harrykeydotcomslashblogs

04 Jun 2013 08:06 { Posts RSS } { Comments RSS } provocative blogs that challenge, offend, and occasionally enlighten

Home About Me My Latest Amusement Register

Is NLP pseudoscientific baloney or an effective tool for personal development?

19 Comments Tags: NLP, persuasion, science Posted 09 Feb 2011 in NLP
Aanbevelen 54 personen raden dit aan. Wees de eerste van jouw vrienden. Tw eet 8

Neuro-Linguistic Programming is often the subject of heated debate between believers, critics and crazies. Much like every conversation on the net, it usually disintegrates into screaming insults and ad hominem attacks, which is great fun to read, so lets get another one started.

What is the definition of NLP?

Cogs are turning: Did he take too much off the back? Neuro-Linguistic Programming n. a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them; a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behaviour. [Oxford English Dictionary] NLP could be described the application of the placebo effect. It involves doing whatever you can to make a person believe theyre going to change, and as such relies heavily upon your combined preconceptions. It uses some cunning quirks of language and exploits behavioural patterns to deepen a persons responsiveness to suggestion. Really, its a model for learning.

Pseudoscience Vs Science

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference Pseudoscience separates itself from ordinary science based mainly on the element of falsifiability. Claims of a scientific nature must be tested in a way that makes it possible to be proven wrong, and NLP avoids that by being the practice of doing what works which makes it unfalsifiable. Another element of pseudoscience is the habit of starting with a conclusion and moving towards a solution. One of the central beliefs of NLP is that everyone can be reprogrammed, it will just requires the right intervention. That also makes it pseudoscience, because if a practitioner has an ineffective interaction with a client, it can be disregarded as just not right for them. Both of those beliefs are very useful, but they are also anatomically similar to most pseudosciences. But: The art of developing hypotheses, critically evaluating them and discarding those that are false, is science. Guessing and testing is what NLP is all about.

How does NLP work?

The core of NLP is modelling which is the practice of recognising someones excellence (perhaps at selling things or being funny), finding out how they achieve that excellence, then working at replicating those results for yourself. Its pretty obvious that we all do that. Thats how we learned to speak and do all of the other things we do so well NLP just gives a structure to that learning. But the Field of NLP or FoNLP as its sometimes called, are ideas or tools that are the fruit that was borne from Richard Bandler and John Grinder modelling psychotherapists and hypnotherapists (Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls, Milton Erickson, Frank Farrelly and more). It includes an ever increasing range of hypotheses that do make testable claims.

Research on NLP
Heres where NLP starts looking dodgy, because since Bandler and Grinder invented it in the 70s, small amounts of sketchy research have produced mixed results.

Mirroring Policemen:
Some dude called Vrij wrote a report after watching two policemen acting strangely in an interrogation with a suspect and wrote a paper about his observations of mirroring in Neuro-linguistic programming and the police: Worthwhile or not?

I poke my cheek then I poke you Mirroring is the practice of matching someone elses posture to build rapport with them but its often sold cheaply as something simple. In reality, rapport-building is about matching someone in a way that feels comfortable and genuine and causes them to think I like this person because theyre like me. But if youre a cop trying to develop rapport with a criminal by sitting silently in an interrogation room with them and copying their body language, hoping that theyll spontaneously confess, then youre a flaming moron.

If youve ever noticed that someone is copying your posture and movements exactly, youll know that its creepy as hell. It does not develop rapport, it destroys it. Not surprisingly, the suspect just sat there in silence. Worst. Research. Ever.

Sharpleys research on Preferred Prepresentational Systems

A major elements of the field of NLP is the Meta Model, which is the belief that we process information through a variety of senses (visual, auditory or kinesthetic), and that different people will be biased towards one or other of the senses, clues to those biases will present themselves, and if you interact with a person in a way that matches their preferred sense, your communications will be more effective. There are heated debates regarding the validity of the paper (which cited 15 studies), with similar methodological complaints. But really, no-one except the proponents of NLP will ever do it right and theyve been either lazy or scared and that stinks of quackery. Thankfully now there appears to be some research being done into the efficacy of NLP in the classroom.

Eye Accessing Cues: Too simple to be useful? Response Most research has been conducted by skeptics, which is good; but that often means that youre testing NLP at its worst, where poorly-trained people are making the most outrageous claims and testing them against the least skillful applications. To my mind, both claims are seductively simplistic, and while that makes them easy to digest and sell, they are unlikely to be useful to any degree of significance. The truth of the situation is subtle and nuanced: We encode memories, rich with sensory information that was relevant to them at the time, and while we might have learned or innate preferences, your bias for each of your senses is likely to change dependent on the context. Effective communication is the art of being receptive while engaging your audience in a compelling way that speaks to them on their terms. Powerful influencers are adept at reading people and responding to them with authenticity. We all do it, but some are better than others. NLP is one way to learn those skills. One final note on research: As NLP is the placebo effect, it is very hard to test properly. Being in a testing situation will undermine the efficacy of a placebo (because youre in a situation of active doubt) and even once youve done your test group, how do you create a control group? If the control group is given another placebo that works better, then that placebo is just an example of effective NLP. Further research and responses in favour of NLP can be found here: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax03.htm And here: http://www.inspiritive.com.au/nlp-research/academic-summary.htm

Personal Development
One of the most compelling parts of NLP are the ideas that encourage consciousness-raising thought. These are ideas that are stolen from many other fields of endeavour and are held within NLP because they seem to work. One of my favourite ones is If youve spot it youve got it which is the belief that if you can recognise a quality in someone else then you must, on some level, have that structure within yourself. The most useful application for this is to pick someone you love that does something you hate. Think of them now, and think about what bothers you. Generalise that behaviour so its a quality rather than just an act perhaps its selfishness or laziness or my personal favourite: Intolerance. Now ask yourself: How is that true of me? If you see a quality in someone else that you dont connect with, youre likely to feel disconnected or confused. An emotional reaction, feeling upset or angry at someone, is often a result of you being upset or angry with yourself in some way. It is not a scientific claim, its just a useful way of getting perspective on things. Now that youve read of this, youll start to see it everywhere, that selfish people abhor selfishness in others, or for me, I cant stand people who are up themselves. The best one: Everyone, including you, hates intolerant people.

The controversy

Bandler: Should 'model' fashion sense and healthy living Richard Bandler, the co-creator of NLP is a thoroughly unlikeable chap that has a gravelly voice and looks like a bullfrog. Hes overweight and wears leather vests and says icky, conceited things like Ive cured more people than anyone else in history (Did I mention that I dislike conceited people?) There was also an unfortunate incident in his past that apparently ended with his prostitute being shot dead with his gun. Incidentally, he was acquitted after 5 1/2 hours of deliberation. Hes worked hard to damage the validity of his own creation, particularly by loudly insulting the field of psychology and challenging them to dismiss him. Bandler also dismisses the application of the scientifc method, claiming that people are more than statistics, despite claiming to have healed a statistically significant number of them. But he probably has cured a lot of people of a lot of conditions, and he has done some great work. Had he decided to be reasonable about it, NLP could quite possibly be where Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is at: Studied, validated, and funded by the government.

Problems with NLP

People claim its a panacea I have one friend and colleague who claims it helped him restore his eyesight to 20-20 vision that sounds crazy but I have ideas that it may be plausible. NLP definitely does have incredibly effective quick-fixes to quit smoking or curing phobias. But unfortunately anything that sells a magic potion is bound to be flocked to by the crazies, and scoffed at by the scientists. Its totally unregulated so gaining a qualification in NLP can sometimes involve little more than paying your fees and remaining in the room until the certificates are handed out. Practitioners can range from compelling businesspeople to raving lunatics, and nothing is ever done to find out whether what trainers are doing is accurate or morally responsible (many Pick-Up-Artist courses teach hypnotic language to seduce women). It is difficult to research and poorly researched, because its a panacea, because its unregulated, and because its a placebo (IMO).

Benefits of NLP
Psychotherapy is a whole lot of science on the structure of going crazy, and nothing but philosophy on the structure of getting well, while NLP has a refreshingly pragmatic approach. In coaching and therapy, NLP is a rapid and drug free intervention, which makes it cheaper and safer than spending years lying on a psychiatrists couch, being encouraged to cry and talk about your issues and gobble down more dependence-inducing drugs. In personal development, its a great structure for success. Learning about it is cheap and easy you dont have to do expensive courses, just buy a book, learn a bit about modelling strategies, and hang around people you admire. Let their brilliance rub off on you. If you are going to do a course, ask around and find a good one. (My suggestions for the UK are: Sue Knight or Toby and Kate)

So which is it!?
You should have your own burden of proof. As Derren Brown asserts, NLP is probably part brilliance, part bullshit. Its pretty hard to tell because homeopathy is a great remedy for all psychosomatic conditions, and thats scientifically bunk. Decide for yourself. I think its pretty useful.

Googles questions

To answer googles most common questions that begin: Is NLP

Is NLP a cult? No, cults geographically and socially isolate people, theyll usually have a single figurehead who makes spiritual claims about their own divinity and the afterlife. NLP shares none of those qualities. NLP is a model for becoming an effective communicator. Is NLP dangerous? Its the art of influence, and yes, influence can be dangerous, but studying NLP is quite safe. Is NLP effective? If the techniques within NLP are applied well, it is very effective. Is NLP bullshit? NLP is probably good science dressed up to look like bullshit. Is NLP real? It is a model for communication. Some of the claims made within NLP are subject to controversy. Is NLP Christian? Nope, thank god. Its not anti-Christian either, unless you use it to de-convert people. But untrained Christians are probably naturally using NLP to convert people to their religion. Is NLP valid? That is the subject of major debate, a few studies have produced sketchy results. See the links for papers on NLP. Technorati Tags: NLP, persuasion, science More Share Share Share Share | Share Tags: NLP, persuasion, science Posted 09 Feb 2011 in NLP by Harry previousProvocative Style nextThe influence of the Yes set A noobs guide to NLP

19 Comments
1. Sundeep #1 09 February 2011 19:58 For me three things stand out on the negative side of NLP, (bearing in mind these are the impressions of someone almost totally new to the area, with a very small introduction into it via a course) 1. Correlation does not equal causation. There are a few wild claims here and there about what NLP does, or can do. But there doesnt seem to be much in the way of detailed study as to the mechanisms of how it works and/or where there are, rather ridiculous claims are made. For example, eye patterns work in the way they do because you look in the direction of where a memory is stored in the brain 2. Pseudo scientific language. For me this was a massive bug bear, and reminiscent of a bad academic paper attempting to create an aura of credibility through often impenetrable pseudo-scientific language. It defeats the purpose of helping people, and serves only the purpose of trying to make it sound credible, or assign credibility to practitioners 3. Individuals with little or no skills, experience, or practice, getting a certificate and immediately setting themselves up in business as practitioners, coaches, etc. On the positive side: 1. It works. Whether it is the placebo affect (which in itself is no bad thing) despite some grand claims, as a psychotherapeutic tool or a tool for personal change, Ive found it to has given me real insight into myself and others, and has affected change 2. What more do you want! Ok, well apart from it working (in certain circumstances, grand claims aside) it provides an excellent way of challenging the way you and others think of the world. And understanding how to interact, influence, and open minds is wonderful. PS-> Im better at picking out the negatives and the risks than the positives. Through NLP as well as my own self awareness, I understand what this says about me. Reply

Harry #2 10 February 2011 15:24 I share your concerns The placebo effect is wonderful, its exactly what we should be devoting our attention to. There has been for too long this negative connotation with a humans ability to fix themselves, with people boasting that placebos wouldnt work on them because theyre not gullible; and there has been shoulder-shrugging form the chemists and psychologists because its so difficult to patent, therefore impossible to monopolise, therefore a financial waste of time. It seems that everything that uses the placebo effect is dumped in the wastebin of pseudoscience. In some cases I am torn homeopathy is totally bogus, but harnesses the placebo effect so wonderfully I struggle to fault it. Let people get themselves better, I say! Reply

Dave Myers #3 24 October 2012 15:55 Hello Just to add a bit of detail, Witkowski has conducted some research into the literature around NLP and has found that the vast majority of research (70%) is unsupportive of NLP and its claims, which is a lot more than the one or two contentious studies which you mention. The reference for his work is: Witkowski, T. (2012) A review of research findings on neuro-linguistic programming, The Scientific Review of Mental Health, 9(1), 29-40. Also, some of the outlandish claims made my NLP range from the bizarre (aversive behaviours can be changed within a single seven minute session) to the downright dangerous (it can cure and illness from the common cold to cancer). If it was truly the wonderful invention which it claims to be, it would be in common practice by now, rather than a weird fringe activity entering its fifth decade of existence. All it seems to be is a giant pyramid-selling scheme. Reply 2. Joel Connolly #4 10 February 2011 03:04 So, in summary Harry, you dont need to be trained to help people with this NPS gumbo, you just need to have an opinion and be willing to share it? Sounds like some kind of cult thing to me. I bet you just use it to bed babes. HA WHA BAM!!! Love you j Reply

Harry #5 10 February 2011 15:49 I love you Joel. I want to pump your neurones. Reply 3. Joel Connolly #6 10 February 2011 03:05 Neuro Pump Service. Ha Reply 4. Andy Bradbury #7 10 February 2011 05:29 It aint what we dont know that screws up so much as what we know that just aint so. (Unknown origin) Opinionated is fine Im that way inclined myself. Being opinionated without doing the necessary research is less than useful. For example, NLP is a specific, non-analytical modelling procedure. Nothing else. Which you yourself seem to at least partially understand. So why quote from the Oxford English Sictionary rather than from the work of the co-creators of NLP and the FoNLP. Are tyou seriously suggesting that the OED is a reliable authority on the FoNLP? Surely not. As tio your comments on Sharpley, and other research by skeptics and academics, since youve apparently visited my NLP-related website, perhaps youd like to take a look at my FAQ #28 Project: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/nlpfax28.htm and its sub-faqs. It covers both of Sharpleys reviews, and Heaps, and over a dozen more covering the period 1984-2010. (A critique of Vrijs article is in preparation.) The point about research by non-NLPers isnt that they CANT do it right, but rather that they DONT take the time to understand what theyre looking at. Ill give simple example then shut up:

The most frequently researched NLP-related topics have been representational systems, preferred representational systems, eye movements and predicate matching. In both 1976 and 1979 Bandler and Grinder clearly stated, in print, that the way to determine someones PRS (preferred representational system) was simply to listen to their use of sensory predicates. Yet time after time researchers have wasted their efforts by basing their investigations on the idea that there are THREE ways of determining a persons PRS eye movements, self-report and verbalization (use of sensory predicates). And just to dig the hole deeper, the researchers and Sharpley and Heap, etc. all cite the 1976 and 1979 books in their references BUT they never quote the one way descriptions. Nor, of course, has anyone provided a quote to show that Bandler and/or Grinder ever suggested that there a three alternative methods to discover this information. And finally because the research does not support a claim that Bandler and Grinder never made this is taken as evidence that NLP doesnt work! BTW, in reality, on all points where the researchers touched on genuine NLP-related claims their results SUPPORTED the NLP-related claims. Like the fact that only tracking and matching predicate usage is effective. Like the fact that eye movements, self-report and predicate usage are very unlikely to produce compatible results. And so on. Reply

Harry #8 10 February 2011 13:51 Andy if everyone in the world called trousers bowls but I, on my own, called them trousers then who would be wrong? All of us. But who would be most effective? The people who called them bowls. So arguing against the OED dictionary is rather futile thats the accepted definition standard. Scientologists probably object to the definitions of dianetics, and homoeopaths definitely object to the definitions of homeopathy. The fact that Bandler and Grinder call their baby one thing and we call it another is inconsequential what matters is making sense out of the description. Similarly, your definitions of what NLP is and is not, are specific beyond functionality and shared by few. That habit causes you to stay stuck on form, nitpicking at wording rather than building a compelling case like a master communicator ought. NLP is a model for developing influence demonstrate its value. Reply 5. Andy Bradbury #9 10 February 2011 05:39 BTW I wonder if you know that: 1. Bandler is TYPE I diabetic 2. That taking insulin (a daily requirement for TYPE I diabetics) tends to make people put on weight. And what on earth does Bandlers fashion sense have to do with the value or otherwise of NLP and the FoNLP? I guess Einstein wasnt the snappiest dresser in the world. And I gather that some people think his morals werent all they could have been. But Ill be juggered if I can see how that in any way detracts from the value of his work on relativity? Reply

Harry #10 10 February 2011 07:01 Lol trolled. Reply 6. Andy Bradbury #11 11 February 2011 06:59 Hi Harry 1. Who says that the OED definition is the accepted definition standard? You are the first person Ive ever seen refer to it. And I get around a fair number of discussions. 2. Similarly, your definitions of what NLP is and is not, are specific beyond functionality and shared by few.

Huh? What I wrote I have discussed with two of the three co-creators of NLP and the FoNLP. Your blog, on the other hand, mirrors most academic criticisms in that all of your attacks are on straw men of your own devising. And whats the point of posting such inaccurate material rather than taking time to get the facts? I blog because Im opinionated and enjoy writing. Oops! Silly question. And am I really such a poor communicator given that YOU linked to my website rather than the other way round? Andy Bradbury Reply

Harry #12 11 February 2011 12:15 Scuse Andy was just trolling. You write very well. Your website is a great and extensive resource. I just used that description because of the ones I found, it explained NLP in a way that resonated with me and I figured that people would understand it. The others, like its the study of the structure of subjective experience just draws blank stares when I say it, so I thought Id use the outsiders definition. And regarding all the points on pseudoscience vs science: To my mind the difference is as Sundeep puts it, that claiming to know the causal connection between two things is making a larger leap than a critical mind ought. To say weve noticed a connection is different to saying this makes this. The woman I trained with (Sue Knight) stating things in that Ive noticed way and I find it quite anostic and clean. Reply 7. Andy Bradbury #13 11 February 2011 18:40 Right. Ill take that as an invitation to play nice. Accepted. ;) In that case, can you please help me out. Im currently writing a critique of yet another gormless criticism of NLP by a Ph.D (psychology). He also claims that NLP is a placebo. Do you happen to remember where YOU got that from (if it isnt just your own conclusion)? TIA Reply

Harry #14 11 February 2011 19:13 Yes lets. Re Eyesight claim: It was even alleged (Grinder & Bandler, 1981, p. 166) that a single session of NLP combined with hypnosis can eliminate certain eyesight problems such as myopia, and can even cure a common cold I first came across the placebo idea when I was deciding whether I wanted to formally start studying NLP, in Derren Browns Tricks of the Mind hardly an academic authority on the subject I confess. I enjoy readily accepting that it is the placebo effect, because I think thats where we can make scientific headway. The placebo effect is too often looked upon as fooling oneself into thinking theyre better, but I see it as a powerful indicator of the power of the human mind. It also, to my mind, makes NLP less magical and more credible. Doctors, who are bound to honesty through the hippocratic oath, cant ethically sell placebos through deception. We can, and quite honestly, and with support as some research indicates that placebos can work even if the patient knows its a placebo. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19904-placebos-can-work-even-when-you-know-theyre-fakes.html] Ive talked to a guy whos doing work on the brain and experience of pain at Bristol University, and am keen to do some work towards researching different NLP techniques and their efficacy with pain management because FMRIs indicate that its not just pretending but people actually experience less pain. This month (or was it last?) in New Scientist they were talking about pain management, and it seemed

like CBT, really in need of NLP. Reply 8. Ian Pears #15 17 February 2011 12:19 Hi Harry Nice article I think its always interesting investigating placebo therapies. I dont believe there is innate power in placebo. I would rather say that we do have resources that we tend to reserve because our evolution dictated that. We can sometimes benefit by an authority figure or a set of rituals that allow us to use our resources to heal when it is safe to do so. There is also evidence that using neurological explanations for things makes them all the more plausible (even when they are total neurobabble in the case of NLP) Scientology and homeopathy have similarly interesting approaches to healing, and like the pseudo-science of neuro-linguistic programming, they have a pretty vociferous following and financial interest. Of course we do need to identify the woo and make it plain to the public. I believe there will always be some people who feel better due to applied homeopathy, dianetics, neuro-linguistic programming or other placebos. Even if you explain to them the total lack of connection with science and neuroscience, they will still report feeling better. There will also be some who will feel let down by realizing that they are all pseudoscience. But thats just the way placebo works. For some, there will be the nocebo power of knowing something is bunkum. The evidence based therapists would generally say that its always best to use well founded treatments, then you get a real effect plus the placebo, plus knowing its evidence based. But there is generally always some value in knowing that some coloured placebos are more powerful for some effects, that injected placebos are more powerful than ingested, that the more impactful rituals are also more effective. If nothing else, it will allow evidence based practitioners to develop a better bedside manner without having to resort to neurobabble. Cheers Ian Reply 9. Bob Mushroom #16 20 July 2011 09:39 I got the answer. NLP is a self-pfulfilling proficiency. Its bullshit but often times if you believe something will work, then it will. So it becomes not bullshit. The problem with me is that I feel like Im TOO SMART for this stuff. I wish I could be stupid and gullible because then it may very well be able to help me with things. But I know its bullshit so it doesnt work on me. So on some people it works and on others it doesnt. Thats what makes it hard to study and causes debate. Reply

Harry #17 26 July 2011 13:04 I challenge that belief, even in myself the idea that Im too smart for this to work on me, but what I think Im encountering is two-fold: One, we are entrenched in a pattern, and finding excuses to remain stuck there; and two, it makes us feel clever to think I recognise what youre doing, therefore it doesnt work The only objection to it is this: NLP is the art of finding out what works, so obvious (and often clumsy) swish patterns and fiddling with submodalities and all that frankly magical part might not work unless they slip under the radar. So change up your strategy, try blunt honesty or humour, weave in some nuanced hypnotic language, whatever you do, continually change your approach and youll likely reach a valid conclusion.

 Reply 10. Anonymous #18 09 July 2012 16:31 Wow! NLP is so fucking bad thing! It is like a Scientoloy! Unfortunally, lots of people have done these awful courses. The beyond the shadow of a doubt the NLP is satanism! Reply 11. Kumar #19 22 October 2012 02:48 I really agree with the blogger. NLP makes you believe what not u are! It is purely a placebo effect. I wonder, if NLP works well everybody whoever attended the program would have been in the summit of success. Recently, I have attended a program conducted by Only success http://www.onlysuccess.net/ in Duabi, two Indian guys who claims they are the best in NLP. I found the programm what they conducted Influence and Mastery is really a scarp. Actually, I have been gone as a coach for that! Alass! These two chaps does not have even any diploma in degree in Psychology or Behavioural science. I wonder how dare these people are ready to play with the emotions of people. My dear friends how can a walk on hanging log which is continously kicked and shaken will represent your life? For this itself they took one and half day! Do you think that this is NLP? I rather tell it is Bull Shit. NLP is merely a Copporate Way of Making Money in this Corporate world. Please save the world from the so called NLP. I beg the proponents of NLP please go and study behavioural science and cognitive therapy before you if you really want to improve other persons life. Or if you want just make money, then go for it teaching the scrap NLP Reply

Add Your Comment

Name
Mail

Website

Submit Comment Search on posts and comments Search

Navigate
Back to HarryKey.com Speech Confidence Provocative Style Seduction Workshops

About Me
G'day.

I'm a speech and confidence coach, and occasionally I'm a voice artist. I used to be a Bollywood actor in Mumbai, and before that I was a foetus.

I blog because I'm opinionated and enjoy writing. They include dating advice, tips on speech and confidence, or anything else that arouses my interest. [More?]

Tweeting twaddle
Harry Key

HarryKey
harrykey RT @nathanLfuller: Def: did #manning ever indicate hatred of America or interest in helping its enemies? Lamo: no
5 hours ago reply retw eet fav orite

harrykey RT @YourAnonNews: Who will go to prison for the crimes #Manning revealed? #FreeBrad
5 hours ago reply retw eet fav orite

harrykey Haha: "...and the Discovery Institute, a think tank for intelligent design creationism." right. More like a thought vacuum.
4 hours ago reply retw eet fav orite

harrykey Yes, @EmiBrancher. Your mate Steve is a font of wisdom and truth compared to @UberFacts. @kibkibs
4 hours ago reply retw eet fav orite

harrykey RT @kibkibs: @EmiBrancher @HarryKey @UberFacts never trust a steve Join the conversation

- Twitter Goodies - Profile

Recent
A dystopian glimpse? Breaking News: Simple flowchart solves all of lifes problems Rise of the Machines Pale Blue Dot

Thats what she said

manvi on About Me Dave Myers on Is NLP pseudoscientific baloney or an effective tool for personal development? Steve C on A dystopian glimpse? Kumar on Is NLP pseudoscientific baloney or an effective tool for personal development? Harry on Breaking News: Simple flowchart solves all of lifes problems

Tags
advice Afghanistan alpha males artificial intelligence astrology atheism Bollywood breathing buddhism carbon confidence dating dear
emissions environment Facebook faith fiasco Profile pics prostitution

sis drugs

Futurism hinduism homeopathy hypnosis

India linkedin logic NLP People persuasion politics

provocative style provocative therapy rationality

religion scandal science sex skepticism speech technology thailand T ravel

women
Recent Posts
A dystopian glimpse? Breaking News: Simple flowchart solves all of lifes problems Rise of the Machines Pale Blue Dot

Pages
About Me My Latest Amusement

Categories
Select Category

June 2013

MT WT F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Oct

Blogroll
Best Blogs Directory Blog Hints HarryKey.com My IMDB page My YouTube channel Nigee Baby Comedian and coach Skwaloo A talented writer The Comedy Pimp

Archives
Select Month

Categories
Bollywood (6) Confidence (8) Dear Sis (11) Futurism (5) How to (11) India (8) NLP (9) Provocative (12) Quote (1) Rants (21) Raves (15) Speech (12) TED talks (4) Travel (5) Uncategorized (8) Gunungkidul 1.4 designed by WP GPL harrykeydotcomslashblogs is proudly powered by WordPress