"Look Deep Into My Eyes": Experts Agree Obama Using NLP

Just in case anyone thinks that the reports of our new President Barack Hussein Obama using 70's style-mass-hypnosis techniques on his audiences are overblown, I came across a series of Barack Obama videos on an NLP training site. Apparently the experts agree not only that he's using it, but that he does it so well they can use his techniques to train others.

> So your point is that NLP is NOT intended or practiced as a method of manipulation or persuasion? Or that it wasn’t developed in the 70’s? How would you describe NLP?

I would describe NLP primarily as a form of psychological therapy that links a person’s interactions with his world with his use of language. Change the language, change the interactions. I would also add that calling it “programming” is a bit misleading: it is actually a form of “conditioning”. That is why Anthony Robbins calls it “NAC”.

It has enjoys little support from the scientific community and has made minimal impact on mainstream psychology. Its main successes have been as a tool for self-improvement and business management training. It excels in this.

So no, it is not really practised as a method of manipulation or persuasion, except of course to the extent that effective use of language (both verbal and non-verbal) will make for better communication and thus persuasion.

And yes, it was developed in the 1970’s.

> Or do you take the tact that Obama doesn’t use it and this is his natural communication style?

He probably does, as will any effective communicator.

> You’re criticisms are lacking in any positive assertions that tell us what you think about what WAS in the article...

NLP/NAC is nothing more nor less than Anthony Robbins techniques for self-improvement. Anthony Robbins just took them out of the Fridge and warmed them up like leftovers.

In the article NAC is probably whored up to Obamafy it and make it suitable to mass-consumption. I doubt there is much original material in it — tho’ I would be interested to find out for sure.

> rather than spinning off responding to things that weren’t in the article.

I have spun off and responded to posts made by others responding to the article and the general flavor of the thread. That’s allowed, you know. I believe some of them are hysterical in the non-funny sense of the word.

> And how does any of that make any more sense of your mocking comment about arresting people?

Silly ideas like Obama is using mind control / hypnosis to unduly influence people deserve mocking comments. Really silly ideas deserved to be laughed to scorn and derision.

> THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS WHOLE THREAD SAYING THAT STUFF WAS YOU.

Not too surprising, when you think about it. The thread wasn’t generating much light on the subject of NLP and deserved a measure of ridicule.

> So yes, you ARE reading a lot into it that isn’t there.

Says you.

>>have spun off and responded to posts made by others responding to the article and the general flavor of the thread. That’s allowed, you know.

There you go again. I NEVER suggested anything was or wasn’t allowed. I am not an admin mod. That’s what I mean about trying to manipulate the argument by responding to assertions that were never made. It’s kind of a verbal Hegelian dialectic, and it’s very frustrating to respond to.

That’s a tactic Democrats have used for YEARS against republicans, i.e. the concerns about Newt Gingrich starving people in the mid-90’s.

I was trying to respond to things you actually DID say, and I would prefer if you could try to do the same.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.