Derren Brown & Mentalists V NLP Controversial

[Guess Who]

Hi Devotes

I recently placed a topic on this forum questioning the effectiveness of NLP. The response to the topic was almost predictable. They mainly consisted of cheap putdown and the accusation that I was being arrogance. The spanners that wrote the replies at no point stopped to consider I was making a fair point.

NLP in my professional opinion is a pseudosicence a criteria it fits very well. It makes heavy use of an invented vocabulary in which the new terminology introduced do not have precise definitions, and most have no definitions at all, this is know in layman's language as psychobabble. Most NLP seminars I been on have made about as much sense as a Japanese VCR instruction manual. It also insulting to ones intelligence when some NLP trainer with a smarter than you grin on there face expects you to swallow a load of dribble about “unconscious installation ”. In layman’s language there are those who would tell you that they can magically install NLP skills into you and ALL you have to do is just sit there like a dummy, what a crock of the proverbial. I can tell you that it does not work. What I did get was the belief that I knew NLP without any of the practical knowledge or skill and I had just sat there and waited for the skills to magically appear I would still be sitting there.

NLP makes extraordinary claims and presents incredible theories that are in contradiction to what is scientifically known. NLP practitioners are frequently critical of traditional therapies which they claim are inefficient because the therapist is reward for failure, the longer a problem lasts the more money the therapist makes. Yet they provide no evidence that the NLP techniques they are using are any better. For many years the standard response to anyone asking for scientific evidence from the head honchos was “We are not scientists and what we do is not a science so we don’t have to offer proof and besides it works”. Also the many unbelievable stories about these guys are just that unbelievable. These guys always argue from irrelevancies like "Scientists don’t know everything” yes that true but they do know something, that NLP offers the familiar new age promise of fast and painless way to change, phobia cure in ten minute and addictions in a few hours. So scientific boffins are puzzled why the head honcho is a typical overweight American that madder than a March hare on poppers.

Top NLP instructors dazzle audience at seminars with there amazing skills as hypnotists, there ability to guess people thoughts from subtle physical signs and other incredible mental feats which seem like magic to some people. In my opinion that exactly how most of these mental feats are preformed by simple magic tricks not by the new age mumbo jumbo that they churn out afterwards . Its interesting to note how many NLP devotes are unable to replicate the mental ability that the head honchos in NLP possesses. I read a topic on this forum about Derren Brown and one reply to the post claimed his illusions where achieved by the aid of carefully selective stooges that where highly suggestible well if that is the case then he must have got the idea from going along to a NLP demonstration.

Derren is a mentalist a performer who combines conventional psychological trickery with traditional magicians skills to create the illusion of paranormal powers. Mentalism use proven scientific methods to produce it's effects. Mentalists do the things that many NLP devotes wish they could, hence the hosile post about Derren on this forum.

So I will finished by saying nowadays NLP techniques namely covet hypnosis are mainly marketed as the ultimate seduction device or as the ultimate sales system. The NLP instructors involved in this type of training seldom like taking about the ethics involed in using hypnosis for this purpose so its a good job that what they are teaching is a useless pseudosicence.

Regards

Guess Who?

[solaris152000]

Are you sure you just did not understand the seminar? I'm sure there are a few NLP trainers who probablly have just read a book and decided that they were experts. Maybe this sort of person trained you? NLP is a science, though it depends how you look at it. Have you tried NLP techniques? If you do you will find them to work very well.

And I'm sure that there are thousands of people who study NLP, could they alll be wrong? Probablly but knowone who understands NLP will denounce it. Because it really works and is a lot of fun..

[Don]

First, I am not an NLP practitioner, nor do I claim to be. I have not taken and trainings, and what little I know of the subject comes from reading books and personal practice.

Unfortunately, your attack is filled with typos, giving it a bad appearance and adding doubt to your claims. I'm sure you've seen that before, somebody gives a bad appearance and makes his case seem less strong, such as the famous Nixon/Kennedy debates here in the States, where Nixon looked bad. Of course, that can be completely explained through NLP terms, but that's another issue.

In fact, I would suggest that from the ferocity of your attacks on NLP here and, I'm assuming, elsewhere, you have some personal issues on the subject. After all, nobody searches the web for a site on a subject in order to attack that subject unless they have either a great deal of time to waste or some personal anger they need to share. It would be interesting to get past the outward pain you're expressing and find out what the real issues are. However, that's up to you and your own therapist(s).

Be that as it may, I, too, do not agree with all aspects of NLP. IMO, it is foolish to accept everything someone says or writes without personally investigating it in your own situations--not those controlled in a workshop or training. However, I would suggest that some of your claims about NLP are simply inaccurate. Let me point out just a few:

1) Virtually all groups of people set up their own private set of words. Often, such words have very loose meanings and not specific ones. Yiddish terms are frequently used to describe situations in a variety of fields, even though they don't have specific meanings. In some fields of design and construction, the terms "CH" and "RCH" are used to indicate undefined small distances. To attack NLP for what others do all over is disingenuous.

2) Words with no specific meaning are not, as you claim, "psychobabbel." According to Princeton University's WorldNet, the term means "using language loaded with psychological terminology." Talking about communication, even with words that are not specifically defined, is not psychobabbel. Put in popular terms, psychobabble is the use of numerous psychological terms to explain away a behavior.

3) You make a claim about NLP being a pseudoscience (a term popularized by debunkers who, in fact, follow the concept that if they don't believe it then it can't be true, and have adopted a mission to make sure that nobody even researches the subject as it might destroy the belief system of the debunker. Actually that neatly fits into some NLP terms, but that's another story.), but your only support for the statement is that they use their own terms, they use psychobabbel (which you defined incorrectly), and that you didn't like, didn't understand, and didn't accept the trainings you went through. That's hardly proof of something being a pseudoscience.

4) You make the claim that "NLP makes extraordinary claims and presents incredible theories that are in contradiction to what is scientifically known." That may be true. However, you do not support this by even giving one such claim and showing that it contradicts what is scientifically known. You might as well accuse NLP practitioners of all being Satanic Nazi Communists, too! :-) If a person doesn't support his or her claims with facts, it's hard to comment.

5) You claim that "top NLP instructors" use magic tricks to produce some amazing phenomena in their workshops. Who specifically does this and exactly what magic tricks are they doing? Otherwise, once again, you make claims without supporting your position.

6) The hostile posts about Brown have not been because of what he does, but because a few people believed he was doing what he claimed to be doing. They were upset at learning the truth, not because mentalists "do the things that many NLP devotes [sic] wish they could."

7) You are completely wrong in saying that today, NLP is mainly marketed for subliminal seduction, although that would be the impression you could get if all you did was look at eBay! In fact, today NLP seems to be primarily marketed to large businesses and sales organizations for improving communications and sales. It is also an adjunct advertised by hypnotherapeutic professionals.

[Guess Who]

Hi Don

I took time to read you reply in detail and I wished you had done so with mine. NLP is a pseudosicence because it fits the criteria. To answer some of your points,

Quote -“You make a claim about NLP being a pseudoscience (a term popularised by debunkers who, in fact, follow the concept that if they don't believe it then it can't be true, and have adopted a mission to make sure that nobody even researches the subject as it might destroy the belief system of the debunker. Actually that neatly fits into some NLP terms, but that's another story.)” - It is a difficult to define NLP because those who started it and those involved in it use such vague and ambiguous language that NLP means different things to different people. It is difficult to find a consistent description of NLP among those who claim to be experts at it. This is one of the criteria of a pseudoscience. A subject so vague that even its followers can’t define it.

Quote – “You make the claim that "NLP makes extraordinary claims and presents incredible theories that are in contradiction to what is scientifically known." That may be true. However, you do not support this by even giving one such claim and showing that it contradicts what is scientifically known. You might as well accuse NLP practitioners of all being Satanic Nazi Communists, too! :-) If a person doesn't support his or her claims with facts, it's hard to comment.” – Many NLP techniques are based around the so-called phenomena of subliminal persuasion. Unfortunately years of research has resulted in the demonstration of some very limited effects of subliminal stimulation" and no support for its efficaciousness in behaviour modification. Despite the fact that there is no empirical support for the usefulness of subliminal messaging, has not prevented NLP experts marketing techniques based on it.

Quote – “You claim that "top NLP instructors" use magic tricks to produce some amazing phenomena in their workshops. Who specifically does this and exactly what magic tricks are they doing? Otherwise, once again, you make claims without supporting your position.” – my solicitor not to given names for legal reason has advised me. However I’m more that happy to demonstrate the amazing phenomena produce by NLP experts at there stage shows (workshops, seminars). But I can tell you now the way I’m doing it is a lot easier and does not rely on new age mumbo jumbo

Quote –“The hostile posts about Brown have not been because of what he does, but because a few people believed he was doing what he claimed to be doing. They were upset at learning the truth, not because mentalists "do the things that many NLP devotes [sic] wish they could." – Anyone with a ounce of common sense would realize that if Derren used stooges then someone would have appear by now in the national newspapers exposing him. The fact is I can perform similar illusions and can do it anyway at anytime with anyone. People that are jealous about what we do always claim it’s done with mirrors, smoke or stooges

And in other news: Top NLP head honchos can really read your mind and what’s more can magically install mind reading skills into you and ALL you have to do is just sit there like a dummy.

Regards

Guess Who
Who is this hero of the hour?

[Guess Who]

Hi Don

On the point of typos, you would not get them if you had some way of editing the post. Also you can takle lol :o)

Regards

Guess Who
Can you?

[solaris152000]

Try some NLP techniques on people and watch the results you get. This alone will persuade you that NLP WORKS. Some people don't want to listen, and so don't understand. I'M RIGHT handed which means my letf side of the brain is more "focused" than the right.






PS What do you think of my emmbeded commands?

[Sponge]

i think THEY'RE good.

mine are better. do u C, RAPport is usefull.

what kind of techniques do you mean?

[solaris152000]

Hmmm, can't work out what you where trying to embed then. But its turned out into a bit of a mess...... But well put NLP techniques on rapport definatley work!!

[Sponge]

THEY'RE C*&P!!

no offense.

pseudoscience-- how do you pronounce it?

NLP, is effective, i know, but what ways do you want to use it solaris?

[j0hnny#]

It is a difficult to define NLP because those who started it and those involved in it use such vague and ambiguous language that NLP means different things to different people. It is difficult to find a consistent description of NLP among those who claim to be experts at it. This is one of the criteria of a pseudoscience. A subject so vague that even its followers can’t define it.
It is difficult to define a lot of things..... what is philosophy for example? I might be more inclined to say it is a practice than a subject... as with NLP.... still practices require some content - in the practice of NLP there is, as in most (if not all), some principles upon which the practice developes - I got these after a brief scan of the net from http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/principlesnlp.htm here are some I might be willing to defend - with reasons, yep not with facts.

The meaning of your communication is the response you get

The map is not the territory - people interact with their internal maps of the world rather than with pure, sensory-based, input.

In any interaction the person with the greatest behavioural flexibility has most influence on the outcome

All human behaviour has a structure and results from how a person uses their representational systems

NLP is a model rather then a theory

Mind and body are part of the one system: external behaviour is the result of internal behaviour

Conscious mind capacity is very limited - supposedly to about 5-9 chunks of information

if what you are doing is not working do something else.

If one human can do something then, potentially, anyone can.

These seem to me to provide at least some of the framework for the practice..... providing a definition of NLP would perhaps make it a subject, still is it a subject? Seems to me to be more a blend of pragmatism and experimentalism...

The natural way to think of science is as of collecting observations and drawing inductive inferences which in return provide the 'facts', still there are good reasons for rejecting this notion. Here are some to consider:

Perceptions (from which observations would be drawn) seem to be dependent on concepts. Without some subject predicate structure nothing is determinate. If you doubt this - try pointing to some thing and then ask how is it that you suceeded in pointing to that thing. What was it you pointed to? this what? Now you might want to say that you accurately referred to some thing, whatever it is, because your words directly refer to that particular i.e. that your language hooks up with reality. Given the passage of time how is this possible? Any particular 'this', which under analysis shows itself to be an instantiation of a 'now' and a 'here' when pointed to is robbed of its truth value if it were the case that the word corresponded with some existential other (or element of being if that sounds to new age). Say the word 'now' how does that refer? seems it does so only under predication which gives it determinate sense e.g. now is supper time, same goes for the 'here' aspect e.g. here are some fish and chips. If concepts are required to make objects available to an individual then it seems reasonable to suppose that what observations are made will depend on his/her conceptual framework - i.e. we experience our interpretations not 'things themselves'. If this is the case then we have good reason to suppose that science is not giving us 'facts' i.e. truths about reality - rather only interpretations of reality. Given this it would appear that all science is psuedo(i.e. seeming) fact providing.

my solicitor not to given names for legal reason has advised meif you are telling the truth you have nothing to fear:)


Guess WhoThe Nut?

Who is this hero of the hour? you are Peter, of course..........
;)
|_:)
/\ |\




:rolleyes:

[j0hnny#]

i think THEY'RE good.

mine are better. do u C, RAPport is usefull.

what kind of techniques do you mean?
Nice....:)

[Don]

Respectfully, I did read your post. In detail. And, as I wrote in my post, I found your position full of holes. I regret to say that your new post is filled with errors, too.

You define a pseudoscience as, "A subject so vague that even its followers canÕt define it." That, according to the dictionary I have, is incorrect. A pseudoscience is "an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions." This is the definition I've heard of this relative neologism for a couple of decades. The dictionary I used was Princeton University's WorldNet. Of course, I could be wrong in this. If you would give some sort of evidence to support your claim that a pseudoscience is simply "A subject so vague that even its followers canÕt define it" I will stand corrected and state that I was in error.

You claimed that NLP made extraordinary claims that contradict science. I asked for some specifics. You gave just one generalized example and supported it with no documentation. That certainly does not justify your denunciation of there being extraordinary "claimS." And in a document where you denounce NLP as a pseudoscience, not supporting your claims with even one reference, not one bit of documentation, doesn't seem to make your position very scientific.

I'm assuming you're not in the U.S. where one defence against libel or slander is if you speak the truth. The fact is, however, you have basically just come here and slung mud in the faces of a wide group of people. You refuse to say who it is you're slinging mud at. You even refuse to say what tricks they use. (BTW, I've been a member of the prestigeous Magic Castle in Hollywood for over two decades, and my guess is that I know at least as much about magic as you. I've also been invited to join the PEA.) With all this mud slinging you're doing you should be aware that when you sling mud, you get it all over yourself, too. And frankly, that's what you appear to be doing here.

Your response concerning the attacks on Brown completely ignores what I said and brings up a different topic completely. Further, if you really understood what stooges are, you'd know why magicians and mentalists have used them for a long time and not been outed by them. Add to this that you completely ignored your fallacy about what psychobabbel is and the people here, as a result, really don't have much of a reason to believe your blasts against them.

[Don]

Hi Don

On the point of typos, you would not get them if you had some way of editing the post. Also you can takle lol :o)

Regards

Guess Who
Can you?

In order to post a new thread, as you did, you get a box to enter the text. At the bottom are two buttons. One says "preview post." If you click on that it will give you a chance to look at your post and then make any corrections before it is posted.

[Guess Who]

Hi Johnny

I read your reply and noticed a standard response to the claim that NLP is obscure by bring up the head honchos homespun philosophy called presuppositions. In fact this only further proves that NLP is an eclectic hodgepodge of philosophy, psychology and new age religion. It interesting to note the role model that NLP was developed from, people like Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls and Milton Erickson who we are told by nlp experts had amazing results with their clients, based on what evidence. These therapists are the kind who liked such expressions as 'self-esteem', 'validate', 'transformation', 'harmony', 'growth', 'ecology', 'self realization', 'unconscious mind', 'non-verbal communication', 'achieving one's highest potential'. Psychobabble that serve as beacons to new age cults. No neuroscientist of any genuine repute or anyone who has genuinly studied the brain is mentioned as having had any influence on NLP, only new age gurus.

Here’s an exsample ranting from the March hare himself –

"One of the models that I built was called strategy elicitation which is something that people confuse with modelling to no end. They go out and elicit a strategy and they think they are modelling but they don't ask the question, "Where did the strategy elicitation model come from?" There are constraints inside this model since it was built by reducing things down. The strategy elicitation model is always looking for the most finite way of accomplishing a result. This model is based on sequential elicitation and simultaneous installation."

And your honestly saying this nonsense is not “ Psychobabble”

Hi Don

I’m sorry but The Magic Castle is an American magical organization that I don’t rank fairly highly. It lack the history and prestige of a truly exclusive magical organization, like the ones in England.

Quote:- (BTW, I've been a member of the prestigeous Magic Castle in Hollywood for over two decades, and my guess is that I know at least as much about magic as you. I've also been invited to join the PEA.) - Yeah right!

Regards

Guess Who

I will gave you a clue I’m not Rumplestiltskin

[j0hnny#]

