NLP
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2011, 05:50 PM
RE: NLP
(18-12-2011 02:08 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  
(18-12-2011 12:52 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 12:32 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 04:25 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  What do you think of the so-called neuro-linguistic programming or NLP , guys ?

Thanks , appreciate

There's a reason that Derren Brown keeps using it - he's an illusionist, not a magician of the dark arts. It should also be noted that Penn & Teller on one episode of "Fool Us" stated firmly that NLP was bullshit, and they'd be likely to know. Also, while hypnosis does seem to work with accepting audiences, it probably can't make a person act in a way that they aren't willingly going along with. The MythBusters tested it and found that the suggestion vividly came to mind when triggered (in the conscious mind, not subconscious) and didn't impel them to act against their will.

I don't know how Derren Brown does things like "The Heist" or "The Assassin", but I'm willing to bet - because he's an illusionist - that these things are illusions.

Derren Brown doesn't use NLP:

Quote:Several authors have claimed that Brown uses neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) in his act which "consists of a range of magical 'tricks', misdirection and, most intriguing, setting up audiences to provide the response that he wishes them to provide by using subtle subliminal cues in his conversation with them."[37] In response to the accusation that he unfairly claims to be using NLP whenever he performs, Brown writes "The truth is I have never mentioned it outside of my book". Brown does have an off-stage curiosity about the system, and discusses it in the larger context of hypnotism and suggestion.[18][38] In his book "Tricks of the Mind" he mentions that he attended an NLP course with Richard Bandler, co-creator of NLP and mentor of Paul McKenna, but suggests that the rigid systems of body language interpretation employed by NLP are not as reliable as its practitioners imply. He also mentions the NLP concept of eye accessing cues as a technique of "limited use" in his book "Pure Effect".[39] The language patterns which he uses to suggest behaviours are very similar in style to those used by Richard Bandler and by the hypnotist from whom Bandler learned his skill, Milton H. Erickson. Brown also mentions in his book 'Tricks of the Mind' that NLP students were given a certificate after a four-day course, certifying them to practice NLP as a therapist. A year after Brown attended the class, he received a number of letters saying that he would receive another certificate, not for passing a test (as he discontinued practising NLP following the course), but for keeping in touch. After ignoring their request, he later received the new certificate for NLP in his mailbox, unsolicited.[40]

I know that wikipedia isn't the best source, but it gives a good description of the problems with NLP that Brown discusses in his books.

Thanks , buddy , for the tip even though wiki is no real credible source i will take a closer look at anyway

I thought N.L.P had gone out of vogue.
A lot of people made a lot of money out of it and I certainly don't think it deserves the grandiose title Neuro Lingistic Programming.
Even 'genuine' shrinks worry me!
I am a little into Buddhism but find it pretty much all over the place.

As for "us" creating consciousness in some esoteric way : thats really beyond me. Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 12:53 PM
RE: NLP
(18-12-2011 05:50 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(18-12-2011 02:08 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  
(18-12-2011 12:52 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  
(17-12-2011 12:32 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 04:25 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  What do you think of the so-called neuro-linguistic programming or NLP , guys ?

Thanks , appreciate

There's a reason that Derren Brown keeps using it - he's an illusionist, not a magician of the dark arts. It should also be noted that Penn & Teller on one episode of "Fool Us" stated firmly that NLP was bullshit, and they'd be likely to know. Also, while hypnosis does seem to work with accepting audiences, it probably can't make a person act in a way that they aren't willingly going along with. The MythBusters tested it and found that the suggestion vividly came to mind when triggered (in the conscious mind, not subconscious) and didn't impel them to act against their will.

I don't know how Derren Brown does things like "The Heist" or "The Assassin", but I'm willing to bet - because he's an illusionist - that these things are illusions.

Derren Brown doesn't use NLP:

Quote:Several authors have claimed that Brown uses neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) in his act which "consists of a range of magical 'tricks', misdirection and, most intriguing, setting up audiences to provide the response that he wishes them to provide by using subtle subliminal cues in his conversation with them."[37] In response to the accusation that he unfairly claims to be using NLP whenever he performs, Brown writes "The truth is I have never mentioned it outside of my book". Brown does have an off-stage curiosity about the system, and discusses it in the larger context of hypnotism and suggestion.[18][38] In his book "Tricks of the Mind" he mentions that he attended an NLP course with Richard Bandler, co-creator of NLP and mentor of Paul McKenna, but suggests that the rigid systems of body language interpretation employed by NLP are not as reliable as its practitioners imply. He also mentions the NLP concept of eye accessing cues as a technique of "limited use" in his book "Pure Effect".[39] The language patterns which he uses to suggest behaviours are very similar in style to those used by Richard Bandler and by the hypnotist from whom Bandler learned his skill, Milton H. Erickson. Brown also mentions in his book 'Tricks of the Mind' that NLP students were given a certificate after a four-day course, certifying them to practice NLP as a therapist. A year after Brown attended the class, he received a number of letters saying that he would receive another certificate, not for passing a test (as he discontinued practising NLP following the course), but for keeping in touch. After ignoring their request, he later received the new certificate for NLP in his mailbox, unsolicited.[40]

I know that wikipedia isn't the best source, but it gives a good description of the problems with NLP that Brown discusses in his books.

Thanks , buddy , for the tip even though wiki is no real credible source i will take a closer look at anyway

I thought N.L.P had gone out of vogue.
A lot of people made a lot of money out of it and I certainly don't think it deserves the grandiose title Neuro Lingistic Programming.
Even 'genuine' shrinks worry me!
I am a little into Buddhism but find it pretty much all over the place.

As for "us" creating consciousness in some esoteric way : thats really beyond me. Cool


yeah, ok, but NLP has been making a come-back, unfortunately enough

NLP that does have some elements of truth that get surrounded by so many bullshit

NLP that is inspired by buddhism , ironically enough, in the sense that man is the only creator, or the only creator of his own reality = atheistic buddhistic unnuanced bullshit
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2011, 02:25 AM
RE: NLP
(18-12-2011 02:08 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  
(18-12-2011 12:52 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  I know that wikipedia isn't the best source, but it gives a good description of the problems with NLP that Brown discusses in his books.
Thanks , buddy , for the tip even though wiki is no real credible source i will take a closer look at anyway

Wikipedia gets such a bad rap. It's written by people, just like the encyclopedia, and is edited, like the encyclopedia, and is repeatedly peer-reviewed. It's true that lies and false information can make its way on Wikipedia, but there's no logical reason that the editor of an encyclopedia can catch every error, either... but the encyclopedia is still considered "reliable", while Wikipedia isn't.

Thanks for the information, and the citation.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2011, 04:17 AM
RE: NLP
(22-12-2011 02:25 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(18-12-2011 02:08 PM)AbdelZ Wrote:  
(18-12-2011 12:52 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  I know that wikipedia isn't the best source, but it gives a good description of the problems with NLP that Brown discusses in his books.
Thanks , buddy , for the tip even though wiki is no real credible source i will take a closer look at anyway

Wikipedia gets such a bad rap. It's written by people, just like the encyclopedia, and is edited, like the encyclopedia, and is repeatedly peer-reviewed. It's true that lies and false information can make its way on Wikipedia, but there's no logical reason that the editor of an encyclopedia can catch every error, either... but the encyclopedia is still considered "reliable", while Wikipedia isn't.

Thanks for the information, and the citation.

I imagine the difference is that wikipedia can be edited in real-time, so the peer-review process might not catch an error at any given time, whereas with traditional encyclopedias the information doesn't change once it's been approved by a council of reviewers. For example, I was once looking up "mice" on wikipedia, where I was informed that they lay eggs approximately 3 times a year, and comes in a variety of colours, including green, pink and blue.

With that said, wikipedia can be an excellent resource, especially as a starting point for researching a topic. The key is just not to take it as gospel, and to follow the citations when possible. With the Derren Brown excerpt I presented above, it's simply a summary of what Brown wrote in his "Trick of the Mind", so we can trust it's a fairly reliable resource on what techniques he does, and does not, use.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2011, 11:53 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2011 11:56 AM by AbdelZ.)
RE: NLP
Thanks , guys , appreciate :

The bottom line is thus that NLP has some elements of truth surrounded by a lots of hokus-pokus

Thought so , i just needed a certain confirmation i just got from you, guys , & from elsewhere as well

It's just that those "psychics " , illusionists & other lunatics have been trying to introduce NLP in businesses mainly, in some so-called 3d world countries i visited , exploiting their ignorance & incredulity in the process while becoming richerr at their expense , the bastards = disgusting

They should be thrown in prison those machiavellistic psychos


P.S.: I will read your comments more carefully later on
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2011, 04:00 PM
RE: NLP
(22-12-2011 04:17 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  I imagine the difference is that wikipedia can be edited in real-time, so the peer-review process might not catch an error at any given time, whereas with traditional encyclopedias the information doesn't change once it's been approved by a council of reviewers. For example, I was once looking up "mice" on wikipedia, where I was informed that they lay eggs approximately 3 times a year, and comes in a variety of colours, including green, pink and blue.

See, while this is technically true that Wikipedia can be tweaked with false information, there are many fail-safes. One of these is the "revision history", and you'll notice here that I cited the mouse entry on Wikipedia because you made this story up. It just sounded like something that "could be true", but it's not a real story. Have you ever made an edit? They get flagged, and then reviewed. It's actually very hard to put false information on Wikipedia. Try it sometime, for real.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2011, 04:36 AM
RE: NLP
(22-12-2011 04:00 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(22-12-2011 04:17 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  I imagine the difference is that wikipedia can be edited in real-time, so the peer-review process might not catch an error at any given time, whereas with traditional encyclopedias the information doesn't change once it's been approved by a council of reviewers. For example, I was once looking up "mice" on wikipedia, where I was informed that they lay eggs approximately 3 times a year, and comes in a variety of colours, including green, pink and blue.

See, while this is technically true that Wikipedia can be tweaked with false information, there are many fail-safes. One of these is the "revision history", and you'll notice here that I cited the mouse entry on Wikipedia because you made this story up. It just sounded like something that "could be true", but it's not a real story.

It is a true story - unless you've gone through all the revisions to determine that it never happened, in which case I've misrecalled the animal that the entry was based on.

The revision history is a great feature, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of wikipedia users don't use it.

(22-12-2011 04:00 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Have you ever made an edit? They get flagged, and then reviewed. It's actually very hard to put false information on Wikipedia. Try it sometime, for real.

Yes I've edited wikipedia multiple times, mostly because of misinformation that was up there (and had been up there for a long time). This is because whilst obviously stupid and false information (like mice laying eggs or coming in many colours) will get picked up quite quickly, common misperceptions about certain topics will get accepted (even without backing citations) simply because they are commonly accepted.

With that said, I still think it's a great resource, as long as you realise that at any given time some jackass might be messing around with the information, and that the information is occasionally a representation of common belief, not fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2011, 12:22 PM
RE: NLP
(23-12-2011 04:36 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  It is a true story - unless you've gone through all the revisions to determine that it never happened, in which case I've misrecalled the animal that the entry was based on.

The revision history is a great feature, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of wikipedia users don't use it.

...Yes I've edited wikipedia multiple times, mostly because of misinformation that was up there (and had been up there for a long time). This is because whilst obviously stupid and false information (like mice laying eggs or coming in many colours) will get picked up quite quickly, common misperceptions about certain topics will get accepted (even without backing citations) simply because they are commonly accepted.

Of course I went through the revisions. It took a few minutes, but I wouldn't have posted that link otherwise... or you could just find the date of the revision and say "it was here, on this date". That would be embarrassing for me, so I wanted to make sure I was posting good information.

There are actual examples of people revising Wikipedia with misinformation, but these problems are fixed right away (and you can see it in the revision history too, June 9, 3:57) for exactly the reasons I laid out.

I cite my facts, so you know they're true. When you mention that 95% of Wikipedia users don't use the revision history, what I hear is "I took a chance, based on a high probability, that you'd simply believe whatever I'm telling you". While it may have been a good gamble, you should at least give up when your bluff is called. Is it that hard to simply admit you were wrong?

I know your reputation is a point of pride. I don't expect a person to come clean, even when caught with misinformation, but I've done all that I can. If you want to be the best person that you can be, it's better to admit mistakes, fix them, and move on. Defending past mistakes will just ensure that you feel comfortable making future ones.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2011, 07:23 PM
RE: NLP
(23-12-2011 12:22 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(23-12-2011 04:36 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  It is a true story - unless you've gone through all the revisions to determine that it never happened, in which case I've misrecalled the animal that the entry was based on.

The revision history is a great feature, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of wikipedia users don't use it.

...Yes I've edited wikipedia multiple times, mostly because of misinformation that was up there (and had been up there for a long time). This is because whilst obviously stupid and false information (like mice laying eggs or coming in many colours) will get picked up quite quickly, common misperceptions about certain topics will get accepted (even without backing citations) simply because they are commonly accepted.

Of course I went through the revisions. It took a few minutes, but I wouldn't have posted that link otherwise... or you could just find the date of the revision and say "it was here, on this date". That would be embarrassing for me, so I wanted to make sure I was posting good information.

There are actual examples of people revising Wikipedia with misinformation, but these problems are fixed right away (and you can see it in the revision history too, June 9, 3:57) for exactly the reasons I laid out.

How do you search for revisions beyond the most recent 500? The edit was between 2007-2009, but some of the entries for "house_mouse", "fancy_mouse", "rat", and "laboratory_rat" don't go far back enough and I don't know how to access that info.

(23-12-2011 12:22 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I cite my facts, so you know they're true. When you mention that 95% of Wikipedia users don't use the revision history, what I hear is "I took a chance, based on a high probability, that you'd simply believe whatever I'm telling you". While it may have been a good gamble, you should at least give up when your bluff is called. Is it that hard to simply admit you were wrong?

What bluff? At most, I've misrecalled what entry it was under. I even checked with my wife if she remembers seeing it, and she told me that she was the one who linked me to it in the first place, so at least I know I'm not going crazy.

Why would I bother bluffing with something like that? There are entire websites dedicated to the "greatest wikipedia vandalisms", so if I just wanted an example I could take one from there. But I just pulled one from my own experience with wikipedia - I didn't think there would be a quiz over whether I could support my assertion that wikipedia is vandalised occasionally.

(23-12-2011 12:22 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I know your reputation is a point of pride. I don't expect a person to come clean, even when caught with misinformation, but I've done all that I can. If you want to be the best person that you can be, it's better to admit mistakes, fix them, and move on. Defending past mistakes will just ensure that you feel comfortable making future ones.

What the fuck is this, an intervention? I have no reputation (or if I do happen to have one, I doubt it's much to be proud of), so why would I care what a bunch of random people online thought of me?

Put it this way: If I had simply made the story up as an example and you called me out on it, I'd say "Yep, I made that up but here's a real example of what I'm talking about.." and I'd link to another example. Why would I bother trying to pretend that I'd seen something written about green mice on the internet? What could I possibly gain from that?

If I wasn't so certain that I'd seen the edit, and if my wife hadn't independently recalled it as well, I would have simply apologised for obviously being mistaken. Just let me know how to search beyond the most recent 500 edits and I'll spend some time next week finding which entry it was and post it up here - because I don't think I could live with myself if someone called "Starcrash" doubts the reputation that I've spent years building up..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2011, 09:40 PM
RE: NLP
I took a ten week course in NLP a number of years back. The idea that I was taught was how to use your concious to influence your sub-concious. Modern sports teams use visualisation techniques to assist in training. This is the same kind of thing that I was taught in NLP. I can't say what all teachers are like, but mine was very down to earth and only used techniques that made sense. It was a very good experience.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: