Yet more NLP BS

[Iknoweverything]

Don't encourage him. That wiki link made me laugh, though. I hadn't seen that one.

hah yes you have encouraged me. Much of the aggressive replies I got were not worth responding to. Especially from Senex, poor lad.

Everyone seems confident that they have "debunked" all of NLP so rather than argue any more I am happy to agree with you.

We now seem to be moving onto convert hypnosis. Rather than trying to debunk something can we attack this differently. I would like some help answering these questions instead.

How do people judge if they like someone more than someone else ?

IS there a skill of Persuasion, if there is how is this done ?

Enough with the aggressive negativity, I know i played a part in that to.

 

[JFrankA]

hah yes you have encouraged me. Much of the aggressive replies I got were not worth responding to. Especially from Senex, poor lad.

Everyone seems confident that they have "debunked" all of NLP so rather than argue any more I am happy to agree with you.

We now seem to be moving onto convert hypnosis. Rather than trying to debunk something can we attack this differently. I would like some help answering these questions instead.

How do people judge if they like someone more than someone else ?

IS there a skill of Persuasion, if there is how is this done ?

Enough with the aggressive negativity, I know i played a part in that to.

*sigh*

Again, hypnosis only works if the subject wants it to. That goes for ANY hypnosis: covert, blatant, or instant.

The only thing I find that works "hypnosis wise" is confusion. Now this my own anecdotal evidence and observations so take it for what it's worth.

In my humble opinion, and please feel free to correct me if you find evidence to the contrary, if you confuse someone enough, they won't be thinking critically. Most people thing critically a lot, but it's not hard to get someone to drop that train of thought. Confusion is the best way. If you get someone confused enough, they are concentrating on what they are confused about you can get in a suggestion in.

Now some people call this "talking to the subconscious" but I call it "confusing someone momentarily". Con men do it all the time and this is exactly what "covert hypnosis" is based upon. When someone says that one must "break the pattern of what someone is used to", to me it's nothing more than a complicated (confusing) way of saying "confuse them". Now I do believe that there are ways of confusing people or making people drop their "critical thinking". But even with that, the basis remains the same: It won't work if the person really doesn't want it to.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's say I decide to do a con on someone. I find a person, usually one who seems preoccupied, not sure of what to do, that sort of thing. I surprise him, tell him a story really quickly and a solution that he will benefit from. Now he's suddenly thrust into a situation that is totally unexpected and (if he heard it right and he thinks he did) will get something out of it. Couple with that the sense of urgency and *WHAM*. I have scammed him.

No NLP, no hypnosis, no convert hypnosis. What I had done was to play with is the person's desires, confuse him into making a snap decision. Sometimes one doesn't have to put a time element into it. Sometimes an awful lot of confidence and bluffing (what I call blustering) work just as well, if not better.

And see, Iknoweverything, that's what you are doing. Whether you are aware of it or not. Apparently you are, because you've already said that NLP is a placebo. If it's true that you are so successful with NLP, it's obvious you are aware that what you are doing is sheer confidence and blustering. Advertisements do it all the time. However, does it work 100%? Never. What's the big thing that all this can never, ever, ever, overcome? The person's true desire.

Now one may fool a person for a while, but, again, IMHO, their true desire will always come out. Always.

 

[Iknoweverything]

*sigh*

Again, hypnosis only works if the subject wants it to. That goes for ANY hypnosis: covert, blatant, or instant.

The only thing I find that works "hypnosis wise" is confusion. Now this my own anecdotal evidence and observations so take it for what it's worth.

In my humble opinion, and please feel free to correct me if you find evidence to the contrary, if you confuse someone enough, they won't be thinking critically. Most people thing critically a lot, but it's not hard to get someone to drop that train of thought. Confusion is the best way. If you get someone confused enough, they are concentrating on what they are confused about you can get in a suggestion in.

Now some people call this "talking to the subconscious" but I call it "confusing someone momentarily". Con men do it all the time and this is exactly what "covert hypnosis" is based upon. When someone says that one must "break the pattern of what someone is used to", to me it's nothing more than a complicated (confusing) way of saying "confuse them". Now I do believe that there are ways of confusing people or making people drop their "critical thinking". But even with that, the basis remains the same: It won't work if the person really doesn't want it to.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's say I decide to do a con on someone. I find a person, usually one who seems preoccupied, not sure of what to do, that sort of thing. I surprise him, tell him a story really quickly and a solution that he will benefit from. Now he's suddenly thrust into a situation that is totally unexpected and (if he heard it right and he thinks he did) will get something out of it. Couple with that the sense of urgency and *WHAM*. I have scammed him.

No NLP, no hypnosis, no convert hypnosis. What I had done was to play with is the person's desires, confuse him into making a snap decision. Sometimes one doesn't have to put a time element into it. Sometimes an awful lot of confidence and bluffing (what I call blustering) work just as well, if not better.

And see, Iknoweverything, that's what you are doing. Whether you are aware of it or not. Apparently you are, because you've already said that NLP is a placebo. If it's true that you are so successful with NLP, it's obvious you are aware that what you are doing is sheer confidence and blustering. Advertisements do it all the time. However, does it work 100%? Never. What's the big thing that all this can never, ever, ever, overcome? The person's true desire.

Now one may fool a person for a while, but, again, IMHO, their true desire will always come out. Always.

Cant see the point in the *sigh* apart from showing instant arrogance as usual.

I was looking for specific answers to my questions, not a lecture on what I already know.

 

[JFrankA]

Cant see the point in the *sigh* apart from showing instant arrogance as usual.

I was looking for specific answers to my questions, not a lecture on what I already know.

The *sigh* was not out of arrogance. It was out of sadness because of the number of times I repeat this. That's not arrogance and I'm sorry you saw it like that.

Also, it wasn't a lecture. I know I mentioned you at the end, but it was to point something out, not to reprimand you. Again, I'm sorry you saw it like that.

But you have just shown my point: you *chose* to see it that way. It was something you were looking for. I understand why you would, though.


And I did answer your question, the "IS there a skill of Persuasion, if there is how is this done ?" question. Maybe I was too wordy and I'll boil it down.

1. You cannot change a person's basic desires. No persuasion in the universe can change that.

2. It's possible that during a course of a conversation you may actually find another desire the subject has that she/he hasn't stated. A personal "hidden desire", if you will.

3. It's possible to bypass a person's "critical thinking" in order to persuade them to what you are thinking, but this is always temporary.

4. People have very active imaginations, desires and have critical thinking. The critical thinking, though, can be strong or weak depending on the person and the circumstances that person is presently in.

Methods:

1. It's possible to tap into that "hidden desire" or bypassing critical thinking temporarily by confusing a person.

2. It's possible to tap into that "hidden desire" or bypassing critical thinking temporarily by acting authoritative and using what I call "bluster". (Don't be offended, I use this every time I step onstage to perform hypnosis on people).

3. It's possible to tap into that "hidden desire" or bypassing critical thinking temporarily purely by accident.

(Please note that the "you" here is a general you and not specific to anyone reading this).

That's it. That's what any hypnosis is based upon, that's what NLP is based upon, that's what people who con others try to do, that's what advertisements try to do and they all use different means to this end. It doesn't always work and the same technique won't work for the same person all the time, etc.

It all comes to one basic thing: what the person desires. Period.

 

[Iknoweverything]

It all comes to one basic thing: what the person desires. Period.

That's great Jfranka i concur with what you say.

You mention People's imagination.

Like I have said, until people have a visual picture they are unable to build a desire for an outcome. This is what persuasion is, questions that you ask people can allow them to create pictures in there mind of desires they did not previously have. Specific questions from NLP/Ericson can give people the opportunity to consider desires they previously did not have an idea of. I whole hearty agree that you cannot get someone to agree to something they dont want to. BUT I do say again that if someone is in a state of limbo the right questions can help them see the desire. What I am saying is that its just another sales/communication technique. I cant see the different between this and any other form of communication.

It still leaves the question " is it more effective that a normal sales technique"

For me it has worked, for me I have had great success using nlp methods. Could I of achieved what I have without them ? I really have no idea. You probably will say yes.

If you looking to NLP to manipulate people against there will it cannot work. If your using NLP to make yourself a better person and have a structured communication tool then I "IN MY EXPERIENCE" have to say its good.

The question still remains. How do we judge someone and how do we decide if we like them better than another person. I am interested for other explanations rather than the NLP ones.

So how ?














My other question about how we judge others has still not been answered.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

How do people judge if they like someone more than someone else ?

Arbitrarily. Based on past experiences, prejudices and folk tales. Examples -- never trust a used car salesman, all Canadians are liars and people with narrow eyes are not to be trusted.

IS there a skill of Persuasion, if there is how is this done ?

There is no such single skill. There are techniques that sometimes work to convince people of something in non-rational ways but there does not appear to be a coherent theory and if there was NLP, is not it.

Example -- "Would you like fries with that?"

<snip>

 

[Iknoweverything]

Arbitrarily. Based on past experiences, prejudices and folk tales. Examples -- never trust a used car salesman, all Canadians are liars and people with narrow eyes are not to be trusted.

There is no such single skill. There are techniques that sometimes work to convince people of something in non-rational ways but there does not appear to be a coherent theory and if there was NLP, is not it.

Example -- "Would you like fries with that?"

Nice bit of comedy there Gord.

 

[JFrankA]

That's great Jfranka i concur with what you say.

You mention People's imagination.

Like I have said, until people have a visual picture they are unable to build a desire for an outcome.

Sorry, I disagree. People have desires all the time. However, sometimes they don't know what that desire is. Sometimes, they don't realize that they have a choice. It's not a question of goals. It's a question of what they want. And sometimes people act on what they want without quite knowing what it is. Haven't you ever done anything and said to yourself later, "why did I do that?"

There is no set formula. People do things. The things they do is of their choice, whether they know what that desire is or not, it is their choice.

This is what persuasion is, questions that you ask people can allow them to create pictures in there mind of desires they did not previously have. Specific questions from NLP/Ericson can give people the opportunity to consider desires they previously did not have an idea of.

Nope. Sorry, that's the NLP/Ericson definition. Persuasion is this:

1 a: the act or process or an instance of persuading b: a persuading argument c: the ability to persuade : persuasiveness
2: the condition of being persuaded
3 a: an opinion held with complete assurance b: a system of religious beliefs ; also : a group adhering to a particular system of beliefs
4: kind, sort

and the definition of Persuade is this:

1 : to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action
2 : to plead with : urge

This is completely different than what your definition is. One doesn't need to create pictures in a mind in order to "create desires". That is a salesman talking, no offense meant. A homeless guy can simply say to me "Give me a dollar, please" and I will give it to him. Where's the visual? How did he create a desire that I previously didn't have?

I whole hearty agree that you cannot get someone to agree to something they dont want to. BUT I do say again that if someone is in a state of limbo the right questions can help them see the desire.

"The desire". Who's desire? I'm sorry but that last statement still sounds like you feel like you can convince other people that YOUR desires are the ones they really have.

What I am saying is that its just another sales/communication technique. I cant see the different between this and any other form of communication.

Haven't you heard of simply telling the truth? No bells, no whistles, no tricks, no techniques. Just blunt out with it.

Misdirection, false or left out information, strong innuendo, leading questions, double meanings, mirroring, pacing, etc, are all meant to confuse a person to some degree. I've done sales a lot in my life and I was very good at it. I was taught all that stuff in order to make me a better sales person.

What worked best for me? Simply being honest. Letting the person make their own decision. Pure, simple, no tricks, no NLP, nothing. Just "here it is, and this is what it will do and this is what it won't do."

No amount of coercion, which is what sales techniques are really trying to do, will never change a person's mind for long. All these persuasion tricks that are being done are overblown ways of confusing a person long enough to drop their guard.

It still leaves the question " is it more effective that a normal sales technique"

For me it has worked, for me I have had great success using nlp methods.
Could I of achieved what I have without them ? I really have no idea. You probably will say yes.

Yes, because there are tons of sales people who've never put the letters NLP together and do well in sales. And sales isn't the only form of persuasion. There's discussions, like this one, teaching, hell, even asking your girlfriend where you two should go to dinner. All of that is some degree of persuasion and 90% of it there is no NLP going on.

If you looking to NLP to manipulate people against there will it cannot work.

I'm sorry, I don't believe you believe that fully on that. It's just my impression. No matter, though.

If your using NLP to make yourself a better person and have a structured communication tool then I "IN MY EXPERIENCE" have to say its good.

Here's the other thing: you've said yourself that NLP is a placebo. If it works "in your experience" for you then how can it if you know it's hooey?

To put it another way, if you know a sugar pill isn't curing your cold, why do you keep taking it and claiming it cured your cold?

The only logical answer is that you still believe it works....right?

Look, give yourself some credit, not the NLP. If you really are a successful salesman then its YOU who has done the work, not the NLP. By giving credit to the NLP you are taking away the success that you achieved from yourself.

No offense but it's the same thing I say to people who accomplish something and thank god or prayer or whatever for it. I tell them that they are taking their own accomplishment, their own hard work, their own credit away from themselves and giving it to something that doesn't exist.

Why would you do that?

The question still remains. How do we judge someone and how do we decide if we like them better than another person. I am interested for other explanations rather than the NLP ones.

So how ?

My other question about how we judge others has still not been answered.

You laughed at Gord's answer. It was the right one. I would add to his answer, for what it's worth, that most people take get a first impression of a person withing seventeen seconds of seeing them

In fact, I agree with Gord's answer completely, come to think of it.

Anyway, there are going to be some people who like you and don't know why and some people who like you and know why and some people who don't like you and don't know why and some people who don't like you and know why. That's the way life works. You are not going to get everyone to like you. It's a weird mishmash of why. There is no set "pattern" to make everyone like you.

However, from the claims of NLP followers and people who sell NLP instruction, they infer that with it, every one will like you.

 

[Lothario]

Haven't you heard of simply telling the truth? No bells, no whistles, no tricks, no techniques. Just blunt out with it.

Misdirection, false or left out information, strong innuendo, leading questions, double meanings, mirroring, pacing, etc, are all meant to confuse a person to some degree. I've done sales a lot in my life and I was very good at it. I was taught all that stuff in order to make me a better sales person.

What worked best for me? Simply being honest. Letting the person make their own decision. Pure, simple, no tricks, no NLP, nothing. Just "here it is, and this is what it will do and this is what it won't do."

No amount of coercion, which is what sales techniques are really trying to do, will never change a person's mind for long. All these persuasion tricks that are being done are overblown ways of confusing a person long enough to drop their guard.

Yeah, i agree with this.

The book that Senex recommended, Cialdini's Influence, is a pretty good resource on persuasion techniques. The funny thing is, these techniques have been used on me throughout my whole life and i never fell for them. Not once have i bought something that i didn't want to buy.
For instance, just the other day, two Jehova's witnesses were knocking at my door. I opened and said i was really busy so i didn't have the time to listen to them. Before i went inside, they asked me for my name and wrote it down. This is what Cialdini calls commitment and consistency. By giving them my name, it's like i've made a commitment to them. Of course the next time they show up, i'm going to dismiss them again or even worse, i'm not even going to open the door so that technique really didn't do them much good.

There are many theories about what we are looking for in a sexual partner. Some say we are looking for someone that resembles our mother/father, some say we are looking for people with symmetrical faces. Of course, in the end, nobody really knows. The same can be said about what makes other people like us. Even the most charismatic leaders in history weren't liked by everyone.

One thing that concerns me, and no one has provided an answer for it yet, is why are NLPers allowed to sell methods that are downright coercive? Even if it doesn't work, the fact that i am teaching men how to hypnotize women into bed or how to trick costumers into buying something they don't want is at the very least unethical. Not to mention that it probably fits into the definition of fraud.

 

[Iknoweverything]

Thanks for the reply Jfranka that was a great post.

 

[remirol]

One thing that concerns me, and no one has provided an answer for it yet, is why are NLPers allowed to sell methods that are downright coercive? Even if it doesn't work, the fact that i am teaching men how to hypnotize women into bed or how to trick costumers into buying something they don't want is at the very least unethical.

It says that the _purchasers_ are unethical, but if I sell you a magic whistle that I tell you will make people obey a single command, am I actually selling you anything coercive or useful? No. The only unethical thing I'm doing is selling you something that doesn't work as advertised; I'm taking your money and giving you nothing.

Not to mention that it probably fits into the definition of fraud.

NLP proponents and advocates spend a great deal of time being vague and equivocal, so as to provide plenty of "outs" that blame the purchaser when what they're selling fails to perform as advertised. In the above scenario, it's easy to find the fraud, and thus easy to prosecute; it's simple to blow a whistle, thus easy to test. In the NLP scenario, it's a lot harder to establsh fraud because the NLPers set everything up as super-complicated -- and as such, it's much easier for them to say "well, you just didn't use it right" when it fails (as it will).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Nice bit of comedy there Gord.

"Many a true word is said in jest."

Your response is even more humerous than my post.

You asked for answers and you got them. The fact that you cannot reply tells much about NLP and its True Believers.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

You laughed at Gord's answer. It was the right one. I would add to his answer, for what it's worth, that most people take get a first impression of a person withing seventeen seconds of seeing them

In fact, I agree with Gord's answer completely, come to think of it.

<snip>

Thanks. I was just trying to add a note of rationality to the discussion.

 

[Lothario]

It says that the _purchasers_ are unethical, but if I sell you a magic whistle that I tell you will make people obey a single command, am I actually selling you anything coercive or useful? No. The only unethical thing I'm doing is selling you something that doesn't work as advertised; I'm taking your money and giving you nothing.

That guy who sold the Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know book did some time in jail precisely because he was taking people's money and giving them nothing in return.
Let's say i sell you a rape drug that doesn't work. Ultimately there's no harm in doing so, because any girl who sleeps with you will do so because she wanted to and not because you spiked her drink. But don't you think that selling a rape drug is unethical, regardless of whether it works or not?

NLP proponents and advocates spend a great deal of time being vague and equivocal, so as to provide plenty of "outs" that blame the purchaser when what they're selling fails to perform as advertised. In the above scenario, it's easy to find the fraud, and thus easy to prosecute; it's simple to blow a whistle, thus easy to test. In the NLP scenario, it's a lot harder to establsh fraud because the NLPers set everything up as super-complicated -- and as such, it's much easier for them to say "well, you just didn't use it right" when it fails (as it will).

Yes, you have a point here. But i think it's possible. Take a couple of unbiased scientists, train them in NLP and run the tests. Then they won't have the common excuse "they didn't know enough about NLP".

 

[remirol]

That guy who sold the Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know book did some time in jail precisely because he was taking people's money and giving them nothing in return.

And he did time in jail because he was selling something _testable_ that didn't do anything, and foolishly made specific claims.

Let's say i sell you a rape drug that doesn't work. Ultimately there's no harm in doing so, because any girl who sleeps with you will do so because she wanted to and not because you spiked her drink. But don't you think that selling a rape drug is unethical, regardless of whether it works or not?

If it doesn't work, it's unethical because I'm committing fraud.
If it _does_ work, it's unethical because, well, you get the picture.

But it's unethical for different reasons, and the distinction is important.

Yes, you have a point here. But i think it's possible. Take a couple of unbiased scientists, train them in NLP and run the tests. Then they won't have the common excuse "they didn't know enough about NLP".

First: scientists are often fooled by con jobs more easily than other people.

Second: The excuse won't be that they didn't know enough, it's that they didn't use the techniques properly. NLP has carefully framed itself so that no objective test can be made of its merits; all results are judged subjectively. The creators will of course not participate in any test that might even come close to providing an objective assessment; look at how much evasion one of its proponents conducted in this thread when simply asked to specify which specific technique worked. (And, in fact, that same proponent even started in with the ad hominem "oh, you must not have done it right and you didn't have any success, that's why you don't like it").

It's very hard to get people for fraud who don't make specific claims about their product, or who make claims backed with a gazillion disclaimers. Look at Enzyte for an example; despite the fact that they have a straightforward, testable product, their actual _claims_ of what the product will do are sufficiently vague and weasel-worded that the recent legal action was not about fraud in the product itself... but about dishonest business practices (reusing credit card numbers, refusing to cancel, etc.)

 

[Toke]

I can´t help thinking of one evening in port where some female duty offices mentioned a british homepage with drug rapes where the victims are clearly snooring.
She asked if is could be considered rape as she* was clearly unaware of what was happening. I answered that it would be a really short discussition.

*The victim

It sound like what these guys are trying to sell.

 

[Lothario]

If it doesn't work, it's unethical because I'm committing fraud.
If it _does_ work, it's unethical because, well, you get the picture.

But it's unethical for different reasons, and the distinction is important.

It's also unethical because from the moment you sell a fraudy product that encourages men to put women on some sort of hypnotic trance in order to get them to bed, you are making way for an "anything goes" type of approach, and that was my point. If the hypnotic mumbo-jumbo doesn't work, it's only a short step to actual physical abuse.

I understand what you're saying about the possibility of scientific testing. NLPers will always refuse to accept it, but it will help dissipate the lack of information regarding NLP that i've seen around. Take a look at the comments on Derren Brown's videos in youtube. People believe that he's using NLP and that it's possible to manipulate a person just like that. Like i said, i also had some pretty interesting discussion with people who believe they had created sex slaves with these Speed Seduction language patterns (i could copy some posts from other forums here but i don't think the authors would be too happy about it).
I'm starting to think that the vast majority of people believe in this crap. Personally i must thank this forum for helping me clear whatever doubt i had.

 

[Lothario]

Also, there are two sections of that article i posted that i just don't understand.
This:

"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." (Seitz and Cohen 1992). Concerns have also been raised over NLP's use in “speed seduction” methods proposed by NLP proponents such as Ross Jeffries in that may encourage manipulation and coercion."

And this:

"Although the basic tenets of NLP have been proved by science to be incorrect and ineffective, concepts that NLP borrows from other areas, such as hypnosis, social psychology etc, are used to coerce cult members to do things that they would normally not do. Certain cults use borrowed techniques within NLP, in combination with the occult and pseudoscience to claim modern day miracles and induce dependence and compliance on the part of the cult’s victims. Borrowed hypnotic techniques within NLP are used by both mild cults and very aggressive cults to induce dependence on the cult, and to further provide conditioning to induce compliance within the cult (Langone, 1993).

The techniques used tend towards the drilling of guided imagery techniques that are designed to create suggestible circumstances for the mind so that the suggestions of the trainer/leader are instilled into the mind of the devotee or recruit. The Australian Report, on Scientology has banned the use of these techniques within cults and religions in Australia due to their ability to create unhealthy dissociative states and delusion within the subjects. Well trained psychologists even have to refer to the mind control aspects of NLP to help the victim recover from the NLP using cult. Fortunately, the ill effects of these techniques is restricted only to those individuals using them extensively on their own, or during workshops, seminars, and other recruitment venues."

 

[remirol]

It's also unethical because from the moment you sell a fraudy product that encourages men to put women on some sort of hypnotic trance in order to get them to bed, you are making way for an "anything goes" type of approach, and that was my point. If the hypnotic mumbo-jumbo doesn't work, it's only a short step to actual physical abuse.

I cannot agree. The type of person who is purchasing the hypothetical product above is _already_ that short step away from actual physical abuse; they wouldn't even be considering your product if they weren't already subscribed to the "anything goes" approach.

Put another way, your product isn't turning purchasers into bad people; they were bad people to begin with. If it wasn't your product, they'd find something else. (This is similar to people who proscribe the banning of alcohol as the 'cure' for alcoholism; it doesn't work. Some people have addictive personalities and will just find something else to wreck their life with.)

I understand what you're saying about the possibility of scientific testing. NLPers will always refuse to accept it, but it will help dissipate the lack of information regarding NLP that i've seen around.

You're handwaving over a lot of effort required here to actually design the tests properly -- and even then, when the methods are deniable by the NLPers, how productive will it be?

Part of the reason nobody's felt the need to do a study is because NLP hasn't really gained much ground except among single male losers on the Internet (the intended target market all along).

Take a look at the comments on Derren Brown's videos in youtube. People believe that he's using NLP and that it's possible to manipulate a person just like that.

Youtube comments should never be taken as _any_ indication of what the average person believes, simply because of the self-selecting (and bottom-scraping) nature of Youtube comments in the first place.

I'm starting to think that the vast majority of people believe in this crap.

Based on what, Youtube comments? Seriously, those things will give you a horrendously skewed and non-representative view of the world. I would consider your source for that information a lot more carefully.

 

[remirol]

Also, there are two sections of that article i posted that i just don't understand.
This:

"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." (Seitz and Cohen 1992). Concerns have also been raised over NLP's use in “speed seduction” methods proposed by NLP proponents such as Ross Jeffries in that may encourage manipulation and coercion."

Above paragraph incorrectly presumes that NLP works and also subscribes to the "gateway-drug" fallacy; ie. "pot is bad, we should ban pot because people will move on to heroin". Absolutely false, of course; this is a short version of what I outlined in my prior post.

"Although the basic tenets of NLP have been proved by science to be incorrect and ineffective, concepts that NLP borrows from other areas, such as hypnosis, social psychology etc, are used to coerce cult members to do things that they would normally not do. Certain cults use borrowed techniques within NLP, in combination with the occult and pseudoscience to claim modern day miracles and induce dependence and compliance on the part of the cult’s victims. Borrowed hypnotic techniques within NLP are used by both mild cults and very aggressive cults to induce dependence on the cult, and to further provide conditioning to induce compliance within the cult (Langone, 1993).

This is discussing cults as the primary problem, not NLP; cults spend a great deal of effort brainwashing their victims with many different techniques and are _much_ more dangerous than NLP, in my opinion. Also, this paragraph and the snipped one both deny the premise, in that they lead off saying 'NLP is ineffective' and then spend a great deal of time referencing NLP techniques as if they _were_, making the entire thing logically inconsistent and the conclusions discardable.