Yet more NLP BS

[remirol]

Intended by who?

What leads you to that conclusion?

By the person attempting to use NLP techniques, of course. Or the "transmitter", whatever you want to call him.

And what leads me to that conclusion is very simple -- the entire point of NLP is identical to the idea behind "subliminal advertising" (outlawed, I might note). It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

After all, why would you use NLP if it was as simple as saying "Hey, do you want to do X?" and the other person responds "Sure, let's do X!"? Everything about NLP involves hiding what the "transmitter" is attempting to do -- and the only reason to do that is to prevent the "receiver" from saying "no" in some fashion.

But words are _symbols_, labels which we each use to describe aspects of our _subjective_ experience.

That doesn't mean that the meaning of those symbols isn't objective. In fact, if the symbols themselves weren't objective, language itself wouldn't exist. It is imperative for there to be a common framework for any communication to occur, and it is further imperative that any communicator use the symbols correctly if they wish to be understood.

Intentionally misusing the objective symbols is a form of deception.

 

[microdot]

And what leads me to that conclusion is very simple -- the entire point of NLP is identical to the idea behind "subliminal advertising" (outlawed, I might note). It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

After all, why would you use NLP if it was as simple as saying "Hey, do you want to do X?" and the other person responds "Sure, let's do X!"? Everything about NLP involves hiding what the "transmitter" is attempting to do -- and the only reason to do that is to prevent the "receiver" from saying "no" in some fashion.

Not according to the books I've read.

In fact, if the symbols themselves weren't objective, language itself wouldn't exist.

And if the symbols themselves were _entirely_ objective the question "What specifically did you mean when you said x? Would never arise.

Intentionally misusing the objective symbols is a form of deception.

Agreed.

 

[remirol]

Not according to the books I've read.

I would expect the snake oil salesmen to be less than truthful about their product, yes.

But, to be fair: how do _you_ believe NLP is supposed to work, according to those same books?

And if the symbols themselves were _entirely_ objective the question "What specifically did you mean when you said x? Would never arise.

Very little is perfect -- but that doesn't change that the symbols themselves are intended to be objective, not subjective. Besides, that particular question often isn't so much a request for clarification for the requester's sake as it is for the observers' sakes.

 

[microdot]

Very little is perfect -- but that doesn't change that the symbols themselves are intended to be objective, not subjective.

Yes, as you say, they are _intended_ to be objective and what's _intended_ and what actually happens are not always the same thing.

As I said earlier, I had to go and look up a dictionary definition of one of the words that you used in order to try to arrive at an _objective_ appreciation of the meaning of that word.

One of the problems with this is that the supposedly objective meaning of that word will vary depending on which dictionary I read, the context in which the word is used and who is using it (not an exhaustive list of variables).

Besides, that particular question often isn't so much a request for clarification for the requester's sake as it is for the observers' sakes.

Couldn't quite grasp what you were getting at here - could I ask you to expand a little?

(almost asked if you could clarify what you mean and then realised that might seem flippant)

 

[remirol]

I would expect the snake oil salesmen to be less than truthful about their product, yes.

But, to be fair: how do _you_ believe NLP is supposed to work, according to those same books?

You missed this, BTW, and I'm not going to let it go quite so easily.

Yes, as you say, they are _intended_ to be objective and what's _intended_ and what actually happens are not always the same thing.

Of course. Sometimes people are misusing words because they don't know any better. And sometimes, they're misusing words because they _do_.

Either way, the misuse should be corrected, not handwaved away as "subjective".

Couldn't quite grasp what you were getting at here - could I ask you to expand a little?

If I think someone is being intentionally vague, evasive, or otherwise trying to hide what they really mean, I will often attempt to draw that person out and encourage them to expand on their original thought, in the guise of asking for clarification. This is because people are more likely to tell the truth when they're not already on the defensive, and not incidentally prevents the whole 'strawman' dodge, since I can then point to their words and say "But you said 'X', right here."

This also makes it far more simple to demonstrate anything necessary to any observers. (Details obviously depend on what's being discussed, but someone's own words are typically far more useful than trying to read their mind.)

 

[microdot]

Originally Posted by remirol
I would expect the snake oil salesmen to be less than truthful about their product, yes.

But, to be fair: how do _you_ believe NLP is supposed to work, according to those same books?
You missed this, BTW, and I'm not going to let it go quite so easily.

LOL

Did you assume that I'd missed it because I didn't respond to it immediately?

I didn't miss it and I will respond to it when I have more time to think clearly (just got home from work and have a list of chores to attend to).

If I think someone is being intentionally vague, evasive, or otherwise trying to hide what they really mean, I will often attempt to draw that person out and encourage them to expand on their original thought, in the guise of asking for clarification. This is because people are more likely to tell the truth when they're not already on the defensive, and not incidentally prevents the whole 'strawman' dodge, since I can then point to their words and say "But you said 'X', right here."

This also makes it far more simple to demonstrate anything necessary to any observers. (Details obviously depend on what's being discussed, but someone's own words are typically far more useful than trying to read their mind.)

Thanks for that clarification - I think I understand better what you were getting at.

Back soon.....

 

[remirol]

Did you assume that I'd missed it because I didn't respond to it immediately?

No -- because you both didn't respond and didn't say something like the below...

I didn't miss it and I will respond to it when I have more time to think clearly (just got home from work and have a list of chores to attend to).

OK, that's fair enough. I can wait.

Just as a point of information -- people on the JREF are probably more sensitive to direct questions that get "missed", simply because there's a lot of it that goes on, especially in some of the more controversial forums. It's probably a good idea to at least say "I'll get back to this" when you're going to respond to something later, if only to head off the suspicious sorts. Like me!

 

[microdot]

Just as a point of information -- people on the JREF are probably more sensitive to direct questions that get "missed", simply because there's a lot of it that goes on, especially in some of the more controversial forums. It's probably a good idea to at least say "I'll get back to this" when you're going to respond to something later, if only to head off the suspicious sorts. Like me!

OK. Fair point. Seems reasonable. I'll bear that in mind

But, to be fair: how do _you_ believe NLP is supposed to work, according to those same books?

IMO NLP is a fairly broad topic comprising a number of connected but different subjects which cannot be explained (encapsulated?) in a few short paragraphs.

For clarity though and to _hopefully_ facilitate further healthy debate I'm going to try to respond to this in as clear and concise a manner as I can.

For that reason this post may appear fairly broad-brush and that's a description I'd be comfortable with.

Remember that I'm expessing _my opinions_ based on the materials I've been studying for the past 12 months or so.

My top down or helicopter view is that NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.

Furthermore it is my view that people can use these models to study and enhance their own behaviour(s), make their communication with other people more effective and assist other people to do the same.

A specific example of one of these models is the NLP Communication Model which deals specifically with the subjectivity of human experience arising out of our use of our 5 senses (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory and Gustatory or our senses of sight, hearing, feeling, smell and taste if you prefer) to gather information from the outside world.

Any questions?

 

[JFrankA]

IMO NLP is a fairly broad topic comprising a number of connected but different subjects which cannot be explained (encapsulated?) in a few short paragraphs.

For clarity though and to _hopefully_ facilitate further healthy debate I'm going to try to respond to this in as clear and concise a manner as I can.

For that reason this post may appear fairly broad-brush and that's a description I'd be comfortable with.

Remember that I'm expessing _my opinions_ based on the materials I've been studying for the past 12 months or so.

If I may interject, that is very fair. (I'm kinda hesitant to interject because both you and Remirol are discussing this beautifully, IMHO.)

My top down or helicopter view is that NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.

Furthermore it is my view that people can use these models to study and enhance their own behaviour(s), make their communication with other people more effective and assist other people to do the same.

