Van Tharp Paradox....
- Thread starter ikkyu
- Start date
The developer stated explicity that NLP is NOT science. That doesn't make it not useful. The problem with science is that one instance can disprove something, and there is no way to prove it for sure.
It sounds like you chaps want to say I or other people are lyers. NLP works and sometimes it appears mysterious. Things tend to appear like magic if you don't understand the technology. NLP is a technology.
And, again, I find it distasteful that people insist on making up the "truth" they want. The US army used NLP in their marksmanship program. It was proven unequivocally to work. It was not further implemented because the man in charge didn't understand it.
I used to race sports cars, and health problems stopped me. To remain involved I decided to start coaching drivers and use NLP methods. EVERY SINGLE drive I ever worked with significantly improved lap times almost immediately. And if you know about how nuts these guys are, they'll trade their Mom for equipment to analyze performance. NLP may not be science (and most of what the great scientific minds developed through the ages were accused of "lacking good science") but it works.
Unfortunately, some folks appear to be frightened or have very narrow minds indeed. I find it laughable that people who have never studied this stuff, never talked to it's developers, much less used the information not only have such strong opinions but act like they are experts (Samson not included, I know a bit of his back ground).
Some people accuse NLP'ers of being like a cult when the religous fervor with which the accusers act displays exactly the behavior they're accusing.
I may or may not come back to this thread, I'm not subscribed, I just wanted to speak my full mind for those who need full and accurate information in order to make up their own mind.
It sounds like you chaps want to say I or other people are lyers. NLP works and sometimes it appears mysterious. Things tend to appear like magic if you don't understand the technology. NLP is a technology.
And, again, I find it distasteful that people insist on making up the "truth" they want. The US army used NLP in their marksmanship program. It was proven unequivocally to work. It was not further implemented because the man in charge didn't understand it.
I used to race sports cars, and health problems stopped me. To remain involved I decided to start coaching drivers and use NLP methods. EVERY SINGLE drive I ever worked with significantly improved lap times almost immediately. And if you know about how nuts these guys are, they'll trade their Mom for equipment to analyze performance. NLP may not be science (and most of what the great scientific minds developed through the ages were accused of "lacking good science") but it works.
Unfortunately, some folks appear to be frightened or have very narrow minds indeed. I find it laughable that people who have never studied this stuff, never talked to it's developers, much less used the information not only have such strong opinions but act like they are experts (Samson not included, I know a bit of his back ground).
Some people accuse NLP'ers of being like a cult when the religous fervor with which the accusers act displays exactly the behavior they're accusing.
I may or may not come back to this thread, I'm not subscribed, I just wanted to speak my full mind for those who need full and accurate information in order to make up their own mind.
You misunderstand scientific "proof." The same methods used to test the efficacy of medicines and elements of applied psychology can be used to test NLP.
Lying is too strong. Just because I think scientology is rubbish doesn't mean that you can't apply elements of it and see a positive result. Same with NLP. In fact, elements of NLP will probably have valid tested outcomes but other elements will be rubbish.
One of the troubles with NLP is that it appeals to the Guru's who want to take an appealing technology to people and make money with it. Tony Robbins is an obvious example; some would suggest the same of Van Tharp. And just because they are Guru's and just because some of what they offer is complete and utter rubbish doesn't mean that they are not well meaning or in some cases effective.
Sampson mentions existing tests.
http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html is also an interesting point to start.
Bundlemaker, I was never burned by NLP, I was just involved with it long enough and close enough to see it for what it was.
Every person that I met involved with NLP in the 7 years I studied it was broken in some way or another and none of them was interested in fixing themselves. They all wanted to fix the rest of the world because they where fine.
If NLP worked as well as it was marketed.
1. I would be a billionaire trader because I studied and practiced it for 7 years and was considered a protege.
2. The world would be totally fixed because every major world government has analysised it thoroughly.
and
3. Bandler and Robbins would be treated as the Einstein and Pascal of our times.
Sadly none of these things are true. (especially number 1)
Every person that I met involved with NLP in the 7 years I studied it was broken in some way or another and none of them was interested in fixing themselves. They all wanted to fix the rest of the world because they where fine.
If NLP worked as well as it was marketed.
1. I would be a billionaire trader because I studied and practiced it for 7 years and was considered a protege.
2. The world would be totally fixed because every major world government has analysised it thoroughly.
and
3. Bandler and Robbins would be treated as the Einstein and Pascal of our times.
Sadly none of these things are true. (especially number 1)
i have been in these conversations before. I worked in the same office building as Tony Robbins. Nice Guy, he said hello to me in an elevator but did not hypnotise me. But I never studied his courses.
I can unequivocally state, I saw his wife and then later I met his girlfried whose name he changed to sage. By the way Tony drives some of the nicest cars. So did his wife.
So I am interesed in what NLP did for the drivers whose lap times improved.
Did you attempt to model mind sets or techniques of faster drivers or was it something else. I am not looking to hear what perhaps you make good money teaching. But how do you apply NLP to race drivers. what makes NLP any different than copying which even 12 year old tennis players do. When I was twelve I must have played a junior Bjorn Borg every other round in a tournament, until I would lose to a really good junior Bjorn Borg. I noticed recently while watching a junior tournament half or more of the kids either tried to be Roddick or Agassi. And I suspect we will soon see a bunch of Nadals.
I can unequivocally state, I saw his wife and then later I met his girlfried whose name he changed to sage. By the way Tony drives some of the nicest cars. So did his wife.
So I am interesed in what NLP did for the drivers whose lap times improved.
Did you attempt to model mind sets or techniques of faster drivers or was it something else. I am not looking to hear what perhaps you make good money teaching. But how do you apply NLP to race drivers. what makes NLP any different than copying which even 12 year old tennis players do. When I was twelve I must have played a junior Bjorn Borg every other round in a tournament, until I would lose to a really good junior Bjorn Borg. I noticed recently while watching a junior tournament half or more of the kids either tried to be Roddick or Agassi. And I suspect we will soon see a bunch of Nadals.
jem wrote: "what makes NLP any different than copying which even 12 year old tennis players do."
You are 100% correct it's called emulation and NLP attempts to breakdown the "process" and organize it in a way that allows you to understand and duplicate what you already do "NATURALLY".
The pundits of NLP "claim" that since you are able to do this you can then gain control over the "Natural" process.
Although this may "Sound" like a good idea in reality and in practice it does not really work to any great extent past simple hypnosis.
Nelpers "as they are called" claim everything from curing disease to controlling womens minds for sex :eek:
In my personal experience NLP is in the same category as acupuncture ... it works with some little things and can help you with some stuff but it is FAR from a be all and end all as Nelpers tout it and NOT worth all the effort and expense of learning it.
This will give you a basic / accurate overview but don't waste your $$$.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-...tic_programming
You are 100% correct it's called emulation and NLP attempts to breakdown the "process" and organize it in a way that allows you to understand and duplicate what you already do "NATURALLY".
The pundits of NLP "claim" that since you are able to do this you can then gain control over the "Natural" process.
Although this may "Sound" like a good idea in reality and in practice it does not really work to any great extent past simple hypnosis.
Nelpers "as they are called" claim everything from curing disease to controlling womens minds for sex :eek:
In my personal experience NLP is in the same category as acupuncture ... it works with some little things and can help you with some stuff but it is FAR from a be all and end all as Nelpers tout it and NOT worth all the effort and expense of learning it.
This will give you a basic / accurate overview but don't waste your $$$.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-...tic_programming
Pretty interesting and civilized thread so far!
What you're calling a paradox are actually two equally valid approaches that need different market characteristics to work.
Confirmation entries work better in trending markets and trending time frames. As they say "apples with apples".
Also, to work, statistics need a reasonable number of samples, so when you have a positive expectancy trading strategy is better if you can apply it to a smaller time frame and have more trades. If you trade only 10 times a year, you may not live to recover from an outlier of many losses in a row.
What you're calling a paradox are actually two equally valid approaches that need different market characteristics to work.
Confirmation entries work better in trending markets and trending time frames. As they say "apples with apples".
Also, to work, statistics need a reasonable number of samples, so when you have a positive expectancy trading strategy is better if you can apply it to a smaller time frame and have more trades. If you trade only 10 times a year, you may not live to recover from an outlier of many losses in a row.
I would not think that the public would have access to sources such as the CIA, Pentagon, US and Israeli Armies. I think it is wonderful that you were able to get a hold of this data confirming your opinion of NLP.
Could you post the links to the studies you are referring to?
Thanks,
Steve