• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Yet more NLP BS

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I once followed a practitioner course in NLP in my homecountry, Belgium. From my own experience, some of these following models and techniques work:

- the meta-model (to ask questions. You ask for more details in a conversation. You want more specific information)
- verbally pacing and leading (in conflict, it can be useful)
- non-verbal matching
- technique of perceptual postitions
- formulating goals with ecology check (technique)
- Walt-Disney strategy
- Ecology idea
- anchoring to an experience
- working and negotiation with parts (using as a metaphor) for solving inner concflicts
- some useful (pragmatic) axioms of NLP f.e.; the map is not the territory. Everyone has its own map of the world, every behaviour has a positive intention.

So, there are a lot of good things about NLP.

But there are also techniques and models which doesn't work:

- The eyemovement model of NLP and the preferences for visual, kinesthetic or auditive channels is been proven wrong.
- Embedded commands don't seem to work (analog marking f.e.)
- Metaprograms are not so useful.
 
Last edited:
-The meta-model is very useful in converstations; http://www.nlpls.com/articles/NLPmetaModel.php

- 'Following' someone by first verbalizing where you agree on creates more room for being open for feedback.

- Another presuppostion of NLP is: all cricism is feedback or information. It can be seen as information. There is no 'failure', only feedback in a learning process.

These are very useful ideas and models. NLP provides pragmatic models and techniques. It's a map of the world, not a theory. It helps you to get certain results. I's pragmatic.
 
Maartenn100 said:
-The meta-model is very useful in converstations; http://www.nlpls.com/articles/NLPmetaModel.php

- 'Following' someone by first verbalizing where you agree on creates more room for being open for feedback.

- Another presuppostion of NLP is: all cricism is feedback or information. It can be seen as information. There is no 'failure', only feedback in a learning process.

These are very useful ideas and models. NLP provides pragmatic models and techniques. It's a map of the world, not a theory. It helps you to get certain results. I's pragmatic.
Click to expand...

In conversations, I find the meta-model quite useful. By stating/restating the points where we are in sync, I think feedback has an opening, even when it might be seen as critical. After all, criticism is just a type of information too.

It's these pragmatic techniques which make NLP more of a guide than an outright theory. Results are measurable.

You and I are complimentary. Buy my product.
 
Maartenn100 said:
Have you actually read the meta-model in the link? Can you explain in what it is and why you think I'm only trying to sell some product?
Click to expand...

No. I had a serious adverse moral reaction back when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People. I have never recovered from my allergy to willful manipulation of others. It is one of the most evil things men can participate in and doubly so when victims are not cognitively equipped to spot the tricks.

Pragmatism at a price. Yes, you can keep a kid quiet by cutting out their tongue, but "it works" is a sad and shallow justification. I recommend reading it, studying it, and understanding it enough to thoroughly and irreversibly reject it and all its practitioners.

ETA: I actually was familiar with the original work by Bandler and Grinder. I'd like to point out it was undertaken in the context of assumed authority - that of effective therapists treating damaged patients. This is a far cry from the current goals of NLP. One thing that is shared however, is the idea of influencing another person to modify their behavior. Where it doesn't work, it's woo. Where it does, it's evil. Quite the menu.
 
Last edited:
I'm also against the manipulation in NLP.
The meta-model and some other ideas in NLP are not about manipulating, but simply about clear communication, resolving conflicts, defining a goal, redefining a situation, so someon reacts differently on it etc.
However there are techniques to manipulate people. But these techniques don't work at all. That's my experience. Try it: use embedded commands. You will got no effect. Analogue marking doesn't work.
People would be rich by using these techniques when these techniques actually worked. They would be able to defeat ISIL by their 'Derren Brown-techniques. These techniques do not work.

