The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » NLP and Scientology (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
mindpunisher
View Profile
Inner circle
6132 Posts

Profile of mindpunisher
Hitler used to change people long before NLP and Scientology. Plus he had a moustache which made him more powerful.
parmenion
View Profile
Inner circle
Switzerland/Zürich
3992 Posts

Profile of parmenion
Nop, it's exactly the same.
NLP was invented by E.T scientologist.
“I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about.”
<BR>Oscar Wilde experimentaliste <br>
<BR>Artist pickpocket Professional
<BR>
<BR>Looking for the best book test in French? send me a PM!
garett
View Profile
Regular user
142 Posts

Profile of garett
NLP is sold as a tool, but it has been my observation that it's proponents employ it as a belief system; a way of life. In that sense it is not at all dissimilar to a religion. NLP even has it's figure-heads like Bandler and Ericson (though for those who don't know Ericson is pre-NLP, but "NLPers" mention him as much as Christians mention Jesus).
Slim King
View Profile
Eternal Order
Orlando
17675 Posts

Profile of Slim King
Quote:
On 2012-11-09 01:46, DekEl wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-11-08 22:27, Slim King wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-11-08 20:23, Al Desmond wrote:
Fine.

Then I would ask Slim King to stop posting stories about psychic phenomena and the sort. He believes in Spiritualism, capital "S," as a religion, and according to the link you just posted, his discussions should not be posted here.

I'll make sure I point this out, over and over, until he stops.


YOU ARE RIGHT ... I STAND UP AGAINST THOSE WHO ATTACK THE SPIRITUALIST RELIGION!!!!

It is against the rules to do it here .. It's bigotry at its worst!


Although I don't really see it as an attack, I do find your stories rather amusing.


I'm glad you are entertained! Smile
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
DT3
View Profile
Inner circle
Hill Valley
1918 Posts

Profile of DT3
As someone familiar with both, I do think that there are definite linguistic similarities between Dianetics (the book on which Scientology was based)and NLP.
bdekolta
View Profile
Inner circle
Texas
1636 Posts

Profile of bdekolta
Back when I was studying NLP and learning about Scientology I seem to remember some reference between L. Ron Hubbard and Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski featured prominently in the formative stages of NLP so if there was a tie between the Hubbard and Korzybski that could explain similarities. The linguistic literature of the time shows up many places and was referenced frequently in NLP. Those sources - Korzybski, Hawakawa, etc. - are not cited as often the "pop" NLP books.
mindpunisher
View Profile
Inner circle
6132 Posts

Profile of mindpunisher
I saw a documentary on TV about Scientology. In particular there was a segment on recruitment. Techniques they used were similar to some techniques used in NLP where they found minor faults and blew them up inside the minds of the recruits to be perceived as major problems. Then sucked them in by offering a solution. Of course NLP techniques work in reverse take big problems and diminish them.
dmkraig
View Profile
Inner circle
1949 Posts

Profile of dmkraig
Ray Bertrand wrote: "There is a total difference in the two. Scientology is based on certain pseudo religious principles developed by Ron Hubbard. NLP or Neuro Linguistic Programming is a pseudoscientific model for affecting personal change and many people attest to it's value in the areas of sales and personal relationships. A strong supporter of this methodology is Tony Robbins."

Garett wrote: "NLP is sold as a tool, but it has been my observation that it's proponents employ it as a belief system; a way of life. In that sense it is not at all dissimilar to a religion. NLP even has it's figure-heads like Bandler and Ericson (though for those who don't know Ericson is pre-NLP, but "NLPers" mention him as much as Christians mention Jesus)."

Ray is right that they are not the same. However, to claim that NLP is "pseudoscientific" is highly questionable. Since it is directly based on on the works of people including Noam Chomsky, Fritz Perls, Gregory Bateson, Alfred Korzybski, Virginia Satir, and Milton Erickson, you'd have to show that these philosophers, scientists, and therapists were also pseudoscientific in their approach. For example, an important part of NLP is the "meta model," which is based on the word of Virginia Satir. Satir is known as the "Mother of Family Therapy," so by calling NLP "pseudoscientific," you're also claiming all of family therapy and the hundreds of thousand of people and families it has helped is pseudoscientific.

In reality, the only thing that is "new" in NLP is seeing the connections between various systems.

Although Tony Robbins was heavily influenced by NLP, he is NOT an instructor of NLP. He teaches his own system which is loosely based on some parts of NLP. While it is true that he doesn't denounce NLP or hide his NLP background, I think it is unfair to focus on that or say that he is a "strong supporter" of NLP because he is not involved with NLP at this time.

Since garett wrote that it has been his "observation" about NLP, and since I have no reason to think he isn't being honest, I'm sure he's accurately representing what he has observed. On the other hand, I've seen and worked with over 1,000 people being trained in NLP and observed that garett's assessment is not accurate. Erickson is only one part of NLP, and today he is far more discussed among hypnotists than by NLPers. NLPers are just as likely to mention Satir or Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, while hypnotists are just as likely to mention Dave Elman. It's impossible to prove that NLPers mention Erickson "as much as Christians mention Jesus," but having been around both groups of people, I would say that the accuracy of this claim is 0%, and would love to see any sort of statistical studies by garett to support his claim.

Just as with any group of people, there are people who are trained in NLP who are completely involved with it, somewhat involved with it, or abandon it. It's not a religion, but there is an attitude that NLPers tend to have, an attitude of curiosity.

I think J.Cadeac's question, "Maybe the question was "Do they use NLP ?" is the most interesting. There is nothing new about NLP other than the links between techniques. It is literally impossible NOT to use NLP. We do it naturally from the day we are born. We learn to walk and talk through what NLP calls modeling. We resolve issues within ourselves and with others by naturally using the techniques of "chunking up" and "chunking down," aspects of the Milton Model and the Meta Model. So if we all do NLP naturally, why bother to study and practice it? So we can be conscious of it when we do it or when others are doing it to us. The bottom line is that all NLP does is allow you to consciously communicate more effectively.

And you don't need an e-meter or years of auditing to become an Operating Thetan. You don't have to believe in all of the NLP theories or techniques because NLP isn't an all-or-nothing system.
seadog93
View Profile
Inner circle
3198 Posts

Profile of seadog93
Quote:
On 2012-11-12 06:39, dmkraig wrote:
Ray is right that they are not the same. However, to claim that NLP is "pseudoscientific" is highly questionable. Since it is directly based on on the works of people including Noam Chomsky, Fritz Perls, Gregory Bateson, Alfred Korzybski, Virginia Satir, and Milton Erickson, you'd have to show that these philosophers, scientists, and therapists were also pseudoscientific in their approach. For example, an important part of NLP is the "meta model," which is based on the word of Virginia Satir. Satir is known as the "Mother of Family Therapy," so by calling NLP "pseudoscientific," you're also claiming all of family therapy and the hundreds of thousand of people and families it has helped is pseudoscientific.


NLP can't be determined to either be pseudoscientific or not on the grounds of the work it's based on. Is the information handled in a scientific manner, using the scientific method or not?

I am not currently active in the NLP community so things may have changed but in several of the early books Bandler and Grinder explicitly state that they have no interest in scientific tests as to wether or not something is 'true' but are only interested in what 'works.' I have heard similar sentiments repeated a lot.
"Love is the magician who pulls man out of his own hat" - Ben Hecht

"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing'. Between the two, my life flows." -Nisargadatta Maharaj

Seadog=C-Dawg=C.ou.rtn.ey Kol.b
rnaviaux
View Profile
Loyal user
279 Posts

Profile of rnaviaux
Quote:
On 2012-11-08 16:27, kasper wrote:
Is there a difference between these two practices?


Short answer - yes. Many differences from what I can tell but the question is asking for "a" difference. One could take this to mean is there any difference at all between the two subjects. Since there are many the easy answer is "yes." But I suspect the question might actually be asking if the two subjects are the same or mostly similar. Well then one could cherry pick from any number of articles, quote, passage, opinions to demonstrate pretty much whatever one would want to.

