About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 8:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn, by "determine" I meant "reason" or "calculate."  As Chris controls his own behavior, he influences the other person toward the goal Chris wants to achieve.  Please explain how this qualifies as fraud.  I really do not understand.  Would you, for example, consider his influence over Tony a form of fraud?  Please articulate in what ways Chris acts fraudulently and how it differs from other forms of influence toward getting others to act in ways you desire them to act toward you.



Post 61

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,
Please give me an example of "other forms of influence toward getting others to act in ways you desire them to act toward you".
Glenn




Post 62

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder if Glenn is doing more hypnotic confusion patterns.

Here is another interesting case of hypnosis. In this case, I was the "victim." Even more interesing is the other guy had no idea what he did.

A guy was talking about when he worked at Love Field back in the 1960's. Part of his job was to refuel airplanes, and he had to lift giant hoses up to the planes. He mentioned that he couldn't smoke on the job, so all the guys would chew tobacco.

Finally, he told a story of how he had accidentally spit on a captain. The captain came back later, quite upset. He swallowed his tobacco. The captain asked if he chewed tobacco, and he said, "No, sir." Then the guy talked about how sick he got because he had swallowed the tobacco.

At this point, I suddenly felt like I was going to vomit. It happened again several times when I retold the story. I had been hypnotized, even though there was no intention on either part of us.

A certain degree of trance is occuring at almost all times. Most things you do can be a form of hypnosis.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, I'm not even sure I know where to start with this reply.  I'll do my best to cover everything that was directed towards me.

Luke, I don't think there's any set number of people that a person should have a relationship with (sexual or otherwise) before settling on one particular ideal.  I am in agreement with most everything you have said so far in this discussion, if that helps to clear things up.  I think Ross is a jerk because his intent appears to be dishonest.  He seems to be advocating the belt notches, and achieving them by what I would consider dishonest and fraudulent means. 

Re: paying attention to a woman - if a man's intent is indeed to "learn how to listen deeply and well" then I commend him for it.  My comment was based on the observation that many men do not even acknowledge that they don't listen even though women say it all the time.  On the other side of the coin, women are way too hesitant to make known what they want.  I don't know why that is.  I don't suffer that affliction personally, so I can't understand it.

I can't remember now who made the point, but I do have to concede to it - the quote itself is no less valid just because I think poorly of Ross overall. 

Chris, I do not object to learning.  I object to a dishonest attempt to apply that education.  Your example of the divorced guy getting women while wearing his wedding ring supports my comments that there are women out there who also just want to have sex.  My point is that men who just want to have sex should focus their attentions on those women, not on unsuspecting ones who are being misled into believing a man is interested in her mind or in a relationship beyond sex.  I don't even think it's bad for a person to simply have fun dating, as long as it isn't at the expense of the other person.  Practicing your "technique" on someone you don't like is fraudulent and just plain mean.  Do you really compare women to hamburgers?  Do you really think women need you to decide for them what outcomes are beneficial for them?

Bauer, you understand me completely.

Glenn, no woman that I know would fall for the Ross Jeffries techniques, unless she chose to.  And yes, younger women are more naive and easier to manipulate.




Post 64

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, do you think that hypnosis without consent is okay?



Post 65

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 9:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn asked:

Please give me an example of "other forms of influence toward getting others to act in ways you desire them to act toward you".

All right.  Let's talk about Ayn Rand herself.  She integrated reason and passion in all her work, employing illustrative metaphors and engaging stories to convey her themes.  Chris might even say she used a form of hypnotic storytelling.  Milton Erickson used storytelling all the time in his hypnosis sessions.

Through the use of stories like Anthem, Rand exercised influence at an emotional level.  The stories and characters also followed a rigorous structure of reasoning, but the emotional aspects of those stories grab fans in massive numbers.  So even if she had never formally articulated her philosophy in later nonfiction, she clearly would have exercised an emotional influence over many of her readers.

Because of her demonstrated skill, this would certainly have influenced how those fans acted toward her when meeting her in person or when writing to her.

Now when Chris persuaded Tony to stop kvetching about his hotels, he employed emotional techniques that appealed to Tony's values.  If Chris had simply said, "Please stop kvetching about your hotels," that might well have not worked and may have even led Tony to do the opposite.  Through the use of questions to get Tony to retell a story of a hotel he enjoyed, then anchoring that experience to the shoulder touch, Chris successfully used emotional influence to get Tony to behave in a way he desired.

Ayn Rand basically wanted people to leave her alone.  She used stories to convey that message.

Chris basically wanted Tony to leave him alone.  He used one of Tony's own stories to convey that message.

Do you have a problem with that?

Deanna, I do not know where to draw the line between an engaging story and a hypnosis session.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/29, 9:52am)




Post 66

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I object to a dishonest attempt to apply that education.  Your example of the divorced guy getting women while wearing his wedding ring supports my comments that there are women out there who also just want to have sex.
There are women who just want sex, yes. The more important point is that there are also women out there who have no self-respect. If women did have self-respect, the makeup industry would be out of business.
My point is that men who just want to have sex should focus their attentions on those women, not on unsuspecting ones who are being misled into believing a man is interested in her mind or in a relationship beyond sex.
And many men who study SS and other schools of seduction agree with this assessment. The last thing these guys want is a real-life fatal attraction. Sometimes these guys do talk about ways to make women lose interest. I don't think any of these guys want to hurt anybody.

There are men out there who do want to hurt women. There are also women out there who want to hurt men. I know this from personal experience.
I don't even think it's bad for a person to simply have fun dating, as long as it isn't at the expense of the other person.
Nobody here is talking about doing things at the expense of someone else. You are the only person who has brought this up.
Practicing your "technique" on someone you don't like is fraudulent and just plain mean.
I haven't seen this particular target in over five months anyway. She was at a regular dinner meeting here in Austin. I haven't engaged in any fraud, because you don't know what I have done.
Do you really compare women to hamburgers?
No, I do not. This is a completely absurd question.

I was bringing up the fact that people in certain situations can't be dealt with rationally. This is something that has been a major pet peeve for me as long as I can remember. If people are going to throw out basic rules of good customer service, then I will do whatever it takes to get them to follow those rules (if I don't go somewhere else). That is what I am paying them to do.

In many respects, I see what I do with NLP as translating my language into another person's language. For example, I know many people who speak English but do not live in America. When I talk to them, I never use terms like miles, quarts, pounds, or inches. I use Metric system terms instead.
Do you really think women need you to decide for them what outcomes are beneficial for them?
I don't buy into this claptrap that men are always victimizers and that women are always victims. I have seen lots of malicious behavior from women--way too much of it. As I have said many times, my goal with NLP is to get out of my relationships what I put into them.




Post 67

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 10:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't know where to draw that line, either.



Post 68

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 10:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris,
What does a woman wearing makeup have to do with her self-respect?  If I get up in the morning and am feeling particularly frumpy, putting on some lipstick makes me feel better.  Cute shoes work, too.  That doesn't mean I don't respect myself.  Althought it isn't publicized as much, men also suffer from low self-respect.  I don't understand exactly how that fits into this discussion, though. 

I brought up having fun at the expense of the other person because I think alot of Ross Jeffries teaching advocates that and that is why I do not agree with his overall methods.  You can say that you don't want to have fun at the expense of someone else, but you encourage practicing on women you don't even like.  How do you reconcile those two notions?

Fraud is fraud, whether you get caught or not.

I don't buy into the victimizer/victim claptrap, either, but you didn't answer the question.  Do you really feel that women need you to decide what is in their best interest?

Chris, you just referred to a woman as a target.  That alone speaks volumes about how you view women. 




Post 69

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 11:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Althought it isn't publicized as much, men also suffer from low self-respect.
Indeed this is true.
I brought up having fun at the expense of the other person because I think alot of Ross Jeffries teaching advocates that and that is why I do not agree with his overall methods.  You can say that you don't want to have fun at the expense of someone else, but you encourage practicing on women you don't even like.  How do you reconcile those two notions?
You can make women feel good, even if you don't go to bed with them. What is so wrong with that? That is practice. Women also practice on men.
Fraud is fraud, whether you get caught or not.
It isn't fraud, and I am losing patience with your uninformed judgmentalism. You do not have any right to judge me. I could give you possibly hundreds of reasons. I do not want to go into those details in a public forum, nor do I think it would do any good.

The women who do actually know me think that this stuff is good for me. They know that my intentions are positive and want me to be successful. They also treat me better.
Do you really feel that women need you to decide what is in their best interest?
I don't think they need me. What is the point of this question anyway.
Chris, you just referred to a woman as a target.  That alone speaks volumes about how you view women.
From reference.com:

1. an object, usually marked with concentric circles, to be aimed at in shooting practice or contests.
2. any object used for this purpose.
3. anything fired at.
4. a goal to be reached.
5. an object of abuse, scorn, derision, etc.

My definition of target in this case is the fourth one. If you want to nitpick over words, it will only show how weak your position is.

Your statement really shows that you appear to be looking for "evidence" to support your pre-judgments and simply ignoring everything else I write anyhow.




Post 70

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, I'm not going to be near a computer for the weekend, so this post will have to suffice for a few days.  It seems that a can of worms that had previously been opened between two of you has been reopened.  I'm not sure you are ever going to agree (that would entail one of you changing their opinion) so maybe you need to agree to disagree (or not, I'm not telling either what to do.  If you want to continue, feel free.) 

I have a few thoughts on this exchange, but I will let Ms. Delancey respond if she so desires and not put any more words in her mouth, even if I "understand her completely ;). 

Suffice it to say, Chris, I think you misunderstood Deanna when she asked "Do you really feel that women need you to decide what is in their best interest?"  Think of this in terms of when you decide to "control/influence" her thoughts. 

Also, the definition of "target" that you attribute to the woman you haven't seen in several months does seem to categorize her as less than a human being (just a "goal to be reached").  Even if it is not your intention to mean this, it sounds dangerously close to describing her as "belt notches".

Bauer 




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 71

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 1:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just want to ask one general question about this notion of "influencing thought":

Can someone name any kind of exchange between two people that does not influence the thoughts of both in some way?

I just want to understand fully the issue people have with this phenomenon.  I can certainly protest when one lies during the exchange, but not when one honestly wants to influence the thoughts of another for mutual benefit.

One of the methods Ross discusses is "quotes" which involves, for instance, a man looking at a woman squarely in the eye and then offering a quote of a story he heard such as, "That man just told that woman, 'Let's go back to my room and engage in passionate lovemaking!'"  This basically gives the man a chance to look the woman he desires squarely in the eye and replicate the dialogue he quotes as if it were his own.  This is a form of suggestion.

Now my question is: Assuming he honestly wants to engage in passionate lovemaking to this woman, is "planting" the idea in her head in this fashion to "influence" her thoughts dishonest?  If so, why?  More importantly, what alternative would you suggest?




Post 72

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 5:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Can someone name any kind of exchange between two people that does not influence the thoughts of both in some way?
This debate, for one.  ;-)

Actually, this discussion has really got me thinking about the issue.  The main objection I would have to NLP is this: insofar as the means of gaining attraction is NLP itself, the woman is not attracted to the programmer's personality--she's simply feeling lustful because of the programming.  It wouldn't matter who it was, assuming the guy was good enough at it (or, at least, it would matter much less).  Instead of becoming the best person he can possibly be, and letting that in itself attract a woman, the man is basically brainwashing her into wanting him.  He's attempting to bypass reason.

I might even go so far as to say he's inducing the emotional equivalent of faith/dogma in her mind.  It's based on a conscious effort of manipulation on the man's part (involving repetition of innuendo-like phrases to "get the sex thoughts in there without being direct").  The same kind of manipulation could be used to get a person to believe in God (evangelists tell me that I have to pray to God, to open myself to God, and give it a chance--of course if I'm praying, I'm already taking action as though God existed..but this is a different issue).  It may be true that the man is a decent one, but if her attraction really is a faith of a sort, perhaps the process would short-circuit the woman's ability to be naturally attracted to men.

So how is this different from a debate, where two people are obviously trying to influence each other?  Well, the debate is presumably based on reason.  Someone presents their side, straightforwardly, for the other person to consider.  There's no "sneaking around" each other's minds.

I've only ever had one girlfriend, and have never been very socially adept, so this topic does spark some serious interest in me.  The other half of Ross's ideas--like the quote this discussion stemmed from--does have me thinking about the messages I send about myself (whether I'm needy or can take the lead, etc).  I haven't made a final decision about where I stand on the issue of NLP; there may be circumstances in which it is actually the best choice.  But as far as using it to get sex with beautiful women goes, it doesn't even appeal to me.  I wouldn't want to have sex with a woman in whom I'd just "induced a state" by repeating phrases and psychological manipulation.  I'd want to have sex with a woman who knew of my best qualities and was attracted to me for them.  Yeah, I know, that'd take a lot longer, but I don't consider my sexual desires as imperatives.

I'm sure some of this has been said already, but I wanted to chime in.  I've been an onlooker at these forums for way too long (as you can see by looking at my post count and member number).  Hopefully I've added at least a couple of new thoughts here.

(Edited by Ben Hoffman on 9/29, 5:07pm)




Post 73

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 6:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ben, the NLP course I took with my wife years ago offered a manual I outlined here:

http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Books/NLP.htm

The instructor emphasized repeatedly that the most effective use of NLP in therapy involved assisting the client in changing limiting beliefs about himself.  This bears some resemblance to the cognitive therapy practiced by Objectivist psychologists like Dr. Michael Hurd which involve replacing irrational beliefs with rational ones.  The difference is that NLP uses the standard of empowering to measure the worth of a belief while cognitive therapy uses the standard of realistic to measure the worth of a belief.

Ross Jeffries spends the early sections of his material talking heavily about limiting beliefs, social programming, self-image, inner game, etc.  One attitude he discussed as worth adopting by men toward any particular woman is, "I don't need you.  You need me."  When I first read this, I responded in a very negative and visceral manner.  My negative evaluation has abated somewhat because I better understand what he wants to accomplish, but in the end, the ideal is to become a "not needy" man in search of a "not needy" woman.

Speaking of need, I "need" to write an article about the proper use of NLP by Objectivists.  The main objection I have to NLP involves its refusal to hold to any belief with much conviction since it considers conviction as potentially "limiting."  This has tended to attract social metaphysicians and primacy of consciousness types to learn and train NLP.  For now, this will have to do:

http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/PENELOPE.htm

Because NLP does not share the rigorous philosophical approach of Objectivism but leans more toward pragmatism, you can expect any treatise on NLP to share that same flaw.




Post 74

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 8:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Also, the definition of "target" that you attribute to the woman you haven't seen in several months does seem to categorize her as less than a human being (just a "goal to be reached").  Even if it is not your intention to mean this, it sounds dangerously close to describing her as "belt notches".
In this particular case, I don't think all that much of this particular target. A woman has to prove that she is wife material or girl friend material. Most women aren't good for this. However, almost all of them are good for sex.

I used to think of women as queens and treated them as such. I also saw what that got me--quick placement into the LJBF file.

My guess is that is your problem. Do you treat women like queens? What does it do for you?

I have noticed that the one married man in this thread has a pretty sensible attitude toward Speed Seduction and Ross Jeffries. But the guys who are most hostile to SS are the ones who will do anything to lick any woman's boots. The bootlickers resent any man who isn't a bootlicker. I know this becuase I used to be one.




Post 75

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 9:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
she's simply feeling lustful because of the programming.
And then you at least have a chance to get to know her and see if she really is someone you want to spend your life with.
Instead of becoming the best person he can possibly be, and letting that in itself attract a woman, the man is basically brainwashing her into wanting him.  He's attempting to bypass reason.
And what if being the best he can be doesn't attract a woman he wants? What is he supposed to do? He is not bypassing reason. He is bypassing the irrational bitch shields and all the other horse manure which keep men and women from connecting and being happy.

It is an understatement to call the current "system" badly broken. About half of all marriages end in divorce. Many single people would like to be married. People go to dating services and E-harmony. Many marriages are not happy. I am doing what I can to make it work for me.
I might even go so far as to say he's inducing the emotional equivalent of faith/dogma in her mind.  It's based on a conscious effort of manipulation on the man's part (involving repetition of innuendo-like phrases to "get the sex thoughts in there without being direct").  The same kind of manipulation could be used to get a person to believe in God (evangelists tell me that I have to pray to God, to open myself to God, and give it a chance--of course if I'm praying, I'm already taking action as though God existed..but this is a different issue).
How well does the direct approach work for you? Does it get you lots of dates and girl friends?
Well, the debate is presumably based on reason.  Someone presents their side, straightforwardly, for the other person to consider.  There's no "sneaking around" each other's minds.
How well has it worked for you?

My former and failed approach was to try to compliment women and just be good to them. That was the trader principle. I saw it crash and burn. After buying SS, I decided to become very stingy with compliments. I now see them as something that a woman has to earn.
I've only ever had one girlfriend, and have never been very socially adept, so this topic does spark some serious interest in me.
And it should. Ross Jeffries turns F students into A students. This is not an easy task for a teacher in any subject.

I can give you a good start if you are worthy.
I'd want to have sex with a woman who knew of my best qualities and was attracted to me for them.  Yeah, I know, that'd take a lot longer, but I don't consider my sexual desires as imperatives.
It may never happen at all. If she puts you into her LJBF file, she is never going to look for your best qualities. She probably won't try to fix you up with her lady friends either. You will be a man that she just has casual comfort with. That's all she will ever feel.

I have a hunch that you have been LJBF'd a lot. It gets old pretty fast--doesn't it? It got old for me when I was about 14.

For those of you who may just be tuning in to this thread, LJBF=Let's Just Be Friends.




Post 76

Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 6:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris observed:

I used to think of women as queens and treated them as such. I also saw what that got me--quick placement into the LJBF file.

My guess is that is your problem. Do you treat women like queens? What does it do for you?

I have noticed that the one married man in this thread has a pretty sensible attitude toward Speed Seduction and Ross Jeffries.

 
Chris, thanks for the kind words.  I owned a 5 MHz PC from 1985-1995 before it finally died and I bit the bullet to upgrade to a new system.  I had gotten interested in NLP when I read Unlimited Power around 1989 or 1990.  My wife and I took an Anthony Robbins seminar in marketing in 1992 and the firewalk weekend in 1994 along with a local course on NLP in 1994.  So one of the first Web searches I did when I got onto the Internet from home in 1995 naturally involved looking for sites on NLP.  That search raised the name of Ross Jeffries in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page.  A search on his name led to a Usenet newsgroup called alt.seduction where he posted regularly.  I had married in 1991 but figured I could still learn some things from this guy.

Ross obviously worked at cultivating an obnoxious persona in his online transactions.  From his signature line -- Get laid now!  Ask me how! -- to his constant attack on conventional "white knight" thinking, he certainly had his own schtick for marketing his wares.  His Web site at the time looked pretty bare, and I wondered if he had an FTP site.  Just for kicks, I made up an FTP address based on his Web URL and plugged it into my FTP browser.  Sure enough, Ross apparently did not even have a password protection on it because I literally walked right into it.  I do not know if he intended people to do that, but I did.  I downloaded The Speed Seduction Workbook and read through it.  I might still have the hard copy I printed here somewhere, but I lost the Word document long ago.

I did order a few of the low cost items such as his book on disk and his weekend retreat video overview, but I eventually sold those on eBay.

According to a series of articles Nathaniel Branden wrote in The Objectivist back in the late 1960s, what people most crave from a romantic relationship is psychological visibility.  They want safely to be able to bear their souls to their lovers as easily as they bare their bodies.  This visibility aspect differentiates a true romance from a mere roll in the hay.

I think the reason Ross's material works is because it makes women feel more fully visible to men in a spiritually intimate way than does the conventional "white knight" approach.  "White knights" put women on pedestals while Ross's students expect women to stand on the ground with their own two feet.  On the Usenet forum, one poster commented that Speed Seduction (SS) actually induces states of love rather than just states of lust.

One aspect of dating and marriage I have not seen discussed here involves the stark differences between the two institutions.  Anyone who has dated and married in the very traditional method -- I mean harkening back to the methods the church still teaches wherein one man and one woman date briefly to get to know each other before committing to a lifelong monogamous relationship and postponing consummation until their wedding night -- can tell you that these two institutions differ as much as night and day.  Following this prescription does almost nothing to prepare the couple for marriage.  I "need" to write an article about this and how people new to Objectivism can overcome some of the residual religious attitudes they might have.

Chris also wrote:
 
For those of you who may just be tuning in to this thread, LJBF=Let's Just Be Friends.

Read "Houseguests from Hell" to see what happened between me and my best LJBF after my learning some self-respect thanks to Objectivism.  I had just started reading Ayn Rand in 1988 and the incident in question took place in 1989.  Some of the article comments proved quite interesting.



Post 77

Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 8:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke,

The problem with a lot of LJBF situations is that the guys end up letting the women walk all over them. That is obviously what happened with you in your "Houseguests from Hell" situation. Maybe you hoped you would get some in this situation. A woman who treats you like this is definitely not your friend.

Telling them to leave was probably a big step for you. You basically told them that you didn't need them. This is something else Ross Jeffries advocates. A man who is successful with women has to understand the power of the takeaway. He has to know how and when to use it.

The big test is simple: Would she try to fix you up? Does she really want you to be successful with women?

A lot of the guys who get into SS are what you could call recovering bootlickers. Some of us probably go a little too far the other way before we find the balance. But a pendulum has to swing back and forth before it can stop in the middle.




Post 78

Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And what if being the best he can be doesn't attract a woman he wants? What is he supposed to do?
Move on, realizing he doesn't need her.  Like I said, I don't consider my sexual desires to be imperatives.  They're not of prime importance.
He is not bypassing reason. He is bypassing the irrational bitch shields and all the other horse manure which keep men and women from connecting and being happy.
I may simply disagree with your view of women.  I agree that some women have irrational barriers, but I think NLP may bypass the barriers and reason.

I'm not at all opposed to changing oneself for the sake of attaining relationship goals.  I'm not even opposed to wording things differently for increased effect.  But from what I know thus far, I think there's a spectrum of possibilities between those two things and the full use of NLP.  I would have to study Jeffries' teachings to discover where I'd draw the line, but I definitely think it's morally wrong to make a concerted effort to re-program someone's subconscious.

I do like the technique you used to get Tony to settle down.  The use of anchor may have simply reminded him that he was capable of a positive attitude.  That kind of thing can even happen "naturally".  I wouldn't disagree with such techniques being applied to women, depending on the purpose.  It's the use of "weasel phrases" that I find most objectionable.  Of course, if the woman knows about it beforehand and is okay with it, that's different.

It is true that I have tried the direct approach, and that it didn't work.  However, I was never a person who deserved or could've even handled a relationship.  I wasn't confident, for one, and sometimes I even wanted the girl for bad reasons.  I think I could do a whole lot better than I have done, by simply becoming what I consider to be a worthy person, and working on social skill.  As far as sexual encounters go, I don't even want to have sex that's outside the context of a relationship, as a rule.  There may be certain exceptions, but I think that the level of physical sexual interaction should be commensurate with the level of mental/spiritual connection.




Post 79

Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 10:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I may simply disagree with your view of women.  I agree that some women have irrational barriers, but I think NLP may bypass the barriers and reason.
How do people use reason when they make these decisions? Can you give any evidence that women use reason at all?
I would have to study Jeffries' teachings to discover where I'd draw the line, but I definitely think it's morally wrong to make a concerted effort to re-program someone's subconscious.
I do sometimes call NLP "hacking the subconscious." The fact is that the natural seducers already do this without making a concerted effort. They just aren't aware of what they do. Some of the schools of seduction have reverse engineered what the natural seducers do. Then they teach other men how they can do it.
I do like the technique you used to get Tony to settle down.
I was really fed up with him. During this particular week, I changed hotels because the Best Western had outside entrances (which he didn't like). On a previous week together, he changed hotels because the Hampton Inn didn't have a refrigerator in the room after he had asked me to make reservations for both of us. The only hotel he did like just happened to be over our per diem rate. I felt like I was dealing with a little kid. It wouldn't have been a problem if we hadn't been sharing a rental car.
I wouldn't disagree with such techniques being applied to women, depending on the purpose.  It's the use of "weasel phrases" that I find most objectionable.
I would guess that people use them all the time, without understanding their impact. I remember a story an NLP health guru told us. It was about a guy in an office. A bunch of people asked him: "Are you feeling alright?" By noon or so, he went home sick. These people had hypnotized him.

Last November, I met Amanda at a party. She took my phone number and called me a week later. I'm not sure why, looking back. She told me she was sick. I actually patterned her on the phone--one in which I used the sun's energy for a man's energy. I also took her back to the time she had spent in New Zealand, getting her to imagine swimming under a waterfall. After about 40 minues, I could tell she felt a lot better. I never heard from her again, but was pretty proud of that phone call.
However, I was never a person who deserved or could've even handled a relationship.  I wasn't confident, for one, and sometimes I even wanted the girl for bad reasons.
Sometimes you may not even know the reasons why you want a girl, and I don't think that's necessarily bad. I remember liking Avril Lavigne when her first song came out. I didn't know why I liked her--I just did. Then I learned more about her and rationalized. But attraction and wanting to spend your life with someone are two different things. Attraction is what makes you want to learn more.

That's the reason for inducing states in a woman. It's so she will give me a chance. If she LJBF's me, I have no chance. You always want to make sure she is looking at you as a potential lover.

My buddy Denice likes Nine Inch Nails. She's been in my life for nine years. As a result, I am more interested in any woman who likes Nine Inch Nails.
working on social skill.
How is this different from using weasel phrases and embedded commands? Almost all "social skills" are bull manure. I have always been skeptical of anyone who has good "social skills."
As far as sexual encounters go, I don't even want to have sex that's outside the context of a relationship, as a rule.
Ross believes that if you don't sexualize it early, then you won't get the relationship. You don't have to have sex with the woman. You just have to make her want to have sex with you. Make her prove that she deserves it.
There may be certain exceptions, but I think that the level of physical sexual interaction should be commensurate with the level of mental/spiritual connection.
I think women develop these after sex. If you don't sexualize it, the mental and spiritual connection may never come.

One pattern I would have loved to have used on Ana, the girl at Gold's Gym, was what I call the "favorite teacher" pattern. I haven't used it, but it works on the theory that every girl or woman was in love with at least one teacher. Basically I would get her to talk about her favorite teacher and get her into a state of passion about him. Then I would anchor those feelings to me. That never happened unfortunately, because we could never get rapport.

Ross Jeffries would at least make you aware of some of the things that you may be doing that sabotage yourself.




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.