Yet more NLP BS

[remirol]

You also stated you know nothing about mentalism or cold reading either, I do.

Excellent. So which NLP techniques do you claim work, and why?

 

[Senex]

I agree with all you've written, Senex. It seems to be a form of woo that appeals particularly to people of a certain psychological disposition, whereas regular folks, if they want something from someone, simply ask for it, whether it's butter, a drink, or sex. In my experience, only minds that want to be controlled can be controlled, as I alluded to in a previous post about the relationship between my wife and I. (Incidentally, in December we will be celebrating 24 happy years together -- 24 happy woo-free years. )

M.

Well, you must have thrown the woo around a little bit 25 or so years ago to bait the trap I'm thinking about rubbing myself with bacon before hitting the bars -- this pheremone stuff seems to have been overhyped or the women in my neighborhood have clogged noses due to allergies because I need a stronger plan B. Congrats on the 24 years. That's something in todays day and age.

So, how did he do it? You might think it's "easy to see through", but I can't see it. But, then, I do miss a lot.

Your Youtube video didn't work for me but I'm familiar with it. Unlike on Youtube I agreed not to reveal tricks here but I will ask you what is more likely; Simon got psychologically whammied and misremembered what he wrote, or he clearly remembered what he wrote and you were tricked into believing woo over common sense.

Thanks for your opinions guys. This NLP thing had me worried for a while now. BTW, how do you explain that trick where Derren Brown confuses the girl into thinkin that red is black?

I saw that video (on the conjurer's corner I think. You probably posted it.). I watched it just once and have a pretty good guess how he did it. It's just a guess and since it is more of a TV editing effect than magic or mentalism I think I wouldn't break the rules offering my guess. I think it would be educational for some of you NLP believers to understand how TV entertainers actually work.

Brown doesn't confuse anyone into thinking red is black -- he got her to agree to call the color black "red" and the color red "black." He set the groundwork for it at the table with those colored cards when he said what you see as green I might see as orange but he asked her to exchange red and black while speaking off camera while they were walking to the parking lot. Shame on him -- that wasn't very fair to the TV watchers When they reached the parking lot and she said "that is my car but it is the wrong color" the car in front of her wasn't actually her own car but the same make and model as her car (she was actually saying you guys pulled the right type of car to the front of the bar but that's not mine because the color is wrong). Her agreeing to juxtapose the colors red and black made it seem she couldn't recognize her own car because of the color but she was darn well able to recognize her own car but that car wasn't hers. The woman who Brown used as a subject for the effect never understood she was involved in a seemingly successful mentalism stunt. Only the TV audience (and maybe those women who came out to the parking lot with them who didn't know what car the subject woman drove may have been set up the same as the TV audience.) No NLP was used at all. It was just an effect that took advantage of the TV audience not knowing all the conditions the subject of the effect was working under. No NLP, not even a real mentalism trick -- it was a TV editing out some instructions to the subject trick. Pretty lame but Brown is a master showman. He is not a master teacher in what is possible. He is a master misleader (but that is his job). If you purge the thought someone has miracle manipulation powers you can pretty much see through most of his effects (and the few I can't figure out I believe he is resorting to something more unfair than even crafty editing.)

Thank you! I've been saying that for years. If NLP worked, more people would know about it. Not just Derren Brown, Ross Jeffries and Tony Robbins.

I think the NLP crowd gets such great results with that crap because they and those who they use it on believe it works. Just like all other woo.

Those three people call what they do NLP but they have three entirely different audiences. Brown just uses it as misdirection for mentalism tricks. Jeffries uses it as mumbo-jumbo to give you confidence to pick up girls (but I did feel uncomfortably attracted to that 400 lbs guy in the video on jeffries' website who was a virgin before watching jeffries video and now gets some every time he waddles out the door. I think he used embedded commands on me) like MikeSun said. Robbins might be different. He calls his self-help stuff NLP but it really is harmless (and perhaps even helpful) repackaging of positive thinking is good for you. Tony Robbins doesn't say NLP manipulates others, he says it can bu used to manipulate your own thinking. His intentions are more noble than Jeffries'.

Incorrect.

When you say "NLP" you cover a rather large array of techniques. Many are "woo" as you put it, but some are not. Feel free to find out for yourself which parts are useful.

Let's stick to techniques that manipulate others. We give up finding out for ourselves. Which parts are useful?

 

[Iknoweverything]

Excellent. So which NLP techniques do you claim work, and why?

Learn and try for yourself thats the only way to be sure.

 

[Toke]

Learn and try for yourself thats the only way to be sure.

That´s mighty helpfull

 

[remirol]

Learn and try for yourself thats the only way to be sure.

No, sorry, that won't cut it. If you're going to claim any of it works at all, then you need to be able to back those claims up.

Otherwise, how would I know it was the NLP, as opposed to just my stunning good looks and boyish charm?

So tell me again -- which forms of NLP *specifically* do work? We can even go with Senex' restriction; which forms that I can use to manipulate others are _not_ woo and actually do work?

 

[Iknoweverything]

No, sorry, that won't cut it. If you're going to claim any of it works at all, then you need to be able to back those claims up.

Otherwise, how would I know it was the NLP, as opposed to just my stunning good looks and boyish charm?

So tell me again -- which forms of NLP *specifically* do work? We can even go with Senex' restriction; which forms that I can use to manipulate others are _not_ woo and actually do work?

Hey Remirol sorry if my "claim" doesn't cut it. My first statement was to argue the sweeping generalization that ALL NLP is worthless. That is incorrect in my experience.

There are many specific things that are useful to me and that have helped me enormously but they are subjects not specific to this thread.

The only thing I will say is that People are more likely to like you and more willing to agree with what you say if you do build a strong sense of rapport with them.

Thanks

 

[remirol]

Hey Remirol sorry if my "claim" doesn't cut it. My first statement was to argue the sweeping generalization that ALL NLP is worthless. That is incorrect in my experience.

And yet you do not offer any evidence to back up this assertion, nor are you even willing to specify which forms of NLP work. No, again, this just doesn't cut it.

There are many specific things that are useful to me and that have helped me enormously but they are subjects not specific to this thread.

Which specific forms of NLP do work? No, actually, that would be _precisely_ on topic for the thread. Most threads should be so happy to get such an on-topic reply.

So, again, what specific things from NLP are you talking about?

The only thing I will say is that People are more likely to like you and more willing to agree with what you say if you do build a strong sense of rapport with them.

This has nothing to do with NLP, which is what we are discussing.

 

[Lothario]

The only thing I will say is that People are more likely to like you and more willing to agree with what you say if you do build a strong sense of rapport with them.

This is common sense. Any child knows this. We don't need Bandler to come and tell us that we'd better get to know people before we start asking them for favors.
It would be helpful if you could say what techniques you believe are valid so we can try them for ourselves.

 

[JFrankA]

Well, you must have thrown the woo around a little bit 25 or so years ago to bait the trap I'm thinking about rubbing myself with bacon before hitting the bars -- this pheremone stuff seems to have been overhyped or the women in my neighborhood have clogged noses due to allergies because I need a stronger plan B. Congrats on the 24 years. That's something in todays day and age.


Your Youtube video didn't work for me but I'm familiar with it. Unlike on Youtube I agreed not to reveal tricks here but I will ask you what is more likely; Simon got psychologically whammied and misremembered what he wrote, or he clearly remembered what he wrote and you were tricked into believing woo over common sense.



I saw that video (on the conjurer's corner I think. You probably posted it.). I watched it just once and have a pretty good guess how he did it. It's just a guess and since it is more of a TV editing effect than magic or mentalism I think I wouldn't break the rules offering my guess. I think it would be educational for some of you NLP believers to understand how TV entertainers actually work.

Brown doesn't confuse anyone into thinking red is black -- he got her to agree to call the color black "red" and the color red "black." He set the groundwork for it at the table with those colored cards when he said what you see as green I might see as orange but he asked her to exchange red and black while speaking off camera while they were walking to the parking lot. Shame on him -- that wasn't very fair to the TV watchers When they reached the parking lot and she said "that is my car but it is the wrong color" the car in front of her wasn't actually her own car but the same make and model as her car (she was actually saying you guys pulled the right type of car to the front of the bar but that's not mine because the color is wrong). Her agreeing to juxtapose the colors red and black made it seem she couldn't recognize her own car because of the color but she was darn well able to recognize her own car but that car wasn't hers. The woman who Brown used as a subject for the effect never understood she was involved in a seemingly successful mentalism stunt. Only the TV audience (and maybe those women who came out to the parking lot with them who didn't know what car the subject woman drove may have been set up the same as the TV audience.) No NLP was used at all. It was just an effect that took advantage of the TV audience not knowing all the conditions the subject of the effect was working under. No NLP, not even a real mentalism trick -- it was a TV editing out some instructions to the subject trick. Pretty lame but Brown is a master showman. He is not a master teacher in what is possible. He is a master misleader (but that is his job). If you purge the thought someone has miracle manipulation powers you can pretty much see through most of his effects (and the few I can't figure out I believe he is resorting to something more unfair than even crafty editing.)




Those three people call what they do NLP but they have three entirely different audiences. Brown just uses it as misdirection for mentalism tricks. Jeffries uses it as mumbo-jumbo to give you confidence to pick up girls (but I did feel uncomfortably attracted to that 400 lbs guy in the video on jeffries' website who was a virgin before watching jeffries video and now gets some every time he waddles out the door. I think he used embedded commands on me) like MikeSun said. Robbins might be different. He calls his self-help stuff NLP but it really is harmless (and perhaps even helpful) repackaging of positive thinking is good for you. Tony Robbins doesn't say NLP manipulates others, he says it can bu used to manipulate your own thinking. His intentions are more noble than Jeffries'.



Let's stick to techniques that manipulate others. We give up finding out for ourselves. Which parts are useful?

Listen to Senex. He's (or she, sorry, I don't remember. ) got it exactly right.

I can answer the hypnosis question that was asked on page one in this thread. i do stage hypnosis from time to time. The main reason why hypnosis works is simply because the audience/participants desire it to work. In fact, before each show, I explain hypnosis to the audience in the following way:

Hypnosis is exactly like going to the movies. I tell them that they sit in a comfortable seat, in a dark room, ready and willing to be swept up in a story. And when you are at the movies, your heart pumps when there is an exciting scene, you laugh at the funny bits, you cry at the sad parts, you boo the bad guy and you cheer when the good guy wins. All this happens while you are unaware of the guy two rows ahead of you eating his popcorn loudly.

And always, the hypnosis still works. There's nothing more going on other than me suggesting what they should be daydreaming. Nothing magical, nothing woo, just overactive imaginations, suggestions, and mostly, the people participating want it to happen.

NLP is pretty much bunk. It works for people like Derren Brown because, quite frankly, he uses a lot of what is called "dual-reality". In other words, he makes it appear to the audience that something is happening, but to the person who is part of the effect, their perception is different. Again, nothing woo. It's all part of misdirection and suggestion.

Someone mentioned it before, but it's worth mentioning again. Read Derren's book Tricks of the Mind. For more of a magician's view on suggestablity, which honestly, this is all this is, take a look at Banachek as well as Luke Jeremy's books.

 

[Iknoweverything]

Rapport Building
This has nothing to do with NLP, which is what we are discussing.

Really ? NLP has nothing to do with Rapport Building ?You obviously know about it I can tell.

In regards to your other statements and requests;
Did you notice the other sentence I put together said that I was responding to the argument that all NLP is useless not the fact that Erickson speech patterns were effective.

Basically you argued against an argument that did not exist and then made a statement about NLP having nothing to with rapport. A+

 

[Iknoweverything]

This is common sense. Any child knows this. We don't need Bandler to come and tell us that we'd better get to know people before we start asking them for favors.
It would be helpful if you could say what techniques you believe are valid so we can try them for ourselves.

You may of seen the target but your arrow went nowhere near it. I am not here to give you techniques then argue about them. If you want to learn that is what you should do, learn.

If you were indeed exposed to or have been in a competitive high level sales environment over many years you would probably understand more about different people and how deep and important rapport is. This is your chance to open your mind and maybe learn something. If your choice is to dismiss what i say then that is your choice and I do not wish to argue about it.

My initial response was only to the statement that all NLP was "woo"

From what I have seen on this thread so far not one of you has enough experience or an understanding of this subject, and yes that claim is verified by your responses.

 

[Iknoweverything]

Listen to Senex. He's (or she, sorry, I don't remember. ) got it exactly right.

I can answer the hypnosis question that was asked on page one in this thread. i do stage hypnosis from time to time. The main reason why hypnosis works is simply because the audience/participants desire it to work. In fact, before each show, I explain hypnosis to the audience in the following way:

Hypnosis is exactly like going to the movies. I tell them that they sit in a comfortable seat, in a dark room, ready and willing to be swept up in a story. And when you are at the movies, your heart pumps when there is an exciting scene, you laugh at the funny bits, you cry at the sad parts, you boo the bad guy and you cheer when the good guy wins. All this happens while you are unaware of the guy two rows ahead of you eating his popcorn loudly.

And always, the hypnosis still works. There's nothing more going on other than me suggesting what they should be daydreaming. Nothing magical, nothing woo, just overactive imaginations, suggestions, and mostly, the people participating want it to happen.

NLP is pretty much bunk. It works for people like Derren Brown because, quite frankly, he uses a lot of what is called "dual-reality". In other words, he makes it appear to the audience that something is happening, but to the person who is part of the effect, their perception is different. Again, nothing woo. It's all part of misdirection and suggestion.

Someone mentioned it before, but it's worth mentioning again. Read Derren's book Tricks of the Mind. For more of a magician's view on suggestablity, which honestly, this is all this is, take a look at Banachek as well as Luke Jeremy's books.

I agree with you thouroughly on the hypnosis, I to have done many stage hypnosis shows and I will agree the word Hypnosis as we know it does not exist. Social Compliance is all that is

I would also like to state that I have read the books you suggested and the authors you mentioned ( all Banachek books and 10+ Luke Jermay )

I think the confusion here is that no one really has a understanding of what NLP is. Its not just Erickson hypnosis and it seems that is the opinion some people have on here. The closed minded "Iknowitall" is what stops humanity and people learning and growing. That has been shown on this thread many times already

It is possible to be an open minded skeptic.

 

[Toke]

What a horrible shame that we do not grasp your wisdom. And you are too far above us simpletons to dumb down the message sufficiently.

Too bad, try find a forum with more intelligent people on it.

 

[Iknoweverything]

What a horrible shame that we do not grasp your wisdom. And you are too far above us simpletons to dumb down the message sufficiently.

Too bad, try find a forum with more intelligent people on it.

Have you ever heard that statement "fight fire with fire"

 

[remirol]

Really ? NLP has nothing to do with Rapport Building ?You obviously know about it I can tell.

Correct me, then. What specifically does NLP have to do with -- or at least, what do the parts of NLP that are effective have to do with?

In regards to your other statements and requests;
Did you notice the other sentence I put together said that I was responding to the argument that all NLP is useless not the fact that Erickson speech patterns were effective.

