|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
alexhui Inner circle Hong Kong 1956 Posts |
Very great and inspiring posts, guys!
Like many said in thier posts, being interested in NLP for a few years, I cannot explain what exactly NLP is yet. I have 'Frogs into Princes','The Structure of Magic I and II', 'Trance Formation' and many others related works (including Mr.Rex Sikes's works). What I appreciated NLP is that the potential of those tools are not explored fully yet (which mean NLP is more powerful than anyone think) and there are many more skills which are under development everyday. And if someone is creative enough, he can invent his own methods. I am very happy during my study of NLP, but as I am from HK, I sometimes find hard to fully use the technique directly from books, cos I have to do so many translation work...However, every effort is worth if NLP is put into practice in your life. Alex Hui
To support 100% honest and unbiased reviews: Donate by PayPal
For BRUTALLY HONEST consultation for your upcoming projects, PM me. YouTube: Alex Magic Review YouTube: Themis Magic World Instagram: @AlexMagicReview Instagram: @ThemisMagic |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Well put shrink - that is indeed an appiication of NLP - direction and influence.
Quote:
On 2004-10-25 20:15, shrink wrote: |
|||||||||
triXter9669 Loyal user 235 Posts |
I would have to agree myself
|
|||||||||
trainspotter New user 63 Posts |
That's right, Bendler and Grinder don't have to prove anything, but on the other hand, the things they say should somehow be tested, because we don't want to waste our time studying nonsense. I do agree that INTUITEVLY the things they say sound really convincing, but that's not enough. it's like asking a person who believes in tarot card reading whether the reading was accurate.
Let's take for example the "eye access cues" issue. This is something that can be tested in a simple psychological study. And it was, eye movements has nothing to with the way people represent things in their mind. here's the link to the article: http://www.kevinhogan.com/NLPeyeaccess.htm |
|||||||||
triXter9669 Loyal user 235 Posts |
From my understanding and what I have tested, eye movement is relative to the certain cues persay that they pertain to. If I ask someone to tell me how many rooms are in their house, most of the time ill get a direction of their eyes (usually up and to my right) but as I have learned from Derren Brown, not everyone is the same BUT everyone does have a pattern that they convey subconsciencely. This is what I gathered from my tests only as I have mentioned.
|
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Here is a post to a private discussion board I made recently regarding eye accessing cues.Since it is my words I have no issue re-posting it here..
>>I am a bit confused - not having read a lot of what preceded this. Iknow EAC have come under fire for some time. All I have to say is this that since 1980 it was my positioin and understanding (and something I clearly explained in all my public and private training) - that EYE ACCESSING CUES (EAC) were to be individually calibrated - that the template (the chart) was ONLY a template ( a representation of what was possible and a means to organize or systematize your observations) and by virtue of that - it would be incorrect many times. It was designed to give the observer something to compare with or contrast against - it was a means for determining the sequence and order the eyes moved - and not meant to be the final answer in how eyes are supposed to move. It wsa for the observer to calibrate with - a tool to use to help remember how the peron's eyes moved that you were watching. And there are accompanying questions - which mean if you asked them do the eyes move or not move according to the chart - and which ever answer you get is a useful and valuable answer as to how the person is patterned. People need to observe and discover what patterns people demonstrate in their behaviors and NOT try to fit people to the model. The model is only a means of organizing thoughts systematically so you have something to work from. It is lunacy and only a 'snake oil' like approach to state EAC are wrong - they aren't, they can be reliable indicators of internal processes when knows how to use them - and they are only one of many indicators to pay attention to - so used in combination with other outer indicators of internal processings they make up a nice useful package. I don't believe this was necessarily the way EAC were presented in many books and trainings by other providers - perhaps even to this current day because there does seem to be misunderstanding. I find the EAC debate one that is very much based on misunderstanding of how the original material was intended to be percieved as opposed to how it was actually presented. No merit on many of detractor claims or Hogan theories. But I am not particularly enamoured of KH for a variety of reasons and have not found his books to be of interest. I know others may and taste is always an individual think (like EAU) and he has an audience - I just remain unimpressed - though he strives to be prolific. And he gets his work done. He takes action - right or wrong and gets heard. That is impressive - even if his writings Ifind less than accurate frequently, and too shallow. Still it is always nice when people understake the time and effort to look into aspects of human behavior and communication. Rex<< http://www.idea-seminars.com |
|||||||||
lawrencetreagus New user 61 Posts |
Having just read the Kevin Hogan link it would appear that the only similarity with EAC, is that people tend to look straight ahead which in my opinion is not much of a clue.