Slightly longer answer - this isn't such an easy question to answer as it might appear to be at first glance.

First off one would have to understand the two subjects; Probably to a more in depth level than a "I read such and such in Wikipedia." I have only studied NLP briefly and wasn't able to get a grasp on what the fundamental principles of the subject really are. (Probably didn't get my hands on a good text on the subject.)

And after more than a third of a century still haven't listened to all of Mr. Hubbard's approx 3,000 lectures on the subject of Scientology. So could there be a lecture in which he discusses elements of NLP? Possibly. I can't say for sure.

Having said that here is what I believe to be a major, if not the defining, difference between the two subjects.

A few prime tenets of Scientology are:

"Man is an immortal spiritual being.

His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.

His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized."

I was unable to find these points expressed in the texts on NLP that I perused. (Those might be expressed somewhere in NLP.) I think it might be safe to say, based on that that they are indeed different. Of course there might be those, much for familiar with NLP than me, that could list out many additional differences between the two subjects.
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Quote:
On 2012-11-08 16:27, kasper wrote:
Is there a difference between these two practices?


Yes. Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
Jon_Thompson
View Profile
Inner circle
Darkest Cheshire
2404 Posts

Profile of Jon_Thompson
Quote:
On 2012-11-12 06:39, dmkraig wrote:
Ray is right that they are not the same. However, to claim that NLP is "pseudoscientific" is highly questionable. Since it is directly based on on the works of people including Noam Chomsky, Fritz Perls, Gregory Bateson, Alfred Korzybski, Virginia Satir, and Milton Erickson, you'd have to show that these philosophers, scientists, and therapists were also pseudoscientific in their approach.

But I could apply quantum theory to classical mechanics and I would end up with pseudo-scientific nonsense like "What The Bleep Do We Know?", yet quantum theory is the most accurate description of the subatomic world humanity has ever possessed. It would be my fault for the inappropriate use of a tool, not the fault of the tool itself or its discoverers.
seadog93
View Profile
Inner circle
3198 Posts

Profile of seadog93
Thank you, that was better said than my post.
"Love is the magician who pulls man out of his own hat" - Ben Hecht

"Love says 'I am everything.' Wisdom says 'I am nothing'. Between the two, my life flows." -Nisargadatta Maharaj

Seadog=C-Dawg=C.ou.rtn.ey Kol.b
kasper
View Profile
Loyal user
253 Posts

Profile of kasper
I don't know. Ive researched these two organizations for years. There practices seem kind of alike. Just seems as though they come down to persuasion and money. Maybe the intentions were to help people in the beginning. But seriously folks. Is this a another pyramid scheme? Keep taking courses upon courses. One after another until your left without a bank account. And what about these levels or certification? Certifications of what? Can you use them on a job resume?

Would you let one of your family members become a part of these groups?

Just like magic and mentalism we all want our audiences to have a level of believeability in our acts. Is this the new level of having people believe in the unbelievable?

Im not here to bash. I just got on the internet today to look in my city to see if there was some hypnotherapy training in my area. But It was hard to find anything that was legitimate. Like a college or school. It just seemed as though its another "new age." religion out there. And highly priced.


Maybe some day we all can write our own religions. Ha! with our own cerificates to hand out. Then we all can advance out of mentalism. Since mentalism wasn't originally for "entertainment purposes only." in the beginning.
IAIN
View Profile
Eternal Order
england
18816 Posts

Profile of IAIN
Quote:
On Jun 11, 2014, kasper wrote:
Maybe some day we all can write our own religions.


