|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..8~9~10~11~12..23~24~25 [Next] | ||||||||||
Jon_Thompson Inner circle Darkest Cheshire 2404 Posts |
Are you people still arguing?
|
|||||||||
BIlly James Special user 991 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-14 05:29, Jon_Thompson wrote: Looks like it. Me-thinks that some of these folk should put away their NLP and start reading some self esteem books. :) |
|||||||||
Roger Kelly Inner circle Kent, England 3332 Posts |
Can't see what's wrong myself. Each to his or her own. Personally, I'm happy for those who want to spend their hard-earned on a weekend course that makes them an expert in psychology all of a sudden. Similarly for those who feel they have been 'cured' after spending their hard-earned on some self-proclaimed master telling them exactly what they want to hear! Marvellous!
Only a select few members of the UK's police service are taught to recognise buy signs and lie signs in facial and body expressions. A sudden 'twitch' or 'glance' in the wrong direction does not send anyone to the gallows. The training alone, in this tiny aspect of psychology (NVC) takes much longer than anyones NLP course and then takes a lifetime to master. Non-verbal communication has been with us since before we could talk and has been studied ever since - aeons before someone dreamed up NLP! But I'm happy for anyone to think that there's something in it that makes a practitioner, call it what you will, anything remotely special because of some twaddle they've been brainwashed with in an evening class. As someone said, piff paff poof. |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-14 05:29, Jon_Thompson wrote: yes and that was what my original point was - here - it iwll bever get past the initial repeated arguments.... so nothing fruitful will be the result but the argument will continue as it has in the past. pearls... I ahve to admit though it is fascinating to see the volitility expressed on both sides --- geeeeeesh |
|||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Thanks, Rex, since you were once of the most volatile, I'll take that as as close to an apology as is possible.
Either that, or it is an example of a pot, dipped in oil, rolled in coal, and then spray painted black calling the kettle black. Of course, that couldn't be the case cuz you are ALWAYS right, even when the actual evidence is to the contrary (and yes, I know you don't require evidence or logic, you made that abundantly clear). Pearls. |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Nope if you were truly offended you deserve an apology
Xer |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
No one has the right not to be offended, neither should the taking of offense be cause for apology.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-14 14:21, Davit Sicseek wrote: that sounds like the marvellous reverse logic of kriskrase or the patient one!
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
These is nothing 'reverse' about that logic.
A very dangerous path is trodden when people start believing in a right not to be offended, and it is only pandered to when people apologise on the sole basis that they have offended another. One of the most poignant examples of this were the murders and riots following the publishing of cartoons in Denmark. You support the right for people not to be offended? As for the origin of the logic, I first started repeating it after hearing Sam Harris speak about it - although not from this article itself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris......132.html
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
I agree with davit in this case
AND I apologized to Lem because I felt it the right thing to do in this case. He deserved one from ME not that he is entitled to one - I felt it right to give him one given the circumstances. AND that does not mean I wil in all cases. BUT it was not my intention for him to feel offended - and not that I offended him - that is another issue altogether ... but again as is I felt it right to do this time. BUT there is nothing wrong with having an opinion - in hich another person takes offense. That is very human. Some people find offense in anything and can blame others for their discomfort... Like art art does not offend - but we may be offended by it... it is a fine line we tread - to be civil - sometimes one eats crow. gulp gulp glub glub mmmmm crow can be tastey |
|||||||||
mindpunisher Inner circle 6132 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-14 14:39, IAIN wrote: I think the basic urge to apologise comes from our deeply programmed need to please others. We do all sorts of things to please others that limit our own lives. As Maslow says the highest level of self realisation/actualisation is to be free from the opinion of others. And that also means to stop worrying what others think about you. You have no control over it. Some people will love you, some will hate you some will be indifferent. But that has nothing to do with you. More to do with their own evolution and where they are. If someone chooses to feel offended then that's their choice. Not everyone will ever see things my way anyway. So may as well pick the best path for you in this world. |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Okay enough of this road stop!!!
now perhaps instead of going tangential we can keep on topic BUT I DOUBT IT |
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts |
It's half past nine...
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
Gilgamesh_The_Librarian Elite user 408 Posts |
Gosh,
This ones like religion and politics isn't it...its probably best to stay well away from discussions on it !!! NB : Its still a load of phoney rubbish though !!! (Runs away very quickly) |
|||||||||
mindpunisher Inner circle 6132 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-14 16:05, xersekis wrote: Which path are we supposed to be on you've created a few of your own? This is free fall posting now... Ok "Are we fooling ourselves with NLP?" If you asked that question YOU probably are. Give it up and just go fool your audience. That goes for everyone who needs to ask that question... After all reality is what you make it... Im out |
|||||||||
bobser Inner circle 4178 Posts |
... unles of course reality simply is what it is, regardless of what the individual believes they make it.
Obviously I'm trained in psychology and philosophy and some of you will struggle to understand these words. No matter, you are all beautiful people, in a way. bobser
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
|
|||||||||
Millard123 Regular user Millard Longman 174 Posts |
It is generally accepted by researchers that only 15% of psychotherapy patient outcomes is due to the particular therapeutic technique that is used by the psychotherapist.
So whether we use NLP, EFT, Hypnosis, or any other therapeutic technique – fully 85% of the outcome is determined by other factors! This is probably true for other activities such as mentalism; the method used (billets, impression pads, etc.) to create the effect is far less important than other factors – such as presentation for one. |
|||||||||
mindpunisher Inner circle 6132 Posts |
I thought creating the "effect" was everything. Meaning the effect it has on the audience. I believe the focus should always be on the audience!
It has been suggested within NLP itself that either the technique worked or the presupposition that it will work was the cause of the change. Either way the use of presupposition is an NLP tool. So either way it worked. I think it was Diltz and a few other NLPers that tried to market placebo's. I can't remember the exact percentages of what traditional medicine where the placebo effect was attributed to the cure but it was quite suprisingly high. They carried out their own research on placebo's and found the small red ones were the most effective. (submodalities) But they were not legally permitted to market placebo's. |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-14 20:44, Millard123 wrote: Nice ---- very nice |
|||||||||
Vir_Lucis_Ex_Deus Regular user 165 Posts |
LMAO - haven't read through all seven pages.
But just had to say, glad to see there are some more people around these parts that are not convinced by all the NLP rhetoric. When I tried to bring this up in 'Stand the Test' section of the forum I didn't really have any back up and was shot down... What is certain, is that one cannot say that NLP is validated by peer-reviewed empirical science. Whatever that means. It just isn't. So if you want to keep going on about how great it is, please don't use modern science to back you up. One more vote for the 'bulk of NLP is ********' side of the argument |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » NLP...fooling ourselves? (18 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..8~9~10~11~12..23~24~25 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < |