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

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
magicinsight
View Profile
Inner circle
3673 Posts

Profile of magicinsight
Yes. It is used both unknowingly as well as intentionally by people in thier daily lives. Words are inherently powerful as they denote specific intentions, ideas and directions as well connoting subtle, underlying meanings. Trained negotiators, attorneys, salesmen and other professions used these techniques long before Knepper ever wrote about them. Words have the power to trigger certain emotions, memories, actions and thoughts in people. Knowing what type of words trigger what type of emotions, actions, etc. and when to use those words are important in being successful in business. The application of using these techniques in mentalism, while helpful and important, is by no means new.


Best regards,


Michael
“Belief matters more than truth. Every moment, belief in imaginary things alters lives while truth sits unnoticed and waits.”
—Hakim, Loreweaver
bobser
View Profile
Inner circle
4176 Posts

Profile of bobser
[quote]On 2004-12-02 12:49, Ominous wrote:
Bobser - I am unsure of your point ! That DB uses both NLP and just about anything else in the book (any) to get the message across ? If so I agree ![end quote]

Sorry Ominous,
My point was that when someone says (quote I used) :"I heard that 'such & such says so & so', so there you are" there is no emperical value in such a statement, since we are talking of hearsay (what someone heard.
My second point was simply a reminder that mentalists' claim of the use of NLP is in the main poppycock.
NLP is a very very soft science. So soft in fact that it is (IMO) far more an art than a science, and even then, there is a certain kudos attached to the claims of its user. Hence I argued that,in the main,all of Derren Brown's material is actually magic effects.(Which I actually mean as a compliment!)
And, if I'm wrong, then I am a truly wonderful 'magician'.
Because I, along with many others no doubt,know how to do every single one of the effects he has ever done on television.
However, as it happens... I don't believe I am. ('wrong' that is. Not not wonderful. ooh err ummm)
Bobser.
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
Alexander Marsh
View Profile
Inner circle
England
1190 Posts

Profile of Alexander Marsh
Can we PLEASE STOP refering to 'nlp' as if its a 'thing'. Something you can hold in your hand, see, hear and feel (yes I know what I just said Smile).

Stop thinking of it like an 'it', its not a deck of cards, a swami, a 'special' clipbored.

Bandler and Grinder studyed some people and wrote down things (techniques etc.) they noticed and came up with names for them. They choose to call this Modeling. They did this so they could teach other people how to do these sorts of things.

Like the first person who wrote down how to do a CT, they wrote it down to teach it to other people.

Eye Cues came about because Bandler and Grinder noticed that when accecing different parts of the brain, people moved there eyes in certen places.
And if any of you have even bothered (and I know many of you have, so I don't mean to offend) to pick up a book written by these guys (Frogs in to Princes, springs to mind) you will know that several times when teaching Eye Cues they say, 'everything we are telling you is a lie. All genralizations are not true. Including that one. patterns such as this one (Eye Cues) are not THE way, its just a 'tool', its usefull.' that's not an exact quote by the way, but that's the gest.
Swami's are not THE way to do a prediction effect, there not even THE way to do secret writting, its just a tool that's usefull. And it is NOT 100% reliable. But as any pro will tell you, you can get to a point, with practice and belif in your-self that it is very neraly perfect (i.e. you can write a hole sentance as if it were written normally).

Another thing they point out about Eye Cues is that NO its not 100% true 100% of the time but if you belive it is, then it pretty much is. And theres more to Eye Cues than just Remembering/Constructin images, words, feelings and talking to your self.
Sorry for going on I right rant, and sorry to offend anyone who has bothered to pick up a book about this stuff, but Im shoked at magicians who are mentalists, and mentalists out right denile to learn anything new, which isn't even NEW!

Im off to take a chill pill now,
Alex.
bobser
View Profile
Inner circle
4176 Posts

Profile of bobser
[quote]On 2004-11-15 17:16, JoaoPedro wrote:
Since I discovered NLP and its applications to mentalism, I've been using it every day I perform.
Luke Jermay and Kenton Knepper are the main sources for my work. [end quote]

I just thought it interesting that Luke Jermay should be 'a main scource' on the work of NLP.
I'm sure that I am correct in saying that it was being used before he was actually born and there are now literally thousands of qualified teachers on NLP giving academic discourses on the subject around the world.
Quite possibly Luke 'is' one of them, I don't know.
But JoaoPedro's comment is an interesting one.
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
xersekis
View Profile
Special user
591 Posts

Profile of xersekis
I won't discuss here again the erroneous misrepresentations made about NLP and science etc.

And yes many performers utilize it as a rationale when in fact they know nothing of it.

And yes words have been in use prior to NLP.

However, the combination of NLP categories and distinctions purposefully applied to an endeavor - therapy, persuasion, performing etc. has only been around for about 30 years. The systematic use of patterns as notated in NLP but widely disseminated as NLP and a whole host of other things has proven successful for businesses and individuals worldwide for that same time period.

Kenton did not invent - nor did Luke invent NLP or the patterns but they applied them to a field you and I enjoy. Their work utilizes some NLP to help make your work more effective, and easier.

Prior to Kenton applying NLP there was no systematic description of these patterns in our fields.

Words, yes. Ideas, notions, principles yes.

Hypnosis has been a round forever - Milton Erickson perhaps the most widely respected hypnotist used words in a particular fashion to get results. Was he 100% successful - my own view is OF COURSE NOT. But he does have a very impeccable track record. As does Virginia Satir a renown family therapist whose work has gotten results worldwide. Only two of the original models that NLP originators studied and codified to make up this useful body of knowledge.

Since that time this study has included other highly successful individuals in business, sales, intelligence, health, psychology, medicine and many other fields. NLP is a study of codifying the effective things successful individuals do - so that you can learn to do what works.

Yes words are very effective - but even more effective when one knows how and when and where to use them, place them, emphasize and de-emphazise them. When one knows how to create a story or a patter where another person experiences what the storyteller wants them to experience and does what the story teller wants them to do.

It is about focusing attention, directing it and getting results - and linguistics - is only the middle name of NLP.

And yes people have used words for great results forever. NLP just simplifies it so that we all can.

Don't study it if you don't wish to. BUT I can guarantee you that the patterns codified can bring understanding about what you naturally do anyway.
You don't have to enjoy it for it to be applied to you by someone else savvy enough to do so.

Don't use it - and for gawd sakes don't claim to if you don't really understand and utilize it.

Kenton, Luke and Derren have demonstrated what is possible utilizing NLP as well as other things.
BUT elements of NLP is one of the things they all have utilized in common.

You don't have to know all about NLP to do what performers do. I think that is Derren's point - there are other things that get you your performance miracles - BUT you may use NLP for your patter, direction thoughts, the hypnotic stuff DB does is directly taken from NLP transcripts nearly verbatim - the handshake interrupt. The amnesia patterns etc. He didn't get that from a vacuums - it is stuff I have used and taught for 3 decades. He merely brought it to yours and the public's attention.

Don't confuse NLP with certain methods - that's not what anyone is actually talking about - which is what frequently gets confused here - from usually well intending misinformed people. If ignorance and loud mouths could be bottled together and sold we would have a fortune right here.

NLP isn't necessarily about achieving the answer to a thought of word or design - although....

it is more about directing attention, suggestion what you want to occur and using very reliable influential patterns to get people to think, act and behave in particular pre -determined ways.

It is also extremely useful for determining how someone thinks, acts, behaves and how they are likely to in the future - predicting for example if someone would play the lottery but not if they would win the lottery.

2 very different notions of what it is useful for - that the ignorant uniformed unfortunately mix up and confuse on this forum. But that is the nature of the uninformed. The inexperienced.

Some people may have begun to study NLP and for whatever reason decide not to invest further time in it. Heck people change majors in university all the time. It is a study - not a thing, not a pill, not a magic bullet and people get into things for a variety of reasons (non of which they necessarily share with us) and out of something because their reasons, goals or wishes don't match what is being offered by whoever is offering it.

But some - a few - then dismiss the whole field because the offering didn't fit with their preconceived notions. Shouldn't blame the all enchiladas because you didn't like the one bite of one you had once. But that's what some people do.

And they are usually the loudest.

I tend to ignore the really loud complainers. AND the cynics. I prefer a much more reasonable and balanced approach to things. I prefer my own experience to the assertions of others - especially if it is possible that there is something beneficial there for me.

