Yet more NLP BS

[JFrankA]

Question: is the theory of "reading eyes" a scientific theory, or did it originate with the NLP crowd? You know, if someone looks up to the left they are accessing their visual memories etc?

I don't know the specifics of the scientific study, but I think that this whole eye thing came from a psychological study before NLP was introduced. If I remember correctly, it was one of the ideas that the originators of NLP based it on. I'll check on that later.

Generally, the psychological theory states, if someone is right handed, looking to their left means that they are remembering something, looking to their right means they are imagining something. This is switched if the person is left-handed. The theory basis is from the left/right brain idea. That one hemisphere of the brain works on intelligence while the other works on emotion.

NLP goes on to say that not only is this true, but (basically) looking up means a visual memory (left for a right handed person) or imaging (right for a right handed person), straight is auditory, and downward right is feeling and emotions, downward left is kind of an internal dialog. And once again, left-handed people mirror this entire thing.

Of course, you're getting more subjective here. Not everyone does that. For example, I tend to stare straight ahead in one spot whether I am imaging or remembering, even in conversation. (Yeah, creepy huh? )

I think that this is something some people generally tend to do, but it's not foolproof at all. Not even NLPers say that this is 100% accurate.

 

[Lothario]

"The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support (Heap 1988) (Morgan, 1993) (Platt 2001). The assertion that matching PRS will increase rapport with the client has also been found to be false. Research has indicated that therapists who match their clients' language using techniques proposed within NLP were rated by the client and external observers as being untrustworthy and ineffective (Heap1988) (Morgan, 1993)".

I found this article that sums it up.
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/inextricablylinked/NLP.htm

 

[JFrankA]

"The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support (Heap 1988) (Morgan, 1993) (Platt 2001). The assertion that matching PRS will increase rapport with the client has also been found to be false. Research has indicated that therapists who match their clients' language using techniques proposed within NLP were rated by the client and external observers as being untrustworthy and ineffective (Heap1988) (Morgan, 1993)".

I found this article that sums it up.
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/inextricablylinked/NLP.htm

Wow. Thanks for the great article.

 

[remirol]

This is Jeffries doing his stuff - it's a video taken from a BBC show:

It could be faked.

Gee, ya think?

OK, that sounds a bit cynical. Let me point some things out though:

1) There's a camera and cameraman present. THERE IS A CAMERA PRESENT. And that woman doesn't look at the camera _once_ in the first minute of their "conversation", _or_ when the camera passes by beforehand. This is not how amateurs respond to a camera; they stare directly at it and ask questions about it, usually "what's the camera for" or "am i on TV?" That woman is a professional actress.
2) They are using her likeness on TV -- so where's the signed release? I'm not saying there wasn't one -- I'm saying there is _surely_ one. When you do things like this, you have to get a release, so we can also chalk that up as another mark against this being a "happenstance" meeting.

I could go on about the convenient guy who happens to stop to talk to the women _just_ before Ross is ready to do his 'demonstration' (showing Ross who to talk to), about how Ross has selected the filming location (making it easy to set something up and have a plant waiting beforehand), but really, it mostly just goes to show why Youtube "demos" aren't worth squat as evidence. It could be exactly what it appears to be, but -- I would bet money against it, and I certainly wouldn't take this as an example of NLP actually being effective; it's a test without any controls whatsoever, and GIGO applies in these circumstances.

 

[Moochie]

Remirol the reason I said this was not because of ego it was to gain an understanding of how your belief system manifests in your life.

I did respond with some things I said the internal questions you can ask yourself allow you to create better mental outcomes in your mind. Once you have good mental pictures in your mind you will act in congruence with that picture thus producing better results.

No need to be aggressive all the time mate we all are here to learn including me.

A New Guide To Rational Living (1975) by Ellis and Harper, and based on an earlier (1961) book teaches pretty much the same thing, only they don't call it NLP. And it's as rational as all get-out.

If something you've tried works for you then that is a good result. But I wouldn't be too hasty in apportioning the cause of your success to NLP. Perhaps something you read in the literature just helped unleash something in you that was there all the time? Proving cause and effect can be exceptionally difficult.


M.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"The assertion that a person has a PRS which can be determined by the direction of eye movements found even less support (Heap 1988) (Morgan, 1993) (Platt 2001). The assertion that matching PRS will increase rapport with the client has also been found to be false. Research has indicated that therapists who match their clients' language using techniques proposed within NLP were rated by the client and external observers as being untrustworthy and ineffective (Heap1988) (Morgan, 1993)".

I found this article that sums it up.
http://www.angelfire.com/art3/inextricablylinked/NLP.htm

Thanks for the article Lothario. I tried looking for something like this analysis a couple of weeks ago and could not find anything as complete or succinct.

The only error I see is that it blames NLP for expression "The map is not the territory", whereas it was coined by Alfred Korzybski, the inventor of General Semantics.

I find General Semantics to somewhat less wooish than NLP but, as with so many things in life, it is like the Curate's_egg^WP.

 

[Prometheus]

A New Guide To Rational Living (1975) by Ellis and Harper, and based on an earlier (1961) book teaches pretty much the same thing, only they don't call it NLP. And it's as rational as all get-out.

If something you've tried works for you then that is a good result. But I wouldn't be too hasty in apportioning the cause of your success to NLP. Perhaps something you read in the literature just helped unleash something in you that was there all the time? Proving cause and effect can be exceptionally difficult.


M.

About 10 years ago, someone showed me a print interview with Ross Jeffries which had him admitting that his NLP claims were bogus and what he really did was give guys a false sense of self-confidence. Can't remember which periodical it was in, though.

 

[Lothario]

The only error I see is that it blames NLP for expression "The map is not the territory", whereas it was coined by Alfred Korzybski, the inventor of General Semantics.

Read a little further, it's correct.

"All 3 were considered by Grinder and Bandler to be highly competent in their fields, and the patterns they detected in their therapy became the basis of NLP, along with influences from Korzybski and Bateson (who coined the NLP expressions "The map is not the territory", and "the difference that makes the difference", respectively)".

I just don't get this part:
"Ethical concerns of manipulation have also been voiced: “so long as the influenced party's outcome is achieved at the same time as the influencer, this is "influencing with integrity." However, "Achieving your own outcome at the expense of or even without regard for the other party constitutes manipulation. What makes this particular 'informed manipulation' so frightening is that people with these skills acquire such personal power that they are able to affect people deeply, and their capacity to misguide others is thereby increased to the point of evil."

On one hand, it doesn't work. On the other hand, it's an effective manipulation tool? Doesn't make any sense. Other than that, the article seems pretty solid.

About 10 years ago, someone showed me a print interview with Ross Jeffries which had him admitting that his NLP claims were bogus and what he really did was give guys a false sense of self-confidence. Can't remember which periodical it was in, though.

Really? I imagine all the guys who paid thousands of dollars to attend his seminars would be laughing their asses off if they knew they've been fed a placebo. Haha. Really funny.
If you find that periodical, let me know. I've had a couple of interesting discussions with people who strongly believed they had done some nasty stuff to women with Speed Seduction.

 

[Moochie]

About 10 years ago, someone showed me a print interview with Ross Jeffries which had him admitting that his NLP claims were bogus and what he really did was give guys a false sense of self-confidence. Can't remember which periodical it was in, though.

Unsurprising. Jeffries was running a business, after all, so had all the motivation necessary to sell it. I don't know whether it's native know-how or something else, but I recognized a long time ago that certain kinds of people characteristically undervalue themselves, and that if you can help them to "see" that, they would often become bolder in their self-expression. It's like, the quality and ability was there all the time, but somehow the brakes were applied even after any brakes were needed or necessary.

On the other hand, there seem to be certain kinds of people that have never learned to apply any brakes of any kinds. They're the ones that perplex me, and frighten me a little.


M.

 

[Moochie]

Read a little further, it's correct.

"All 3 were considered by Grinder and Bandler to be highly competent in their fields, and the patterns they detected in their therapy became the basis of NLP, along with influences from Korzybski and Bateson (who coined the NLP expressions "The map is not the territory", and "the difference that makes the difference", respectively)".

I just don't get this part:
"Ethical concerns of manipulation have also been voiced: “so long as the influenced party's outcome is achieved at the same time as the influencer, this is "influencing with integrity." However, "Achieving your own outcome at the expense of or even without regard for the other party constitutes manipulation. What makes this particular 'informed manipulation' so frightening is that people with these skills acquire such personal power that they are able to affect people deeply, and their capacity to misguide others is thereby increased to the point of evil."

On one hand, it doesn't work. On the other hand, it's an effective manipulation tool? Doesn't make any sense. Other than that, the article seems pretty solid.



Really? I imagine all the guys who paid thousands of dollars to attend his seminars would be laughing their asses off if they knew they've been fed a placebo. Haha. Really funny.
If you find that periodical, let me know. I've had a couple of interesting discussions with people who strongly believed they had done some nasty stuff to women with Speed Seduction.

The thing is, we're all influencing each other all the time, whether intentional or not; peer-group pressure doesn't stop during the teen years.


M.

 

[JFrankA]

The thing is, we're all influencing each other all the time, whether intentional or not; peer-group pressure doesn't stop during the teen years.


M.

That is true. We all do it without NLP everyday. But, in IMHO, the bottom line is always always always this: you cannont make someone do what they don't want to do.

.....unless you put a gun to their head or something....

 

[vIQleS]

How does a pseudo-scientific subject become a widespread business? Why are major companies sending their workers to NLP courses so they can learn all these rapport and influence techniques that don't even work?

The same way any business does. A certain percentage of the population have a natural talent for working hard, marketing, charisma etc (or all of the above).

These people would probably have become just as successful in any business or job...

 

[vIQleS]

That is a fair post remirol. I would spend 3 hrs of your life reading a nlp book that covers every aspect of it. Try some things out and see what parts of it you think are useful and what is utter bs. You may still be of the opionion that it is all BS. The only problem is if you attempt to learn anything with a preconception of BS i doubt you would have much luck as you would want things to fail. I spose you could describe some parts of NLP pure Placebo drivers and we know how powerful that is.

Translation:

"None of it works, but if any given person tries the techniques they may find that some of them appear to work.

I can't list them here though, as the techiniques which appear to work will vary from person to person."

Is that more or less what you were trying to say?

Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.

(Ogden nash?)

Willy Wonka...

 

[Moochie]

That is true. We all do it without NLP everyday. But, in IMHO, the bottom line is always always always this: you cannont make someone do what they don't want to do.

.....unless you put a gun to their head or something....

Sometimes peer pressure can seem like that.


M.

 

[JFrankA]

Sometimes peer pressure can seem like that.


M.

very true. In fact, peer pressure is a very helpful aid in my stage hypnosis shows...

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Read a little further, it's correct.

"All 3 were considered by Grinder and Bandler to be highly competent in their fields, and the patterns they detected in their therapy became the basis of NLP, along with influences from Korzybski and Bateson (who coined the NLP expressions "The map is not the territory", and "the difference that makes the difference", respectively)".

<snip>

Ha. My bad. Either I read slower or think faster.

 

[MikeSun5]

What about a 500k contract as an example? a contract that the customer could take from any three of the company sales people. Who is he most likely to buy from if they all offer the same level of service ?. Through my experience it would be the person who they get on best with, the person they feel they can trust, the person that makes them feel good.

...all of which can be achieved without using NLP techniques...

How is that achieved ? is that just natural are we just programmed a certain way and that’s it ? I don’t believe that for a second.

Are you JOKING??? That's the ENTIRE concept of NLP!!! According to NLP's nonsense literature, we ARE programmed a certain way, and if you practice NLP like you say you do, you must certainly belive that. For a second. Either that or you're misleading this thread just like you are your "clients."

My whole point is that everyone is "programmed" different. Therefore, NLP can't possibly work as general techniques applied to everyone. NLP works by the power of suggestion, just like homeopathy. If a person isn't aware that NLP is being "used" on them, it won't work.

Surely human interaction is more “scientific” than that ? how else can we judge if we like someone or not? Isn’t it based on the way they speak, act and look?

Exactly. It has nothing to do with watching eye movements, breathing cues, subtle body language, "establishing a PRS," etc. Maybe a scratch on the nose is simply a scratch on the nose, but an NLP practitioner will see deception or avoidance of the subject. Speech patterns and eye movements are as arbitrary as shirt color when it comes to creating rapport with someone.

Here is where NLP or what I consider in my learning experience as NLP is good.
Its about asking your mind what is possible. Once you give it the chance to create new outcomes it will be more likely to spot signs and opportunities congruent with the mental goals/outcomes you have in mind. If you are not focused on the positive outcomes you may be more likely to see negative signs thus putting you into a negative doubtful state and acting in accordance with those perceptions...
...I make no Scientific claim within this text nor do I make any claim at at all. I am just telling you what works for me....

Ahh, perfect! Try this:
Take this entire quoted section and replace the term "NLP" with a term like "homeopathy," "magic crystals," or "Miracle Spring Water." Any number of them will do, and they'll all fit perfectly.
It's all in your MIND! You said it yourself!
Iknoweverything (and other NLP believers) just need to keep talking to thoroughly demolish NLP. That last post was a doozy!

 

[Iknoweverything]

I asked a question and you never helped with it you just spouted aggressive assumptions

...all of which can be achieved without using NLP techniques..

REALLY ?? Oh my you are a ray of enlightenment ! I never would of thought that was true lol

Are you JOKING??? That's the ENTIRE concept of NLP!!! According to NLP's nonsense literature, we ARE programmed a certain way, and if you practice NLP like you say you do, you must certainly belive that. For a second. Either that or you're misleading this thread just like you are your "clients.

ARE YOU DEMENTED PERHAPS, I was asking the question rather than making a statement for me to answer. Blame my grammar and your aggressive output method. I suggest exercise

Exactly. It has nothing to do with watching eye movements, breathing cues, subtle body language, "establishing a PRS," etc. Maybe a scratch on the nose is simply a scratch on the nose, but an NLP practitioner will see deception or avoidance of the subject. Speech patterns and eye movements are as arbitrary as shirt color when it comes to creating rapport with someone.

Are you able to answer the question instead of talking negative bull ? that would be more helpful. I asked how does it work, how does a person judge another, what is the mechanism

Ahh, perfect! Try this:
Take this entire quoted section and replace the term "NLP" with a term like "homeopathy," "magic crystals," or "Miracle Spring Water." Any number of them will do, and they'll all fit perfectly.
It's all in your MIND! You said it yourself!
Iknoweverything (and other NLP believers) just need to keep talking to thoroughly demolish NLP. That last post was a doozy!

This is your best sentence so far. You FINALLY understand it. Shame about the continual arrogant aggressive attitude but of COURSE I SAID IT MYSELF. You understand it, but I am still sure you don't get it

 

[Iknoweverything]

Hang on Mike I think I am getting it now, you attempted to get girls using special NLP patterns and you got nothing "as usual". As you were unable to get some action using these secret NLP speech patterns your frustration built, you saw other guys with all the girls and you kept on getting nothing. Now your frustration has reached boiling point and it all has to come out on here. Its ok my friend

 

[Lothario]

This is your best sentence so far. You FINALLY understand it. Shame about the continual arrogant aggressive attitude but of COURSE I SAID IT MYSELF. You understand it, but I am still sure you don't get it

So you've spent all this time trying to convince us NLP isn't just woo and now you admit it's just a placebo? Drinking your own urine can be a placebo too if you believe in it. The fact that NLP can have a placebo effect doesn't make it any good.