After some time examining the strategies of PUAs, it seems that NLP forms one of the strong theoretical pillars of the Pick-Up community. In light of this, I was just wondering a few things:

1) How many of you regard NLP as a system worthy of serious study and utilize its techniques on a regular basis and

2) For those who do, how do you deal with the rather harsh SPAM of NLP by the general scientific community, specifically those given by professional psychologists and neurologists?

It's obviously effective, noone can deny that, but I feel it isn't ethical.

All the other skills in a PUA's arsenal, show the woman in question the good qualities about him. It helps men to portray themselves in a better light. It tells people where they have been going wrong, and how they can improve. NLP doesn't. NLP manipulates the target.

In my opinion using NLP to pick up women, is tantamount to getting a woman really drunk then sleeping with her.

I would really avoid it.

Ofcourse, this is just my personal opinion. Using it to make someone feel better, or so they can experience something is obviously different to using it to in essence control them, but I think the line between the two is so thin, it's best not to test where it is.

I was not aware it was "obviously effective". The psychological community, including some of Milton Erikson's (the man whose theories on hypnosis Grinder and Bandler rely on heavily in the development of the method) closest collegues treat the system at laughable at best, psuedoscience at worst--akin to faith healing or reflexology.

I'm aware of the skepticism within the scientific world, and in some ways its right. If you off the bat just started trying to use NLP on a random woman who you'd never uttered a word to before, she'd dismiss it as you being a bit 'weird'.

However if the subject is in a receptive state, then it works. Just as with any for of influence.

Apologies if my original post was rather vague about that.

Perhaps I'm wrong though, perhaps it doesn't work, perhaps it is merely the suggestions that you present rather than 'NLP' perse. Either way, from what I've seen and read it has some effect on receptive targets.

I don't know where you are getting your opinions from, but NLP is considered by MANY psychologists to be a very important area of study.

I'd suggest using the search funtion and reading a few of the threads on NLP, because I have explained what it is several times several different ways.

_________________
"The 'Brick Walls' are there to allow you to prove how badly you want something!" ~ Randy Pausch

~ Rye

Well for starters, Christoper Sharpley, in 1984 and 1987, published two review articles that took NLP to task. Further, the National Research Council has also put out a review that noted the lack of empirical basis.

(If anyone wants the articles, PM me I can email them to you in about a month. Currently I am travelling and away from my standard computer and my database subscriptions are difficult to access.)

There are other more pessimistic and skeptical addresses of them, I don't want to mention them as I have not reviewed their criticisms. I thought I would stick only to the published papers. It is notable that another paper noted the lack of interest in NLP practitioners to submit research to peer-review, which I find rather disturbing.

However, in lieu of some of the criticisms leveled at the papers I have cited, I wanted to give people on the board a chance to defend the practice in the face of such harsh criticism. As it stands currently, NLP strikes me as having a strong cult following relying on anecdotal evidence, buzzwords, and a general disregard for scientific morays. Now I am fine with people blazing a new trail in philosophy of science, but forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical.
This didn't quite fit with my understanding of neuro-linguistic programming, but I thought it might be due to common dictionary-style compression. However, upon review, dictionary.com was referring to NLP as an acronym for natural language processing not neurolinguistic programming--which is, of course, what you are attempting to define and defend.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nlp

I find such a level of research more than a little troubling.
How does this differ from nonverbal communication--a subject that has a good deal more research and professional muster behnd it and certainly does not make the sweeping claims that NLP does?
Again, it seems like the more modest claims that you are making does not distinguish it from more well established fields, and the more daring claims are unsupported.

Your argument reminds me of a rather brutal book review that I once read that went, "This book says many true and interesting things. Unfortunately, the true things aren't interesting, and the interesting things aren't true."
Again, I think this is just simply untrue. Even if one grants that the research critical of it is flawed, it seems to lack the substantive empirical evidence necessary for making it a legitimate branch of social science.

Well Fiction, I've given a review of NLP from what I've read and heard from others as well as things I've viewed on youtube. I'd recommend checking out Introducion NLP by Joseph O'Connor and John Seymour and on youtube look up Derren Brown for some more info.

The think about NLP is that it is merely a term given to a group of skills and theories and such, there ISN'T anything empircal to it really, because it's all psychology, just like most psychology doesn't have much empirical evidence to look at, but if you see the results, then you can understand that it is real.

NLP is very much like the study of non-verbal communication, only it encompasses that as well as verbal communication, so there is a lot more too it.

Unfortunately you're probably gonna remain opposed to NLP, unless you allow yourself to see the power and uses it has, so if you truly want to learn about it, then you have to have an open mind and let yourself believe some of what you read/hear.

The mood of your original post made it sound like you were concerned with whether it was ethical or not though and that was mostly what my post was in regards to. You can use NLP to completely rewire someone to your whim and give them a whole new personality, or make them deathly afraid some something if you wanted, or you can use it just to understand that person that you are communcating with better and avoid misunderstandings, then use it to respond to them in such a way that they won't misunderstand you either. NLP can be almost as extreme, or as simplistic as you can imagine.

Again, I haven't referenced articles to support my points, but I've given you an outline of what NLP is and if you want to substantiate my claims, then check out the book and some youtube videos, otherwise, disputing my claims is just as unfounded when it sounds like you've only been reading negative reviews.

_________________
"The 'Brick Walls' are there to allow you to prove how badly you want something!" ~ Randy Pausch

~ Rye

I suppose I might, but I still feel that you're ignoring the larger issue at hand, which is that NLP has been trashed by the larger, professional scientific community--whereas NLP seems to be embraced by a fringe, albeit vocal, group of non-professionals.


Um...I don't mean this condescendingly at all, because a lot of people don't--but do you know anything about psychology? Since John Watson and behaviourism took over the field in the early 1900s, psychology has established it quite strongly as an empirical field of study. Even prior to this, Pavlov and James had been blazing the way for experimental research. I'd be interested to know what theoretical model of psychological research does not at least have very strong experimental roots.

I have a stack of psychological journals on my desk at home. All of the research within purports to be empirical in nature. Are you disputing that the research is indeed empirical and they are mistaken, or are you claiming that psychological theories are fundamentally untestible? If the former is the case, I'd like some examples, if the latter--what is it that these psychologists are doing?
This seems a bit like the claims of the New Agers who talk of ESP, reflexology, and faith healing. Don't you think there is good reason that we have at least attempted with the scientific method to aim at something like objectivity and not rely on anecdotal evidence? You are aware of the potent power of the placebo effect right?
I'm not sure what you mean here.


I am here because I want to have a serious discussion of the system's merits. I want to know if I ought to devote time to its serious study, instead of, say, dancing--which has definite payoffs. There is a lot of things I'd like to learn, and I'd like to weed the bullshit from the serious study. I'm teaching myself Chinese at the moment, but the Pimsleur language methods are more well supported than taking a Chinese dictionary and hitting my head with it for an hour a day. In short, I don't like wasting my time, so if I should learn NLP I'd like people to tell me why.
If this means what it sounds like, it is a little disturbing.


Sorry the confusion was there.


Yes, I am aware of the rather strong claims that NLP makes. That is what I was challenging.
Shouldn't the burden be on you to substantiate your own claims?
No, I haven't. In fact, I specifically mentioned avoiding the more harshly skeptical material out there (and there is a lot of it). I have just been reading the literature out there. I even mentioned that Sharpley's initial study was criticized (by Eric Einspruch and Bruce Forman) for having methodological errors and not assessing the whole of NLP. Sharpley's second review was aimed at addressing those criticisms and concluded "there are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data. ... Certainly research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures."


Forgive me if I restrict myself to the professional literature, but I think peer-review is an important part of the scientific community. Anyone can write a book about anything. Perhaps I should read a book on how to summon up my chi energy to deliver the Dim-Mak death strike? Sorry to sound patronizing, but I expected a little stronger defense on the part of the NLPers and not just criticizing my "narrowmindedness".

As I said earlier, I can't say with 100% certainty it works, but if the question is whether you should spend alot of time learning it, the first question to answer is as to it's morality rather than it's potency.

Learn something you'll enjoy and can use as a method of DHV/Seduction, rather than going in for NLP.

The reason I'm inclined to believe it works, is I've witnessed 3 or 4 times the 'Discovery Channel' pattern being used, and the women in question getting visably 'hot and bothered'. Try out a couple if you fancy, but don't waste alot of time on it. There are so many more aspects to the game, that don't have these moral issues tied to them.

My opinion is that if you are this determined to make a fuss over it without looking into it and finding out for yourself, then you are probably quite opposed to the concept and thus it isn't going to benifit you much, because you are going to remain opposed to incorporating it.

I don't consider anything that can't be described in numbers and units to be empirical, because that's what we were taught in chemistry and all on through mechanical engineering. I'm big on the psychology and although I'm nothing professional yet, I am going to be going to school with the intentions of getting a Masters, or possibly a PhD in psych. I still don't think that psychology is something that lends itself to empirical evidence though, because there isn't anything you can take a measurement of or point to and say, "Look, her attraction quotient is at 4!"

You seem to think that I need to defend something, when really I don't feel any need to do so. If you don't believe in NLP being a relevant area of study, that's fine, but that's not gonna make it go away, because it isn't like ESP, it isn't something that you can say, "Oh, that's phoney!" NLP is merely a branch of behavioural sciences and whether you think it is accurate or not is up to you to decide, not me to convince you.

You sound more like you're just interested in waging a debate and trying to be clever and out-think us NLP supporters and I'm not really interested, because you seem to be pretty intelligent and I'm betting you can hold your own.

Check out that book and the youtube videos and then let me know what you think.

_________________
"The 'Brick Walls' are there to allow you to prove how badly you want something!" ~ Randy Pausch

~ Rye

What is not clear about me stating that I have read the extant psychological literature on the subject?
I'm opposed to wasting my time, as I stated before.


I think you are mixing up quantification with empiricism. In any case, if you are going to be studying psychology, you will be introduced to psychometrics in your first or second semester (though it depends on how your school structures the courses).
As I said, this is just ignorance of how things work in the social sciences. This will get cleared up if you do indeed go for your Master's, I promise.
I really don't actually. But since you seem to take it seriously, I would think you would be interested in doing so.
I don't care if it goes away, I came here hoping to be convinced or at least given a good argument why you use NLP despite the general position of the scientific community.


Well, quite a few people do say that. Further, there are people who take ESP very seriously.
Could you at least try?
I'm not sure what it means to "out-think" you, but if you're claiming that I'm doing this for some internet ego boost, you're mistaken. I'm here to learn, and on occasion I find learning means challenging others beliefs and offering my own for criticism.
Thanks?
I'll check out the videos just for you. I can't check out the book through because I am out of the country.

Really cool videos--I gave him a look up and he at least claims that all of his feats never uses plants or fakes the tricks via television.

Unfortunately, he is a mentalist and went so far as to mention in his book, Tricks of the Mind, that he have never claimed to used NLP.

However, I found on my own a link to a "research database" of NLP research. I'll have a look. I'm figuring this is the best I'll get.

If you want to check it out:

http://www.inspiritive.com.au/nlp-research.htm

Thanks for the chat, it has been enlightening.

Edit: Aw, nuts...they just give the titles to the research, doesn't let me actually look at it. If anyone can get their hands on the articles, PM me, I'll give you my email.

That site is actually much better than I expected, and presents a fairly soft case for NLP. In essence it says that there is scant evidence in favor of it, but that they feel that the studies opposing the existence of NLP are not adquate to undermine the entire discipline.

More importantly for me, the feel that the NLP community ought to get its panties out of a bunch, and accept the rigors of academia.

To which I agree.

Ahh NLP vs. Traditional Psych... now this is a thread I can sink my teeth into.

A little info about me, NLP and Psych. I am a NLP practitioner, I have used it on myself to alter patterns, and on others with problems ranging from minor self confidence issues, to diagnosed social anxiety disorder, to smoking. I am also in the final semester for my first degree in Psycology (Which will explain to some of you why I am not on here as frequently as I was in the past).

IMO NLP is a great tool, and well worth studying. I've witnessed near 'miracles' if you will due to it's practice.

I am also told almost everyday that NLP simply does not work, by one of my peers or profs...

There was once a time when we didn't have enough empiracle evidence to prove gravities existance... even though most people knew it 'worked' wether enough things had been dropped/measured/etc or not. NLP is a rather young science, and has always been diliked a bit by the traditional psych community.

I'm acutally currently writting a report on NLP and it's contrasts similiarities and complements of traditional Psycology for one of my classes. My prof, a Phd, and the department chair origionally advised me against writting the report, claiming that NLP had no real merit of was almost always ineffective... I paced her, used tonal signals to create sub-patterns in my speach, anchored a few potential positives mentally to my concept(pleasure), and a few negatives mentally to the concept of dismissing NLP (pain), and then walked her up a yes ladder. After about 5-10 minutes she had changed her mind completely about my paper and said she was excited about the prospects of my report. I thanked her and informed her that our conversation had been an excersize in basic NLP principals.

Difficult to know what to trust... The manstream is filled with idiots... and the marginally intellegent. The fringes... the sub-cultures... are filled with crackpots... and geniuses... granted those two things often go together, but thats another branch of Psycology, lol.

Now what things specifically would you like to be 'convinced' about? I'd be more then willing to address your questions to the best of my ability.

I get the vibe that NLP has been put in a bad light by books like THE GAME where people see it as a tool to hypotise and manipulate women and I just wanted to add my 2 cents as I have read a few NLP books...

While NLP can improve your communication skills and as a result allow you to possibly create deeper rapport with women, it is more about self-improvement than anything else. NLP is the art and science of personal excellence. It is about studying how successful people in life do things, and modelling your behaviour on that, by changing the way you think.

I would recommend NLP to anyone wanting to improve elements of their life.