Posted by mattdds on October 18, 2003, at 16:53:58
In reply to Anthony Robbins...!, posted by ace on October 18, 2003, at 0:52:29
Ace,
I agree with you here. Tony Robbins is much more of a salesman / motivational speaker than a psychologist. I read a few excerpts from his book and it all seemed so vague that I could not derive *any* pragmatic use from it. I did get the sense that he was excited about *something*, but only god knows what that may be. It also seems a bit cultish, if you ask me.
NLP is quackery, in my opinion. I don't mean to put anyone down who has been helped by this, but there is absolutely no science done to show these methods work.
**Excerpt from Quackwatch.com**
Neurolinguistic Programming
Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) is a variable system of procedures purported to enable people to communicate more effectively and influence others. It is said to involve modifying the patterns or "programming" created by interactions among the brain (neuro), language (linguistic), and the body that produce both effective and ineffective behavior. Proponents claim that NLP has cured phobias, allergies, and other problems in one or a few brief sessions. Its core postulates are: (a) people are most influenced by messages that reflect how they internally represent whatever they are doing; and (b) this representation is reflected by eye-gaze patterns, posture, tone of voice, and language patterns. The internal representation can be visual (picturing what they are involved with), auditory (hearing it sounded out), or can involve other senses. Proponents claim, for example, that a someone experiencing a mental image might use the words "I see," whereas someone in an auditory mode might say "that sounds right to me. Scientific studies have demonstrated no correlation between eye movements and visual imagery, reported thoughts, or language choices. A National Research Council committee has found no significant evidence that NLP's theories are sound or that its practices are effective [19].
Good to see you back ACE! I would venture that 60-90 of Nardil (perhaps even 45?) would crush old Tony in the ring!Matt
poster:mattdds
thread:270487
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031011/msgs/270626.html