Yet more NLP BS

[MikeSun5]

I'm not suggesting that this is the only article you considered but that would be a lovely example of that old enemy to critical thinking - good old Confirmation Bias.

It would be a lovely example of confirmation bias. ...if the other pages I read weren't saying pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Now I wouldn't want to be seen to be pointing you in a particular direction...

You mean a website that thinks NLP is a real science? No, of course not...

...but there are other websites listed in the Google results which offer more detailed and easy-to-follow descriptions of the process if you care to look.

Okay, I'll take the bait...
Here's another site that explains the same nonsensical movie theater "technique."
Another site has the same nonsense, and goes as far ast to claim the "fast phobia cure" can cure phobias in 10 minutes.
Here is an actual script of a "fast phobia cure," complete with hypnotic language patterns and cues as to when to drop anchors.

So far that's 4 websites saying pretty much the exact same thing about this supposed "fast phobia cure." Confirmation Bias, or just straight up confirmation? hmmmmmm.....

I simply don't see any reason to believe that this "fast phobia cure" method would be any more effective than my crystal therapy phobia cure.

 

[microdot]

Hiya Mike - hope you're well

It would be a lovely example of confirmation bias. ...if the other pages I read weren't saying pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

OK, so we've established that you've read some explanations of the fast phobia cure on some other websites - good!

Apart from the fact that pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME THING is an oxymoron, the sweeping generalisation that you've made isn't entirely accurate - there are considerable differences between the various descriptions offered, and some of them are still on the vague side.

You mean a website that thinks NLP is a real science? No, of course not...

No, rather a website which could provide more background information and answer the specific questions you asked earlier.

Of the pages that you linked to I thought this one offered the clearest description and also the description which best matched that published in the original texts by Bandler / Grinder.

I simply don't see any reason to believe that this "fast phobia cure" method would be any more effective than my crystal therapy phobia cure.

Nobody asked you to?

If they are both effective then they are both effective.

I'm going to have to refer to JFrankA on this one. How in the hell do you "get" the client to do any of that stuff? I guess I just don't see how "getting a client" to imagine themselves jumping in and out of black and white/color movies would make your hypothetical patient want to swim.

Seriously, that stuff sounds as far fetched as the blue green crystal therapy idea.
I mean, "re-add critical submodality colour and run backwards." What in the hell IS that?? Is that trying to remove the client's fear of swimming, or just replace it with severe confusion?

So, assuming that you've read JFrankA's response(s) and the discussion I had with Maia, have your questions been answered?

 

[Maia]

Coincidentally, the most recent issue of Playboy mentions Mystery in their advisor section. So I thought I'd post it here.

The funniest part of that letter has got to be that Playboy sounds as if they're rather critical of (rather than uncritically enthusiastic about)Mystery's techniques.
ETA: Anyway, more later about the other posts.

 

[Lothario]

Apart from the fact that pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME THING is an oxymoron, the sweeping generalisation that you've made isn't entirely accurate - there are considerable differences between the various descriptions offered, and some of them are still on the vague side.

If NLP is science, shouldn't descriptions for any given procedure be exactly the same? If you ask a bunch of surgeons how to perform a particular surgery, you'd expect them to go through the same steps. Otherwise, patients die.

Take CBT, for instance. You can rephrase it all you want, but it all comes down to 1) realizing how your thinking is wrong 2) exposing yourself gradually to the situations you are afraid of. It's simple, it's common sense and there's not much room for vagueness and different descriptions. No "imagine yourself in a black and white movie" either.

Nobody asked you to?

If they are both effective then they are both effective.

Hmm... crystal therapy is effective? Well, if you believe in it and the problem you are trying to solve is not that serious, then yes, it can be "effective".

What about prayer? Is it effective too?

The funniest part of that letter has got to be that Playboy sounds as if they're rather critical of (rather than uncritically enthusiastic about)Mystery's techniques.
ETA: Anyway, more later about the other posts.

Isn't it ironic that a magazine that features only beautiful, sexy women will tell its readers that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

 

[MikeSun5]

If they are both effective then they are both effective.

True, but I contend that neither are. It's one thing to picture yourself swimming in black and white or breaking crystals in the comfort of a therapist's office to overcome your fear of water, it's another thing to stand in front of water and not be scared.

