You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NLP...care to share?
- Thread starter Steve Tvardek
- Start date
Hello Folks:
Hey
Sorry to be away so long, but I was putting in a new computer and (for me) that takes time.
Regarding NLP, I have mixed feelings. I realize that no single approach seems to be a panacea. I notice that I have learned some important lessons from my own reading and work on the subject. I have no formal training in that field. What has worked for me is taken from the early works of Bandler and Grinder.
I remember reading "The Structure of Magic" by Bandler and Grinder. At the time I thought it was interesting. For me it was a revolutionary way to look at how we perceive the world.
At the same time, I started to read books by Milton Erickson (and others) on Hypnosis, including;
"Milton Erickson on Hypnosis", "Hypnotic Realities" by Erickson and Rossi and "My Voice Will Go With You" by Rosen.
For me it was instructive to learn about the effect the subconcious mind could have on our lives, apparently without our concious awareness.
My attitude about these subects is simple. If you are not making money and you observe that something is holding you back but you cannot seem to make headway, what are you risking by investigating the subject?
Good luck
Steve
Hey
Sorry to be away so long, but I was putting in a new computer and (for me) that takes time.
Regarding NLP, I have mixed feelings. I realize that no single approach seems to be a panacea. I notice that I have learned some important lessons from my own reading and work on the subject. I have no formal training in that field. What has worked for me is taken from the early works of Bandler and Grinder.
I remember reading "The Structure of Magic" by Bandler and Grinder. At the time I thought it was interesting. For me it was a revolutionary way to look at how we perceive the world.
At the same time, I started to read books by Milton Erickson (and others) on Hypnosis, including;
"Milton Erickson on Hypnosis", "Hypnotic Realities" by Erickson and Rossi and "My Voice Will Go With You" by Rosen.
For me it was instructive to learn about the effect the subconcious mind could have on our lives, apparently without our concious awareness.
My attitude about these subects is simple. If you are not making money and you observe that something is holding you back but you cannot seem to make headway, what are you risking by investigating the subject?
Good luck
Steve
Evidently, I am not alone in my thinking. Why don't you ask the others as well.Quote from mschey:
Why is it that some people think everything is hype?
Dog....have you ever posted anything of value to this sight?
This sight is for traders and aspiring traders....where do you fit in?
Why do I think that NLP is hype? Look at the credentials and how long it takes to obtain them compared to their cost. Look how so many people who undergo NLP "transformations" want to become practitioners as well. It is more of a business opportunity than anything else. Doesn't it have an MLM feel to it?
For some reason, you seem to think that dream merchants and other members of the rainbow brigade belong in the trading world and that "traders" should be yes-men who soak it all up. And why is that? Why is it that some people never see the hype? What, exactly, is your own personal threshold for nonsense and quackery?
Have I ever posted anything of value? A few people have been kind enough to suggest that I have. Maybe they were just being polite. Perhaps you should speak with them.
If you will allow the analogy, I am merely expressing my opinion that junk food has questionable nutritional value. Would you like fries with that?
(P.S. The word is "site" rather that "sight" when referring to a location.)
I see a lot of superficial discussion in this thread about stuff that involves the concepts of "consciousness" and "reality".
It seems to me, there is no pervasive knowledge as to which science deals with those two concepts.
It is called cybernetics.
Understanding the basics indeed points to possibilities for change.
One first has to realize the circular process of "being conscious" or "existing". From there on alchemistic (i.e. non-scientific) ways to alter the process seem possible.
The point is not the altering or the going about to alter, the point is a defined "final cause" that will take care of the feedback process to attain it.
The scientific facts, that there is nothing such as a "reality" and nothing such as a "person" seem to disturb the self-protection mechanisms of the feedback process. We tend to ignore it. In fact even "knowing" this seems to be a way to not deal with it.
Different people seem to have different ways around the circular self-protection problem and if NLP is one, we should be prepared to perceive it as "strange" or "interesting", basically the two states of emotion present here.
For anyone who understood more than a single word of this monologue I strongly recommend you to read this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...f=pd_bbs_2/002-6158381-4214452?_encoding=UTF8
Act always so as to increase the number of choices. - Heinz von Foerster -
It seems to me, there is no pervasive knowledge as to which science deals with those two concepts.
It is called cybernetics.
Understanding the basics indeed points to possibilities for change.
One first has to realize the circular process of "being conscious" or "existing". From there on alchemistic (i.e. non-scientific) ways to alter the process seem possible.
The point is not the altering or the going about to alter, the point is a defined "final cause" that will take care of the feedback process to attain it.
The scientific facts, that there is nothing such as a "reality" and nothing such as a "person" seem to disturb the self-protection mechanisms of the feedback process. We tend to ignore it. In fact even "knowing" this seems to be a way to not deal with it.
Different people seem to have different ways around the circular self-protection problem and if NLP is one, we should be prepared to perceive it as "strange" or "interesting", basically the two states of emotion present here.
For anyone who understood more than a single word of this monologue I strongly recommend you to read this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...f=pd_bbs_2/002-6158381-4214452?_encoding=UTF8
Act always so as to increase the number of choices. - Heinz von Foerster -
Quote from hirsch.im.wald:
I see a lot of superficial discussion in this thread about stuff that involves the concepts of "consciousness" and "reality".
It seems to me, there is no pervasive knowledge as to which science deals with those two concepts.
It is called cybernetics.
Riiiiiggggghhhhttt.
he's the guy who studied under l ron hubbard isn't he?
What a very funny joke.
I'm inclined to laugh.
I'm inclined to laugh.
I think that NLP and scientology (your reference to Hubbard) are both quackery. The guy who coined the term "psycho-cybernetics" was a plastic surgeon named Maxwell Maltz.Quote from lp3yc:
Riiiiiggggghhhhttt.
he's the guy who studied under l ron hubbard isn't he?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/06...f=pd_bbs_1/002-3730675-6366407?_encoding=UTF8
Dr. Maltz's book is actually worth reading. It has no hype. It just provides good and useful information.
This goes a little off hand.
Maybe you are experts on this Ron Hubbard sqabble. I'm not.
It's easy to steal names and damage them. I'm not referring to 3rd class brain whacked failed Sci Fi writers.
I talk about John von Neumann, Norbert Wiener, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead and the Biological Computer Lab at the University of Illinois.
Those guys did serious research starting in the late forties up to the late seventies.
Research into Artificial Intelligence was an early branch off, but I don't think the results of those people look impressive next to the claims they've made once.
When it comes to "reality", quantum mechanics is the cutting edge nowadays. I love to read about new experiments with even weirder outcomes than all the strange stuff known already, but I personally know of no model that is explanatory and can actually be verified by testing.
In this case older theories have the benefit that there was ample time to disprove them and it obviously didn't happen. Which makes them relevant in Popper's sense.
Check wikipedia: cybernetics for more if you're into epistemological sciences and don't confuse me with those greedy, sick whackheads that seemingly borrowed the name to sell hallucinations of eternal power and glory...
Maybe you are experts on this Ron Hubbard sqabble. I'm not.
It's easy to steal names and damage them. I'm not referring to 3rd class brain whacked failed Sci Fi writers.
I talk about John von Neumann, Norbert Wiener, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead and the Biological Computer Lab at the University of Illinois.
Those guys did serious research starting in the late forties up to the late seventies.
Research into Artificial Intelligence was an early branch off, but I don't think the results of those people look impressive next to the claims they've made once.
When it comes to "reality", quantum mechanics is the cutting edge nowadays. I love to read about new experiments with even weirder outcomes than all the strange stuff known already, but I personally know of no model that is explanatory and can actually be verified by testing.
In this case older theories have the benefit that there was ample time to disprove them and it obviously didn't happen. Which makes them relevant in Popper's sense.
Check wikipedia: cybernetics for more if you're into epistemological sciences and don't confuse me with those greedy, sick whackheads that seemingly borrowed the name to sell hallucinations of eternal power and glory...