I think that, today, I chased a girl. I knew that I was doing it, and I simply didn't have access to my ability to avoid it. I felt that it made me weaker, and her stronger.
Now, I am one of those guys who have lapped up the dogma that you should never ever chase; that you should never ever let her control the frame; that you have to be the leader.
And to some degree, I do agree. It is just better to come from a place of strength. There is the danger of coming off needy.
But on the other hand, I think that learning, and making mistakes, is far more important than adhering to rules. If you don't go there, if you don't do all the things that are considered "wrong" by PUAs, chances are you'll never get anything done. You don't learn how to ride a horse if you never risk falling off. You don't learn to ride a bike either. Or... well, you get my drift.
The bottom line is: better to do it all the wrong way than not to do anything at all. After all, I had a charming, entertaining, delightful conversation with a girl that I had only just approached in the subway. I spent about half an hour with her before we parted ways.
And that, as far as I'm aware, is about the same amount of time with a perfect stranger -- who also happens to be an attractive woman -- as most guys get in a year or so. So really, what's not to love?
Donnerstag, 2. August 2012
Dienstag, 31. Juli 2012
"All that talking doesn't get me laid"
It's a complaint I frequently hear from people who set out to become PUAs: "This doesn't work. All that talking is useless. Why should I talk with her for hours, if I don't get laid anyway?"
I can see where those guys are coming from - more or less directly from Niceguyland. Hours and hours of talking, and no action whatsoever. You listened to her complaining about that asshole at school for weeks, accumulated quite a phone bill and, by now, you are sick to the stomach from all that negativity that you lapped up... and a few days later, she's blowing the living daylights out of him. Him. Not you.
So it figures that talking doesn't get you laid.
Now, here's my challenge to you: What's the alternative? Do you seriously think that women will fall to their knees begging to blow you, just for your major achievements in pantomime? Just for your good looks? I admit, some might do it for money, but those tend to rather not be the ones I want for my dick.
When I look around, right now, in the coffee shop where I'm sitting, guess what I see: I see groups of people talking. I take from that that we, as humans, were designed for communication. We love to share, to reaffirm our opinions and little prejudices, and experience the wide range of emotions that other people evoke in us.
Let me propose a radical concept here: Pickup, in the widest sense of "being good with women", is not about getting laid.
Yep, I mean it. Pickup is not about getting laid.
As long as you have that goal of "getting the girl" in your head, you will always be somewhat tense around them. And of course, your interactions will show it. It will forever be awkward, weird and stressful.
I think I've met maybe two guys in my whole life who were really, REALLY good with women. And I'm not talking about the likes of Erik von Markovik here. I mean guys who actually have women drooling. Constantly surrounded by them, almost to the degree of stalking.
One of the qualities that those two guys had in common was that they were completely laid back. One of them was even married, and I don't even think that he cheated. Why would he - when you have all the possibilities out there at your command, you will often find that you don't actually need to have it. You can always wait for tomorrow. (In fact, I think that this is a raterh good prerequisite for a successful relationhip... but I'm digressing.)
Anyway. The point is that being successful with women comes from not being in need. From not WANTING anything from the interaction, beside the interaction itself.
From simply enjoying the moment.
After years of trying to get the close, and failing almost every single day, I am now aiming for this enjoyment. And lo and behold, suddenly women recognize me, "haven't I seen you in here before?", and I start being flirtatious when I myself least expect me to be. It's truly amazing.
I haven't gotten laid. No. And I realize that there is no guarantee that I ever will get laid, ever again, in my life. I have no "method" to "guarantee success".
In fact, I think that all the method-mongering that goes down in the seduction community is the biggest pile of horse manure that we could have taken upon ourselves. Because it fills you with expectations about the outcome. It makes you doubt yourself when you don't get laid. If makes you forever double-guess your own actions. And that is the opposite of sexy.
No. It doesn't work that way. It's completely backwards. First, learn to enjoy the interaction. And then, later on, when you're really really happy with every single exchange with a woman, when you're just naturally flirtatious - perhaps, then, you can start worrying about getting laid.
I have the distinct impression that, by that time, you won't need it anymore.
I can see where those guys are coming from - more or less directly from Niceguyland. Hours and hours of talking, and no action whatsoever. You listened to her complaining about that asshole at school for weeks, accumulated quite a phone bill and, by now, you are sick to the stomach from all that negativity that you lapped up... and a few days later, she's blowing the living daylights out of him. Him. Not you.
So it figures that talking doesn't get you laid.
Now, here's my challenge to you: What's the alternative? Do you seriously think that women will fall to their knees begging to blow you, just for your major achievements in pantomime? Just for your good looks? I admit, some might do it for money, but those tend to rather not be the ones I want for my dick.
When I look around, right now, in the coffee shop where I'm sitting, guess what I see: I see groups of people talking. I take from that that we, as humans, were designed for communication. We love to share, to reaffirm our opinions and little prejudices, and experience the wide range of emotions that other people evoke in us.
Let me propose a radical concept here: Pickup, in the widest sense of "being good with women", is not about getting laid.
Yep, I mean it. Pickup is not about getting laid.
As long as you have that goal of "getting the girl" in your head, you will always be somewhat tense around them. And of course, your interactions will show it. It will forever be awkward, weird and stressful.
I think I've met maybe two guys in my whole life who were really, REALLY good with women. And I'm not talking about the likes of Erik von Markovik here. I mean guys who actually have women drooling. Constantly surrounded by them, almost to the degree of stalking.
