Neuro-Linguistic Programming 101

un0
ModeratorRational VIP!
un0's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Neuro-Linguistic Programming 101

I was reading through my email box today, and I came across one of those goofy, touchy-feely, chicken-soup-for-the-crazy-motherfucker chain letters. It was from a female acquaintance from high school who forwarded it to me, and I was just about to delete it, and her, from my mailbox, when something caught my eye... A pattern...

 

For the last three years, I've been studying Social Dynamics. It is a budding mini-science with it's own theories, laws, and empirical research techniques. It helps the socially inept (Like me, in my earlier days) understand and succeed in social interactions.

One of the many fields of thought in this science is Neuro-Linguistic Programming or NLP. NLP uses speech patterns and vocal tonality to make subconcious suggestions with carefully crafted speech. For instance, if I were to say to someone I just met "What do you think of your new boyfriend's finely toned buttocks?" (Referring to my own) regardless of a positive or negative response, I'm presupposing two things, first that I'm her new boyfriend, second that my buttocks are sublime (they are.) Add an air of authority and physical congruence, and the suggestions are almost hypnotic.

So I was reading thru this chain letter, which at first glance appears to be just an innocent, if sappy, emotionally heartwrenching story. The story is about a young boy in a mall without enough money to buy a doll he really wants. The protagonist in the story approaches him and says that maybe Santa will bring it to him, the boy says that it isn't for him, it's for his sister, and santa can't bring it to her because she's gone to be with God. Daddy say's mommy will soon go to be with God too, and I thought mommy could bring the doll to my sister. ETC...

Here is where the NLP comes in... This is an exact copy, no editing or paraphrasing has been done, I haven't changed the wording in any way, this is exactly as it arrived in my mailbox:

 

Now you have 2 choices:

1) Repost this message, or

2) Ignore it as if it never touched your heart.

The quote of the month is by Jay Leno: "With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

For those who prefer to think that God is not watching over us.... go ahead and delete this. For the rest of us... pass this on.

The value of a man or woman resides in what he or she gives, not in what they are capable of receiving....

 

This is flawless technique taken strait from the pages of an NLP book... Whoever wrote this HAS STUDIED NLP, I GUARENTEE YOU. And being farmiliar with it myself, let me translate what this person is telling your subconcious:

 

Suggestion number one, if you don't forward this letter, you are heartless.

Suggestion number two, the danger our nation is facing has to do with our insistance on the removal of God from the pledge of allegience.

Suggestion number three, people who don't believe in God should delete this letter, therefore they are heartless.

Suggestion number four, if you want the mention of God out of the pledge of allegience, you are an atheist who is causing terrorism, floods, thunderstorms, etc., therefore you should delete this letter, therefore you are heartless.

 

Keep a close eye on who's talking to you and who's talking to your subconcious mind, it will keep strange company if you let it..

--------------------------------------------------------------
Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

http://unpleasantcharacters.blogspot.com


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
hmm... ever since i first

hmm... ever since i first saw a derren brown video, i've been wanting to study nlp. unfortunately, i haven't taken the time to do so.


ThaiBoxerShorts
ThaiBoxerShorts's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2007-03-04
User is offlineOffline
NLP is pseudo-scientific

NLP is pseudo-scientific bullshit, and Derren Brown thinks so too.  He says as much in his most recent book.

 What Derren Brown does is mentalism, which is really nothing more than a pocketful of clever psychological parlor tricks.  Yes, everything he does is a trick, and he's quite open and honest about that fact.  He's just very, very good at it.

NLP is pretty much the same pocketful of tricks, but dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon.  The underlying theory behind it has no real empirical support.  It hasn't held up well to academic scrutiny.

 Yes, some "NLP techniques" (read: mentalism tricks) do work and are worth learning.  They can indeed be used to make friends and influence people.  But you're better off learning them by studying mentalism rather than NLP.  After all, mentalists are honest about their art, and don't try to cloak it in a bunch of bullshit mumbo-jumbo.  It's like the difference between David Copperfield and Uri Gellar.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
    I happen to study

    I happen to study Linguistics.  NLP is bogus.  As for finding implications within the text of the message, there are implied propositions and conclusions, but they are not subconscious suggestions.  Let's examine these.
 