A specific example of one of these models is the NLP Communication Model which deals specifically with the subjectivity of human experience arising out of our use of our 5 senses (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory and Gustatory or our senses of sight, hearing, feeling, smell and taste if you prefer) to gather information from the outside world.

Any questions?

I would agree you, but there is one thing I would add. I think NLP supposed to be all you've said, but not only to communicate with others but to manipulate (suggest, command, inspire, etc) that other person.

 

[MikeSun5]

positive results

Exactly.

...I should have typed the appearance of positive results. DB is a conjurer/illusionist as well as a clever bastard. Sometimes things aren't as they seem.

It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

Like it or not, this is an accurate representation of what NLP claims. Some of the "changeable" things claimed on microdot's page (the bits in bold), are things that a lot of people don't have much control over. It can be extremely difficult for some people to change certain behaviors, and this is what NLP claims it can do. Beliefs, fears, cravings, and addictions are things that most people have trouble changing, so NLP looks like a good product. The problem is there's no scientific evidence that shows NLP is any more of an effective treatment than say, crystal therapy.

For example, the method described in microdot's Swish Pattern article is no different from having someone lie on a couch, press a piece of blue quartz to their temple, and transfer the pizza cravings from their psyche to the crystal, then smash it with a hammer. Both methods may or may not work.
It's that 50/50 chance that gives NLP sellers their convenient way out (a standard in New Age woo). If it works, NLP gets a win. If it doesn't, you probably did it wrong and you should maybe try again. Or buy another book.

microdot's site says that "Swish patterns usually become fully automated after 3, 7, or 21 repetitions."
Hey, if at first you don't succeed...

NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.

...and since everyone is different, the collection can't be universal or even mostly accurate. That's why NLP yeilds a success rate that's pretty much consistent with guessing.

Furthermore it is my view that people can use these models to study and enhance their own behaviour(s), make their communication with other people more effective and assist other people to do the same.

If we ignore NLP's claims of changing (or enhancing) behavior, and just go with increasing effective communication, it's still hard to buy. What is the point of a "collection of models of human behavior" when none can apply to everyone? NLP is supposed to give you an advantage in rapport and communication, but since everyone is different, a big list of the ways people act will leave you at square one anyway.

Besides, if NLP is all about subjective experience, what's all the business with reading body language and physical behavior? Doesn't make much sense...

 

[remirol]

IMO NLP is a fairly broad topic comprising a number of connected but different subjects which cannot be explained (encapsulated?) in a few short paragraphs.
...
My top down or helicopter view is that NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.

OK, that seems straightforward enough. (It's probably safe to just say "impression" or "opinion", by the way, rather than adding BidnessBuzzwords in on the front -- but this is just me nitpicking; I hear a lot of that every day and spend a lot of time cutting through it. )

Furthermore it is my view that people can use these models to study and enhance their own behaviour(s),

What enhancements can it provide?

make their communication with other people more effective and assist other people to do the same.

Effective in what way?

A specific example of one of these models is the NLP Communication Model which deals specifically with the subjectivity of human experience arising out of our use of our 5 senses (Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory and Gustatory or our senses of sight, hearing, feeling, smell and taste if you prefer) to gather information from the outside world.

Currently, I'm unaware of any other way to gather information from the outside world via any means _other_ than our five senses, so this isn't entirely earth-shattering new ground we're covering here -- and by definition what's inside a person's head is subjective to that person.

What exactly does this model consist of, again? I can't help but think that it's just a lot of fancy words all wrapping up a very simple concept, which is that "we experience the world through our five senses, and everyone will experience the world differently."

Any questions?

Of course.

 

[microdot]

What, no hail of bullets?

It's probably safe to just say "impression" or "opinion", by the way, rather than adding BidnessBuzzwords in on the front

I was merely trying to illustrate that the post would not be very detailed and IMO most people undertand metaphors like the ones I used. Sorry if it sounded like Buzzwords - not intented.

This post also is intended as an easily digestible chunk rather than a very detailed description.

What enhancements can it provide?

In a broad sense again the general idea is that you take 'problem' or limiting behaviours i.e. those which consistently prevent you from achieving objectives efficiently and effectively and modify those behaviours or replace them with new, more effective behaviours.

Effective in what way?

Various.

The Meta Model for example can be used to gain specificity in communication (what you might refer to as concrete terms)

The appreciation that your model of the world differs from the model of the person your communicating with (your individual subjective experiences will differ if you prefer) can oil the wheels of communication i.e. seek first to understand then to be understood rather than simply and quickly getting frustrated when the communication isn't going well).

To quote something from personal experience I realise that some of the various scientific studies mentioned in this thread found little support for Primary/Prefeferred Representational Systems but I _know_ that I'm primarily Visual and I _know_ I'm a terrible listener.

I apply this experience to assist me in communicating better i.e. where evidence suggests that the person I'm communicating with works well with visual material then I'll focus on using that mechanism and generally find that the communication is more effective and efficient for it. With people who like to describe things in detail, rather than doing, say, a sketch I make an extra effort to listen very carefully to what they are saying, take notes of salient points and use Meta Model questions to gather more specific detail where appropriate.

Currently, I'm unaware of any other way to gather information from the outside world via any means _other_ than our five senses, so this isn't entirely earth-shattering new ground we're covering here -- and by definition what's inside a person's head is subjective to that person.

I agree - nothing earth-shattering about it - and I'm really glad that you've said that as - to quote from the Presuppositions of NLP

--- snip --

All distinctions human beings are able to make concerning our environment and our behaviour can be usefully represented through the visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory senses.

--- snip ---

What exactly does this model consist of, again? I can't help but think that it's just a lot of fancy words all wrapping up a very simple concept, which is that "we experience the world through our five senses, and everyone will experience the world differently."

You've largely summed up the first two of the three parts of the model but many people don't even (or don't appear to) appreciate that simple fact - that we do all see the world differently. This in itself can lead to the protraction and ultimately the break-down of communications, particularly where processes such as negotiation are involved.

The second part postulates that between the point at which the data first enters through our five senses and the point at which it is stored in the brain the incoming data passes through a number of filters which distort, delete and generalise the data.

The third and final part of the model postulates that our Internal Representations (ways in which we represent the world to ourselves in our own mind - pictures, sounds, feelings etc.) of the world, our state (how we feel about those perceptions) and our physiology are all linked in such a way that they affect our behaviours.

Hopefully there's nothing earth-shattering there either.

 

[microdot]

JFrankA and MikeSun5 - apologies for not responding to your posts - I'm not ignoring you I'd just missed them.

Sometimes I check for new posts using my smartphone (saves the hassle of booting up the PC etc.) and I just jump to the last post on the last page.

I have a few things going on today (including building a bat box with my daughter) but I will get back to you.

If I may interject, that is very fair. (I'm kinda hesitant to interject because both you and Remirol are discussing this beautifully, IMHO.)

Thankyou

That single response is very welcome and more appreciated than you know.

 

[microdot]

...I should have typed the appearance of positive results.

OK, if that's what you meant.

DB is a conjurer/illusionist as well as a clever bastard. Sometimes things aren't as they seem.

You don't have to convince me of that

It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

Like it or not, this is an accurate representation of what NLP claims.

Sorry Mike (and remirol), I don't entirely agree. I think the subject is far more complex than that and to at least partially explain why I think that way I'll use a scenario which is entirely theoretical (I'll make it up as I go along) but which I believe is fairly common in the _real_ world.

Scenario

A person with a phobia of some kind, let's take a fear of swimming as an example. That person has negative feelings about swimming and water in general which may well lead them to decide to _not_ swim.

At the same time it's not uncommon for that person to have even more negative feelings - this time about what they are missing out on by not going swimming.

And for good measure they have some more negative feelings about the belief that they hold that they are powerless to do anything to get over, under, through or around this problem.

So far we have three sets of negative feelings and a person who has decided to _not_ swim but still wishes that they _could_ swim.