One of the qualities that those two guys had in common was that they were completely laid back. One of them was even married, and I don't even think that he cheated. Why would he - when you have all the possibilities out there at your command, you will often find that you don't actually need to have it. You can always wait for tomorrow. (In fact, I think that this is a raterh good prerequisite for a successful relationhip... but I'm digressing.)
Anyway. The point is that being successful with women comes from not being in need. From not WANTING anything from the interaction, beside the interaction itself.
From simply enjoying the moment.
After years of trying to get the close, and failing almost every single day, I am now aiming for this enjoyment. And lo and behold, suddenly women recognize me, "haven't I seen you in here before?", and I start being flirtatious when I myself least expect me to be. It's truly amazing.
I haven't gotten laid. No. And I realize that there is no guarantee that I ever will get laid, ever again, in my life. I have no "method" to "guarantee success".
In fact, I think that all the method-mongering that goes down in the seduction community is the biggest pile of horse manure that we could have taken upon ourselves. Because it fills you with expectations about the outcome. It makes you doubt yourself when you don't get laid. If makes you forever double-guess your own actions. And that is the opposite of sexy.
No. It doesn't work that way. It's completely backwards. First, learn to enjoy the interaction. And then, later on, when you're really really happy with every single exchange with a woman, when you're just naturally flirtatious - perhaps, then, you can start worrying about getting laid.
I have the distinct impression that, by that time, you won't need it anymore.
Sonntag, 15. Juli 2012
The #1 Worst Mistake Guys Make When Approaching Women
So, you're desperate for your fair share of action. You don't GET ANY.
You want ANSWERS, so you have browsed the web for countless hours.
You have AGONIZED over what the heck is wrong with you.
And now that you arrived here, at the ONE place where you can find ultimate, absolute, true, final answers, it is time for me to no longer keep you in suspense.
It is time to cut TO the chase.
To serve THE full meal.
So, without further ado, here IT comes.
Strange as it sounds, the #1 worst mistake you can do with women has nothing to do with what opener to use, or what method, or at what angle you approach or with what body language.
Sure, all of those are nice feats. But before you even get there, you have to get clear on ONE THING, and ONE THING ONLY:
You have to STOP MESSING YOURSELF UP.
I'm serious.
That little voice in your head that tells you, that "you haven't had any approaches today", and what a pathetic loser you are? The voice that keeps asking you what's wrong with you? The one that makes you look up seduction sites and learn openers and routines?
Stop it!!!!!
Right now. I want you to be absolutely determined not to play destructive little mind games on yourself. From now on. For the rest of your life. Never. Ever.
Because, let's face it... ultimately, the most important thing is not to get as much pussy as possible. Ultimately, the only thing that really matters is that you're happy.
Right? Right!?
Ironically, by focusing on the one thing that you always thought would make you happy, you absolutely and positively avoid letting it become real.
At least, that's my experience. I cannot approach anyone if I'm tense and nervous and have a racing heartbeat. For years on end, I thought that the solution was to get as many approaches as possible under the belt, so as to become used to the act and lose the nervousness.
But it never happened. I had no idea why, and it made me sad and even more tense.
Until I found other ways to relax. Ways that had nothing to do with PU or women at all. Ways to create good feelings in my body and my soul at will. And then I found how I was constantly critizicing myself for "not doing enough approaches", "not making any progress", and so on. So I took a decision: My top priority was not to "have good game" or "approach as much as possible" or whatever - my top priority was to be friendly and gentle with myself. Everything else was way less important.
This whole logical, analytical PU idea - go out, do approaches, analyze what worked - doesn't cut it at all. It makes you measure yourself against ideals that you cannot ever hope to live up to. It makes you second-guess everything you say and do with regard to women. It's the opposite of fun!
So I say, stop it. And, judging from the fun I have these days, I think I'm right.
And now I'm getting bolder and more self-assured every day. And I'm totally looking forward to posting about my progress here.
You want ANSWERS, so you have browsed the web for countless hours.
You have AGONIZED over what the heck is wrong with you.
And now that you arrived here, at the ONE place where you can find ultimate, absolute, true, final answers, it is time for me to no longer keep you in suspense.
It is time to cut TO the chase.
To serve THE full meal.
So, without further ado, here IT comes.
Strange as it sounds, the #1 worst mistake you can do with women has nothing to do with what opener to use, or what method, or at what angle you approach or with what body language.
Sure, all of those are nice feats. But before you even get there, you have to get clear on ONE THING, and ONE THING ONLY:
You have to STOP MESSING YOURSELF UP.
I'm serious.
That little voice in your head that tells you, that "you haven't had any approaches today", and what a pathetic loser you are? The voice that keeps asking you what's wrong with you? The one that makes you look up seduction sites and learn openers and routines?
Stop it!!!!!
Right now. I want you to be absolutely determined not to play destructive little mind games on yourself. From now on. For the rest of your life. Never. Ever.
Because, let's face it... ultimately, the most important thing is not to get as much pussy as possible. Ultimately, the only thing that really matters is that you're happy.
Right? Right!?
Ironically, by focusing on the one thing that you always thought would make you happy, you absolutely and positively avoid letting it become real.
At least, that's my experience. I cannot approach anyone if I'm tense and nervous and have a racing heartbeat. For years on end, I thought that the solution was to get as many approaches as possible under the belt, so as to become used to the act and lose the nervousness.
But it never happened. I had no idea why, and it made me sad and even more tense.
Until I found other ways to relax. Ways that had nothing to do with PU or women at all. Ways to create good feelings in my body and my soul at will. And then I found how I was constantly critizicing myself for "not doing enough approaches", "not making any progress", and so on. So I took a decision: My top priority was not to "have good game" or "approach as much as possible" or whatever - my top priority was to be friendly and gentle with myself. Everything else was way less important.
This whole logical, analytical PU idea - go out, do approaches, analyze what worked - doesn't cut it at all. It makes you measure yourself against ideals that you cannot ever hope to live up to. It makes you second-guess everything you say and do with regard to women. It's the opposite of fun!
So I say, stop it. And, judging from the fun I have these days, I think I'm right.
And now I'm getting bolder and more self-assured every day. And I'm totally looking forward to posting about my progress here.
Reframing PU Jargon
Below is a list of concepts that I picked up (npi) in PU, reframed in a way to actually make them productive and useful:
Believe it or not, you are allowed to tease girls. They won't explode, call the police, or otherwise harm you. Instead, they'll like you for your sense of humor.
It is fully okay to feel your sexuality as a male, and to behave in such a way as to make it shown.
Your gaze is no cause for discomfort. It is not harrassment to look at a woman and be sexually aroused by that view.
When women say things that sound like an insult, chances are they are just teasing you back the same way you teased them before. They're equally playful, sexual, and mischievous as you are - and, for the most part, in a good way. It is possible to tell the teasing from an actual insult.
If a woman insults you, it is perfectly fine to just walk away, or otherwise let her feel that she wronged you. You are a human being, you have feelings too!
It is useless to chase after a girl after she has seriously and convincingly told you to shove off and go do it yourself.
There is always another girl just around the corner.
Falling in love is okay. Just be aware that it doesn't magically turn the object of your desire into an innocent angel. She can and will fart in bed.
No rule of PU is a "law of nature". They're all just adhoc hypotheses without any scientific value. Therefore, you should always apply a sense of humor to them, and never take them too seriously.
You can approach after three seconds; or after three minutes; or three hours. It really doesn't matter.
A seduction can take any amount of time between 10 minutes and 10 years. It really doesn't matter.
Getting over anxieties may take long periods of practice, and require you to find or even invent techniques that you currently don't know or believe in. I'm talking months and years here. It is perfectly sensible to decide that you do not want to follow a goal that is so far away into the future and requires so much effort - a little reality-check and cost-benefit-analysis can spare you lots of trouble.
Once you DID decide to go down the PUA route, be aware that it may be too late to turn around. The chance of overcoming your anxieties and tearing down the boundaries of your personality can be a very addictive dangling carrot.
NLP is, to some degree, a fun and useful toolset - it is definitely not a golden bullet that will magically get the women you desire into your bed. The best way to use it is to be very relaxed and cool about it, have lots of fun in the process and never overdo it. When you realize that you are becoming stiff and dogmatic about it, it might be best to just let it go for a while and do something else instead. This goes not only for NLP, but for all techniques and tools that you may encounter.
You are your own guru, coach, trainer and boss!
If a technique doesn't work for you, then all that means that the technique doesn't work for you. It does not reflect on your personality or your abilities. "Technique" is just a fancy way of saying "stuff that somebody on the interwebs came up with, that seemed to work for them at one moment in time, without any actual empirical testing in place". Techniques are never perfect and often just lame.
(This list will be amended in the future.)
Believe it or not, you are allowed to tease girls. They won't explode, call the police, or otherwise harm you. Instead, they'll like you for your sense of humor.
It is fully okay to feel your sexuality as a male, and to behave in such a way as to make it shown.
Your gaze is no cause for discomfort. It is not harrassment to look at a woman and be sexually aroused by that view.
When women say things that sound like an insult, chances are they are just teasing you back the same way you teased them before. They're equally playful, sexual, and mischievous as you are - and, for the most part, in a good way. It is possible to tell the teasing from an actual insult.
If a woman insults you, it is perfectly fine to just walk away, or otherwise let her feel that she wronged you. You are a human being, you have feelings too!
It is useless to chase after a girl after she has seriously and convincingly told you to shove off and go do it yourself.
There is always another girl just around the corner.
Falling in love is okay. Just be aware that it doesn't magically turn the object of your desire into an innocent angel. She can and will fart in bed.
No rule of PU is a "law of nature". They're all just adhoc hypotheses without any scientific value. Therefore, you should always apply a sense of humor to them, and never take them too seriously.
You can approach after three seconds; or after three minutes; or three hours. It really doesn't matter.
A seduction can take any amount of time between 10 minutes and 10 years. It really doesn't matter.
Getting over anxieties may take long periods of practice, and require you to find or even invent techniques that you currently don't know or believe in. I'm talking months and years here. It is perfectly sensible to decide that you do not want to follow a goal that is so far away into the future and requires so much effort - a little reality-check and cost-benefit-analysis can spare you lots of trouble.
Once you DID decide to go down the PUA route, be aware that it may be too late to turn around. The chance of overcoming your anxieties and tearing down the boundaries of your personality can be a very addictive dangling carrot.
NLP is, to some degree, a fun and useful toolset - it is definitely not a golden bullet that will magically get the women you desire into your bed. The best way to use it is to be very relaxed and cool about it, have lots of fun in the process and never overdo it. When you realize that you are becoming stiff and dogmatic about it, it might be best to just let it go for a while and do something else instead. This goes not only for NLP, but for all techniques and tools that you may encounter.
You are your own guru, coach, trainer and boss!
If a technique doesn't work for you, then all that means that the technique doesn't work for you. It does not reflect on your personality or your abilities. "Technique" is just a fancy way of saying "stuff that somebody on the interwebs came up with, that seemed to work for them at one moment in time, without any actual empirical testing in place". Techniques are never perfect and often just lame.
(This list will be amended in the future.)
Samstag, 14. Juli 2012
How To Communicate Guys Into Commitment :-)
http://tantrictouch.blogspot.com/2012/07/commitment-art-of-tantric-communication.html
Hehehehehehe... pickup, only the other way around!
Hehehehehehe... pickup, only the other way around!
About NLP
Executive summary: NLP is what happens when a few people stick their head together and come up with some inspiring and fun ideas about human psychology, based on their own personal knowledge and experience and the general knowledge of their time - only to then completely fail to test their hypotheses empirically in a methodical way, and instead choose to create a religion, so that the resulting system is completely incapable of adapting and absorbing new scientific findings.
Yesterday, an outcry ran through the NLP community. And even though I'm strongly critical of the largest part of that community, I have to admit that, in this case, they are perfectly justified.
What happened is that a supposedly(?) scientific article "debunked" NLP by clarifying that, contrary to NLP claims, turning your eyes to the upper right corner does not indicate that you're lying.
The obvious problem with that is that basically no NLPer actually claims that to be true, at least none that I've ever heard of. I've read a lot of NLP literature and can proudly call myself a "certified NLP practitioner", so I do know what I'm talking about. It's simply not what they teach you. The article is barking up the wrong tree.
If you tell an NLPer that NLP is b.s., they'll almost instinctively ask you, "which part of NLP do you dislike?" And they're right in doing so. Even if most of a goldmine consists of empty, worthless rock, there might still be some nuggets in it. "Test everything, and keep what's good"!
So, triggered by this current, though (in the course of the world) rather minor event, I'll reflect on my knowledge of NLP and add my reasoning about it. Please note that THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. Such would take years and large sums of dollars, both of which I lack. You'll have to contend with my very subjective, unscientific conjectures here. At best, this might be the basis for further discussion.
Also, this is by no means complete. In fact, it's just a few tidbits that come to mind while I write this. Sorry, but NLP is a vast field. I can only cover so much in a simple blog posting.
The claim: By mirroring another person's movements, you can gain rapport with them.
Seeing that people obviously like to engage in all kinds of activities that involve moving in sync with each other - dancing, sports events, clicking the glasses over the table - I'm pretty much prepared to believe that one. I will add, though, that I don't think it's necessary to do it consciously, on purpose. If you want to gain someone's trust - why not simply listen to them, be aware of their movements and physical presence, listen to what they say without being judgmental about it? I'm fairly certain that the physical effects of pscychological closeness will come automatically if you actually gain that closeness - why walk the complicated path of faking it, when you can easily get the real thing?
The claim: By mirroring another person's "decision strategy", you can influence their decision.
Okay, this one's outright stupid. It's also kind of hard to explain to the non-initiated. The idea is that you can make someone decide in your favor just by using words from the right "representation system". If someone arrives at a decision by listening to a small voice in their head and then having a bad feeling about it, you're supposed to say something along the lines of "It sounds excellent, and doesn't it feel good?"
Yeah. It's actually that stupid. There is no bloody reason for why this is supposed to work, even within the framework of NLP, and much less in general psychology.
The claim: By watching the eyes of a person, you can determine a lot about what they're currently thinking, specifically the "representation system" and whether it's a memory or a newly created imagination.
This is what the article in question talked about. And while it's not taught like they said in that article, what they actually teach you makes precious little sense. It's based on the neurological knowledge of the 1970s, and the proof consists of nothing but anecdotal evidence - "I tried it in my peergroup, and it worked every single time". Such as: "I asked him to think about his mother's voice, and his eyes went to the middle-left." ... Well, how did you check that? "I asked him whether he had heard it in his head." Yes sure. Have you tried asking him whether he also saw her face? And when his eyes moved upwards, did you ask him whether he had a feeling in his body?
Cos, you know, I'm fairly certain that the answer to every single one of those questions is "yes". Cos, you know, my own little pet hypothesis is that every single thought actually consists of elements of ALL "representation systems". Memories are a holistic experience - you always feel, hear and see them, all at the same time.
No, I did not check that with the scientists. Neither did you. So shut the f*ck up.
Yes, people do move their eyes when they think. When I think about my ex girlfriend's face, I see it in front of me, a little to the lower-right. You might probably visualize your ex boy/girlfriend to the left, or behind you, or inside your head, or wherever. In other words, I just don't think that that little scheme that they show you at their seminars has anything to do with reality. Somebody must have pulled that out of their dirty little ass. And since nobody in the NLP community EVER bothers to check anything that comes as part of the package, it stuck, and it keeps being repeated even today.
Has it got any merit? Heck, who cares? As long as there are people who pay for this crap, honestly, why SHOULD they care? Tehre's just no incentive. It's not like those people had any urge to, you know, KNOW what they're talking about, or check their facts, or be honest with their customers. Cashing the check is more important than that, after all.
The claim: By choosing more positive (or negative) words, you can influence people's emotions.
Okay, that one I get. Talking about "your opportunity to find a great job that suits your talents" sounds a great deal more positive than "you were fired, you poor bastard, how are you going to support your family?" I think we all do that, somewhat semi-consciously, all the time - we spin the events of our lives to be more positive or more negative, depending on our emotions. That's fine. If you know it, you can have a lot of fun of it and produce more positive feelings. Why not. Literature does it all the time. Movies do it, music does it. Just don't overdo it, and don't become a politician or marketer.
The claim: By applying specific linguistic patterns, you can help a person overcome overgeneralized or limiting beliefs.
Well, yes of course! After all, this is just a formalized list of ways to object to whatever the other person says.
