> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:44:12 -0400
> John Newman <j...@synfin.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
>>
>> "..There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims made by
>> NLP advocates and it has been discredited as a pseudoscience by
>> experts.."
>
>
>       Somewhat related I guess, I wonder to what degree is hypnotism
>       'real'.


That's the interesting thing. They are related, in the sense that they
play on susceptibility .. i.e. the willingness of a person to do what they
are told.

I don't buy into a lot of the models and so on that NLP advocates assert
in terms of how it works, and so on. And any sort of testing is
necessarily difficult, because of the variability of people's willingness
to obey, and so on.

NLP was "developed" by looking at the traits of effective public speakers,
and finding commonalities on how they are able to persuade people.

Even if the models, and explanations aren't correct, its undeniable that
some people are more persuasive than others, and that it has nothing to do
with logic. Salesmen don't debate with you, for example.

Reply via email to