View Full Version : no significant evidence that NLP's theories are sound?
Stoic
02-12-2007, 02:43 PM
Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) is a variable system of procedures purported to enable people to communicate more effectively and influence others. It is said to involve modifying the patterns or "programming" created by interactions among the brain (neuro), language (linguistic), and the body that produce both effective and ineffective behavior. Proponents claim that NLP has cured phobias, allergies, and other problems in one or a few brief sessions. Its core postulates are: (a) people are most influenced by messages that reflect how they internally represent whatever they are doing; and (b) this representation is reflected by eye-gaze patterns, posture, tone of voice, and language patterns. The internal representation can be visual (picturing what they are involved with), auditory (hearing it sounded out), or can involve other senses. Proponents claim, for example, that a someone experiencing a mental image might use the words "I see," whereas someone in an auditory mode might say "that sounds right to me. Scientific studies have demonstrated no correlation between eye movements and visual imagery, reported thoughts, or language choices. A National Research Council committee has found no significant evidence that NLP's theories are sound or that its practices are effective [19].
[19] Druckman D, Swets JA, editors. Enhancing Human Performance. Washington D.C., 1988, National Academy Press.
Link: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mentserv.html#NLP
A professor pointed me in this direction. Any feedback?
Poodle
02-12-2007, 05:50 PM
that good Dr. could use a really great NLP and hypnosis training. Wipe those limiting beliefs right out of his mind and install something that DOES WORK.
Stoic
02-12-2007, 07:11 PM
I think he is open minded enough, he just needs enough evidence. Not sure, but I'm gonna give it a try... I mean, he understands and affirms the validity of hypnosis. I really think he probably has never had any good feedback to ignite his curiosity in that direction.
Which is why I posted something here. Hopfully you guys can give me some more references of scientific statistics showing the validity of NLP's approach.
He loves "proof"... and his favorite type of "proof" is scientific research. If I find something strong enough to spark his interest I'm sure he will venture to find more evidence.
Another example of how Psychology sets up limiting beliefs. Sad story...
pmdigi
02-12-2007, 07:58 PM
as far as i know, which ain't too far , even the presuppositions of nlp don't pretend to be scientific - they just happen to work.
Docresults
02-12-2007, 10:18 PM
I think he is open minded enough, he just needs enough evidence. Not sure, but I'm gonna give it a try... I mean, he understands and affirms the validity of hypnosis. I really think he probably has never had any good feedback to ignite his curiosity in that direction.
Which is why I posted something here. Hopfully you guys can give me some more references of scientific statistics showing the validity of NLP's approach.
He loves "proof"... and his favorite type of "proof" is scientific research. If I find something strong enough to spark his interest I'm sure he will venture to find more evidence.
Another example of how Psychology sets up limiting beliefs. Sad story...
Stoic,
Consider what you are up against...
Someone wants objective research about subjectivity. The objective research must go through their subjective filters so they are wanting subjective objective research about subjectivity.
They are wanting understandable content about process. And yet content about process can only come from understanding process.
The proof that is being required is head knowledge and not experiential. Subjectivity IS experience and experiential and not head knowledge.
I suspect the gentleman does not understand the field of linguistics very deeply as once one understands linguistics then neuro and programming are the logical conclusions.
What would he think of the stuff NLP was taken from Mr. K's work, Batson's Satir, Erickson, the gestalt guy, etc?
I encourage you to see what you can do with influencing, persuading and teaching this gentleman for the fun, play and joy of it as you may stretch his beliefs and a belief stretched to a new position can not return back to where it once was.
To Your Best,
Doc
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion."
My Grampa Vetter
Poodle
02-12-2007, 11:15 PM
approves of psychology it was stated in their journal that: NLP may be the most powerful vehicle for change in existence. A person has learned one way which is not serving them (anywhere from strategies to allergies, phobias, traumatic injuries, bad habits, limiting decisions, negative thoughts, fears, grief and loss, etc). We help them to change to desired way that is serving them. NLP is NOT therapy -- it is changing.
Terry (existing)
02-12-2007, 11:40 PM
All the proof a normally intelligent person requires is that it works. It works continually. It can be used successfully time after time. Science accepts that which can be shown to work, and can be repeated by others besides the person who claims to have done the experiment. I suggest we have proved it to exist. I contend that anyone asking such a question is no scientist, and just one more fool to add to our list of those too damn lazy to do their own research.