Assuming that they are physically capable of swimming, the thing that's stopping them from swimming is entirely in their head and thus _should_ be under their control.

Let's now imagine that this person has asked for our help and we've chosen to help them using NLP.

(I know you don't believe in the efficacy of NLP and that's your view and you're entitled to it - your view is not being questioned here - it's perfectly safe. All I'm asking you to do is suspend that belief just long enough to consider this theoretical scenario fully).

Before I continue I'll just pop in another quote here 'cos I think it fits wiith what I've said so far:-

Some of the "changeable" things claimed on microdot's page (the bits in bold), are things that a lot of people don't have much control over. It can be extremely difficult for some people to change certain behaviors, and this is what NLP claims it can do. Beliefs, fears, cravings, and addictions are things that most people have trouble changing, so NLP looks like a good product. The problem is there's no scientific evidence that shows NLP is any more of an effective treatment than say, crystal therapy.

I've crossed through a section of what you said because that's the only part that I don't fully agree with and I thought it better to separate it from the rest in this way rather than omit it and possibly give the impression that I was trying to put spin on your words

On the subject of scientific evidence I can only say that the few articles I've seen which state that they are based upon or influenced by scientific studies came to, IMHO mixed conclusions.

I'm very glad that you've said all of the above because I now know that at least have some common ground for the purposes of this thread.

So, to recap, we have this imaginary person who has decided to _not_ swim but is capable of swimming, feels that their life is the poorer for not swimming and has asked for our help.

_IF_ we use NLP here to assist them we're not just getting them to do something that _we_ wish them to do and we're certainly not tricking them into it by...

bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

Even if some aspects of the NLP tools or our use of them is not immediately overt, if we're using them to provide the person we are assisting with a context in which their _natural response_ is to make the useful changes _they are looking for_ then I think that's a fair enough reason for bypassing their conscious decisions as you put it.

I realise I've been a little verbose on this but I wanted to try to make my point as clearly as possible.

I'll move on.

For example, the method described in microdot's Swish Pattern article is no different from having someone lie on a couch, press a piece of blue quartz to their temple, and transfer the pizza cravings from their psyche to the crystal, then smash it with a hammer. Both methods may or may not work.

At a conceptual level I would tend to agree. I suspect though that I'd draw less attention to myself in the pizza parlour by quietly doing a swish pattern in my head than you would with your crystal / hammer routine, and you would spend a fortune in crystals, especially if you had to do it 21 times (Plus _everyone_ knows that blue quartz doesn't work for cravings )

microdot's site says that "Swish patterns usually become fully automated after 3, 7, or 21 repetitions."
Hey, if at first you don't succeed...

OK, so the number of repetitions is possibly arbitrary but your advice is good - afterall practice makes perfect.

NLP provides a collection of models of human behaviours which occur regularly and naturally in everyday life.

...and since everyone is different, the collection can't be universal or even mostly accurate.

At it's largest chunk size (broadest sense) NLP is predicated upon the belief that:-

--- snip --

All distinctions human beings are able to make concerning our environment and our behaviour can be usefully represented through the visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory senses.

--- snip ---

Which basically says that any measurements that we make of our world and our behaviour are taken using the senses of sight, hearing, feeling (visceral and tactile) smell and taste.

While not universal (some people are unfortunately blind for example) I think it's a concept that's fairly reasonable, inclusive and wide-ranging, don't you?

That's why NLP yeilds a success rate that's pretty much consistent with guessing.

Who says?

Is this _always_ true?

You do have evidence to back that up, don't you?

Joking apart, I think this would only be true where the 'practitioner' paid absolutely _NO_ attention to the feedback they were getting.

Besides, if NLP is all about subjective experience, what's all the business with reading body language and physical behavior? Doesn't make much sense...

Not quite sure what you're getting at here?

I'm inclined to believe that you probably already realise that body language and physical behaviour are enormously important aspects of human communication for a whole host of reasons.