Anchoring works, but there are many conditions in order to let it work. (the stimulus must be unique, the experience or state must be intense enough, the timing of anchoring must be just right, the anchor must be repeatable etc.)
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
No. I had a serious adverse moral reaction back when Dale Carnegie published How to Win Friends and Influence People. I have never recovered from my allergy to willful manipulation of others. It is one of the most evil things men can participate in and doubly so when victims are not cognitively equipped to spot the tricks.
Click to expand...

I didn't find anything bad in Carnegie's book. It seems like the most straightforward and credible of all the self-help books. (Not a high bar, but still...) It's mainly common sense with some psychology mixed in. Certainly nothing unethical, as far as I can see.
 
They do work. Using someone's name; eye contact, an open expression, body mirroring, attentiveness... lots of "techniques."

Even when they don't work as advertised on the victim, they can enhance the confidence of the user and influence the situation.

What I reject is the idea of doing this at all. Be honest and truthful and you don't need the shenanigans. In a word, be authentic. God save us from all the time wasted before the mask slips, before the makeup comes off, before the human emerges.

Are you not repulsed when you find yourself the object of a "technique?" To me, it reeks of the sociopath and triggers the natural revulsion of the uncanny valley. Check out the Brendan Dassey interview to see this crap "working."
 
Axiom_Blade said:
I didn't find anything bad in Carnegie's book. It seems like the most straightforward and credible of all the self-help books. (Not a high bar, but still...) It's mainly common sense with some psychology mixed in. Certainly nothing unethical, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can find a passage or two.

Here are a couple, mined from a quote site:
“Talk to someone about themselves and they'll listen for hours.”

“Actions speak louder than words, and a smile says, ‘I like you. You make me happy. I am glad to see you.”

Are these just context-free observations on the human condition, or are we to take the title seriously: How to Win Friends and Influence People? The goal of the book is in the title. It's an instruction manual for manipulating your fellow men.
 
Last edited:
Anchoring works as follows:

First: think about a state of mind (f.e being calm and relaxed)
Second: think about a stimulus like f.e. a unique sound by some unique instrument.
Thirth: use only that specific instrument and that specific sound just before you reach THE most intensive part of that specific state of mind.
Fourth: repeat the procedure a few times.
Fifth: when you 'activate the stimulus' (the anchor), the state of mind automatically comes up.

It's like pavlov conditioning, but with states of mind.

You can use music, a unique logo etc. The stimuli must be unique and timed just before the state. When the state is intense enough, the 'anchor' will cause the emotion in you.

Think about natural anchors in your own life: a flag and a hymn and a position of the body create a certain state of mind.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
I once followed a practitioner course in NLP in my homecountry, Belgium. From my own experience, some of these following models and techniques work:
Click to expand...

I'm pleased to see a thread resurrected from the glory days of the forum. A large number of sincere people participated. I miss many of the posters on this thread. I believe skeptical wisdom prevailed back then but if Maartenn100 wants to resurrect the arguments in favor of NLP my opinion on the subject hasn't changed. I would ask Maartenn to pick one topic like Anchoring and argue it isn't baloney.

I also have to say that Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" does not fall under manipulation woo. He relies on god and that will never appeal to me, but other things he recommends you do makes for better neighbors.
 
Senex said:
I also have to say that Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" does not fall under manipulation woo. He relies on god and that will never appeal to me, but other things he recommends you do makes for better neighbors.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but that sounds like manipulation to me.

Carnegie never understood the value of the truculent jerk. Maybe he had lousy Thanksgivings with the relatives.

"Happiness doesn't depend on any external conditions, it is governed by our mental attitude."

Mmmm... OK. And our mental attitude isn't based on external conditions? It damn well ought to be. Maybe old Dale is thinking of happy Negroes singing spirituals while they pick cotton in the blazing sun.

But my favorite bit of DC trivia?
"Perhaps one of Carnegie's most successful marketing moves was to change the spelling of his last name from "Carnagey" to Carnegie, at a time when Andrew Carnegie (unrelated) was a widely revered and recognized name." -- Wiki.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom