Yet more NLP BS

[microdot]

Hiya JFrankA

Thanks for the explanation, it's given me some food for thought and, of course, more questions.

But once the night was over, he remembers the experience, but not the details of how it came to be. If anchoring worked, those guys would not only react what triggered the event, but it would still work. Never does.

How do you know what he remembers and how do you know it never works after the night is over? Do you always conduct post-show debriefs?

One of the reasons that it wouldn't make the woman interested is that anchoring depends on the person already being in the state to be anchored _before_ the anchor is set (unless of course you want to anchor disinterest )

I disagree. The only thing that makes it work, and on a permanent basis, is if the person recieving wants it to work. If there is no desire, there is no effect. That is true with hypnosis, that is true with any NLP.

But surely if it's permanence _relied_ on desire, the response wouldn't happen automatically, they'd have to _remember_ to do it every time?

Returning for a moment if I may to my personal example of a particular piece of music invoking a vivid and immersive memory, I don't remember at the time having any desire whatsoever that every time I heard that piece of music in the future this memory would automatically pop into my head an amazing techni-colour.

And it happens automatically.

So I still have to disagree with you on that one.

And the successful setting of the anchor is also much more likely when you have rapport - something which we don't have with this fictional woman (but hopefully something you have with your audience )

Yes, I agree. That's because the better one has a rapport with, the more likely they want it to work. As a performer, I have instant rapport.

Wow! As a performer, I have instant rapport I wish I had your confidence!

Your argument only seems to include for scenarios where the anchoring is explicit i.e done with the full knowledge of the person being anchored. So therefore you must explain to the shoe-guy before you touch his shoulder exactly what you are doing and why, and how great it's going to be (so he can want it to work). Do you do that with the audience present?

I'm using the shoulder touch as an example. But without desire on the recipient's part and repeated consistant stimulus/constistant reward, it's not going to last.

I think I've explained why desire isn't always a necessary part of the equation.

Where I can agree with you is that many anchors persist longer with periodic reinforcement. And still there are many anchors which seem to persist for very long periods of time without reinforcement.

True, there are memories that happen from one occurance, but those kind of memories that usually have a lot of emotion attached to it.

Pretty much agree with that.

How can someone duplicate that in a bar with someone they've just met? How does someone know how to find the right "previous positive anchors" in such a situtation?

It is incredibly unlikely that they could and - for clarity - I never said otherwise.

Can you give an example of how anchoring would work in a bar setting to meet a woman?

First meeting? From a cold start? No, I couldn't.

Hope you have a geat time with your son

We did. We played World of Warcraft for hours then went to the state fair!

Excellent! Much better use of your time than stuck behind a keyboard

 

[Senex]

Still, for these people, they're really not going to get anywhere unless they're willing to confront the fear head-on. Exposure therapy may sound rather insane once you understand how it really works, but there's no other way.

Let's consider this (Grayson, 2009 unpublished...)

Posting using a topless avatar may help posters whom you wish to help much more than instead choosing to recommend woo exposure therapy.

 

[Lothario]

Let's consider this (Grayson, 2009 unpublished...)

Posting using a topless avatar may help posters whom you wish to help much more than instead choosing to recommend woo exposure therapy.

LOL!

 

[JFrankA]

But once the night was over, he remembers the experience, but not the details of how it came to be. If anchoring worked, those guys would not only react what triggered the event, but it would still work. Never does.

How do you know what he remembers and how do you know it never works after the night is over? Do you always conduct post-show debriefs?

I do another show, they happen to be there, and they tell me! "Hey, you're the guy that made me chase shoes!!!!! You touched my neck or something and I just couldn't get my eyes off girl's shoes!! That was funny!" kind of thing. It's not often, but the few that have told me have never gotten "the touch" correct. I know what it is, of course, because it's the same in every routine. I do shows for a specific audience (adult parties) in a small area, (New England) and I don't do that many. So it's sometimes the same audience.

I disagree. The only thing that makes it work, and on a permanent basis, is if the person recieving wants it to work. If there is no desire, there is no effect. That is true with hypnosis, that is true with any NLP.

But surely if it's permanence _relied_ on desire, the response wouldn't happen automatically, they'd have to _remember_ to do it every time?
Returning for a moment if I may to my personal example of a particular piece of music invoking a vivid and immersive memory, I don't remember at the time having any desire whatsoever that every time I heard that piece of music in the future this memory would automatically pop into my head an amazing techni-colour.
And it happens automatically.
So I still have to disagree with you on that one.

What you are talking about is an event memory. A bunch of things happening at once that produced a scene that you desire to remember. But even with that, there's desire. Now, did you say "I want to remember this moment?" No, most likely not. However, there was some desire on your part to remember the moment.
Here's an example of what I mean, keeping with the topic: if I meet a girl in a bar who is not interested in me in any way, no amount of hypnosis, NLP, etc, etc, that I use on her will make her change her mind. However, if that same girl is drunk, or if she wants to get revenge on a boyfriend, or anything reason in which the desire isn't with me but with the situtation and I'm just a convience, then it may help in getting her interested. This is what I mean by desire.
NLP promises that you can change the minds of anyone (and here's the important things) no matter the circumstances and no matter what the desire of the recipient is. NLP can do no such thing. Even when I do my shows, I only pick people who are willing to come up on stage.

Yes, I agree. That's because the better one has a rapport with, the more likely they want it to work. As a performer, I have instant rapport.

Wow! As a performer, I have instant rapport I wish I had your confidence!

But I do. Think of it: the group pays me to perform, people want me to do well (so they get entertained), some of them have been drinking (so they are more open to suggestion) and it's a pretty open crowd (they want an "adult" show). How could I not have rapport?

Your argument only seems to include for scenarios where the anchoring is explicit i.e done with the full knowledge of the person being anchored. So therefore you must explain to the shoe-guy before you touch his shoulder exactly what you are doing and why, and how great it's going to be (so he can want it to work). Do you do that with the audience present?

Yes, the people do know they are being anchored..well..tranced, hypnotized, whatever you want to call it. It's my job as a performer. They expect and want (desire) for something to happen. I pretty much tell them what to do and they follow the suggestion. I do this as a walk around, so there's people are people watching.

I think I've explained why desire isn't always a necessary part of the equation.

You've explained it, but I do not agree with you at all. Basically, you cannot make anyone do what they don't desire to do. No desire, no effect.

I'm sorry, I don't have time to answer the rest of the post. I will later, I promise.

 

[Senex]

LOL!

That's as close to being a goddess as this site will see

 

[Lothario]

However, if that same girl is drunk, or if she wants to get revenge on a boyfriend, or anything reason in which the desire isn't with me but with the situtation and I'm just a convience, then it may help in getting her interested.

If the girl is drunk or wants to get revenge on her boyfriend, then NLP will play no part in it, because she will do it anyway, won't she?

What evidence is there that NLP did anything to help me get the girl?

 

[JFrankA]

If the girl is drunk or wants to get revenge on her boyfriend, then NLP will play no part in it, because she will do it anyway, won't she?

Depends on her desire. Is her desire for revenge so strong that she will use any guy as means to it? If it is, then you can say boo to her and you "score". (Once again, women reading this forum please forgive me for that term). If not, then you don't. She may not be aware of her desire, but in the end, it's her choice. You cannot change someone's desire by talking to them.

Now if she's drunk or high, that's a different story. She's not thinking as critically as she would if she were sober.

The point is, which I've been saying all along, is that one cannot override somoene else's desire unless you've suffiencently confused them. Alcohol is a great "confuser".

What evidence is there that NLP did anything to help me get the girl?

There isn't. That's my point.

 

[microdot]

You cannot change someone's desire by talking to them.

Sure you can - it's called persuasion.

ETA - and persuasion doesn't _require_ confusion - alcohol/drug induced or otherwise.

 

[JFrankA]

Sure you can - it's called persuasion.

ETA - and persuasion doesn't _require_ confusion - alcohol/drug induced or otherwise.

.....then persuasion becomes annoyance. The person gives in just because they desire to shut the "persuader" up. Doesn't mean they've changed their drsires.

Maybe I should have included annoyance as part of my list along with confusion that can override desire.

(Err, no, Microdot, I am NOT hinting that you are annoyance. You seriously are not, IMHO)

 

[microdot]

(Err, no, Microdot, I am NOT hinting that you are annoyance. You seriously are not, IMHO)

Annoyance FAIL - M-U-S-T---T-R-Y---H-A-R-D-E-R

LOL

.....then persuasion becomes annoyance. The person gives in just because they desire to shut the "persuader" up. Doesn't mean they've changed their drsires.

Maybe I should have included annoyance as part of my list along with confusion that can override desire.

Ha! I knew you were going to say that!

Persuasion isn't _necessarily_ synonymous with harassment matey

Sure, if you're dead-set against doing something and I go on-and-on-and-on-and (well, you get the idea) using words to persuade you to change your mind then you may indeed get annoyed and comply simply for a peaceful life. And in such circumstances my words have still changed your desires - there's been an increase in your desire to shut me up

Equally there will be other situations where you're simply not inclined to do something, or hadn't even _thought_ about doing that particular thing, or were not even _aware_ that the possibility existed, and a few choice words about possible features, benefits etc. of doing that thing will be all that is needed to change your desire signficantly in a positive direction.

Or imagine that I told you I would give you a million dollars if you can hop on one leg for an hour (I won't), wouldn't your desire change as a result of my words? In this case my words have _created_ a desire that you didn't have before because you were completely unaware that the opportunity even existed.

