NLP

Instead of mentally projecting your mentalism thoughts, type them here.

NLP

Postby Guest » 04/22/03 05:37 PM

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
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/22/03 05:48 PM

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


Originally posted by amir ghasri:
What I want to know is how do you become a certified NLP practioner?
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 04/22/03 07:31 PM

What the heck is Neuro-Linguistic Programming, anyway?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 20382
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Joe M. Turner » 04/22/03 07:52 PM

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_col ... erview.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
Joe M. Turner
 
Posts: 418
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Bill Mullins » 04/23/03 07:43 AM

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?
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby Guest » 04/23/03 09:07 AM

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.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/23/03 01:32 PM

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.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/23/03 02:51 PM

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
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/23/03 02:52 PM

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
Guest
 

Postby IanB » 04/23/03 02:59 PM

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.....)
IanB
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 03/05/08 01:00 PM
Location: UK

Postby Guest » 04/29/03 08:19 AM

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.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/29/03 11:42 AM

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?
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 04/29/03 12:28 PM

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:
Guest
 

Postby IanB » 05/01/03 03:41 AM

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
IanB
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 03/05/08 01:00 PM
Location: UK

Postby Guest » 05/01/03 07:04 AM

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.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/03 09:20 AM

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
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 05/01/03 12:03 PM

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

Postby Pete McCabe » 05/01/03 01:52 PM

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.
Pete McCabe
 
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Simi Valley, CA

Postby IanB » 05/01/03 02:17 PM

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
IanB
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 03/05/08 01:00 PM
Location: UK

Postby Guest » 05/05/03 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Steve Spicer:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! I love it, Lee, I just love it!
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
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 07/01/03 12:10 PM

Originally posted by jiggyjer:
... however NLP is not a substitute for a strong academic and practical grounding in therapy or psychology...
Hehehe, neither of which is of any real use either, in my experience! ;)
Guest
 

Postby Bill Mullins » 07/04/03 11:35 AM

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.
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby Guest » 07/07/03 12:40 PM

Aha!

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

Postby Guest » 09/01/04 02:45 PM

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
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 12/02/04 10:39 PM

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

Postby Guest » 12/05/04 11:43 AM

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.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 12/05/04 11:45 AM

Should have read

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

Postby Guest » 12/07/04 05:02 AM

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
Guest
 

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 12/07/04 05:47 AM

Originally posted by CarlD:
... On a purely personal note, anything that bases its ideas on the ludicrous 'work' of Erickson can't be all good...
People make claims. Things just are. What do you mean by good?
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby John LeBlanc » 12/07/04 09:25 AM

Originally posted by CarlD:
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?
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?

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

John LeBlanc
http://www.escamoteurettes.com
John LeBlanc
 
Posts: 866
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Guest » 12/07/04 10:27 AM

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
Guest
 

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 12/07/04 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Opie R.:
...I think I will stick to reading recognized psychology journals and practice the few bits I have learned...
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?
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Guest » 12/07/04 11:54 AM

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
Guest
 

Postby John LeBlanc » 12/07/04 12:43 PM

Originally posted by CarlD:
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.
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
John LeBlanc
 
Posts: 866
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 12/07/04 12:54 PM

Originally posted by CarlD:
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
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.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Bob Farmer » 12/07/04 01:13 PM

NLP = Notoriously Lame Procedure
Bob Farmer
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Short card above selection.

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 12/07/04 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
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.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Guest » 12/07/04 02:30 PM

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 :D ) 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...)
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 12/07/04 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
build its own future.
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"
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 12/07/04 06:30 PM

"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
Guest
 

Next

Return to Mentalism & Mental Magic