Yet more NLP BS

[Lothario]

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?

[ArthurWilborn]

Huh.

Well, there's no doubt that you could replicate the results. It's less complicated then many people think to create a love slave or do well in sales, and you can achieve these results quite rapidly if you use the right techniques. NLP isnt the way I would do it, since what words are relevant to people vary so significantly between people.

Hate to say it, but emotional dependency is still the most reliable method and generally the way to go.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Lothario

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?

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

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

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

NLP's only real practical application is entertainment.

[krayon]

After browsing through Jeffries's site, I suddenly feel the need to let off some steam, so here goes.

Whether it works or not, I find his product ethically questionable to say the least. His disciples' claims of success are in violation of the basic tenets of human dignity, to the point of literally making my stomach churn.

He's also offering a home study program on "kick-butt magick" and psychic influence ("The Secret" of pick-up artistry, if you will) for the bargain price of $439.77. What a gem of rape culture.

[Lothario]

I am familiar with Derren's work. Some of it is questionable, though.

I've heard somewhere that Derren Brown does common magic tricks and then disguises them as NLP, the same way mentalists before him disguised them as some sort of psychic power. Is that what you mean when you say mentalists use it as a misdirection tool?

Also, if you look around youtube, NLPers seem to find anchors in everything, from Obama's speeches to Chris Rock's stand-up performances.

Take care

[firecoins]

Originally Posted by Lothario

I am familiar with Derren's work. Some of it is questionable, though.

I've heard somewhere that Derren Brown does common magic tricks and then disguises them as NLP, the same way mentalists before him disguised them as some sort of psychic power. Is that what you mean when you say mentalists use it as a misdirection tool?

Also, if you look around youtube, NLPers seem to find anchors in everything, from Obama's speeches to Chris Rock's stand-up performances.

Take care

ding ding ding, we have a winner! Mentalists do not use NLP for real.

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by Lothario

I am familiar with Derren's work. Some of it is questionable, though.

I've heard somewhere that Derren Brown does common magic tricks and then disguises them as NLP, the same way mentalists before him disguised them as some sort of psychic power. Is that what you mean when you say mentalists use it as a misdirection tool?

Derren Brown is himself quite critical of the claims and practitioners of NLP. He outlines his feelings about it in his book Tricks of the Mind.

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by Lothario

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?

Wow, what an incredible slime-bucket (Ross Jeffries, I mean, not you Lothario).

Quote:

If you don’t get laid, I don’t get paid! It’s that simple.
You Must Sleep With At Least 3 Hot Women Within 90 Days Of Using My Home Study Course Or You Pay Nothing…I’ll Refund Every Penny!

Classy! If it were true that you could hypnotize a woman into having sex with you or becoming your sex-slave--against her better judgment and perhaps against her will--wouldn't that be a form of rape?

[Lothario]

Originally Posted by Lucian

Wow, what an incredible slime-bucket (Ross Jeffries, I mean, not you Lothario).


Classy! If it were true that you could hypnotize a woman into having sex with you or becoming your sex-slave--against her better judgment and perhaps against her will--wouldn't that be a form of rape?

Yes, if it worked and if you could prove it was against her will, it would be a form of rape. The true problem is, if it's a form of "covert" hypnosis, how do you prove it?

It would be great if someone with knowledge in the field of hypnosis could step in and explain if it can be used for these purposes.

[Senex]

Originally Posted by Lothario

Yes, if it worked and if you could prove it was against her will, it would be a form of rape. The true problem is, if it's a form of "covert" hypnosis, how do you prove it?

It would be great if someone with knowledge in the field of hypnosis could step in and explain if it can be used for these purposes.

I have knowledge concerning hypnosis. Hypnosis is a placebo. There is no such thing as covert hypnotism. Covert manipulation will always be alive and thriving -- but not hypnotism.

The problem with hypnotism is no one can define it. It's kind of woo but I can't argue against someone who says their experience trumps my own research and performance.

However, trust me, the President of the United States doesn't use hypnosis. Hypnosis doesn't work on people who don't agree to have it performed on themself. Manipulating a woman to have sex with you may rise to the category of research -- but it doesn't equal hypnosis.

[foxholeatheist]

Oh yeah, around here we have plenty of MMA mags laying around and out of sheer and mind numbing bor-dumb I have flipped though them.

It's the same old advertising trick: Play on human insecurity. It's the most sure fire way to make money ever. Soldiers buy all sorts of quack products intended to make them "ripped" or "cut" or some other weird adjective that describes what should be done with all those mags.

