|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..23~24~25 [Next] | ||||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-10 15:20, Millard123 wrote: This is getting very technical here. Your basic concept as understanding the Milton/Meta models is right. But don't get hung up on content. Content is pretty much irrelevant. People feed you content to try to convince you to become part of their trance. In NLP you are trained to ignore the content and look at the context and form. I don't know if that makes sense, but we often get very hung up on content when the communication is actually so much more than the specific words. |
|||||||||
teejay Inner circle Liverpool, UK 1831 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-11 03:37, dmkraig wrote: It is a TREMENDOUSLY clear, obvious and easy to understand example, isn't it? :) |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
It need not be technical at all
my last post is an exercise for people who should see it as such - not anything other than that... don't believe anything I say here... all lies... lies lies lies oh well and jokes - inside jokes and obfuscation.... I want to see who - while seeing through the glass dimly, can recognize structures, patterns, movement and direction, who understands models rather than talks about them... and who cares - cuz if you don't care - you are better off somewhere else... this is not for you... if you do...truly care... and really are interested in learning.... then when ready the "master" appears. if you truly are eager and interested then there are very simple, nice, easy ways to learn AND to stretch you a little out of your comfort zone - so that you can learn to DO new and even amazing things. It may be challeneging from time to time but the more available you are to learning the more the whole thing can be enjoyable BUT this is not the place to truly learn to do... hence - wax on wax off wax on wax off no one likes miagi the truly interested will let nothing stop them and will benefit much the mildly curious and the argumentative will eventually give up when the true seeker reveals him/her self then go off to another place to have fun while learning... I really mean what I say here - don't bother casting pearls before swine don't let someone rain on your parade... don't let the fly in your soup stop you form enjoying lunch don't let the apparent impossibilities or confusions prevent you from moving forward if that is what you truly desire... and above all find a positive, enjoyable outlook to guide you... these things are more important anyway than debating certain issues... live life --- don't get caught up in descriptions of it from anyone here - including me seek and you shall find... but that requires real seeking... not just lip service... and questions are always more important than the answers... if you understand that,,, then you may already be onto something... but realize your question / or my question might need to be replaced with a better class of question - perhaps asked in another way - to oneself - and not to another person - that opens up the door, hell even a window or a small tiny opening is better than none... but the origianl question, asked as it is, to whom you are asking may not be the one you really need to be asking... and that is where exploration and a willingess to self examine what you are doing comes in - just don't buy into the answer you provide yourself but use it to continue the exploration by asking other new and better questions - doing so will help reveal many useful things... but it takes guts to actually do this for yourself... instead of asking others.... and knowing how to ask a question is important... like - how I wonder how soon I will discover myself to learn that I can actually move my fingers more efficently to perform this sleigh.... instead of how long will it take and why can I never get it right... direct your mind in useful ways and you will see the light... direct them in less efficient ways and you will get less efficient results... there more pearls.... from a swine.... but only the wisest will see... the rest will do the HUH? dance of sorrow |
|||||||||
mindpunisher Inner circle 6132 Posts |
Pearls bring me out in a rash....
I prefer Kebabs and pizza I have a use for them... |
|||||||||
Jim-Callahan V.I.P. 5018 Posts |
I have found this thread interesting.
Some very good posts. I use a fair amount of this stuff for leading/pacing. It works. Ask an actor. -J im H.O.A-X
“I can make Satan’s devils dance like fine gentlemen across the stage of reality”.
|
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Hey jim
"ask an actor" yes me too I am also I am coach on movie set - had to use this stuff to get another actor to learn lines and deliver them yesterday in big shoot for his close up worked 20 minutes with acotr got memorized (a lot of dialog) and got performance director - producer cast all pleased actor very grateful.... they got the performance they wanted... I was pleased too more time would have been nicer but I had twenty minutes - |
|||||||||
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts |
It looks like we have a really interesting thread with a lot of people giving some fascinating opinions.
