?????
BigJiim
I'm not gonna bullshit ya',
A certain part of what makes NLP work is the ability of both people using
it to have a certain belief that it does or at least can work. When learning
NLP you're asked to "leave your current beliefs at the door" while you
enter the room so you may look at the world with new eyes (or something
along those lines). If you come in with arms crossed ready to deny
anything that is said, you will find a way to deny what was said. Obviously.
Part of what makes NLP *easier* is the belief that it will work. Beliefs can
make anything easier. Look at the placebo.
BUT,
If you do have a person who denies everything it just takes a different
skill level to deal with the skill this person has. Personally I like to shake
them
up, throw them off balance and keep them out of the state of *it's wrong!*
Any other state is better when learning something new. I also like to use
totally irrevelant stories just to send their mind in a direction so we can
work on another level.
AND,
If they don't want to learn that's fine also. Originally I thought you came to
learn but I may have been wrong. Nothing wrong with that.
First creating the generalization that NLP can work is essential.
Then making it work is the next step. If you're not congruent in your work
it will show. NLP is an attitude first and foremost. Then it's a methodology.
I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this
big jim
Patrick Galvin
> I'm not gonna bullshit ya',
>
> A certain part of what makes NLP work is the ability of both people using
> it to have a certain belief that it does or at least can work. When learning
> NLP you're asked to "leave your current beliefs at the door" while you
> enter the room so you may look at the world with new eyes (or something
> along those lines). If you come in with arms crossed ready to deny
> anything that is said, you will find a way to deny what was said. Obviously.
> Part of what makes NLP *easier* is the belief that it will work. Beliefs can
> make anything easier. Look at the placebo.
Yes. First you install a state of child like innocence. Get them to
believe anything. In other words, make them very gullible.
>
> BUT,
>
> If you do have a person who denies everything it just takes a different
> skill level to deal with the skill this person has. Personally I like to shake
> them
> up, throw them off balance and keep them out of the state of *it's wrong!*
> Any other state is better when learning something new. I also like to use
> totally irrevelant stories just to send their mind in a direction so we can
> work on another level.
>
> AND,
>
> If they don't want to learn that's fine also. Originally I thought you came to
> learn but I may have been wrong. Nothing wrong with that.
>
> First creating the generalization that NLP can work is essential.
> Then making it work is the next step. If you're not congruent in your work
> it will show. NLP is an attitude first and foremost. Then it's a methodology.
>
> I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this
>
> big jim
NLP is an attitude and a methodology. Isn't it a very expensive
attitude and methodology? Are their more effective, less expensive
attitudes and methods?
NLP is apparently not a philosophy because a person can study that at
many universities.
NLP is apparently not a religion. It doesn't have tax-exempt status as
far as I know. Although many people do profess absolute faith in
Richard Bandler.
NLP is not a science. NLP does not rely on the scientific method. The
NLP trainers prefer to use the authoritative statement, "I get
results" or "NLP is about what works". When asked to verify their
results or show how it works better than any other method, the
trainers adopt an arrogant attitude that they are too good, too
important to bother proving its effectiveness.
BigJiim
>believe anything. In other words, make them very gullible.
Yes, you're correct. A lot of what NLP teaches seems off the wall at
first. To be able to cure phobia's, age regress and time distort
in a short period of time. If you don't have an open mind to begin with
you'll never be able to objectively *test* the validity of claims.
It is also very mentioned in your NLP classes that if you don't like
what you've learned, go back to your old way of doing things.
>NLP is an attitude and a methodology. Isn't it a very expensive
>attitude and methodology? Are their more effective, less expensive
>attitudes and methods?
>
Not that I've found.
>NLP is not a science. NLP does not rely on the scientific method. The
>NLP trainers prefer to use the authoritative statement, "I get
>results" or "NLP is about what works". When asked to verify their
>results or show how it works better than any other method, the
>trainers adopt an arrogant attitude that they are too good, too
>important to bother proving its effectivene
Mostly I think people use the "I get results" phrase because they
don't want to take the time to explain every little detail just to get
you to believe. I know eye accessing cues have patterns. They're
pretty obvious to me and for someone to take the time to train you
over email just is time efficient. Rapport, meta-programs is all
simple to spot but you have to train your eyes and ears to be able
to notice these things. I'm not sure where you got the too arrogant
or important notion from but I'm sure that's from a smaller
population than the let's help someone community from what I've
seen just randomly traveling in you're doing nlp in everyday living
type. I don't know.
Craigy B
I am curious as to how you decide to follow NLP group postings and which ones
to read ...
What are your reasons and motivations?
You seem in the eyes of some (judging by some postings) to be wasting your life
away trying to convince people that NLP is dangerous and over priced ...
but I don't know whether you are or not because I don't really know how you
decide to spend so much time reading and posting in alt.psychology.nlp
Now I'd love to read about how you decide to get involved in here but I don't
know whether you will ...
because whenever I've asked you questions in the past ... you've ignored me ...
which is fine that's your choice of course ... or maybe you didn't read my
posts.
I have no way of knowing.
Craigy B
JWMeritt
>I am curious as to how you decide to follow NLP group postings and which
>ones
>to read ...
>
>What are your reasons and motivations?
What is your concern in this matter?
James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA
Daniel Busk
> attitude and methodology? Are their more effective, less expensive
> attitudes and methods?
I learned it for 20$. I bought one book, borrowed the rest from my local
library , also audio tapes with the majority of the seminars.
> NLP is apparently not a religion. It doesn't have tax-exempt status as
> far as I know. Although many people do profess absolute faith in
> Richard Bandler.
That is true, it's obvious where you are going but all charismatic people
aren't nescessarily evil cult leaders :)
> NLP is not a science. NLP does not rely on the scientific method. The
> NLP trainers prefer to use the authoritative statement, "I get
> results" or "NLP is about what works".
This is partly true, but though it's not a science, that doesn't mean it's
unscientific. Saying it is unscientific is like saying acupuncture, or even
turbulence is unscientific because _you can't proove it.
PS: There has been research on the field, even before NLP....
anchoring, for example, is taken from pavlov's experiment with dogs and
children (sounds brutal ;)
>When asked to verify their
> results or show how it works better than any other method, the
> trainers adopt an arrogant attitude that they are too good, tooh
> important to bother proving its effectiveness.
?? This is the most generalizing statement I've heard..
How many of theese trainers have you met?
They do come as individuals you know.
And if it's true, maybe it doesn't only concern NLP trainers.. have you met
novices in any other fields, some seem to adopt a hubrid belief of their own
skills.. just a thought.
Dave
Robert
> > NLP trainers prefer to use the authoritative statement, "I get
> > results" or "NLP is about what works".
>
> This is partly true, but though it's not a science, that doesn't mean it's
> unscientific. Saying it is unscientific is like saying acupuncture, or even
> turbulence is unscientific because _you can't proove it.
The one thing I found facinating is this,
He has a have belief that you need to prove something meeting some
conditions.
NLP:ers use there own senses and experince as validating something to
work or not.
To accept a reality way different from there own is to large step for
people like that, they dosnt like to try things out since they want to
know before they try.
Nice paradox.
I have found what others kindly consider to be true to make things
work not to be true since I made the same result without accepting the
beliefs they carry..and beliefs they try to install regarding things
in how they work for them.
Actually I find it amusing in how little people really know about how
NLP works.
Still thats me ;)
/Robert