AMA: I'm an NLP Practitioner



cardine said:
I'm also really into NLP as well, just not the NLP that is pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

I'd be careful using the word pseudoscience in NLP because a major part of NLP is using your own subjective belief systems (which not all of the time make any fucking "real world" sense at all) to create whatever outcome or change you're trying to achieve.
 
Anyone who believes you can't create new neural pathways and thought patterns using language is ignorant. You do this every fucking day. NLP just provides a cook book for hacking your brain.

NLP's biggest problems are that its founders are freak shows and how it is marketed. If you strip away the new age bullshit, its powerful stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: momchil9
I smile when I think about it now but the book 'Ultimate Power' was a catalyst for me to totally change direction for the better in my life. Tony Robbins may have gone off the deep-end but there are some helpful concepts in there somewhere.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r03L0NsFmiM]Shallow Hal - Devils come out - YouTube[/ame]
 
Recommend two books, a YT channel and a website with actionable NLP methods?

How is NLP different from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?
 
zimok said:
Recommend two books, a YT channel and a website with actionable NLP methods?

How is NLP different from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?
Click to expand...

What ever desired outcome CBT can produce, NLP wants to examine and create those same outcomes for people through modeling it. In itself, NLP is nothing it's just a framework for creating a desired outcome.

It's hard to recommend books or youtube channels because I don't know what outcome you'd want to use NLP for or what you intend to model. You could use NLP to cure a phobia or you could use NLP to make more money, it all depends on the outcome you want.

But 2 books worth looking at are:

2 Books I like;
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Book-NLP-Techniques/dp/9657489113"]The Big Book Of NLP Techniques: 200+ Patterns & Strategies of Neuro Linguistic Programming: Shlomo Vaknin: 9789657489116: Amazon.com: Books[/ame] - More actionable

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Frogs-into-Princes-Linguistic-Programming/dp/0911226192"]Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming: Richard Bandler, John Grinder, Steve Andreas: 9780911226195: Amazon.com: Books[/ame] - Less actionable, sort of where NLP started
 
cougarclaws said:
Anyone who believes you can't create new neural pathways and thought patterns using language is ignorant. You do this every fucking day. NLP just provides a cook book for hacking your brain.

NLP's biggest problems are that its founders are freak shows and how it is marketed. If you strip away the new age bullshit, its powerful stuff.
Click to expand...

There's nothing new in it. What you're essentially doing is brainwash yourself.
 
rusvik said:
There's nothing new in it. What you're essentially doing is brainwash yourself.
Click to expand...

And why is brainwashing yourself a bad thing if it prevents you from having heterosexual tenancies?

Let me use a better example:

You can use a hammer to bang in a nail and build a house...

Or you could use a hammer to bash someones fucking brains out...

It all depends on how you use it, I see no harm in using it if it helps to create a positive change or outcome.
 
skohh said:
I'd be careful using the word pseudoscience in NLP because a major part of NLP is using your own subjective belief systems (which not all of the time make any fucking "real world" sense at all) to create whatever outcome or change you're trying to achieve.
Click to expand...

If you could show me the scientific studies that are prevalent in Psychology that support neuro-linguistic programming I'd love to see it. However from my own reading it seems that it is just a bunch of snake oil with no scientific studies supporting it.
Reviews of empirical research find that NLPs core tenets are poorly supported.[16] The balance of scientific evidence reveals NLP to be a largely discredited pseudoscience. Scientific reviews show it contains numerous factual errors,[14][17] and fails to produce the results asserted by proponents.[16][18] According to Devilly (2005),[19] 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,[19] title,[20] concepts and terminology as well.[21][22] NLP serves as an example of pseudoscience for facilitating the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level.[23][24][25] NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.[16] In research designed to identify the "quack factor" in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [22] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited for treatment of behavioural problems. Norcross et al. (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited interventions[26] and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP therapy as "certainly discredited".[27]
Click to expand...

Sociologists and anthropologists—amongst others—have categorised NLP as a quasi-religion belonging to the New Age and/or Human Potential Movements.[122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131] Medical anthropologist Jean M. Langford categorises NLP as a form of folk magic; that is to say, a practice with symbolic efficacy—as opposed to physical efficacy—that is able to effect change through nonspecific effects (e.g. placebo). To Langford, NLP is akin to a syncretic folk religion "that attempts to wed the magic of folk practice to the science of professional medicine".[132] Bandler and Grinder were (and continue to be[133][134]) influenced by the shamanism described in the books of Carlos Castaneda. Several ideas and techniques have been borrowed from Castaneda and incorporated into NLP including so-called double induction[32] and the notion of "stopping the world"[135] which is central to NLP modeling. Tye (1994)[120] characterises NLP as a type of "psycho shamanism". Fanthorpe and Fanthorpe (2008)[136] see a similarity between the mimetic procedure and intent of NLP modeling and aspects of ritual in some syncretic religions. Hunt (2003)[122] draws a comparison between the concern with lineage from an NLP guru—which is evident amongst some NLP proponents—and the concern with guru lineage in some Eastern religions.
Click to expand...
In the early 1980s, NLP was advertised as an important advance in psychotherapy and counseling, and attracted some interest in counseling research and clinical psychology. However, as controlled trials failed to show any benefit from NLP and its advocates made increasingly dubious claims, scientific interest in NLP faded.[19]
Focussing primarily on preferred representational systems, reviews by Sharpley (1984)[98] and—in response to criticism from Einspruch and Forman (1987)[99]—Sharpley (1987)[18] concluded that there was little evidence for NLP's usefulness as an effective counseling tool. Reviewing the literature, Heap (1988) also concluded that objective and fair investigations had shown no support for NLP's claims about preferred representational systems.[100]
Click to expand...
 
skohh said:
And why is brainwashing yourself a bad thing if it prevents you from having heterosexual tenancies?

Let me use a better example:

You can use a hammer to bang in a nail and build a house...

Or you could use a hammer to bash someones fucking brains out...

It all depends on how you use it, I see no harm in using it if it helps to create a positive change or outcome.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with it. For me though, I've just found over the years that none of these things work in the long run. Your fundamental self will always be stronger than the persona you're creating. If you want long lasting change you have to change slower at a more fundamental level through practical application and positive reinforcement loops. So if you use NLP for that then fine, but it can get a bit 'think it and it will come true' like with some and that simply doesn't work.

It's the same with CBT. It really only masks the underlying condition. What it is useful for is coping enough to work at the real issue.

Just my opinion after years with this stuff.
 
cardine said:
If you could show me the scientific studies that are prevalent in Psychology that support neuro-linguistic programming I'd love to see it. However from my own reading it seems that it is just a bunch of snake oil with no scientific studies supporting it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer the first part because I can only think of one psycho therapist, Sigmund Frued that did use something that was later modeled into NLP I believe... He'd ask his subjects to imagine themselves sitting across the room in a chair as they were talking, sort of taking them out of their own experience. Pretty sure that was later developed into the meta model, don't quote me on that. I don't use NLP for personal change that much anymore, I do look at how I can use it in my business, where I try to model what other successful people are doing.

I can confidently say it's a "weird" science for sure and it's hard to back up with the evidence you're looking for. I look at it much like hypnosis in that it's a belief system. It works for some but not for all. And yes, unfortunately it is packaged and sold by snake oil marketers.
 
Hmmmmm....why so much hate?

I listened to a few Tony Robbins' courses last year and I was told they are NLP-ish by the way he makes you do repetitive things. I honestly found them quite helpful, and they helped me realize why I do the sub-conscious things I do to self sabotage.

Can you recommend any simple books or videos to watch?
 
NLP is/was a lot of things. For me, the most interesting/useful thing about it is where it started: a linguistic wonkfest based on the Chomsky-ish Transformational Grammar. Basically, TG is the idea that there's a "Deep Structure" of the person's experience of reality, then there's "Surface Structure" of the words used to describe it.

The processs of making words about reality ("transformation") introduces all manner of shit: Generalization, Deletion, and Distortion (GDD).

So what.

If you manage people (VAs, coders, designers, subcontractors), many bullshits arise when sloppy communication habits (GDD) get in the way of the intended outcome.

What to do? Use that linguistic wonkfest -- aka "true NLP", aka the "meta-model" -- to unfuck your communication.

But the meta-model is wonky and hard to learn. So Grinder fixed that problem and reworked the ideas into a simplified, business-friendly communication strategy called the Precision Model.

And this here is the book.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Precision-Approach-Communication-Information-Results/dp/1555520499]Precision: A New Approach to Communication: How to Get the Information You Need to Get Results: Michael McMaster, John Grinder: 9781555520496: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

It contains absolutely no NLPish new-age psychotronic mumbo jumbo. It's raw linguistic training on how to get people to talk right so you can solve problems.

If you communicate with people about projects, buy this book and forget about "NLP".
 
cardine said:
If you could show me the scientific studies that are prevalent in Psychology that support neuro-linguistic programming I'd love to see it. However from my own reading it seems that it is just a bunch of snake oil with no scientific studies supporting it.
Click to expand...

Not really looking for a discussion on the subject of whether NLP is real science, but I cound't just help it here. If you knew enough about science, you wouldn't be basing your judgement solely on it. Your wikipedia approach to science reinforces the above statement.

My opinion on NLP is pretty well summed by hamulon. What you sholud extract from NLP is learning about the process of communicating and see how it is applied by other people of various statuses and situations (even when they've never heard of NLP). It's a gateway experience for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom