RoR: Forum

Robert asked:

You're revealing a lot of yourself, Luke - what does your wife say to this?

My wife and I took an NLP course at our local community college years ago. We also attended two seminars by Anthony Robbins. So she appreciates my efforts at applying this material to strengthen our relationship.

I do not own the Speed Seduction Home Study Course but might purchase it towards that same end.

No, I do not and have no intentions ever of pursuing sex outside my marriage using this material. But it is interesting and quite a refreshing change from most of the "Mars and Venus" style of patter currently published. If I found myself suddenly single again, I would certainly employ it to my advantage, of course.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/28, 4:04am)

Post 41

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 5:42am

Deanna,

Thanks for your comments. I ran this discussion over in my mind last night (as well as reading the previous postings by Chris, see post #30 here). I came to the conclusion that it's all about being honest in your intent (where have I seen that word before? ;)). Many (if not all) of these "dating experts" make it rather clear that they aren't in the business of creating long-lasting relationships. Whether it is the case or not (and I'm certain I will be enlightened) I get the feeling that Chris in particular (in regards to this group discussion) feels quite fine about using these techniques to show his "higher value" to women. Something about his comments seems artificial and canned, instead of natural. I could be wrong, and if asked, I can try to find specific examples.

Luke,

I would like to know more about using NLP in the manner you describe, i.e. "Knowledge is not innate but must be acquired through sense perception, identification, interpretation, validation and integration. So I hope no woman here expects her man 'just to know' how to induce those states in her". How does one gain knowledge of another using NLP and what does "inducing states" have to do with gaining knowledge of a person? If this is truly the case, then I don't have a problem with using NLP in my interactions with people. As Deanna said, though, it would be disingeuous to use these techniques in part of my life, and then drop it later. If I could intergrat this into my thought processes and interactions so that they become an integral part of me, then I wouldn't be disengenuous. My take on NLP (and this may be showing extreme ignorance, which can be remedied, thank goodness) is it is more about controlling another person's behavior instead of learning about them. I would have a problem with that in using NLP in my daily life. I'm sure you'll be able to tell me where I'm going wrong on this (if I am).

To go back to the original quote, I think it describes the type of man that strong, independent, rational women can respect and fall in love with. Deanna, interestingly enough, Ayn Rand took quotes from people she otherwise disagreed with if they said something of value (I believe it was a quote from Neitzsche that I'm thinking of, I'll try to find it.) Even if you disagree with everything else that Ross J. stands for, I think his quote is valid.

Bauer

Post 42

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 5:59am

First, I think we need to distinguish between Luke's approach and Chris's approach. I think their motives and reasons for using these techniques are quite different.

But, I have a question. Do you think that these NLP techniques as described by Bauer and Chris work on women who are familiar with them? The few examples I've seen are simplistic and formulaic and, if I had "taken the course", I think I would see through them very easily. "Oh yeah; he's using the 'Boyfriend Destroyer' technique. How trite."

Chris said:

Many SS guys are interested in younger women. I can't stand a lot of single women my age.

I'm not surprised. I think an older woman would see through your methods pretty quickly. What are you going to do when everyone knows about this stuff?

Post 43

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 6:50am

I quite agree this is different and refreshingly better than the, as you say, 'mars/venus' approach so oft given these days... as for intent, this is a tool, nothing other, so it can be utilized for mutual betterment, or otherwise, the same as a gun, a car, or a paintbrush......

Post 44

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 6:58am

>...the whole love instruction industry...

Gosh. I'd definitely run as far away as possible from anyone who's into that "industry".

> I really need more women in on this discussion.

Sorry, DD. Have to go.

Post 45

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 7:53am

My wife and I took an NLP course at our local community college years ago. We also attended two seminars by Anthony Robbins. So she appreciates my efforts at applying this material to strengthen our relationship.

I'm glad it worked for you. A lot of people in the NLP community call him "NLP light," however.

I do not own the Speed Seduction Home Study Course but might purchase it towards that same end.

I don't think it will help you with this. I didn't realize you were married when this thread started. SS could bring more physical passion to your marriage, but I don't know of any man ever doing this.

It is a shame you are not here in Texas. I think Tom and Bobbi Best would be excellent for you. My recommendation is that you simply find some NLP folks that already have a happy marriage and try to model them. Tom and Bobbi are great people and have been together at least 20 years.

Unfortunately, I can't recommend either Bandler or Grinder on this one. That's simply based on what I know about their personal lives.

But it is interesting and quite a refreshing change from most of the "Mars and Venus" style of patter currently published.

A lot of this stuff seems to be written for a female audience. I definitely think it's the case with John Gray. I have read a lot of his books. I don't know if I got that much from them.

If I found myself suddenly single again, I would certainly employ it to my advantage, of course.

That's a big part of Ross's customer base--men who are suddenly single again.

Post 46

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 8:11am

I came to the conclusion that it's all about being honest in your intent

A lot of SS guys will say that it's best not to have any intent, other than simply having fun. Maybe that's the powerful thing it's done for me. It's actually made women seem fun again.

Many (if not all) of these "dating experts" make it rather clear that they aren't in the business of creating long-lasting relationships.

You have to learn to stand before you learn to walk. You have to learn to walk before you learn to run. You have to get dates before you get long-lasting relationships.

If you start out with the focus of finding a long-lasting relationship, you are doomed to failure. A woman will react: "Oh, my god. We just went on one date, and he is thinking about marriage. What am I going to do? He loves me. He cares about me." In this case, the guy's intent is completely honest. It also brings about complete and total failure for the guy. The guy would do best to act like he doesn't care at all.

Whether it is the case or not (and I'm certain I will be enlightened) I get the feeling that Chris in particular (in regards to this group discussion) feels quite fine about using these techniques to show his "higher value" to women. Something about his comments seems artificial and canned, instead of natural.

What is natural? What is artificial and canned? What makes a difference? My intent in using NLP in all my interactions and relationships is quite simple--I want to get equal for equal. In this case, my goal is to get out of my relationships what I put into them.

I would like to know more about using NLP in the manner you describe, i.e. "Knowledge is not innate but must be acquired through sense perception, identification, interpretation, validation and integration. So I hope no woman here expects her man 'just to know' how to induce those states in her".

Based on the writings of one women here, I get the impression that she does expect her man "just to know." If a man doesn't just know this stuff, apparently he is just supposed to be condemned to a life of celibacy. Apparently this one woman wants this: Rhett Butler can have all the sex he wants, and all the other men can just go to hell.

How does one gain knowledge of another using NLP and what does "inducing states" have to do with gaining knowledge of a person?

If you want to induce states, you have to gain knowledge about them.

My take on NLP is it is more about controlling another person's behavior instead of learning about them.

You have learn about a person if you want to control them. The more you know, the more control you can have. The less you know, the less control you will have.

Post 47

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 8:28am

Do you think that these NLP techniques as described by Bauer and Chris work on women who are familiar with them?

That's an excellent question. I don't know if it has happened.

The few examples I've seen are simplistic and formulaic and, if I had "taken the course", I think I would see through them very easily. "Oh yeah; he's using the 'Boyfriend Destroyer' technique. How trite."

I have only provided simplistic and formulaic examples. I have made up patterns on the fly. This is much more natural and better than doing anything canned. I have only studied patterns so I can learn how to do my own and develop the mindset and attitude necessary in order to create them on the fly.

I think an older woman would see through your methods pretty quickly. What are you going to do when everyone knows about this stuff?

I don't care what older women think. But guys have used this stuff successfully on older women. The canned patterns certainly won't work for every man. That's why a guy has to do it on his own.

My female friends are all pretty happy for me. They like what this stuff has done for me.

I could take the time to teach you, I suppose. But you don't seem like you are all that interested in learning. It definitely takes a special man to learn this stuff.

Post 48

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 9:31am

I will attempt to respond generally to the posts made since my last post in this thread.

First, I see NLP as a tool I can use to manage and control myself rather than others. Through enhanced awareness of my own inner states, I can better respond to the actions of others in the most empowering way possible for me. That is quite different from using force, fraud or even manipulation to control others. So I dissent somewhat from the closing remarks Chris made in Post 46.

I want to learn more about others so I can better control myself in my transactions with them. Otherwise, I can get blindsided and knocked off center -- not very advantageous. I can use NLP techniques like specifically worded questions, not just in love but in every area of life, that get others to look deeply within themselves and then talk about what they find. By doing this, I can acquire that knowledge and appeal to their core values at my discretion.

Reason and emotion integrate in NLP to become mental syntax, that flow of consciousness consisting of your internal representations in terms of your five senses. By knowing how to stop, pause, rewind, dissect, and otherwise gain total control of that state flow, you can gain much more precise control of your resulting actions.

Women who become aware of these techniques may nevertheless feel flattered by, and attracted to, an honest man who feels drawn to her enough to try them. So I do not think that a widespread knowledge of them will necessarily diminish their effectiveness. In fact, women may come to expect their men to learn them just as past generations expected their men to learn ballroom dancing, serenading, etc.

When I dated my wife, I did it just to have fun. Neither of us had any expectation of a lasting relationship when we started going out to dance and just have a good time. We did not fall in love. We grew in love.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/28, 9:35am)

Post 49

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 9:40am

I think that was a good post, Luke.

Women who become aware of these techniques may nevertheless feel flattered by, and attracted to, an honest man who feels drawn to her enough to try them. So I do not think that a widespread knowledge of them will necessarily diminish their effectiveness.

Some guys will say that a man should actually practice this stuff on just about all women, just for practice. It can be better to try it on women you don't like for that reason.

A lot of what speed seduction and NLP teaches is non-verbal.

(Edited by Chris Baker on 9/28, 9:44am)

Post 50

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 10:12am

Thanks for that post, Luke. You've definitely cleared up some questions I had about NLP. I was going to dissent to Chris' remarks on controlling others, but you did such a fine job, I will defer to your words. Looking back at the original quote (who started us on this journey about NLP, anyway. The quote doesn't say anything about that. ;)p, any man who follows that advice will have at the very least, a happy life, filled with purpose and a knowledge that he is going somewhere. If that man chooses to use NLP as a tool to communicate more effectively in his life, so much the better.

Love that last line, by the way.

Chris, I'm a little confused by the hostility towards the person whom you say would allow Rhett Butler to get all the women he wants and blowing off all other men. First of all, I don't understand where you get that idea from her writing. She talked about a Southern Gentleman being her ideal, and that she objected to anyone who used Mr. Jeffiries techniques (admittedly Mr. Jeffiries himself) in an "artificial" way to obtain sex. However, I don't see her blowing off all other men. Just phonies after one thing. I don't want to pretend to speak for her (and perhaps I can get a confirmation or refutation) but, I wonder if she would object to a man approaching her and using NLP to enhance the interaction as long as he fully respects her as an intelligent individual and as long as these techniques are fully part of his identity in how he approaches the entire world (as Luke suggests).

Bauer

Post 51

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 11:07am

Bauer,

Everyone seeks to control their lives as much as possible. This necessarily involves controlling our interactions and relationships with other people. Is there something wrong with that, especially when it involves dealing with irrationality or just plain stupidity?

Go back to my example of Tony, the guy who was complaining about the hotels. I was on a travelling job and had to work with this guy. I also had to share a car with them and agree with him on what hotel we would stay at. My goal was to control his infantile behavior in that context.

If that man chooses to use NLP as a tool to communicate more effectively in his life, so much the better.

What do you mean by effective communication? For me, communication is effective if it gets the desired results. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

For example, does anybody know how to communicate effectively so I can get a plain hamburger when I go to Wendy's, McDonald's, or Whataburger? These places mess things up so much that I have just about quit patronizing them altogether. If I could think of a way to hypnotize these people just so I can get what I ordered, I would do it every single time.

To their credit, Burger King gets it right probably 95% of the time.

Or consider my last address change, about two years ago. I sent postcards with my new address on professionally printed business cards. Still, about half these people (magazines, etc.) messed things up. There is absolutely, positively no excuse for this.

I'm a little confused by the hostility towards the person whom you say would allow Rhett Butler to get all the women he wants and blowing off all other men.

I was hostile because she was being completely and totally unfair. Since I am a student of SS, she was being unfair to me.

There are some naturals who teach guys how to get laid out there, too. Neil Strauss's theory on them (which I agree with) is that they just lost their virginity early and never had much anxiety about women or sex. These guys get a lot of women effortlessly because they always have.

I don't know what really causes it. Maybe it's genetic. Maybe they had a "player" to model. Maybe they had someone teach them from a young age. They could have just been rich or had good looks. Maybe they were just the quarterback on the football team. Interestingly enough, a lot of these naturals do NOT have successful marriages in their adulthood.

This isn't the case for most men. Most men have to learn this stuff if they are ever going to have the power and choice that they want and should be having in their lives. Yes, you can call it "artificial" if you want. But there is nothing wrong with it at all.

As I pointed out, I know of at least one guy who uses SS and is in a wheelchair. Do you think a guy in a wheelchair is going to get a lot of women? What is wrong with this guy doing something artificial to make up for the discrimination he would probably get from women otherwise?

However, I don't see her blowing off all other men. Just phonies after one thing.

How do you know what these guys are after? What is phony about them? How do you even know if they are phony? What almost all of these guys are after is more power and more choice.

I wonder if she would object to a man approaching her and using NLP to enhance the interaction as long as he fully respects her as an intelligent individual and as long as these techniques are fully part of his identity in how he approaches the entire world

Identities change all the time. There was a time when Ayn Rand wasn't part of my identity--now she is. There was a time when NLP wasn't--now it is. When you use SS, you do enhance your interactions. That's the whole point.

Post 52

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 3:50pm

Chris,
You said:

Everyone seeks to control their lives as much as possible. This necessarily involves controlling our interactions and relationships with other people. Is there something wrong with that, especially when it involves dealing with irrationality or just plain stupidity?

That's disingenuous; you don't want to control interactions and relationships. You want to control people, as evidenced by your remark a little later:

If I could think of a way to hypnotize these people just so I can get what I ordered, I would do it every single time.

Rand had a lot to say in The Fountainhead about those who want power:

...the worst second-hander of all�the man who goes after power.

Post 53

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 7:51pm

Glenn,

You can call it whatever you want. I personally do not care.

I call it pursuing my own rational self-interest. My rational self-interest includes the trader principle. Many times, I do feel that I have to take control of my relationships and interactions to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome for both parites.

Post 54

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 4:19am

Chris,

I agree with Glenn. There is definitely a difference between controlling an interaction and controlling another person. This is a good way to describe what I meant by a "phony" in post #50: a real man would have a clearly defined sense of self, and would not attempt to persuade the other person of his worth. A phony person would attempt to control the thought processes of another person to get them to see him as a person of value. The value of a person should come from within them, not need to be created (by him) in the mind of others who see him. In post #1 Luke spoke of the difference between Howard Roark and Peter Keating. I see Howard as being someone who doesn't need to create a feeling of being a strong individual in others, it is already apparent to anyone who sees him, because that is what he is. Peter would need to persuade others to see him as strong and independent, because that is what he is not.

Bauer

Post 55

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 5:59am

Bauer,
Great post! (And not just because you said you agreed with me.)

Chris,
I don't see your interactions as trades when you decide what is beneficial for the other party.

Post 56

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 6:26am

I want to make sure I understand fully what others here have said in these recent posts.

Chris, if I understand you correctly, you consider it acceptable to use NLP to alter the states of others in ways you consider beneficial to yourself and others. For instance, you used NLP to alter the state of Tony so he moved from griping to enjoyment, thus relieving both of you of his endless and pointless kvetching. You consider such methods "controlling" others even if you employ no force or fraud -- not just influencing, but controlling.

Glenn, if I understand you correctly, you consider the way Chris phrased his motives as indicative of his desire to control others rather than to control himself. You consider this a sign of a second-handed power grabber rather than a first-handed value producer. You also consider it not a person's place to determine what is beneficial for another person, even if no force or fraud is involved and even if the first person used right reason to arrive at an objectively true conclusion for what is beneficial for that other person.

Bauer, if I understand you correctly, you consider controlling an interaction different from controlling a person, with the former the method of the authentic Howard Roark and the latter the method of the phony Peter Keating. This implies that the latter necessitates fraud while the former does not.

I want to get totally clear on what everyone means so I address no straw men.

Post 57

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 6:31am

Luke,

Yep, that summarizes my last post very well.

Bauer

Post 58

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 7:33am

Chris, if I understand you correctly, you consider it acceptable to use NLP to alter the states of others in ways you consider beneficial to yourself and others. For instance, you used NLP to alter the state of Tony so he moved from griping to enjoyment, thus relieving both of you of his endless and pointless kvetching. You consider such methods "controlling" others even if you employ no force or fraud -- not just influencing, but controlling.

It sounds like we are getting into a semantical debate. Influence and control aren't necessarily the same, nor are they mutually exclusive. The main examples I used were cases where I felt reason was useless.

And in some cases, I have simply chosen to minimize my interactions with people. I guess that's the reason that I hardly go to Wendy's or McDonald's anymore. I am just tired of having to deal with people who don't care if they get my order right or wrong. In fact, such people are defrauding me and wasting my time. I pay them money on the assumption that they do care. When they get my order wrong, they are breaking the contract.

Post 59

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 8:26am