So, assuming that you've read JFrankA's response(s) and the discussion I had with Maia, have your questions been answered?

I guess so... JFrankA explained the mechanisms by which the imaging portion of the FPC is supposed to work, and Maia explained that the FPC was a dressed up version of CBT's exposure therapy minus the exposure.

As far as my opinion of NLP, I think I'm pretty much where I was to begin with. It is not a science, it just sounds like one.

NLP is a placebo that can be put on the same shelf as acupuncture, homeopathy, crystal therapy, reiki, and psychic healers. I think the human mind can heal/fix/manipulate itself, and really all one needs is a catalyst. Pick your poison.

Really my only gripe about NLP is it's attempts to align itself with some sort of scientific validity, when it's about as scientific as prayer.

 

[microdot]

If NLP is science, shouldn't descriptions for any given procedure be exactly the same? If you ask a bunch of surgeons how to perform a particular surgery, you'd expect them to go through the same steps. Otherwise, patients die.

Yes the descriptions should be the same. Unfortunately some of the sites MikeSun5 linked to have incorrect explanations of the process.

Take CBT, for instance. You can rephrase it all you want, but it all comes down to 1) realizing how your thinking is wrong 2) exposing yourself gradually to the situations you are afraid of. It's simple, it's common sense and there's not much room for vagueness and different descriptions. No "imagine yourself in a black and white movie" either.

I sometimes cringe a little when I read the words dangerous thinking in these forums because all too often they are used simply for effect or to add perceived weight to one person's argument by criticising the thought processes of others. On the other hand I think that to simply say that a person's thinking is wrong could be unproductive and possibly dangerous.

Fear in and of itself is not 'wrong thinking' - it's one of the things that helps to keep us alive in dangerous situations.

In the case of the swimming phobia a level of fear is still a healthy thing to have insofar as if you're not careful you could drown.

Usually that fear is balanced with experience, past and present, which allows us to make relatively accurate judgements about the level of danger and our ability to deal with it safely. In the phobic response the balance is less than equal / acceptable and fear wins.

Hmm... crystal therapy is effective?

Could be - who knows?

Isn't it ironic that a magazine that features only beautiful, sexy women will tell its readers that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

LOL - perhaps there's a subliminal message there i.e. Have the best of both worlds - settle for a less attractive woman in real life as, afterall, you can still buy our magazine and look at more attractive women

True, but I contend that neither are. It's one thing to picture yourself swimming in black and white or breaking crystals in the comfort of a therapist's office to overcome your fear of water, it's another thing to stand in front of water and not be scared.

NLP is a placebo that can be put on the same shelf as acupuncture, homeopathy, crystal therapy, reiki, and psychic healers. I think the human mind can heal/fix/manipulate itself, and really all one needs is a catalyst.

I'm slightly confused. If I've correctly understood what you've written:-

1. You're prepared to accept that placebo works
2. You're not prepared to accept that something with another name but which you identify _as_ placebo works.

Have I understood correctly?

And yes, picturing yourself swimming is not the same as standing in front of water and not being scared - no surprise there.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that often a phobic person can't even _think_ about the thing they are scared of without it triggering the phobic response.

If just thinking about it scares them, facing their fear head-on is going to be a pretty awful experience for them, very difficult for them and hence they are less likely to do it.

I guess it's about a balance between the fear and the desire/ability to overcome it.

If something, NLP, crystals, prayer, or whatever assists a person in shifting that balance to the point where the desire outweighs the fear and thus enables them to make the change then I think that something has value and is valid.

I think the human mind can heal/fix/manipulate itself, and really all one needs is a catalyst.

How _do_ you think it does that and what, in your opinion would constitute a catalyst?

Really my only gripe about NLP is it's attempts to align itself with some sort of scientific validity, when it's about as scientific as prayer.

So you completely discount / disregard something purely on the basis that you think it portrays itself as something which you think it's not?

In the office we have one of those calendars with a 'thought for the day' on each page.

Yesterday's said Think wrongly if you wish, but always think for yourself.

 

[Lothario]

If something, NLP, crystals, prayer, or whatever assists a person in shifting that balance to the point where the desire outweighs the fear and thus enables them to make the change then I think that something has value and is valid.

Like someone pointed out earlier, the big difference is that NLP is a huge industry that sells seminars, cds and books to help you learn the techniques when it amounts to nothing more than a placebo. Crystals are cheap. Prayer is for free. If they are all placebos, why should I choose the most expensive one?

 

[microdot]

If they are all placebos, why should I choose the most expensive one?

ETA - nobody said that you should!

As far as I was aware the main themes of the debate concern the validity/efficacy of NLP, whether or not it can be described as 'science' and whether people who use it for financial gain at the expense of others should be made to sit on the naughty step.

All of your choices are entirely your own and no concern of mine

As I said earlier:-

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.

If what you said in the above quote represents your full and complete appreciation of NLP then I have to say that your view is grossly over simplified.

And just for the record and to clear up any confusion I disagree that NLP is placebo.

In the ideal world choosing what works best would be of more importance than which costs least.

I've never bought crystals myself so I'll take you at your word as to their relative cost and yes, in monetary terms prayer is free but both of these things rely purely on faith.

NLP on the other hand is predicated upon the belief that we are responsible for our own outcomes - _we ourselves_ - not some pill, real or fake, not some mystical mineral power and not blind faith in some deity or other.

NLP involves practices which, in laymans terms, involve such simple, real, practical, measurable things as:-

• Setting goals
• Taking positive action to achieve those goals
• Monitoring and measuring your progress through sensory awareness
• Modifying your behaviours as required to achieve your goals

I find it somewhat difficult therefore to make the same 'apples-for-apples' comparison that you appear to have made.

 

[Maia]

Well, I think that y'all are really going to have to fight this out amongst yourselves, but I will say this: if anyone wants to actually prove that a method works better than placebo, the only way to do it is to submit it to accepted methods of testing. With any therapeutic method, however, it clearly isn't possible to do double-blind testing, which is the gold standard. CBT does have the best body of evidence backing up its efficacy for certain conditions, and although the most reliable studies are on depression, exposure therapy is one flavor of it that also has been shown to work well for most people with OCD/simple phobias. The figure which is most commonly seen as a success rate for OCD is about 80% (Grayson, 2003). Of course, this sample is only drawn from people who are willing to enter studies and perform exposure therapy in the first place, and I do have to say that anyone with a co-occurring condition (besides OCD) never, ever makes it into these studies. 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.

The biggest problem I have with it is that studies show just how disastrous the outcomes are for people whose OCD/phobias are co-occurring with PTSD. And that's where I do think that the NLP techniques should at least come with a warning to check with your doctor before you go around blithely trying these at home if you've ever had psychological problems, because they could get some people into real trouble, just as exposure therapy can.

ETA citation:

Grayson, J. (2003). Freedom from obsessive-compulsive disorder: A personalized recovery program for living with uncertainty. Penguin Group: New York.

 

[MikeSun5]

I'm slightly confused. If I've correctly understood what you've written:-

1. You're prepared to accept that placebo works

Most definitely. That's been proven (see Placebo Effect ).

2. You're not prepared to accept that something with another name but which you identify _as_ placebo works.

Not sure what youre asking... In the context of this conversation, NLP is identical to acupuncture. NLP admittedly doesn't work on everyone. Neither does acupuncture. NLP attempts to link itself to science with no proven evidence. So does acupuncture. NLP attempts to distance itself from being explained by placebo effect. So does acupuncture. NLP (unlike all other sciences) doesn't evolve as theories are tested and disproven. Neither does acupuncture.

How _do_ you think it does that and what, in your opinion would constitute a catalyst?

I don't know, but I'm as close to 100% sure as one can get that it's NOT because of NLP. As far as what constitutes a catalyst... hell, whatever the person needs. An ex-girl of mine had back pains and she went to doctors, chiropractors, and massage therapists. Nothing worked. She was a woo-believer, and one day her mother gave her the number of a psychic healer. She would sit in the bedroom for 20 min. at a time while a lady "healed" her over the phone. Guess what? Her back quit hurting. She was so convinced that the lady was legit, she had me get "healed" once for an injury. I sat on the phone in silence for like 10 minutes and nothing happened. I swear I could hear mouse clicks. That con artist was probably playing frickin Minesweeper while charging however many bucks a minute.

I don't believe in that crap, but my ex did. It worked on her, too. I'm convinced it was a matter of stress or something, but she believed in it so it worked.

That's like NLP. It'll only work if the patient believes in it (and believes it's being used on them).

So you completely discount / disregard something purely on the basis that you think it portrays itself as something which you think it's not?

Nope. I just know it won't work for me because I believe it's crap. Just like acupuncture.

I do however, take issue with the claims that NLP is not a placebo but a legitimate science. These claims are intentionally misleading to generate revenue. That's called a con.

I've never bought crystals myself so I'll take you at your word as to their relative cost and yes, in monetary terms prayer is free but both of these things rely purely on faith.

NLP relies on faith. If someone didn't have knowledge about it and/or didn't know it was being used on them, it wouldn't work.

The list you made about the NLP practices isn't new. All of those things are common life-coaching techniques that have been around LONG before NLP decided to stamp it's name on them.

Eliminate the plagarized material, and NLP is left with anchors, embedded commands, swish patterns, and a bunch of other woo.

 

[Edx]

Anchors are woo?

 

[JFrankA]

Anchors are woo?

See here's the thing about NLP. There are some very legitimate psychological tricks that really do work that NLP blows up into something that just won't work.

Anchoring is one of them. It's almost like that Anchoring and Conditioning are mixed into this one big "technique".

The act of touching someone, for example, on the right shoulder while saying something favorable, might increase the chances of that person having a favorable response every time that person is touched during the conversation.

What the problem is that it doesn't always work. It depends on a few things. The mood of the receiver, for one. And that's the major one. There are also things like the place that the person is being touched might be sore, or maybe the person just simply finds it annoying. The other thing about this is that it's extremely temporary. Even if it did work, it won't last. I am willing to bet that by the time the person on the recieving side went to lunch, did some work, watched tv, the anchor would be gone and long forgotten.

Now sometimes it does work well. For example, I use it in my shows once in a while, but then again, I have a major advantage for it to work for me. First off, it's a show, something people want to see something amazing happen. The audience I choose to experience this are willing and wanting to believe me. So the people are open and receptive to what I am doing and I've eliminated most of the forces working against me. Even with that, it is very temporary. People's memories are incredibly bad.

But here's the flip side of the coin. If these two people regularly see each other, and the two people really like each other, and anchoring was done and reinforced, eventually it would work. But now we are talking about conditioning. Conditioning works with a stimulus/reward (or stimulus/take pain away) pattern repeated quite a lot.

It seems to me that NLP has taken this simple psychological trick, mixed it with conditioning and called it "Anchoring". I think that a lot of NLP "techniques" are like that.

 

[microdot]

Hiya guys

NLP admittedly doesn't work on everyone.

Ipso facto is does work for some people - glad we agree on something

NLP attempts to link itself to science with no proven evidence.

I'm not sure that it does. I think that some people come to that conclusion because it overlaps areas which they consider to be the exclusive domain of 'science' and something which can only be considered and discussed in 'scientific' terms.

NLP attempts to distance itself from being explained by placebo effect.

I'm not sure where you get this from but I would agree that trying to compare those two things is like trying to compare apples and bananas.

NLP (unlike all other sciences) doesn't evolve as theories are tested and disproven.

Unlike all other sciences? Didn't think you considered NLP as science

In any case as NLP is predicated upon the study of subjective experience, and the fact that we gather and process information though our five senses, how do you think it should evolve? Alongside human evolution? If a sixth sense has been proven I've not heard about it.

That's like NLP. It'll only work if the patient believes in it (and believes it's being used on them).

People change the ways in which they think all the time and for many different reasons. If I flip your argument on it's head for a minute then nothing that I say to another person could ever change the way they think unless I've first explained to them what 'technique' I'm using?

Nope. I just know it won't work for me because I believe it's crap.

Phew! At least then you don't dismiss it out of hand

You'd be absolutely right too. I doubt whether any of the 'talking therapies' could achieve optimum results without the cooperation of the person on the receiving end - no surprise there. Just like if I gave some perfectly useful advice to a friend which would help them achieve a desired outcome they could simply choose to ignore it.

I do however, take issue with the claims that NLP is not a placebo but a legitimate science. These claims are intentionally misleading to generate revenue. That's called a con.

NLP is not simply placebo.