Since this is the first you have mentioned "Erickson speech patterns" in this thread... no, I did not notice it. You should be more clear with your wording in the future.

That said, are Erickson speech patterns something you consider to be part of NLP? If yes, then how are they effective? What can I use these speech patterns for, and what can I expect to accomplish?

 

[remirol]

If you were indeed exposed to or have been in a competitive high level sales environment over many years you would probably understand more about different people and how deep and important rapport is. This is your chance to open your mind and maybe learn something. If your choice is to dismiss what i say then that is your choice and I do not wish to argue about it.

Well, the problem is -- you haven't actually said anything yet. You've just spoken in vague terms and generalities, except for this Erickson speech patterns thing just now, and you DID ttry to pretend that "rapport building" is NLP-specific, rather than just common sense.

If you would like to say something about NLP, then perhaps we can discuss it. But currently you simply haven't made much effort at all to back up your original assertion -- which is that "not all NLP is woo". Still looking for those parts of NLP which aren't woo, and, perhaps, how I can tell them apart from the parts which are. Do they come with a certificate?

I think the confusion here is that no one really has a understanding of what NLP is. Its not just Erickson hypnosis and it seems that is the opinion some people have on here.

You are the first person who has brought up Erickson at all, so I am not sure where you got that statement from. Again, if you feel we do not have an understanding, you are certainly welcome to correct us. Please! We are all ears. (OK, I am only two ears. But there can be others.)

 

[Senex]

Really ? NLP has nothing to do with Rapport Building ?You obviously know about it I can tell.

We may not have been sent to NLP seminars because we haven't been in a high competitive sales environments for many years like other people but you seem to have failed in the rapport department yourself despite taking these seminars. I don't feel the rapport -- do you remirol? Can your company get a refund for the days you were supposed to be learning NLP rapport building?

This NLP stuff just doesn't seem to work and you're not helping make a case with your defending it without providing evidence/examples. Lack of detail makes us think all those seminar hours were time wasted. You might have better spent the time on phrenology courses or something.

 

[Lothario]

You may of seen the target but your arrow went nowhere near it. I am not here to give you techniques then argue about them. If you want to learn that is what you should do, learn.

If you were indeed exposed to or have been in a competitive high level sales environment over many years you would probably understand more about different people and how deep and important rapport is. This is your chance to open your mind and maybe learn something. If your choice is to dismiss what i say then that is your choice and I do not wish to argue about it.

My initial response was only to the statement that all NLP was "woo"

From what I have seen on this thread so far not one of you has enough experience or an understanding of this subject, and yes that claim is verified by your responses.

I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but I read Frogs into Princes and a couple more books on NLP and i am familiar with most of the jargon and techniques NLP proponents use.
The problem is, you're really not saying anything. You're accusing us of being close minded and you state that some techniques within NLP work, but then you refuse to back that up. We don't even know what techniques you are talking about.
About rapport - what exactly did NLP come up with? Mirroring? I have a hard time believing that you build rapport just by copying someone's body language. The whole matching PRS idea has failed in scientific studies. I really don't see what you're refering to.

Let me play the devil's advocate here. From what i remember reading about NLP, the concept of reframing seems sound. I also remember some goal setting parts which might have some value in self-improvement.

However, all of this is not, IMO, specific to NLP. It's glass half-full\glass half-empty type positive thinking. It's more common sense than it is NLP. A few gold nuggets in the middle is hardly enough to validate an entire science.

 

[Iknoweverything]

We may not have been sent to NLP seminars because we haven't been in a high competitive sales environments for many years like other people but you seem to have failed in the rapport department yourself despite taking these seminars. I don't feel the rapport -- do you remirol? Can your company get a refund for the days you were supposed to be learning NLP rapport building?

.

oh I didn't see that one coming. Congratulations on the obvious.

 

[Moochie]

I was hoping to learn something positive about NLP here, but it seems the only voice with such claims is determined to remain schtum.


M.