Hi I have a question about NLP. I love NLP and I plan to read a lot of books about it in the next two years. What I want to know is how do you become a certified NLP practioner? Do You have to go to Med School or Grad School for Pyschology and study NLP or do you have to go to a different school just for NLP. Also I want to read how to speed read can anyone recommend a good program for speed reading?

Thanks
Amir

Hi Amir,

I'm an NLP Master Practitioner certified throught the Society of NLP. To get certified in NLP, you must attend a training course offered by an NLP Trainer. No graduate school or medical training is necessary. I personally recommend looking for an NLP Trainer who works through Richard Bandler's society (Society of NLP). But other NLP organizations offer training classes as well. Course lengths vary, but you can expect to pay around $2,000 for each level of training. And to become an NLP Trainer through Bandler, you have to attend his training session in Orlando. It's offered only once a year.


Hope this helps,

Richard

What the heck is Neuro-Linguistic Programming, anyway?

It depends on who you ask. The idea is that it is a scientific exploration of how the brain organizes information and acts on it. The benefit for magic is the idea that we can purposefully speak in ways that can increase the effect we have on spectators.

Some folks swear by it. Others say it's a load of hooey and pseudoscientific wishful thinking. Reading the link below, I sometimes felt like NLP was a legitimate psychological study, and at other times it sounded like a cultish religious construct. In my experience, I've found that a discussion of NLP can be pretty informative and intriguing, or pretty far "out there" depending on which practitioner you are talking to.

Here's one interview I found on Google...
http://www.inspiritive.com.au/chris_collingwood_interview.htm

I'm really glad to see Richard Rubin on here -- I only just met him last month -- and I am sure he will be willing to tell us what he knows.

JMT

I have heard magicians who use Kenton Knepper's Wonder Words technique (and who endorse it) say that Wonder Words is a form of NLP. Is this so?

There is a guy in Culver City, Calif., who I've seen on talk shows, who sells expensive tapes and seminars, claiming to teach NLP based techniques so guys can use strong word patterns to get into women's minds, so they WANT you to_________. His ads claim his methods will compell "geeks like himself", to be objects of intense desire, of beautiful, even aloof women. (Imagine the "winners" who pay for his seminars.) Sounds like a lot of stuff, BUT the interesting thing is that I know of 2 mentalist/readers who have studied his material and claim it is valid/useful material as to tapping into a client's mind & emotions, and creating a different reality of response and choices for their clients, while doing readings.

NLP is certainly an interesting topic. Certainly there are kernels of knowledge to be found in NLP, and also a lot of garbage and scarry cultish stuff as well (See reference in the preceeding post about making women unwilling love slaves through NLP). In response to Amir's original post I have got to ask a few questions. Why do you "LOVE" (strong words indeed) NLP? Why do you want to learn or be certified in NLP? Are you a therapist looking to help someone with serious life issues, or are you a Magician? I seem to recall from some of your previous posts that you are a student so maybee you're in training to be both. Or maybee you've just read some of the hype surounding NLP.
Through my admittedly shallow reaserch into this field I have formed the following opinions (And these are only opinions); NLP may offer some benifits that may be married to other fields of study. For instance a therapist may find SOME aspects of NLP useful in treating his clients, however NLP is not a substitute for a strong academic and practical grounding in therapy or psychology. Likewise NLP may offer some benifits to magicians, though it will useless without a strong magical knowledge to build upon.
Moreover NLP is most often asociated with different self help groups and phenomena. I'm not sure, but I belive that Anthony Robins practices a breakaway form of NLP. Some of these groups may be benificial while many seem out right scary. In my opinion all are hugely overpriced. Charging rich whales huge sums for weekend seminars offering ever increasing levels of training mirrors the practices of store front psychics who charge exorbitant sums for more and more potent talismans, and cults that charge huge fees for ever increasing levels of clarity.
To return to NLP and its magical uses, I would sugest you check out Kenton Knepper's material. In one usefull insight gained from NLP, Kenton sugests renaming your stagefright if you're nervous while performing. Instead of telling yourself your afraid to perform, rename your feelings as "exitedness" in anticipation of the oportunity to perform. Start viewing performance situations as oportunities rather than obsticles to be overcome. Also I would suggest you check out Derren Brown's book "Pure Effect" for a discussion of the benifits AND LIMITATIONS of NLP. Amir I truly beleive your money would be better spent here than on a flashy expensive seminar that charges too much for too little.

Hope this helps
Jer.

Thanks for the advice, I guess I used the wrong word, I should of said that I am really interested in NLP, not love NLP. I like it because as a magician/mentalist it can give me a little bit of an edge over the specactor. I dont plan to spend thousands of dollars on seminars, I will read books on it and have a very good stable understanding of it. I got the wonder words series, and for me thats is good enough of a investment in NLP right now.

thanks
amir

Thanks for the advice, I guess I used the wrong word, I should of said that I am really interested in NLP, not love NLP. I like it because as a magician/mentalist it can give me a little bit of an edge over the specactor. I dont plan to spend thousands of dollars on seminars, I will read books on it and have a very good stable understanding of it. I got the wonder words series, and for me thats is good enough of a investment in NLP right now.

thanks
amir

At the risk of becomming flame-fodder for NLP fans...

NLP seems (to me) to operate at two different levels:

As a collection of tools & techniques to improve human interactions it has some merits. Unfortunately, it is by no means clear which of "NLP's tools" really work, and which don't. E.g. mirroring seems to be effective, eye access cues not. I say "NLP's tools" in quotes, because, of course, many of the tools are simply common ones which have been in use for many years and have been subsumed into NLP by its practitioners.

As a science it is weak. Bandler and Grinder's model of "the way the mind works" is based on some outdated models and has not really moved on with modern conceptions and evidence. There seems to be little empirical evidence for some of the basic assumptions of NLP such as the existence of a Preferred Representational System.

The problem with NLP is that as a movement it has been more concerned with selling itself and training lots of practitioners than it has been with testing its theories to see if they really work. The only solid testing I know of was carried out by the National Research Council on behalf of the US Army on its "Enhancing Human Performance" research programme in the late 1980's. This looked at a wide range of techniques which the Army was considering using to improve the performance of its staff. It's conclusions regarding NLP were not favourable, pointing out that "In sum, the empirical foundation of NLP is quite weak".

Of course, things may have moved on since then and it may just be that I am not aware of more recent (properly conducted) studies providing empirical support for NLP. Apologies if this is the case.

For those interested, the National Acadamies Press features many interesting books in this area which are free to browse on-line. The US Army sponsored research into enhancing Human and Organisational performance is particuarly useful for anyone wanting to look at "what really has been proven to work" in these areas. Their website is www.nap.edu

The Enhancing Human Performance research can be found at http://books.nap.edu/books/POD276/html/index.html and interestingly include a chapter on the evidence for remote viewing and ESP.

Rgds,

Ian

PS If you really are looking to help people as a therapist and just looking into "what to get into" I recommend Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. There is plenty of empirical evidence to show it actually works. (Not that other therapies mightn't help people too, etc etc - usual disclaimer.....)

Regarding NLP please visit http://www.idea-seminars.com for some articles and info.

There is so much inaccurat information surrounding nlp from people never involved in nlp that it merits investigating. Never believe the hype from either side - just look into it.

There is some really great things about utilizing nlp in personal life, professional life and magical life.

Rex, were you associated with or have knowledge of
R.J. in Culver City, California, and if either is yes, what is your take on his material, if not his approach?

There is some information regarding NLP on the following site:

workingpsychology.com/nlp.html

The people who run that web site are Social Psychologists (Scientists) and offer lots of information on influence/ persuasion.

By the way, I'm looking up and to the right as I write this. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the link Raphael. It looks like the most recent research has backed up the original Acadamy of Science work. I like the distinction highlighting that NLP is a philosophy rather than a science (in that it doesn't proceed by empirical testing, etc.).

My conclusion is that either there is a global conspiracy amongst psychology researchers to hide the evidence, or that there's actually very little to NLP. Hmmmm - tough choice.

(Actually, the chocie is a little painful - I invested quite a lot of time and effort in NLP training and "practice" starting about 8 years ago).

Ian

History:

Neuro Linguistic Programming was developed by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. They studied the behaviors of Milton Erickson (Hypnotherapist) and Virginia Satir (Psychotherapist) and developed a complex model for therapy: NLP.

The original books on the subject were very complex models or transcripts from the lectures given by the originators (B&G). I found these books to be incomprehensible. But soon other books on the subject were written by NLP trainers that are easier to understand.

Bandler and Grinder have sued each other over the rights to NLP. I have not kept up with the lawsuits.

Ian, I too have spent time studying this stuff. I find that the level of rapport that is developed between people if they concentrate on listening (paying attention to the other person) rather than focusing on eye cues, the specific structure of their sentences, etc.

Another reference:
Crazy Therapies by Janja Lilich and Margaret Thayer Singer. (Dr. Singer is considered the #1 expert on cults).

A digression:
The author of Instant Rapport was removed from a plane in handcuffs a couple of years ago, because of an altercation with a flight attendant. (I love irony).

There may be some jewels hiding in this 'technology', but I recommend people do the research before investing their valuable time and money.

Some more info. Back in the mid 70's, Dr. J. Adrian Williams published his dissertation on NLP as part of his Ed.D (psych).

In his paper, he ran a series of experiments testing the validity of the eye cues that NLP was famous for in the early days.

His experiments, later replicated at a number of other facilities, blew this theory out of the water.

In addition, at the first World Congress on NeuroLinguistic Programming (outside of Detroit, MI), I watched as Richard Bandler gave a "demonstration" of a pattern interrupt by yelling at a guy in the front row who was having technical problems with his cassette recorder. The "interrupt?" An offer, yelled, to kick the guy's teeth down his throat if he didn't stop futzing with the tape player!

Talk about quality rapport building! NOT!!

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
http://www.leedarrow.com
P.S. I performed strolling magic at that convention and, for a bunch of folks who supposedly are really good at spotting subliminal signals - they were among the EASIEST people to fool I have ever had the pleasure of performing for! - LD

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! I love it, Lee, I just love it!

I'm certainly not qualified to speak on the validity of NLP.

But I can tell you that much of Wonder Words is not NLP.

Wonder Words (at least, vols 1 and 2) includes a number of different techniques to either increase or change your audience's perception of your magic, just by what you say. In essence, it's a scripting technique, which is why I found it so interested.

Part of WW is things like saying "You may find this incredible" at the right spot in a trick, which may (or may not) have the effect of making the audience either perceive or remember the trick as being incredible. (This is just an example, obviously). This is, as I understand, the part of WW that is related to NLP; the idea being that you changing what your audience thinks by what you say.

Another part of WW is cleverly constructing scripts so that the audience perceives one thing while your assisting spectator perceives something else. Here's a simple example, taken from one of Kenton's tricks. Hand the spectator a cardcase and say "Can you reach in the box and pull out just one card?" Spectator say yes, does so. You then name the card.

The trick is, there's only one card in the cardcase. The spectator hears your question and thinks you are asking them to verify that they can pull out just one card. The audience thinks you are instructing the spectator to reach in and pull out a card.

Again, this is just a small part of Kenton's wonderful trick, whose name escapes me (I saw him perform it in a lecture). This side of the Wonder Words has nothing to do with NLP, obviously.

Regardless of whether you feel that the NLP side of Wonder Words is scientifically valid, there's no doubt that the split-perspectives techniques definitely work and can produce some truly remarkable magic.

No arguments Pete. I think there is some good stuff in Wonderwords too (although it seems rather overhyped to me).

But just like any magic publication, there's some wheat and same chaff. Sorting one from 'tother is always the challenge - and especially so in the case of "influence techniques" which don't have a clear, immediately measurable impact.

Rgds,

Ian

Glad you enjoyed it, Steve. Thankfully, much of Kenton's work is not apparently direct application of NLP, per se, but of the use of presuppositional thinking on the parts of the volunteers, indirect suggestion and imagery that really is effective, even if it is so subtle.

Gotta love this guy's thinking!

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
http://www.leedarrow.com

Hehehe, neither of which is of any real use either, in my experience!

I just saw the movie Magnolia last night. In it, Tom Cruise plays a character who gives seminars to guys to teach them to pick up women. At one point he is being interviewed by a reporter, and it appears he is using some NLP techniques as he talks to her. This would be totally in character, and I wonder if the writer (Paul Thomas Anderson) studied NLP as part of his writing process.

Aha!

The secret is finally out:
The reason Tom Cruise has chicks drooling all over him is because he uses NLP!

First let me thank Rafael Vila For the link to Working Psychology. A well constructed site with loads of quality info on influence and general psychological technique.
I too have made a long and exaustive study of NLP and have found that there is just as much hype as there is usable material. My conclusion: spend your money on college. Go and learn true and proven psychology. My goal with the study of NLP was to help myself and others. I decided that the best bet was to study the proven techniques of legitimate psychology. So I am registered to go back to school and learn from the experts. At 32 years of age thats a big step, but I feel it's a better choice than taking a weekend course on Neruolingistics that in the end forces you to take more weekend courses. It's like some type of pseudoscience pyramid scam. Mabey a cult. weerd to say the least.
On the subject of Kenton Knepper: I like his work. I use quite a bit of Kenton's technique most of which seems to come from Chomskian ligustics, transofmational grammar and Ericksonian Therarutic Technique.
What ever one chooses to do is there own decision, however I would consider the fact that this is magic and entertainment not Psychotherapy. My final suggestion? Relax it's just a show. Study Henning Nelms.
:genii:
nolamagic@bellsouth.net

Kenton Kneppers techniques are %100 NLP. It irked me that he didn't credit Bandler and Grinder.

While he does include a littel other materials - all of the linguistic descriptions, the presuppositions, and the patterns are directly NLP distinctions. THe use and application of them is also directly NLP> And much of the philosphy presented in his description of the course and the learning available is directly from NLP.

It is truely 100% NLP. and of that it represents perhaps only 1/3 of what NLP has to offer. Plus, he puts in a few things from some other disciplines.

NLP is claiming to be a science. It's claiming to be a methodolgy - meaning if you utilize the tools in the manner they are prescribed you will get certain results. It is therefore completely trestable - either you get the results or you don't. If you don't you can go back and check and see what you missed, left out or did wrong. It is very systemactic in its application and sytemic in its approach.

It is about models- not theories. A very different approach than the scientific method of disproving a null hypothesis. This is more like auto mechanics - you do what you do to get it working - if that doesn't work you do something else. But you are educated in what to do, when and how.

It has been offered in some colleges and universities, it has been studied and found some times the test results for the studies go against the claims, and sometime it supports it.

remember that you don't test a field of NLP you test elements. Some of the studies if you actually bother to read them do not at all test what they purport to test. Some are poorly operationalized. Some are sloppy - just because someone tests something does not make it valid or invalid. Tests can be wrong. And some of the tests are. And some of the tests aren't. And some do support the tenants claimed to be tested.

So all these comments about whether NLP is scientific by people on the forum here are made without people having actually researched the claims they are making. read each of the abstracts, dissertations etc. I know because I have for the past 25 years.

The army has and does in fact utilize NLP and has disavowed it while still utilizing it. So what.

The reason much is anecdotaql is because it isn't a statistical application. It is one person using it at a given time, in a systematic manner to get a result and then determining whether or not the resut was gotten in the time frame. If so great - in not re-work it, examine it, and add in an element and see if you get the result you are after.

Scientific in its application and approach - but not scientific in itself. DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE.

Claims to be a study of subjective expereince and a system for modeling excellence in others and replicating that excellence.

It's amazing how many people express opinons of how little they know about a topic.

Oh by the way can NLPers be fooled. Sure just like magicians can. So what makes a magician the final judge of anything.

Nothing! but an over inflated sense of self agrandizement and self importantance.

Should have read

"NLP is NOT claiming to be a science. It is a methodology."

Rex Sikes said: "There is so much inaccurate information surrounding nlp from people never involved in nlp that it merits investigating. Never believe the hype from either side - just look into it."

I couldn't agree more Rex. Look at the evidence rather than getting carried along by anyone else's opinion. I think the real test of NLP comes when you begin to truly look at it's claims, history - and the actions of its founders detailed elsewhere here. I hear that one half of the dynamic duo is now distancing himself completely from the work of the other?

On a purely personal note, anything that bases its ideas on the ludicrous 'work' of Erickson can't be all good...

CarlD

People make claims. Things just are. What do you mean by good?

So you're willing to base your opinion on evidence presented by others rather than your personal experience?

I'd be interested in hearing how you go about deciding which evidence to consider and which to exclude. How would you verify your process of inclusion/exclusion is accurate?

Also, are you suggesting it'd be perfectly fine with you if others would base their opinion of you and your work on what they hear from individuals who know nothing of you, other than your name?

Please define "personal."

John LeBlanc
http://www.escamoteurettes.com

My old drill sergeant used NLP very effectively to get attention and affect our behavior. I remember it very well; he would always preface everything with NLP--"Now Listen People"!

It worked! Like Pavlov's dogs, we responded instantly. So, there are certainly words, phrases, looks, gestures, etc., that are in themselves stimuli which produce desired behavior. Most people have a few they use to obtain a response of some kind or another.

Most people who teach such behavior-oriented techniques have Doctorate degrees. I am wondering about people who charge a couple of grand to teach magicians some of these techniques, and I wonder more about magicians who would blindly buy into such a "deal".

I think I will stick to reading recognized psychology journals and practice the few bits I have learned, such as the ADO technique I use to get the dogs to go out at night. ADO?? Oh, that's "All Dogs Out!!" See? Everybody has a little NLP; one just has to think about it and plug it into routines...

opie

I'm surprised that a field so wide open to experimentation, where the source materials are readily available is so well ignored by the majority in our craft.

Wouldn't you like to know more about effective communication? Isn't the option of conscious knowledge of some patterns in how your mind works appealing to the part of you that likes to learn secrets? What would you do if you knew that you could change your presentation scripts so others would want to listen and be more attentive?

NLP is not a one size fits all object. In fact, it begins with the premise that every person has their own world, a private world, that they live in, inside their mind. Such profound self respect seems a healthy place to start a discussion of communication and also a model of the self to test with behavior experiments.

Of course most here don't actually want to learn anything, since knowledge brings responsibility. Once you have efficient tools to learn what works for you, it's harder to excuse your own poor behavior, after all, it is yours, and some part of you must have want to act that way.

For most of you, perhaps it is easier to read reviews and stories about experiments, than to try the ideas on for size and try the experiments as suggested in the source-books. There is not NLP made easy. It is easy enough to begin with. There are no shortcuts to knowlege though. NLP is both subjective and hands on. This means you learn by doing. If you look at this thread you will notice that there are no mentions of first hand experience. Would you be likewise content with commentary about the classic pass being impossible or the thumb tip being unreliable?

Those who want to know about the subject can read the old Grinder/Bandler books and experiment with the ideas presented.

I'm curious about the findings of those who have experimented and given up. What did you find?

Hi John, to be honest, this is a general forum where people make statements that are true to the best of their own beliefs. That's the nature of conversation. You have your opinion, I have mine, and there's no reason why we should fall out because of it. If you want to put an opposing view then you're quite welcome to.

CarlD

And since it is a general forum, and you posted a position, I followed up with further discussion in an effort to get an idea of how you support your positions.

Doesn't look like falling out to me.

So, back to those questions...

John LeBlanc
http://www.escamoteurettes.com

Everyone is more than welcome to their own beliefs and opinions. Such are the stories we tell ourselves and such is what we all do.

When we discuss subjects, I find it awkward when arguments include fallacies ( here is a nice place to see them explained: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm ) and omits clear statemtens of the the base sentiments or perspective of the writer.

Whatever your opinions and beliefs, they are yours, you worked hard for them and probably want to keep them. You are welcome to whatever beliefs and opinions you want to hold. Some of us like to change or at least inspect our opinions every so often. I'm often pleasantly surprised at what I find after letting go of a presumption and checking my beliefs against experiential reality.

If folks are interested in looking into NLP, Rex Sikes, one of the few advanced techniques teachers approved by Bandler himself, is around here and has suggested a place to start looking.

IMHO many here might be well served by exploring "tonality" and its textual representation for online use. I'm willing to bet that most of us want to come across as open minded and intelligent.

NLP = Notoriously Lame Procedure

Then again, some just go for ad hominem attack as if it were humor.

At times it feels like magic has a segment that wishes to enjoy nostalgia more that it wishes to build its own future.

Something from Opie and Jonathan's discussion...

Jonathan, I agree that Opie and his ilk are likely somewhat stubborn here, and really are only limiting their options through what I presume is laziness. (I say so, because, raised as a profound skeptic of anything that smacks of "physco-babble", when I begin hearing about NLP..instead of just laughing at it, I took the brief amount of time required to read some of those old Bandler/grindler books, and so, am capable of an at least more informed opinion of it).

However, Jonathan, as you well know I fully believe in reading the alethiometer through grace, (and am frequently undecided as to which, work or grace, is truly "better", if any), which is to say that effective communication CAN be something of an intiutative matter.

Certainly most people, (especially my generation) seem to be abominable at it, and this number is high amongst magicians, as well. (which is somewhat ironic, because I have good reason to believe that 'effective' communication is one of THE keys to creating real magic, which for me anyways, is sort of a consuming goal. (and yes Jon I hunger to create, to inspire, real magic, to be an ardent cataylst I do NOT simply hunger for real magic, and the difference is profound).

However, once more, I have reason to suspect that men such as Opie, are capable of communication/entertainment/etc simply through the grace of their experience and world view, or if I can distance myself from British Children's Novels for five seconds; they connect intuitively.

And as I said above, I am not as yet in any position of strength to assail such an approach to Art, or communication, or magic.

For my own part, I find myself in possession of enough arrogance (bolstered by always being asked back ) believe that I too was/am capable of achieving things gracefully/intuitively, but for me, NLP has different value. It provides a language that allows me to speak to others who have either chosen, or simply need to approach their communication/connection consiously and not waste time with jargon, or having each member of the conversation explain what they feel one thing or another is.

Also, I think it may be possible to approach these issues consiously (which is to say work ) without losing my capacity for intuitive/graceful performance. While I was worried at first, I have managed to keep juggling work and grace smoothly so far.

And why would I approach something consiously if I could do it intuitively, except to use it as a jargon-killer? I believe that the work, the study, the conscious approach may help in the pursuit of new avenues and increasing tangible power for the Art of Magic, as well as a sort of a lifeplan for Art in general...things that I might miss doing only what I feel.

This is not strictly necessary, however, you might say, and so, it is not strictly necessary for good entertainers to read NLP, and there could be reason not to (my eccentric, spotty, and scientifically unsound research has given some sense that after doing something for a long time intuitively, a sudden conscious approach may cause "trying too hard", nervousness, etc"). But generally speaking, I doubt it. I think the sky would really be the limit if the best performers performed through both grace and work.

The only other question that remains to me...if one of 'Wesely James acolytes' (sorry, inside joke), which is to say someone who believes that communication skills, or the ability to entertain outside of doing magic are unimportant for the performance of magic, reads NLP...well, this is something I've always wondered about NLP. Is that... right? I mean if someone is incapable of some sort of artistic or social accomplishment intiutively, how will their performance be when all they have is the work? Confusing subject, but I often wonder if Erickson (who didn't know NLP), or the others that Bandler and Grindler studied might not have been better than a master NLP practicioner. But 'better' is ambigious, and contradiction is generally a good thing. That is just a sort of a glimse into my own personal turmoil on the whole idea of a consious approach to communication/art.

And note that I think even if I sided with the side of myself that said that a conscious approach was potentially the lesser route (which I have not yet done, and probably will not), this does not mean I am an advocate of intuitive work without study.

What I'm trying to say with these last few slightly off topic paragraphs is that I wonder at the results of a teaching system which allows people to become something which they did not have in them in the first place. In other words, the optimal thing may be to take someone with raw intuition, and teach them to become a master. Not sure though, sorry for thinking out loud...the start of this post contains most the relevant information.

"If I can communicate, and if in the telling and the bearing of my soul something is gained, though the words I use are pretentious and make you cringe with embarrassment...".....maybe that is enough.

(Also note, the above post, intuitive, or conscious, or otherwise, is mostly an example of terrible communication by most standards...the internet is not my medium...)

FUTURE? Rofl, I doubt it...most the kids out there are busy starving the last of such daemons such as "artistic principles" and "ethical principles" off their shoulders, and the remaining few are rather similiar to myself, I think. So taking the above into account, I believe we can rather clearly say either way bodes rather ill for any sort of future for this community...jejejejejeje.

"only the impossible has any real charm"

"only the impossible has any real charm..."

Hoop, I wouldn't say that my "intuitive" abilities are impossible, but I do have to admit that I am a poster boy for "real charm".....hehe

I have watched you grow from a young teen to an older teen in the past couple of years, and I have to say that you are becoming a real spokesman for the younger magic generation....Now, I am not saying that just to get a week of comped rooms and expenses at your grand opening for your hotel....(That never even entered my mind...well, maybe a passing thought)...

I am particularly happy that you have looked into bs like NLP, digested it, and called it what it is: a natural ability to sway people with gestures, words, looks, whatever....Kennedy had it and became President and married a succulent broad....and made it with other (well a whole bunch of) succulent broads....I cannot say anything right now, because Mary is looking over my shoulder, but I really do have the ability to really influence or really pxxx people off, with just a gesture, word, look, or whatever...

It is not anything called NLP; it is charisma or anti-charisma....It can be learned, but, to do it well, one almost has to be born with it...

Best wishes for the holidays....opie

Speaking of charisma, those people considered most charismatic; Kennedy, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King have all died violent deaths. Just an observation.

Jonathan: I have read the Bandler and Grinder books as well as many of their students'. I have attempted the techniques. Although my attempts were not scientific, I believe that my results are the same as if I had not used the techniques. The only difference being that I was more self-conscious while using the techniques (I had to consider what I was doing instead of responding naturally.)

As I stated earlier, there have been many scientific experiments conducted on this subject. There is no empirical evidence to validate NLP.

Yeah, I am destined to go like that, rather than sinking into the darkness, while reading NLP bs...

.....yeah, but, you know, if it makes people feel good to think they can really do that, what the hell? Some people just need that little extra to get by in the world....

....it is kind of like people who really think that they are ENTERTAINING, just because people applaud for them....duh...

opie

Thanks for the kind words Opie, but erm... I doubt I'll be any spokesman, lol. That involves groups, and I am prejudice against all groups (and no individuals!).

Note, however that I do not beleive NLP to be "BS"...not currently anyways. I stated however that I understand why it literally is BS to you and your ilk, and why I cannot find great failings in that position. If I were you, I'd probably chuck it too, though no harm could come of reading the books.

The self-consciousness noted in the above post is one of the things I mentioned and is strange to deal with. It is a worry of attempting to think out a process you can do naturally, or aquire such a process which you cannot do. To Bandler's credit, however, I believe he suggests that the work must be done until it is grace, which is to say you must make a conscious effort again and again until the process becomes intuitive...I believe they liken it to the driving of a car.

For my own part, I'm not hurt by more information. It is useful to look at things from different names and different points of view. This is NLP's reframing , Tom Robbins full consciousness, and my looking at yourself in the mirror from precisley fourteen different points of view. And obviously, I'm doing it even with the name of the process. The ability to make connections and associate your own abilites with one way or another can be useful, and certainly is for my intents and purposes. It may not be essential for everyone however, which is what I tried to get at above.

And to be honest, the NLP, the charisma, the ability to communicate and make connections is square one in my opinion...it's mostly the basics. Opening a channel is important, but basic....I try to concern myself mostly with content once connections have been made...Or, as in the nature of my present work, how to manipulate the connections to cause specific effects in people or even how to use the connections themselves to specific results. But I'll stay out of that for now...if you though NLP was crazy...

To the fellow who lists Charismatic people that have died, what would you have us do, sir? Funny, last time I got into this sort of discussion, a magician of note suggested that if one possesed charisma before learning magic, one was better of a politician. I simply disagree. Yes, politicians need a certain sort of charisma, just as con men are probably some of the nicest fellows you'd ever meet. This is irrelevant. "It is the business of the Artist to be exciting". One of the biggest troubles I have with magicians is that a conversation before and after the magic is laborious. They're boring. Again, what would you have us do... not be charming, interesting, and charismatic as performing artists?

"that the greatest doer must also be the great dreamer."

Someone help me out with his quote about better having bled on the field than not gone at all, etc...for the above fellow.

1. They didn't simply die, they were murdered. In my opinion this is significant, because it implies that charisma is capable of creating strong feelings - both positive and negative.

2. You ask what I would have 'you' do. I'm not asking you to do anything.

Hoop, since you are obviously interested in probing into human beings, get a copy of Fast's BODY LANGUAGE and read it....It will give you more insights than the study of NLP. And, just to set the record straight, I am not against the STUDY of anything....Enjoy!!!

See you around the boards.....opie

there is no empiracl evidence that you exist either - so what. let people explore topics with out the need to call for empiracle studies. Is there any empiracle study done on how well a shuttle pass works, how it is received, its usefulness, and how if it is done well - so no one knows - it can create huge mystery and appreciation. No empiracle studies I know odf done on lot's of things that we value, use and have success by every day.

let it go... or prove you exist through scientific studies conducted a valid research testing facilities

obviously I forget to quote the person I was replying to earlier in the thread.

ENough said - enjoy the exploration. You can and will find many things that may delight you beyond you wildest expectations.

So delight!

????
I'm guess I'm confused about what the meaning of "empirical evidence" is, in the context quoted. Is there "empirical evidence" for the existence of anything, in that context?

I once had a guy try the nonsensical argument of no empirical evidence for my existence to my face. So I slapped him, asking if that was sufficient empirical evidence or did he need more. He suddenly understood what empirical evidence meant.

NLP is one of those wonderful hot topics in magic. I think this stems from the fact that it has been marketed by some as a panacea to our ails. Some have offered tools that could be used by thoughtful performers to enhance their presentations, and others have offered little more than wordy ramblings.

Of course there is also the argument put forth that this is all merely common sense. Need I bring forth the cliche that common sense is not all too common. Any visit to any magic club will prove this point. Performance after performance is filled with mediocrity. And yes, if these people thought about their words, NLP or just good editing, their performances would improve.

So, let's consider the intent behind NLP in magic, the notion that language choices impact our presentations. That nonverbal strategies affect how our acts are seen.

I don't think any sensible person can argue with these two claims. So, the goals of those suggesting NLP as a tool are without fault.

So the question then becomes, is NLP a viable tool for increasing the effectiveness of one's presentations.

To answer this we must first define what NLP is and there comes our first problem. In my book, The Dance, I railed against a lot of what NLP seems to be when promoted by magicians, and the promises it makes. Interestingly, when I would discuss what I did feel was important many knowledgeable NLP students would comment upon those conclusions being very much in line with the NLP school of thought. In discussion I have come to learn that a lot of what is "spun" as NLP is equivalent to what the late night infomercial get quick rich schemes are to business principles. Sure, it may be based on them, but that which we are presented has been simplified and coerced into a model which was never intended.

So, I think we must first be wise enough to define our terms and avoid platitudes such as "I know what NLP is and its all bunk." Or "I've been doing magic for 60 years and have read the NLP books and I know everything I don't agree with is BS." I think the first step is coming to know, not think but know, that we are all talking about the same thing. And also perhaps admitting that what we thought something was, it might not be.

Then we can look at anecdotal evidence and see if there are some strategies which have proven themselves effective. Then, we could try to apply similar strategies and report back as to their success. Finally, we could try to come up with general observations as to the working and applications of those strategies and share them among our peers. Perhaps on a DVD for $75. Opps, strike that last part. But it does become tempting. And as soon as profit enters the picture, we have to play to the lowest common denominator's pocket book.

But my point is that instead of calling names and labeling things as BS, would we not be better served "discussing" something. Exploring ideas. And creating tools.

Perhaps some people are afraid of work, improvement, or having their stone edifices of belief slowly chipped away.

Brad cuts to the heart of the argument and lays the problem bare.

I googled the phrase "problems with NLP" and found this site, http://www.nlpschedule.com/random/sciprove.html
written by an NLP trainer. He seems well-versed in his subject and makes several pertinent observations. Specifically, he writes: "NLP, as most people use the term today, is a set of models of how communication impacts and is impacted by subjective experience. It's more a collection of tools than any overarching theory."

Rather than endlessly quote and paraphrase, I suggest you look at the site yourselves and see what limitations NLP presents. Essentially, without the "overarching theory," it seems to be a faith-based art, done better by some than others.

Do the NLP tools work? I don't know because, as this trainer admits, empirical studies seem to be difficult to design. I would observe that without empirical evidence that it works better than simply guessing, NLP will remain unproven, relying on anecdotal "evidence" rather than empirical evidence...anecdotal evidence often being self-selective.

Clearly, good performing demands good communication skills, NLP not withstanding. Writing out a script and knowing it by heart, but being able to deliver it as though it were spontaneous, is the best way to start.

Refinement comes from performing hundreds of shows and paying thoughtful attention to where the presentation works and where it doesn't. Nothing can cut that process short.

exactly my point - proof can be a hard thing to come by. THat is why most theories are disproved - null hypothesis. Or why most people are found not guilty - instead of innocent.

ah but now you have switched from empirical evidence to anecdotal expereince - two very different things. But your repsonse is non the less astute for the argument - even if it is apples and oranges your point is well made.

To Brad and David -

nice replies. The key to learning new things is being open to new things and you both make that point well.

For 30 years I have stated (as the article you link to suggests) that there is no quality control in the field. I have discussed this, written about this, brought it up at conferences and have been one of the main proponents for levying some control. BUT that is unlikely and not probably possible.

THere are other issues I have addressed at length for years.

The largest difficulty in understanding NLP isn't that it is difficult to understand but that it has been obscurred by well meaning purveyors and critiques of it. Expecially on the internet where anyone can write anything about anything and suddenly gain some instand cedibility. And that is one of the largest difficulties I see - facing the curious who are directed towards links.

The BS isn't as much in the field of NLP as it is by some of those who have written about it both pro and con. And that is why I always suggested to people to thouroughly research, investigate before investing large amounts of money.

That said I have also for 30 years personally trained peple from all walks of life - top CEOs, investigators, law enforcement, hostage negotiators, attorneys, judges, doctors, psychiatricts, surgeons, bankers, teachers, performers military - you name it that have successfully utilzed their learnings to go on and be more successful in their endeavors etc. I have witnessed this with literally thousands first hand all around the world and continue to get reports daily.

But for some that isn't enough - and I understand that thinking too. But if one were curious one might be interested in finding out from these individuals, groups and companies that do use and endorse NLP what they think it makes and difference and how - rather than dismissing it because they read something.

I at any time would discuss NLP with anyone. Preferably by phone or in person. SInce I have been one of the top providers for NLP training around the world for a decade or so I am happy to chat about it.

Curioisity opens a door - go through it and discover what you can find... you may very well be surprised.

Any way - gentleman - nice posts.

"Perhaps some people are afraid of work, improvement, or having their stone edifaces of belief slowly chipped away...." In Texas, we call that bovine scatology...

Some misguided proponent of NLP made the above comment, probably in an attempt to hurt me regarding my Age (66)!!! But I really don't take exception to anyone who makes comments about my age or regarding NLP. It is just a little school-yard "Ya ya ya" type thing....But I really do take exception to anyone who makes any comments that question my educational and experience background in the behavorial arts/sciences...You are right; NLP AIN'T a science; it is BS!!!

Just to supplement my three degrees in the behavorial sciences/arts--BS in Economics and Psychology, MA in Management and Communications, and another MA in English and Counselling--I did extensive searches regarding NLP on Google and Dog Pile....What an irony!!! There is as much BS on Dog Pile as on Google about the topic...

One of the webs directed me to a movie web (it may have been this web). Anyway, it led me to Hollywood Video to rent a movie called Magnolia, with Tom Cruise. Now that is a movie. I really enjoyed it. It brought back memories of my holy-roller religious cousins in my family, who were little more than side-show sellers of snake oil.

I recall the funeral of one cousin, who had a "religious" following of hundreds of people in Florida. When he died, I was actually asked by his "Elders" to come down and take over the TV "Parrish". I had a problem with that, because I knew that he was a BS artist, and he had learned that from my step father who had a whole nation-wide group of con men who bilked people out of their money with BS...like NLP...

I am an expert on BS. I am also so secure in my world that I am not "afraid of work, improvement, or having (my) stone edifices of belief slowly chipped away...", but I do object to the implication of my AGE as being a factor.

Besides my extensive education in the behavioral arts/sciences, I led the unwilling in the military for 25 of my 26 years service, an accomplishment that the person who made the above comment could not have done. He would not have lasted one minute in a group of real military men, discussing real-world problems. At any rate, he tossed away a Masters Degree in Music to become, not a teacher or director of music, but a magician, probably because the kids scared him...Duh!!! Hell, I am 66 years old, and there is not one elementary, middle-school, or high-school student who scares me. I had six of them of my own, and not one of them can whip my butt.

NLP, Snake Oil, BS...Hey, put them in a blender, and they all come out tasting like...well BS...

I probably won't post any more posts like this, when I STOP GETTING E MAILS from high-ranking IBM and SAM officers who are laughing about pathetic complaints regarding me from people who are trying to sell KIDS high-priced BS on the magic market. I have never said anything bad about any dealer/magician, except for the fact that there are some effects which cost less than some of versions of the same effects. Those folks really need to stop bad-mouthing me or even mentioning my name, or I may stop being a good guy and start doing my duty to protect SYM members. My duty can get really "righteous".

So...If you really want to understand people, try not to be some kind of mentalist BS geru; don't be too egotistical; and do read the really inexpensive books on body language and how to be a real human being...and try not to bore people to death whining; be ENTERTAINING!!!!

This post is not an attack on anybody; my assaults are not anywhere near as nice....

opie

I hope that statement is not based on "empirical evidence"!

tsk tsk....love you, guy...opie

Actually Fast's body language is rather weak - although popular at one time. Better to actually read the kinesics studies done by birdwhistle.
Fast popularized the notion of labeling behaviors - not something altogether useful, unless like stereotyping you wish to streamline. When it comes to working with interregators, hostage negotiators, dea agents, and even customer service and sales people - the shifts in behavior are far more worth noticing than the labeling of behaviors as fast suggested. There are far better and far more recent works than julius.

As a serious student of psychology and counselling, I would be the first to admit that "labelling" can be dangerous in psychotherapy, but it is almost necessary, as an aid to linking data to memory.

I offered the suggestion to my young friend that he read Fast, because Fast's studies and works provide a good deal of insight into popular cult fads and seminars, which have been built upon such studies...And he can probably pick up a copy of Body Language in a used book store for about a buck...

opie

Opie, have you tried the anchoring or reframing work described in the early NLP/Bandler books?

As to cults etc, that is probably more a social phenomenon in our culture at large as people seek meaning and a sense of inclusion that extends beyond the checkout lines at the supermarket.

If one applies the basic "as given" rules to many social organizations, one can get some very critical and unfavorable assessments of those same organizations.

I like the UNIX model of human consciousness and the proposition that we have some ability to acknowledge the inner worlds of others.

Bit o' background: my business is call-center speech recognition. Some of our customers pay $gazillion for every 0.1% of calls automated by a computer.

If there were even the slightest whif of truth to NLP, the NLP folk could (surely) induce greater cooperation from the call-center callers by providing our systems with the most influential prompts. They can't. There isn't.

The fact is that human behavior has the most ill-behaved statistical properties. And it is only the statistics of human behavior that could ever lend a modicum of credence to NLP (and also many of the "audience management" techniques espoused in the magic literature, btw). But "what works about" NLP is not particularly linguistic, and certainly not statistically reproducible.

Communication requires listening. If we want compliance or "cooperation" we have to engage the other person and... ( see Cialdini and similar )

If an automated thingie could listen and sort out the language used by the person on the other end, there might be returns from NLP language (pacing, tonality, rep-system) techniques.

Folks, the first thing we need to do when communicating is be attentive to the OTHER PERSON. It is OUR responsibility to notice what they respond to and shift our communications accordingly. New invisible thumbtip replacement device, can hide a stack of silver dollars. Kewl for the coin guys, though perhaps not so important to the billiards manipulator.

The only magic bullet pre-set script we have is likely not useful in all circumstances and more likely to shoot OURSELVES in the foot when used indiscriminately. If we want to get something across to another person, we have make our message meaningful to them. Limited time offer for newly released underground secret method for card to wallet, uses your own wallet, available soon.

Till we can read/listen we are worse than dumb, we are effectively ignorant. Our efforts may be energetic and clever, traditional and sincere, yet not reach or affect our audience. Till we want to listen... we are limited. The words arrogant and misguided also probably apply. New version of oil and water discovered. Uses only seven cards as eight, will post in cards section if enough people ask.

The question remains, what do we want to know? The question we are not addressing is more like: "what are we willing to try as we find effective ways to communicate?"

Written with both good humor and intent. How did it read for you?

Unquestionably true. The question is whether or not the requisite engagement is a) modelable and b) packageable.

This is equally critical to performing magic, which also requires engagement.

Our best models are human ones (i.e., we consider the magic icon du jour); any codified/formalized models that we have for audience management/engagement are flimsy fluff, and insufficient to address the real-world problem. Since we fail so miserably to model engagement, it is no wonder that attempts such as NLP to package it are doomed.

Great post there Doug, and lots to discuss.

I suspect that there are human models outside of conjuring that have proven effective for Milena and were demonstrated as still effective last century. These techniques for group compliance are used in somewhat attenuated form at sporting events, and political rallies.

Also agreed about human models in terms of learning from people. How can one learn to present as effectively as Eugene Burger or ... (du jour)? The NLP approach involves asking them questions about HOW they relate to the material they present, and using that process ourselves to get our own results.

The one-on-one sales skills, from basic rapport to engagement seem okay. How do you find that aspect of codifiable skills? ie Matching posture, breathing, story stuff (context - yes I like Beatles songs too ) ...

I agree that an automaton/VRU/IVR unit would have to have almost human attentiveness to use these skills.

The idea of group pacing/leading, by starting at the Kinesthetic sense and moving through auditory to visual imagery as one starts a presentation seems effective.

IMHO we appear to agree about the notion of congruent communication. We often find it expressed in humor about youngsters presenting effects in exactly the way Eugene Burger or Phil Goldstein does.

Where then are we in disagreement?

Thank you Jonathan; your suggestions are always good, but my attention has moved to other areas. If somebody here figures out a fool-proof pick-up line, post it in bold print, and I will hopefully see it...

...and have a happy holiday season....opie

What specifically would you like to pick up, and how would you like them to feel about it?

The line " I have the presidential suite for the next few nights and am bored up there alone " is likely to be useful.

Did I say we were in disagreement?

As in many areas of human study, it is possible that there is a confusion here between cause and effect. That is, the pacing/posture/breathing may be an effect of the magical "engagement mechanism" rather than the mechanism (i.e., cause of the engagement) itself.

There have been far too many times when my "BS detector" has rung wildly (i.e., precisely the opposite to the desired result) in the context of someone wanting to gain rapport with me using "techniques". Those same phenomena might have been present if genuine rapport had been built, but the techniques themselves were insufficient, and, indeed, counter-productive in the absence of that "magical engagement mechanism".

Btw, folks going to political rallies, religious crusades and sporting events bring with them difficult-to-define "baggage" that enables the result perhaps even more than the actions of the players.

Imagine if you will...

A fox walks up to a chicken, nice and slow.

It stops a few paces away and waits. It synchronizes its breathing with the chicken, and after a few moments, pretends to peck at the ground as if for corn.

I hope the chicken's BS detectors go off before the fox attempts to go much further.

In my experience, there are few things more spooky than the feeling that another person is acting with ulterior motives. Once you have to wonder what someone wants... good thing to have BS detectors.

Jonathan...The Presidential Suite line probably is better than, "The park is a little noisy sometimes, but my trailer is nice and cozy."

You drew me back in with the chicken story...It reminded me of something I learned years ago in a Communications course. When sitting across a small table in a restaurant with someone, get the person chattering away, and begin pushing the items on the table over into the other person's "space". Don't look, as you are doing it, and only move things a fraction of an inch at a time.

As you do the above, notice the person's non-verbal actions. Even without seeming to notice what you are doing, the person's posture may begin to lean away from you, or, if the person is particularly assertive, he/she might lean into the "space". Different types of people react differently, of course, but most will tend to lean away and perhaps even cross their arms across their chest in an unconscious defensive manner...

..later....opie

Age is neither a liability nor an asset. Opie seems to think it the later, hence his continual reference to his age as proof that what he is saying is correct. However, just because one is old does not mean one is offering good advice, simply old advice.

My reference to age was to call attention to the fact that appeals to authority of this nature are worthless. If we listened to Opie's appraisals of everything for which he has a penchant against, no discussions would ever occur. Someone would ask a question, Opie would label it BS, and the discussion would end.

Of course, one merely needs visit the about.com forum or learned pig to see this dynamic in action. No discussion which Opie disapproves of is allowed to continue. He is not the moderator there, but has taken on the role of internet censore. He has even bragged about threatening to reveal the personal information of those who have tried to discuss things like NLP on "his boards." This may explain why no discussion of magic ever occurs in those places anymore.

For the record, I do not consider myself an advocate of NLP. I, however, have an open mind and would like to see productive discussions occur. A productive discussion does not consist of someone calling anyone else's ideas BS every chance they get.

If you don't agree with something others wish to discuss, keep your mouth shut. Or, state your point in reference to FACTS, and let the argument play out. There is no harm in letting others explore a topic of interest, unless you are afraid of that topic, I suppose. Instead of trying to hijack every thread with name calling and personal attacks, how about letting those who are interested have a forum to explore their ideas? (By the way, this was your best one yet. I think you managed to work in every personal attack you have made against me over the years into that one post. Excellent crafting. But for the record, you do not have all the facts behind my degree in education and my use thereof. But then again, when have you needed facts to back up your "opinions"?)

If we wanted close minded totalitarian control we'd go to one of the forums you have hijacked as your own. But he haven't, we're here. So, stop embarrassing yourself and let discussion occur.

My ability to agree with both Opie and Brad Henderson, and hopefully come to call both of them friends, is a decent example of what I like to call healthy contradiction, lol.

Youch.

Opie, I don't think search engines are the best place to form your opinion of NLP, but anyways...

