|
|
Socrates Regular user 197 Posts |
NLP, these three letters have become associated with a world of wonder, an enchanting world where the most amazing things can happen in the blink of an eye.
Well, this is what the NLPers would like us to believe. These are the same NLPers who have been conditioned, in the best Pavlovian fashion, to salivate at the mouth every time they hear the trigger words NLP and all the miracles that are anchored to it. What is NLP? Three letters and a lot of hype. NLP seems to be no more than a collection of old belief systems, a bit of psychology and some common sense. Add some subtle marketing/manipulative skills and you end up with a very effective way of selling dreams to people and making lots and lots of money in the process. If you want to learn anything in life don't forget to remember that by keeping you eyes and mind open its a lot more difficult to be manipulated. This applies to magic as much as it does NLP. Take it easy. Socrates 'The chief object of education is not to learn things but to unlearn things' - G.K Chesterton |
Lithix Regular user Tempe, AZ 168 Posts |
For a while I was doing a lot of research on hypnosis and came across a few books on NLP... I never tried the methods in those books... and I barely skimmed them... but I swear to god, to this day, I still can't see that 3 letter combo *NLP* and not instantly associate it with NeuroLinguistic Programming. Seriously... Liscence plates and everything.
|
Burt Yaroch Inner circle Dallas,TX 1097 Posts |
From our private discussions I believe Socrates (correct me if I'm wrong sir) would define the NLPer as the entertainer who believes he can, overnight, work wonders with these carefully packaged "effects".
And I would tend to agree that they are disillusioned. Most of these works only scratch the surface of what NLP is, if they touch it at all. I would disagree with Socrates' summation of NLP however. Quite the contrary, the subject is so vast it is almost dizzying. It is continually growing and changing as that is it's very nature. I would encourage anyone who wishes to use NLP in their magic or mentalism to actually take the time to study it instead of reading one book or effect and thinking you've "got it". You weren't an expert cardman after reading Royal Road.
Yakworld.
|
Socrates Regular user 197 Posts |
Burt is more or less correct when he says:
'I believe Socrates (correct me if I'm wrong sir) would define the NLPer as the entertainer who believes he can, overnight, work wonders with these carefully packaged "effects".' Yes, this is one of the major problems I see with magicians and NLP. However, I feel that my thoughts on NLP being no more than a collection of old belief systems, a bit of psychology etc. has been misunderstood. When I wrote this I had not intended to say the techniques within NLP were useless, but just that NLP itself is nothing more than an umbrella term for a great number of useful psychological tools. These tools can be of great use to a magician/entertainer, but the trouble with most NLP books is they are written from a theraputic point of view and are therefore not directly useful to the practitioner of magic. Perhaps this is where 'Wonder words' is useful, but is it really NLP? I cannot answer this question as I do not own this tape set, so maybe someone else can enlighten us as to the use of 'Wonder words' and it's relation to NLP. Again the point of this post is to highlight the problems of NLP as it relates to magic and not to concentrate solely on KK's 'Wonder words'. Hope that clears my post up a little and gives you all something to chew on. I look forward to hearing from you all. Socrates 'Resolve to be thyself, and know that he who finds himself, loses his misery' - Coventry Patmore |
Burt Yaroch Inner circle Dallas,TX 1097 Posts |
Sorry about that. I didn't think that was consistant with our discussions. My apologies.
I do have Wonder Words and if NLP is defined as the use of linguistic subtleties then, yes, Wonder Words is NLP. But anyone who claims to be a practitioner of NLP should know better. Likewise they should know better than to be using an anchoring technique on someone without their knowledge or consent to further their own agenda. Just to clarify your intention with this thread Socrates, this is about the problems with self-titled NLP practitioners and not NLP itself, correct? (Slow the bus down and I'll catch up. )
Yakworld.
|
Lance Pierce Special user 878 Posts |
Quote:
These tools can be of great use to a magician/entertainer, but the trouble with most NLP books is that they are written from a theraputic point of view and are therefore not directly useful to the practitioner of magic. Well, of course. When Bandler and Grinder first started studying the dizzying success of Milton Erickson, they didn't have in mind to create a set of tools for use by magicians. But then again, neither did the people who first made playing cards, neither does the U.S. mint when it issues coins and dollars, and neither does Boise-Cascade believe they're supplying our elite group with materials for center tears. Like many artists and craftsmen, magicians make use of materials they find around them every day. NLP is a set of psychological understandings -- and a very effective and penetrating set, as well. As such, the principles it offers are readily adaptable to magical ways and means. Just like any tool, though, there will be poor applications, misuse, abuse, etc. But the knowledge we get from NLP can also take magic to entirely new levels, because after all, the core of magic is what happens between the audience and the performer, not what goes on with the balls and the cups. Since NLP is, in essence, a set of tools for powerful communication, and since magic is, in essence, a craft and art of communication, their marriage not only seems natural but quite fitting. In the right hands, of course. Cheers, Lance |
Burt Yaroch Inner circle Dallas,TX 1097 Posts |
Specifically, if you please, what componants of NLP do those who espouse this "marriage" find so natural and fitting?
And I believe your definition of NLP, "a set of tools for powerful communication", is precisely the problem Socrates was addressing Lance. That definition is far too oversimplified and gives the uneducated the impression that anchoring is a communication tool. It is not. It's a theraputic tool.
Yakworld.
|
Lance Pierce Special user 878 Posts |
Hi, Burt,
You sound skeptical. Okay, let's try it this way: A tool is a tool. It's not quite right to say that a hammer is a carpentry tool, because it's also a construction tool, a shipbuilding tool, an arts and crafts tool, a destruction tool... The techniques in NLP are well-geared toward therapy, yes, but equally well toward communication, rapport, etc. It wouldn't be too far off the mark to say that each of these fields is really all one ball of wax anyway. One of the reasons Milton Erickson was such a successful therapist was not because of his skill at therapy, but because of his skill in being one human being relating deeply to another. If we choose to study NLP, we begin to learn things such as the different modes of thinking the learning that people engage in (such as kinesthetic, auditory, or visual). If we can become familiar enough with these modes to recognize them in a person on sight, we have a better handle on what presentations, effects, and even comments will work best for certain spectators. We can "reframe" effects to give them greater personal meaning. We can situate ourselves physically with spectators to lend them the greatest level of comfort with our presence. We can pace our routines and performances to the spectator's rhythms and lead them into other rhythms, carrying them along on a journey. We can "anchor" certain concepts and experiences and recall them later in our routines by triggering them. We can use switch patterns to override an undesired train of thought (or feeling) and hopefully replace them with another, one with which our performance will fit well. These (and more) are all communicative and experiential tools, and if magic isn't a craft of communicating and lending experience, I don't know what is. Did I do better? Cheers! Lance |
Burt Yaroch Inner circle Dallas,TX 1097 Posts |
Yes sir. That was most definitely better. Thank you.
If I may offer a rebuttal. As you pointed out in your first post, tools are not universal in their application. They can, and often are, misused. So while a tool is in fact a tool you still need the right tool for the job. While you have applied several different labels to the hammer you haven't changed its application. Its function remains the same. So when you say you "reframe" an effect, you are using a term of NLP in a colloquial manner. A reframe in NLP is a complex and rather lenghty process that establishes lines of communication between a persons conscious and unconscious mind. What you are proposing is most definitely not the same tool. Establishing rapport through pacing and mirroring was the one thing that did come to mind as I was typing my question above. However I would imagine that would be quite difficult to do effectively while performing and would only work if you were performing for a single individual. Anchoring in NLP, again, is a rather invloved process. The casual anchoring I'm sure you're referring to can only (usually) be effective with the repetition of a stimulus over time and, again, isn't really the anchoring application of NLP. Nor should you be using this tool without your subjects knowledge and consent. This isn't the same as gaining an advantage through pacing. When you say "switch pattern" I think what you really mean is "swish pattern". I do not see any way this tool could be useful to a magician. It is indeed used in the applications you mentioned however, how do you know your spectators train of thought or feeling? And how do you know what feeling they wish to replace that emotion with? How do you know they want it replaced at all? Even if you could answer these questions how could you possibly incorporate a swish into a magic routine? And I skipped your mention of submodalities. You are correct but, again, this will only be effective in a one on one situation. So the only true NLP techniques you mentioned that will be effective will only be effective on a single individual. Which may happen in a mentalism act, perhaps, utilizing different volunteers for each effect. So now you, the performer, much change your speech, your stance, your gait, your breathing, posture, manner, language etc. etc. all while observing all of these in the volunteer. I would imagine your performance would look extreemly disjointed and you would lose rapport with your audience while you attempted to gain it with your volunteer. So, respectfully, I believe we have come full circle to Mr. Socrates' concern.
Yakworld.
|
Socrates Regular user 197 Posts |
The comments you both make about NLP are very interesting and I feel compelled to reply to what you have both said.
Firstly, Lance you said: 'When Bandler and Grinder first started studying the dizzying success of Milton Erickson, they didn't have in mind to create a set of tools for use by magicians.' This is true enough however, my point was as follows. Magicians who felt drawn towards NLP because of all the hype it has been getting in the magic community would find NLP books, like those written by Bandler & Grinder, difficult to apply directly to magic as they were written for therapists. And secondly, it should be highlighted to magicians interested in NLP that these books are written from a theraputic point of view. Therefore reading them will not turn you into the next Derren Brown/Kenton Kneper. You then said: 'The techniques in NLP are well-geared toward therapy, yes, but equally well toward communication, rapport, etc. It wouldn't be too far off the mark to say that each of these fields is really all one ball of wax anyway.' Therefore, you obviously recognise the background of NLP and like you say its tools/techniques could be useful to magic. However, you are only really talking about the skills of effective communication and rapport. You also said: 'One of the reasons Milton Erickson was such a successful therapist was not because of his skill at therapy, but because of his skill in being one human being relating deeply to another.' It is true that Milton H Erickson was an extremely skilled therapist but did he study NLP in order to be able to relate to other humans beings and be so effective? The answer is obviously no, the set of teachings known as NLP didn't come about until 1972. Personally, I think these are natural skills which are innate in everyone. If we want to become more effective communicators then we should 'just do it'. Experience is our greatest teacher. Most NLPers come across as wierd because they are consciously applying their communication skills in an unnatural way and doing rapport at people. Mirroring, matching and creating rapport are natural skills and don't need to be learned by studying NLP. Burt you said: 'Anchoring in NLP, again, is a rather invloved process. The casual anchoring I'm sure you're referring to can only (usually) be effective with the repetition of a stimulus over time and, again, isn't really the anchoring application of NLP. Nor should you be using this tool without your subjects knowledge and consent.' Well again anchoring is completely natural and happens around us all the time in everyday life. For example when you hear an old tune on the radio it can take you back in time and make you remember a certain experience or feeling, this is a natural example of anchoring. Or perhaps a better example for you in the US would be your flag, the 'Stars & Stipes', what does seeing the flag mean to you, what feeling does it arouse? You see anchoring is another natural occurance just like rapport, yet those in the NLP world seem to believe that it's unique to them. And don't forget to remember that they can teach you all of these skills if you pay enough money. So like I said in my first post keep you eyes and your mind open and you'll have an easier time in life and magic. I look forward to hearing from you all. Socrates 'You can pretend anything and master it' - Milton H Erickson |
Lance Pierce Special user 878 Posts |
Hey, guys, sorry this is so long, but what the hey…
============== Hi, Burt, Yes, indeed, I did mean to type "swish" instead of "switch." Thank you. I really enjoy discussions of this kind. Thanks for stimulating me. Many of the techniques in NLP are used in therapy in one manner, but used differently in other contexts. Really, how could it be any other way? We can reframe or anchor in magic, but we keep in mind that we're not looking to reorganize a spectator's psyche here; we're just looking to push the experience a little bit. Consequently, there are times when we can reframe something (meaning to provide a different background or set of circumstances to something that alters its value or meaning), but I fully grant that we're not going to be doing it in the manner you may have learned in your NLP training. The same goes for anchoring, mirroring, etc. Quote:
Establishing rapport through pacing and mirroring was the one thing that did come to mind as I was typing my question above. However I would imagine that would be quite difficult to do effectively while performing and would only work if you were performing for a single individual. It's actually more broad-based than that. Working in restaurants, for example, I quickly learned that when you walk up to groups of people, you'll find that some groups are demure, some are lively, some are restrained or reserved, some are boisterous, etc. This is especially true in family units, and it didn't take very long to see that there was almost always a "leader unit," a person who set the tone for everyone else. The idea then was to mirror this person (not ape or copy, but simply align yourself with) so that you could as quickly as possible bring this person around a little bit. You can't transform this person (well, sometimes, but not usually), and you can't make him (or her) something he's not, but if you can draw him in a bit, the entire family will follow. Likewise for companies and schools, where I learned that the strong tendency is for everyone to follow the lead of the CEO or principle. Get that person involved, and the rest will, too. So, we see that while we obviously can't mirror an audience and establish rapport that way, we can darned sure identify and focus on key people who will in turn affect the entire group. Quote:
So now you, the performer, much change your speech, your stance, your gait, your breathing, posture, manner, language etc. etc. all while observing all of these in the volunteer. I would imagine your performance would look extremely disjointed and you would lose rapport with your audience while you attempted to gain it with your volunteer. Well, if that's what someone is doing with it, then he's doing it wrong. Mirroring is definitely NOT copying your subject -- that would only be considered aggressive, mocking, and insulting. It has to be subtler than that, because the subject himself is unaware of the mirroring. If he were aware, the mirroring and pacing wouldn't work. And, as stated above, we're selecting key people in certain ways, not to lose rapport with the rest of the audience, but to increase it. Regarding your question about swish patterns, I watched an acquaintance of mine perform once with several guests from the audience on stage. As the routine progressed, it became more and more apparent that one woman was getting increasingly uncomfortable being up there; she was finding the attention embarrassing. My friend also noticed this and impressed me very much by using a quick swish pattern to allay her embarrassment and help her enjoy the rest of her short time on stage. At this date, I can't even remember exactly what he said, and some of it was done through stage cues so no one but her could even hear anyway; I just remember it being very effective and somewhat remarkable. While I've not incorporated this particular technique into my own work, I know it's possible. I apologize that my evidence here is wholly anecdotal. Suffice it to say that the experience was a very strong lesson for me. Quote:
Anchoring in NLP, again, is a rather involved process. The casual anchoring I'm sure you're referring to can only (usually) be effective with the repetition of a stimulus over time and, again, isn't really the anchoring application of NLP. Nor should you be using this tool without your subjects knowledge and consent. And again, we're using an NLP tool in a non-therapeutic situation. And since we're not applying therapy and are without the goal of reorganizing a psychological matrix, we don't have to use the tool to its fullest extent -- we're really more interested in the principle. We're just trying to give a routine a little more impact, is all. As this is the second time you mentioned the ethical consideration of anchoring, let's address that. I'll let you in on a little secret… Sometimes when I post regularly to specific people on a board (and especially when it's followed up with e-mail or private messages -- and especially again when it may be followed up with personal meetings), I will underscore certain comments to them and be sure to adopt certain tones in my writings. Usually, these are compliments or positive statements about how I feel about the person. Am I ever insincere with the comments? Certainly not. I find that kind of behavior rather sleazy. I mean everything I say, and if I didn't, I wouldn’t say them. So I don't make things up, but what I do is emphasize certain statements a little more…put them at the front of the message or at the very end…highlight them in some fashion so they stand out a bit. Over even a short period of time, what will happen is that they will associate the feelings they get from these communications with my name, and they will begin to respond positively to my posts even when I don't address them in particular. This is, in brief, anchoring, and it helps to ensure that when I finally meet these people, the experience is a very positive one for both of us. Now, the logic of your ethical consideration would dictate that before I do this, I should ask their permission first, but to do so would not only seem odd, but very counterproductive. In fact, what it would anchor is not the experience I want anchored, but my request of them to be anchored, and every time they saw my name (or me), they'd think, "Well, there's that weird guy who wanted to anchor me." (Having said all that, I must say now that I really adore your pic…very handsome you are…and those eyes…grrrr. ) I'm not sure why we always have to secure permission from someone to help them, but that's a sticky issue all around. Let's save that for another time. Now, I fully grant that all this is not the formal "anchoring" that you've studied in your explorations of NLP…it's a distilled version of it, but one that fits quite well in the performance of magic -- and everyday communication. Socrates' concern, if I understand him correctly, is that we have a powerful set of tools that many magicians hasten to employ without understanding. Well, that's always the case, isn't it? At one time everyone was jumping on the topit bandwagon. Later, everyone had a version of ThreeFly. For a while, I was so sick of seeing CardToon decks that you wouldn't believe it. Then it was D'Lites. For a spurt somewhere in there, magician's choice. All great concepts and material, all used and abused and exposed and disrespected…and yet…magic trucks on. Really, in all sincerity, thanks so much for going back and forth on this with me…I'm learning quite a bit. Socrates (who once testified that the unexamined life is not worth living and chose hemlock as his method of departure), Quote:
Magicians who felt drawn towards NLP because of all the hype it has been getting in the magic community would find NLP books, like those written by Bandler & Grinder, difficult to apply directly to magic as they were written for therapists. And secondly, it should be highlighted to magicians interested in NLP that these books are written from a therapeutic point of view. Therefore reading them will not turn you into the next Derren Brown/Kenton Kneper. This is quite true, and it's not unique to NLP. It's that way with any new interest or fascination…10,000 people flock to it, perhaps 50 understand it and will apply it well. Two or three will become legendary for it. Quote:
You then said: Well, I really meant just what I said. It doesn't make total sense to me to be referring to "only" the skills of effective communication and rapport as if they were different than the therapy itself. For decades, therapists tried to remain completely separate from their subjects and actively avoided rapport or "becoming involved." We've learned, though, that effective therapy really IS effective communication and rapport, and this has been a tough thing for the psychiatric schools to swallow. They're coming around, though. So my point is that I don't see a benefit to drawing these lines. As with any set of tools that come from outside our immediate field, we use what we can in the way we can and set the rest aside for later. Hopefully, we do this intelligently and with discretion, though we know that's not always going to be the case. Quote:
Personally, I think these are natural skills which are innate in everyone. If we want to become more effective communicators then we should 'just do it'. Experience is our greatest teacher. It may be that these skills are innate to some degree. Does this mean they don't bear amplification or refinement? Experience is our greatest teacher, yes, but none of us (I don't think) is so much an isolationist as to only rely on our own experience. We also learn from the experience of others, and doing so can end up saving us years of work ourselves. If someone's already been there, we don't really need to "reinvent the wheel." Quote:
Most NLPers come across as wierd because they are consciously applying their communication skills in an unnatural way and doing rapport at people. Wholly agreed. Just like equivoque…how many have we seen perform the technique where it was clumsy and completely transparent? But we also know that it doesn't have to be done that way. Like a sleight (which I suppose can be loosely termed "unnatural"), it can be done so that it's invisible. It's BEST done when it's invisible and unperceived. Quote:
Mirroring, matching and creating rapport are natural skills and don't need to be learned by studying NLP. I'm not as sure about this, but okie-dokie. Quote:
So like I said in my first post keep you eyes and your mind open and you'll have an easier time in life and magic. Most definitely! And to both of you, as I often say from time to time (a quote from Jonathan Swift): "May you live all the days of your life." Thanks, Lance |
Burt Yaroch Inner circle Dallas,TX 1097 Posts |
Very enlightening discussion gents. Thank you both for taking the time for such thorough responses. Just a few small points:
Socrates Johnson (sorry I've been dying to do that) mentioned that: Or perhaps a better example for you in the US would be your flag, the 'Stars & Stipes', what does seeing the flag mean to you, what feeling does it arouse? This is precisely what I was referring to when I used the term "casual anchoring" and mentioned that this is only effective with the repetition of the stimulus over time. You are exactly correct that Old Glory does elicit certain emotions in me but that stimulus has been anchored for nearly all of my life. Conversely I have heard mentalists claim to anchor a new emotion, one not already anchored through a lifetime of experiences, in just a few moments and then trigger it later. That simply will not work. Pavlov's dogs did not salivate the first time they heard the bell ring. And while I'm on the subject I'll agree that this "casual anchoring" sidesteps the ethical concerns I have discussed earlier. Lance mentioned (and may I say you’re not only handsome but a powerful man. I could see the second you walked in here you were someone to reckon with. ): Well, if that's what someone is doing with it, then he's doing it wrong. Mirroring is definitely NOT copying your subject -- that would only be considered aggressive, mocking, and insulting. It has to be subtler than that, because the subject himself is unaware of the mirroring. But that is precisely how the technique of mirroring is used in NLP. Physically copying eye blinking, facial expressions, hand gestures, voice patterns, breathing, and common experiences (I'm forgetting one element here). This makes the person think, subconsciously, "Hey this guy is just like me." Of course, as you mentioned, the trick is subtlety. That is where techniques like pacing, cross-over mirroring, and leading are applied. As well as recognizing indicators of rapport. Which is why I disagree with Socrates contention that this is a natural condition. If everyone instinctually knows the indicators of rapport what are they? I assure you someone who is not studied will not name one of the subtle indicators. While some of these techniques lend themselves to a watered down version of their traditional NLP counterparts, I must say I'm really stuck on the swish. I really don't see how this can even be loosely applied to a 4 second exchange between two strangers. But that, of course, doesn't exclude this possibility. Funny that all three of us have come at this from different directions. Well I think it is clear to me now that while you, specifically Lance, most certainly use NLP you have done so in modeling the basic framework into a everyday funcionality. I think the confusion occurs when you emloy this funcionality and call it NLP. I'm not suggesting you change or substitue that term, in fact the parent discipline should probably be termed "Traditional NLP" to distinguish it from this offspring. (Kinesthetic, Auditory Digital, Kinesthetic, Visual Recall) I assure you no layperson will naturally understand that little joke.
Yakworld.
|
Lance Pierce Special user 878 Posts |
Quote:
(Kinesthetic, Auditory Digital, Kinesthetic, Visual Recall) I assure you no layperson will naturally understand that little joke. I got it, and I thought it was cute as heck. Thanks! L- |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » The Magic of NLP (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.14 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |