|
Neurolinguistic Programming
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Silky Johnson |
I won't pretend to know a lot about it, but I somehow stumbled upon links while deep in an internet/wikipedia search yesterday, and now I am intrigued.
I see that lots of these PUA douchetards use it in their seduction strategies, which makes it seem super snakey; however, I also see that it can be an effective interpersonal and communication tool, if not used for manipulative purposes. Things like mirroring/modeling are already well known techniques of non-verbal communication.
What do any of you know about it? Does anyone employ NLP strategies in their communication with others?
My workplace is undergoing a lot of change right now and, as expected, many people are resistant to it. I can't help but think that, if the higher ups just used some of the basic strategies of NLP when trying to implement changes, people would would genuinely be willing to go along with it.
I kind of want to experiment myself and see if I can pass on some better attitudes to my resistant coworkers. :o
Also,OBAMA. |
|
|
| Dykes_on_Jay |
| A bigger load of than Calamine lotion. Seriously. In school it is used as an example of modern snake oil. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Hmm I dunno, I know it's classified as pseudo science, but I can't help but believe that SOME of it is actually effective. I'm not talking about the hypnosis - just the basics. |
|
|
| Lira |
The ideas are very interesting, and some of the core hypothesis make a lot of sense. This being said, NLP still fails to get any recognition from the scientific community because there's little evidence to support it. I can't deny the placebo effect is there, so it's probably better than nothing in some cases - but I'd wait for a professional to have the final say here.
As a linguist, it worries me quite a lot that the original authors draw some of their conclusions from Noam Chomsky, at a time his work hardly yielded any results, and was still going through some maturation process (not that I consider it any better today science wise).
Maybe Pick-Up Artists could have a better time reading credited scientists who have actually contributed to the understanding of how humans interact, such as Paul Ekman. Also, if you're in for a somewhat accurate summary of what it is, Lie to Me is quite fun, and Ekman himself used to comment on the episodes. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| I'm still going to try it out on my coworkers, lol. :o |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Silky Johnson
I'm still going to try it out on my coworkers, lol. :o |
Actually, I think that's a great idea. Experiment, see what happens, and find out if and how you can "fix" its shortcomings, should you find any :) |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
I'm idealistic - so I can't help but want to believe something like this might work. I honestly would love to be able to find out how to get through to some of these people, and then to be able to appeal to that somehow.
Obviously we are not all motivated by the same things to do our job, or even to do it well - if I could find out some inkling of what motivates my coworkers (calibrating), then perhaps there is a better way to show them how/why doing things the new way is better for them, by appealing to them on their level (building rapport). Then I could better lead by an example that speaks to THEM and perhaps they might think "Yeah, that DOES seem like a better way!" |
|
|
| itsamemario |
NLP is just cut and paste from a lot of different articles of subjects throughout the applied disciplines. It's hog-wash with little to no coherency. It's gonna "make a lot of sense" as Lira put it, or some at least, since they draw from other pre-existing sciences, but the problem is when they start to re-define the meaning of words to fit their agenda, yet still point to articles that use the word in it's original meaning, claiming it proves the hogwash.
There are parts of it that will "work" but as a whole, it's complete nonsense. If you want to manipulate an individual to what you want, you get real close to their face and with a conviction you say "I think you should [blank]". Eight out of ten times it will work.
I know a few people who're into this hippie mind control and relies heavily on NLP type of techniques (among others), but that doesn't produce any lasting effects. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| Snow Crash |
|
|
| itsamemario |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Snow Crash |
The book? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by itsamemario
The book? |
Yea |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by itsamemario
NLP is just cut and paste from a lot of different articles of subjects throughout the applied disciplines. It's hog-wash with little to no coherency. It's gonna "make a lot of sense" as Lira put it, or some at least, since they draw from other pre-existing sciences, but the problem is when they start to re-define the meaning of words to fit their agenda, yet still point to articles that use the word in it's original meaning, claiming it proves the hogwash.
There are parts of it that will "work" but as a whole, it's complete nonsense. If you want to manipulate an individual to what you want, you get real close to their face and with a conviction you say "I think you should [blank]". Eight out of ten times it will work.
I know a few people who're into this hippie mind control and relies heavily on NLP type of techniques (among others), but that doesn't produce any lasting effects. |
Yeah, and I mean - that's what I'm saying. I think as a whole, as a tool for "mind control" or whatever the many proponents of it claim, it's bull. But I def think there are aspects of it that can be useful, when used in a non-malicious way. For reasons you said - because the legit stuff draws on pre-existing sciences with known results.
As an aside, I had to delete a huge douche from my FB because he was 100% into PUA crap, and every ing post was about being a "pimp" and a "player". rot die. The most hilarious thing is that, if this worked and he was such a "pimp", why did his GF leave him? Lol. Fag. |
|
|
|
|
