The Skeptic's Dictionary

Damian,

Name me several Non-Therapies alongside NLP that are used to treat Phobias? NLP is NOT a Therapy, yet it is used frequently to treat Phobias, name several others that are NOT therapies yet used to treat Phobias? Just to be crystal clear on the distinction between NLP & a Therapy.

As fMRI wasn't around in the 70's when patterns came out, has Bandler or Grinder used this technology to influence their thoughts?

Saying, because, Patterns talked about the dominant hemisphere and non diminant and research has come so far from there.

Some basic research: Gazzanga has looked at people with the connectino between the two hemispheres and when the connectin is split it's like the person ahs two brains. I think Bandler may have talked abotu the lady whose one hand awas trying to choke her and the other was trying to stop it.

Damian,

Name me several Non-Therapies alongside NLP that are used to treat Phobias? NLP is NOT a Therapy, yet it is used frequently to treat Phobias, name several others that are NOT therapies yet used to treat Phobias? Just to be crystal clear on the distinction between NLP & a Therapy.

Peter,

Taking into consideration how important this seems to be to to you, I believe that you are indeed crystal clear on what defines a therapy. The distinction you seemingly refuse to make, is the difference between NLP used in a therapeutical setting and NLP itself.

As the nlpisnottherapy.com site explains: If you take a part from a Mercedes and use it in an Audi, that does not make the Audi a Mercedes. I'll do my best to make the metaphor crystal clear: If you take a part from NLP and use it as therapy, that does not make NLP a therapy. Furthermore I'll give you an example of this: If Paul Mckenna uses something from NLP and uses it as therapy, it still does not make NLP a therapy. If you hadn't seen his show and never heard of him before reading his book "I Can Make You Rich" (a very good book btw), do you think you would insist on calling NLP a financial tool?

I've already offered you my own distinction of NLP used in a therapeutic content and NLP as a metadiscipline together with links to an official site explaining Richard Bandler's view on it. Me and others have paraphrased John Grinder's distinction between those two as well. James Tsakalos, Chris Collingwood and Michael Perez have offered you three further perspectives on this, all of us agreeing on the same thing: NLP is not therapy.

Damian,

Okay so cutting through that piffle you just wrote, tell me Non-Therapies that are used to treat Phobias??? Name several, you failed to in your last post, that was all I asked.

Note the key word 'NON' there, okay tell me some that are used to treat Phobias and who uses them?

Or are you telling me NLP is the only one in the world that is NOT a therapy, but is used extensively to treat Phobias???

Very simple questions, why can't you answer them.

Very simple questions, why can't you answer them.

I don't see how they are relevant and I'm no psychotherapist with insight on what they use. You could probably google up the answer yourself.. .. Fair enough, I'll give it a try, even though I doubt it will make you pay attention to the points I made in my previous post since you referred to it as piffle:

* Desensitization (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/desensitization)
* Drugs (if I sell drugs, does that make me a therapist?)
* Exposure
* Virtual reality (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089%2F109493101300210222)
* Placebo
* Beta blockers
* Hypnosis (Is a stage hypnotist a therapist?)

Whether I am right or wrong on some or all of these, could you please explain what the point of this was that you were trying to make? You are still avoiding anything I write in my posts that doesn't answer any direct questions you have, question that are off-topic about my website, whom I trained for and how long, what can be used for therapy that isn't a therapy etc.. What would it take for you to understand the difference between NLP as a metadiscipline and the use of NLP applications in a therapeutical setting? How would you like that information presented?

Peter,

The question has been answered several times already. Therapy is one application of NLP, it is not what NLP 'is'. If NLP 'is' therapy, then mathematics 'is' structural engineering, chemistry 'is' weapons manufacture and English 'is' romantic novel writing.

As an earlier poster mentioned, music is also used therapeutically but it doesn't mean music 'is' therapy. I can think of lots of eminent musicians who are not therapists.

To repeat my earlier post, what are you actually trying to achieve here? And what are you achieving?

Cheers

Peter,

The question has been answered several times already. Therapy is one application of NLP, it is not what NLP 'is'. If NLP 'is' therapy, then mathematics 'is' structural engineering, chemistry 'is' weapons manufacture and English 'is' romantic novel writing.

As an earlier poster mentioned, music is also used therapeutically but it doesn't mean music 'is' therapy. I can think of lots of eminent musicians who are not therapists.

To repeat my earlier post, what are you actually trying to achieve here? And what are you achieving?

Cheers

Great post Stephen - as clear and consise as it gets IMO!

James

Hi Peter,

Michael 'The Fountain of All NLP Knowledge' Perez takes the time to waffle on that NLP is definitely not a therapy, then when discussing indepth how to actually test NLP he's right in there with dealing with Phobias! Ironic and comical simultaneously isn't enough to accurately describe that.

I'm guessing you didn't actually read what I wrote or at least misunderstood what I wrote. To be clear, I'll summarize it again.

NLP itself, as a meta-discipline, is not amenable to being proved via scientific study. However, *applications* of NLP might be, especially when measured via the tools of a hard science like neurology vs. the more manipulable tools of a soft 'science' like psychology.