Hi Johnny

I read your reply and noticed a standard response to the claim that NLP is obscure by bring up the head honchos homespun philosophy called presuppositions.
Um,,,, well I wouldn't know anything about that. The point I was making there is simply that human activities have principles on which their practices emerge and develop. If you consider the ground for any human activity you will realise it has some first principles - these can be reasonably entitled presuppositions since they are presupposed in the practice. The first principles can be doubted, still justifications (grounds) come to an end somewhere... consider a basic example. What justification is there that there are other minds? Well I could doubt there are other minds though my day to day interactions with others (that I am writing this post, for example) presupposes that other minds exist. I could continue to doubt the claim nevertheless, though taking the doubt seriously is usually enough to retain the belief in other minds. Still if I maintained the doubt I may be inclined to adopt another belief i.e. other minds do not exist. I am the only mind. This will rob me of my relationships for a start since the persons whom I engage with are not real persons under my new belief. Still I could doubt this also, refusing both positions - I could refuse to believe both that there are other minds and that there are no other minds. However, now I am in a bit of a mess for what now do I believe? I could try and create a new framework of understanding to generate a new belief. However, what understanding I create will be parasitic upon the framework I already possess - where else can i begin, I doubt this will be enough to change the meaning. I may create a rule for the use of a term, but how would I retain its understanding? The notion of a rule presupposes it is capable of being followed. How can I guarantee I will follow the rules I set myself? What makes the rule a rule? Undoubtedly I will apeal to a basic belief. But then I could doubt this also... and so on, and so on..... So it appears that justifications come to an end somewhere or for most people at least... Where they come to an end will provide the limits of the conceptual framework or belief set of the individual. And indeed human activities i.e. practices, require such limits i.e. first principles in order for individuals to engage in them. As for presupposition well what is presupposed in the practice of hypnotism for example. When you write 'while you are reading this .. you will wonder how you could be so rude to me blah, blah, blah..' it seems to me you presupposed (I imagine) that your reader 1) exists, 2) would be influenced in some way, 3) that this was an effective means to your end, 4) that you would get some response.

I understand, and have read elsewhere that NLP is shunned in academia insofar as it refuses to have limits - this stemming from the notion that if something doesn't work try something else. So fair enough, while neuroscience I agree is a valuable discipline it is largely physical in orientation and seeks to place the material on a pedestal over the mental.... And you will have plenty of support for this view... so I'm sure you will feel rather safe and confident in your beliefs. Great! And then maybe you will shove them down the throats of others as your confidence is blossoming, perhaps. A little reflection would reveal there is little wisdom in that.....

all the best
j

[The Length]

First, I am not an NLP practitioner, nor do I claim to be. I have not taken and trainings, and what little I know of the subject comes from reading books and personal practice.

Unfortunately, your attack is filled with typos, giving it a bad appearance and adding doubt to your claims. I'm sure you've seen that before, somebody gives a bad appearance and makes his case seem less strong.

sorry to bump but it did make me :rolleyes: ;)

[Terry (existing)]

Reminds me of bush stew somehow. A bit of this, bit of that, and add anything else handy that has been around for a day or two. I used to make it every Saturday to clean out my fridge. Mine tasted wonderful, but guess who's is so full of ramblings that I found it impossible to digest.
NOW, I would like to know a few things. To begin with, he stated, "in my professional opinion" but fails to state what his profession is. For all I know it could be that of a male prostitute, and in such case, his professional opinion of NLP could not be given much consideration could it? I would sooner give credence to someone who was at least somewhat conversant in the art. If I guessed correctly, I would of course listen with rapped attention to his desertation on the penis size of the average American male, since I would assume that this was a subject he WAS conversant with:)
He also uses the term pseudo science, but sadly misuses it, so his ignorance in that department is evident, and not to be depended on.
Not being trained in NLP I stand to be corrected, but it is my opinion that it is mostly an art form, not a science, pseudo or otherwise, one that requires lengthy training and considerable practise. Guess who would seem to be someone who has a horror of taking time to learn, so I will hope someone else can clear this all up for me:cool: All I can claim expertise in is Hypnosis.

[Black]

Hi Devotes
It makes heavy use of an invented vocabulary in which the new terminology introduced do not have precise definitions, and most have no definitions at all, this is know in layman's language as psychobabble.

Be specific about the vocabulary?
Check this out for definitions - http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/


Most NLP seminars I been on have made about as much sense as a Japanese VCR instruction manual.

Let's say I went to a movie theater to see The Lord of the Rings part 1 and decided that it sucked, would I go to see the second part and then the third? I seriously doubt you have ever been to an NLP seminar, especially seminarS.


NLP makes extraordinary claims and presents incredible theories that are in contradiction to what is scientifically known.

What claims? Name five.

...and so what if something is in contradiction to science? There is a limit to the current scientific model. For example, there is no scientific explanation of gravity, yet gravity still works. (I am a physicist/mathematician)


Top NLP instructors dazzle audience at seminars...

What instructors and how specifically?


Derren is a mentalist a performer who combines conventional psychological trickery with traditional magicians skills to create the illusion of paranormal powers. Mentalism use proven scientific methods to produce it's effects. Mentalists do the things that many NLP devotes wish they could, hence the hosile post about Derren on this forum.

Derren is a great performer and most of us actually enjoy his shows. A lot of his tricks do not use any form of psychology even if they appear they do.