Yet more NLP BS

[Toke]

Nah. People can make a big deal even out of a simple card trick.

The numbers game in more than one way.
http://xkcd.com/628/

 

[JFrankA]

Hahaha! A greatly needed laugh at the end of this week. Much appreciated, Remirol. (Pictures Martin Luther in a leisure suit...) Anyway, that does seem to be a rather unfortunate feature of these forums, in a way. Why should it be so difficult to keep a thread going without disagreeing violently about something?

Sorry, Maia, I think it's a guy thing.........

Do we need to conjure up a troll?

No thanks, we men are able to troll ourselves without any help!!!!!

 

[JFrankA]

The numbers game in more than one way.
http://xkcd.com/628/

Don't knock it. When I start one of my routines, I ask a random spectator to name a card, then pull the top card from the deck. If it's not the card named (a 51 out of 52 chance, obviously) I crack a joke like "Wouldn't it be cool if that was your card?" or "Damn, I did that wrong again!" or something like that. They laugh, they feel more at ease, and it breaks that tension of "oh, I bet he's going to blow a trick...".

But if that one out of fifty-two chance hits, it is GOLD. The audience is convinced you can walk on water, and performing becomes that much easier.

Either way, it's a win-win outcome for me.

 

[Toke]

Either way, it's a win-win outcome for me.

I am surprised, I thought the 51 times would pose too big a problem. Guess I know too little of showmanship.

Except that it is the most important skill for a performer.

 

[MikeSun5]

Without people to disagree with these threads do tend to dry up don't they

Yup. That's why there are so many people who are like, "Well that depends on your definition of 'disagree.'" When there's nothing important left to argue about, nitpick something stupid like common word definitions.

What's In It For Me?

What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?

 

[microdot]

What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?

Maybe I'm missing your point but I would point out didn't actually arrive here with the intention of explaining to anybody how NLP works. Nor do I think I've tried to do that in any of my posts.

Put bluntly, why should I bother, or if you return to my original question, what's in it for me?

 

[MikeSun5]

Maybe I'm missing your point but I would point out didn't actually arrive here with the intention of explaining to anybody how NLP works. Nor do I think I've tried to do that in any of my posts.

Put bluntly, why should I bother, or if you return to my original question, what's in it for me?

CONFUSION!!!! You are most definitely missing my point. Not to be devious, but you've proven my point. Here's my previous post with the special bit highlighted:

What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?

Embedded commands (like other NLP techniques) do not work unless you know exactly what is going on. If they did, your last post would have been an explanation.

 

[remirol]

(Pictures Martin Luther in a leisure suit...)

No! No! Bad Maia!

Anyway, that does seem to be a rather unfortunate feature of these forums, in a way. Why should it be so difficult to keep a thread going without disagreeing violently about something? Do we need to conjure up a troll?

This is always the inherent problem with any forum. Most of us have plenty of stuff to do with our time, so... we look through a thread, find that others have said something we agree with, and said it well, and so we don't need to say much in response. Most of us _also_ don't have the AOL fetish where we insist on replying "ME TOO!" or "I AGREE!" to everything... so threads move reasonably slowly.

And, beyond it all, most of us are talking about something we don't believe works in the slightest bit... which means it's about as interesting a theoretical discussion as whether or not ants fart.

In short: for a discussion/debate board to actually maintain the cut-and-thrust of informed* discussion or debate, you need people on both sides of the debate.


We are fresh out of staunch NLP supporters at the moment, sadly.




* Yeah, OK, "half-informed" in many cases.

 

[microdot]

CONFUSION!!!! You are most definitely missing my point. Not to be devious, but you've proven my point. Here's my previous post with the special bit highlighted:


Originally Posted by MikeSun5
What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?
Embedded commands (like other NLP techniques) do not work unless you know exactly what is going on. If they did, your last post would have been an explanation.

Sorry MikeSun5 - I'm still scratching my head here

Are you saying that your text contained an embedded command (presumably the section that you've highlighted nicely in yellow) and that my response was the outcome of some experiment to prove a point of some kind?

Surely, if you subscribe to the general concensus of opinion which seems to pervade these boards, in the absence of laboratory conditions, double-blind testing etc. etc. etc. it neither proves nor disproves anything at all.

ETA -

it's about as interesting a theoretical discussion as whether or not ants fart.

You could try sprinkling talcum powder on them as a means to aid the detection of the tiny clouds of escaping gas

 

[Lothario]

(Pictures Martin Luther in a leisure suit...)

You heretic! Don't you know that... nobody expects the Spanish inquisition?

 

[Moochie]

<snip>

When the internet was in its infancy I picked Senex as my monicker. It means dirty old man in Latin (see Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to the Forum). It didn't apply to me then but as I age I realize you stick with your first instinct. It turned out very suitable.

Happened to you too, eh?




M.

 

[Eddie Dane]

When the internet was in its infancy I picked Senex as my monicker. It means dirty old man in Latin (see Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to the Forum). It didn't apply to me then but as I age I realize you stick with your first instinct. It turned out very suitable.

The only thing that could stop me from becoming a dirty old man is death.

 

[MikeSun5]

Are you saying that your text contained an embedded command (presumably the section that you've highlighted nicely in yellow) and that my response was the outcome of some experiment to prove a point of some kind?

Yep. Won't stand up in court, but it was funny (to me).

Really though, I wanted to liven this thread up a bit since it's on it's way out. See post #468.

 

[microdot]

Brown thinks the following techniques absolute crap:
Mirroring someone's posture to create rapport (they'll think you're a freak)*
Classifying people as Visual, Auditive etc (We are all all these things)
Reading eye movements (of no practical use, has been scientifically tested)

I've been re-reading Derren's Tricks Of The Mind book and have just reached the section on Hypnosis and NLP.

He does indeed pour derision on the idea of slavishly copying a person's every move in order to establish rapport.

Then he goes on to describe to the reader how it's possible to match/mirror/pace/lead the postural aspects of the behaviour of a person sitting at another table in a restaurant (only in their peripheral vision though) such that their response will be to feel rapport with him and then come over and talk to him.

On the subject of reading eye movements he does indicate that the general thrust of the argument is borne out some of the time in real life and that he is unsure how useful or reliable it really is.

After questioning the reliability of some of the scientific testing of eye patterns he goes on to say that some people undoubtedly conform to eye movement patterns with notable reliabilty.

He subsequently makes reference to one of his TV programs, The Heist in which the eye patterns displayed by the participants asked to remember images as part of the Linking System memory technique are "pretty much according to the NLP model" and "almost a text book demonstration"

Incidentally, any fans of Mr Brown may like to know that he has a new TV series in the UK in the form of four Friday night specials, commencing Friday 11th September on Channel 4.

Not sure if those of you in the USA can get your hands on our Channel 4 but you may be able to watch the progams online using their On Demand service - 4OD - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown/4od

ETA - Ooh, while I remember, I recall a post around these parts which had a link to a great list of Task Motivators. Unfortunately the search function on these boards (unless I'm not using it properly) seems to be about as effective as playing pool with a rope. If anybody can point me in the right direction I'd be most grateful.

 

[Toke]

The only thing that could stop me from becoming a dirty old man is death.

I recently bought "A sensous dirty old mann"* by isac Asimov, great book, I have just lend it to my father.

*You are not quite quoting him, but close enough.

 

[Senex]

Oooooooooooooooooooooo... so close!!!!!! I'm at 1457!!! Damn. Does that mean that I lose 100 posts????

No, it just means you got spanked -- and not in the good way !

=JFrankA;5055277
If you are ever at one of my shows, Senex, I'll be happy to make that happen for you.

I've often been called naive before but I believe you

Happened to you too, eh?


M.

Yes it did and I won't look back.

The only thing that could stop me from becoming a dirty old man is death.

That's wisdom.

 

[Edx]

I've been re-reading Derren's Tricks Of The Mind book and have just reached the section on Hypnosis and NLP.

He does indeed pour derision on the idea of slavishly copying a person's every move in order to establish rapport.

Then he goes on to describe to the reader how it's possible to match/mirror/pace/lead the postural aspects of the behaviour of a person sitting at another table in a restaurant (only in their peripheral vision though) such that their response will be to feel rapport with him and then come over and talk to him.

On the subject of reading eye movements he does indicate that the general thrust of the argument is borne out some of the time in real life and that he is unsure how useful or reliable it really is.

After questioning the reliability of some of the scientific testing of eye patterns he goes on to say that some people undoubtedly conform to eye movement patterns with notable reliabilty.

He subsequently makes reference to one of his TV programs, The Heist in which the eye patterns displayed by the participants asked to remember images as part of the Linking System memory technique are "pretty much according to the NLP model" and "almost a text book demonstration"

See... this is what made me think Brown was somewhat endorsing NLP

 

[JFrankA]

I've been re-reading Derren's Tricks Of The Mind book and have just reached the section on Hypnosis and NLP.

He does indeed pour derision on the idea of slavishly copying a person's every move in order to establish rapport.

Sorry, you're cherry picking. For example:

Then he goes on to describe to the reader how it's possible to match/mirror/pace/lead the postural aspects of the behaviour of a person sitting at another table in a restaurant (only in their peripheral vision though) such that their response will be to feel rapport with him and then come over and talk to him.

That whole mirroring thing is prefaced with the following quote from the book:

Some have a very NLP flavour. As I have suggested, if we remove from the NLP equation the grinning, flaccid course-junkies, delusional flower-fairies and ridiculous tactile businessmen, and some of the taken-as-read wild claims made by NLPers at all levels, there are some sensible enough tools and techniques from that world which are worth knowing about, as long as you don't become a True Believer.
I remember an interview in the Observer in the nineties with a hypnotist where the interviewer started to fell something odd was taking place. He soon realized that the interviewee was copying all his body movements. The rest of the article was concerned with how strange and unnatural the interviewer found his subject, and how he kept testing the hypnotist by crossing and uncrossing his legs, moving his hands and so on, to see him immediately follow suit. What I loved about the article was that the technique the hypnotist was employing (the mirroring of body posture) is classic NLP, and like so much of classic NLP if failed because it had been turned into a 'technique'.
Most people, when they are getting on well, will be in a state of unconscious 'rapport'. They will tend to mirror each other's body language and so on without realizing it.

He goes on later to ask the question

Rapport may create those things (mirroring), but the question is, do those things automatically create rapport?

His answer: (And no, I'm NOT typing the whole book for you guys. Gotta read it )

Even if the mirroring is done a little more subtly, the idea that by then employing these 'rapport' techniques in a social situation you are guaranteed to come across as likable and trustworthy is clearly daft.

He's not promoting NLP, he's telling you something that he uses in his performances, but it's not guaranteed and it's not NLP. Remember: this works because the person receiving WANTS it to. Key thing. As a magician, anyone who participates in his performance WANTS to participate and WANTS it to work.

On the subject of reading eye movements he does indicate that the general thrust of the argument is borne out some of the time in real life and that he is unsure how useful or reliable it really is.

After questioning the reliability of some of the scientific testing of eye patterns he goes on to say that some people undoubtedly conform to eye movement patterns with notable reliabilty.

Yes, he does say that but he doesn't say it works or that it's been proven (again directly from the book):

The eye movement hypnothesis has been tested many times by scientists, and routinely it is shown not to hold up. However, it is difficult to know whether this is because the claims are not true or the tests were not conducted fairly; NLPers naturally blame the experiments. The tests normally go as follows. The subject is not told what is being looked for, and is asked a series of questions the scientist believes will elicit a clear visual, auditory or kinaesthetic response - "What would it feel like to swim in noodles?" - and note where the subject's eyes then move. Problematically, a question like this could of course elicit a visual response first (the subject pictures himself in noodles) or even an auditory one (the subject repeats the question to himself or runs through an answer), which would theoretically cause a different eye movement before the expected 'kinaesthetic' one. Although the 'correct' movement then might follow, this may not be noted in the results. Without examining the exact protocol of the experiments, its' very hard to tell how effective they are at testing these claims. Equally, thought, if they are this difficult to test by observers who are trying to take as objective a stance as possible, one could argue that they can hardly be called reliable by biased NLPers who are making no such attempt. My suspicion is that if eye movement was really as reliable as NLPers say, there would be fare more positive results in tests.

He then basically says that it's not a bad idea to keep the eye movement chart in the back of your mind. He doesn't say that it absolutely works. He says it may, not sure, not proven.

He subsequently makes reference to one of his TV programs, The Heist in which the eye patterns displayed by the participants asked to remember images as part of the Linking System memory technique are "pretty much according to the NLP model" and "almost a text book demonstration"

Yes he does, but that is directly AFTER what I had just typed. He's teaching the hypnothesis with the attitude of "it's not proven, it may or may not work. Here's an example."

This is the thing about Derren Brown, and again to my point. He definitely does NOT say that NLP works. There are things he uses in his performances to enhance the effect, or help him achieve the effect, but in real life situations most of the time you come off as looking stupid. The only real way it works is because the person you're doing it to WANTS it to work. People are looking at the surface and not bothering to dig deeper.

When someone goes to Derren's show or watches his program or participates in a trick, they WANT it to work. The mind is more accepting, and the critical thinking goes down or even away. Add a little showmanship and misdirection, and magically these techniques work!

And here is my second point. It backfires. Proof is in your post and in Edx's post. I've shown you direct quotes from Derren's book stating that he thinks NLP is bogus. Still you believe he promotes it. Edx, by your post, now has a confirmation. You believe he promotes it because you WANT to, (No offense meant, please, just making a statement), it's what you were looking for. It's why people come to me after the show and ask me to use my "powers" to help them lose weight or whatever.

People hear what they want to hear. People believe what they want to believe, even if you scream into their face that what you do is a performance and not reality and in reality it doesn't work.

Incidentally, any fans of Mr Brown may like to know that he has a new TV series in the UK in the form of four Friday night specials, commencing Friday 11th September on Channel 4.

Not sure if those of you in the USA can get your hands on our Channel 4 but you may be able to watch the progams online using their On Demand service - 4OD - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown/4od

I can't get it. I have to be in the UK. But thanks for the link anyway.

 

[microdot]

Sorry, you're cherry picking. For example:

Would you rather have me type out the whole book?

The fact is that I was responding to Eddie Dane's earlier post.

He also didn't type out the whole book and IMO, his precis didn't paint a balanced view of the opinions expressed in the book.

That whole mirroring thing is prefaced with the following quote from the book:......

Which is why I said:-

He does indeed pour derision on the idea of slavishly copying a person's every move in order to establish rapport.

i.e. agreeing with the previously expressed view.

He's not promoting NLP, he's telling you something that he uses in his performances, but it's not guaranteed and it's not NLP.

I never said that he was promoting NLP.

What I do think is that he's giving himself a Get Out Of Jail Free Card.

He mocks NLP true believers but then is quite happy to explain how he uses techniques that are found in NLP (whether he labels it NLP or not is of no significant relevance as far as I'm concerned).

He then basically says that it's not a bad idea to keep the eye movement chart in the back of your mind. He doesn't say that it absolutely works. He says it may, not sure, not proven.

Yes, I know, AND he directs the reader to one of his programmes which, as I said earlier, he quotes as a text book example of it.

Call me a skeptic but it seems to me that he wants the best of both worlds.

This is the thing about Derren Brown, and again to my point. He definitely does NOT say that NLP works.

As far as I can see he doesn't say anything one way or the other.

As I've said before, he seems quite happy to pour derision on 'NLP True Believers' and then, almost in the next breath, explain in detail how he has used techniques described in NLP.

ETA - and, if it's not NLP, why does he put it in the same section of his book as the stuff on NLP? Why not put it in a section of it's own?

Shame you can't get to see the upcoming series of TV programs - on the advert he says he's going to reveal how he achieves the effects featured in the programs

 

[Lothario]

What did you think there was? Absolutely nothing. You wanted to do more than tell us how NLP works, right? Or are you content to just say it does?

Just a minor note...

What MikeSun is doing here is not an embedded command, it's what NLPers call punctuation ambiguity. The theory is that you will unconsciouly receive the message "there was absolutely nothing you wanted to do more..." because your subconscious does not acknowledge the question marks or full stops.

An embedded command is when you separate parts of a sentence by slightly shifting your tonality as you speak. They say that affirmations have a neutral tonality, questions have an upward shift towards the end of the sentence and orders have a downward shift. So, an embedded command would be something like "I like this forum because people here tend to... (lower tonality) do as I say.

Again, the theory is that the subconscious will recognize the tonality shift and perceive the final part of the sentence as being an order.


P.S. I can't get Derren's show either. I'll have to wait until someone puts it on youtube