So, to be clear, I did *not* suggest that one could test NLP by testing phobias.

NLP is NOT a therapy, yet virtually every Professional person using NLP uses it in as therapeutic context, nearly anytime you hear of people talking of scientifically measuring it they do so in the context of dealing with Phobias!

First of all, most sales organizations (the single largest use of NLP is in sales, by the way, not therapy) don't require peer-reviewed, double blind published studies of principals before adapting them. So, therefore, the largest (demographically speaking) application of NLP generates little academic interest because academic interest is of little relevance there.

As to your supposition that phobias are the context of most attempted research in the field of NLP or it's applications, I suggest you look at the research. Phobias and the fast phobia cure are only occasionally the subject of scrutiny. The most commonly tested are, in my experience and based on a quick check of the papers, rapport building and sensory predicates, both of which have extensive use outside of the therapeutic context as well, I'll add.

For an example of one of the postulates of NLP tested in it's application outside of the therapeutic realm, submodalities and their effect on sports performance has been the subject of considerable study lately. This is because sports performance is another area in which scientific studies are valued *and* there is considerable money available to conduct such studies.

You'll find papers here, here and here.

How many other Non - Therapies deal with and treat phobias?????

Quite a lot, actually.

Buddhist mindfulness discipline has proven to be quite an effective, albeit slow, treatment for phobias.

So, would Buddhism be a therapy, I wonder? And can you imagine that many Buddhists might take issue with the statement that Buddhism is therapy?

Another current trend is the use of the Theory of Evolution in Evolutionary Psychology in both explaining and treating phobias.

So, is Evolution a therapy? And can you imagine that many specialists in natural sciences might take issue with the statement that Evolution is therapy?

But, of course, points like these have been raised here before and ignored before, so consider them rhetorical and an exercise for the interested reader.

Peter, as I've said before, it seem to me you've picked a position and are sticking to it. I respect that even if I can't agree with your position. So this isn't about convincing you of anything. I am not attempting to elicit a reply from you, although, of course, you may reply if you think it worthwhile or constructive somehow.

This post is less directed at you, Peter, than it is about being clear about my own meanings and clearing up any misunderstandings about or mischaracterizations of my meaning, which, hopefully, I've done here.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Damian,

Name me several Non-Therapies alongside NLP that are used to treat Phobias? NLP is NOT a Therapy, yet it is used frequently to treat Phobias, name several others that are NOT therapies yet used to treat Phobias? Just to be crystal clear on the distinction between NLP & a Therapy.

Hi Peter

We could argue that Chemistry is used to treat phobias - it is not uncommon for GP's to prescribe Valium (a chemical compound) to those with flying phobias. But doing so would simply be endorsing the faulty logic upon which your challenge is based - because even if there were no non-therapies that were used to treat phobias, this does not in anyway prove that NLP is a therapy.

Think of it like this - I shave with an electric razor. Imagine a world where electric razors were the only kind of razor. In this world, would you say that electricity was shaving?

Would you then challenge people to find several other non-shaving devices that were used for the close removal of facial hair by cutting, in order to prove that electricity was indeed shaving?

Before you dismiss this as 'piffle', I would like to invite you to notice that this argument is from a logical perspective structurally isomorphic to your own. (though, of course, as with all logical constructs, the premisis are based upon presupposition).

All the very best

James

The most commonly tested are, in my experience and based on a quick check of the papers, rapport building and sensory predicates,

I've found rep systems taught in quite a lot of psychology courses, good to see!

The golf experiment is reminisinct of Bandler's visual golfer strategy story.

Intersetingly Bandler's said a couple of times that the phobia cure works because it's helping people change thier associaiton. Being exposed to the stimulus (uin this case mentally) while feeling comfortable.

This means we can cure a phobia (or many things with in reason, or even all things some woul argue) by chaning the associaiotn. Meaning if someone can't get over a phobia with the traditinoal pho ia cure you just have to do things to change their association, anchoring, end step reframing (as Grinder now calls it), anything like that. You may even elicit a strong emotional state and simply expose them to the stimulus (not hte ebst way, but can work), you could expose them to it phsyically in 3rd position, all sorts of things.

Another quesiton, I saw John La valle say once that anchoring at the top of someone's back is good because something like the nerves are wider so you dont' have to be as precise. People seem to also like anchoring the knuckles. Can anyone enlighten this subject for me?

Also in follow up to Michaels paper he posted, I did somethign recently that external visual and internal visual use the same or ismilar parts of the brain, but I can't remember where.

Hi Sam,

The golf experiment is reminisinct of Bandler's visual golfer strategy story.

NLP modellers have noted a correlation between internal representations, submodalities and increased accuracy in targeting in many different contexts. Some of the ones I am aware of include golf, tennis, baseball and target shooting, although I would speculate the correlation might well hold true in other contexts.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

First of all, most sales organizations (the single largest use of NLP is in sales, by the way, not therapy) don't require peer-reviewed, double blind published studies of principals before adapting them. So, therefore, the largest (demographically speaking) application of NLP generates little academic interest because academic interest is of little relevance there.

So, NLP is sales, then!


Phew! Glad we sorted that out!



(We did, didn't we?)

:cool:


Interesting you mentioned Buddhism btw, Michael lol

...because in many sutra's, the Buddha's teachings are actually described as powerful medicine for the illnesses of the mind...!

Now what did I say...???

...I love this thread...I do...I do...I love this thread...I do...I do...

People seem to also like anchoring the knuckles. Can anyone enlighten this subject for me?

Hi Sam

I anchor on the knuckles for 3 reasons:

1. Knuckles are a relatively innocuous place to anchor (compared to, say, the knee or inner thigh ).

2. The knuckle is well defined so it makes accuracy easier.

3. People can easily and descreetly fire the anchor themselves should they wish to use it as a resource anchor.

All the very best

James

end step reframing (as Grinder now calls it)

n-step reframing. n in this case being the individual number of steps it takes. Doesn't necesserily have to be 6.

This thread seems to have had a lot of confusion over levels of abstraction. I used to teach some seminars on object orientation (classification) in the techie world. This is about modelling some real world process as abstract classifications in the form of "X is a Y" or "X has a Y" so it can be automated. So a "car is a vehicle" or a "car has a wheel" are useful but a "car is a wheel" is not. I used to joke "a person is not a national holiday" because I saw in modelling a real application one programmer actually mistook a person (a user of the system) for a holiday they might take!

The amazing thing is that human beings rarely make this mistake when classifying physical objects (you would never mistake a car for it's wheel) but do more easily and frequently when it is less concrete or more abstract (when the sensory data is missing or further removed) with terms such as "therapy" and "NLP".

I think our intensive use of metonymy (figuratively using part to the represent the whole) in daily language is the reason why we easily make this mistake. We say things frequently like "I've got a new set of wheels", "there's a lot of new faces around here", "we need some new blood around here". These are useful figuratively but obscure a huge amount of information about the real relationship. We have unwittingly changed it from "whole has part" to "part is whole".

If we are not careful we actually believe the part to be the whole and the rest of our models get skewed.

We need to take exrta care when dealing with pure abstraction (categories of categories rather than categories of sense data) so as not to fall foul of this trap.

Going to The Dark Side, we can find some more macabre stuff used therapeutically. In the book "The Rainbow Machine" we have Marion, a Danish counsellor who goes to bed with her clients to help out couples sexually. And in todays paper I found an article about courses in sex being offered in Stockholm. For some reason I don't understand, it's also being offered to corporations! Imagine that, paying for engaging in groupsex with your co-workers..
Does this make sex a therapy?

A few pages back in the abovementioned book we are introduced to the concept of "colonic irrigation for couples"... and here in Sweden we have the now infamous "Analdoctor" Mikael Nordfors who cures everything from the common cold to depression by inserting <please google if you really want to know>. Last thing I heard about him, was that he is now conducting his treatments in Denmark (!).

And this book, it's just a classic:

Amazon.com: How to Good-Bye Depression: If You Constrict Anus 100 Times Everyday. Malarkey? or Effective Way?: Hiroyuki Nishigaki: Books

exe [Amazon UK | Amazon US]

Sex is Dark?

I must be doing it wrong!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

And in todays paper I found an article about courses in sex being offered in Stockholm. For some reason I don't understand, it's also being offered to corporations! Imagine that, paying for engaging in groupsex with your co-workers..

Ever been to an office christmas party? It is similar but with the emphasis on alcohol and frustrated mayhem instead of skillful moves!!

hi, Medicine...is...a...word...that...covers...many... fields...of...study!..
...NLP...is...not...a...word...like...Medicine...t he...question...is...where...does...
...it...fit!..i...suggest...that...NLP...can...onl y...be...seen...as...a...small...chunk/field
...within...a...larger!...when...you...see...where ...it...fits...you...will..see...
clearly...what...NLP...is!..trying...to...give...N LP...an...elevated...position...
...has...held...back...its...rightful...place...in ...the...scientific...family!

peace&love...vern

Hi Vern,

It's rather hard to read what you're writing when you write like that, but I'll assume that's something you enjoy, so I'll attempt to communicate with you in spite of it and see how it goes.

So, if I understand what you meant to say, you can personally only see NLP as a small chunk field within another field, unlike medicine, which covers many fields of study.

And you seem to think that thinking of or seeing NLP as something other than a sub-field is somehow holding NLP from being part of some sort of scientific family.

Is that at least mostly correct? If not, I welcome any corrections.

So, assuming for a moment that I'm at least marginally correct in my understanding here, what would you say NLP is a sub-field of?

And assuming that you mean to say NLP is or can somehow be made into a science in the modern sense of that term (i.e. conforming to the scientific method), how have you reformulated or how do you propose to reformulate NLP into a science, given that, as constituted by Bandler and Grinder, it's not about what's true but rather about what works? And would that still be NLP?

Be Well,

Michael Perez