Yet more NLP BS

[microdot]

What MikeSun is doing here is not an embedded command, it's what NLPers call punctuation ambiguity.

Punctuation ambiguity is not something I've come across in my studies of NLP.

For me the punctuation in MikeSun's example is one of the reasons why what he wrote could never work as an embedded command.

That and the fact that he used past tense, had no rapport (sorry Mike - nothing personal, I just find forums suffer just like email in this regard) and used something which clashed completely with my world model.

Here it comes -

 

[Eddie Dane]

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.)

 

[microdot]

Rofl

 

[JFrankA]

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.

Which is why I said: i.e. agreeing with the previously expressed view.

Okay. I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

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).


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.


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.

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

But that's just it: it's not techniques "found" in NLP. It's psychological tricks that could work (given the right circumstances) that NLP blows out of proportion.

And I think it's unfair to say it's a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" simply because, such in the case with eye movements, he basically says that it's a good trick on stage, (read: special, controlled circumstances), but he seriously doubts it works in real life situations.

He's trimming away the "fat" of NLP and giving the basic hypothesis. He is saying "I don't know" (which is the basis of being a skeptic) and letting you know the hypothesis so you make you can see the difference between what the hypothesis is and what the NLP build up is. He's saying "here it is without the hype, give it a try but if you try this in real life situations, the most likely outcome is that you will look like a fool."

Look I've said it before, sometimes these thing do work: when the receiver WANTS it to work. That's the key difference between a magician's performance and real life.

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?

It's under "Hypnosis and Suggestion" which NLP is a part of. The chapter is about suggestion. The book is a magic 101 book. He out and out says that NLP doesn't work, then describes the psychological trick. NLP has taken these basic tricks, that work under certain circumstances, and blown it up into something that will always work.

That's the difference.

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

Yeah, like Lothario, I'm waiting on youTube....

 

[microdot]

Okay. I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.

Respectfully accepted.

...that NLP blows out of proportion.

I don't entirely agree. I will agree that there are people out there who make outrageous and insubstantiated claims about it.

He out and out says that NLP doesn't work,....

Does he?

I'm going to have to check now if he specifically says that anywhere....

ETA - should I mention the two different descriptions Derren offers for what essentially amounts to the swish pattern?

ETA - I say essentially amounts to - it's pretty much verbatim

 

[Lothario]

About punctuation ambiguity:

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

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.)

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.

 

[microdot]

About punctuation ambiguity:

http://www.psychdaily.com/encycloped...tion+ambiguity

Thanks for the link

A snippet from that page reads -

--- snip ---
The two sentences are joined by a phonologically ambiguous word, in this case hand.

--- snip ---

I suspect that this type of ambiguity relies on the words being vocalised rather than being in print where the punctuation can be clearly seen and acted upon in the normal way.

Perhaps JFrankA can add something of value here?

 

[MikeSun5]

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.)

Kind of reminds me of when it sounds like Ali G is saying "Fair enough," but he's really saying, "Hairy muff." I say that often and it's seldom noticed.

I will agree that there are people out there who make outrageous and insubstantiated claims about it.

Like, "NLP has practical uses."

If it works, then at best NLP is a placebo. ...because (all together now):

Look I've said it before, sometimes these thing do work: when the receiver WANTS it to work.

Derren Brown is right to trim the fat...

 

[microdot]

Derren Brown is right to trim the fat...

To reveal and deliniate the lean meat of those things he's used and got positive results from.

I agree.

 

[MikeSun5]

To reveal and deliniate the lean meat of those things he's used and got positive results from.

I agree.

Uh... positive results after intensive screening, a huge number of attempts, and let's not forget the kicker: ...entertainment TELEVISION.

Derren Brown is not "trimming the fat" on a science show. Tricks of the Mind is not exactly a scientific course book at a university, either.

 

[microdot]

positive results

Exactly.

 

[remirol]

Exactly.

I'm not sure you're really keeping all of the conversation in context at this point. You might want to go back and reread a bit.

That said, this is also a lot of speculation over what's essentially hearsay; the validity of NLP is determined primarily by scientific studies, not by one magician's opinion.

 

[JFrankA]

Uh... positive results after intensive screening, a huge number of attempts, and let's not forget the kicker: ...entertainment TELEVISION.

Derren Brown is not "trimming the fat" on a science show. Tricks of the Mind is not exactly a scientific course book at a university, either.

This is what I've been saying all along. All his shows are just entertainment, just showmanship. That's it. Don't take anything on his show as "real" because his job, like any magician's, is to basically con you but to have you enjoy it.

His books, though, are all magic books. Even "Tricks of the Mind" which, I still say is a Magic 101 book for non-magicians.

The difference between Derren Brown and someone like Mystery. Derren isn't selling a method to make you pick up girls. Derren is taking a trick and keeps it as entertainment. People like Mystery takes a trick and blows it up to a "way of life".