So if you want me to respond to that question you'll have to give me a little more to go on

I would agree you, but there is one thing I would add. I think NLP supposed to be all you've said, but not only to communicate with others but to manipulate (suggest, command, inspire, etc) that other person.

Absolutely.

The only word I'm not entirely comfortable with is manipulate, but only because I'm not sure which definition you're applying to it i.e.

to treat or operate with or as if with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner

or

to manage or utilize skillfully

or

to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage

I strongly suspect that the more skeptical posters here on JREF when considering the uses of NLP which triggered this particular thread would apply the the third of the above definitions - and I'd probably agree with them if the practices were, let's say, unsavoury.

Even the first two definitions have negative connotations.

So I'm going to cherry pick ('cos I know how you guys like that ) from definition number 1:-

to treat or operate in a skillful manner

Which I think is the way that an ethical Practitioner would use NLP - for ethically sound mutual benefit.

I imagine that most people have at some time in their lives tried to help another person with a problem or difficulty that they were really struggling with by talking it through with them and offering helpful suggestions. I also imagine that most people would invest significant energy/effort and take great care to ensure that any advice/guidance they offered was suitable/useful/fair/ethical/safe etc.

In doing so, in wanting to do our best to give helpful advice to people we care about, it's not uncommon for us to attempt to gently steer them from 'negative' ways of thinking to more 'positive' or useful ways of thinking.

Thus these efforts that we go to and behaviours that we exhibit _could_ accurately and fairly be described as manipulation and _certainly_ require that we operate in a skillful manner.

Doncha think?

 

[Moochie]

About punctuation ambiguity:

http://www.psychdaily.com/encyclopedia.php?term=Punctuation+ambiguity



The problem with most people is they just can't take new directions (read: nude erections)

Embedded commands as taught by the same pick-up expert you mentioned.

I won't detail the dozens of totally incongruous, seemingly unmotivated things I've done while reading this thread.


M.

 

[microdot]

I won't detail the dozens of totally incongruous, seemingly unmotivated things I've done while reading this thread.


M.

Thanks?

 

[Senex]

Embedded commands are below me.
I repeat, they are below me

(embedded command as actually taught by some "pick up expert". Undoubtedly resulting an unprecedented tsunami of oral sex for the nerd that employed it.)

Hey, hey, hey... that command and a willingness to purchase dozens of seabreezes has proven statistically more effective than just my on-line Senex schtick alone. (I know, but like medicare, sometimes suplementing a good thing can't hurt )

And I never used the word tsunami.

 

[Lothario]

And what leads me to that conclusion is very simple -- the entire point of NLP is identical to the idea behind "subliminal advertising" (outlawed, I might note). It's a technique to get people to do things that _you_ wish them to, ideally bypassing any conscious decisions they may make to _not_ do those things.

It is true that the subliminal ads were outlawed, but apparently there's no evidence that they had any effect on the viewer... just like NLP.

http://www.skepdic.com/subliminal.html

Let's assume for a second that NLP does work. I imagine that the possibly of manipulating someone without their knowledge through the use of these techniques would forever change the way we relate to others. Not to mention that governments and intelligence services across the world would be willing to pay billions for it.
So, why is it still being taught in self-help seminars?

 

[Prometheus]

It is true that the subliminal ads were outlawed, but apparently there's no evidence that they had any effect on the viewer... just like NLP.

http://www.skepdic.com/subliminal.html

Let's assume for a second that NLP does work. I imagine that the possibly of manipulating someone without their knowledge through the use of these techniques would forever change the way we relate to others. Not to mention that governments and intelligence services across the world would be willing to pay billions for it.
So, why is it still being taught in self-help seminars?

Good point. If it worked, we should expect to see governments training diplomats in its use.

 

[Toke]

I guess it is the basic problem with a lot of revolutionary inventions.
They would change the world if in wide scale use.

And that is why "THEY" and/or "THEM" have a conspiracy to stop it.
Just think of the cures for cancer, the eternal lightbulb, 500mpg cars etc.