For example, if someone thinks that "all lawyers are liars", you can ask them how that belief serves them, whether all other professionals are liars too and what makes the difference, or you can ask them to come up with a few examples of lawyers they knew and that turned out to be liars; or you can come up with an example of a lawyer you know who didn't lie. Etc.
It's a simple application of logic.
The NLP jargon may be a bit of an obstacle, but in principle, of course you can have a list like that - whether you agree with the original list given by Robert Dilts in the 80s or not.
What I find odd is that, ever since the 80s, nobody bothered to revise the list, or have a critical discussion about it. It's pretty hard to imagine that Dilts got it absolutely right, covering all possibilities out there, all in one gigantic stroke of genius. The list is taught as it is, and that's it. There is no spirit of critical thinking in those seminars. I find that rather troublesome and sad.
The claim: By asking several out of a list of possible questions, you can help a person overcome distortions of their worldview, and reconnect with the origin of those distortions.
Well... in theory, yes. Practically the same as with the Sleight Of Mouth Patterns.
In practice, I have the impression that this is mostly used for stopping the critics dead in their tracks. "How exactly do you know that=", "Who said that?", "When did you last experience an example of that?" etc., all seem terribly practical when you want to expose someone as incompetent or stupid. If you handle those questions with care, you can use them for more productive purposes too, of course.
The claim: By using vague language, you can gain rapport.
Well... yes. Duh, I mean... Who would have guessed that general terms create opportunities to agree with whatever?
Did you nod in agreement just now? Did you? DID YOU???
Hah!
The claim: By touching someone, or performing a peculiar move while they are in a specific emotion, you can create a trigger. By later repeating that touch or move, you can then recall that emotion and thereby influence people's emotions.
There has to be some truth to that one, as it's really just a watered-down, simplified version of actual conditioning. But it's certainly not as simple as NLPers imagine. I, for one, never really managed to apply anchors to myself in such a way that I could recall them a few hours later. They only ever seem to last for a few minutes or so. And they certainly don't work after just one application.
And by the way, the reason they often do seem to work in live demonstrations is probably just peer pressure and the need to conform to the guru's demands. The same goes for most of what's done in those seminars. It's a short-term push of a high state. Ask the participants a year later, and they'll probably have fond memories of a few good days. But no lasting changes.
The claim: By changing the "submodalities" of a memory, such as brightness, loudness, tone of voice associated with it, you can also change the emotional contents.
This one actually seems to have merit. Especially the submodality of "associated/dissociated" definitely helped me overcome a few terrible images that kept haunting me for years.
I'm still not quite convinced of that claim, though. Yes, it did help me to some degree - but somehow, that never seemed to produce the results that I had in mind. The real changes always still seemed to come slowly, from practicing daily meditation over the course of several years, from actually putting in some hard work. That said, this is the one thing that I practice regularly - mostly just for fun. Making the colors of the world a little brighter on a rainy day, or making myself feel as if I were drunk when I'm really totally sober. Stuff like that.
I do have the impression that NLPers simply to overestimate and overgeneralize something that is a real effect in this case. Not just every last mental representation seems susceptible to those kinds of changes, and the eco-system of our brain knows pretty well how to remain stable even in the face of the most advanced and fancy maneuver on your part.
The claim: By guiding someone through a cooking-recipe-like formula of visualisations, states, and questions, you can eliminate any and all unwanted psychological effects, and create all kinds of abilities or wanted states.
If you learn NLP to become a life coach, this is where the real beef lies. And this is also my largest beef. During a year of attending courses, with all kinds of formats performed, I didn't see any dramatic changes. Not in myself, not in anyone else. Add to that the fact that one of the trainers is morbidly obese while the others seem terribly entrenched in their glorious ideas, almost in a religious way, and you might be able to see why I'm doubting.
The formats are like cooking recipies. There is no personalization, there is no calibration. You go through the moves, no matter what. If it doesn't work, then you "didn't apply this highly effective format correctly".
We're talking about PEOPLE here, folks. You HAVE to be kidding me!
I won't provide an example here. Look up the "fast phobia cure" if you like, and decide whether you believe that it works.
I don't. I mean, I do believe that it did work, for the guy who invented it, that one time. That's because it was precisely suited for his or her own needs at that moment. But it's far from a general formula for how to treat any and all phobias out there. The human mind is just not quite that simple.
In general, I think that NLP is based on an extremely reductionist, simplistic model of the human mind. Sure, some parts of it are true - just like with any other worldview, some parts HAVE to be true. When you throw the ball often enough, a few times you will inevitably hit that basket.
What I find, when I re-read what I wrote above, then I find a common theme: Those parts that do work are all just common-sense, only dressed in that weird jargon to make it sound more NLP-y. Or NLPdiotic. As such, the whole thing is worth a few bucks for books, but certainly not thousands of dollars for weekend courses and pretty-print certificates.
The main issue I have with NLP is the overall uncritical, almost religious attitude that it advocates. Once something has the label "NLP" slapped on it, it is treated like gospel. If it doesn't work, then the student didn't apply it correctly, or the modalities were wrong, or it was the wrong format, or a gazillion of other excuses. Scientific studies are used when they fit with the NLP worldview, and otherwise discarded.
You just don't create any earth-shattering revelations that way. In order to create actual knowledge, you have to put in the hours, the determination, and the scientific rigor. The way the NLPers go about their business, at best, they're playing a guessing game. While at worst, they're using their coachees as test subject for dangerous mindgames that they actually know nothing about. In the meantime, they just take lots of money for stuff that doesn't actually have any effect.
Yesterday, an outcry ran through the NLP community. And even though I'm strongly critical of the largest part of that community, I have to admit that, in this case, they are perfectly justified.
What happened is that a supposedly(?) scientific article "debunked" NLP by clarifying that, contrary to NLP claims, turning your eyes to the upper right corner does not indicate that you're lying.
The obvious problem with that is that basically no NLPer actually claims that to be true, at least none that I've ever heard of. I've read a lot of NLP literature and can proudly call myself a "certified NLP practitioner", so I do know what I'm talking about. It's simply not what they teach you. The article is barking up the wrong tree.
If you tell an NLPer that NLP is b.s., they'll almost instinctively ask you, "which part of NLP do you dislike?" And they're right in doing so. Even if most of a goldmine consists of empty, worthless rock, there might still be some nuggets in it. "Test everything, and keep what's good"!
So, triggered by this current, though (in the course of the world) rather minor event, I'll reflect on my knowledge of NLP and add my reasoning about it. Please note that THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. Such would take years and large sums of dollars, both of which I lack. You'll have to contend with my very subjective, unscientific conjectures here. At best, this might be the basis for further discussion.
Also, this is by no means complete. In fact, it's just a few tidbits that come to mind while I write this. Sorry, but NLP is a vast field. I can only cover so much in a simple blog posting.
1. Mirroring And Basic Rapport
The claim: By mirroring another person's movements, you can gain rapport with them.
Seeing that people obviously like to engage in all kinds of activities that involve moving in sync with each other - dancing, sports events, clicking the glasses over the table - I'm pretty much prepared to believe that one. I will add, though, that I don't think it's necessary to do it consciously, on purpose. If you want to gain someone's trust - why not simply listen to them, be aware of their movements and physical presence, listen to what they say without being judgmental about it? I'm fairly certain that the physical effects of pscychological closeness will come automatically if you actually gain that closeness - why walk the complicated path of faking it, when you can easily get the real thing?
2. Mirroring The Decision Strategy
The claim: By mirroring another person's "decision strategy", you can influence their decision.
Okay, this one's outright stupid. It's also kind of hard to explain to the non-initiated. The idea is that you can make someone decide in your favor just by using words from the right "representation system". If someone arrives at a decision by listening to a small voice in their head and then having a bad feeling about it, you're supposed to say something along the lines of "It sounds excellent, and doesn't it feel good?"
Yeah. It's actually that stupid. There is no bloody reason for why this is supposed to work, even within the framework of NLP, and much less in general psychology.
3. Eye Access Cues
The claim: By watching the eyes of a person, you can determine a lot about what they're currently thinking, specifically the "representation system" and whether it's a memory or a newly created imagination.
This is what the article in question talked about. And while it's not taught like they said in that article, what they actually teach you makes precious little sense. It's based on the neurological knowledge of the 1970s, and the proof consists of nothing but anecdotal evidence - "I tried it in my peergroup, and it worked every single time". Such as: "I asked him to think about his mother's voice, and his eyes went to the middle-left." ... Well, how did you check that? "I asked him whether he had heard it in his head." Yes sure. Have you tried asking him whether he also saw her face? And when his eyes moved upwards, did you ask him whether he had a feeling in his body?
Cos, you know, I'm fairly certain that the answer to every single one of those questions is "yes". Cos, you know, my own little pet hypothesis is that every single thought actually consists of elements of ALL "representation systems". Memories are a holistic experience - you always feel, hear and see them, all at the same time.
No, I did not check that with the scientists. Neither did you. So shut the f*ck up.
Yes, people do move their eyes when they think. When I think about my ex girlfriend's face, I see it in front of me, a little to the lower-right. You might probably visualize your ex boy/girlfriend to the left, or behind you, or inside your head, or wherever. In other words, I just don't think that that little scheme that they show you at their seminars has anything to do with reality. Somebody must have pulled that out of their dirty little ass. And since nobody in the NLP community EVER bothers to check anything that comes as part of the package, it stuck, and it keeps being repeated even today.
Has it got any merit? Heck, who cares? As long as there are people who pay for this crap, honestly, why SHOULD they care? Tehre's just no incentive. It's not like those people had any urge to, you know, KNOW what they're talking about, or check their facts, or be honest with their customers. Cashing the check is more important than that, after all.
4. Reframing (in general)
The claim: By choosing more positive (or negative) words, you can influence people's emotions.
Okay, that one I get. Talking about "your opportunity to find a great job that suits your talents" sounds a great deal more positive than "you were fired, you poor bastard, how are you going to support your family?" I think we all do that, somewhat semi-consciously, all the time - we spin the events of our lives to be more positive or more negative, depending on our emotions. That's fine. If you know it, you can have a lot of fun of it and produce more positive feelings. Why not. Literature does it all the time. Movies do it, music does it. Just don't overdo it, and don't become a politician or marketer.
5. The Sleight Of Mouth Patterns
The claim: By applying specific linguistic patterns, you can help a person overcome overgeneralized or limiting beliefs.
Well, yes of course! After all, this is just a formalized list of ways to object to whatever the other person says.
For example, if someone thinks that "all lawyers are liars", you can ask them how that belief serves them, whether all other professionals are liars too and what makes the difference, or you can ask them to come up with a few examples of lawyers they knew and that turned out to be liars; or you can come up with an example of a lawyer you know who didn't lie. Etc.
It's a simple application of logic.
The NLP jargon may be a bit of an obstacle, but in principle, of course you can have a list like that - whether you agree with the original list given by Robert Dilts in the 80s or not.
What I find odd is that, ever since the 80s, nobody bothered to revise the list, or have a critical discussion about it. It's pretty hard to imagine that Dilts got it absolutely right, covering all possibilities out there, all in one gigantic stroke of genius. The list is taught as it is, and that's it. There is no spirit of critical thinking in those seminars. I find that rather troublesome and sad.
6. The Meta Model
The claim: By asking several out of a list of possible questions, you can help a person overcome distortions of their worldview, and reconnect with the origin of those distortions.
Well... in theory, yes. Practically the same as with the Sleight Of Mouth Patterns.
In practice, I have the impression that this is mostly used for stopping the critics dead in their tracks. "How exactly do you know that=", "Who said that?", "When did you last experience an example of that?" etc., all seem terribly practical when you want to expose someone as incompetent or stupid. If you handle those questions with care, you can use them for more productive purposes too, of course.
7. The Milton Model
The claim: By using vague language, you can gain rapport.
Well... yes. Duh, I mean... Who would have guessed that general terms create opportunities to agree with whatever?
Did you nod in agreement just now? Did you? DID YOU???
Hah!
8. Anchoring
The claim: By touching someone, or performing a peculiar move while they are in a specific emotion, you can create a trigger. By later repeating that touch or move, you can then recall that emotion and thereby influence people's emotions.
There has to be some truth to that one, as it's really just a watered-down, simplified version of actual conditioning. But it's certainly not as simple as NLPers imagine. I, for one, never really managed to apply anchors to myself in such a way that I could recall them a few hours later. They only ever seem to last for a few minutes or so. And they certainly don't work after just one application.
And by the way, the reason they often do seem to work in live demonstrations is probably just peer pressure and the need to conform to the guru's demands. The same goes for most of what's done in those seminars. It's a short-term push of a high state. Ask the participants a year later, and they'll probably have fond memories of a few good days. But no lasting changes.
9. Changing Submodalities
The claim: By changing the "submodalities" of a memory, such as brightness, loudness, tone of voice associated with it, you can also change the emotional contents.
This one actually seems to have merit. Especially the submodality of "associated/dissociated" definitely helped me overcome a few terrible images that kept haunting me for years.
I'm still not quite convinced of that claim, though. Yes, it did help me to some degree - but somehow, that never seemed to produce the results that I had in mind. The real changes always still seemed to come slowly, from practicing daily meditation over the course of several years, from actually putting in some hard work. That said, this is the one thing that I practice regularly - mostly just for fun. Making the colors of the world a little brighter on a rainy day, or making myself feel as if I were drunk when I'm really totally sober. Stuff like that.
I do have the impression that NLPers simply to overestimate and overgeneralize something that is a real effect in this case. Not just every last mental representation seems susceptible to those kinds of changes, and the eco-system of our brain knows pretty well how to remain stable even in the face of the most advanced and fancy maneuver on your part.
10. The Plethora Of "Formats"
The claim: By guiding someone through a cooking-recipe-like formula of visualisations, states, and questions, you can eliminate any and all unwanted psychological effects, and create all kinds of abilities or wanted states.
The formats are like cooking recipies. There is no personalization, there is no calibration. You go through the moves, no matter what. If it doesn't work, then you "didn't apply this highly effective format correctly".
We're talking about PEOPLE here, folks. You HAVE to be kidding me!
I won't provide an example here. Look up the "fast phobia cure" if you like, and decide whether you believe that it works.
I don't. I mean, I do believe that it did work, for the guy who invented it, that one time. That's because it was precisely suited for his or her own needs at that moment. But it's far from a general formula for how to treat any and all phobias out there. The human mind is just not quite that simple.
Summing It Up
In general, I think that NLP is based on an extremely reductionist, simplistic model of the human mind. Sure, some parts of it are true - just like with any other worldview, some parts HAVE to be true. When you throw the ball often enough, a few times you will inevitably hit that basket.
What I find, when I re-read what I wrote above, then I find a common theme: Those parts that do work are all just common-sense, only dressed in that weird jargon to make it sound more NLP-y. Or NLPdiotic. As such, the whole thing is worth a few bucks for books, but certainly not thousands of dollars for weekend courses and pretty-print certificates.
The main issue I have with NLP is the overall uncritical, almost religious attitude that it advocates. Once something has the label "NLP" slapped on it, it is treated like gospel. If it doesn't work, then the student didn't apply it correctly, or the modalities were wrong, or it was the wrong format, or a gazillion of other excuses. Scientific studies are used when they fit with the NLP worldview, and otherwise discarded.
You just don't create any earth-shattering revelations that way. In order to create actual knowledge, you have to put in the hours, the determination, and the scientific rigor. The way the NLPers go about their business, at best, they're playing a guessing game. While at worst, they're using their coachees as test subject for dangerous mindgames that they actually know nothing about. In the meantime, they just take lots of money for stuff that doesn't actually have any effect.
What makes matters worse is that the claims are so outrageous. It's a world of superlative "extreme effectivity", "instant change", "best increase in sales EVAR!!!". And of course, those outrageous claims are justified within the NLP religion itself - it's just reframing, nothing more. By buying into the hype, you have already started to allow yourself to take in all that glorious knowledge you're about to learn for just a few more thousand bucks.
This last bit, in my view, is the most creepy. It creates regular NLP zombies, people who live for reaching that dangling carrot, never realizing that they've been had. By sheer words.
So, one could argue that in a way, NLP does work, after all. It works extremely well for the host of NLP trainers on their quest for your money. What they have to do to your soul to get it is, after all, not their concern. Or to their own souls, for that matter.
Mittwoch, 11. Juli 2012
"Pickup is linear"
I believe that the teaching quoted above is one of the most destructive lines of thought in the whole of commercialized PU.
Communication is interaction. That's a trivial truth. Interaction means that people react to each other in spontaneous, unpredictable ways.
To try and put a rigid set of rules on our social interactions is like those river training exercises that they put up in the 70s. As it turned out, many of the rivers started to overflow right because of the measures they'd put up - only, this time they did it at completely unexpected points and with so much more fierceness. And besides, those walls were just plain ugly.
You can't control it. You may be able to lead the interaction, like in a dance - but you certainly don't have a plan in mind for every single step of the dance. A dance has no set goal. It is specifically made so that people can have fun and get to know each other. And the very same applies to PU.
If you try to control the interaction by means of routines, DHV spikes, the M3 model or what-have-you, you're nothing but a zombie. Do you honestly think that women want a zombie in bed? I mean, would YOU want to sleep with someone who has to be in control of every last word, doesn't really react to what you say, and has all their lines prepared before they even met you? Sure, it's nice and reassuring to have a few jokes ready for when the conversation goes stiff and your mind goes boink, and of course at some point you have to exchange phone numbers, but that's about it.
My best interactions with strange women were always those that started out of nowhere. I didn't even plan to approach those women - it just so happened. For example, on an escalator (ha-ha) in a book shop. "Hey, it's such a hot day and you're not even putting up a sweat, while I'm floating off like crazy. It's not fair!" Yeah, that's a real example, and we did end up having a good conversation and exchanging numbers. Imagine what our mysterious man from Toronto would have to say about that opener, huh?
The other reason why I don't like viewing seduction as linear is that it puts a lot of pressure on you. You can witness this in that hideous VH1 show "The Pickup Artist": the contestants(!) had to "deliver" a specific set of routines and reach a specific goal on any given night, while the mysterious master himself was sitting and watchting them.
I contend that, when you see it as a chaotic interaction rather than a planned activity, then you place responsibiliy on both parties instead of just yourself. Sure, you still have to walk over and say hello - and, by golly, I know that this is tough enough in and of itself!
It's a dance. It's a river. (But it sure ain't no riverdance!)
Communication is interaction. That's a trivial truth. Interaction means that people react to each other in spontaneous, unpredictable ways.
To try and put a rigid set of rules on our social interactions is like those river training exercises that they put up in the 70s. As it turned out, many of the rivers started to overflow right because of the measures they'd put up - only, this time they did it at completely unexpected points and with so much more fierceness. And besides, those walls were just plain ugly.
You can't control it. You may be able to lead the interaction, like in a dance - but you certainly don't have a plan in mind for every single step of the dance. A dance has no set goal. It is specifically made so that people can have fun and get to know each other. And the very same applies to PU.
If you try to control the interaction by means of routines, DHV spikes, the M3 model or what-have-you, you're nothing but a zombie. Do you honestly think that women want a zombie in bed? I mean, would YOU want to sleep with someone who has to be in control of every last word, doesn't really react to what you say, and has all their lines prepared before they even met you? Sure, it's nice and reassuring to have a few jokes ready for when the conversation goes stiff and your mind goes boink, and of course at some point you have to exchange phone numbers, but that's about it.
My best interactions with strange women were always those that started out of nowhere. I didn't even plan to approach those women - it just so happened. For example, on an escalator (ha-ha) in a book shop. "Hey, it's such a hot day and you're not even putting up a sweat, while I'm floating off like crazy. It's not fair!" Yeah, that's a real example, and we did end up having a good conversation and exchanging numbers. Imagine what our mysterious man from Toronto would have to say about that opener, huh?
Measuring sticks put the pressure on
The other reason why I don't like viewing seduction as linear is that it puts a lot of pressure on you. You can witness this in that hideous VH1 show "The Pickup Artist": the contestants(!) had to "deliver" a specific set of routines and reach a specific goal on any given night, while the mysterious master himself was sitting and watchting them.
That's precisely the opposite of how it should be.
Do you want your interactions with women to be a race against opponents, or against time? "Ouch, I did not deliver that opener correctly." - "I did not approach at an angle of 46.2°, so this set is blown." - "I failed to neg the target and open the obstacle." Oh come on, guys! If you start it like that, of course you'll fail!
You know, most of the guys who get into PU do it because they suck with women. Because they're 30yo virgins who live in their mothers' basement.
Does anyone seriously think that putting up measuring sticks for them to fail against will improve their confidence?
If a soul is already crushed, then you push your frakking army boot against their neck and push as hard as you can, time and time again, to improve their state??? REALLY???
Didn't think so.
If you make PU about failure and success, you'll make it a chore, a job, an uncomfortable obligation that you have to push yourself to.
If you are already sore and sad because you don't get the women you want, the last thing you want to do is put yourself under pressure. You want to be very, very gentle. You want to be your own best friend. You want to nudge, not force yourself. You want to make it fun, so you'll automatically come back for more.
Releasing the pressure
I contend that, when you see it as a chaotic interaction rather than a planned activity, then you place responsibiliy on both parties instead of just yourself. Sure, you still have to walk over and say hello - and, by golly, I know that this is tough enough in and of itself!
But once you're there, and she starts to react to your "opener", she takes on just as much responsibility for how things work out as you do.
So that means that you cannot possibly "win" the pickup, because their wasn't anything to win in the first place. You are just two people having fun, that's all. If you feel like it, at some point you'll ask her out. Or not. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that you had fun and have got to know another person, and have learned an awful lot about yourself.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)