I will once again state that I think NLP can be useful to some people, and that a common language is a decent idea. I have my issues with it. I think it's very limited. As long as I keep my own theories rather close to my chest, there is no need to burden them with any sort of proof, and as such, they are very powerful.

In this vein, but with a little less insanity, I really think that the concepts convered in NLP should be fairly basic, whether intuitive or conscious, but what we really need to do is figure out what we want to do with an established connection.

I have said that a magic performance should be a joint expedition, a journey, through some of the most fascinating regions of the human mind and body, a journey that ranges from the astounding to the outright sensual in scope, but a journey that wherever it leads should ultimately be beautiful...

This "model" works not only for the Art of magic, but every other art I practice, including making love and having a conversation. If we go further, and state the in this "journey" we share something with our fellow travelers, and that we may, if we so desire, communicate specific ideas, evoke specific emotions, and conjure up other memories, inspire actions, etc. Some of these expeditions may be completely equal, in some things, such as magic, we may choose to act as something of a guide. After all in Art we are expressing ourselves, and this can be done by leading people through our own worlds, showing them, and (sexy, ain't it?) by helping them to discover regions of their own worlds that they had hithero not explored, or long forgotten.

To do this, I am afraid that the sort of communicative powers which one may aquire from a thorough study of NLP are going to be the very bare minimum one might need to start down this trail. The connection is essential, one must join to engage in a joint expedition...and so in every act of such expression, even acts where there is a physical connection, a mental/spiritual/emotional connection is still essential. It is however only the beginning . And NLP is only one of many ways, one language, of a myriad.

Opie's joke about pickup lines may be another problem with such systems as NLP...many people think they're going to get some automatic poof solution to, whatever, with these sort of systems, and so, many more people try and sell it to them. That is indeed snake oil. Real magic is the feeling which occurs during my above "journey". (It occurs elsehwere as well, or at least differently in different languages, see the works of Jonathan Townsend.).

That being said, I have romantically named the combined group of all my theories and absorbed process which have the goals and often times result in the above sort of senario sorcery. And I suppose, if you took into account that such processes, while occasionally thought out in a conscious manner, are nonetheless woven irrevokably into the fabric of my being, and thus, affect nearly everything to which I lay my hands....if you took this into account, if mere "aquiring" was your goal (following "pick-up" lines...) you could say that my current 16 year old, willingly bisexual, local model of a girlfriend, and my 22 year old, REEF brazil model mistress were aquired by sorcery, and the philosphical strings which had to be pulled in order to make them more or less happily aware of one another, (and dare I hope for more), were also affected by sorcery. (I figured it's okay to do that, just once...since everyone else is spitting out credentials...I'll say some deprecating things in the next post if it makes you all feel better...)

Which, while romantic, is not a terrible name for these processes, because all sorcery is a collection of extremely powerful tools (in anyone's context, btw, not just mine) which often times achieve the apparently impossible, or seem impossible by virtue of the speed or intensity with which these deed were accomplished.

Pulled out a 1906 copy of the Divine Comedy today, but haven't dusted off any earth shattering quotes yet, so here's one from...oh dear, this is deteriorating quickly, Dusty Springfield.

"it isn't the way that you look, and it isn't the way that you talk, it isn't the things that you say or do, make me want you so...it has nothing to do with the wine, or the music that's flooding my mind....it's the way you make me feel, the moment I..am close to you, it's a feeling so unreal, so hard to beleive it's true... "

Hoop, I am sorry that I advised you to save your money and not buy into NLP; it seems that me trying to advise young people is an act which causes people to attack me, so I am going to bow out....

I have just been threatened with "Ethics" charges, not to mention the above severe personal attacks....

So buddy, buy all that crap, but, for sure, DON'T believe everything you hear...about anything...

opie

Opie, I agree Brad is being a little harsh in his assault. I said above I understand why you say NLP is bullshit, and for you I do not think that is an incorrect assumtion. It may have its uses for others.

I'm sorry if I led you to believe, however, that I hadn't yet purchased any NLP materials. I thank you for your concern for my wallet, but I've long since read Frogs into Princes and parts of Trance Formations...I would not have felt comfortable venturing an opinion on the subject otherwise...which is why I urged you to drop the ten bucks or whatever, and spend a couple hours to read some of the material, in order to form your opinion.

Because if you weed through my above post, and some of the others...yes, there are many of reasons, areas, and applications that NLP, or things claiming to be NLP, can come off as snake oil. That is why what some people say on google is something of a shaky foundation for a strong opinion.

The basic work, such as the volumes I mention above, do not fall into this category, however. Bandler claims to offer not truth, but utility, and I think that yes in some contexts, for some people, it may have some use.

<<The line " I have the presidential suite for the next few nights and am bored up there alone " is likely to be useful. >>


Didn't work for me. Condi just slapped my face.


<<Unix model of consciousness>>

Please expand?


Jack Shalom

Your consciousness? How's this for a start;

The part of you that ties your shoes is not the same as the part of you that drives your car, or the part of you that knows how to read. Each facility you acquired can be considered in about the same way as a daemon in the UNIX environment. This almost explains the walk and chew gum this we do.

Some people may notice that the part of their consciousness that is good at driving needs to impose on the part that likes to listen to the radio when the car needs to merge into traffic, even though the actual sound of the radio is NOT pertinent to the function and "you" might otherwise believe you could ignore it. Let's call that contention over the I/O channels.

With just a bit of prompting, it is possible to recall something someone said to you... and change the sound of their voice in your memory. Perhaps a boss who yelled at you. You can change the tonality of that recalled sound to something other, say the sound of a chicken clucking. Or perhaps the trombone sound used in the Charlie Brown cartoons for the voice of the teacher.

More generally, we have some ability to play back our memories, and change our perspective on things we recall, from our own eyes, to a perspective of someone nearby, even to someone far away. We can even play back events backward if we choose. This suggests that our memory memory is like the output of a 'grep' command, and also that we can apply text processing to this recall, on the way into the activity, and on the way out.

Have you noticed how making coffee is like spawning a process? We seem to manage a few of these things without burning the coffee, buttering our shoes at the table, trying to eat with our car keys, crashing the car while remembering the way to work, or choking on our chewing gum.

Is there an underlying assembly core to all this stuff? No idea yet. We work from experience, and what we "decide to do" is much like the command line of the terminal. While we wait to remember the name of our fifth grade English teacher, we can also note the time, sip coffee and plan our evening. Perhaps this evening that name will come to CONSCIOUS/CONSOLE.

For more fun, and a first hand tour of this stuff, have a look at the old Bandler books. The part of you that imagines movies as you read novels might enjoy this.

My boss needs something, so will fork this process for now, save the post and spawn a new post later if the text on the screen prompts me to.

PS, written with at least one tongue in cheek.

Thanks, Jon. Interesting metaphor. My metaphor for consciousness is similar: I think of of consciousness as lots of competing voices with competing needs. Sanity is about the negotiating that we (who?) do to keep all those voices content.

With regard to performing, we can think of an audience member as also having those competing voices within. Our job is to excite some of those voices and quiet others. DIfferent languages for different voices!

Also, what happens when the audience member leaves the theatre? What is the conversation s/he will have with him/herself?

Jack Shalom

Join my board at www.magic-me.ipbhost.com and I'll do what I can to teach you what I know about NLP... once you join email or PM me so we can get started, I have never been taught in NLP. However I was trained in interview/interrogation and Statement Analysis, I was considered to be one of the best interrogators in my department, before breaking my back and leaving them, I was also considered by Avinoam Sapir to be one of the best on the east coast at Statement Analysis, though never trained in NLP those that I taught what I know to, have said it is similar, so perhaps there is something there for you, my board is a magic/mentalism board and my training will be FREE so you have nothing to loose

Ken

Thinking, knowing, being, doing, meaning...

Some recent and pertinant findings:

http://www.interdisciplines.org/mirror/

Let's pretend mentalists have very well developed ones.

or would that be psychics?

Such begs more and clinical questions as well.

Here are some quotes regarding NLP: I do not have reference issue numbers etc.

"Our survival and probably the survival of the planet depend on a more
complete understanding of the human mind." September, 1992, Scientific
American


"(NLP) is not snake oil...NLP could be the most important synthesis of
knowledge about human communication to emerge since...the sixties."
Science Digest

"NLP has metamorphosed into an all-purpose self- improvement program and
technology."
Time Magazine

"The effective manager in today's competitive environment needs two things:
he must know the technical intricacies of his profession, and he must be
able to communicate that knowledge in order to motivate his personnel,
attract and maintain his customers, and negotiate with suppliers, union
leadership, and the community he operates in...NLP is now available to teach
the 'how' of management communication...NLP consistently emphasizes the
practical rather than the theoretical."
Personnel Journal

Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) is based on discoveries from cognitive
psychology, linguistics and information science. From a business and
organizational perspective, NLP is becoming an ever more important method
for increasing productivity and competitiveness.
Training and Development

"The process of discovering and teaching unique skills offers some of the
most exciting potential for using NLP in business..."
Training Magazine

"NLP is a valuable and intriguing approach to the understanding of learning
and communication."
Tony Buzan

"Required by anyone wishing to tap their full potential."
Norman Vincent Peale

"Most members of the training industry should familiarize themselves with
NLP™ techniques to help improve the understanding and knowledge retention of
their learners. By integrating NLP™ with other training methods, such as
accelerated learning, instructors are finding efficient new ways to
communicate with trainees."

"The addition of NLP™ into your training curriculum may very well be the
single best thing you can do for your programs, as well as for your career.
Now my programs are better attended, the participants feel like they learn
more and I have greater support from senior management."
Michael Saggese Director of Training Midlantic National Bank

"NLP™ has proven to be an extremely effective communication tool in both
resolving business issues, enhancing capabilities and as an aid to effecting
rapid and significant organization change."
Jay Spechler, Ph. D. Director of Performance Engineering American
Express

I feel I really want to add my 2 cents here, after skimming over some of these posts.

NLP takes some effort to learn, but once the principles are ingrained in you, the results you can achieve are nothing short of astounding.

It is very significant as to what your learning sources are- there are thousands of people claiming they can teach NLP, offering certifications and the like, and in my experience, some of the ones doing the training are the least proficient at using the techniques- because the techniques are NOT where the power of NLP resides.

NLP is an attitude about moving through life, combined with a keen awareness of patterns in yourself and others. The "techniques" begin to put you on the tracks, but in order to really "do" NLP, you have to be able to access the understandings that are the underpinnings of NLP.

There are some great things called the "NLP Presuppositions" that provide a more useful way of looking at our personal worlds of ongoing experience. They are the true beginning of NLP, not whether you can deliver an embedded command, do a visual squash, or create a conscious/unconscious double-bind.

NLP was NEVER claimed to be a "scientific" methodology. It was a MODEL which offers you something to feel your way around, and while doing so, discover if you find you can get a new and better experience at a given task using the new learnings. It's always been a "don't believe it- try it, and find out for yourself" thing.

The key is that in order to try something, you must approach it with an open mind- no prejudgements, and genuinely give it a chance. Doing so will open a new world for the honest aspirant.

I *used* to run an NLP training business. I have since discovered far more lucrative ventures through the application of these (and other) skills. NLP also helped me to have the confidence in my abilities to be able to launch myself out of my old life and into a new life unlike anything I had experienced before. I give thanks for my new experiences to God, and God's will that I find and learn NLP. In that order.

I use NLP everyday- but I can't remember the last time I used "a technique", although I may have without realizing it. I know I use analog marking and presuppositional forms to an extreme degree, but there's nothing forced about it, it's part of my basic behavioral foundation at this point. And I KNOW these things themselves have had great influence on the people I interact with.

As a very enjoyable sideline, I do palm reading (www.wizardreader.com). NLP helps me connect with and generate a high-quality rapport with my clients very rapidly, and it's almost all done non-verbally. I have an excellent reputation.

I use NLP in my contract negotiations for web contracts. Very often, I am number X on a potential client's list of 6 or 10 interviewees, all previous of which have come in, given their speil, and left awaiting a followup. I go in, ask what my client wants, and leave with a check. This is not a coincidence. It's certainly not because I'm good looking! And it only happened when I had learned at a deep level how unconscious communication works.

Now I'm not here to tell you why you should give NLP an honest shot, only to let you know some of why I am so very happy I did. I truly feel blessed that I found this- especially when I did- back in the late 80s, before the web, before everybody with their odd ideas could grab NLP and pollute it and repost it on the web with the appearance they had a right to teach anyone anything.

Back when I learned, you had to hunt for it. It was like a treasure hunt.

I wasn't even looking for it when I found it. I was attracted to an ugly green and orange book called "Instant Rapport", by Michael Brooks.

Having just been through a bad breakup and feeling particularly in need of advice for how to obtain the company of women- this book seemed like a Godsend. It was indeed! And not for just that reason.

So I bought this book. ANd I read it with utter fascination because it made so much sense.

And the author, in one sentence, sent me on a search he apparently didn't intend- he said that he had simplified all the "arcane" knowledge of the originators, Richard Bandler and John Grinder.

Not being one to let something like THAT go by- I now wanted to see that source material. ANd I found that it was almost impossible to find. Bookstores didn't stock the books. There was no "amazon.com" then. Books In Print- weren't- all the titles were out of print.

Then I found it- after months of looking, I was in a used bookstore, and I saw something that caused me to freeze in my tracks. A small paperback book with the words "Frogs Into Princes" was there on the rack. I began reading it as I walked to the checkout. I continued reading it on the way to my car. I read it that day at the place I worked. I read it that night at home. I was in my glory- I felt like I had found a piece of the Holy Grail, and the reading confirmed that indeed, there was MUCH MORE TO THIS STUFF that I had heard yet.

This book led me to a publisher's name, and I was eventually able to get the other masterworks- Structure of Magic 1 & 2, which taught me how to hear the information that WASN'T spoken in "every" utterance (That's a universal quantifier, by the way). This new way of listening was called the "Meta Model", and it taught me how to ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. Later, when I learned hypnosis, I learned to TURN WHAT WAS LEARNED ON ITS HEAD and use the "Milton Model" to create language that had profound unconscious impact on the listener.

I also got books like "Trance-formations", "Practical Magic", and many, many others. I found video tapes. I found one of the finest training institutes in the day, NLP Comprehensive, and took my Practitioner training, and that helped me make that final leap to utilization at the unconscious level. I also discovered the Milton H. Erickson foundation, that elite bastion of hypnotic knowledge that won't even talk to you without a Master's Degree or above in the Medical, Dental or Psychological field. Even when you go there and visit in person. This was Milton's wish- he knew the power this stuff had, and he didn't want it in the wrong hands.

Well, now, anyone can do a search on NLP and get six gajillion hits. Maybe 20 out of that have the real core of NLP, or even come close to understanding it. VERY few people who put themselves on the market with this stuff really know what the hell it is. ANd so NLP gets a bad rap- or more accurately, these knockoff versions of NLP get a bad rap. The real stuff, being used by real professionals getting real results and astronomical hourly rates (because they get results others can't)- can never be affected by the rest of the counterfeit crap floating around on the net.

So that's what I have to say on the subject of NLP. It's not for everyone- some people are annoyed by having to pay attention to things like the subtleties of their speech and actions and would just rather get whatever results they get- and that's fine- some people do pretty good this way- and I'd say that that is due in part to their doing naturally and unconsciously those exact things that you learn to be conscious of in NLP. Because that's where NLP came from- not a theory, but a distillation of behavior and patterns exhibited by people who were successful consistently at certain areas of interaction and ability.

I hope that your experiences are at least as good as mine.

Best regards,

Dave Xanatos