Show him this post, and suggest that he prove scientifically that we will die without oxygen very quickly, Die without water in a few days. Die without food in a few weeks. Die instantly when our brain ceases to function.
I know of no scientist who would question these facts, yet I know of no scientific testing done under laboratory conditions, something many scientists claim must be done before they will accept something as "proof"...
Stephen Barratt is quite right.
NLP does not work. There is no scientific proof that is acceptable to scientists. It is quackery.
On the other hand is does work. Many of us know it works.
So, where does that leave us?
It leaves us with something we know works but which scientists say does not work.
Since we know and we know how we know that it works we can ask the questions: who are these scientists who say it doesn't work and what might be their reasons for deciding that it doesn't work?
Being generous I might say that they may not have spent much time examining NLP, or they may not fully understand what NLP is, or even that they are, as most closeted scientists, of limited imagination or vision, but I rather fancy that it could be quite simply that for in depth research to be done culminating in a definitive paper money is required. Who would provide that money? Who would benefit from having a positive paper published? Who is powerful or rich enough? (except R Bandler and he doesn't care one way or the other). In whose interests would it be to not to have a positive definitive paper?
Jack
Soren K (existing)
02-13-2007, 03:53 AM
>A National Research Council committee has found no significant evidence that NLP's theories are sound or that its practices are effective
On the soundness, would the flexibility presupposition override any problem here? What theories does 'NLP' have? Seems to me, anything goes, and this is why it's not academic. Maxim: reject procedures that are ineffective. No effect. Try something else. Find something that works. Therefore, the conclusion is probably quite right with the possible problem that the field of study is indeterminate. The problem seems to me to be that there is nothing really which is 'NLP' - if it is encapsulated by its presuppositions then it is not isolatable. Here is a 'theory' of 'NLP' 'find and use effective means to ends'... so what kind of 'theories' have been investigated? What kind of practices explored? Probably it would still be a useful research project to read.
Steffan_Effenburg
02-13-2007, 06:06 AM
This reminds me of the fevered debate between science and astrology. When I used to practice astrology I would drop that famous line ‘I use it because it works’, problem was I couldn’t say HOW, or indeed, to what benefit. Having awoken from that particular slumber and stumbled upon NLP I couldn’t say exactly how NLP works either but I sure as hell can point to the countless benefits it has given me personally.
Bruce Lipton’s ‘The biology of Belief’, I think, has some staggering implications for the field of NLP and hypnotherapy and on a strictly scientific basis.
Stoic,
I know you like to live in your head, thinking. And I believe in thinking. I think thinking is a good thing.
I'll let others debate you about the efficacy of the 'opinion'.
I know there is a time and place for 'other types' of experience.
One personal experience on your part, with the phobia cure, or the new behavior generator, and you would have never poosted the article, AS YOU DID. you would have never paid the attention to 'the professor' that you did.
One personal experience, on the researchers part, and they would have written a significantly differtent article. I cannot help but wonder how someone can pretend to offer valid opinions on some things without a test drive.
One personal experience on the professors part, and he would have never offered the 'researchers' opinion as fact. Hell he has his opinion and he didnt even do any 'second hand' research, nor first hand research. How valid can that be?
Stoic, acedemia is a great place to debate theoritical knowelege. "Fantasy Land." Thornton Melon "Back To School"
See it requires that you actually exchange bodily fluids with someone to know what sex is all about.
All the rest is just mental masturbation.
cheers,
skip
"A National Research Council committee has found no significant evidence that NLP's theories are sound or that its practices are effective."
What did they use for testing protocols?
What is their definition of evidence?
How did they perform double-blind tests?
What limiting beliefs did the experimenters have?
What financial interests did the experimenters have?
It's really easy to make wild claims and use them to support secondary positions, but when asked to supply the actual testing things can often fall apart.
I remember hearing and reading (and still do) about how the French commission with Frankly proved that there was no such thing as Mesmerism and that what would become known as hypnosis explained with Mesmer did. And then I read the actual report.
They didn't test Mesmer.
They did test someone who disagreed with Mesmer.
When he didn't show up, they tried mesmerism themselves, and because their untrained skills failed, they assumed that Mesmer was wrong.
Some of the people on the committee had a financial interest in disproving Mesmer. Some had other motives.
Stoic
02-13-2007, 12:39 PM
Your right Skip, but please don't doubt my doubt in "Fantasy Land." It does go both ways, matter of fact I even doubt my own existence sometimes. Perfect example of how thinking is not productive, look at what I did last weekend. Sat with a bunch of philosophers (ages ranging from 22-67) and talked about "nothingness" then a girl sitting at another table next to us came in with the interjection of "What purpose does knowing Nothingness serve?" Everyone was sitting there with a disoriented look and probably thinking "What?!"
A screaming voice inside of me whispers the Nike commercial "Just do it!" but there's another voice in there too. I didn't have a problem with him before, but honestly he is getting louder and louder. I notice that you've been telling me that for a while, and honestly I feel terrible for not listening. Because analytically and w/ a disassociated outlook I see the benefits. Just something doesn't want to budge. Now, that's the bad news...
Good news is... I'm hoping to have sex in march, which is why I even brought it up to him. --And I hate to announce that, because I hate building expectations that have a possibility of not being accomplished.
I asked him if I could take a test earlier because I was going to be gone for two weeks. He said where? I said training. He said what? I said NLP/Hypnosis. Then he directed me to the site...
Now, honestly... If I had time(working full time/school full time) I would try and go on a date but really, all I want to do right now is fantasize about sex. I need food to eat and money for rent, don't have the energy to fight that voice anymore, too tired to even open a book and read except for my content infested non-conceptual filthy text books, its almost sad. But its for a better cause, I think... :(
Nothing wrong with you. You are absolutely normal. Apart from hobnobbing with philosophers, which is a dire perversion.
I would suggest that you have sex earlier, if only to confound the voice.
Jack
Soren K (existing)
02-13-2007, 01:11 PM
Nothing wrong with you. You are absolutely normal. Apart from hobnobbing with philosophers, which is a dire perversion.
Should I be taking offence at that? Let's all be absolutely normal, how agreeable that would be. No, no, not any perversions allowed okay? And, certainly not any dire ones. Yes, it is dire to open your mind.. don't do it Stoic, lest you become capable of thinking for yourself! Where would we be then! Just obey and everything will be fine. Tyvm. And excuse me while I throw up.
Soren K (existing)
02-13-2007, 02:38 PM
Stoic, acedemia is a great place to debate theoritical knowelege. "Fantasy Land." Thornton Melon "Back To School"
See it requires that you actually exchange bodily fluids with someone to know what sex is all about.
All the rest is just mental masturbation.
And ideas with someone to know what theoretical knowledge is all about.
The professor may have mental masturbated in this instance... does that mean that he could never have had sex? Well, no, you see, he lives in fantasy land, debating only theoretical knowledge, whilst in the 'real' world people are much more informed because they don't reflect on the matters of life, they participate in the practices that the academic reflects upon, they are much more clued up. They ain't w@nking their way through life, they're humping along, ooooh yeah... Meanwhile back at the establishment, these loosers, if only they knew there was a whole world out there - there they are masturbating locked up in their little cells, while they could be downstairs bending life over a table and penetrating the depths of common reality .. why think about it, just dooooo it. Yes do it.. like everyone else, cause there's no value in reflecting, no value in attempting to understand.. just go with the flow. Let those with mightier swords direct your life, don't be a w@nker, locked up in your cell, don't dare to have a point of view, don't dare to be entitled to it, justify it, or defend it... nah, leave that to others.. better someone else dictate your life, just get on with your riding away, you'll learn more that way, you'll be a realist.. someone who knows how it is in 'reality', not like those loosers in fantasy land.. concocting theories, attempting to understand, attempting to develop things - and all the while not participating in the practices they inform - or could they... nah... how could they - too much bias. So how does the masturbation give rise to the real sexual encounter? Can I have some fools please!
pmdigi
02-13-2007, 02:39 PM
According to science - "aerodynamics" or something - it is "impossible" for a bumblebee to fly. Supposedly the body is too big for the wings. Nobody told the bumblebee.
Indeed! Hobnobbing with philosophers is one of the worst perversions possible.
"The Philosopher's Song" from Monty Python:
Immanual Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table
David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel
There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
Plato they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene' Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker
But a bugger when he's pissed
Don
B.A. Phil, UCLA
Stoic
02-13-2007, 03:15 PM
"capable of thinking for yourself! Where would we be then!"
Right where we are right now. Delusions can be productive, don't you think?
Oh, and Soren... You would have adored my conclusion(maybe, maybe not? who am I kidding), here's the short version: Introduced a binary system of 0 and 1 for nothing and something. Then concluded that we don't respond to neither, we respond to change only. Therefor, we don't comprehend nothingness and we don't comprehend somethingness. Only the transition between 0 to 1(nothing to something) or 1 to 0. All the somethings and nothings we talk are either conceptual not sensory and share a sense/reference inconsistency. Some accepted the concept but resisted the conclusion, and majority just couldn't resist the conclusion. Muhahaha!
Delusions, all of it!!! How pathetic can our miserable self-glorification get? Oh, I can't wait... its exciting. The ignorance, the bliss... I must taste it whilst it lasts.
Yours truly, humble as dirt in my greatest of dire perversions.
Poodle
02-13-2007, 05:33 PM
Read this week about a BIG TEST GROUP - 18 women. My, my. Such a large sampling. The testing was to find out what stimulated women so they used male sweat v. yeast. I've never noticed a difference in male sweat and female sweat as it both stinks but rising yeast does have a lovely smell. That had to be the most unfair scientific testing I've read to date.
Should I be taking offence at that? Let's all be absolutely normal, how agreeable that would be. No, no, not any perversions allowed okay? And, certainly not any dire ones. Yes, it is dire to open your mind.. don't do it Stoic, lest you become capable of thinking for yourself! Where would we be then! Just obey and everything will be fine. Tyvm. And excuse me while I throw up.
Soren, (tiredly), get a sense of humour. Please.
Jack
Soren K (existing)
02-14-2007, 02:12 AM
Soren, (tiredly), get a sense of humour. Please.
Jack
err, i got a sense of humour, tks. Actually I'm rofl that I fatigued you with that, chump. guhuhuhu.
err, i got a sense of humour, tks. Actually I'm rofl that I fatigued you with that, chump. guhuhuhu.
Of course you have. Chump.:D
Jack
Stoic
02-15-2007, 12:42 PM
I went up to him, trying to discuss some points. After expressing my case, he physically ran away! I mean, he didn't try to argue, he didn't even disagree. He just grabbed his stuff and started walking, without really saying much - Nodding his head as he was leaving.
Not sure, whats going on...
One thing does come to mind, I did set up an odd upper hand during class. Usually I'm eager to answer any questions he presents, but that day I went into more details about a topic and noticed he was just going along with it without really having knowledge of the topic. Maybe I setup a different type of relationship with him instead of normal teacher/student relationship and that is where his reaction came from.
Because I just don't understand his reaction with the usual teacher/student mentality that he holds.
Docresults
02-15-2007, 04:18 PM
Maybe he uses the face of openness to cover a closed set of beliefs. Remember... Actions speak louder than words. Basic response when feeling threatened... fight, flight, or freeze.
Depending on the nodding of his head (if it was an in agreement type nod) I will speculate that there is an aspect of the professor that sees the value and possible validity of your case and there is another aspect that felt threatened (fearful maybe) so much so that it went into flight mode.
Again, I could be totally off the mark, I wasn't there to see the energy so I'm speculating here based on what you have report were his actions. I also mind-read the type and meaning of nodding. You can make a better determination since you were there.
To Your Best,
Doc
"I still miss my ex-wife... but my aim is improving."
My Grampa Vetter
Nigel H
02-20-2007, 12:23 PM
Yes folks you read it here first - this stuff is not real and does not work, so just go and tell all your clients that the changes they experienced are just a figment of their imagination and they can get on with their life with that good-ole problem of theirs.
Phew - I'm glad I got that out!!
I read the comments from that 'article' and even some of the way it is written makes no sense.
Have they ever actually had the NLP Communication Model explained to them. This is entirely logical and makes sense - even to scientists. The fact that we can only experience the world around as as it comes in to our awareness through our five senses. Science discovered the 5 senses did it not - or at least I was taught about them in Biology, so assume it's scientific somewhere along the line!?
If these people actually have an interest in researching whether it works - they can go to any number of NLP trainings and witness it working.
How do they explain the fact that what NLP has witnessed and used - with regards to Eye accessing patterns - happens over & over again with many diffferent people in different circumstances??
- Have they ever had anyone use Submodalities with them?
- Have they ever felt what it is like to discuss a subject with someone who is in rapport and then deliberately mismatching - whilst trying to agree?
- Have they ever had someone discuss what goals they have in life and then go through the SMART 'rules' and ask them how it feels differently now?