I suspect that this type of ambiguity relies on the words being vocalised rather than being in print where the punctuation can be clearly seen and acted upon in the normal way.

Perhaps JFrankA can add something of value here?

The idea is to implement it any way you can: vocalized, written, whatever as long as it's there and there a lot of them. The bottom line about this method, is to confuse the receiver. (See, there's that word again!) Confusion makes a person's "critical mind" (so to speak), tend to drop away while that person is figuring out what the confusion is. Therefore, someone who is confused is more open to suggestion.

The hypothesis is that with this ambiguity, you can confuse a person and slip in a command at the same time.

I find it works best as comedy, for example:

"Let's eat Grandpa!"
"Let's eat, Grandpa!"
...commas save lives.

 

[microdot]

I'm not sure you're really keeping all of the conversation in context at this point. You might want to go back and reread a bit.

Hiya remirol - my eyes are just fine thanks

Therefore, someone who is confused is more open to suggestion.

The hypothesis is that with this ambiguity, you can confuse a person and slip in a command at the same time.

Slip in a command, or a theraputic suggestion? Or helpful advice? Or in fact any kind of suggestion that the person could find useful if they acted upon it?

 

[remirol]

Slip in a command, or a theraputic suggestion? Or helpful advice? Or in fact any kind of suggestion that the person could find useful if they acted upon it?

Those are all commands.

It's also important not to conflate the desired effect with the action; leads to an "ends justifies the means" scenario. One person's "helpful advice" may be the worst thing ever to another.

 

[microdot]

Those are all commands.

It's also important not to conflate the desired effect with the action; leads to an "ends justifies the means" scenario. One person's "helpful advice" may be the worst thing ever to another.

Is a suggestion the same thing as a command?

Other than that, I completely agree.

ETA - I had to look up the meaning of conflation

 

[remirol]

Is a suggestion the same thing as a command?

In the type of circumstances we're discussing ("embedded directive")? Yes.

 

[microdot]

In the type of circumstances we're discussing ("embedded directive")? Yes.

Hmmmm.

This got me thinking.

On the one hand I agree.

On the other hand I think that from the perspective of the transmitter (person issuing suggestion / command) and their expectation of the outcome(s), suggestion and command have differing meanings.

ETA - I know you value 'concrete terms' thinking but I don't think human behaviour and subjective experience can be classified entirely in that way i.e. all meaning is subjective and context dependent.

 

[remirol]

In the type of circumstances we're discussing ("embedded directive")? Yes.

Hmmmm.

This got me thinking.

On the one hand I agree.

On the other hand I think that from the perspective of the transmitter (person issuing suggestion / command) and their expectation of the outcome(s), suggestion and command have differing meanings.

Oh, I'm sure the transmitter would dearly like to think of it differently. But we are talking about the _intent_ of manipulating another human to do something you want them to. Whether you have their best interests at heart is completely different from the act you're performing -- and that is that you're giving them a command.

Put another way: suggestion implies that the 'receiver' has options. In the context of NLP, it is intended that the receiver have no options.

ETA - I know you value 'concrete terms' thinking but I don't think human behaviour and subjective experience can be classified entirely in that way i.e. all meaning is subjective and context dependent.

Human behavior and subjective experience are tricky to work with, yes, but I can't agree that _all_ meaning is subjective and context-dependent. That's the sort of statement that, if I were a con, I'd totally love to have be true. It would allow me to say anything I want and then come back around later and say "Ah, but that's not really what I _meant_, see."

Actions, at least, are concrete. A person did a thing. Now, _why_ the person did that thing is far more complex, agreed -- but in the end, the person still did the thing. And to an extent, we need to try to do something similar with speech -- the words you say need to be, first and foremost, the _words you say_, and we need to treat them that way.

When we become apologists for other people's words is when we find ourselves being manipulated by them most.

 

[microdot]

In the context of NLP, it is intended that the receiver have no options.

Intended by who?

What leads you to that conclusion?

Human behavior and subjective experience are tricky to work with, yes, but I can't agree that _all_ meaning is subjective and context-dependent. That's the sort of statement that, if I were a con, I'd totally love to have be true. It would allow me to say anything I want and then come back around later and say "Ah, but that's not really what I _meant_, see."

Agreed - which is where lawyers et. al. make their $$$

Actions, at least, are concrete. A person did a thing. Now, _why_ the person did that thing is far more complex, agreed -- but in the end, the person still did the thing. And to an extent, we need to try to do something similar with speech -- the words you say need to be, first and foremost, the _words you say_, and we need to treat them that way.

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

Fortunately the meaning that each of us applies to the those labels _usually_ overlaps enough for us to hold conversations without needing to resort to elaborate explanations of what _exactly_ we mean by each of the words we use.