Magicians mislead people in order to generate revenue.

(Derren Brown threads anyone )

Is that a con?

Maybe it is, but it's one we're willing to accept in return for entertainment.

It's only a _bad_ when those being mislead are unaware of the fact and suffer as a result of it and, where that is the case i.e. the characters which gave rise to this thread, we are in agreement.

As far as generating revenue is concerned, I'm inclined to believe that there are very few training providers out there who don't derive a revenue from their work, if only to cover their costs.

How about if an NLP trainer sets themselves up in business and _promises_ not to call what they are doing 'science'? Would that be acceptable to you?

The list you made about the NLP practices isn't new. All of those things are common life-coaching techniques that have been around LONG before NLP decided to stamp it's name on them.

Yes, and they were around LONG before 'life-coaching' (whatever that means) decided to stamp _it's_ name on them too

Deciding what you want, taking action to achieve it, monitoring your progress as you go.....doesn't almost every single person on the planet do those things many times every single day? Haven't people been doing that since they first walked on the Earth?

If you don't believe me, try picking up a cup without doing any of those things

So, in a sense nobody owns those 'ideas' or 'processes' and in another sense we all do because we all do them automatically anyway because - they work!

Yet strangely, something which we do automatically and unconsciously in order to get out of bed, shower, dress etc. etc. we don't necessarily do _consciously_ and with volition in order to achieve other goals in life - hence why they are written down and made explicit in countless books around the world.

See here's the thing about NLP. There are some very legitimate psychological tricks that really do work that NLP blows up into something that just won't work.

I like the really do work but I'm not wild about the trick.

Trick - a cunning or deceitful action or device

You see the negative connotations in that one word

What's wrong with, say processes or actions?

Anchoring is one of them. It's almost like that Anchoring and Conditioning are mixed into this one big "technique".

Not surprising given that anchoring is based on the concept of stimulus/response

What the problem is that it doesn't always work.

Few things in life do

It depends on a few things.

Most things in life do

So it works some of the time and depends on a few things - something else we agree on

The other thing about this is that it's extremely temporary. Even if it did work, it won't last. I am willing to bet that by the time the person on the recieving side went to lunch, did some work, watched tv, the anchor would be gone and long forgotten.

Have you ever heard a piece of music from your past that was special to some person or some set of circumstances at that particular time in your life and instantly been 'transported' back to that time/place/person?

Or smelled a particular scent which you associate with a particular person or place and 'relived' the memories you have connected with that scent?

Some anchors last a long time.

For me one such anchor is a piece of music called The Model by Kraftwerk.

It was the first time I'd heard such precise, crisp electronic music played on a _proper_ hi-fi. Don' think I've ever heard vinyl sound so good since then.

Whenever I hear it I can vividly picture the room I was standing in when I first heard it, the furnishings, carpets, decor and the hi-fi it was playing on, the table that was sitting on.....

Now sometimes it does work well. For example, I use it in my shows once in a while, but then again, I have a major advantage for it to work for me. First off, it's a show, something people want to see something amazing happen. The audience I choose to experience this are willing and wanting to believe me. So the people are open and receptive to what I am doing and I've eliminated most of the forces working against me. Even with that, it is very temporary. People's memories are incredibly bad.

So, if I understand you correctly, anchoring works better under certain circumstances. Something else we agree on

People's memories are incredibly bad

Naughty JFrankA with your sweeping generalisations

One could argue that some people have 'better' memories than other people.

OR one could argue that because people experience their world _subjectively_ that they pay attention to and hence remember different things.

And one could also argue that different people place differing values / levels of importance / significance on the things they choose to remember which may or may not affect their retention of those things.

Certainly one could say that memory is _selective_.

Most memory enhancing techniques that I've come across involve increasing the number of neural pathways in the brain that are associated with a particular memory.

I'm not a scientist but I imagine that the more neural pathways that we activate when we make a memory, the more neural pathways activate when we try to recall that memory, making the memory easier to recall.

Now, maybe I'm taking a leap of faith here but I'm inclined to believe that this is probably why anchoring probably works better when it involves multiple sensory inputs i.e. sight, sound, touch, taste, smell and self talk (what we say to ourselves in our own mind).

Just a hunch.

 

[Lothario]

Have you ever heard a piece of music from your past that was special to some person or some set of circumstances at that particular time in your life and instantly been 'transported' back to that time/place/person?

Or smelled a particular scent which you associate with a particular person or place and 'relived' the memories you have connected with that scent?

Some anchors last a long time.

For me one such anchor is a piece of music called The Model by Kraftwerk.

It was the first time I'd heard such precise, crisp electronic music played on a _proper_ hi-fi. Don' think I've ever heard vinyl sound so good since then.

Whenever I hear it I can vividly picture the room I was standing in when I first heard it, the furnishings, carpets, decor and the hi-fi it was playing on, the table that was sitting on.....

I think nobody's stating that this type of association doesn't exist. For instance, whenever i go near the place where my grandmother (who raised me when i was a kid) died, i instantly get depressed. So, in a way, i have "anchored" (for lack of a better word) that place with what I felt when she passed away.

However, i don't think you'll make me depressed by touching my shoulder a couple of times while mentioning her. You will get punched in the face though .

People are not dogs. You can't take Pavlov's study and apply it just like that to human beings. Just because i go to a restaurant two days in a row it doesn't mean i'll come back every day for the rest of my life because i got fed.

EDIT:

P.S. What's wrong with your avatar, JFrankA? Is that DB? ;P

 

[microdot]

I think nobody's stating that this type of association doesn't exist.

Good

And even if they were it would mean very little because these absolutely are observable phenomena for the vast majority of people on the planet.

There's a stimulus - a sight, a smell, something you hear or whatever which triggers a response in one or more of your sensory channels.

NLP uses the word anchoring as a label for this type of phenomena.

No big deal so far as I can see

So you can probably appreciate why I find such sweeping generalisations as NLP is BS a little irksome.

However, i don't think you'll make me depressed by touching my shoulder a couple of times while mentioning her. You will get punched in the face though .

Not the face! Have some compassion man!

And of course my touching your shoulder wouldn't constitute an anchor for that experience as it wasn't part of the experience and thus has no linkage to it.

There's no reason that I can think of though why new anchors cannot be associated with past experiences so that the linkage will be present going forward, although I'm happy to concede that the new anchor might not be as strong as some of the anchors made during the original experience, especially if that experience was a particularly emotional one.

People are not dogs. You can't take Pavlov's study and apply it just like that to human beings. Just because i go to a restaurant two days in a row it doesn't mean i'll come back every day for the rest of my life because i got fed.

Absolutely, although you may change your mind if you met some of my neighbours

I think you would agree though that you'll be more likely to frequent those restaurants that fed you particularly well, or had particularly pleasant surroundings and staff, or that have links with important people / events in your life - all of which are anchors which affect the ways in which you think and feel about those places.

On a serious note though, and with due respect, I'm sorry to hear that your grandmother passed. Sounds like you guys were pretty close.

 

[Lothario]

On a serious note though, and with due respect, I'm sorry to hear that your grandmother passed. Sounds like you guys were pretty close.

It's okay, she passed away a couple of years ago actually. I just mentioned it because it's the clearest, most vivid "anchor" i could find in my life.

I never disagreed that "anchors" or whatever you want to call do exist, and we all experience it one way or another, whether it's a song that reminds you of someone or like in my case, a place that reminds you of a traumatic event.

What i can't believe is that you can manipulate someone by touching them at a particular time in a conversation or by pointing at a specific spot, like some people advertise.

Check out what these slime balls claim they can do using "anchors" (and sorry, i don't know how to embed):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha0OJP2XIyw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opRLUwAJhJY

 

[JFrankA]

I don't have much time, (seeing my son today! ) but I did want to reply to you.

I like the really do work but I'm not wild about the trick.

Trick - a cunning or deceitful action or device

You see the negative connotations in that one word

What's wrong with, say processes or actions?

Because tricks is what it is. I go onstage, I perform tricks that's cunning and deceitful, and people cheer (I hope!!!!) and pay me to do more. Nothing wrong with the word.

Not surprising given that anchoring is based on the concept of stimulus/response

Correct, it's based on conditioning, but it seems to me like anchoring is "instant conditioning - just add unusual touch".

So it works some of the time and depends on a few things - something else we agree on

But NLP teaches that anchoring works period. It doesn't. It does if the person receiving the NLP wants it to work. That's a big thing. Anchoring will not make a woman who isn't interested to suddenly have "good feelings" about you.

Now conditioning is a different story. First off, conditioning take a very long time to take effect, it's done under controlled conditions and in a controlled setting. Anchoring involves none of these things.

Have you ever heard a piece of music from your past that was special to some person or some set of circumstances at that particular time in your life and instantly been 'transported' back to that time/place/person?

Or smelled a particular scent which you associate with a particular person or place and 'relived' the memories you have connected with that scent?

That's conditioning, not anchoring. Huge difference.

Some anchors last a long time.

For me one such anchor is a piece of music called The Model by Kraftwerk.

It was the first time I'd heard such precise, crisp electronic music played on a _proper_ hi-fi. Don' think I've ever heard vinyl sound so good since then.

Whenever I hear it I can vividly picture the room I was standing in when I first heard it, the furnishings, carpets, decor and the hi-fi it was playing on, the table that was sitting on.....

Sorry, that's mixing up memory with anchoring. Hearing a piece of music during a special event and remembering that moment is a far cry from meeting someone in a bar who touched your shoulder when saying something pleasant. A memory sticks to someone if the event associated with it means something special to the person. Anchoring someone in a bar or in a sales pitch would mean nothing.

So, if I understand you correctly, anchoring works better under certain circumstances. Something else we agree on

Better than what? I said it only works when the person receiving the anchoring wants it to work and if there is something very personal going on at the same time. Conditioning doesn't need that, but those circumstance greatly improve conditioning.

Naughty JFrankA with your sweeping generalisations

I am very naughty. Very proud of that.

One could argue that some people have 'better' memories than other people.

OR one could argue that because people experience their world _subjectively_ that they pay attention to and hence remember different things.

And one could also argue that different people place differing values / levels of importance / significance on the things they choose to remember which may or may not affect their retention of those things.

Certainly one could say that memory is _selective_.

All that is exactly what I am saying. That's why our memories are crap. And this doesn't show that anchoring works. With all the better/worse memories, experiencing it subjectively, different value and levels, how could anchoring work?

Most memory enhancing techniques that I've come across involve increasing the number of neural pathways in the brain that are associated with a particular memory.

I'm not a scientist but I imagine that the more neural pathways that we activate when we make a memory, the more neural pathways activate when we try to recall that memory, making the memory easier to recall.

That may be true, but how do you know, by meeting someone at a bar, or at a store to sell something, etc, how to build more pathways to that memory? I mean, there are times you can say one thing wrong and BAM you're on your ear. Or if the person doesn't even want to go to that memory at the moment, how do you bypass it? By anchoring?

Now, maybe I'm taking a leap of faith here but I'm inclined to believe that this is probably why anchoring probably works better when it involves multiple sensory inputs i.e. sight, sound, touch, taste, smell and self talk (what we say to ourselves in our own mind).

Just a hunch.

And how well do you know the memory? And even if you know the memory well and if you can simulate something like that, it won't work in a noisy bar with a bunch of distractions.

See, this is my point. (and please take no offense), you have mixed up conditioning and memory of a special event (I don't remember the name of that), and mixed into a pot, added a dash of faith and you got anchoring. The instant technique that makes anyone you want feel good by a touch.

P.S. What's wrong with your avatar, JFrankA? Is that DB? ;P

Very good!!! You win! I did that in reply to a certain Derren Brown hater.

...now can you see the other thing in my avatar?


...and to embed youtube videos type ["yt"] youtubevideolink ["/yt"] without the quotes.

 

[microdot]

Hiya JFrankA

This will be a relatively short post as I just want to touch on a couple of points.

As I'm struggling to agree with a number of your points and as you use anchoring sometimes in your show I think it would help me to understand your points better if you would be willing / able to describe how you use anchoring and what you use it for.

But NLP teaches that anchoring works period. It doesn't. It does if the person receiving the NLP wants it to work. That's a big thing. Anchoring will not make a woman who isn't interested to suddenly have "good feelings" about you.

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 )

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 )

All that is exactly what I am saying. That's why our memories are crap. And this doesn't show that anchoring works. With all the better/worse memories, experiencing it subjectively, different value and levels, how could anchoring work?

I didn't _say_ that it showed that anchoring works. You keep referring to the anchor stimulus as a touch on the shoulder - a single stimulus in a single sensory channel. What I _was_ saying was that the simultaneous use of multiple sensory channels is conducive to the effective setting of the anchor.

Sorry, that's mixing up memory with anchoring.

Sorry, I don't think it is.

The two are intimately linked anyway.

In my example the music is the anchor/stimulus and my vivid/immersive _memory_ is the response.

And it didn't take a long time for that tune to become linked to that memory either - it was a one-time event, which doesn't fit with your assertion that conditioning take a very long time to take effect.

...you got anchoring. The instant technique that makes anyone you want feel good by a touch.

No.

If that's the only outcome that you think anchoring is used for then you are, I'm afraid, very mistaken.

(and please take no offense)

Absolutely none taken JFrankA - I think we share a very similar outlook with regard to healthy debate and I, just like you, am more than happy to have my views challenged.

If you ever offend me I'll let you know

Hope you have a geat time with your son

 

[Lothario]

...now can you see the other thing in my avatar?

Hmm... a 3 of spades?

 

[JFrankA]

Hiya JFrankA

This will be a relatively short post as I just want to touch on a couple of points.

As I'm struggling to agree with a number of your points and as you use anchoring sometimes in your show I think it would help me to understand your points better if you would be willing / able to describe how you use anchoring and what you use it for.

Okay, this is ancedotal, but here's an example.

As part of my act, I do walking around magic and hypnosis. I take a guy and point out a beautiful woman, my arm around his shoulder, like a good friend would do, and point out her shoes. I do that a lot with that guy throughout the night. Within an hour or so, he's walking around to every beautiful woman and asking about her shoes, taking an interest in them more than any man would comfortably be interested. Even asking women to take off the shoe so he can hold it up and describe why the shoe is so special. Sometimes, depending on how suggestable he is, I just touch his arm and he's off.

Now there are times, when I do a show and a guy I've done that to will say that I did the "shoe-thing trick" on him. Now he remembers the trick, but a) the effect wore off by the next morning, and always, whenever someone has come up to me, they've got it wrong as to what I the stimulus was to set him off. Now, admittingly, it's not all that many people, three or four, but it's been consistant.

They do remember the effect, the whole shoe thing, but what implaments the effect is always nearly forgotten. And that's because it is happening during a circumstance where the guy wants it to happen. It made him the life of the party and he got the attention of many beautiful women. (You won't believe how many woman love to have their shoes noticed by guys). And it worked because he believed it would happen.

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.

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.

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.

I didn't _say_ that it showed that anchoring works. You keep referring to the anchor stimulus as a touch on the shoulder - a single stimulus in a single sensory channel. What I _was_ saying was that the simultaneous use of multiple sensory channels is conducive to the effective setting of the anchor.

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.

The two are intimately linked anyway.

In my example the music is the anchor/stimulus and my vivid/immersive _memory_ is the response.

And it didn't take a long time for that tune to become linked to that memory either - it was a one-time event, which doesn't fit with your assertion that conditioning take a very long time to take effect.

Conditioning is one thing. What you are talking about right now is another. True, there are memories that happen from one occurance, but those kind of memories that usually have a lot of emotion attached to it. 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? Further, if the recipient doesn't want it to work, how do you even build rapport? I mean, even in my shows, I eliminate using people who don't want to be part of the show. I only choose the most eager, suggestable people. That's key to my show.

If that's the only outcome that you think anchoring is used for then you are, I'm afraid, very mistaken.

Again, I was using that only as an example for the situtation presented in the topic, i.e. meeting women and ...well...(women of the world, please forgive me), "scoring" with them. Can you give an example of how anchoring would work in a bar setting to meet a woman?

Absolutely none taken JFrankA - I think we share a very similar outlook with regard to healthy debate and I, just like you, am more than happy to have my views challenged.

Oh good. Hard to find someone who can truely debate. Thanks!

If you ever offend me I'll let you know

Please do, and remember, I never mean any offense so if I ever do, I apologize in advance. Like you, I like to see all sides of the coin because I like to have my views challenged as well.

Hope you have a geat time with your son

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

Hmm... a 3 of spades?

YES!!! Who says there's no such thing as subliminals?

....well, me for one.