- Have they ever been questioned with, or tried using the Meta Model and seen if it helps any, in obtaining information?
- Have they ever had a belief changed by someone using 'conversational change' techniques - or
- Experienced being questioned with the Meta Model III method and seen how they feel about that old problem they used to have?
- Have they ever EXPERIENCED any form of anchoring on a real issue they have?
I would imagine that they have not ..... and if I had not - I wouldn't believe this stuff worked either, so I don't blame them - do you??!!
So maybe we should establish - 'what is that paragraph an example of?'
Is it fear, ignorance, interest, desire .......
And we must remember - Everyone has a different model of the world - well at least we consider that to be true if we understand the NLP Communication Model.
You see - when you learn this stuff in the correct way it actually ...... wait for it ..... makes sense!
Then if they were to consider the fact that much of it was modelled from Psychology etc - taking out the good bits and applying them ...... well who knows.
It may be that they are not actually looking for answers - it's far easier to berate something you don't understand and fear, than to accept it and establish for yourself how and why it works.
I guess it all comes down to the 'proof' and they want to prove it intellectually before trying to use it or being willing to accept it - but most of us here know better - and are the better for it in my opinion!
Cheers all
Nig
Poodle
02-20-2007, 04:33 PM
Just look at the negative link on hypnosis "slave to our senses". To me that has got to be perfect. Would you rather be numb, blind, deaf, cannot smell or taste? Which reminds me that I've always thought a 4-tuple is unfair as it should be a 5-tuple.
It's also impossible to get through life without many anchors still in place. They just don't know they're anchors and we do.
I believe they have hypnosis confused with Old Peculiar. Initially it
makes you a slave to your senses, later it makes you numb, blind,
deaf with an inability to either smell, taste or stand upright.
Three pints usually does it does it for me.
Now, that's an anchor!
Jack
FYI - Old Peculiar is an English real ale.
Simon
02-22-2007, 02:01 AM
As I was interested in phylosophy I noticed that MOST of them cannot act upon their conclusions. Now how about that?
And another point I'd like to make is that even though I'm studying NLP and using it for about a year now, I still can't produce results that could be used as experimental proof. So how could possibly few psychologists that hardly even grasp BASIC concepts of idea, be able to produce OBVIOUS results.
Well one way would be to include proffesionals in their research, which I highly doubt that they did...
bruce bundock
02-22-2007, 05:37 PM
Link: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mentserv.html#NLP
A professor pointed me in this direction. Any feedback?reply
With respect to scientific studies- who, what , when ,where? What have YOU uncovered? Are your findings no less valid? Make your own tests. I'm sure more than a few of us would be curious to know.
The problem with anyone who is an 'ologist' of any sort is that they have been taught in a particular way and it is difficult for them to think outside of their box. One of my degrees ( :D ) made me an 'ologist' and I sometimes find myself reverting to redundant thought processes based in education I undertook 30 years ago.
It is a little like potty training: everyone has a set of rituals for their ablutions, and 99% of those rituals are generated in childhood and never modified, even if they are no longer useful. The aim of both NLP and hypnotherapy is to change ritualistic behaviour and generate behaviours that are useful right now.
Psychologists will take notice of other psychologists simply because they understand the thought processes of their fellows having undertaken the same rituals. Many NLP'ers are not qualified as psychologists, NLP is not proven in a classical psychology sense, ergo NLP'ers are beyond the pale and not worth consulting, even though they may have valuable information.
I even know philosophers who refuse to discuss anything with any other philosopher who was not educated at the university at which they were educated.
It's a strange world.
Jack
Stoic
02-23-2007, 03:08 PM
I really don't like this side-taking business. Not directed to you Jack (I actually like your balance - resembles where I aim), but I see this a lot. Allegiance to this, or that... useless! How about Allegiance to excellence/success?
Each has its own frame of reference (context, rules, premise, box, etc) and I "believe" that each has a place or time. Neither is worthy of full devotion, and both are functional in different settings and offer practical/theoretical application in those settings. Some more, some less... My point is not to compare A with B, but to compare Limiting belief vs Non-limiting belief. In this case the limiting belief inhibits growth. -- Yes I do believe some limiting beliefs promote growth, rarely but true.
People are anchored to the paradigm, and not to the cause, The paradigm facilitated the cause, and sometimes the cause is not the right cause irrespective of the paradigm, in all groups of allegiance.