If I go on to say that, to get the million dollars, you have to do the hopping on bare footed on a pile of broken glass your desire for the money may or may not decrease, but now you've got to weigh that desire against the desire not to injure yourself.

ETA - or imagine that I asked you to walk blindfold across a tightrope which I told you was six inches above the ground and you completely believed me and set off walking.

If I told you half way across that I'd lied and that you were actually 100 feet above the ground I very strongly suspect that your desire to _not_ fall from the wire would increase exponentially.

Hopefully you can understand why, IMHO, not only is it very easy to change a person's desires using words, it's something that happens naturally all the time.

Anyways - time to eat.

Apologies for not responding yet to your responses to my earlier questions - I will do so shortly

 

[JFrankA]

Annoyance FAIL - M-U-S-T---T-R-Y---H-A-R-D-E-R

LOL



Ha! I knew you were going to say that!

Now you're mind reading!

Persuasion isn't _necessarily_ synonymous with harassment matey

Agreed.

Sure, if you're dead-set against doing something and I go on-and-on-and-on-and (well, you get the idea) using words to persuade you to change your mind then you may indeed get annoyed and comply simply for a peaceful life. And in such circumstances my words have still changed your desires - there's been an increase in your desire to shut me up

Equally there will be other situations where you're simply not inclined to do something, or hadn't even _thought_ about doing that particular thing, or were not even _aware_ that the possibility existed, and a few choice words about possible features, benefits etc. of doing that thing will be all that is needed to change your desire signficantly in a positive direction.

Or imagine that I told you I would give you a million dollars if you can hop on one leg for an hour (I won't), wouldn't your desire change as a result of my words? In this case my words have _created_ a desire that you didn't have before because you were completely unaware that the opportunity even existed.

If I go on to say that, to get the million dollars, you have to do the hopping on bare footed on a pile of broken glass your desire for the money may or may not decrease, but now you've got to weigh that desire against the desire not to injure yourself.

ETA - or imagine that I asked you to walk blindfold across a tightrope which I told you was six inches above the ground and you completely believed me and set off walking.

If I told you half way across that I'd lied and that you were actually 100 feet above the ground I very strongly suspect that your desire to _not_ fall from the wire would increase exponentially.

Hopefully you can understand why, IMHO, not only is it very easy to change a person's desires using words, it's something that happens naturally all the time.

Okay, now I think we are arguing on the same side kind of.

I will agree that one can present one desire that may be more desirable than the original one given, I'll go along with that.

I'll even say that if someone didn't want a product but if a salesperson brings out the benefits, that could make that person buy the product. But once again, that's replacing one's desire with another.

But, that is NOT changing someone's desire. That is merely replacing it.

See what I mean?

 

[microdot]

Now you're mind reading!

More like predicting rather than trying to tell people what they are thinking based on my own projection

Okay, now I think we are arguing on the same side kind of.

I will agree that one can present one desire that may be more desirable than the original one given, I'll go along with that.

I'll even say that if someone didn't want a product but if a salesperson brings out the benefits, that could make that person buy the product. But once again, that's replacing one's desire with another.

But, that is NOT changing someone's desire. That is merely replacing it.

See what I mean?

I'm sorry Frank - I really don't see what you mean - sounds like semantics to me

Perhaps I'm just being a bit dimwitted?

Maybe you can clarify for me how you perceive replacing one desire with another as different from changing a desire?

 

[JFrankA]

More like predicting rather than trying to tell people what they are thinking based on my own projection

Once again, we're arguing the same side. What I was doing was assuming a reaction based on what I've seen before.

I'm sorry Frank - I really don't see what you mean - sounds like semantics to me

Perhaps I'm just being a bit dimwitted?

Nope, you're not. Again, we are arguing on the same side using different terms.

Maybe you can clarify for me how you perceive replacing one desire with another as different from changing a desire?

Let me try it this way.

We are debating a topic. You are arguing from side A, and me from side B. You point out points 1, 2 and 3 from side A. I point out points 1, 2 and 3 from point B.

Then you say something, let's say point 4 that combines points 2 and 3 from side A and explain it to me. Now I say "Okay, I think you are right and I was wrong", and agree with you.

Why did I change my opinion to side A?

What you did wasn't change my desire so that I desired to agree with you, what you did was give me a point that played on my desire to have the more correct idea, which is a stronger desire than my desire to be right.

See what I mean? In other words, I had a desire, "to be right", we discuss the topic, I agree with you not because you changed my basic desire but because you found another desire that I have and I decided, rather unconsciously, that the second desire was more important to me than the first.

If, for example, you were talking to my father, the second desire isn't nearly as important than the first, and he wouldn't agree with you no matter what points you've presented. (Believe me...he's like that).

A person cannot actually change the desire that another person has (unless they use conditioning, confusion and/or brainwashing). However, by guessing or by knowing another person well, one CAN replace one desire for a possible stronger one.

Does that make more sense?

 

[microdot]

Does that make more sense?

Your explanation makes perfect sense and I think it has given me some insight into your way of thinking, but I still think we're arguing semantics.

Whatever way we look at it, the outcome is still the same - the person does something which differs from what they would have done had we not used those words.

In your model, if I've understood you correctly, a person has a number of basic desires and the aggregate level of those desires at any one time will govern their behaviours.

Ergo, if they do something differently based on my speaking some words to them, you are saying that it is the level of one or more desires that has changed rather then the nature of the desires themselves.

Is that a reasonable summary of what you're saying?

 

[JFrankA]

Your explanation makes perfect sense and I think it has given me some insight into your way of thinking, but I still think we're arguing semantics.

...okay, another way of saying arguing on the same side....

Whatever way we look at it, the outcome is still the same - the person does something which differs from what they would have done had we not used those words.

I disagree. The outcome is simular, but not the same. Those words didn't affect the actual desires of that person, but changed the focus to a different (perhaps more important to that person) desire.

Those words did not make that person reject their desires, nor did those words make that person's particular desire less or more important. In my opinion, this a very important distinction because one is a person controlling another person with words, the other is a person persuading another person with words.

In your model, if I've understood you correctly, a person has a number of basic desires and the aggregate level of those desires at any one time will govern their behaviours.

Ergo, if they do something differently based on my speaking some words to them, you are saying that it is the level of one or more desires that has changed rather then the nature of the desires themselves.

Is that a reasonable summary of what you're saying?

The level of a person's specific desires hasn't changed, but what is desired has changed.

 

[Pedro De Mello]

Well, I don't believe in NLP as long as they REFUSE to test their claims in a scientific manner... Honestly, I think NLP is just a fancy name for guys who want to learn how to talk to girls don't feel so "ignorant" or whatever...

However, I must ADMIT that before I even heard about NLP I always did some kind of NLP (or whatever you want to call it...) myself... for years... I just don't write about it because I don't believe it would work on someone who is not WILLING in the first place.

For instance, when I want to ask a girl out and I know she is "maybe yes-maybe not" into me and I want to sound cool (or safe...) I don't ask:

"Do you want to come to the movies with me tonight?"

Instead of it I ALWAYS say:

"I'm going to the movies tonight. You can come if you want to."

Well, this is maybe absurd and I'll NEVER say it is scientific or certain, still is something that makes me feel more comfortable, because it's like I'm saying "I'm already going, wheter you go or not..." making the girl think that I already have plans that are not happening because of her but instead it is something that she can join if she wants... in this way she thinks I have a life of my own (I wish I had...)

Now... I seriously hope NLP has nothing to do with this kind of nuances! By the way, I'm the author of the "NLP? - I wonder if you guys can help me with what I'm looking for." thread and, as I was advised, I have since been studying real Linguistics and real Psychology. The concept of Framing bas been very helpful to me. Look it up on Wikipedia, I can't post URL's: Framing (Social Science)

But I honestly think you can't make a person do something they are not WILLING to do...

 

[MikeSun5]

For instance, when I want to ask a girl out and I know she is "maybe yes-maybe not" into me and I want to sound cool (or safe...) I don't ask:

"Do you want to come to the movies with me tonight?"

Instead of it I ALWAYS say:

"I'm going to the movies tonight. You can come if you want to."

Well, this is maybe absurd and I'll NEVER say it is scientific or certain, still is something that makes me feel more comfortable, because it's like I'm saying "I'm already going, wheter you go or not..." making the girl think that I already have plans that are not happening because of her but instead it is something that she can join if she wants... in this way she thinks I have a life of my own (I wish I had...)

...and you could sell that tactic to hopeless dummies for lots of money.

Claiming that positive interaction with women is a result of NLP rather than common knowledge was the whole issue in this here zombie thread.

 

[Iknoweverything]

back here by chance...

Seriously....hahahh

There is better things to do with your superior brain powers I promise!..

 

[Senex]

back here by chance...

Seriously....hahahh

There is better things to do with your superior brain powers I promise!..

I'm certain of that. Did you change jobs or has your current job management changed? Now instead of NLP you are undoubtedly managing your life by objectives or by Pareto something or by six sigma...

That stuff is all bulloney (well, maybe not the Perato rule, there is something to that 80-20 stuff). Offer facts about your current magical thinking or admit you were run off this site by critical thinking despite being trained by highly compensated woos who tricked your company into sending you to their mind-control courses that you all too quickly believed.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I'm certain of that. Did you change jobs or has your current job management changed? Now instead of NLP you are undoubtedly managing your life by objectives or by Pareto something or by six sigma...

People use Pareto for self help purposes?

How is that supposed to work?