...we do, already...
I've asked to be banned
Doc Ben
View Profile
Loyal user
Phoenix, AZ
247 Posts

Profile of Doc Ben
In the late 1960's and Vietnam war era, I knew of several "hippie" and pacifist types, who had sent off to some place in California for a certificate or degree "minister" in some sort of "Universal Life Church" for about $15 (not that inexpensive at that time when $125 a week was not bad pay). Such degrees and certificates were advertised in popular magazines like "Mother Earth News". I suppose some of those "peaceniks" at the time hoped to avoid being drafted by starting their own religions or at least churches. I even knew of one acquaintance who had his normal, residential home in a blue collar community, declared as a "Budhist temple" in an attempt to avoid paying property taxes,.....( btw the town council denied his request and he had to pay...LOL)! Smile Smile
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" (the original F. Baum)
kasper
View Profile
Loyal user
253 Posts

Profile of kasper
Ha! I just think that some of these writers out there are brilliantly clever. I enjoy going to the library and just reading books written on religion just to see how persuasive they are. Some of it is interesting and some are just down right funny. Look up the Church Of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was written by a guy that was tired of everyone in college trying to come up with a new name for Intellegent Design. People kept changing the name to get their point across.

If anyone else has some recommended books let me know. Haha! the stuff out there. Lets make this thread fun.
kasper
View Profile
Loyal user
253 Posts

Profile of kasper
I know that someone on here is going to say "What does this thread have to do with mentalism"? Well its probably more fit for the hypnosis forum. I ended up reading up on NLP after sooo many references about it in modern day mentalism books. Books written about after the year 1997. I posted here because there is more traffic on this forum. That and the folks here have a better sense of humor.


If anyone has seen that movie THE MASTER. There is a line in it that is just awesome. There is a part when a sceptical guy is watching the character protrayed as Hubbard. He Says "Are you hypnotising them?" Then hubbard says "NO! Im dehypnotising them." Awesome line and subtle bit of psychology. Ha
jstreiff
View Profile
Special user
702 Posts

Profile of jstreiff
As I understand things, Scientology is a religion in form. Whether is it 'recognized' or 'accepted' is irrelevant to this discussion and the question asked originally. NLP is an practice of persuasion that some accept as based in scientific fact while others do not.

In my experience, many Scientologists are comfortable with and embrace NLP. But many practitioners of NLP are not Scientologists.
John
mindpunisher
View Profile
Inner circle
6132 Posts

Profile of mindpunisher
NLP was originally coined because in Arizona where Bandler practiced hypnotherapy you needed a medical license. So NLP was just another term for hypnosis. It was also an Idea or attitude and a way of thinking that led to a number of therapeutic techniques being included to create a "system. At the core of NLP is the meta model based upon the work of Virginia Satire. She discovered a way of helping her clients by becoming very specific about their problems. The other core element is the Milton model based on the work of Milton Erickson. He made a reputation of getting great results by being very vague the exact opposite of Satire. The Milton/Meta model is a linguistic frame work that enables those that are skilled enough to pull someone out of an every day trance such as being anxious or depressed ( by being specific ) and throw then into into a more appropriate everyday trance ( by being vague ). NLP embraces the ideas of Erickson who believed we are constantly in a trance and constantly move from one to another.

The marketing and over commercialization of NLP has led to the lucrative activity of the selling of certificates. This has meant many schools sprouting up with many "practitioners" who were both pretty bad and don't really know how to use the tools that were presented to them. In fact its very difficult to find what I would call a good NLPer. It takes a lot more than buying a certificate to become competent. And I guess there is some natural ability in being good at it as there is in anything.

Scientology has nothing to do with NLP although having watched a documentary on this its clear they use techniques in their induction of "victims" but in reverse. For example one of the things they do is through a personality test find small problems in the minds of those taking them. They then blow them up in the mind to the point where it becomes a serious problem. They then offer Scientology as a solution to that over blown problem. And there starts an ongoing process of mind control to keep them in the cult. There are some NLP techniques that do the opposite by making what appears to be a serious problem smaller or less significant until it has no influence over the client's life.

I have been certified in NLP since the early 90s and have worked with all kinds of clients including some of our countries top ceos, the police, major charities, all kinds of businesses, sports people, I even sat in and consulted on the sales presentations to bring the NATO summit to my home town a few years back.

NLP is really only as good as the person that uses it. And I have found it very rare to come across many who can use it to get exceptional results beyond the basics. But it does contain legitimate techniques and skills that can change lives.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » NLP and Scientology (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.29 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL