Fallible wrote:
Mummy, why is the man being mean?

He can't help it, dear. He's learned it from Mr. Robbins.

I think Mr Robbins is a silly.

Weaver wrote:

quas wrote:First of all, what the fuck is NLP? How to define it?

Is it just some hypnosis technique? Or is it more than that? Most people think of it as hypnosis techniques. But, it is definitely more than that. NLP is more encompassing than just bodily gestures to anchor in (associate) certain emotions to your target and putting certain emphasis (inflection) or repetition to certain words to make it stick in your target's mind, but words that you say to reframe the conversation (not just words, but when and how you say it matter as well, eg. interrupting people when they are talking to you at key intervals). I am doubtful that the hypnosis techniques actually work on a subliminal level, but I am certain that conversational reframing techniques are very effective persuasion techniques.

{Youtube Link Deleted to save space}

NLP is bullshit.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neurolingu ... rogramming

Don't know. Lots of politicians and businessmen used those techniques. We even have several NLP fans in this forum.

quas wrote:

Weaver wrote:

quas wrote:First of all, what the fuck is NLP? How to define it?

Is it just some hypnosis technique? Or is it more than that? Most people think of it as hypnosis techniques. But, it is definitely more than that. NLP is more encompassing than just bodily gestures to anchor in (associate) certain emotions to your target and putting certain emphasis (inflection) or repetition to certain words to make it stick in your target's mind, but words that you say to reframe the conversation (not just words, but when and how you say it matter as well, eg. interrupting people when they are talking to you at key intervals). I am doubtful that the hypnosis techniques actually work on a subliminal level, but I am certain that conversational reframing techniques are very effective persuasion techniques.

{Youtube Link Deleted to save space}

NLP is bullshit.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Neurolingu ... rogramming

Not entirely. Perhaps the strongest evidence for NLP working is that the founder, Richard Bandler, got away with murder. Almost like OJ Simpson, and Bandler didn't use a lawyer.

That is not evidence of efficacy.

I have editted the post. He did have a lawyer.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-29/ ... rd-bandler

Davey122 wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Davey122 wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Yes, quite surprising! I can't imagine why they aren't off making millions from his wonderful advice.

You don’t have to be a millionaire. A guy who works as a mechanic and who conscientiously fixes up stranger’s cars, loves his family and friends, is a success in my opinion.

Gosh, that's...beautiful. Just...beautiful. Were you in a peak state when you wrote it?

I think Mr. Mechanic's family would love him a whole lot more if he wasn't throwing his money away at Bilky Robbins seminars. Maybe he should be taking a family finance course instead? At least in that situation, you'd have a clear plan and clear results.

What if Mr. Mechanic just bought some of Robbins' programs on tape or CD? That wouldn't cost much and he could listen at home. What if he just watched Robbins videos on YouTube? What if he just borrowed some books on NLP or Robbins from his local library? What if he borrowed the material from a friend. See, that way he would save money and still get some useful advice he was unfamiliar with.

Yes, I'm sure that's the way he made his 480 million -- free videos on the internet. No doubt those videos are super, super effective, which is why nobody ever pays to go see him dance around on stage like an ass. Puzzle solved.

Well, it's like I've stumbled upon a group of cynical mean-spirited assholes.

Oh boo hoo, somebody doesn't swallow Bilky Robbins' brand of bullshit, they're a bunch of doo-doo heads

It's been interesting, although thoroughly unpleasant, like taking a bus trip with someone who has needed a bath for a long time. I have absolutely no desire to continue with this. I've wasted enough time -

You could be making millions or loving your family -- right now! Don't hesitate, call this toll free number within the next 30 minutes, and get your second seminar (power meal plan not included) for the low low price of $99.99! An incredible value for less than 100 dollars!

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

quas wrote:I have editted the post. He did have a lawyer.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-29/ ... rd-bandler

OK, thanks.

It STILL doesn't demonstrate anything whatsoever on the effectiveness of NLP.

Weaver wrote:

quas wrote:I have editted the post. He did have a lawyer.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-29/ ... rd-bandler

OK, thanks.

It STILL doesn't demonstrate anything whatsoever on the effectiveness of NLP.

In a previous post, I have mentioned that there are two parts of NLP: the hypnosis techniques and communication skills that focus on reframing so as to dominate conversations/debates. The hypnosis bits sound a bit sketchy, but communication skills are rock solid.

What do I think is going on here? Davey122 has spent a pile of money on Tony Robbins' shit. No one wants to learn they fucked up.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk.

What puzzles me though is why someone would want to disclose that information. To me, spending a pile of money in order to have someone tell you things which aren't in any way revelatory is the antithesis of success.