But that's just me.
--
A.G.
View Profile
Special user
Vancouver Canada
959 Posts

Profile of A.G.
Thanks for that post rex.
gerard
http://www.allandrew.com
mindracing
View Profile
New user
6 Posts

Profile of mindracing
In my experience EAC are 100% accurate.

What is often missing is the experience and broader unerstanding of the subject.

We all have a Primary Representational System and Lead Representational System. When these are understood and sufficient calibration of the subject is made then the EAC are accurate. Not taking these into account ofen leads to mis-reading.

With experience, calibration can be achieved with a couple of questions in normal conversation.
trainspotter
View Profile
New user
63 Posts

Profile of trainspotter
Mindracing, studies show that it's far from 100% accurate (http://www.kevinhogan.com/NLPeyeaccess.htm).

reminds me of some women that once told me that the reading she got from the fortune teller was 100% accurate.
xersekis
View Profile
Special user
591 Posts

Profile of xersekis
I wouldn't put my faith in the hogan study either - and I have known hogan for perhaps a decade or more. he contacted me many years ago about writing together - but I was not inclined. He has made a name for himself - I am not a fan of his works - but to his credit he is prolific.

Another faset however - you are delaing with people and behavoirs and few things with people are 100%. Most things in medicine are 100%, in psychology, in behavior in atheletic performance.

If you are looking for 100% perfection wel then you will always miss. Polygraph isn't 100% it is interpretive - an art - based on real physiologic measures. But not allowed in court because it CAN be wrong. Doesn't mean it is - but you don't want to convict some one on a technical or interpretive error - yet it is done all the time within the judicial system.

Few things regarding people in science give us 100% certainty. Wanting that is simply ridiculous.

What you get with eye accessing cues - or polygraph etc. is a way of upping your batting average. A way of enhancing your performacne. A way of being way closer to correct more often than in error. Of course it depends how good you are with it. If you are really good yuou can get some really good realiable results most of the time - if you aren't very good well then it could be a crap shoot. But in performacne - just like an atheletic - you can optimize your performance to be in the zone far more often than not. You can perform reliably more often. And sure you will have off days or be dead wrong, or have any toher variety of influences that would allow for error.

Find a marksman that hits the center of the bullseye 100% of the time without fail. I mean come on.... no get real.

Usually people who lack talent in an area are the first to critize the loudest - and by gosh the longest.

No one would even begin to claim 100% results in a study or endeavor that utilized humans as it's operatives.

reminds me of someone sitting on the porch all alone at 90 yelling at the kids to get the ball out of the year...If I can't play NO ONE should.
bobser
View Profile
Inner circle
4176 Posts

Profile of bobser
I'm with trainspotter.
I've known quite a few 'experts' in the field of NLP over the years, and at the end of the day I'd have to say they couldn't hold a patch to a good salesman with suggestability skills (who'd never even heard of NLP)
And as far as reading people goes.... well, I'm afraid they're strike rate doesn't seem to be any better than the guy on 'the corner of life' who possesses a 'good gut feeling'.
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
xersekis
View Profile
Special user
591 Posts

Profile of xersekis
Well I am with you in both those regards - there are many people out there who claim a knowledge of NLP, promote themselves as NLP people who aren't in fact trained in it. THen too, there are some who did recieve training and the quality of their training may be questionable. Still there are those who may have recieved excellent training but for whatever reason just aren't good at it - maybe they received training but didn't pass, maybe they did pass but didn't keep up, maybe they just weren't very good. Maybe their skill is in another area than where you are looking.

There are numerous factors - just as there are good detectives and poor ones. Good magicians and lousy ones, great doctors and care givers and one's not worth considering.

So the fact that you knew some - is about as meaningless as everything else claimed. SOmeone wants science to validate something and claims that statistically speaking something is of no merit - then uses anecdotal eveidence to support their claim. So you knew a few - big deal.

What makes you an authority on all the people out there and how can you make such a sweeping generalziation based on your limited expereince of knowiing a few.

And we don't know what you mean by knowing, what you mean by how good they are cuz we don't know how good you are at anything. We don't know how valid your assessment is regarding them or good salespeople cuz we don't have any way of determining whethr you or trainspotter have any expertise in making these decisions.

All we know is you say so and what you say may be accurate. BUT based on what? Your opinoin. HOw many good salepeople do you know that don't know NLP? HOw many NLP experts did you know and how do you know they were in fact experts.

See you guys claim you want science - but then you follow sloppy reasoning to make your point.

I am not saying expereince is valid or valuable. You are free to make an opinon based on whatever amount of information you wish to entertainer. You make make one and hold it no matter how well informed or how ignorant. You may very well have known some 'true' experts that aren't very good compared to some others - BUT that is not a qualitative or quantiative measure as to whther the topic discussed has merit.

It is like comparing appels to orangutangs. The difficulty is that some of the people here cry and clamor for hard eveidence about proof - but then give the softest pseudo evidence for backing their claim.

Then it just becaomes laughable - because I say so what. I have known some hrooid magicians so all of magic is worthless and sucks because I have known some birthday clowns that were better entertainers and did superior magic tricks. Magic is bogus and not worth learning because I knew a quy once who claimed to be a magician - in fact I saw the Chavez course on his shelf - but golly did he suck.

I agree there are some poor representative of NLP out there claimuing to be expert, offering seminars and training, doing therapy - and they shouldn't - they harm the field they do not help it.

There are programs and books out there that aren't that good. THere are some who have made some pretty fantastic claims.

BUT there are some really incredible mind blowing talented people out their that would blow you out of your shoes. And you wouldn't even know it was happening - but you'd fiind yourself sitting on the sidewalk wondering what just happened. THere are some good books and some good training still available. And there is some real kick ass result you can get when you know what you are doing.

BUT don't believe me - don't bother to find out. In fact do stay away. Leave it alone - hang out withj whomever you choose - believe whatever you want.

But don't pose aencdotal psuedo evidence as any kind of meanigful thoughtful exchange on a subject because it isn't. It is only one person's limited experience - and in the scheme of things it means next to nothing, Don't believe my expereince either.
Just don't act like you have facts when you offer nothing but assumption. That's where it get's truly annoying.

Back it up with cold har d proof, evidence, facts, figures, scientific eveidence, proofs, not what others say about it. Because remember it doesn't matter how many people worldwide may pracitice something daily - they could be wrong (as was suggested by somene here in these discussions)
And in fact that could be true. Millions of religions, philosphies, etc. could very well be wrong.
And their practiioners all decieved - could be true.

But then so is your meager offering as an example.
If experience doesn't count as proof for - your expereince can't count as proof against. And you can't have it both ways.

So put up some valid evidence - and it may be worth listening to -or reading... in the meantime I have tivo to attend to...
bobser
View Profile
Inner circle
4176 Posts

Profile of bobser
[quote]On 2004-12-07 16:22, rex sikes wrote:

So the fact that you knew some - is about as meaningless as everything else claimed. SOmeone wants science to validate something and claims that statistically speaking something is of no merit - then uses anecdotal eveidence to support their claim. So you knew a few - big deal.
[end quote]

So my view is crap whilst yours is good-huh?
Oh my, but that's really gonna get me interested in a friendly debate. I guy so open-minded as you.

[quote]What makes you an authority on all the people out there and how can you make such a sweeping generalziation based on your limited expereince of knowiing a few.
[end quote]

So I have no authority and make sweeping statements, whilst you possess complete authority to say what you want, and your experience is all-knowing, huh?
Y'know this isn't helping... in fact it's getting worse!

[quote]And we don't know what you mean by knowing, what you mean by how good they are cuz we don't know how good you are at anything. We don't know how valid your assessment is regarding them or good salespeople cuz we don't have any way of determining whethr you or trainspotter have any expertise in making these decisions.
[end quote]

whose we? ( Don't answer that!)and how do 'we' know how good 'you' are at anything Mr.Smarty Pants?

[quote]All we know is you say so and what you say may be accurate. BUT based on what? Your opinoin. HOw many good salepeople do you know that don't know NLP? HOw many NLP experts did you know and how do you know they were in fact experts.
See you guys claim you want science - but then you follow sloppy reasoning to make your point.
I am not saying expereince is valid or valuable.....
"blah blah blah blah" [end quote]

Ok, ok,... you win. Your intellect has totally destroyed me, You truly are an NLP wizard. Now, let's put it to bed, hmmm?

