Anthony Robbins - Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP)
- Thread starter James Daniel
- Start date
Can NLP techniques truly lead anyone to fundamental change in the way they behave? By this I mean, can it cure people of taking impulsive trades?
I would consider the answer to be yes if someone were - through NLP - able to follow better than 90% of their trading rules for more than 90 days ... and have the P&L to show it.
Despite Grob's waxing on about the brain - there isn't a research scientist in the world who will tell you what exactly fear or anxiety (the most common emotion in trading - see Andrew Lo MIT) is - chemically or otherwise. They know chemicals that can be manipulated to produce more or less of it - but exactly what it is - not anywhere near that.
What specifically does - or better yet - how does NLP re-calibrate the baseline level of fear that any given trader approach the market with?
One more note - most of what we learn about ourselves - and believe about ourselves comes from before we have language. .... It is the fundamental reason that linguistic tactics aren't likely to work over any length of time.... ie cure.
I would consider the answer to be yes if someone were - through NLP - able to follow better than 90% of their trading rules for more than 90 days ... and have the P&L to show it.
Despite Grob's waxing on about the brain - there isn't a research scientist in the world who will tell you what exactly fear or anxiety (the most common emotion in trading - see Andrew Lo MIT) is - chemically or otherwise. They know chemicals that can be manipulated to produce more or less of it - but exactly what it is - not anywhere near that.
What specifically does - or better yet - how does NLP re-calibrate the baseline level of fear that any given trader approach the market with?
One more note - most of what we learn about ourselves - and believe about ourselves comes from before we have language. .... It is the fundamental reason that linguistic tactics aren't likely to work over any length of time.... ie cure.
I trained in NLP, around 1986. At the time, the craze was to market via free seminars (nothing-down real estate, how to make a million buying foreclosures, buying probate property with no money down, etc). I attended this NLP seminar determined to make a fool of the instructor and to expose him as a fraud (I had a newsletter at the time).
I used what he taught me, exactly as he taught me... in a very overt manner (I was wanting to get caught at it). Despite my negative opinion of it all, it worked so well I couldn't believe it.
As it turns out, I ended up being one of his "showcase examples" and doing speaking engagements throughout the USA during his seminars and classes.
That was 20 years ago, and while I no longer practice what I was taught on a regular basis, I can still easily employ portions of it when needed. It was a lot of fun, but it was also a lot of work. I guess after I started getting the things I wanted, I let go of using it and proceeded with living my life.
I used what he taught me, exactly as he taught me... in a very overt manner (I was wanting to get caught at it). Despite my negative opinion of it all, it worked so well I couldn't believe it.
As it turns out, I ended up being one of his "showcase examples" and doing speaking engagements throughout the USA during his seminars and classes.
That was 20 years ago, and while I no longer practice what I was taught on a regular basis, I can still easily employ portions of it when needed. It was a lot of fun, but it was also a lot of work. I guess after I started getting the things I wanted, I let go of using it and proceeded with living my life.
I'm sorry to hear that you convinced yourself that there is no one who knows what you want to find out. There are some really stellar practioners out there. Were I you I would try harder to find a team of them.
Lo's AMH is worth reading about. It makes a good case for EMH for most of the world.
The "any given trader" is you. Why would anyone approach something they were interested in with fear? Markets offer a continual supply of capital for extraction. IT is there and it is equally available to anyone. Fear, anxiety? Why let your sensory system create that for you while you observe what is offered? You probably aren't afraid of obsrving the markets offer you money----you are looking at yourself in the market and knowing something about yourself. Pep talks do not change anything. What changes if it does is getting down and getting to the place where you have done the undone work to get equipped. Want to change the fear and anxiety? Get you work done so you are fully equipped instead of being outside in the cold looking at money being offered to you all the time.
The Tony Robbins pep talk stuff is not the antidote for Lo's perception of anxiety.
Is it possible for you to consider who the market is for Sloan consultants like Lo? It isn't those who are in the groove.
http://www.stockwatch.com/swnet/new...x?bid=B-560530-C:CGS&symbol=CGS&news_region=C
CanWest's Sun argues lawyer bill from Robbins trial
2006-05-18 13:53 ET - Street Wire
by Stockwatch Business Reporter
The Vancouver Sun and self-help guru Tony Robbins are back in B.C. Supreme Court in what could be the costly aftermath of a highly publicized two-month libel trial from last summer. Although Mr. Robbins won $20,000 in damages against The Sun for a story about him and his wife, the real cost of the trial will be in the lawyers' bills.
Mr. Robbins sued The Sun and other media outlets in 2001 for a story about his wife Bonnie and her divorce from Langley man John Lynch. Mr. Robbins claimed the story, which has since been pulled from all on-line sources, called him a wife-stealing hypocrite.
With both parties having deep pockets, the legal bickering went on for four years before a prolonged 27-day trial. Mr. Robbins racked up $750,000 in legal bills by one estimate.
At the end of the trial, the judge, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Williamson, left the question of costs open. He said he would hear from the lawyers on costs after he issued his judgment.
The $20,000 judgment, which came down last November, was a very modest victory for Mr. Robbins. It was so modest that Sun lawyer Rob Anderson said in court today that The Sun "won the event." The Robbins camp undoubtedly disagrees. His lawyers published a news release saying the lawsuit was never about the money, it was about vindication.
Nevertheless, both sides were in court today arguing about who will pay Mr. Robbins's legal bill. Most of the argument appears to revolve around who wasted more time in the trial, The Sun or Mr. Robbins.
Mr. Robbins's lawyer, West Vancouver libel specialist Roger McConchie, says The Sun used up most of the trial in a futile attempt to prove the truth of its story. "The plaintiff cannot be held liable for that wasted time," he says.
The Sun, in the trial, tried to prove justification, or the truth of its story. Mr. McConchie says it should have become obvious that was a waste of time when The Sun's source for the story, Abbotsford resident Gary Carlsen, apologized and admitted he and Mr. Lynch lied to The Sun.
Sun lawyer Mr. Anderson, however, disagrees. He points the finger back at the other side, saying Mr. Robbins's lawyers used up about three-quarters of the trial on two points The Sun won, the key issues of wife-stealing and malice, or spite.
The wife-stealing allegation was a victory for The Sun. It turned out to be a non-starter with Judge Williamson, who relied at least partly on the dictionary definition of theft. He said it is "devoid of reason" to conceive how somebody could steal another's wife in modern society. "Even if not taken literally, the notion implies a lack of independent will or consent on the part of the 'stolen' spouse," he said.
The issue of malice, or spite, is a little more complicated. As Mr. Robbins's lawyer points out, the judge found Sun reporter Jeff Lee was somewhat reckless in not checking up on some of the things Mr. Carlsen told him. However, the judge stopped short of finding Mr. Lee did so out of malice for Mr. Robbins.
Mr. Anderson seized on this, saying Mr. Robbins's lawyers spent at least half the trial trying to argue the malice point. Mr. Anderson also made much of the fact that Mr. Robbins himself did not testify as expected.
The debate over costs, like the actual trial, appears headed for overtime. Although only slated for two days, Wednesday and Thursday, the lawyers already expect it will go into Friday, so no early long weekend for them.
CanWest's Sun argues lawyer bill from Robbins trial
2006-05-18 13:53 ET - Street Wire
by Stockwatch Business Reporter
The Vancouver Sun and self-help guru Tony Robbins are back in B.C. Supreme Court in what could be the costly aftermath of a highly publicized two-month libel trial from last summer. Although Mr. Robbins won $20,000 in damages against The Sun for a story about him and his wife, the real cost of the trial will be in the lawyers' bills.
Mr. Robbins sued The Sun and other media outlets in 2001 for a story about his wife Bonnie and her divorce from Langley man John Lynch. Mr. Robbins claimed the story, which has since been pulled from all on-line sources, called him a wife-stealing hypocrite.
With both parties having deep pockets, the legal bickering went on for four years before a prolonged 27-day trial. Mr. Robbins racked up $750,000 in legal bills by one estimate.
At the end of the trial, the judge, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Paul Williamson, left the question of costs open. He said he would hear from the lawyers on costs after he issued his judgment.
The $20,000 judgment, which came down last November, was a very modest victory for Mr. Robbins. It was so modest that Sun lawyer Rob Anderson said in court today that The Sun "won the event." The Robbins camp undoubtedly disagrees. His lawyers published a news release saying the lawsuit was never about the money, it was about vindication.
Nevertheless, both sides were in court today arguing about who will pay Mr. Robbins's legal bill. Most of the argument appears to revolve around who wasted more time in the trial, The Sun or Mr. Robbins.
Mr. Robbins's lawyer, West Vancouver libel specialist Roger McConchie, says The Sun used up most of the trial in a futile attempt to prove the truth of its story. "The plaintiff cannot be held liable for that wasted time," he says.
The Sun, in the trial, tried to prove justification, or the truth of its story. Mr. McConchie says it should have become obvious that was a waste of time when The Sun's source for the story, Abbotsford resident Gary Carlsen, apologized and admitted he and Mr. Lynch lied to The Sun.
Sun lawyer Mr. Anderson, however, disagrees. He points the finger back at the other side, saying Mr. Robbins's lawyers used up about three-quarters of the trial on two points The Sun won, the key issues of wife-stealing and malice, or spite.
The wife-stealing allegation was a victory for The Sun. It turned out to be a non-starter with Judge Williamson, who relied at least partly on the dictionary definition of theft. He said it is "devoid of reason" to conceive how somebody could steal another's wife in modern society. "Even if not taken literally, the notion implies a lack of independent will or consent on the part of the 'stolen' spouse," he said.
The issue of malice, or spite, is a little more complicated. As Mr. Robbins's lawyer points out, the judge found Sun reporter Jeff Lee was somewhat reckless in not checking up on some of the things Mr. Carlsen told him. However, the judge stopped short of finding Mr. Lee did so out of malice for Mr. Robbins.
Mr. Anderson seized on this, saying Mr. Robbins's lawyers spent at least half the trial trying to argue the malice point. Mr. Anderson also made much of the fact that Mr. Robbins himself did not testify as expected.
The debate over costs, like the actual trial, appears headed for overtime. Although only slated for two days, Wednesday and Thursday, the lawyers already expect it will go into Friday, so no early long weekend for them.
As a friend of mine said - we need losers in the markets. The more I associate with successful traders (but choose to stay at arms length from them) the more I see that inside each of them their is a deep need to f*** the other guy up because that is perpetuating the existence of a successful trader. This is not a profit sharing commune that we are in - it is kill or be killed - as much as that goes diametrically opposite the longing of the human heart - to share and to love (and why people post on ET sometimes).
Do you honestly want to let an NLP programmer anywhere near your unconscious when they themselves probably have aspirations to make big money (and see that trading is doing it for you), do you think they would then want to help? Deep down I think they too want to be a successful trader and that would imply to me that the programmer will unconciously try and slow you down, even if they don't know that they are doing it at the time. System is King, queen and jacks, NLP may help, but I think it will hinder in the long run.
Do you honestly want to let an NLP programmer anywhere near your unconscious when they themselves probably have aspirations to make big money (and see that trading is doing it for you), do you think they would then want to help? Deep down I think they too want to be a successful trader and that would imply to me that the programmer will unconciously try and slow you down, even if they don't know that they are doing it at the time. System is King, queen and jacks, NLP may help, but I think it will hinder in the long run.