Or perhaps from his perspective it was worthwhile. Ain't no accounting for tastes, as my granpappy used to say. He also said "sun don't shine on the same dog's ass every day", but I'm not certain what that actually meant. Another favorite was "busier than a three legged cat covering up shit on a marble floor", which I try to work into conversations on occasion.

quas wrote:

Weaver wrote:

quas wrote:I have editted the post. He did have a lawyer.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-01-29/ ... rd-bandler

OK, thanks.

It STILL doesn't demonstrate anything whatsoever on the effectiveness of NLP.

In a previous post, I have mentioned that there are two parts of NLP: the hypnosis techniques and communication skills that focus on reframing so as to dominate conversations/debates. The hypnosis bits sound a bit sketchy, but communication skills are rock solid.

And in the link I provided, there is discussion on why both claims are utter hogwash, and links to scientific papers demonstrating precisely how and why they are utter hogwash.

quas wrote:
In a previous post, I have mentioned that there are two parts of NLP: the hypnosis techniques and communication skills that focus on reframing so as to dominate conversations/debates. The hypnosis bits sound a bit sketchy, but communication skills are rock solid.

Looks like I need to share this again:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

degruyter.com wrote:The huge popularity of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) therapies and training has not been accompanied by knowledge of the empirical underpinnings of the concept. The article presents the concept of NLP in the light of empirical research in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base. From among 315 articles the author selected 63 studies published in journals from the Master Journal List of ISI. Out of 33 studies, 18.2% show results supporting the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results. The qualitative analysis indicates the greater weight of the non-supportive studies and their greater methodological worth against the ones supporting the tenets. Results contradict the claim of an empirical basis of NLP.

http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ppb.201 ... 0008-0.xml

Sharpley wrote:In an earlier review of the experimental literature on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), the present author (see record 1984-21020-001) concluded that the effectiveness of this therapy was yet to be demonstrated. In their comment on that review, E. L. Einspruch and B. D. Forman (see record 1986-08199-001) agreed with this conclusion but suggested that it was due to the presence of methodological errors in the research on NLP to date and that the efficacy of NLP was open to debate. In the present article, it is contended that those suggestions were based on misconceptions regarding the factors that limit the methodological worth of research. Several of the detailed criticisms from that review are refuted, and data from 7 recent studies that further demonstrate that research data do not support either the basic tenets of NLP or their application in counseling situations are presented. Implications for the use of NLP in counseling research or clinical practice are discussed. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy ... -11411-001

BBC.com wrote:Healing the Wounds said it is collecting data to prove its treatment is effective, but Prof Greenberg says unless NLP is subjected to what are known as randomised clinical trials it cannot be established as an appropriate treatment for PTSD.
He added: "NLP has not been investigated by proper scientific trials to show it works.
"The key point is, just because someone feels good at end session, there is no guarantee they're going to feel good in the future.
"And given the fact we know psychological therapies have potential to harm we need to do those trails."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-24617644
(Color mine, for emphasis)

People feel better after a lobotomy too.

Or self-harming.

NLP is bullshit that was made up in the 70s based on a sketchy collection of premises which are now quite thoroughly discredited. It keeps being offered up as futuristic when it isn't. It's futuristic in the same way that this is futuristic:

laklak wrote:People feel better after a lobotomy too.

Fallible wrote:Or self-harming.

Or giving all their money to a televangelist.

The_Metatron wrote:What do I think is going on here? Davey122 has spent a pile of money on Tony Robbins' shit. No one wants to learn they fucked up.

Rivers in Egypt and all that.

Hiya,

First post here to say: Thank you for the preceding 12 pages of entertainment. I identify with the concept of the misunderstanding of evidence, correlation and causation. It seems a rampant disease, this softness of the brain. I came here because I watched the Doc "I Am Not Your Guru" and I liked it. I liked it so much that I recommended it to friends. Friends I consider intelligent. And they were all like, "...not for me dude..." and "...seems a bit messed up..." So I did as any rational person ought to do; I deliberately searched for the opposing view. And what did I find? Plain sense. Really well reasoned questions here, and a total lack of insight on the TR acolytes. So much so that I thought to myself, "Self, you should join this community and see what else they say", it's like 2005 all over again!

One thing that strikes me and I will share is the clear evidence (as you read the comments from front to back in one sitting) of our inability to consider a different point of view. The oversimplification and the clever little rhetoric tricks that people attempt to justify their own sense of rightness is both predictable and ultimately sad. The community here asked repeatedly for evidence for claims and instead of providing one shred, the two "yes men" worked through the entire playbook.

I was prepared to travel to a TR event and shell put some cash for his song and dance. I am glad I took the time to dig deeper. I am definitely happier, more positive, and wealthier for NOT attending.

Cheers!

I've been buying his books for the last five years and I still can't swim, dance, or play tennis.