[quote]On 2004-12-07 21:07, bobser wrote:
[quote]On 2004-12-07 16:22, rex sikes wrote:

So the fact that you knew some - is about as meaningless as everything else claimed. SOmeone wants science to validate something and claims that statistically speaking something is of no merit - then uses anecdotal eveidence to support their claim. So you knew a few - big deal.
[end quote]

So my view is crap whilst yours is good-huh?
Oh my, but that's really gonna get me interested in a friendly debate. A guy so open-minded as you.

[quote]What makes you an authority on all the people out there and how can you make such a sweeping generalziation based on your limited expereince of knowiing a few.
[end quote]

So I have no authority and make sweeping statements, whilst you possess complete authority to say what you want, and your experience is all-knowing, huh?
Y'know this isn't helping... in fact it's getting worse!

[quote]And we don't know what you mean by knowing, what you mean by how good they are cuz we don't know how good you are at anything. We don't know how valid your assessment is regarding them or good salespeople cuz we don't have any way of determining whethr you or trainspotter have any expertise in making these decisions.
[end quote]

whose we? ( Don't answer that!)and how do 'we' know how good 'you' are at anything Mr.Smarty Pants?

Quote:
All we know is you say so and what you say may be accurate. BUT based on what? Your opinoin. HOw many good salepeople do you know that don't know NLP? HOw many NLP experts did you know and how do you know they were in fact experts.
See you guys claim you want science - but then you follow sloppy reasoning to make your point.
I am not saying expereince is valid or valuable.....
"blah blah blah blah" [end quote]

Ok, ok,... you win. Your intellect has totally destroyed me, You truly are an NLP wizard. Now, let's put it to bed, hmmm?
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
peterng25
View Profile
New user
90 Posts

Profile of peterng25
One thing I'd like Mr. Rex Sikes to do is put a list of what he judges are good vs poor nlp books, and good vs not-so-good training/trainers. That way we can make up our mind because the quality of the library and training would put nlp in its proper focus.
That would be a great service to the community, ?
trainspotter
View Profile
New user
63 Posts

Profile of trainspotter
Rex,
Something in the field of NLP stinks. It begins with the founders and goes on to the field itself, which is pseudo-scientific and is very similar to all the new age field.
I do agree with your statement that everyone should decide for himself, and I did, I read few NLP classics (Frogs into princess, Structure of magic I&II) then I started studying psychology, and the first question I've asked myself, why NLP is not mentioned. When I took my social psychology class, I was intoduced to a great book from Robert Cialdini, "Influence - Science & Practice", I remember seeing references to studies and experements thru all the book, while NLP books talked about things that were never put on a proper test.

Few resources that open my eyes:
http://www.geocities.com/bandlertrial/bandler1.html
http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html
http://skepdic.com/comments/neurocom.html
shrink
View Profile
Inner circle
2609 Posts

Profile of shrink
I recently worked with direct salesman who had not sold anything in over a month. I spent three hours with him unpacking his presentation and resstructuring it. I also included some linguistics to get people into the buying state.

I followed him for 6 weeks after. Each week he made one to two sales worth between 8 to 10 thousand pounds.

Thast was over £150 000 worth of business where before he made none.

NLP is load of crap isn't it? And these sceptics have spnt years developng the skills and have honestly tried to test them...this is my last post on NLP you guys can argue all you like.
xersekis
View Profile
Special user
591 Posts

Profile of xersekis
Awe bobser, I didn't mean to upset you. But your latest posts prove my point even more. I never said I was the ultimate authority - I only said that neither were you. And that you seem to claim you know all sorts of things based on limited expereince. '

Oh well. Defend yourself if you must - it really is about the weakness of your claim - not about you.

I may post some good and bad books but I won't post trainer names - that would not be something I would do. For training one should investigate on their own. THere may be some trainers I would reccomend and I may post their names.

Trainspotter - again - no - some things are put to the proper test while others aren't. And NLP (I can't actually speak for a field) has no disagreement with Cialdin - in fact has embraced his works.

But you continue to put forth inaccurate information regarding testing. You don't like some things - neither do I. The sources you post are no better than the material you critique. But like everything I think one should fairly assess both sides. SO I have no issue with you posting those links.