Groupies... that's what there called, right?
It's like saying that even though I could have a Ferrari and a camel, I'm not gonna take the camel just cuz I'm a Ferrari fan! Then we get to the desert and your fuct... Yes, it doesn't happen often, but if you like to venture every corner of this metaphoric world then get yourself a damn camel, and stop speeding across highways thinking your cool!
Masturbation... ahhhh... the pleasure!
The trick is to get the camel in the Ferrari, since a Ferrari very rarely fits inside a camel without extreme difficulty and unnecessary pain. Or buy a camel trailer. Or a Ferrari trailer. Or forget the desert, the Ferrari and the camel and buy a Ford without an engine.
The latter is very popular amongst agoraphobic psychologists.:D
Jack
It's like saying that even though I could have a Ferrari and a camel, I'm not gonna take the camel just cuz I'm a Ferrari fan! Then we get to the desert ...
Nigel H
02-24-2007, 06:26 AM
Stoic - you got me 'totally confused' by this one matey ....
"Yes I do believe some limiting beliefs promote growth, rarely but true."
errrm - excuse me for stating what may be obvious, but how can a limiting belief promote growth - it wouldn't be 'limiting' then would it ....... or would it!??!? Hmmm
Like saying a speed limiter on a car can help it go faster, rarely but true ...... how!?!?!
Yours in confusion...
Nig
Nigel H
02-24-2007, 06:37 AM
Now another thing that springs to mind on this topic - is that NLP was taken from and developed around the various 'ologies' that seem to distrust it. Part of what happened was finding some of the things that worked at the point they worked and using those condensed methods, within certain models.
So - if psychology is an orange then some NLP techniques are the orange juice and this saves you having to peel the orange and remove the pith and dirty your juicer - hence it may be quicker when done right ..... unless you can't get the lid off the carton and drop it all over the floor in the process ......... [erm ... where the hell was I going with this ..... !!??]
Anyway ....
I think there is room in the world for all - so why is it that they cannot accept certain offshoots such as NLP.
If it can reach a 'result' where psychology has failed then that is only in the client's interest - I know some NLPers who use their skills in tandem with Psychiatrists etc to help obtain the result for the client. Surely this can only be a good thing....
Nigel,
I am in agreement with you, in that I have a hard time imagining a limiting belief promoting growth. (metaphorically speaking)
BUT a limiter on a car, holding the speed to a constant might actually get you there faster.
No delays waiting while the officer writes out that speeding ticket. No delays waiting while the wrecker turns the Humvee back on its wheels because you took that turn too fast ... And my favorite, no running gun battles with road raged fanatics that distract you and leave you off course with no idea which way to go to get back on track.
See my point, is that often people confuse speed with fast.
A serious miustake.
cheers,
skip
When I was living in Minnesota, I remember (sorry, I don't have the documentation) that there was a debate about lowering the speed limit during rush hour.
It turns out that if cars go more slowly during rush hour, they continue smoothly. Even though the speed was slower, people would arrive at their goals faster and with less stress because they keep moving. With the higher speed limit there were lots of jams, starts and stops, more accidents, wasted fuel, etc.
So I agree with Skip that speed and fast are not necessarily the same.
Poodle
02-24-2007, 11:03 AM
Some ologies, some psychiatrists, a super family therapist, etc. It works on modeling EXCELLENCE. What were these people doing that made them the best in the world? Study their methodology, condense it to math and come out with a formula so others can do the same. NLP is still the "new kid on the block". As more and more fantastic and amazing results come in, more will use it. Thank you Drs. B&G! What can psychiatrists do with MPD or OCD? Long, hard and often leads to no results. What can NLP do? Change it in a flash!
Poodle
02-24-2007, 01:01 PM
I want you to go back to a time in your life where you felt really super rotten.
By saying that statement to you, I have age regressed you and totally altered you state as you now feel really rotten.
I don't want you to feel that way so I'll restate it: I want you to go back in your life to a time when you felt absolutely wonderful in every way and every time you see the word "feel" you can access that same state nnoowwww and every time you see the word "feel" that wonderous feeling can just double and double and grow and grow until it fills every cell in your whole body nnooowwww. Feels much better, huh?
This is just NLP 101A. Much better in person. (needed a worse word than just "bad")
Stoic
02-24-2007, 02:03 PM
Your saying a limit in A may not promote growth in A. -- I agree, just not what I was reffering to.
I'm saying limit in A may promote net growth. As long as B-Z is more important, limiting belief is healthier than no limiting belief.
"Like saying a speed limiter on a car can help it go faster, rarely but true"
Going faster is not what I consider growth in this example, so I'd like to use Skips version.
"A limiter on a car, holding the speed to a constant might actually get you there faster."
Getting you there faster is a good example of growth.
Imagine a 16 year old with superman-complex. Don't you think the limits imposed on him by the chip in the car (something he has no control/decision over - being parallel to limiting beliefs) promote his long term growth?
Now if this chip cut the engine off at 30 mph, that wouldn't promote growth, and would be unhealthy. But it can be a short term solution until they gain the necessary resources to hold a true belief instead of an imposed limiting belief/chip. So IMHO the limiting belief is healthy (not as a continuum, but as a temp). And in theory, IF! there was ever impossible to have a certain true belief, based on empirical evidence, then the second best option would be a limiting belief that direct in the same path. As long as it led in a positive direction, whatever your standard...
Yes, ideally we want all hand picked perfectly organized beliefs that co-exist in harmony.
Limit is a Limit, neutral in connotation... not good nor bad.
PS. I can vouch for the chips healthy limits personally. There was once a time, I would race friends from city to city, and I don't think I would have given up glory for the sake of safety. The $600 ticket I got wasn't fun either... just thankful its not on my record anymore.
Stoic, you are such a fascinating person that I really wish you would take some training in hypnosis and/or NLP so you can understand the hypnotherapeutic paradigm. That way you wouldn't make glaring misinterpretations of events.
In your post you claim that a person has a "superman-complex" and by limiting him it would promote his long-term growth.
My friend, one of the keys to creating change using suggestions in hypnotherapy is bringing reality into a person's life.
First, your use of the expression "superman-complex" is wrong. It actually means "an unhealthy sense of responsibility, or the belief that everyone else lacks the capacity to successfully perform any task."
What you actually mean, I believe, is the belief that a person cannot be harmed or die. This is a false belief (obviously) and, as you accurately point out, could cause an early death. To let a person know that they can be harmed and can die does not limit the person. Rather it is an ecologically sound piece of information that will extend the person's life and well-being. Helping a person to live longer and safely is not a limitation. Helping a person understand reality is bringing truth in to replace a dangerous belief that is limiting their health and safety.
Please--get some training and do some study rather than inventing false assumptions and interpretations.
Nigel H
02-25-2007, 03:40 AM
OK - so perhaps the town planners view of speed limiters on cars is not 100% sound for my point - and I would add that a LIMITING belief can only ever be just THAT ....... LIMITING..... by definition - otherwise it would be an empowering, useful belief.
I would always rather remove such a thing to leave an inductive pattern running which opens up possibilities for the individual, rather than leaving an 'outer edge' beyond which they cannot go.
Maybe the traffic accident and police speed traps are just more examples of limiting beliefs in this scenario ....
Nig
You know Nigel, I work with sportsmen and women and they all have limiting beliefs.
I help some of them to limit their beliefs.
Why? Because I do not want them to injure or humiliate themselves. I could totally remove any limits to their belief in their own abilities or performance but sometimes those beliefs run a little ahead of reality.
For instance, one 400m runner I coach had three seasons of injuries before I met him. His coach was constantly 'empowering' him to do better, to run faster, but unbeknown to the coach the runner was not training properly and was spending quite a bit of time in the pub when he should have been out pounding the track.
When he came to me he had total belief in his abilities despite his conspicious lack of success (some trance, eh?), so I dismantled it, empowering belief by empowering belief until we got to bedrock and he understood that he could only go consistently as fast as his physical condition would allow.
He started serious training and was about as fast as me after two weeks. After four weeks he was quite a bit faster than me and at six weeks he was as fast as most of his clubmates. By three months he was as fast as he had ever been and 2 seconds faster than any of his clubmates (and around 18 seconds faster than me!).
Throughout this time I was raising his expectations of his performance consistent with his physical fitness. I limited his expectations to ensure that he did not overstretch himself physically and I specifically gave him an 'outer edge' beyond which it would not have been productive or safe for him to go.
He is one of the fastest 400m runners in the UK today and has been relatively injury free for three seasons. If I had followed the accepted route then he would have continued to be injured and his performance would have eventually detriorated beyond recovery.
