+++ The Fallacy That is Neuro-linguistic Programming +++

[mickthinks]

If I tell myself "I am not angry any more" this has far lesser effect than the song I have just mentioned.

"I am not angry" may actually reinforce the anger you want to dissipate, because "not" (along with "no", "none", etc.) seems not to have any psychological negating effect to match its logical effect. Try telling yourself "I am more and more at peace" instead.

[duszek]

I see.

It is like hypnotising oneself, isn´t it ?

The founder of NLP (Richard Bender ?) extracted elements of other teachings, Milton Ericson among them, and put them into his own theory of success.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



What you are saying is irrefutable.


The system which is the Fallacy That is Neuro-linguistic Programming is New Age pseudoscience. Psychobabble.



As a philosopher I personally would prefer the discipline of working towards a clear mind and would prefer that to anything that I could hear or tell myself.


But again, that's just me.


You can believe or listen to anything you want.




I would give some weight to the original post made upon this thread.







...............................................








.

[duszek]

You could call it also emotional management.

Every human being is emotional and needs to take care of the emotions, otherwise he can do something irrational and regret it later or become depressed.

You get upset and what do you do to recover your balance ?

You can sit down and have a beer.
You can listen to a song you like.
You can do what an NLP coach suggests.

The first option bears a danger of becoming an alcoholic.
The other two are more inocuous.

NLP seems to work for some people.

[duszek]

Is all psychology psychobabble ?

Dale Carnegie too ?

In the area of psycho you cannot measure physically.
Some things seem to work better than other.

I like to keep a clear mind but I give a chance to things like "subtle particles advisor".

It´s good to try new things and to see for oneself.

You have to do something in your life. Trying different theories and teachings is interesting.

[duszek]

Scientific foundation can come later.

Einstein presented his theory and it was proven only later.
Has it been proven sufficiently yet ? I am not sure, I am not a physicist.

A regularity can occur to a clear mind. He looks at it and makes a theory.
Richard Bender tried to find out what successful people have in common. He explored the teachings of Milton Ericson and some other and started something new, but not entirely new.
The procedure seems scientific enough to me.

[duszek]

Systematic influence on the subconscious probably does have effects on our mental shape.

NLP takes care of positive formulations.
The anthroposophists avoid sharp angles. The tables have rounded corners and the like.

Harmless and good brain-washing ?

Mental hygiene ?

[duszek]

Is this New Age business really all bad ?

Woodstock, Esalem, Bagvan and other ugly tendencies ?

I would not try drugs but what is bad about relaxing techniques ?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





Whatever works for you.





..................................................






.

[Arising_uk]

"I am not angry" may actually reinforce the anger you want to dissipate, because "not" (along with "no", "none", etc.) seems not to have any psychological negating effect to match its logical effect. Try telling yourself "I am more and more at peace" instead.

Exactly right with respect to "not" from an NLP point of view, as to perform "not" you have to understand how to do the thing first. It's why we try to not use not.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




After that last sentence it's becoming more & more clear:



Reviews of empirical research find that NLPs core tenets are poorly supported.

The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience.

Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors, and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents.

According to clinical psychologist Grant Devilly (2005), NLP has had a consequent decline in prevalence since the 1970s.

Criticisms go beyond lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness, saying NLP exhibits pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology as well.

NLP serves as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level.





........................................................








.

[Arising_uk]

I see.

It is like hypnotising oneself, isn´t it ?

No, its learning how you and others think, communicate and learn.

The founder of NLP (Richard Bender ?) extracted elements of other teachings, Milton Ericson among them, and put them into his own theory of success.

Two co-founders, John Grinder and Richard Bandler, one a linguist the other a mathematician who met whilst retraining to become psychoanalysts. They were dissatisfied with what they were being taught so applied their thoughts and experience to the problem of psychoanalysis. Milton H. Erickson and Virginia Satir were the first two therapists they modelled as they appeared to get results but they took or developed techniques from all of the schools of therapy, as long as they worked. They also took a lot from Gregory Bateson.

Its not a happy, slappy new-age thing, it won't make you a better good person, but it could, if thats what you wanted to be. But if you wanted to be a better bad person it could do that just as well. It's a toolbox.

The great and well funny irony is that Grinder and Bandler fell out mainly I suspect due to arguments about who did what and where NLP was going. If you want an analogy think of Bandler as Ken Kesey and Grinder as Timothy Leary and I think you'd have a fair idea of their respective approaches to things. But both agree one thing, the techniques are fine and dandy but its Modelling thats the real skill of NLP.

Bandler on the origin of NLP

Bandler on modelling

Grinder: What is NLP

Grinder on modelling and patterns

Bill would like Grinder as he mentions the hemispheres and does and talks about what Bill only dreams and waffles about.

[Arising_uk]

.
What you are saying is irrefutable.

The system which is the Fallacy That is Neuro-linguistic Programming is New Age pseudoscience. Psychobabble.

Talking much about what you've not read or experienced again.

The charge of pseudoscience can be applied to Psychology and most especially Psychoanalysis as both wish to claim the science title. NLP makes no such claim, you could say it's just an Epistemology with a Pedagogy or as I prefer a Phenomenology.

As a philosopher I personally would prefer the discipline of working towards a clear mind and would prefer that to anything that I could hear or tell myself.

How's that going for you? Still 'working' towards it? Thats because you have no idea what a 'clear mind' is, just some dream from Ouspensky and your guru and a mish-mash of hippy eastern practices.

But again, that's just me.

You can believe or listen to anything you want.

Or you can go out and actually practice it. Which is exactly what NLP says, you cannot get NLP from just books, you have to do and experience the techniques. Much like L. Ron's Dianetics but a much more new and improved version.

I would give some weight to the original post made upon this thread.[/size]

What that wiki mash-up from those with a vested interest and a misunderstanding of what NLP claims?

Warning! There are a lot of NLP gnu's out there. Do not pay money to anyone who says they can make you a practitioner in 4-days. Research before coughing-up anything. Although you can get all the techniques and knowledge from here,

nlpuniversity,

you just need at least one, preferable two friends to practice: observer, guide, and guidee but you can get away with guide and guidee. The real fun tho' is with a big group as you get to see it really affect people in their different ways.

There is a split in the NLP camp, Grinder, et al,promote what they call Systemic and New Code NLP, I'm unsure what Bandler, et al, calls his style. Both agree that Modelling is the real key to NLP.

[Arising_uk]

You could call it also emotional management. ...

No, 'emotions' are just one representation with which some prefer to think with. You could, at a big stretch, call it emotional integration.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.











...................................................................









.......................................................








.................................................







.......................................................................




You need to LISTEN to me...BOTH of you.



You are not persuading me.


Your phoney psychobabble is not working on me.


I don't know what to tell you, other than that...




Believe it if you want.









.................................................








.