The results are interesting and leads me to wonder how these clues were devised, given that this is the most comprehensive research I have yet to read. In my personal experience I have found the EAC useless not to say that others also, but if too much time is spent searching for something which the evidence seems to suggest is not there, something more important may be missed. Personally I tend to pick up the information EAC can relay to me subconsciously and therefor do not feel I need them. But (and you should never start a sentance with 'but') maybe I am accessing peoples eyes and their clues subconsciously. Regards |
|||||||||
procyonrising Special user New York 698 Posts |
Kevin Hogan has a tendency to borrow material from other people and methodologies, attach a new name, and sell it as his own invention. Can't blame him, Tony Robbins did the same.
|
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Eye accessing cues come from other work in lateral eye movement studies. I believe original work was done in Canada years ago.
EAC are only one of many, many external behavioral indicators of internal processing. Enjoy! Rex |
|||||||||
trainspotter New user 63 Posts |
Here's another eyes opening review from the sceptic dictionary.
http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html Reader's comments http://skepdic.com/comments/neurocom.html if you know of any other studies that were made to support or rebut the theories of NLP please post them here. Rex, I never saw an NLP book that said that the chart of EAC was only a template. They explicitly state that the EAC is working this way, and not a single word mentioned on calibration. The only thing they say is that the chart is for right handed people, and one need to switch the sides to apply it for the left handed. Thanks |
|||||||||
triXter9669 Loyal user 235 Posts |
I agree with Rex Sikes' post above. Its pretty much a model to apply to a particular individuals eye movements. The way I do it is ask (from the valuable Wonder Words) many open ended questions. If the subjects eyes move DOWN and to the RIGHT when asking a question that would normally be received as a PAST VISUAL response (seeing pictures of something that already happened), then most likely when they visualize pictures, they will tend to look down and not up.
Just my two sense. |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Yes that is the fault of the early books. I agree.
Enjoy! Rex |
|||||||||
triXter9669 Loyal user 235 Posts |
Oh I guess I have misunderstood Rex then. From my understandings and what my expierence is, everyone has a particular pattern. Whether this is a fault or not as Rex has cited, it certainly has never failed me.
|
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
No you are correct trixter9669 everyone does exemplify their own personal patterns. What I meant in agreement was - that the books are not as clear as they could be. That is why I have spent so much time and so many years helping to clarify a murky issue.
The books seem to suggest that there are more visual people, then auditory and then kinesthetic. And that they are either normally organized or reversed. Well first I don't know that the states are correcto on the VAK - and it would seem there is some argument for there being more A people than V people. Nest there is no such actual thing as a v or a or k person. We do all of them in differing amounts depending on the context or circumstance and in a patterned manner. THe patterns are typical to ourselves - each individua; and hence easy to determine. But we do all of them in differing sequence and preponderance. Yes there is normally organized and reversed. But what the books do seem to imply is that people will be organized as the chart illustrates - and we know that is not always the case. THey may be reversed left to right or bottom to top etc. The key is discovering how they access - and systematically move their eyes and then match or mismatch those movements with behaviors, language, etc. I only meant to say that the books did not clearly state that each person has their own patterns which need to be identified. I hope this helps clear up my statement. Best rergards, Rex |
|||||||||
trainspotter New user 63 Posts |
Rex,
I don't think that saying that the books are not clear about some issue, and supplying a speculative explanation, makes the theory valid. NLP is a pseudo-science, and without proper evidence no one can claim otherwise. In my opinion, the best definition of NLP was made by Thomas Taylor "NLP is basically new-age pseudo-scientific self-motivational Anything-2-Everyone standard cretin fare" http://skepdic.com/comments/neurocom.html Regards, Danny |
|||||||||
themidget New user 1 Post |
Here's an article on scientific assessment of NLP http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~dylanwad/morganic/art_nlp.htm
Enjoy Here's another one very interesting source http://www.sueknight.co.uk/Publications/......ible.htm |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Respectfully Danny,
Claiming that NLP " NLP is a pseudo-science, and without proper evidence no one can claim otherwise. In my opinion, the best definition of NLP was made by Thomas Taylor " and quoting skeptic encyclopeia is not demonstrative of someone who has actually researched the subject - or whom has formed a well infromed decision. NLP is based on very accurate and sound scientific principles as well as some that are softer -it's roots most definitly are in cognitive and behavior psychology, cybernetics, linguisitcs and many other well established, recognized fields and approaches. Because some have chosen to label it a psuedo science doesn't , make it so - or make it any less valuable to the end user. It only means one doesn't have to think very far to have an opinon. And that's okay by me. No one is asking anyone who doesn't want to explore it to buy it or it's tenants. What is being done here is exploring some assertions made in some early works that were less than clear. By the way the Structure of Magic was very well accepted as an example of academic work in linguistics. Still I am not here to argue whether NLP is scientific or not - it isn't in my opinon - it is a field. Medicine isn't scientific - it is a practice - and some of it is based on research., some of it is based oncommon sense, some of it on wives tales and some of it on money and fda rulings etc. But medicin has elements support by science and some that aren't - neither is pscyhology or education, or many other fields that are useful to explore. NLP has similar - some things validated by research, some things not validated or not yet validated, some things common sense, some things wives tales - but to do what you have done- quote a non reliable source on NLP and provide a link is nothing short of not thinking about the subject very deeply - and NO OFFENSE intended but this type of limiting behavior is encountered now and again while people try to explore things important to them. So I find no credeence in your assertion or the assertion of the person you link to. I have utilzed NLP and taught NLP worldwide - got to spend time with some of the worlds most incredible thinkers and doers teaching them NLP and using NLP to learn from them. Been doing that since 1979. So dismiss it if you feel you must but let others look into it without the baseless assertions from someone who doesn't actually know or use what they profess to write about. Again no offense - and I agree stating that the books aren't very clear isn't that helpful - but it is accurate. The books weren't designed to be the end all on the subject. The books were a means to introduce people to a concept - the rela learning occurs in training. THe early days of NLP trained literally tens of thousands of therapists, doctors, educators, counselors all around the world. THe very face of the counseling profession has indeed been modified greatly by the introduction of NLP into the mix. Previously, most therapeutic approaches were lengthy, many things considered untreatable, with the intro of NLP today therapy can even be considered brief. A truly novel concept coming out of NLP. It can be tailored to the individual as opposed to the typical shotgun approach, phobias are easily treated and even cured, major work with getting people off meds and into living productive and useful lives. Treating schizophrenic. I suggest you look into abstraqcts in medicine, counseling, socialiology, psychology, education, counseling, nursing and many other fields to discover just how NLP is being used worldwide. Then chek out marketing, advertising, customer service, sales, public speaking, presenting, teaching abstracts and research to discover how NLP is being used worldwide. Then go on - because you will find lots if you look. Or stop at the opinon of someone who wrote a critique for the 'less than thinking person's' encyclopedia - the skeptics. BTW I get skeptical enquirer and many addition magiazinnes. Sometime they do have a well researched article and sometimes it is worth merit. Many times it is equally as flawed as the subjkect they write about. They too have an agenda - so let's keep that in mind. Meanwhile - if the subject actually interests you I encourage you to do the leg and brain work rather than letting someone else do your thinking for you - and for that matter for anyone. Enjoy! Rex |
|||||||||
Hypnotic Winter Special user Ireland 720 Posts |
Here's my two cents on psudo nlp.
Nlp of course works but there have been times I perform an effect which use's pure hard tecneques, such as making an audience member pick a certain object and then give the explanation as being nlp. I think that a lot of performers do the same, they use the real nlp tecneques of course but naturall y they may not do much beyond a little behavour management with it, when they want that little bit extra from an effect or even want to show advanced nlp which they may not have the knowledge how to do or create a seemingly nlp driven effect which doesn't exist, you do an effect and claim nlp as the explanation. Least that's been my definition. H.W
When your only reality is an illusion, then illusion is reality.
|
|||||||||
triXter9669 Loyal user 235 Posts |
Rex I totally understand now. I thought for a second you disagreed with me. Yea that seemed to be the case to me when I first read about such things. Such as a CERTAIN PERCENTAGE so to speak were visual people but the truth of the matter is that EVERYONE has all 3 representations. Sure a person uses (feels/hears/sees) one MORE then the other but nonetheless all 3 are used in some portion or another.
Thanks for clearing that up Rex. -Michael |
|||||||||
trainspotter New user 63 Posts |
Rex, Thank you for your time to have this discussion.
NLP is based on very accurate and sound scientific principles as well as some that are softer -it's roots most definitly are in cognitive and behavior psychology, cybernetics, linguisitcs and many other well established, recognized fields and approaches. Reply: I do agree that psychology is a science, linguistics is a science as well, but NLP is not. What roots are in cognitive and behavior psychology? What are the sound scientific principles that the NLP is based on? Because some have chosen to label it a psuedo science doesn't , make it so - or make it any less valuable to the end user. It only means one doesn't have to think very far to have an opinon. And that's okay by me. No one is asking anyone who doesn't want to explore it to buy it or it's tenants. Reply: Those who chosen to label NLP as a pseudo science are the same people that labeled homeopathy and all other "magic pill sciences" as not being a science, by following two simple principles. Objectivity (two different, not biased, researchers can get the same results from testing a theory), and Relevance (it is based on empiric facts). I can't see any objectivity in NLP field. Every one is basically claming what he wants. On the other hand, the people that made the experiments are non-biased researchers (or at least do not sell books/seminars on NLP). Empirically, there is no proper evidence to show that NLP is a valid science. In fact, the opposite is true, there are studies that shown that some principles (in cases that the theory can be tested) of NLP are simply not working. What is being done here is exploring some assertions made in some early works that were less than clear. By the way the Structure of Magic was very well accepted as an example of academic work in linguistics. Reply: NLP claims to be much more than linguistics. If so, why it is not accepted in the field of psychology. Still I am not here to argue whether NLP is scientific or not - it isn't in my opinon - it is a field. Medicine isn't scientific - it is a practice - and some of it is based on research., some of it is based oncommon sense, some of it on wives tales and some of it on money and fda rulings etc. But medicin has elements support by science and some that aren't - neither is pscyhology or education, or many other fields that are useful to explore. NLP has similar - some things validated by research, some things not validated or not yet validated, some things common sense, some things wives tales - but to do what you have done- quote a non reliable source on NLP and provide a link is nothing short of not thinking about the subject very deeply - and NO OFFENSE intended but this type of limiting behavior is encountered now and again while people try to explore things important to them. Reply: Medicine is based on scientific studies, and it does bother to learn from it's mistakes, while NLP is a theory, that was never even close to be science. Actually I was seriously studying NLP for about one year, and I believed in all the 'beautiful' things that the field was offering, but after I started my psychology studies, and tried to evaluate it from scientific point of view, I started seeing it as a new age science. So when I saw what Skeptic's Dictionary had to say about it, I saw that this is exactly what I was thinking about nlp. So my opinions are based ONLY on my own evaluation, the reason I quoted Thomas Taylor was that in my opinion it is a funny quote. So I find no credeence in your assertion or the assertion of the person you link to. I have utilzed NLP and taught NLP worldwide - got to spend time with some of the worlds most incredible thinkers and doers teaching them NLP and using NLP to learn from them. Been doing that since 1979. Reply: Some people are utilizing homeopathy worldwide, got to spend time with incredible thinkers as well, and they find no credence in scientific medical assertions. That does not make homeopathy a science, or a working practice. So dismiss it if you feel you must but let others look into it without the baseless assertions from someone who doesn't actually know or use what they profess to write about. Again no offense - and I agree stating that the books aren't very clear isn't that helpful - but it is accurate. The books weren't designed to be the end all on the subject. The books were a means to introduce people to a concept - the rela learning occurs in training. THe early days of NLP trained literally tens of thousands of therapists, doctors, educators, counselors all around the world. THe very face of the counseling profession has indeed been modified greatly by the introduction of NLP into the mix. Reply: Yet, even if it's true, that's only the minority, exactly as the doctors that practice homeopathy are a minority too. Previously, most therapeutic approaches were lengthy, many things considered untreatable, with the intro of NLP today therapy can even be considered brief. A truly novel concept coming out of NLP. It can be tailored to the individual as opposed to the typical shotgun approach, phobias are easily treated and even cured, major work with getting people off meds and into living productive and useful lives. Treating schizophrenic. I suggest you look into abstraqcts in medicine, counseling, socialiology, psychology, education, counseling, nursing and many other fields to discover just how NLP is being used worldwide. Reply: I did that, and found nothing. Please show me where to look. Then chek out marketing, advertising, customer service, sales, public speaking, presenting, teaching abstracts and research to discover how NLP is being used worldwide. Then go on - because you will find lots if you look. Or stop at the opinon of someone who wrote a critique for the 'less than thinking person's' encyclopedia - the skeptics. BTW I get skeptical enquirer and many addition magiazinnes. Sometime they do have a well researched article and sometimes it is worth merit. Many times it is equally as flawed as the subjkect they write about. They too have an agenda - so let's keep that in mind. Meanwhile - if the subject actually interests you I encourage you to do the leg and brain work rather than letting someone else do your thinking for you - and for that matter for anyone. Reply: I did that already, one year of studying nlp is enough for me. Enjoy! Rex Thanks again, Danny |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » NLP books and ANCHORING (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [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 < |