Is NLP Utter Hogwash?

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Rezbi

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.

Seems the lesson you should have learned is don't go to the media for scientific information.

Here: Google Scholar

It's a start.

[Steve Hill]

Originally Posted by Harlan

The story I posted came from John Grinder.

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

Thanks for clarifying that. Even my dog is a more reliable source of information than Wikipedia (and as I said initially, just because it's in Wikipedia doesn't make it true).

What threw me is when you said "So the idea that NLP was built based on Erickson's work was pure fiction."

I already knew that this book existed:

"Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. by Richard Bandler and John Grinder"

but now I understand you were referring to Grinder's books before Erickson entered the picture, and even afterwards, it looks like it may have been just modeling using the developed techniques, as Rezbi said.

So let me get this straight, then (since I haven't read all the literature on this) - so Bandler and Grinder developed the modeling technology, but the subsequent results (from modeling Erickson and others) then became "part of" NLP?

By the way, don't get the idea I am advocating Wikipedia as a reliable source for the truth, though... I never have, and never will.

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Pusateri

Seems the lesson you should have learned is don't go to the media for scientific information.

Here: Google Scholar

It's a start.

Well, if that's anything to go by, there's a few there which seem to give NLP more credibility than wikipedia.

Have you read any of them?

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Rezbi

Well, if that's anything to go by, there's a few there which seem to give NLP more credibility than wikipedia.

Have you read any of them?

I looked at a smattering of the abstracts when this thread started.

To which are you referring?

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Pusateri

I looked at a smattering of the abstracts when this thread started.

To which are you referring?

Aha. There you go.

Too many people put up references to other sources without bothering to check them out.

And here I thought copywriters were thorough in their research.

Maybe not.

Looks like my new career as a researcher for copywriters might be just in time.

[Daniel Sanchez]

rezbi - you seem awfully defensive...and, NLP or not, that's never good for persuasion.

Ever try studying debate tactics and rhetoric? Really helped my copy.

Oh...and about that "you're in trance" crap....I've experienced this same thing.

But I've also seen the opposite.

I remember watching Tad James tell someone they were in deep hypnosis and the person didn't believe it. He then took a pin and pricked this guy's skin....and he didn't feel a thing. Started to bleed. He then told the guy to tell himself to stop bleeding. And he did.

Honestly rezbi...I have no idea what the hell you're excusing me of...but if I don't understand it, there's a good chance I probably didn't intend whatever you thought I did.

I believe NLP has tremendous value....but don't get so caught up in it that you don't open your eyes once in a while and see life through an unfiltered lens. NLP is just a tool. A tool doesn't make you a mechanic.

I say draw your own conclusions and not from studies or other people's opinions....but from you're own testing and experience. That's what being a copywriter is all about anyways.


Harlan - thanks for clearing up my snafu.

You are correct.

When I made the reference to NLP I meant NLP as we know it today. When people refer to NLP persuasion techniques most of the time they're referring to language patterns pulled from Erickson's indirect hypnosis methods.

(and as a random side note: Dave Dobson was the man. He is sorely missed)

Pusateri - I appreciate your determination and intelligence to seek solid scientific information. Peer reviewed info is always best in some circles...

But realize no innovation would ever exist if everything followed "peer reviewed" journals. Heck, look at Milton Erickson's life's work!

Back in the 1930, a pediatrician did a study on 1300 or so of his patients proving Vitamin E could help prevent heart disease. But because the study was done in his local community and races didn't vary, the study was thrown out. Wasn't until the 1990's when a peer review study proved vitamin E helped reduce the risk of heart disease.

Do you really want to wait 60 years before someone can tell you something works? Do you really need their authority?

I'll say this...

I believe the pursuit and study of Hypnosis and NLP has value in copywriting. And like anything, you need to learn it well and really give it a fighting chance. Many things in life take 1000's of hours to master before you can see valid results.

that said....hundreds of master of copy have never studied NLP in their life.

More than anything: study great copy. Study persuasion. Practice, test and refine. All that matters is "did it help me boost conversions and sales"

I believe true masters are always students of everything that helps them refine their art.

I'll always study great copy above NLP any day of the week. But I'm also not going o close my mind to other avenues just because it's not peer reviewed or related to copywriting.

I've studied Method acting to help build my ability to connect to my market. (small secret: Method acting isn't peer reviewed)

I'll study anything and everything to help better myself as a person and as a copywriter. You say something doesn't work, I'm OK with that. You're skeptical....that's your business. I'm still going to play with it and see for myself.

I'd rather look the fool to learn something than look smart and risk never growing.

NLP...Method acting....copywriting...

All just a bunch of big words that mean "get the sale"

At least that's how I believe those who strive to master copywriting see it.

I don't believe we're going to draw any solid conclusions about NLP here on a forum. We're just going to have to go out there and use it ourselves to find out.

I really appreciate this discussion. It's been a while since I've had the chance to mess around and talk "copy crazy" (as my wife likes to call it). This has been an awesome.

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Daniel Sanchez

rezbi - you seem awfully defensive...and, NLP or not, that's never good for persuasion.

I'll admit it openly...

I'm being purposely aggressive. I don't really care one way or the other.

Each to their own.

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Rezbi

Aha. There you go.

Too many people put up references to other sources without bothering to check them out.

And here I thought copywriters were thorough in their research.

Maybe not.

Looks like my new career as a researcher for copywriters might be just in time.

Google Scholar is a preliminary research tool. It gives you access to abstracts and snippets, not complete papers (for the most part.)

To read most full papers you will need a library or a JSTOR membership.

I had read several abstracts back when this thread started. If you will remember, my question at that time was:

"What is NLP?"

I asked that question because it seems there are as many definitions as there are NLPistas, and I think it's important to know WHAT something is before looking into whether it might be "hogwash."

You dismissed my question, telling me not listen to what others say it is and to find out for myself.

I responded that i was posing the question to YOU, one of the proprietors of a site called persuadewithnlp.

Your response: "if you go to the site, there's a guy, Clive Cable, who can answer that question for you."

My conclusion: Rezbi don't know.

Which sent me to Google Scholar and elsewhere...beginning to feel like Diogenes.

I came to the conclusion that other than being a modeling methodology, there is not much I can determine about NLP, except that it's very attractive to flighty types.

If I wanted to sell an NLP course, I think I would do very well targeting known buyers of cosmic healing, big foot and UFO material.

Throughout this thread you have pimped NLP as a science. Today you call scientists frauds.

I called you on that and gave you a starting point for real research on pretty much any scholarly subject, since your mention of "the media" as your well of scientific knowledge demonstrated you were sorely in need.

What did you come back with?

"Well, if that's anything to go by, there's a few there which seem to give NLP more credibility than wikipedia."

Holy confirmation bias!

[Colin Theriot]

To take a step back and find the "Cult" marketing that allows "NLP" to thrive:

1. Take a study or discipline that people want to learn or want help with, do a survey of it and pull out some really juicy bits that you know work. What will happen is that when people use "your" stuff, it will work. You will get credit.

2. Create a bunch of acronyms and new words for these working bits and explain a "system" of how they work together. If you are the "in" for people coming into the discipline, you control their ability to learn more, because you've given them made-up names for concepts instead of the commonly used ones. They MUST come to you for more because they can't dig deeper without real handles on the subject matter.

3. Reference the older works, too. Claim your work is an expansion and further development of it (even though it's just repeating it with a new name). Name-drop this pedigree for authority. Your reference of the sources you borrowed from legitimizes what you're doing beyond just a re-name. And even if they DO dig deeper into the source works, these are usually academic and dense, so "your" stuff seems like you made it accessible and "for the masses" when really you've simplified by omission, not by adding elegant insight.

4. Market your names for these things heavily, correct people when they use the older names. Whenever people talk about the old works you've co-opted, bring up the new names. "Your" people will defend your work for you because it DOES work for them, and they NEED you. When they encounter the pre-existing working things you teach out in the wild, they'll use YOUR names and give you credit. Even if it pre-dates you, they'll say, "oh this was early before they KNEW what they were REALLY doing!"

5. Charge A LOT for "training". Rinse, repeat, get rich, and retire.

[UKCopyKing]

Hi Guys,

Newbie here so be gentle!

I've probably had almost £20k's worth of combined NLP and Psychology training. With both there are some extremely useful areas and practical advice that copywriters should be blending in to their copy.

That said, for me, NLP is not the magic ingredient. No amount of persuasive words can be a substitute for deeply researching your audience and understanding the way they operate. In my opinion, NLP techniques only have their place within copy that has already successfully engaged and interested the reader.

NLP practitioners will tell you that the use of NLP is essential for buildinng rapport, for me that rapport already needs to have been built before any NLP techniques are introduced. Otherwise you lose that other key ingredient - believability.

[Ron Herman]

Originally Posted by Pusateri

I didn' ask for an opinion. I asked someone who writes for a site called persuadewithnlp two questions:

Are there any NLP inventions or discoveries?

and

How do NLP patterns differ from the patterns of classical rhetoric?

Guess he can't answer them. Is there anyone here who can?

Hypnotic words, woven into story, embedded inside other stories or sub-plots is NLP. Call it salesmanship, rhetoric, or artful banter, the end result is the same. The words are used to evoke desired emotions in the listener or reader.

In old school sales we would say things like "when you get this in your home" rather than "if you buy this today" and called that a presumptive close. In NLP it is called presupposition. It is the same thing with a different name.

I agree that many marketers of NLP training are the equivalent of snake oil peddlers; and I would of course add that the real issue is whether NLP patterns really do work. While weak attempts by unpolished practitioners of the hypnotic language patterns of NLP tend to come off as clumsy and ham-handed, true masters of the art shine. Whether employed verbally or in print, a good many of the patterns do have the effect for which they are deployed.

You yourself use NLP, though you may not be aware of it (we all do at one time or another, often unbeknownst to ourselves). The "natural" salesmen you have met in your life were using NLP patterns though they may have never heard the term NLP before. This is what NLP practitioner-trainers call unconscious competence. NLP patterns were created by "modelling" such naturally hypnotic orators.

And again, yes there are charlatans in the industry aplenty. The allure of quick bucks from the pockets of unwitting neophytes is hard for hucksters to resist. Do yourself a favor and don't be too hasty in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I wouldn't ask you to simply believe NLP works until you see the results and hear the explanation of the patterns as they're being used effectively.

[Rezbi]

12 Scientific Findings That Were Actually Faked

12 Scientific Hoaxes - Business Insider

Yes, science can be faked, depending on the paymaster's requirements.

[Moriarty]

12 Scientific Findings That Were Actually Faked

I am afraid that the more intellectual the person, the more gullible they really are. In fact the person who claims not to be gullible usually is.

Those who know their gullibility know where they are gullible. That is one step on the road, let us say.

NLP is just another explanation for how the brain works. Whilst we are all struggling to define it, we have our dreams, our premonitions and thoughts. None of which are quite so easy to define.

So in the mean time, we have Freud, Jung, Adler and their followers - and NLP. Some people like it because it speaks to them. If they learn something about themselves, learn a little of their weaknesses, it won't have done them any harm.

And that's what counts in the long run.

[Pusateri]

Originally Posted by Rezbi

12 Scientific Findings That Were Actually Faked

12 Scientific Hoaxes - Business Insider

Yes, science can be faked, depending on the paymaster's requirements.

Jeezus, Rezbi!

Do you really think this article supports your point that research in general is untrustworthy due to a widespread agency problem?

Of the twelve, only three were perpetrated by researchers and only one had a "paymaster" involved.

Why are you grasping?

[Colin Theriot]

Whether or not some science has been faked has no bearing on the scientific validity of any other given subject. That's like saying some people have baked terrible tasting cakes, therefore sometimes a hot dog might also be a cake.

[Ron Herman]

Originally Posted by Colin Theriot

Whether or not some science has been faked has no bearing on the scientific validity of any other given subject. That's like saying some people have baked terrible tasting cakes, therefore sometimes a hot dog might also be a cake.

That's a good one, lol

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Pusateri

Jeezus, Rezbi!

Do you really think this article supports your point that research in general is untrustworthy due to a widespread agency problem?

Of the twelve, only three were perpetrated by researchers and only one had a "paymaster" involved.

Why are you grasping?

Actually, now you mention it, that was a response to something else. Not meant for this thread.

What an idiot I am. I-yyam, I-yyam, I-yyam.

[Harlan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Sanchez

(and as a random side note: Dave Dobson was the man. He is sorely missed)

How did you know Dave?

[Rezbi]

Originally Posted by Daniel Sanchez

(and as a random side note: Dave Dobson was the man. He is sorely missed)

I have one of his courses.

What a voice. Makes Sylvester Stallone sound like a squeaky mouse.

[ferghayden]

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

NLP is a boondoggle. It's an attempt to quantify rhetorical techniques. Any success you have with it is directly attributable to the blind squirrel axiom.

Gotta Love this!

[Raydal]

Originally Posted by Colin Theriot

To take a step back and find the "Cult" marketing that allows "NLP" to thrive:

1. Take a study or discipline that people want to learn or want help with, do a survey of it and pull out some really juicy bits that you know work. ...

2. Create a bunch of acronyms and new words for these working bits and explain a "system" of how they work together. ...

3. Reference the older works, too. ...

4. Market your names for these things heavily, correct people when they use the older names. ...

5. Charge A LOT for "training". Rinse, repeat, get rich, and retire.

I love your definition of re-branding.

-Ray Edwards

[JasonChoi]

I guess I'm a bit late to this discussion, but as an Master Practitioner of NLP, I agree with the OP. It's always been there. Sadly, there is a lot of people who do not understand how NLP works, which is essentially understand how things work. And in the case of sales copy, the structure of language and the effect it has.

[hhhusted]

Originally Posted by JasonChoi

I guess I'm a bit late to this discussion, but as an Master Practitioner of NLP, I agree with the OP. It's always been there. Sadly, there is a lot of people who do not understand how NLP works, which is essentially understand how things work. And in the case of sales copy, the structure of language and the effect it has.

I'm studying NLP now and find it interesting. The more I learn, more I find it fascinating.

[sethczerepak]

Originally Posted by charidemos

What makes me skeptical about NLP is that it's creator, Richard Bandler, is so overweight. I mean if the stuff he teaches work, why not apply them on his physical health? Then I thought he could be sick but he mentioned in an interview that he does not think he is fat. Draw your own conclusion from that.

lol, well friggin' put. The proof is in the pudding...perhaps literally in this case lol

[hhhusted]

I agree with you. If you aren't living proof that your product works, no one will buy it. I won't get involved in buying a product or course, unless the owner is reliable, trustworthy, has impeccable credentials, or is well known. In other words, if the owner hasn't already tried the product to complete satisfaction, I won't bother.

Thanks for the comment Seth and Charidemos.

[Richard Phillip]

Originally Posted by charidemos

What makes me skeptical about NLP is that it's creator, Richard Bandler, is so overweight. I mean if the stuff he teaches work, why not apply them on his physical health? Then I thought he could be sick but he mentioned in an interview that he does not think he is fat. Draw your own conclusion from that.

NLP does not have one creator.

And because he's overweight... hmm.
That's a strange sort of Ad Hominem fallacy. I guess I should judge Steve Jobs' credibility because he dropped out of college.

Bandler and company got results with NLP. Tony Robbins got results. If something works for people, the proof is in the pudding.

Bandler as person? Definitely a controversial character, but that doesn't discredit the results.

R.

[hhhusted]

Richard: I disagree with you. If you were to hire a plumber to work on your pipes, and you went to visit his home or office and found he had lousy plumbing, would you hire him? I know I wouldn't. To be honest, if a person is going to promote something, he must be able to make accurate claims that show the product worked. If the person didn't actually work the product himself, how can he lay claim that it actually works.

NLP does not work, unless there is someone that has plenty of knowledge and experience to use it effectively. How many people do you know that have used NLP perfectly, and benefited by it. I'm not talking about those you read about. I'm talking about people you actually talked to and witnessed it working.

[Daniel Scott]

Colin's a very insightful guy when it comes to bullshit, and I think he's hit the nail on the head here.

Don't really know the guy, but from being in his "Cult of Copy" I can see he knows social engineering and manufacturing credibility pretty damn well.

When you look at NLP in this light (and most religions, for that matter, but that's another story) it's interesting to say the least.

-Daniel

Originally Posted by Colin Theriot

To take a step back and find the "Cult" marketing that allows "NLP" to thrive:

1. Take a study or discipline that people want to learn or want help with, do a survey of it and pull out some really juicy bits that you know work. What will happen is that when people use "your" stuff, it will work. You will get credit.

2. Create a bunch of acronyms and new words for these working bits and explain a "system" of how they work together. If you are the "in" for people coming into the discipline, you control their ability to learn more, because you've given them made-up names for concepts instead of the commonly used ones. They MUST come to you for more because they can't dig deeper without real handles on the subject matter.

3. Reference the older works, too. Claim your work is an expansion and further development of it (even though it's just repeating it with a new name). Name-drop this pedigree for authority. Your reference of the sources you borrowed from legitimizes what you're doing beyond just a re-name. And even if they DO dig deeper into the source works, these are usually academic and dense, so "your" stuff seems like you made it accessible and "for the masses" when really you've simplified by omission, not by adding elegant insight.

4. Market your names for these things heavily, correct people when they use the older names. Whenever people talk about the old works you've co-opted, bring up the new names. "Your" people will defend your work for you because it DOES work for them, and they NEED you. When they encounter the pre-existing working things you teach out in the wild, they'll use YOUR names and give you credit. Even if it pre-dates you, they'll say, "oh this was early before they KNEW what they were REALLY doing!"

5. Charge A LOT for "training". Rinse, repeat, get rich, and retire.

[Dietriffic]

After reading most of the posts here, would it be true to say that NLP advocates have failed to nail down a specific example of NLP in copy?

Something that can be clearly identified as NLP, rather than a persuasion technique which has been used by gifted salesmen for years before the NLP craze?

Perhaps I missed it.

Or perhaps concrete examples are like the tooth fairy? Believed to exist by some, but never proven?

Just wondering.