'Suggestion number one, if you don't forward this letter, you are heartless.'

That's not even implied.  It's stated eactly so:

1) Repost this message, or

    2) Ignore it as if it never touched your heart.

There are two choices.  The implications of those choices are clearly there. No subconscious suggestion is being made at this point.  Further, this only has an implication if you believe that ignoring the message means that it did not touch your heart.  I don't see any reason why anyone would be inclined to feel heartless if they didn't repost the message.

 'Suggestion number two, the danger our nation is facing has to do with our insistance on the removal of God from the pledge of allegience.'

 Once again this isn't subconsciously suggested.  Just because something is implied by something that is stated does not mean that it's a subconscious suggestion.  It is contingent upon understanding what is being said that the implications are known.  If you happen to agree that the word God must remain unquestioned in the Pledge of Allegiance in order to avoid a sky daddy's wrath, then you may not necessarily explicitly recognize the implied conclusion, but the conclusion you then draw is recognized and dependent upon that implied conclusion.  The point is, the implied conclusion is not such that it requires you to believe it, for that you must first believe that god's wrath is being visited because his name's place in the Pledge of Allegiance is being questioned.  If you do not, then the implied conclusion is unimportant and is probably put under scrutiny, in which case you do explicitly recognize it.  No subconscious suggestion here.

 'Suggestion number three, people who don't believe in God should delete this letter, therefore they are heartless.'

Without going into the detail I did above, unless you believe that you are heartless because you don't believe in god (as someone who does believe in god may already find you, or if not, then they may agree with what is being implied, but it's not important because they don't fit into the category of people to whom the sentiment is being directed) then nothing is being suggested subconsciously, it is only implied by what is written, which isn't an exercise in subconscious suggestion.  Implying something by making a statement, or group of statements, is not equivalent to making a subconscious suggestion.

 'Suggestion number four, if you want the mention of God out of the pledge of allegience, you are an atheist who is causing terrorism, floods, thunderstorms, etc., therefore you should delete this letter, therefore you are heartless.'

The same as above for all the same reasons.

To give validity to NLP being bogus let's look at the OP's own example of NLP (which may well be a very poor example of NLP, but then what would constitute a good example of something bogus?):

 'What do you think of your new boyfriend's finely toned buttocks?'

Asking a girl what she thinks of her new boyfriend's finely toned buttocks is not suggesting anything to her subconsciousness.  Her answer will be explicit regardless of what is implied (implied and not subconsciously suggested) by what has been said and contingent upon that.  Any amount of authority or physical congruence would not change the outcome of her response.  Further, asking that question would not result in the 'suggestion' being 'almost hypnotic' unless she was predisposed to finding what you implied to be a good pick up line, which is ultimately what it is. Her answer could be anything, that is, and implying that you're her new boyfriend and that your buttocks is finely toned might just be insulting her intelligence.  And I think you can figure out what I'm 'subconsciously suggesting' there!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


stevedave83
stevedave83's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ThaiBoxerShorts wrote:

ThaiBoxerShorts wrote:

Yes, some "NLP techniques" (read: mentalism tricks) do work and are worth learning. They can indeed be used to make friends and influence people.

There is a book called "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" by Ian Rowland.  It's considered to be the bible of cold reading by the master himself.  A portion of the book is dedicated to cold reading in a sales environment.  That's the closest thing you'll come to NLP because, as was stated above, NLP is pseudoscience. 

You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4286
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
un0 wrote: For instance,

un0 wrote:
For instance, if I were to say to someone I just met "What do you think of your new boyfriend's finely toned buttocks?" (Referring to my own) regardless of a positive or negative response, I'm presupposing two things, first that I'm her new boyfriend, second that my buttocks are sublime (they are.) Add an air of authority and physical congruence, and the suggestions are almost hypnotic.

I give you a 50/50 chance of being bitch-slapped. It might be hypnotic if she's high and might work if she is drunk or on rebound. What exactly is the point of this little digression?

 

To address the main topic, no new surprise that religious people accuse atheists of having no heart. After all it was all of us heartless cruel heathens that caused hundreds of wars, persecuted people because of their beliefs, tortured people until they renounce their beliefs, commit genocide and hung Jesus from a cross...oh wait that was the loving caring religious nuts who have such big hearts... 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken