the posters?

[Senex]

You can eliminate 80% of the time wasted on a forum by ignoring 20% of the posters?

No, that's not how it works. 20% of a set of anythig you can name gives you 80% of the benefit of that set. For instance 20% of the posts you read on this site give you 80% of your enjoyment. 20% of the customers where you work give you 80% of your business.

:confused:

People use Pareto for self help purposes?

How is that supposed to work?

Those Paretonians are worse than the scientologists. I'm going to sic my geriatric golden retriever on the next one that knocks on my door looking for money.

[ZirconBlue]

No, that's not how it works. 20% of a set of anythig you can name gives you 80% of the benefit of that set. For instance 20% of the posts you read on this site give you 80% of your enjoyment. 20% of the customers where you work give you 80% of your business.


That's true, but we also use pareto analysis in other ways: focusing on the 20% of your problems that cause 80% of the quality defects, for example.

[Senex]

That's true, but we also use pareto analysis in other ways: focusing on the 20% of your problems that cause 80% of the quality defects, for example.

Don't be knocking on my door looking for money because my deaf, arthritic dog has better things to do than biting your ass.

[ZirconBlue]

Don't be knocking on my door looking for money because my deaf, arthritic dog has better things to do than biting your ass.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm considering making that my sig. :D

[Senex]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm considering making that my sig. :D

I think you do. You belong to that doorbell ringing, proslytizing tribe of paretonians. I know your kind. You are disciplined to make lists. You wake up in the morning and sit at the kitchen table making a list of things to do that day. After you write the list you prioritize it. Then you count the number of list entries and divide that by 5. Then you say to yourself come hell or highwater I'll get that top 20% accomplished today.

You look at life as a 20/80 percentage. You are very accomplished at division by 5. You are very smug with your division by 5 philosophy. god help anyone who has to work under you. You will have them making lists and dividing by 5 all day long. Top 20% this and bottom 20% that. If you are married you drive your wife crazy with your lists.

My dog and I want nothing to do with your kind. Always prioritizing and dividing. We thrive in the many wonders of the lower 80%. I can spend my entire day working on a project on the bottom half of my list and be in bliss. Chew on that type A driving your wife crazy man.

[ZirconBlue]

I think you do. You belong to that doorbell ringing, proslytizing tribe of paretonians. I know your kind. You are disciplined to make lists. You wake up in the morning and sit at the kitchen table making a list of things to do that day. After you write the list you prioritize it. Then you count the number of list entries and divide that by 5. Then you say to yourself come hell or highwater I'll get that top 20% accomplished today.

You look at life as a 20/80 percentage. You are very accomplished at division by 5. You are very smug with your division by 5 philosophy. god help anyone who has to work under you. You will have them making lists and dividing by 5 all day long. Top 20% this and bottom 20% that. If you are married you drive your wife crazy with your lists.

My dog and I want nothing to do with your kind. Always prioritizing and dividing. We thrive in the many wonders of the lower 80%. I can spend my entire day working on a project on the bottom half of my list and be in bliss. Chew on that type A driving your wife crazy man.


:newlol

Nominated!

[Pedro De Mello]

back here by chance...

Seriously....hahahh

There is better things to do with your superior brain powers I promise!..

Wouldn't that be "There (are) better things to do with your superior brain powers (comma) I promise!" - are you referring to the brain powers that people already have and that you are promising or are you promising that there are better things to do with your brain powers?

I don't get it.

Don't take me wrong, it's just that for one who sells himself (yes, because you're definitely a male) as being a super-duper-expert in using language as a powerful tool, you and your peers are quite often (not to say ALWAYS) juvenil or plain dull on your remarks. And, when you're not, you try to be excessively academic, wisch turns out to be even funnier. I guess that's what you would try to do next - try to present yourself as a valuable human being, speaking with fancy words like "procrastination" or "anathema" and expecting somehow to regain some credibility - but now you won't because I'm telling you what is it that you will do...

You know what I mean? You don't control what other people do because you are not an intelligent person. Otherwise you wouldn't try to learn NLP or social basic skills or whatever - trying to learn that kind of woo and still praise it is regarded by me and I believe many others as a simple proof that you have poor or indeed sad social skills in the first place. One who writes the kind of sentences that you write and states his advancement in life referring to an incredible life and incredible women and incredible trips and incredible houses everywhere and meetings and so on and so on make me believe, on the spot, that I'm in the presence of a giant L loser.

And I mean a BBBIIIGGG one!

Anyway... now I know that you won't even respond. Or maybe you will... with some fancy words or some desesperate attempt at wit trying to look smart. Or you'll just be plain agressive. Anyway, I don't like you. I think you are a bad influence on children and a dangerous threat to the elderly.

Come on, man! Now serious... learn how to write, please!

[Joe_Black]

I taught 'pickup' for a few years, ross jefferies stuff works fine in the right context although I personally don't like the guy much. (that context being intergrating its use into your everyday language to get what you want), and girls don't need to be drunk, the is nothing illegal or immoral about it used properly, its just about directing the interaction in the way you want it to go. Sure pickup can be a bit weird but most guys learn it for 6 months or a few years at the most then get bored with it, its just about increasing social intelligence and confidence. Many men are threatened by this, what social skills they learned in 20 years a guy can learn in 9 months etc.

"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." -Quoting remirol

Just to address your comments, it is intended the recevier has options and can think for themselves, its not mind control or magic, suggestion perhaps but that is all... "try not to think of a burger............ a big juicy burger!". You probably thought of a burger but you still have the option to go get one or just ignore that thought.

"But we are talking about the _intent_ of manipulating another human to do something you want them to. "

You have been manipulating since the day you were born, if you were not you would most likely be dead, this is usually not concious though. so???? subconcious manipulation = ok. Conconcious manipulation = bad.

[remirol]

I taught 'pickup' for a few years, ross jefferies stuff works fine in the right context

What context, specifically, is that?

Which "stuff"? All of it? Some of it? Specifically?

Put another way: suggestion implies that the 'receiver' has options. In the context of NLP, it is intended that the receiver have no options."
Just to address your comments, it is intended the recevier has options and can think for themselves, its not mind control or magic, suggestion perhaps but that is all... "try not to think of a burger............ a big juicy burger!". You probably thought of a burger but you still have the option to go get one or just ignore that thought.To continue your example, the goal is to force the person to get a burger, whether they wanted one in the first place or not.

"But we are talking about the _intent_ of manipulating another human to do something you want them to. "
You have been manipulating since the day you were born, if you were not you would most likely be dead, this is usually not concious though. so???? subconcious manipulation = ok. Conconcious manipulation = bad.NLP is the conscious act of attempting to manipulate someone. Therefore, by your own definition, it is bad... or would be if it worked at all. So far, there is no evidence that NLP itself can have any effect to get someone do something they didn't already want to do in the first place.

Please read the rest of the thread for more detail; there are a number of questions that the NLP "practitioners" who've come in have opted to avoid answering. Hopefully you won't be another one of those who prefers to handwave over specifics rather than pointing to something concrete.

[Joe_Black]

In the context of, if your a 4 foot mega ugly guy who is homeless, the is no way it will work for you. Gotta have congurency with what you are saying. although I believe alot of it teaches guys in the long term some good insight into how to communicate effectively with them and other guys too, which is hard to learn and usually just picked up during the course of a life, then again that roman guy cicero reportedly learned from someone. I have friends that say like you the NLP element is over rated/if it works its just chance and at best just does this:
a) Shows a great ability to deeply emote, something generally attractive to most women and something that most men generally lack
b) Once practiced sufficiantly great conversational control, and dominance, again is usually a very attractive trait. (you learned states manship from it in a way)
c) in a socially intelligently allures to you having many good things about you. From what I have seen its only true in reality in about 40% of people who practice NLP (in the UK this is).


Again either way it does work, same result different path.

The goal is not to force anyone to do anything, you can't force someone with NLP or hypnosis, if they did it they wanted to do it, it does not make them stupid. I don't know about other people but my personally is not 2D i have various elements that make me, like the part that wants to avoid fast food and hit the gym, feel good and look good. And the other part that wants to eat burgers, and play games and tells the gym to get lost. I guess in a way it just trys to influence how effective depends on the person. If you want to know if NLP works at all, try this everytime you have a orgasm sqeeze your thumb and little finger on one hand together, do this, i don't know at least 5 times every time you orgasm, then try it when your at work one day, if you feel a really strange feeling then you know the is something to it, if you feel nothing what so ever you will know it does not work for you and you can forget about it, its irrelivent to your life.

i didn't say concious manipulation of someone is good or bad, I believed that was your implication (as it seems to be most peoples for some reason) so I stated it.

[remirol]

In the context of, if your a 4 foot mega ugly guy who is homeless, the is no way it will work for you.

So, in other words, it doesn't work as advertised. Got it.

I have friends that say like you the NLP element is over rated/if it works its just chance

Not so much chance -- if you're physically attractive, act confident, dress well, and have decent social skills, _of course_ you'll have an easier time finding people to date. Or, more important than any of that, if you hang around where there are single women and approach them. It's that simple.

Note that NLP doesn't enter into the picture here anywhere. Why do you think that is? Answer: it's a bunch of placebo BS. If you hang around clubs, can manage the basics of hygiene/appearance and approach enough women, eventually one will say yes.

Again either way it does work, same result different path.

Except you haven't demonstrated anything about how it's the NLP working, rather than any of a number of other factors. (Including plain old luck.)

The goal is not to force anyone to do anything, you can't force someone with NLP or hypnosis, if they did it they wanted to do it,

That isn't the way NLP is advertised, though, which is my gripe against it. That, and I haven't seen any evidence that it does anything at all.

If you want to know if NLP works at all, try this everytime you have a orgasm sqeeze your thumb and little finger on one hand together, do this, i don't know at least 5 times every time you orgasm, then try it when your at work one day, if you feel a really strange feeling then you know the is something to it, if you feel nothing what so ever you will know it does not work for you and you can forget about it, its irrelivent to your life.

What you are describing isn't what I see described as NLP, it's something called classical conditioning. Pavlov first observed it many years ago (the whole dogs and bell thing, remember?), and there's been a lot of writing and research about it. It's possible to make people do things via conditioning, but that isn't what NLP portrays itself as. What part of NLP, specifically, 'works'?

i didn't say concious manipulation of someone is good or bad, I believed that was your implication (as it seems to be most peoples for some reason)

Direct question: Do you believe that intentionally manipulating people to do things that you want them to that they didn't want to do is good or bad -- yes or no?

[Pedro De Mello]

I don't get it... is the NLP from pick-up artists the same that Brown uses? Because the one used by the PUA seems a bit more "agressive", at least in the way they present their products. On the other hand, Brown says it is something that takes years to learn and is something extremefully subtle that envolves a kind of intelligence that people who promote NLP don't seem to have. I'm not saying ALL of them but mostly the ones who use it as a tool to pick up chicks.

Once again, I don't get it... are there two kinds of NLP?

I've noticed that there are NLP promoters who say you can use it on yourself. :confused: But wouldn't that go against the excuse that scientific experimentation on the subject is flawed because the one who receives the "NLPing" is conscious of it?

I do think that, like astrology and all the rest, I'm sure that SOON there will be some kind of ramification from the ones who don't want to be seen (exclusively or AT ALL) related with that kind of practices. Maybe they'll try to make it more "scientific", like Brown did... I don't know..

By the way, remirol, what is it that you consider crime? Bear in mind, I agree with what you're saying (I know I don't need to say this...) but I don't think it is a crime at all to lie and deceive women... They do that all the time... It's one of their major social defenses, like seduction. Everyone knows that. (I'm guessing now you'll be asking me for the study that shows that. I love you, man!) Maybe I'm wrong - almost certainly, I guess.

Are you placing NLP has a hypnotic state created by a practice so immoral that it is on the same level of... roofies?

I mean - if it worked, obviously.

[remirol]

By the way, remirol, what is it that you consider crime? Bear in mind, I agree with what you're saying (I know I don't need to say this...) but I don't think it is a crime at all to lie and deceive women? Are you placing NLP has a hypnotic state created by a practice so immoral that it is on the same level of... roofies?

I mean - if it worked, obviously.

To lie to a woman so she'll sleep with you isn't a crime and shouldn't be (though it isn't something to be proud of, either) -- we can't regulate everything, and caveat humptor applies.

NLP as portrayed by the "pickup artists" is pushed differently, specifically as something that can override the woman's desires without her awareness so that she suddenly wants to sleep with you, where previously she would not have wanted to. This is on a different level than a simple lie, as all of us learn in childhood that people occasionally lie and not to be too trusting; if someone is speaking to you, then you are aware that they may be lying.

Put another way; if NLP both worked and was available in pill form, how much different than roofies would it really be? "Slip this into her drink and she'll want to sleep with you." -- Is this an ethical act? I say "no", and this is where I classify NLP as well, because that's what many of its practitioners portray it as -- "say the magic words and perform the magic gestures and she'll sleep with you". I see no difference in the _intent_ of the practitioner -- the only practical difference is that unlike roofies, NLP doesn't work as advertised.

[Pedro De Mello]

Put another way; if NLP both worked and was available in pill form, how much different than roofies would it really be? "Slip this into her drink and she'll want to sleep with you." -- Is this an ethical act? I say "no", and this is where I classify NLP as well, because that's what many of its practitioners portray it as -- "say the magic words and perform the magic gestures and she'll sleep with you". I see no difference in the _intent_ of the practitioner -- the only practical difference is that unlike roofies, NLP doesn't work as advertised.

Yes, to make someone act against their "conscious" will is extremely unethical! I'm with you on that one. But I think you are giving too much attention/credit to the Pick-Up Artists (we know it's never too much...) - for instance, some psychologists claim that they use NLP in their sessions and they say they have been sucessful in helping people ceasing smoking, drinking, getting over a divorce, depression, etc.

Those to me are quite noble achievements. However, I do also think that they are establishing fallacious cause-effect correlations - why did people stop smoking? Better yet, why were people in their office in the first place? Answer: because they WANTED to stop smoking/drinking. So, I'm not sure why they think that people are in any way affected by the NLP techniques - if a person is willing in the first place, there's no need to NLP. Even if it is done in a subtle way that they would never find out.

That's the difference, if you are WILLING in the first place, NLP is as powerful as tapping a person in the back and saying "You'll be over it, you're strong, so on and so on". Isn't NLP making people act against their usual will? Isn't that the big-whoopy aspect of it? Or are these doctors aware that they are just playing a profitable charade with a fancy name?

I wouldn't be surprised. After all, anyone nowadays gets to be a "psychologist"... right?

That's why I'm saying that the NLP used by psychologists is not the same that PUA's use - one is a noble big lie, the other is a pervert bigger lie. Why bother about it if it doesn't work? Does it have any harm on people that I'm not aware of? (And I really want to know, I'm not being confrontational). Should there be something to fear? Apart from the fact that the books by those PUA's are selling like ice-cream on the beach wisch leads me to believe that there are A LOT of average mind-sized people out there who wouldn't regret having sex with a stranger unwilling to do it with them.

[remirol]

Isn't NLP making people act against their usual will? Isn't that the big-whoopy aspect of it? Or are these doctors aware that they are just playing a profitable charade with a fancy name?

Some doctors are certainly aware. Some probably aren't and have bought into the woo aspect of it.

That's why I'm saying that the NLP used by psychologists is not the same that PUA's use - one is a noble big lie, the other is a pervert bigger lie. Why bother about it if it doesn't work? Does it have any harm on people that I'm not aware of? Just because someone intends to help people doesn't change how efficacious NLP is -- it just means they're doing it with good intentions, instead of ethically shaky ones.

As far as "what's the harm" -- since NLP does not work, these purveyors and authors bilk many honest people out of money for their books selling a "secret" that is complete garbage. They will point to the "success stories" and tell you to "try it for yourself" (see what Joe Black had to resort to on his 2nd post, for example) -- not because they think it works, but because they just want you to buy the book/video/whatever it is they're selling. Once you've bought that, it doesn't matter if it works anymore, they already have your money.

I consider this activity largely fraudulent, but P.T. Barnum knew that there was no shortage of suckers in the world, and it'd be difficult to prove in court because the NLP sellers can always fall back on the time-honored excuse of "You didn't say the magic words right." So, why bother about it? Well, there are better things out there to waste my time and effort taking real-world action on -- so you won't see me carrying a picket at a book signing or anything silly like that. But that also doesn't mean that we shouldn't promote clear thinking where possible, and in this case, this thread can serve as a reference for people who want to find out the truth of whether there's anything to this NLP junk -- specifically, that there isn't.

[Pedro De Mello]

I like your answers. You're a good person. =)

Yes, I think it's very urgent to promote clear thinking. I started a new group of skeptics in Portugal - the translation to English would be something like "Skeptics And Humanists For The Advancement Of Rational And Scientific Thought"... One of my friends, we are currently three (yes, three...), was invited to go on this TV show to try to rebuke this Chiromantic who was there to do a live reading. And we all know how stupidly easy it is to rebuke that praticse more than any other.
Still, I advised him with all my heart to decline because I know he would be regarded as the party-pooper, the nerd who doesn't open his mind, etc, etc. He ended up declining it. Maybe it was not the wisest decision but it felt the right to do at the time. It's one of those morning shows only old catholic widows and poor eneducated people watch, a very anti-intellectual feel to it, so... we are not worried...

We are currently sticking to a Blog that is still on the making and we'll do some presentations without any debate (because we all know what it is to debate with those f**kers).

Anyway, gotta keep up the good fight. (At least until we die and find out we should all have accepted the Mormon doctrine...)

[Lothario]

I turn my back for a second and this thread comes back to life. Where's MikeSun? And JFrankA? :)

[Prometheus]

I turn my back for a second and this thread comes back to life. Where's MikeSun? And JFrankA? :)

NLP was used to make us reanimate the thread against our will. :rolleyes:

[MikeSun5]

I turn my back for a second and this thread comes back to life. Where's MikeSun? And JFrankA? :)

remirol seems to be doing just fine without us... :D

[Senex]

:boxedin:remirol seems to be doing just fine without us... :D

Oh, so it's all about remirol is it...

remirol,

You're a fine fellow. I bet you have a girlfriend. She probably wants a fine Christmas present this season.

Senex ;)

[Ummm Huh]

Here I am reviving an ancient thread. But I stumbled on it and thought you all might be amused that I actually dealt with one of these guys mentioned in the original post (Kenrick Cleveland). I was arranging something that he wanted to attend (no, it had nothing whatsoever to do with NLP or any other crap... er... profound 'science').
Anyway, one day I got a call from this Kenrick Cleveland character. During the call he kept trying to use that NLP crap on me in an attempt to get me to change the date. As another poster mentioned, the attempted manipulations were transparent and obvious. In fact, the manipulations were so obvious they immediately reminded me of that old Will Ferrel shtick where Will's character keeps inserting things like "hot sex" randomly in the middle of sentences. Yes, they were that bad. I tormented him for a while by giving him later and later dates until I got tired of the game and told him the original date was set and was not going to change. If this guy is indeed one of the acknowledged 'masters' of NLP... well... 'pathetic' is the first word that comes to mind.
Just thought you all might get some slight amusement and first hand, albeit anecdotal, confirmation of your conclusions.

[Garrette]

I've run into that sort, though not as blatant and usually not claiming NLP.

The point to remember, though, is that you and I are closed minded, and Mr. Cleveland has developed breakthrough mental technologies. It is unfortunate that on the day of your story the Great Skeptical Force Field prevented his magic working.

And welcome to the forum.

[Prometheus]

I turn my back for a second and this thread comes back to life. Where's MikeSun? And JFrankA? :)

NLP was used to make us reanimate the thread against our will. :rolleyes:

See! It really does work! :D

[Ummm Huh]

Wow! And I thought NLP had no power. :D
This guy also used an ancient technology in his dealings with us. It's called 'lying.' Seems it even more effective than NLP!
Funny though, weird things do happen where we have to scratch our heads and say, "hell if I know," but we end up having to spend all our time debunking a gazillion pieces of obvious BS. Investigating rains of frogs and fish that show up in papers every so often would be a heck of a lot more fun, even if it led to similar conclusions.

Thanks for the welcome.

[remirol]

As always, XKCD nails it:

http://xkcd.com/1027/

[xjx388]

I have a funny PUA/NLP story:

I took my wife to eat at Alizè in Las Vegas. At the table next to us was a guy and his girl in the middle of their meal. The guy was "peacocked" and I could tell he considered himself a "major player." They seemed to be enjoying a nice meal but then their conversation got heated after he uttered this sentence: "You know I used Pick-Up to get you, right?"

SHE: Uh-huh, sure you did . . . You know, my ex-boyfriend taught that stuff and I used to be the one he used to demonstrate it on. That crap doesn't work; he was just making money off dumb*****.
HE: Well, it worked because here you are! I guess you aren't as smart as you think you are!
S: No, I'm here because you were a nice guy and I'm very attracted to you. If you had used a neg on me or one of those stupid routines I would have called you out. Do you really think you can manipulate women that easily?
H: Oh please, you women manipulate guys all the time . . .

Needless to say the conversation went down from there. They yelled at each other for a few minutes before the waiter came over to ask them to pipe down. They were asked to leave a few minutes later.

Here was this guy at a nice restaurant with a beautiful woman and he can't stop himself from putting his foot in his mouth. It just goes to show that you can teach a guy to clean himself up and give him the confidence to approach women, but you can't teach a douchebag how to not be a douchebag. . . To me, that's the worst thing about the PUA community - it encourages douchebaggery.