So, you are of the opinion that you should only debate things when you care about it?

Seems like a spectacular way only to hear opinions that you agree with. I am glad I live in a world where most people don't feel this way. I wasn't going to weigh in on this topic but that comment is so absurd and biased that I couldn't let it go.

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.

I've got some really good NLP references from a friend and will be checking them out, but that is my opinion on NLP, based on my experiences so far.

Here is my rebuttal to the insane statement I quoted above:

You should only debate things you know something about BUT you must be willing to change your mind when the facts change/become known.

If you have an opinion that will never change, then, and only then, is debate pointless.

In other words, if you care too much about something, don't bother debating it.

So I guess, the exact OPPOSITE of the quote above.

Lem

I find it interesting that all of the people who are saying that NLP is overstated, only partially of value, has no proof, etc., have never been trained in it.

Of course, if you are trained in it you might have some investment and not want to do anything that could harm your investment. On the other hand, I've gone through training and see both positives and negatives.

Be that as it may, criticizing NLP without being trained in it is like saying you think electric saws must be useless because you've always found manual saws to be sufficient.

>>Be that as it may, criticizing NLP without being trained in it is like saying you think electric saws must be useless because you've always found manual saws to be sufficient.<<

I think the onus of proof rests on the claimants, instead.
This is brings up Bertrand Russell's Tea kettle thought experiment:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Logic---The-Bu......d=474699

http://www.what-the-hec.com/?p=76

Tom

This made me laugh hard and is a great point.

What is your evidence of this, exactly?

"All" is an absolute term, and that requires absolute proof. Or do you not have it and are simply making an educated guess based on what you have seen?

Just curious if you can turn that critical eye towards yourself and the things you like for a moment.

Look, I said some good friends recommended I go back to some NLP sources and I trust them enough to check it out. However, despite your unfounded accusation from above, I do have some training and my conclusions of it are in my previous post. Your lack of an ability to believe that somebody with some (NOT extensive) training could come to the same conclusion smacks of religious mania and not reasoned arguments.

In my opinion. No offense is intended but my opinion is at least as valid as yours, as I base mine on experience and your comment above is based on... what again?

Lem

no you just missed the point - no surprise there though

why go down the same road again and again here
just read other posts on the subject

why waste time reinventing the wheel

but go ahead reinvent, debate... its your time

but you still miss the obvious ...

In my opinion. No offense is intended but my opinion is at least as valid as yours, as I base mine on experience and your comment above is based on... what again?



well if people ACTUALLY valued opinion based on experience here - instead of loving their own thoughts so much and their own point of views so much

perhaps a useful exchange of ideas qould occur much more frequently

but as you accurately point out about others.... (I wonder if you can point that finger at self lem)

many people make comments based on little other than their own opinion...

no offfense...

experience should be worth something here but it appears to be of little value

SO why cast pearls before swine ----

Thomas—I'm not trying to prove anything. It doesn't matter to me if you believe NLP is effective or not. So I have nothing to prove. If you find someone who is trying to make you say that NLP is fantastic and works 100% of the time, you'll have to query them, not me. By the way, Thomas, have YOU taken in-person NLP training?

Lem, the reason I used the term "all" is because all of the people HERE (perhaps I should have been more explicit instead of implicit over that) who are saying NLP doesn't work in part or in whole have also stated that they are not trained and are basing what they're saying on reading a few things. By the way, Lem, through what organization are you certified as a NLP practitioner or master practitioner? After all, if you received "some" training you would be certified.

Actually, Lem, the only religious mania I see here is from someone such as yourself demanding that others believe as you do. Claiming you're right because you've had "some training" bears a lot of similarities to the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd. As I wrote to Thomas, I don't care if he agrees with my assessment of NLP. I'm not trying to convince him of anything. You, on the other hand, are trying to convince people to believe as you do. I'm in favor of tolerance. You seen to be favoring one-wayism. I believe you call that "religious mania."

xersekis, I sort of agree with you. People with little or no knowledge on a topic certainly have the right to state THEIR OPINIONS. However, they are just opinions (as are mine). I do think there is a difference between IROBs (I Read One Book) and experts. I know if I'm feeling ill I'd rather go to an expert than an IROB.

Yawn... sure guys, whatever you say. I'm the one with the mania, right. It's not like I am the one revisting these principles in the hope was wrong... oh wait, I am.

It's not like I am the one who does have experience in NLP and found it wanting... oh wait, I am.

But wait, it's me saying you should only debate something if you already like it. No, wait, that was xersekis (the quote's up there buddy, read what you wrote, if you meant something else, say it).

But it was me making a completely undefensible comment ("all people who don't like nlp were not trained it in AT ALL"). No wait, that wasn't me either, that was dmkraig.

You're right guys, whatever was I thinking. You guys sure have the perspective.

I sure as heck wouldn't win hands down in any kind of debate. Oh wait, I would.

And, just for the record, I'm not trying to convince anybody to believe as I do. You shared your experiences, I shared mine. I also happened, as always, to give concrete examples. The admins say that makes me a bully, you say it is because I am trying to convert people. Why can't you simply understand it is simply this: I base my opinions on evidence and share the evidence. If the evidence happens to change, I change my mind. I've yet to see either of X or dm do the same. Therein lies the religious mania. I've already said I am trying out some NLP resources again because a friend recommended them. That is the exact opposite of how you are painting me but wait, there is me trying to "convert" people to my way of thinking again.

I prefer the old term: stating the facts.

Silly me.

Lem

Geez DM, I can see you didn't look at my links.
I don't care one way or the other about NLP being true or not.
My point was a general observation of onus of proof,
and the concept of disproving anything.

Nothing to get heated about.
Tom

Dmkraig,

Thanks for offering evidence for your proclamation as I asked. It sure does make you look like somebody who bases your comments on fact not opinion. Oh wait, you didn't and it didn't. What a shock.

Lem, pull yourself together man.

Now repeat after me...

"DON"T DEBATE DOGMA"

You're right on this one, Davit. That is the problem. I was telling them that my experience so far has been that NLP is a wash but that I am trying again. THAT was my message, but forget the second part, all they read was the first part. And don't ever ask them to defend their statements, whoo hoo, talk about getting under their skin. You'd think experts in NLP would know how to read a whole post or defend something they said.

But alas, I am doing it again. Time to actually use my time constructively...

Exactly davit

don't debate dogma

especially one's own dogma about anything....

spot on davit.... exactly --- again

don't debate dogma is in fact the point

yet people fail to recognize their opinions and point of view as being dogmatic either for or against a subject matter

instead they claim to have facts,,,, they claim to have the right answer

it could be me, it could be you.. anyone

hence my original statements that it isn't worth the debate AGAIN on this forum
and it isn't worth the energy debating dogma

and for either side - for it or against it

why cast your pearls before swine

because neither opposing party view will regard the opposition in high regard but most likely will only belittle the opposition as having no clue... they will ultimately only insult each other out of their own dogmatic arrogance and continue to belittle and accuse others...

no one's mind will be changed because to be changed one requires an open mind willing to change...

and that is unlikely here

so why bother

again Don't debate dogma

pure genius

but few will bother to understand and adhere

and they wil continue to wage useless battle thinking themsleves fierce warriors and protectors of thought

very typical of magicians btw

let us just say greater minds than mine and probably many here wouldn't bother to reinvent staid arguments when they could use their minds more productively

but wait this is a magic forum so we have to consider what our minds are here

and our magical minds are very very tiny cuz after all we like magic tricks

hahahhahahahhahahah

anyway you made a nice point

I find this forum really amusing. It seems to be a platform for venting frustrations as much as for mag or mentalism.

But the really funny thing is the view that magicians have of NLP. Like it was created for performing magic effects? And whem magicians read a couple of books on a subject outwith their training or experience they believe they are experts. Cold reading comes to mind as another obvious delusion.

The core principles of NLP were created by modelling first of all therapists, then sales people. As I understand no magicians were modelled?

What NLP really is - is a term for a way of thinking that has led to a series of "tools" being created that have many useful applications.

To say NLP works or it doesn't is like saying a double lift works or it doesn't. The real answer is - it depends upon who is weilding the tool. And how much effort time and resources they have put into solving the problems that these tools can assist.

Much like a top performer vs an amatuer. Sure the amatuer may have read similar books and know about techniques and may even have had some success with them. But a true master crafstman can create real magic with the same tools.

The truth is it isn't about NLP. Its about having a real purpose and burning desire to achieve a higher level in a subject and to use any tool to get there. ANY tool not just NLP but of course included. (never limit yourself by becoming an NLP practitioner or any other label)

NLP tools were not designed for performing magic tricks although they can help with presentations.

My personal experience is that some of the tools are incredibly powerful and have enabled to me to create some really magical results in my work as a consultant.

Other tools I found to be less useful or even useless. Bu then that applies to mentalism. There are certain tools in mentalism I see as useless or outdated. But there are others who claim they get huge results with them. Infact some of the top pros use techniques I find weak. Who am I to argue with them?

The same applies to NLP as it does to anything else.

I have to say though the training process of certfication and trainers training has not done much good for the image. Quick money has damaged the field. Bad trainers are churned out every minute it seems.

But its not really about NLP its about the application. And that is an art as much as anything.

Let’s imagine (just for grins) that an actual expert in NLP was a member of this forum and reading this thread. Now let’s imagine that this expert made a series of posts using NLP techniques to interact with us. It would seem to me that in a short while, we would all come to see this expert's thoughts about NLP to be the truth!

At least we would if NLP actually works.

So I wonder, do we have such an expert here?

I appreciate your appreciation of my spot-on-ed-ness.

Unfortunately I disagree with almost everything you say.

People's opinions count for very little in my opinion. Anecdotal evidence is evidence of the lowest form. In most cases it is simply evidence that the proponent is easily fooled or delusional. If we really need to go in to reasons why anecdotal evidence of NLP is so flimsy, I'll save that till tomorrow.

My opinion that NLP is a load of old cobblers counts for nothing. You're opinion that NLP isn't a load of old cobblers counts for nothing. There is no use in debating opinions, and I'm certainly not intending to enter a debate about them.

I'd rather talk about evidence. The sort of evidence produced by decent, peer reviewed studies.

I will then form my opinion on the basis of such evidence. I'm a bit of a knowledge junkie, so if you've got the evidence I'd honestly love to hear it. Otherwise NLP will remain relegated with the other things that I see no evidence for like god, gnomes and women that find me unattractive.

DON'T DEBATE DOGMA
(whether that be relgious dogma, NLP dogma or gnome dogma)

Chris Rock, as Rufus, was great in Dogma.

Thomas, as I've repeated stated, there is nothing new about NLP. If someone wants proof, go back to the sources. See if the techniques of Milton Erickson work. See if the techniques of Virgina Satir work. See if the techniques of Fritz Perlz work. See if the techniques of Gregory Bateson work.

And Lem, I note in your rants that in spite of your claimed training in NLP, you failed to say anything about who trained you or if you were certified. I'll assume you're honest enough to dodge the issue rather than just outright lie, but it seems quite obvious that you are not trained and your comments are that of an IROB, and you are as qualified to comment on NLP as you are on nuclear colliders. Or do you have "some" training in those, too?

Well davit you missed the point then

because I agree with you on nearly every thing you say and said

of course that is what you need and want but I still agree.

AND I do

and that again is the point

don't debate dogma whether religious, anti religious, NLP, anti NLP or any of our own personal anecdotal follies and misgivings -

I agree about anecdotal evidence everything... and how you have no support for your opinons either... I see that and I agree with the notion

silly