However, I was hoping that someone may be able to provide some references of clinical studies into NLP or even specific NLP techniques. I've read the ones provided way back on the first page (thanks guys) and none seem to offer any conclusive evidence. The techniques I have research and observed (rapport, anchoring etc.) could quite easily be empirical tested so I'm suprised there is not more research out there. Anyone? |
|||||||||
Sealegs Inner circle The UK, Portsmouth 2596 Posts |
Research that produces a lot of negative results, while potentially useful, tends either; not to get published in peer reviewed science journals; or if it does get published never gets heard about or referred to again. It is afterall rather dull to read about experiments that produced nothing worth commenting on.
On the other hand unsubstansiated ideas are easy to bandy around and without the constraints of having to actually provide evidence to back up what one says one can make those sound as interesting and fanciful as one wants. Could this possibly play a part in accounting for the type of information available regarding NLP? Neal.
Neal Austin
"The golden rule is that there are no golden rules." G.B. Shaw |
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
I give up, Neal. What is this "type of information" you're talking about? What specific information do you have that was published but not heard about or referred to? Please be specific.
(Getting all meta...) |
|||||||||
bdekolta Inner circle Texas 1636 Posts |
Quote:
The techniques I have research and observed It's nice to research and observe but what have you tried? What has produced results for you. Some of the ideas don't take long to get a handle on then try. Do you own study. Find what works for you. Since the majority of folks here aren't practicing anything clinical that's what this is all about. In less time than it will take you to find a "study" and understand it you could already have some practical experience. |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Why do you think it must have research to support or to dis it....
the fact that there isn't much research then doesn't mean one thing or the other so why not move and discuss what can be discussed |
|||||||||
Lord Of The Horses Inner circle 5406 Posts |
Rex and Dan are right on the money...
If those things are so empirical to test, and I quote you - Quote:
The techniques I have research and observed (rapport, anchoring etc.) could quite easily be empirical tested so I'm suprised there is not more research out there. Why you did not test them yourself? Not just once but try 10, 20 times. Try anchoring 20 different people you meet and talk with, etc. After-all, I prefer having MY own sensory experience telling me if something works rather than believe on faith either the PRO camp (Rex Sikes, Steve Andreas, Tad James, Tom Vizzini, and the list could go on forever...) or the CON camp (the self-appointed skeptics...) Even in what is accepted "science" by most of you, how many researches in the past century were plain wrongs, either because the "scientific" explanation for something was not right (yet the thing worked) or because both the research and the effect of the thing were wrong?
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
|
|||||||||
Mindtrap Veteran user 316 Posts |
Hahahahaa
Hi Nicholas, A link from a post I made last February that has a reasonably good survey of what clinical research that has been done is http://www.inspiritive.com.au/nlp-resear......mary.htm Quote:
A Summary of Academic & Experimental NLP Literature. In following it, it’s obvious that it posted by an NLP company on its own website, but despite that potential bias it does contain valuable info on genuine clinical studies and their methodological problems and more or less gives equal weight to studies and critics. On its clinical suitability, here’s the opinion of another NLP insider recently quoted 2008: Quote:
Whereas it is true that “little scientific proof” of NLP’s effectiveness exists, Kemmer fails to note that fact is equally true of many psychotherapies that have been more thoroughly researched and are now broadly accepted by psychology professionals. Cognitive behavioral therapy has the best research validation, although its methods are crude, primitive and slow compared with NLP. To go meta from this again (metacomms--up a level of abstraction, from Bateson, with help from the Greek) , the whole argument often is derailed into the nether worlds of defensive experiential anecdotal support (the IBOOTNIDs), its criticism and those debunkers quick to jump to false conclusions many without real experience(the IROBs) and their critics, without a single ONE of them ever staying on point. This is why I wrote back then of the endless warring positions of this pseudo-argument: Quote:
--A And pointing out A, means you must be camp B etc. ...of course. The exact same pattern here and with other links http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......orum=251 Some useful links, but alas the same lacking. Good luck with getting any further sense to your question, off the ride. MT. |
|||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Just for the record, Rex and Dan (and Paolo) are completely off the money.
Let us simply start listing two of the most basic ideas that haunted the human species merely by people taking their personal experiences and constructing reality around them: Earth center of universe (WRONG) World flat (WRONG) The whole reason the scientific process exists is to ferret out personal opinion and to imply otherwise shows both a lack of ANY scientific understanding, but also offers evidence that Rex and Dan (and sadly, Paolo) treat this more as a personal religious belief than anything else. I didn't mention the "N**" word, so I felt free to post on this, but the rationale is ridiculous. For the record I am in neither group Paolo illustrates (Rex Sikes, Steve Andreas, Tad James, Tom Vizzini, etc. nor am I skeptic). I shared my experiences, said I was going to try the techniques out again, and got painted as a skeptic. Way to have an open mind guys, I went from neutral to hating your guts, Rex and Dan, great job. Also, Paolo, if you think the list could go on forever, I think that you are using the wrong word. Maybe go on for a little bit but forever? NEVER. Lem |
|||||||||
Lord Of The Horses Inner circle 5406 Posts |
Lem,
I disagree. Objective experience is one thing (as the earth thing you mentioned...) however subjective experience is a whole other issue. I don't think NLP has ever claimed to be useful on the first type. But subjectively... I know you disagree with me (as I do with you). So who cares? Not me. I have used something called "NLP" - I would swear it always worked for me. That's what matters to me. Sorry.
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
|
|||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Lord,
I agree with the difference between objective and subjective experience, and there is a reason that objective experience is always given precedence. Finally, I was very careful never to mention the "N__" word, so I can't say anything about that. However, the advice and "just look around and base your beliefs on what you see" is flawed at the most basic level. I'm surprised I'd have to spell that out but this thread has people acting crazy and rude. I don't know what you think I disagree with you about outside of personal experience being the ultimate "reality" (it isn't and you and I both know that, so I don't see where the disagreement is even there). Finally, and I will say this in capitals because nobody seems to be able to understand when it isn't, not that I think you will now: AGAIN, I NEVER MENTIONED the "N__" WORD in that post. Even before that post, I SAID I TRIED IT, IT DIDN'T WORK, AND I AM TRYING IT AGAIN AT A FRIEND'S (Jerome's) RECOMMENDATION. I was NEUTRAL. ALL I did was offer my "PERSONAL EXPERIENCES" but suddenly I was THE ENEMY. LOOK OVER MY POSTS, I SAY THIS OVER AND OVER BUT PEOPLE, including you, Paolo, REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND. But I will just ask you this, Paolo, a serious question: Where did I say NLP didn't work for you or anybody else? Just point it out to me, that is all you have to do. If you can't do that, then instead do what the other chumps here can't, admit you were wrong, that you made unfounded assumptions, AND APLOGIZE. That's it. That is all you have to do. If I am wrong, I aplogize, if you put words into my mouth, then you do it. I look forward to your response. I respected you a lot, your opinion on this doesn't matter. You putting words I didn't say into my mouth does. Do join the ranks of Rex et al. who refuse to look at what is written and insult and mischaracterize me, or do you actually look (wait for it...) OBJECTIVELY. It's a test, does NLP make ****** of everybody who uses it? Let's see... Lem |
|||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Oh, and in case anybody is too lazy to actually look up what I said, I cut and posted it for you.
Quote:
..For me, NLP itself is a non-starter with notable exceptions. Generally, much of the material is overhyped and simply not that useful. The exceptions I have found lie in the realm of historically known linguistic effects. Dock workers treating empty gas cans more carelessly than full gas cans is one example (empty gas cans are actually much more dangerous). The phrasing of things to put emphasis where YOU want it is another. There is more open mindedness in that little section than from ANY of the NLPers in this thread. "For me", "based on my experiences SO FAR", "will be checking them out" How is it dmkraig, Rex, and now Paolo skipped this? Because of religious mania. That or NLP has taken away their ability to read. Sorry if this sounds rude but you all were rude first. There are very few things that tick me off more than being accused of being/doing something when I am not. I am not anti-NLP but I am most-definitely, anti-NLP practitioner. Based on Rex, the dm guy, and now even Paolo, whom I highly respected, there is something going on that makes them unable to think clearly and if that results in them being rude to me, they can go jump off a bridge. Done and DONE with you all. Just read where I went from my first post to where I am now and know that you did it by being inflexibile religious zealots. It was not me (read the above AGAIN), it was you. I don't expect you to apologize, it is just how you all are, and you can be that way away from me. |
|||||||||
Lord Of The Horses Inner circle 5406 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-10 11:45, Mind Punisher: NO surprise here, MP. I think Rex may well recall another prominent trainer who has a large Yahoo group (formerly e-groups, eh, Rex?) who also believed Derren's stuff to be NLP. Quote:
On 2009-01-10 12:47, TT2: I'm 100% with you, Jerome!
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
|
|||||||||
Joshua Quinn Inner circle with an outer triangle 2054 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-12 19:07, Lord Of The Horses wrote: This is where I must respectfully disagree with my friend Paolo and some others here... in fact, you might even say I'm meta-disagreeing. There seems to be a general sense of, "Why do you care about research? Why not go experience it for yourself?" Well, speaking only for myself, the answer is simple: because human experience and perception (including my own) are not always reliable indicators of reality. History is thick with examples of people convincing themselves that the thing they're trying is working, when in reality it's not working at all. We all realize this when it comes to making people try to feel the coin bending in their hand. We all realize this when we see a horrible card guy who has convinced himself that his pass is invisible and his top change is smooth and his audiences like him. To think that one's own sensory experience is more reliable than theirs, is simply unrealistic. So to put it simply, I would like to have something less error-prone than my own fallible perceptions to go on. Take one of the the most frequently argued-about examples, eye accessing cues. The reason this particular technique gets so much press is probably because it seems like it should be one of the most easily testable. I've read some of the links posted (thanks guys!) about the research, and the arguments about it. Some of the tests I've read about (particularly those that showed negative results) have drawn a good deal of criticism from the NLP community, and some of that criticism seems (from a cursory reading) to be valid -- tests that weren't properly designed, didn't realize measure what they were supposed to, etc. But if the tests were, in fact, flawed, then the best reaction is to design and conduct better tests, NOT to declare that testing is therefore irrelevant. "Well then, Mr. Smarty Pants, if it's so easily testable, why don't you go and do the research yourself, huh???" Ya know, I've thought about it before, and in light of this discussion, I just might. I would welcome the input of anyone in the NLP field for guidance, to try to correct for the errors of previous studies.
Every problem contains the seeds of its own solution. Unfortunately every problem also contains the seeds of an infinite number of non-solutions, so that first part really isn't super helpful.
|
|||||||||
Lord Of The Horses Inner circle 5406 Posts |
Joshua,
I appreciate your post but - speaking for myself - I still know what it matters to me. But this does not mean (and I did not write that) research is never useful, or that data can't never help. Simply - I have all the data I need for myself to decide if NLP is "something" that has practical applications to me, in my world. As Jerome Finley said better than me... "I'm still trying to figure out what NLP can't do!" But, also, as Rex Sikes said better than me... "I don't think this discussion, on this board, will change minds. either way!" And I'm fine with it. I think, but that is not directed at you, that the only people "religiously" defending their position, are the ones who cannot accept that other people may have had good success with something labeled as "NLP"... I accept any contrary belief you may hold (any of you) but I will always see it as wrong because - yes I accept YOUR freedom to express YOUR belief / idea, whatever... BUT it could never "click" with me, since MY practical results tell me differently.
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » NLP...fooling ourselves? (18 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9..23~24~25 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |