Is NLP Utter Hogwash?

[sethczerepak]

Originally Posted by Pusateri

I still don't know what NLP is. You ask ten different people you get ten different answers.

Speaking of, I'm still not sure what "hogwash" even is?

Is it an verb or a noun?

Is it what's left over after the hog is washed?

Is it the debris washed off of the Hog?

The futile act of washing a hog?

Might make for an equally meaningful discussion lol

[Mark Andrews]

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

You are quite a nice boy, aren't you Mark?

You coming onto me again Ken? Would be flattered if it wasn't for the fact you're dog ugly and not my type. No offense darlin'.

Originally Posted by Shadowflux

No offense, friend, but that isn't NLP. I believe they call it trolling.

I really mean no offense, I'm not calling you anything, I'm just pointing out the difference between what is actually NLP and what can be misconstrued as NLP.

A contradiction in terms if ever I saw one. Of course you're calling him a troll.

Whilst Rezbi might be many things, trolling this forum isn't one of the things he is guilty of. He's a copywriter, it's his job to generate responses, get under the skin, irk and rile up emotional responses or replies to thought provoking threads.

If he wasn't doing this, he wouldn't be doing his job properly. It's what we do.

Bet you thought Rezbi you'd never see the day me sticking up for you lol. Ya pain.

Originally Posted by sethczerepak

Speaking of, I'm still not sure what "hogwash" even is?

Hogwash is cagmag. Piffle. Codswallop. Tripe. Balderdash. Or any one of a number of similar words when used in this context.

For clarification purposes.


Mark Andrews

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Mark Andrews

Bet you thought Rezbi you'd never see the day me sticking up for you lol. Ya pain.

Nah.

I know I've laid into you before, but I say it like I see it. And I'll continue to do so.

If I think you're doing something wrong I'll say so. Conversely, if I see you do something right I'll also say so.

And that goes for anyone else, too.

I expect others will do the same to me.

Credit where credit is due. End of story.

[Harlan]

Since there's nothing in NLP that doesn't exist in copy:

Can one of you experts who have never studied NLP point me in the direction of shifting temporal predicates in non-NLP copy?

How about about shifting person between second and third person?

How about changing someone's higherarchy of criteria?

Kindly cite the copywriters using these techniques.

Thanks.

[Daniel Scott]

For those who may be unaware...

"Shifting temporal predicates" = Changing the words to deal with time. Often used to put problems in a past tense and good stuff in a future tense.

An example would be future pacing, done in pretty much every sales letter ever written. And it also existed long before NLP.

It also refers to presuppositions, ie. "how soon will you have that contract signed and back to me?" The "embedded command" is basically that they've already made a decision to sign it, and now they just have to get it back to you. Works more often than I would expect (though more so for "easy" purchases where there's little resistance). But I wouldn't call it an invention of NLP.

Again.. nothing new.

"Second position" relates to vividly experiencing an event that isn't happening to you. A lot of sales letters use this in a story way... drawing the reader in to feel the shame/sorrow/guilt/joy/success/failure of the avatar of the story. Third person comes in a few forms, but is basically anything that isn't second or first (ie. actually happening to you).

I'm sure you've all seen this done a few times.

"Heirachy of criteria" is basically just people's priorities. E.g. are they more interested in eating that slice of cake or looking good at the beach? Saving money or buying your product? Etc.

Every sales letter I've ever written has a value justification that changes this. "Sure, it seems like a lot, but..."

Notice NLP likes to use confusing phrases to describe something people have been doing for a long-ass time. Also notice there's nothing that special about what they're saying. It's old stuff in a new wrapper. Which is fine, until the NLPers get up in arms about "it's special and different! It's NLP!"

No... it's basic psychology packaged in a new one. NLP is a marketing ploy, nothing more. And an effective one at that.

I'm not here to dispute the value of certain "NLP techniques". Usually they're solid ideas with different words or angles... nothing new. A lot of them work.

That doesn't change the fact it's not NLP. It's persuasion by a different name. I can't suddenly pretend I made up modern day construction techniques by calling a hammer a "nail pounder". And that's essentially what a lot of NLP guys do.

But don't take my word for it...

Google it, and check out how much of it has already been covered in old school psychology textbooks and sales/copywriting training.

-Daniel

[Daniel Scott]

Originally Posted by sethczerepak

Speaking of, I'm still not sure what "hogwash" even is?

Is it an verb or a noun?

Is it what's left over after the hog is washed?

Is it the debris washed off of the Hog?

The futile act of washing a hog?

Might make for an equally meaningful discussion lol

If the hog is washed but there's no one around to hear it, does it still make those weird hog sounds?

[Harlan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Scott

For those who may be unaware...

"Shifting temporal predicates" = Changing the words to deal with time. Often used to put problems in a past tense and good stuff in a future tense.

An example would be future pacing, done in pretty much every sales letter ever written. And it also existed long before NLP.

It also refers to presuppositions, ie. "how soon will you have that contract signed and back to me?" The "embedded command" is basically that they've already made a decision to sign it, and now they just have to get it back to you. Works more often than I would expect (though more so for "easy" purchases where there's little resistance). But I wouldn't call it an invention of NLP.

Again.. nothing new.

This pretty much summarizes your response.

You don't know what you are talking so you say it's something else.

Shifting temporal predicates is a presupposition? Nonsense. Only in your world.

It has NOTHING to do with future pacing.

It has NOTHING to do with embedded commands which DO NOT work in copy at all.

And they have nothing to shifting "words".

Do you not know the definition of "predicate"?

The rest of your comments were equally off target.

[Daniel Scott]

Not according to the research I've done. But you're welcome to your opinion.

-Daniel

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Harlan

Since there's nothing in NLP that doesn't exist in copy:

Can one of you experts who have never studied NLP point me in the direction of shifting temporal predicates in non-NLP copy?

How about about shifting person between second and third person?

How about changing someone's higherarchy of criteria?

Kindly cite the copywriters using these techniques.

Thanks.

Finally! We might be close to something concrete.

Can you show us some examples of these things, please?

And tell us what makes them NLP?

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Daniel Scott

Not according to the research I've done. But you're welcome to your opinion.

-Daniel

If a little research is enough, and makes up for years of study, then anyone should be able to research a particular market and write copy like Bencivenga.

Right?

I don't think anyone would agree with that. Except of course for those who believe you can write copy to that standard in a day.

Bencivenga, and I would assume most copywriters, learned the rules of copywriting years before he became really good at writing copy.

So why would anyone assume to know the nitty gritty of NLP through even a month's worth of research?

[Mark Andrews]

Originally Posted by Harlan

This pretty much summarizes your response.

You don't know what you are talking so you say it's something else.

Shifting temporal predicates is a presupposition? Nonsense. Only in your world.

It has NOTHING to do with future pacing.

It has NOTHING to do with embedded commands which DO NOT work in copy at all.

And they have nothing to shifting "words".

Do you not know the definition of "predicate"?

The rest of your comments were equally off target.

Does your knowledge of NLP Harlan help you to exude warmth and friendliness at all? Only I'm not being funny with you but you come across as perhaps one of the coldest most unfriendly and unappreciative characters on this forum.

If copywriting is about building bridges, would it not behoove you to sometimes, well, you know, demonstrate this in your replies rather than coming across like English aristocracy with your nose in the air looking down on everyone else?

If you've got excellent knowledge in a particular subject, why not share this knowledge with warmth and enthusiasm rather than coming across like your guarding the secret holy grail of copy?

An observation.


Mark Andrews

[Harlan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Scott

Not according to the research I've done. But you're welcome to your opinion.

-Daniel

I guess you'll have to spend another 2 minutes on Google then.

As Gregory Bateson would say: Shoddy Epistimology.

[joe golfer]

Originally Posted by Harlan

Shoddy Epistimology.

Great band name.

[Shadowflux]

So what this thread has really taught me is that bringing up NLP on a copywriting board has the same effect as bringing up Ayn Rand or Nietzsche on a literature or philosophy board.

There are a lot of people with a lot of opinions and very few of them have ever touched the source material. Of those who have, few actually understand it.

I think the best answer to the original question of this thread is:

"It doesn't matter, do what works for you."

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Shadowflux

So what this thread has really taught me is that bringing up NLP on a copywriting board has the same effect as bringing up Ayn Rand or Nietzsche on a literature or philosophy board.

There are a lot of people with a lot of opinions and very few of them have ever touched the source material. Of those who have, few actually understand it.

I think the best answer to the original question of this thread is:

"It doesn't matter, do what works for you."

I already said that.

And my reason for the post was to promote discussion.

No one is ever going to agree on everything. And not everyone will ever agree on one thing.

You get this type of discussion on the topic of copywriting on this copywriting forum.

So why not NLP?

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Mark Andrews

Does your knowledge of NLP Harlan help you to exude warmth and friendliness at all? Only I'm not being funny with you but you come across as perhaps one of the coldest most unfriendly and unappreciative characters on this forum.

If copywriting is about building bridges, would it not behoove you to sometimes, well, you know, demonstrate this in your replies rather than coming across like English aristocracy with your nose in the air looking down on everyone else?

If you've got excellent knowledge in a particular subject, why not share this knowledge with warmth and enthusiasm rather than coming across like your guarding the secret holy grail of copy?

An observation.


Mark Andrews

I actually used to dislike Harlan for this reason. But it doesn't bother me anymore.

I'm more interested in what he, and others, have to say rather than how they say.

If they want to be the life of the party, or miserable old farts, that's their business.

[Shadowflux]

Originally Posted by Rezbi

I already said that.

And my reason for the post was to promote discussion.

No one is ever going to agree on everything. And not everyone will ever agree on one thing.

You get this type of discussion on the topic of copywriting on this copywriting forum.

So why not NLP?

I'm not complaining, I actually enjoyed reading through most of it. I just think it's funny how heated people get over a difference in opinions. It's like hearing people debate about which martial art is better and why.

It also always surprises me how many people will simply repeat an opinion on something that someone else gave them.

It's like any discussion of Machiavelli. 90% of people don't know the answer to "Is it better to be loved or feared?" They just operate on assumptions. "I heard X and Y about NLP so NLP is X and Y. You're wrong!!!"

I guess I find it funny because you could just pick up a copy of the book and read it for yourself but so many people refuse to do it. I'll never understand that.

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Shadowflux

I'm not complaining, I actually enjoyed reading through most of it. I just think it's funny how heated people get over a difference in opinions. It's like hearing people debate about which martial art is better and why.

And that's what makes it so fun.

Anyone who has a passion about anything will do the same. Whether it's martial, copywriting, NLP or... tiddlywinks.

[Mark Andrews]

Originally Posted by Rezbi

I actually used to dislike Harlan for this reason. But it doesn't bother me anymore.

I'm more interested in what he, and others, have to say rather than how they say.

If they want to be the life of the party, or miserable old farts, that's their business.

That's true enough Rezbi fair point.

Let me make it clear though, I don't dislike Harlan. I have no reason to do so.

It's just when someone is as knowledgeable as he obviously is about this subject, it would be great to see him espousing much more enthusiasm for the subject at hand.

Of course this is his prerogative whether or not he chooses to do so.

Of course NLP isn't something anyone completely inexperienced in this is going to learn overnight but maybe, just maybe, just a suggestion (Harlan) now and again you might like to pop up an illustrative thread or a post or two illustrating how a simple word switch around can affect the emotions on the part of the recipient reading a piece of sales copy?

Now that I'd love to see. It's a compliment not a dig btw. I'd just love to see you teaching a little bit more about a subject which is obvious you have a great passion for.

To be perfectly frank, I think too many people here don't actually understand completely what Harlan does and it would be a great opportunity here from time to time to simply share with us a few more thoughts and ideas.

My apologies if I'm putting you on the spot Harlan. Not my intention. Of course it's up to you what you do and I respect that. Top of the day to you and my...

Kindest regards,


Mark Andrews

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Mark Andrews

It's just when someone is as knowledgeable as he obviously is about this subject, it would be great to see him espousing much more enthusiasm for the subject at hand.

Ah, but he is. You just have to read between the lines.

Of course NLP isn't something anyone completely inexperienced in this is going to learn overnight but maybe, just maybe, just a suggestion (Harlan) now and again you might like to pop up an illustrative thread or a post or two illustrating how a simple word switch around can affect the emotions on the part of the recipient reading a piece of sales copy?

I did start such a thread - one I was going to continue with further articles - but it was moved to a different forum.

I thought it was copywriting related as it was about psychology and persuasion.

It was moved here Why You Do The Things You Do where it's already buried on the second page.

[verial]

Originally Posted by Shadowflux

So what this thread has really taught me is that bringing up NLP on a copywriting board has the same effect as bringing up Ayn Rand or Nietzsche on a literature or philosophy board.

There are a lot of people with a lot of opinions and very few of them have ever touched the source material. Of those who have, few actually understand it.

I think the best answer to the original question of this thread is:

"It doesn't matter, do what works for you."

Psychologists (experts) in psychology (which NLP petitions to be) dismiss (via peer review) reports of NLP success (subjective and anecdotal findings) because SCIENCE (that thing that allows us to know what's true and what's not).

How is than an OPINION?

So let me ask you, what do you consider to be the "source material" that shows NLP is a science? Have you access to a research university's journal database? I do. And I've seen studies on NLP, the vast majority of which dismiss NLP as a science. So you must be referring to a different type of source material?

But hey, for those who want to: go ahead and believe what you want. Make up an excuse as to why psychologists haven't touched the subject for decades.

Pretend to have a grasp of human beings via NLP and be like the rest of the NLP "practitioners" -- people who lack social skills and want a shortcut to developing social influence.

Or get a grip on reality. Your choice.

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by verial

So let me ask you, what do you consider to be the "source material" that shows NLP is a science?

What do you mean by source material?

Are you saying someone has to say it's a science to make it so, or it's not?

That's not my understanding of how something is classified as a science. Unless you know something else?

Dictionary definitions of science:


1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

“There’s nothing new in NLP. But what gives it the power is the way things were combined together into a system.” – Wyatt Woodsmall


2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Again, the effects of such a system is observable, as you’ve already said.


3.any of the branches of natural or physical science. Considering it’s something that affects the brain and the body, I’d say it qualifies.


4.systematized knowledge in general. Again, I refer to the above quote.


5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
Same as above.


Considering that NLP persuasion and advertising copy are based on the same principles, to say NLP is not scientific is like saying advertising copy is not scientific.


In fact, more or less, they are the same thing under different titles.


Going by the above five points I would say both NLP and advertising are scientific. Which means both are sciences.

[Shadowflux]

Originally Posted by verial

How is than an OPINION?

So let me ask you, what do you consider to be the "source material" that shows NLP is a science? Have you access to a research university's journal database? I do. And I've seen studies on NLP, the vast majority of which dismiss NLP as a science. So you must be referring to a different type of source material?

When I say "source material", in this context at least, I am referring to the actual books by Bandler and Grinder as opposed to the mountain of other books written by self proclaimed "NLP Experts".

When I say that people haven't read the source material I am saying that they have never read the original books. They have only read articles, books and other material written by people other than the originators of NLP.

You say you've read studies about NLP, have access to a research university's research database yet NONE of that is the original source material. No offense but all you've done with your post is prove exactly what I was saying.

Psychologists and psychiatrists are not fans of NLP because the current mental health industry favors psycho-pharmacology over any form of non-medicated therapy. In a therapeutic setting, NLP has nothing that can be instantly proscribed for a broad range of different people. Due to the nature of NLP, therapeutic plans have to be designed around the individual being treated and can not, therefore, have the same effect on every patient with out being modified.

We all choose what we want to believe in and you have, apparently, already made your decision so there is no point in any of us trying to convince you to think otherwise.

[Harlan]

In my doctoral study - published in 1983 - I studied ALL of the Scientific Studies on NLP.

There were tests of predicate matching, eye ball positions, etc.

NLP didn't do very well.

Then they labeled themselves, the study of subjective experience.

Frankly, NLP and Science did not mesh together in the lab.

One of the early originators of NLP thought it might be effective in counseling because of the placebo effect.

But years later, certain patterns have emerged.

The phobia cure truly works wonders.

Anchoring is extremely powerful.

Submodality shifts can change a person's life in just second.

Frankly, not enough tests have been done of NLP in copy to have any measure.

I did do a video of the world's greatest copywriter showing his elegant use of NLP patterns.

But I was threatened with a lawsuit because I didn't know his name was trademarked.

When I asked David Deutsch the odds that those patterns just "happened" to appear in the copy - he answered - "impossible."

And that was a damm good letter.

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Harlan

In my doctoral study - published in 1983 - I studied ALL of the Scientific Studies on NLP.

There were tests of predicate matching, eye ball positions, etc.

NLP didn't do very well.

Then they labeled themselves, the study of subjective experience.

Frankly, NLP and Science did not mesh together in the lab.

One of the early originators of NLP thought it might be effective in counseling because of the placebo effect.

But years later, certain patterns have emerged.

The phobia cure truly works wonders.

Anchoring is extremely powerful.

Submodality shifts can change a person's life in just second.

Frankly, not enough tests have been done of NLP in copy to have any measure.

I did do a video of the world's greatest copywriter showing his elegant use of NLP patterns.

But I was threatened with a lawsuit because I didn't know his name was trademarked.

When I asked David Deutsch the odds that those patterns just "happened" to appear in the copy - he answered - "impossible."

And that was a damm good letter.

Thanks for that. Interesting stuff.

I guess when it comes to any kind of persuasion in print, what we have is little more than a large body of heuristics.

Writing copy remains a craft, not a science.

[Steve Hill]

Originally Posted by Shadowflux

NLP is really about the way in which the human brain processes information. Sure, it has a little to do with the structure of sentences and reactions to certain words but, overall, it is about the way we process and internalize certain external stimuli. It's about gaining a better understanding of the human thought process but not in a textbook sense.

...

To make NLP effective you MUST study other related subjects. You have to understand how people think and why they react the way they do. You need to have a solid understanding of many different fundamental elements of the human thought process before you can understand how NLP works.

This is about the simplest NLP definition I've seen yet. I've followed this debate, the previous debate with Rick D's comments, I've read parts of the original Erickson books, I've read some (bad) NLP how-to books, I've visited many NLP-specific websites, and I've read many consumer psychology books, such as Cialdini's.

There is no question that in competent hands, an understanding of the principles used (modeled) in NLP can be powerful in many applications.

But there really is a lot of marketplace confusion about NLP, what it is, and what it can do. Like the six blind men and the elephant, everyone has a different take on it, even the NLP professionals.

The more I learn, the more I realize what I do not know. In a way, learning NLP is like being Carlos Castenada - we can catch glimpses of the big picture from time to time, but realize it will take much work before reaching full understanding.

But from what I have seen so far, in copywriting it's not a full understanding of NLP we need to reach - it's an understanding of human nature, and how to interact with it in marketing.

NLP seems to provide one modeled framework for connecting with human behavior, but it's certainly not the only way. That would explain why some copywriters that never knew NLP can be using NLP-like methods; they are addressing that same human nature, using methods that they have found to be effective (and which NLP has found to be effective too).

Explanatory examples of copywriting using NLP are scarce as hen's teeth, but I'm beginning to understand why. Such examples without an understanding of the processes behind them would be incomplete.

As has pointed out elsewhere, established NLP needs to be adapted to copywriting. My question is this - can copywriting-specific NLP be taught separately, and well enough to be used effectively without needing the full NLP professional background? Can we work effectively with human behaviour in marketing using a only subset of the established (and adapted) NLP-modeled techniques?

[Shadowflux]

Originally Posted by Steve Hill

As has pointed out elsewhere, established NLP needs to be adapted to copywriting. My question is this - can copywriting-specific NLP be taught separately, and well enough to be used effectively without needing the full NLP professional background? Can we work effectively with human behaviour in marketing using a only subset of the established (and adapted) NLP-modeled techniques?

Keep in mind that this is just my opinion:

I don't think it's impossible to teach copywriting specific NLP but it would be quite hard. The most important thing to remember about NLP is that it is a therapeutic technique, it was created to help people in a therapeutic setting. The problems it aims to fix are ones which are, more often than not, mental rather than physical problems.

One of the difficulties I think you would run into trying to teach only copywriting specific NLP is that most of your students wouldn't have a foundational understanding of real NLP. They would only be there to find out "secret words" and "magic phrases" which will allow them to sell something no one really wants.

It's like someone who wants to go right from sitting on the couch all day to Olympic weight lifting. You could teach them plenty of stuff from an intellectual standpoint but, without the foundation of proper diet and years of exercise, they aren't going to be able to lift 400 lbs over their head. This student could then regurgitate all of the intellectual stuff he was taught and write his own book but, without the proper foundation, he won't really know what he's talking about. People will read the book, then write their own book and you would basically have the state of NLP that we have now.

Does NLP have some useful stuff for copywriters? Of course it does. So does general psychology, social psychology, sociology, indoctrination techniques, motivational material, religions, Machiavelli, day time tv, a trip to the grocery store, a used car salesman and even that one friend you have who is incredibly social.

The truth is that if you want to be a good copywriter then you need to study everything that interests you with an eye towards copywriting and persuasiveness. One thing I've realized over the course of my life is that you'll never know when you might pick up something useful.

The other important factor is actually applying that knowledge. There are tons of "theories" and "rules" about writing copy but if you don't test them out in some sort of real world situation then you will never know if they are any good. You have to keep in mind that the term "NLP" will quite often help sell a book, video or program that otherwise would not have garnered any interest. No matter what sort of copy we write, we are in the world of business and everyone is out to make money.

Hell, I even remember being contacted by a guy who was "certified" as an NLP practitioner and apparently a hypnotist as well. I even met with him, in person, one on one, in his own house and he couldn't even convince me to work with him despite the fact that I needed the money really bad at the time.

Alright, I'm probably rambling at this point so I'm going to stop.

[Steve Hill]

Originally Posted by Shadowflux

Does NLP have some useful stuff for copywriters? Of course it does. So does general psychology, social psychology, sociology, indoctrination techniques, motivational material, religions, Machiavelli, day time tv, a trip to the grocery store, a used car salesman and even that one friend you have who is incredibly social.

That pretty well sums it up. Some might be hoping for "secret NLP zombie phrases" to add to their copy, but they'll be disappointed. Those looking for additional insights into human psychology will find them in many places, NLP being just one of them. Parallels and insights useful in copywriting can come from almost anywhere, as you mentioned.

Interestingly enough, I do have a thin anonymous book on NLP for marketers, with a section for copywriting. The examples given (based on real ads) happened to have word combinations that fit certain patterns (such as presupposition or agitate and solve), but it's questionable if they were developed with NLP in mind. Those patterns have been around long before NLP existed.

Originally Posted by Shadowflux

The truth is that if you want to be a good copywriter then you need to study everything that interests you with an eye towards copywriting and persuasiveness. One thing I've realized over the course of my life is that you'll never know when you might pick up something useful.

Intense curiosity does seem to be a prevalent copywriter trait. The mind's ability to connect seemingly unrelated pieces of information on an unconscious level is remarkable. I've often wondered about the mind's filing system and the chemical associations it makes that enables information to be searched and correlations made among snippets of information learned years apart.

[hhhusted]

Reading through all the post, I am getting a mixed bag of answers. What is the truth? Does NLP work in copywriting or not? If so, how has it been used in copywriting in the past?

By the way, I know what NLP is. I am currently studying the subject so as to become certified in using it.

[max5ty]

Originally Posted by hhhusted

Reading through all the post, I am getting a mixed bag of answers. What is the truth? Does NLP work in copywriting or not? If so, how has it been used in copywriting in the past?

By the way, I know what NLP is. I am currently studying the subject so as to become certified in using it.

129 posts later, and this is where you're at?

[hhhusted]

Originally Posted by max5ty

129 posts later, and this is where you're at?

Yeah, because it seemed that the issue of NLP in copywriting wasn't clearly answered. However, I did get a response privately that did answer my question. So I am good.

[applegreensnake]

Originally Posted by Mark Andrews

Does your knowledge of NLP Harlan help you to exude warmth and friendliness at all? Only I'm not being funny with you but you come across as perhaps one of the coldest most unfriendly and unappreciative characters on this forum.

If copywriting is about building bridges, would it not behoove you to sometimes, well, you know, demonstrate this in your replies rather than coming across like English aristocracy with your nose in the air looking down on everyone else?

If you've got excellent knowledge in a particular subject, why not share this knowledge with warmth and enthusiasm rather than coming across like your guarding the secret holy grail of copy?

An observation.


Mark Andrews

I know a guy with Asperger's who's a good copywriter. He's pretty highly intelligent; he's learned what works; and it's only mild Asperger's, I think. He's a good guy – I think so, anyway.

I'm NOT talking about Harlan. I do NOT know Harlan. I'm talking about another guy.

An observation

[MaxTheMarketer]

NLP!!! ^^,

As a psychology-nerd myself I just had to share my two or thousand cents of it...

From the standpoint of the scientific method where you have "operational definitions" in the "positivism perspective" NLP is "bogus" in the sense that you cannot define it (quantify it objectively that is).

Therefore, you will hear and see on Wikipedia and other sites that use rigorous scientific approach on the topic that "NLP is NOT a scientific discipline".

However, just because something is NOT a science or cannot be defined using the scientific method or perspective, does not make it less useful.

Hypnosis and the field of psychology itself has received tons of criticism due to its vague definitions and almost undefiniable variables (e.g. emotions, consciousness, subconsciousness, trance, etc.,).

And at the same time, you still see, hear and can experience yourself, a session of hypnosis and get a first hand experience of it and see its tremendous powers.

I strongly believe NLP has lots of useful stuff as the brain IS "plastic" and can change due to experiences (including "NLP Patterns").

Indeed, it will remain heavily debated whether NLP will ever be scientifically defined or not. One professor, I don't remember who, once said, "If you cannot measure it, it does not exist".

But "emotions" and "feelings" really seem to exist thanks to millions of self-reports (although that method is heavily flawed in most instances) from people all around the world, and the operational definitions of these terms are still debated today, in 2013.

In conclusion. NLP has its good uses, but of course, like anything here in life, there are really no "LEGAL MAGIC PILLS" (well, you can always rob a bank as a magic pill to get cash, but I ain't recommending it).

NLP could be seen as an art as what defines the "scientific method", it is NOT a science since it cannot be "operationally defined".

And as you read this message you will feel the deep-rooted feeling to take up your pocket and enter your credit card number to me... MUHAHAH...

Nah, let's cut that right there, or should we?! ;-)

Take Care & Have An Awesome Day, Fellow Warrior(s)! / Max "MaxTheMarketer" K.

[hhhusted]

Originally Posted by Mark Andrews

Does your knowledge of NLP Harlan help you to exude warmth and friendliness at all? Only I'm not being funny with you but you come across as perhaps one of the coldest most unfriendly and unappreciative characters on this forum.

If copywriting is about building bridges, would it not behoove you to sometimes, well, you know, demonstrate this in your replies rather than coming across like English aristocracy with your nose in the air looking down on everyone else?

If you've got excellent knowledge in a particular subject, why not share this knowledge with warmth and enthusiasm rather than coming across like your guarding the secret holy grail of copy?

An observation.

Mark Andrews

Look whose talking. You act the same way. You have the personality of a dead frog sometimes. Take your own advice sometimes. Instead of trashing others when they make comments, you think are absurd, why not thank them and encourage them to add more to the conversation.

[Daniel Sanchez]

Now...I'm no expert...But after reading this "waste of most people's time" thread, I thought I'd speak up.

First...you need to know a few things.

1. How NLP came to be.

You see....there was this guy named Milton. Suffered a case of polio as a kid and couldn't move or speak for YEARS.

In fact, people thought he was mentally retarded at first...

But then something happened....

Once Milton started to speak, he had this weird ability to make people do some of the oddest things. (one of his proteges later on in life could make his abusive father pass out in his own cereal by the age of 8 years old...anyways, back to Milton)

Milton developed what many considered nearly superhuman powers...some even thought it was witchcraft or trickery....

But turns out Milton developed an awareness for something few people could see. After years of being strapped to a chair unable to move....Milton noticed something...something so small, you might not catch it unless you really paid close attention...

And it's right in front of your very eyes....

Milton could see it in the way you talked....the way you moved...even the way you dressed. It was like exposing your every nerve to his mental control.

Hard to believe?

Have you ever heard to the famous Aboriginal trackers of Australia? They're so good at tracking, they can catch a man traveling thousands of miles away in the middle of a thousand people ...and tell you he smokes, has a limp, what kind of clothes he wears and if he's argumentative or not...

All by looking at the ground....

Seem impossible?

I thought so once....until I spent a weekend with one of the last Apache teacher's known to man

I've stared at the ground for hours...and could see what I never saw before.

If you open your mind and just simply notice....things start to show up...

I still remember the day when I went "tracking" in a mall...

And I heard these fast, hard foot steps...and without looking I could tell it was an older women with a defiant personality and knee problems...

Sure enough...there she was...smacking the ground with those high heels like she was angry at the very ground she walked on..

The moment our eyes made contact, she reeked bitterness at me with a glare most men would reel back from.

Anyways...

Long story short - Milton went on to school to become a psychiatrist to prove what he did was real.

He was laughed at, ignored and even threatened by everyone in the psychiatric community.

But Milton pressed on...and kept scaring the crap out of all of the so called "experts"

He helped the "unhelpable"...cured the "incurable"...and did the "impossible"

It took years, but finally,after decades of hard work....

Hypnosis become an excepted tool in the psychiatric community....and what you know as hypnosis today is because of this great man.

Now...NLP is based on the work Bandler and Grinder to figure out how Milton and several other amazing people, did what they did

They put things into words...gave them names and structure to help people wrap their heads around things they couldn't put into words before....or just plain didn;t notice.

I believe Grinder and Bandler added a lot of stuff to mix....things that weren't originally part of observation....and more imagination and experimentation.


Now...the reason I'm sharing all of this is to clear up a few things.

NLP's persuasive roots came from hypnosis....and hypnosis came from observation.

It's not something that was created or "made up"

It's an observation of something that already existed. It came from paying DEEP,close attention to things you wouldn't normally see.

Ever notice how Obama always tilts his head when he speaks?

Not an accident.

Those of you who are screaming "NLP is phony..it's all made up"

Yes and no. It's nothing anything new. It's not something created.

But a lot of it (which stems from hypnosis) came from defining things most people didn't have words for....or who never noticed them because they couldn't see them.

Personally I believe the majority of NLP's got out of hand. It's like marketing incest. They've swapped so much DNA, they've got weird mutant babies ....and the babies think themselves to be smart. It screams "stay away" for anyone with any level of logical intelligence

BUT...you might not see the secret hiding into between the lines ....in between the spaces

If you're into copywriting, you've probably experienced this before....

You're going through a sales letter and than "AHA!"...you noticed something powerful you've never seen until now. Something you haven't read or heard about ...

And it feels like a secret...but in a way you know it's not....because you found it right there in front of your eyes.

Do you share it with others? No...Why? Cause others won't get it. They haven't got the eyes to see it.

And that's what you're missing if you don't give NLP a chance

To answer Pusateri's earlier question about how it compares to rhetoric...

In most cases (not all)...REAL nlp deals more with the micro where rhetoric approaches are more larger picture "macro" techniques.

It's not about approaches as much as the details in language...

Capice?

And as for proof....

How can I prove scientifically a certain inflection on someone's voice reveals a they're ticked off at you?

Or how your mind assimilates time?

You ask for proof but to paraphrase someone been criticized for millenia...

You can't have proof without faith first.

Waiting on your duff for someone to do the work for you so you can finally "feel safe" to try something is ludicrous in my opinion.

And reading about it isn't really trying.

In fact, "trying" is useless too

You need to "just do it" like the slogan of an over priced shoe company exclaims

I'm no expert but I know my way around a sales letter or two....

And I will tell you this. Most NLP is truly useless turd crap

BUT...what works, works so well you'll be amazed at the mind bending power you wield at your finger tips.

For those of you on the 'proverbial fence"

Here's something to consider...

Daniel Levis, a great copywriter and collaborator of Clayton Makepeace, always noticed NLP in Clayton's copy.

And Clayton was always pleasantly surprised. Didn't know a lick of NLP of it smacked in the face.

Doesn't matter which way you bend, as long as you study persuasion and copy, you'll be a success. Study, observe, apply and test.

This to me is what it's all about.

PS - Rick...I'd love to know who you studied with. You've got quite the handle on NLP for copy.

PPS - Paul Hancox really does teach some awesome NLP..even for embedded commands

PPPS - can you find the NLP in this post? If so...post it. If not....don't post it and post what you DID see. NLP is just a label. What it really is stems from observation....so....what did you observe?

[Moriarty]

Can I untangle all this a little? Because the brain is one big place and there are few of us who even think about it, let alone organize some kind of structure to understand it.

Those who like NLP like it, use it and find it suits their needs. Any decent copywriter will know that there is never a one-size-fits-all category of humans. That goes for describing brain functions too.

My own take is so far out the box that people can't find me. That doesn't worry me as I can sit in a box any time I like - and that allows me to tell people about it. Actually the link in my website footer is screwed up so it ain't around just now.

Just as an aside - there is one thing that divides the real thinkers from the also-rans. The real thinker can imagine what isn't there. Usually people only look at what they are selling because that is what they have proof for. The master sees what they aren't selling and has the imaginatoin to see what they might sell.

Geddit?

Because in brain terms, think that your brain weighs three pounds. Yet your head feels like it weighs an ounce. The human body is so elegantly designed that the weight of your brain is carried where it is comfortable. Your abdomen.

[hhhusted]

The problem is not with NLP, it is with people and their understanding of it. I took a number of courses in psychology and human behavior, and even did part-time counseling, and one thing I noticed, which was a common trait, is that people will not accept something they don't understand. If it doesn't fit well with their understanding or belief system, they will reject it.

Also, people don't like change. Therefore, if someone was told he had to change his thinking (a belief that was obtained and kept for many years), he won't do it. The reason is he is used to thinking that way and won't alter it. It would take some kind of shock or sudden event to make people conform to the new way of thinking.

Anthony Robbins expresses this point very clearly in his tapes, CDs, and seminars. The bottom line is that NLP is not the problem here as it is people's perceptions and beliefs about it. I'm studying it now and find it very interesting and helpful in my writing.

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Daniel Sanchez

Now...I'm no expert...But after reading this "waste of most people's time" thread, I thought I'd speak up.

Maybe you should learn some NLP... and brevity for that matter.

First you say...

I'm no expert

and then you call this thread a...

"waste of most people's time"

And then...

you proceed to write a long rambling post in a thread that's a "waste of most people's time" like you're an expert.

Make up your mind.

Is it worth it, or not?

If not, why didn't you just ignore it and get on with your life... and let us waste ours with these types of threads?

[Daniel Sanchez]

"waste of most people's time" calls out anyone who thinks this is a waste of time...using their own words works wonders.

Average NLP guy would say I was using an embedded command....

Smart copywriter OR NLP guy would see what I actually did.

And where did I say I was an expert?

If you felt offended my opening sentence it's because you feel NLP has some value...

Neat, eh?

(the simple stuff words can do)

PS - As for whether NLP has value or not, that's not for me to decide...even if I think it has value.

Picked up from great copywriters: Let people come to their own conclusions (at least make them think they did....)

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Daniel Sanchez

"waste of most people's time" calls out anyone who thinks this is a waste of time...using their own words works wonders.

Average NLP guy would say I was using an embedded command....

Smart copywriter OR NLP guy would see what I actually did.

And where did I say I was an expert?

If you felt offended my opening sentence it's because you feel NLP has some value...

Neat, eh?

(the simple stuff words can do)

PS - As for whether NLP has value or not, that's not for me to decide...even if I think it has value.

Picked up from great copywriters: Let people come to their own conclusions (at least make them think they did....)

Did I say you did?

Read my post again and see if you understand.

Although I started a thread defending NLP, I will say I've come across many NLP practitioners who are very arrogant and think they really are amazing with words.

And they do actually say things like this...

If you felt offended my opening sentence it's because you feel NLP has some value...

Neat, eh?

And, of course I think NLP has some value. I started this thread defending it.

All you've proven is that you make comments without bothering to read what went before...

Something a lot of so-called NLP practitioners do.

[Harlan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Sanchez

Now...I'm no expert...But after reading this "waste of most people's time" thread, I thought I'd speak up.

First...you need to know a few things.

1. How NLP came to be.

You see....there was this guy named Milton. Suffered a case of polio as a kid and couldn't move or speak for YEARS.

In fact, people thought he was mentally retarded at first...

But then something happened....

Let me point out that what you've spent a lot of time sharing about the origins of NLP is totally untrue.

NLP was the study of Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, and Gregory Bateson. It was built upon Grinder's study of transformational grammar.

In fact, their first books didn't even mention Erickson for one simple reason - Bandler and Grinder didn't know he even existed.

So the idea that NLP was built based on Erickson's work was pure fiction.

[Jennie Heckel]

Hi All,

Please be aware this is my own personal opinion so please take it as this.

This is my own personal experience with two recent WSOs I wrote, which were launched within the last quarter of 2012, whose sales percentages can be reviewed right here on this forum for proof.

You can read the WSOs and see if you can figure out how I used NLP to get the massive sales numbers. (Yes, I know that the copy is NOT the only thing that helped sell these two WSOs, but the fact I used NLP in the copy WAS a big determining factor in the higher than average conversion percentages.)

Since I have studied and tried to apply what I have learned in Harlan's NLP courses I have quadupled (or better) my conversion rates on my WSOs and sales letters.

I always try to use NLP in my copy. I write the copy draft and then go back and add the NLP subliminal references I learned in Harlan's courses to help boost the conversions and close the sale.

IMPORTANT: Now I am the first person to say, I am in NO WAY an NLP expert, so let's get that clear here.

I am new to NLP, (for I am sure it takes you many. many years to excel as an NLP writer.)

I have only used NLP to enhance the persuasiveness of my copy for the last couple years -- there is NO WAY I am in any way in the same league with Harlan.

What Harlan writes is a work of NLP Art.

Study Harlan's sales letters to see how a REAL PRO uses NLP. Or better yet visit his websites to review his free movies on persuasion.

But after reading all this bashing NLP, with little to no basis for any proof (as far as any verifiable sales proof) -- I had to put in my 2 cents and tell you what works for me.

Please remember, (I am a rookie at using NLP in copy) but I know using NLP suggestions boosted my conversion percentages on the last two WSOs I wrote for Neil B. for the Mobi Guys by an incredible percentage with the Mobi Cyclone WSO and then the Mobi Niche Raider WSO.

Just check the two WSOs and see if you can figure out the NLP suggestions I used.

So I'll say to you... If you could enhance your copy to boost the conversion rate -- wouldn't it make sense to check it out on your own to see if it worked for you?

I have split tested my copy for clients with and without NLP suggestions and the conversion rates are always at least double and most of the time triple with NLP suggestive copy added.

Remember this is just my own personal experience and what has worked for me.

Good luck to all in your copywriting...

Jennie Heckel
Sales Letter Copywriter

[Steve Hill]

Originally Posted by Harlan

In fact, their first books didn't even mention Erickson for one simple reason - Bandler and Grinder didn't know he even existed.

So the idea that NLP was built based on Erickson's work was pure fiction.

This is an area of some confusion. According to Wikipedia (yes, I know that doesn't make it true, but hear me out):

"According to Bandler and Grinder, NLP comprises methods that were modeled on the work of Virginia Satir, Milton Erickson and Fritz Perls, which also drew upon theories of Gregory Bateson, Alfred Korzybski and Noam Chomsky, particularly transformational grammar[19][20][12]."

This is later followed by:

"In 1975, Bandler and Grinder wrote The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy and The Structure of Magic II: A Book About Communication and Change. The authors referred to Chomsky's tranformational grammar and stated that the therapeutic "magic" as performed in therapy by Perls and Satir, and by performers in any complex human activity, had a structure that could be learned by others given the appropriate models. In contrast, the Milton model was described by Bandler and Grinder as "artfully vague" and metaphoric.[citation needed] They say it was used in combination with the meta model as a softener, to induce so-called "trance," and to deliver indirect therapeutic suggestion. However, adjunct lecturer in linguistics Stollznow, describes Bander and Grinder’s reference to such experts as namedropping. Other than Satir, the people they cite as influences did not collaborate with Bandler or Grinder. Chomsky himself has no association with NLP whatsoever. Chomsky's original work was intended as theory not therapy. “Other than borrowing terminology, NLP does not bear authentic resemblance to any of Chomsky's theories or philosophies - linguistic, cognitive or political” [12]."

I haven't read the cited references, but they may be worth following up on, for those interested in the true answer.

See more here:

Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Harlan]

Originally Posted by Steve Hill

This is an area of some confusion. According to Wikipedia (yes, I know that doesn't make it true, but hear me out):


I haven't read the cited references, but they may be worth following up on, for those interested in the true answer.

See more here:

Neuro-linguistic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, always turn to Wikipedia for the truth.

[Steve Hill]

Originally Posted by Harlan

Yes, always turn to Wikipedia for the truth.

Did you even bother to check the references to see what the truth may be?

There is a lot of information out there saying Bandler and Grinder got parts of their research from Erickson. True or not? I don't know. But just sayin'.

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Steve Hill

Did you even bother to check the references to see what the truth may be?

There is a lot of information out there saying Bandler and Grinder got parts of their research from Erickson. True or not? I don't know. But just sayin'.

Actually, NLP in its original form - as far as I know - was used to model success.

What Bandler and Grinder did was to model Erickson. If you think about it, they would need to have come up with NLP in the first place in order to use it to model Erickson.

And I have to agree with Harlan: wikipedia isn't always right. Don't forget, people write those posts, too.

And, yes, I've looked at the references they mention.

One thing I know about scientists is that, like actors, there are only a few who make all the money. The rest will write anything their paymasters tell them to.

And one thing they do very well is to write stuff they don't believe in themselves, just to sound controversial.

And we know controversy is good for publicity, right?

What better for an unknown scientist to get noticed for?

And...

As much as I believe NLP has its uses, I don't believe it can affect people who refuse to let it in. Just as with hypnosis.

I've had people insisting their 'patterns' had me in a trance despite tell them absolutely to the contrary.

I've had one guy saying, after I read something he wrote, "You were in a trance."

When I replied I wasn't. He actually said, "Yes you were."

And he wasn't even in the same room as me. We were chatting over skype.

This is the type of idiocy going around with some people.

I do believe NLP can be used in copy. But, as with most things, it can't work miracles.

[Steve Hill]

Originally Posted by Rezbi

Actually, NLP in its original form - as far as I know - was used to model success.

What Bandler and Grinder did was to model Erickson. If you think about it, they would need to have come up with NLP in the first place in order to use it to model Erickson.

And I have to agree with Harlan: wikipedia isn't always right. Don't forget, people write those posts, too.

...

I do believe NLP can be used in copy. But, as with most things, it can't work miracles.

Ah, ok. I see now what Harlan meant - Erickson didn't figure into the equation until later. He's right, according to this brief but detailed history of NLP:

A brief history of NLP

Per my initial disclaimer, anything from Wikipedia is taken with a huge grain of salt until otherwise documented. It's good for some information leads, but it's certainly not an acceptable source for academic or scientific research.

I agree with you that NLP-based methods have promise, but are not going work miracles. I have seen reports from others citing results similar to Jennie's, so it would be foolish to ignore that potential.

It is interesting that some or most A-level copywriting also contains some NLP patterns. Even though the writers themselves may not know the techniques as NLP, they are still proven techniques for them. Learning the techniques through NLP could perhaps shorten the learning curve.

For those looking for a quick fix, it's not magic pixie dust to sprinkle throughout copy to turn leaden copy into gold, far from it. But for those looking for that extra edge, NLP has potential, alongside various other techniques. I've found it intriguing, at least what I can find that relates to copywriting. It's not much so far, but I'd like to find more.

[Harlan]

Originally Posted by Steve Hill

Did you even bother to check the references to see what the truth may be?

There is a lot of information out there saying Bandler and Grinder got parts of their research from Erickson. True or not? I don't know. But just sayin'.

The story I posted came from John Grinder.

Now who do you think got the story correct? The guy who was there or Wikipedia?

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Rezbi

And, yes, I've looked at the references they mention.

One thing I know about scientists is that, like actors, there are only a few who make all the money. The rest will write anything their paymasters tell them to.

And one thing they do very well is to write stuff they don't believe in themselves, just to sound controversial.

And we know controversy is good for publicity, right?

What better for an unknown scientist to get noticed for?

That's just plain asinine.

I've had some feuds with academics over the years, and academia certainly has its problems. But if you're going to say shit like that, you don't get to sit at the grownup table anymore.

Academics don't publish in an uncritical vacuum (unlike a lot of IM copywriters/marketers.)

You ever hear of peer review?

An academic submitting a paper just to be controversial WILL end his career. Reputation matters. Academics can't just take on a new name and move to another niche.

Academic papers are not about what the researcher believes. They are about what the evidence shows.

Try reading a few.

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Pusateri

That's just plain asinine.

I've had some feuds with academics over the years, and academia certainly has its problems. But if you're going to say shit like that, you don't get to sit at the grownup table anymore.

Academics don't publish in an uncritical vacuum (unlike a lot of IM copywriters/marketers.)

You ever hear of peer review?

An academic submitting a paper just to be controversial WILL end his career. Reputation matters. Academics can't just take on a new name and move to another niche.

Academic papers are not about what the researcher believes. They are about what the evidence shows.

Try reading a few.

If that's the type of rubbish 'grown-ups' write I don't want to site at their arrogance filled table.

You just have to look at all the rubbish that's been out in the media - 'backed up by science' - to see what you're talking is utter rubbish.

First you have to drink x amounts of pure water or you'll dehydrate. Yes, that was scientists. I should be dead by now according to them.

Then there's fluoride, aspartame and a whole host of stuff scientists have 'verified'.

Please!

If you're going to pretend to be grown up, act like one instead of sticking your head in the sand.