Frame it around a sorta-sceintific frame work and it's all over. Dudes will be forking over the money faster than you can say "Dynamic Tension!"

[dann]

Originally Posted by krayon

Whether it works or not, I find his product ethically questionable to say the least. His disciples' claims of success are in violation of the basic tenets of human dignity, to the point of literally making my stomach churn.

But it is important to know whether it works or or not, isn't it?
If you criticise alleged telepaths of being unethical when they read other people's minds, you actually support the woo sentiment! They themselves enjoy these discussions and always swear that they would not use their 'powers' with bad intentions. But the dishonesty is that they pretend to be able to read the minds of other people - and charge a price to do so.
So would you be able to convince somebody who isn't really into you to have sex with you?
Well, maybe, sometimes.
But would you want her to?
The number of Johns show us that a lot of people would.

[thrombus29]

I Like using the "Seduce And Destroy" method, by Frank T.J. Mackey.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Originally Posted by Lothario

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?

Ah, old NLP crap. Haven't heard that garbage in a while. This crowd seems to be social scientific-literate so we should be able give it a good debunking. Though there's not much substance to their claims. Just bare assertions backed with no scientific evidence. They do not even attempt to describe the methods they used to gain the knowledge.

[Lothario]

Originally Posted by thrombus29

I Like using the "Seduce And Destroy" method, by Frank T.J. Mackey.

That character is actually based on Jeffries from what I read.

Any more comments?

[Lothario]

So... nobody can provide a straight answer on whether it works or not? I am rather concerned.
I keep running into the most outrageous and unethical claims (things along the lines of creating sex slaves and stalkers, increasing sales, persuasion, etc). I've looked around for studies and i can only find studies on PRS and eye-acessing cues, which have been proven wrong. Nothing on the so called embedded commands and the efficiency of anchoring in the terms NLPers propose.
I know that testimonial evidence is not, by any means, evidence, but there's lots of it.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Lothario

So... nobody can provide a straight answer on whether it works or not? I am rather concerned.
I keep running into the most outrageous and unethical claims (things along the lines of creating sex slaves and stalkers, increasing sales, persuasion, etc). I've looked around for studies and i can only find studies on PRS and eye-acessing cues, which have been proven wrong. Nothing on the so called embedded commands and the efficiency of anchoring in the terms NLPers propose.
I know that testimonial evidence is not, by any means, evidence, but there's lots of it.

Concerned? Don't waste your concern on a d-bag like Ross Jeffries. He claims all this covert hypnosis crap because he's got enough guts to talk to girls despite his retarded Art Garfunkel jewfro haircut. I'd be claiming paranormal reasons, too!
A friend of mine turned me on to that speed seduction nonsense and had me read The Game and The Revelation. It's all crap for nerds to be able to talk to women. Of course it's all the same stuff over and over: Be confident. Don't lurk. Act like you don't care. Women love it.
I think the hypnosis link comes in because of "non-verbal inductions." If I remember this garbage correctly, it has something to do with trances. When you have an experience you haven't had before, you enter somewhat of a trance... similar to when you're really into a TV show while someone says something to you that you didn't hear.
Anyway, long story long, Ross Jeffries claims that if you can hold a girl's attention long enough, you can ask questions and bring up experiences that conjure up feel-good or sexual memories, anchor them, and deploy those anchors later when you want her to feel like doing it. How drunk the target-girl has to be never gets mentioned...

While some of the pickup artist techniques are funny (and therefore somewhat effective at ice-breaking), for the most part it's bogus.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Lothario

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?

Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.

(Ogden nash?)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Lothario

So... nobody can provide a straight answer on whether it works or not? I am rather concerned.
I keep running into the most outrageous and unethical claims (things along the lines of creating sex slaves and stalkers, increasing sales, persuasion, etc). I've looked around for studies and i can only find studies on PRS and eye-acessing cues, which have been proven wrong. Nothing on the so called embedded commands and the efficiency of anchoring in the terms NLPers propose.
I know that testimonial evidence is not, by any means, evidence, but there's lots of it.

It's pretty much an unfalsifiable hypothesis, without large-scale controlled tests. If someone has sex with someone else, there's no way of telling whether they did so only because of NLP or whether they would have done it anyway just because they found them attractive.

Ideally you'd recruit sets of identical triplets, train one in NLP, another in basic social skills, leave the last untrained as a control, turn them loose in bars and see what their hit rates were.

The burden of proof for these sorts of claims should be on the claimant, not everybody else.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

It's pretty much an unfalsifiable hypothesis, without large-scale controlled tests. If someone has sex with someone else, there's no way of telling whether they did so only because of NLP or whether they would have done it anyway just because they found them attractive.

Especially since all the supporting data is in the form of testimonials on their websites. I'm sure none of which have quotes of girls saying, "I'm a former Miss America and I had sex with this weird old man the day I met him. He must have hypnotized me."

Those guys don't use NLP, hypnosis, pheromones, or anything else. Their techniques are quite simple, indeed:

[Lothario]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Concerned? Don't waste your concern on a d-bag like Ross Jeffries. He claims all this covert hypnosis crap because he's got enough guts to talk to girls despite his retarded Art Garfunkel jewfro haircut. I'd be claiming paranormal reasons, too!

Hahahaha. Good point, good point.

As for the testimonial evidence, i didn't find it only on his website. I found it all over forums related to the "pick-up artist" community.

[remirol]

Originally Posted by Lothario

So... nobody can provide a straight answer on whether it works or not? I am rather concerned.

Rest easy: It doesn't work.

Quote:

I keep running into the most outrageous and unethical claims (things along the lines of creating sex slaves and stalkers, increasing sales, persuasion, etc). I've looked around for studies and i can only find studies on PRS and eye-acessing cues, which have been proven wrong. Nothing on the so called embedded commands and the efficiency of anchoring in the terms NLPers propose.

This is how you know it doesn't work. If I was selling snake oil I'd make a gazillion ridiculous claims too, as well as...

Quote:

I know that testimonial evidence is not, by any means, evidence, but there's lots of it.

...fabricate as much testimonial evidence as I could to deceive the dumbasses who don't know that testimonials are meaningless.

Then, I'd go out and sell it on the Internet, which is chock full of lonely guys who can't figure out how to talk to a woman in real life and are looking for something, _anything_, to blame for it other than their own refusal to learn social skills. (And who are also coincidentally all looking for a "magic bullet" fix, rather than actually learning social skills.)

I'd make buckets of money. I'd want to bathe in bleach afterwards because of how scummy it'd make me feel, but buckets of money buys a lot of bleach.

[remirol]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Those guys don't use NLP, hypnosis, pheromones, or anything else. Their techniques are quite simple, indeed:

Actually, I can sum up their "technique" very simply:

* Clean yourself up and put some decent clothes on so you look presentable.
* Learn some basic social skills so you aren't totally hopeless.
* Go somewhere where there are a lot of single girls looking to get laid (nightclub, whatever).
* Proposition all of them. Stop when someone says "yes".

Presto! You are now a "pick-up artist". And you probably will end up with Creeping Dick Rot if you don't start using condoms, you dumb.

[Lothario]

Originally Posted by remirol

...fabricate as much testimonial evidence as I could to deceive the dumbasses who don't know that testimonials are meaningless.

Even from psychologists and doctors? I've seen them believe in this crap too.

But I suppose you are right. I'm being absurd. I guess I was almost fooled by Derren Brown's misleading use of NLP and by the fact that NLP draws some elements (very few apparently) from valid psychology, which made me wonder whether it could work or not.

Thanks for all your opinions. Take care guys.

[remirol]

Originally Posted by Lothario

Even from psychologists and doctors? I've seen them believe in this crap too.

Sure. It can be even easier to con people like that, who can mistakenly assume their knowledge about a specific subject carries over to all subjects.

Quote:

I guess I was almost fooled by Derren Brown's misleading use of NLP and by the fact that NLP draws some elements (very few apparently) from valid psychology, which made me wonder whether it could work or not.

Yep. At the core of all good BS is a nugget of almost-truth.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by remirol

Actually, I can sum up their "technique" very simply:

* Clean yourself up and put some decent clothes on so you look presentable.
* Learn some basic social skills so you aren't totally hopeless.
* Go somewhere where there are a lot of single girls looking to get laid (nightclub, whatever).
* Proposition all of them. Stop when someone says "yes".

Wow! That IS accurate!

remirol, you should sell that on a pamphlet for $50.00 a pop to wannabe pickup artists. Free money.

[remirol]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Wow! That IS accurate!

remirol, you should sell that on a pamphlet for $50.00 a pop to wannabe pickup artists. Free money.

See above remark about "bathing myself in bleach". For now, I'll pass. Maybe if things go completely south I'll cross over to the Dark Side.

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Lucian

Wow, what an incredible slime-bucket (Ross Jeffries, I mean, not you Lothario).


Classy! If it were true that you could hypnotize a woman into having sex with you or becoming your sex-slave--against her better judgment and perhaps against her will--wouldn't that be a form of rape?

That's exactly how my relationship with my wife works. I've hypnotized her into having sex with me, and she's hypnotized me into doing the dishes, mowing the lawn, etc.

Works a treat.


M.

[Lothario]

Originally Posted by Moochie

That's exactly how my relationship with my wife works. I've hypnotized her into having sex with me, and she's hypnotized me into doing the dishes, mowing the lawn, etc.

Works a treat.


M.

If you ever found yourself wondering why you got married in the first place, Jeffries is probably the reason why .
Someone should start a thread so we can discuss NLP in general to find out if there's any merit in their techniques or not.

[Senex]

Originally Posted by Lothario

Someone should start a thread so we can discuss NLP in general to find out if there's any merit in their techniques or not.

NLP is pseudoscience and as such does not lend itself to well-defined anything. It would be easier if you picked what you believe to be an NLP technique and we can discuss the merit of the technique instead of the meaningless term NLP.

I used to be a student of suggestion techniques. If you want to defend yourself against being manipulated the book Influence by Cialdini is the best resource I have come across. You're in luck, I found this website that breaks the basics down. I recommend buying it or going to the library (most libraries have this book).
http://www.rickross.com/reference/br...washing20.html

[Lothario]

Originally Posted by Senex

NLP is pseudoscience and as such does not lend itself to well-defined anything. It would be easier if you picked what you believe to be an NLP technique and we can discuss the merit of the technique instead of the meaningless term NLP.

I used to be a student of suggestion techniques. If you want to defend yourself against being manipulated the book Influence by Cialdini is the best resource I have come across. You're in luck, I found this website that breaks the basics down. I recommend buying it or going to the library (most libraries have this book).
http://www.rickross.com/reference/br...washing20.html

Hey Senex thanks for replying to the PM the other day.

I have that book in my computer. I've only flipped through it so far but it seems to be good.

As for NLP, i'm curious about two particular aspects: 1) embedded commands; 2) anchoring, particularly the latter as it is taken from Pavlov's conditioning studies.

[Senex]

Originally Posted by Lothario

As for NLP, i'm curious about two particular aspects: 1) embedded commands; 2) anchoring, particularly the latter as it is taken from Pavlov's conditioning studies.

Let's look at embedded commands. Reputable mentalists (that's not neccessarily mutually exclusive) like Luke Jeremy have published effects in which he suggests you can increase the odds of manipulating a spectator's choice by using an embedded command and raising your voice on a particular word. I think that might be possible but it's use as a manipulation tool doesn't go past increasing the odds of a person on stage who is nervous choosing a black face card instead of a red card or the number 57 instead of 37. It has very little and very short-term potential if any at all.

I'm not certain how anchoring can help manipulate anyone. I guess if you ask someone a favor while the smell of baked bread or bacon is in the air might increase your odds of them saying yes if they like bread or bacon. You can't touch someones right shoulder at some point and expect them to be manipulated some time in the future when you touch their right shoulder again if that's what you are wondering.

I think you've been watching too much Darren Brown. There was a video on Youtube (since taken down) in which he gets some British actor named Simon something (popular from some Zombie movie) to write down a birthday wish on a piece of paper he puts in an envelope and carries around for a week in which he then sees Darren Brown and receives the present that was written in the envelope but Simon denied writing but stated was in his handwriting. Pages and pages of comments were written on Youtube about this effect where people were writing the particular time of the video he was using embedded commands and anchoring and Ericsonian handshakes (that Ericsonian handshake I can say with certainty is a crock). If you are familiar with mentalism effects it was painfully obvious the truth was he used a very mundane easy to see through method but people would prefer to believe he used mind control techniques that are not at all possible. I wrote my theory and had some interesting discussions with people who just refused to believe the simplist explanation was the correct one.

Look at it this way -- the most succeful people in society do not use embedded commands or anchoring to persuade people. Only entertainers and people trying to sell woo books use it. That must tell you something.

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Senex

Let's look at embedded commands. Reputable mentalists (that's not neccessarily mutually exclusive) like Luke Jeremy have published effects in which he suggests you can increase the odds of manipulating a spectator's choice by using an embedded command and raising your voice on a particular word. I think that might be possible but it's use as a manipulation tool doesn't go past increasing the odds of a person on stage who is nervous choosing a black face card instead of a red card or the number 57 instead of 37. It has very little and very short-term potential if any at all.

I'm not certain how anchoring can help manipulate anyone. I guess if you ask someone a favor while the smell of baked bread or bacon is in the air might increase your odds of them saying yes if they like bread or bacon. You can't touch someones right shoulder at some point and expect them to be manipulated some time in the future when you touch their right shoulder again if that's what you are wondering.

I think you've been watching too much Darren Brown. There was a video on Youtube (since taken down) in which he gets some British actor named Simon something (popular from some Zombie movie) to write down a birthday wish on a piece of paper he puts in an envelope and carries around for a week in which he then sees Darren Brown and receives the present that was written in the envelope but Simon denied writing but stated was in his handwriting. Pages and pages of comments were written on Youtube about this effect where people were writing the particular time of the video he was using embedded commands and anchoring and Ericsonian handshakes (that Ericsonian handshake I can say with certainty is a crock). If you are familiar with mentalism effects it was painfully obvious the truth was he used a very mundane easy to see through method but people would prefer to believe he used mind control techniques that are not at all possible. I wrote my theory and had some interesting discussions with people who just refused to believe the simplist explanation was the correct one.

Look at it this way -- the most succeful people in society do not use embedded commands or anchoring to persuade people. Only entertainers and people trying to sell woo books use it. That must tell you something.

I agree with all you've written, Senex. It seems to be a form of woo that appeals particularly to people of a certain psychological disposition, whereas regular folks, if they want something from someone, simply ask for it, whether it's butter, a drink, or sex. In my experience, only minds that want to be controlled can be controlled, as I alluded to in a previous post about the relationship between my wife and I. (Incidentally, in December we will be celebrating 24 happy years together -- 24 happy woo-free years. )


M.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Senex

There was a video on Youtube (since taken down) in which he gets some British actor named Simon something (popular from some Zombie movie) to write down a birthday wish on a piece of paper he puts in an envelope and carries around for a week in which he then sees Darren Brown and receives the present that was written in the envelope but Simon denied writing but stated was in his handwriting. Pages and pages of comments were written on Youtube about this effect where people were writing the particular time of the video he was using embedded commands and anchoring and Ericsonian handshakes (that Ericsonian handshake I can say with certainty is a crock). If you are familiar with mentalism effects it was painfully obvious the truth was he used a very mundane easy to see through method but people would prefer to believe he used mind control techniques that are not at all possible. I wrote my theory and had some interesting discussions with people who just refused to believe the simplist explanation was the correct one.

That's this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

So, how did he do it? You might think it's "easy to see through", but I can't see it. But, then, I do miss a lot.

[MikeSun5]

Originally Posted by Senex

Look at it this way -- the most succeful people in society do not use embedded commands or anchoring to persuade people. Only entertainers and people trying to sell woo books use it. That must tell you something.

Thank you! I've been saying that for years. If NLP worked, more people would know about it. Not just Derren Brown, Ross Jeffries and Tony Robbins.

I think the NLP crowd gets such great results with that crap because they and those who they use it on believe it works. Just like all other woo.

[Lothario]

Thanks for your opinions guys. This NLP thing had me worried for a while now. BTW, how do you explain that trick where Derren Brown confuses the girl into thinkin that red is black?

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Lothario

Thanks for your opinions guys. This NLP thing had me worried for a while now. BTW, how do you explain that trick where Derren Brown confuses the girl into thinkin that red is black?

Yeah, I'd like to know more about how these tricks are really done. I don't know much about mentalism, except for cold reading.

By the way, I wonder how Brown proposes that you use NLP in a normal, everyday conversation. I think most people wouldn't be too happy about being you tapping them on the shoulder and touching their arm all the time, and you'd probably get punched in the face a lot.

[Iknoweverything]

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Thank you! I've been saying that for years. If NLP worked, more people would know about it. Not just Derren Brown, Ross Jeffries and Tony Robbins.

I think the NLP crowd gets such great results with that crap because they and those who they use it on believe it works. Just like all other woo.

Incorrect.

When you say "NLP" you cover a rather large array of techniques. Many are "woo" as you put it, but some are not. Feel free to find out for yourself which parts are useful.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Iknoweverything

Feel free to find out for yourself which parts are useful.

Um, how about NO. Who has time to try out 100 techniques, just to see which of the 5 actually work? Especially when there's a science of the mind, called psychology, which uses testing and peer review...as far as I can tell, NLP does not.

[Iknoweverything]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Um, how about NO. Who has time to try out 100 techniques, just to see which of the 5 actually work? Especially when there's a science of the mind, called psychology, which uses testing and peer review...as far as I can tell, NLP does not.

Yes and I have a degree in psychology, thank you for your eye opening reply

You also stated you know nothing about mentalism, I do.

That makes your replies even more amusing