And I have stated that some, a few, of your points, are well put. But you lump the good ones in with innaccurate and erroneous ones and come up with misleading proposition. But you have your opinion and like the old saying goes - everyone has one.

Doesn't sound like you have actually studied very much - I could be wrong - but if all the further you got was Cialdini - that's really beginner material.
I don't mean this as a put down - but it does seem that your representation of the field of psychology, influentce, and NLP didn't extend very far.

As for me - I have been an entertainer for forty years, taught NLP for 35, taught acting, been in some movies and television, taught programs professional and personal development programs world wide to thousands for decades and have been fortunate enough to meet many of the people most only read about. I don''t say this to impress anyone because it is meangiungless - I can be as wrong as the next person. BUt I do say it because I do have some expereince in the field of psychology, communication (university too) and have trained and consulted for lots of bigwig powerful people in numerous fields.

I just have expereince with people who have expereience - I have worked with law enforcement, hostage negotiators, psychaitrists, doctors, training them to use things - that work - and that they use to great success - all the while someone says I met a few people once.

Well I will put my expereince up against anyone's
but - it isn't about me - it is about the people who use it - their collective expereince. And I say that since bobser presented anecdotal expereince
I figure so can I. Compared to all the other people I now in the world - literaally thousands who utilize NLP for with and for great success in their personal and professional lives - I will match their experience to yors and trainspotters any day.
The hundreds of thoursands of hours of experinience the collective years of expereince I will put that up against your claims at any time.

So don't believe me. I really don't care. And don't beleive anyone else. There is your opinon. And you have yo9ur right to. And as I stated beofre millions of people can be in error. But if I had to choose between your assessments and the assetmensts of literally thousands of 'delluded NLPers worldwide I have known and trained and met for the past 30 years - well you just don't add up.

No offense intended. Just stating my experience of the topic - there is much more out there than you and me put together. I am not significant - my personal experience pales compared to the thousands of others out there - but I have tasted theirs. Not a few, not some - but nearly daily or weekly for 30 years.

What do you offer - I took a class and they didn't mention it. I knew some so called 'experts'
I say you do a poor job of putting up evidence.

As for anyone reading this - don't believe me. Check into it if you are so inclined. Gather actual real world evidence, not limited to links and posts by any of us here. Cuz we here don't actually know anything. The real evidence exists in the real world and if you look for it you can find it. Then make up your mind.
trainspotter
View Profile
New user
63 Posts

Profile of trainspotter
Rex,
Let's stop the rhetorics, and talk about the practical aspects.
You told "one should fairly assess both sides", tell me please, what is the methodology you are using to assess NLP?
My way to assess things is science, and it works very well for me. Providing anecdotal evidence (like the one shrink posted) won't make any field more valid.
xersekis
View Profile
Special user
591 Posts

Profile of xersekis
What aspect of science.

Look I don't care if you believe the world is flat. It isn't my place to judge your beliefs -using whatever criteria you claim to for holding them.

It's nice to say "I use science'" but that is meaningless too. You mean you use statistics, you use abstracts, studiesm dissertations, when, where, published by whom, have you actually checled the research, have you studied the studies, are them empirically valid or not.

I use science is no different than saying I use religion. YOu offer nothing but links to skeptics encyclopedia - a fairly unreliable source of information - biased and tilted. But at times they do publish some items of merit. Many times they do not.

You say that it wasn't mentioned in your psychology class - but I have been in classes where it was mentioned. I have spoken to classes in university on the topic. Why is your anecdotal example of your university expereince supposed to float here but Shrink's doesn't.

I don't believe you - is the bottom line. You may be a great person, you may be smart, and talented, I can like you even - but I don't buy your presentation of your point any more than you probably buy mine.

So let's get specific - demonstrate that you have done the actual leg work - investigation, what are the conclusions on each study. Studies are published every day and later found inaccurate or debated. ALl of that means nothing.

HAve you worked inside a university. Have you graduated a university, Have you conducted any research in university? Have you published in academic journals? What do you base your 'science' on?

Now another way to consider something is that -

academic acceptance may lend credibilty but academic dismissal does not automatically mean something is invalid.

Of course you require it as part of your evidence procedure - but there are many things that we utilze, accept, and distribute that aren't endorsed by 'sciene'. You need it - but that doesn't make it more or less valuable.

I really am curious your expereinvce with testing procedures and methods. Your expereince understanding the nature of the whole 'scientific/academic' realm. You weigh heavily in favor of it - (and actually I do to - but I am sure for different reasons) because you rely on something that has much to do with politics too.

There is no pure science anywhere around here. Are you familiar with publishing ethics, procedures and politics for scientific journals and academic hournals? Do you know what it takes to get a study funded, accepted and published and why many are not? Are you aware for example how drugs get tested and accepted in the FDA and whether FDA approval is any valid source of endorsement?

What is your background for weighing in so heavily for utilizing science - and not anecdotal - when all you have offered and the other has offer is anecdota as well. You have not demonstrated at all that any of the links you posted have any veracity
or any value other their you may have read them and agreed with them because they support your point of view.

Show me the legwork and I may reciprocate in kind.

Here is my position on why I posted here.

Someone writes they are interested in NLP. Some answer with how they like it and use it. Some wrtie it isn't scientific so you shouldn't use it.

Why not just discuss what they like about it, and how they use it and get the resultss and let people explore. What is it to any of us if someone finds value in something and uses something that we don't.

All opinons should be heard - but the moment any one expresses a liking someone jumps in to dismiss it with their theories about it. Yes, you have a right to - but even I am guilty of getting the thread off topic.

This person wanted to explore how it could be used in a particalar area of expertise. Some mentioned some contributors to the fields
and then of course some jump in and go well lanaguage was around before these people existed. Of course - but what these people offered was their experience using language in a patterned and predicatable way to get results and they shared it through books and writings.

If you don't like their contributions to the fields fine that is valid. I have my likes and dislikes.

But to not allow others to explore topics because you don't like somthing is the height of egocentrism. I say live and let live and what I have attempted to offer here (albeit poorly) is to call the people on their use of evidence and tactics when dismissing something.

Exploring even unaccepted things is how we learn, how we push the envelop further. At one time it wasn't scientific to fly, it was probably thought to be the work of god or the devil. But thankfully people didn't stop because they were told they couldn't, because they were told it was wrong, evil, stipid, or
unscientific. The continued to explore and we benefit as a result. For all that say something can't or shouldn't be here on this forum - think about it if they actually got their way. What would we lose out on, what might we miss.

You don't have to accept everything or believe everything - but your experience should count for something. After all - its really all you have - your expereince. And it is subjective, never truly objective - but since it is yours be willing to open up to the impossible and taste what life has to offer. Read books, studies, get other opinons, and investigate - explore and include. It is always easier to exclude and dismiss anything that doesn't fit within our own mental map.

The challenge is staying open to learn and experience what we wouldn't have if we had closed down too early.

So I say let the topic of exploration resume - and we get off this other notion which always rises any time someone wants to explore here.

Shrink posted it helped clients, some post that they use NLP with great success. I'd want to know how, when, where, what they did, what are the circumstances - so I might be able to use it to get similar successes. I'd be curious and fascinated that things could be applied in a particular fashion - that you could determine before hand what you want to occur and then watch it unfold because you strategically utilzed words or behaviors in a specific and replicable fashion.

I say go back to the very first post here - and don't let any of the rest of us (no matter how well intending) rain on your parade.
bobser
View Profile
Inner circle
4176 Posts

Profile of bobser
I am actually very happy to accept what Shrink said. A trained NLP therapist has value, albeit as a former national sales manager I would argue that in 'the field' some wonderful transference takes place at subconcious level between the trainer & trainee.
However, as I said, I am happy to believe that NLP a) exists and b)has a value.
However, it is my opinion (over 20 years experience in the field)that the results of NLP practitioners is constantly over exaggerated, and has been overly exaggerated since it arrived on the scene.

So, Rex, I have no evidence in any way, shape or form, which includes your disjointed arguments, of which personally I have not been able to make any sense of (for what it's worth I'm educated to Hons. degree level), that your opinion is any better than mine.

However. if you come up with anything better than you have already offered... gimme a call.
Bob Burns is the creator of The Swan.
xersekis
View Profile
Special user
591 Posts

Profile of xersekis
Awe

bobser there you go again....

oh well - a leopard can't change their spots...

take care
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » NLP and Mentalism (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.4 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