Yet more NLP BS

[JFrankA]

Remirol has it right.

Cult brainwashing techniques are far more dangerous, and I'm talking about the extreme ones, do far more than just "speech patterning" and "brain interrupt". They go further including techniques such as sleep and nutrition deprivation, verbal abuse, peer pressure, removal of privacy, etc. Very very different and much more physical and intensive than NLP or hypnosis could ever be.

Now mix hypnosis and/or NLP techniques with real brainwashing techniques such as sleep and nutrition deprivation, physical punishiments, verbal abuse, peer pressure, removal of privacy, and the rest and you could create a sex slave. But this is very illegal, very unethical and damages the subject terribly.

But there is no way, not any way at all that simple NLP and hypnosis can create a sex slave unless the subject really wants to. The subject has, at any time, the physical and mental ability to "break" it.

Now what Derren Brown does is a trick. He's a magician. I didn't see the youtube clip in question, but I know that Derren Brown says at the beginning of each show or performance that what he does is a trick. He gets into more detail than that, but everything he describes is what a magician does.

 

[Lothario]

I figured it out. It's a misquote from the book by Langone. What he says is:

"Cults are often keen to use the new age notions 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. The NLP terms applied within cults are not so much persuasive on their own, but they support the beliefs promoted by the cult, and set up ambiguities necessary to excuse the cult organizers for their actions, further incriminating (and committing) the participants within the cult."

 

[remirol]

I figured it out. It's a misquote from the book by Langone. ...

That makes a lot more sense, yeah.

 

[Lothario]

That was fast Remirol

The reference to hypnotic techniques used by NLP seems to be correct, but i agree with JFrankA: it's hypnosis combined with way more powerful techniques

 

[JFrankA]

That was fast Remirol

The reference to hypnotic techniques used by NLP seems to be correct, but i agree with JFrankA: it's hypnosis combined with way more powerful techniques

Here's a pretty good video (and actually funny video considering the topic) explaining the process...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E

 

[Moochie]

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.

In my own experience, early experimentation with pot led to a lifelong liking for vodka.

Just thought I'd share.


M.

 

[JFrankA]

Actually, here's another video that explains how our decisions can be skewed.

Notice, however, he doesn't explain how the decisions are controlled by someone else, but how we make descions based on the information provided to a person. A very big difference indeed.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

 

[Lothario]

Actually, here's another video that explains how our decisions can be skewed.

Notice, however, he doesn't explain how the decisions are controlled by someone else, but how we make descions based on the information provided to a person. A very big difference indeed.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

Good video. I hadn't watched that particular one but was familiar with the website.

One last question. You've compared hypnosis to going out to the movies, when your imagination is active and you are focuing on what is going on. I've read some of RJ's speech patterns and most of them include vivid descriptions of what it's like to fall in love, etc etc etc.
Is it possible that by giving someone a detailed description full or rich language they will enter some sort of mild hypnotic state, willingly?

 

[JFrankA]

Good video. I hadn't watched that particular one but was familiar with the website.

One last question. You've compared hypnosis to going out to the movies, when your imagination is active and you are focuing on what is going on. I've read some of RJ's speech patterns and most of them include vivid descriptions of what it's like to fall in love, etc etc etc.
Is it possible that by giving someone a detailed description full or rich language they will enter some sort of mild hypnotic state, willingly?

The "willingly" is the key.

All hypnosis really is, is this: desire of the subject, focus of the subject, imagination of the subject, and the language ability of the hypnotist to make suggestions.

Notice that most of the contents of hypnosis is from the subject. Not the hypnotist.

This is why hypnosis works when I perform my shows: these people want a show, they are focused on what I am saying, they are imagining the fun they are going to have and are able to imagine what I ask them to. Since they are feeling that way, they are open to what I throw at them. And remember, even with that in place, I still have to whittle the participants down to the ones who are the most focused, most willing and most imaginative. As an example, when do a show for a party, I usually do two shows with the same audience. The first show I whittle the volunteers down to a few stage participants. The second show, though, I always end up with more participants on stage. Why? Several reasons. More drinking occurs, for one. But one of the reasons is that the people who participated in the first show always tell the others who weren't on stage how good they feel and how much fun they had.

Also remember that hypnosis is basically something we do everyday. We read a book, we listen to a lecture, we watch a movie, we get involved in our school work, we even read a posting on a forum. So definitely it is possible to enter a "trance", for lack of a better word, with vivid language. However, it's not unusual and does not stop the will of the subject.

See, you're doing it right now. You would be doing it even if you are reading a post from someone who is flaming you. The point is, YOU are choosing to focus on it. YOU choose to react to it the way YOU want to to the language that you are reading. So at any time, you can choose to keep reading this post, or decide if I'm full of **** and close it before finishing it, or even respond with "You're full of ****!!!" The language transfers a thought, but in the end you choose to respond however you respond to that language.

The bottom line is that the whole hypnosis thing is not an unusual "state of mind". And language, especially well crafted language, will recreate that state but...only if the recipient is willing to.

The only except, IMHO is if you confuse the recipient. Confusion is the only thing that bypasses the "critical thinking" that we are always doing. But as I said before, you have to be quick. After a person is either ignores the confusion or figures it out, their will comes back in spades.

.....I hope I clearly answered your question. Sorry, I tend to get kind of wordy.....

 

[Lothario]

.....I hope I clearly answered your question. Sorry, I tend to get kind of wordy.....

Thanks for the great post.

I understand what you mean. For instance, when i read a book or watch a movie, yes i do become focused and tend to ignore what's going on around me. But i don't feel the same the character of the movie is feeling. I'm just focused because i find the movie interesting. I don't even know if you could say i'm in an "altered state".
Can a description of a state (let's say happiness or arousal) provoke that state on the person you are talking to if you use hypnotic language (pauses, tonality, etc), even it if depends on the other person's will?

EDIT: You already answered that, sorry. So basically if the subject wants it to there is a chance it could work?

 

[Senex]

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

I missed this earlier. You know something about mentalism yet believe in NLP? You have a degree in psychology and believe in swish? It's much more likely that you watched a few mentalists and bought into their misdirection NLP explanations. You can't actually perform mentalism yourself can you? You just haven't chosen to use your Jedi NLP tricks for amusement. You are such a sucker for mentalist misdirection.

What do you know about mentalism? What effects were you thinking of when you said you know about mentalism?

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

I'm a poor lad? That puts you in poverty my friend.

Put the poor lad in his place. Please share what you know about mentalism and how NLP plays a part. I dare you. I double dare you.

Not replying means I win!

 

[Rogue1stclass]

All I wanna say is that is that read like 4 pages wondering what NLP is before I finally googled it.

Neuro-linguistic program, which is an attempt to tap into the brain's instinctual programing to get people to like you, or something.

If it actually worked, using it to pick up chicks at a bar would be like using a shotgun to kill roaches, so it's a good thing that at best it's just hamhanded and simplistic pseudoscience.

Any results you may receive using such an approach are strickly coincidental.

 

[Senex]

In my own experience, early experimentation with pot led to a lifelong liking for vodka.

Just thought I'd share.
M.

That's been my experience as well.

All I wanna say is that is that read like 4 pages wondering what NLP is before I finally googled it.

Neuro-linguistic program, which is an attempt to tap into the brain's instinctual programing to get people to like you, or something.

If it actually worked, using it to pick up chicks at a bar would be like using a shotgun to kill roaches, so it's a good thing that at best it's just hamhanded and simplistic pseudoscience.

Any results you may receive using such an approach are strickly coincidental.

Thanks for googling NLP and putting the thread back on topic.The OP is about NLP not cults. I think your metaphor about killing roaches is wrong for many reasons. Let's just say NLP doesn't work.

 

[Lothario]

Any results you may receive using such an approach are strickly coincidental.

Most likely. But i think it's curious how i've seen doctors and other people who should be men of science believing and using NLP.

That's been my experience as well. .

I've never tried pot and have no desire of doing so but if you guys want to share a bottle of vodka, i'm in. Or scotch. Ok, i'll drink just about anything that has alcohol in it .

Let's just say NLP doesn't work.

Since nobody's presented any viable arguments in favor of NLP so far, i think you can say that. Honestly i hope we are right, because like remirol said, if it did work, it would raise some interesting legal and social questions about the use of NLP

 

[JFrankA]

Since nobody's presented any viable arguments in favor of NLP so far, i think you can say that. Honestly i hope we are right, because like remirol said, if it did work, it would raise some interesting legal and social questions about the use of NLP

If it did work, we would have much more than just forcing a person to go to bed with you. Advertisers, policticians, etc would use it so that they would get you to think the way they want you to.

Come to think of it, a lot of them relly do try it.

...doesn't work all that well do it?

Otherwise everyone would have one kind of butter, paper towels, agree completely on the same issues...etc.. not because the product was good, but because the commerical was good. Don't know about you but, for example, I used to ask mom to buy only Peter Pan Peanut Butter even though I HATE their old commericals and logo because I like the taste of it better than other brands.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Most likely. But i think it's curious how i've seen doctors and other people who should be men of science believing and using NLP.

Men of science also bought into Eugenics. It still doesn't mean that you can weed out bad traits in humans via selective breeding. Genetics are too complex for that. Bad traits will still cross over and intensify, and some new ones will end up being created.

NLP is like that. Sure, there may be instinctual triggers in the human mind, but to think that they would work as a kind of secret override switch for conscious thought is vastly oversimplifying an extremely complex issue.

My point is, regardless of their profession, men of science can be just as gullible as the rest of us. Perhaps more so if there is just enough real science as to make it sound credible.

 

[Lothario]

Yeah, but what put me off in this case is the sheer amount of testimonial evidence i found around. Yes, it's possible that their sucess using NLP or hypnosis or whatever was merely a coincidence. But shouldn't they KNOW it was just a coincidence?
How do these guys mantain sucessful businesses that just don't work for decades? It's strange... If you try acupuncture, you may not know if it did any good to you or not. But with a product like this, there shouldn't be much doubt. Either you pick up chicks/ improve in sales or it just doesn't work. How can you be mislead to believe you created a sex slave using NLP?
I can PM you some posts i ran across just so you can see how much these people believe in it.

 

[remirol]

Yeah, but what put me off in this case is the sheer amount of testimonial evidence i found around.

Testimonial evidence is all-too-often partly or completely fabricated. Take IKE's "brag" post earlier; how much of it's true? How much of it is verifiable? Would the answers to the previous two questions change even if he had posted under his real name? Under a real-seeming name ("Frederick Chalmers")? *

In the end, that's all testimonials are -- an anonymous name attached to a completely unverifiable positive statement. (After all, nobody will publish testimonials that are unflattering, right?)

* Answers to the above:
1. No way to tell. 2. None of it. 3. No. 4. No.

 

[Lothario]

Testimonial evidence is all-too-often partly or completely fabricated. Take IKE's "brag" post earlier; how much of it's true? How much of it is verifiable? Would the answers to the previous two questions change even if he had posted under his real name? Under a real-seeming name ("Frederick Chalmers")? *

In the end, that's all testimonials are -- an anonymous name attached to a completely unverifiable positive statement. (After all, nobody will publish testimonials that are unflattering, right?)

* Answers to the above:
1. No way to tell. 2. None of it. 3. No. 4. No.

I mean testimonies of people i have actually talked to and who are not (i have no reason to believe so anyway) affiliated with any NLP guru.
Like i said, i can PM some posts if you want to see for yourself.

Obviously, the John Does at their websites count for absolutely nothing.

 

[remirol]

I mean testimonies of people i have actually talked to and who are not (i have no reason to believe so anyway) affiliated with any NLP guru.

How are these people different from the person in my above post posting under his real name? In other words, why do you have any reason to trust anything they say about NLP? How much of their story can you verify?