Now to me and to him what I did was useful, but to do it we had to contradict the 'empowerment' mantra that is so prevalent in hypnotherapy and NLP. In my view it is quite wrong and very easy to parrot because it is accepted wisdom. I am not accusing you or anyone else of doing that but it is very easy to fall into the trap of believing that because a thing seems to work for some people, we should do it all of the time for all people.
Limiting beliefs can be quite useful.
Just a few thoughts.
Jack
Merlin
02-25-2007, 11:37 AM
Well, I'd like to comment.
But I'm a myth.
I don't exist.
Nigel H
02-25-2007, 12:03 PM
That's an interesting way of doing things and as always flexibility is the key and you have got good results with your client, so I cannot and will not knock you for it.......
I believe that if you are working with anyone you owe it to them to be ecological, which it clearly appears you are doing with this person.
I am not sure how you have gone about limiting the beliefs to prevent them pushing beyond the boundaries of physical limitation, according to where they are at in their training. One thing I love about all this stuff is the differing ways that people achieve outstanding results.
If I were in a similar situation I imagine I would have elicted a values hierarchy in the context of sport / health & fitness and remove any away-from values and ensured that the new values hierarchy was well formed in achieving the desired goals - of which injury prevention would be a part - all be it that this would be stated as a 'towards' value.
In so doing, there would be no 'limits' and the values hierarchy would support improvements and gains in training, above pushing beyond the present conditioning level..... so expecting a similar outcome, without the limits.
So PLEASE don't get me wrong - as I have said, you clearly work well with this person and achieve results - my question I suppose, is how do you know what the limit you set should be, in regard to what they are actually capable of? ...... and could the limit you install mean they fall short of their true potential?
Again - this is simply a question for thought and not implying any superiority in any particular method, so don't shoot me for it!!!
I am genuinely interested in understanding other methods and any further insight is much appreciated!
Thanks again
Nig
Nigel H
02-25-2007, 12:05 PM
Hell that's seriously clever then ....
..... or spooky .........
... who's typing the keypad - if you don't exist !?!?!?
Terry (existing)
02-25-2007, 02:52 PM
Hell that's seriously clever then ....
..... or spooky .........
... who's typing the keypad - if you don't exist !?!?!? Ah, that was the Mythtress...:D
It could be that simplicity is the key to all that stuff we call therapy, or help, or improvement, or change.
What I try to do is listen to my gut, and sometimes not even that. One learns everything which appears to be relevant to whatever the desired outcome is, then one pops it into the bank and sets up a direct debit.
Personally, I try not to 'do' NLP or hypnotherapy or anything else. That means not running through the script I may imagine might be useful but just seeing what occurs and letting things happen in their own way without involving all those clever little consciously generated, results driven programs that logic might dictate would be the right way to go.
To simplify: I'm not concerned with going toward or away from in a strict sense, just with where we end up. Marvellous results can be had by doing exactly the opposite, as you suggest, but it does not work for me so I do not do it.
The limit 'I' set is not really one 'I' set at all but it is convenient for the client to perceive it as such and convenient for me believe that I am in control. What I do do is provide the information and framework needed so that a client can examine his or her own reality and decide what the limit might be to get to the next stepping stone safely without injury. This produces a different trance to the one that was not useful and helped cause injury or poor performance.
But then again, I might not be doing that at all, since every client is different, and on a day to day basis, so am I, and so are you.
Recently a few younger friends and I went fell running in the Lake District. We ran up some hills, then ran down the other side. For an old(ish) bloke like me it was a definitive experience. I decided never to do it again. If I had been 20 years younger I might have done it again, since, like the Curate's Egg, it was good in parts. But at my age, on balance it would not be worth doing again.
Next week, who knows? I might get younger.:)
Jack
Poodle
02-27-2007, 11:17 AM
It is my opinion that Stoic is doing very well -- full time university and full time job. That does not equate to training right now but I do believe Stoic will be another of our "Connies". That means training is coming and Stoic is trying to read as much as possible on hypnosis and NLP and even attends a NLP meeting with Master Pracs and maybe a Trainer as often as possible. We need to encourage this behaviour even if some of the ideas are still faulty. They will get worked out in training. So, let's all say: "Hang in there bud until you finally get what you really want. You will surely get there. Even though we don't know you personally, we care about you and will help prod you along." Pood :)
Couldn't agree more.
Jack