NLP: Just the Facts

Much has been made the last couple of years of NLP and its hypothetical use and influence in magic and mentalism. The problem is that NLP is something people have heard a lot about, but don't actually understand. Let's start with a little background.

NLP, neuro-linguistic programming, was first developed by Richard Bandler and John Grinder who asserted that there was a connection between the neurological processes, language and learned behavior. They worked out a series of linguistic tools as a sort of therapeutic technology to help people overcome psychological maladies such as phobias. One of the early adopters was Tony Robbins, the self-help legend. It has yet to find any mainstream acceptance in academic psychology however.

The problem arises in that there is very little empirical data to support the hypotheses put forth by Bandler and Grinder. Though the self-help industry and countless people in management and sales swear by it, there has never been any formal proof to validate the claims. I personally have met people who claim to be using NLP to influence others and noticed no remarkable success on their part.

During the 1990's is where the claims of NLP got really crazy. Perhaps the craziest of them all is PUA guru Ross Jeffries, who enjoys the dubious distinction of being one of the first gurus in the scene, and also the one who is possibly the most disliked as a person. Jeffries' claims about what NLP was capable of got more and more outrageous as time went on to the point where he began claiming he could reach out and touch people with his "psychic tendrils."

That might all sound a bit ridiculous to you, but the claims that the magic community has been making in the last 10 years aren't much better. The interest in NLP among magicians and mentalists can be largely attributed to the works of Luke Jermay, Kenton Knepper, Docc Hilford and Derren Brown. In their work, they sometimes make references to suggestion and subconsciously influencing people. Derren has claimed in the past that he's using NLP, though this simply proved to be a smokescreen in the same way that Robert-Houdin claimed to be able to make his son levitate through a large dosage of ether. Truthfully, these men were actually applying principles of basic stage hypnosis to magic.

There is evidence that suggests merit to some of Bandler and Grinder's hypotheses. Kenton Knepper for example wrote about the concept of the subjective experience and its use in magic and mentalism. Luke Jermay, Caleb Strange and Andrew Mayne also developed effects based on this principle to varying degrees, though admittedly most of it was simply taking old principles a step further. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, refer to Punx's effect Great Minds Think Alike in 13 Steps to Mentalism.

Personally speaking, I do believe that some of NLP's concepts have merit and are worth investigating, but strictly in a therapeutic context. I believe it is not a new psychological technology, but simply a creative application of principles already developed in talk therapy and hypnosis. Study it if you wish, but be wary of 3rd party titles, especially ones that make more outrageous claims. If you actually want to learn more about suggestion and the like, start with learning stage hypnosis. If there is enough interest, I may write a full post here in the near future on the subject.

In summary, here are the facts and just the facts:

-NLP is an approach to therapy utilizing psychological and linguistic principles.
-Though some of the ideas have merit, there is little empirical evidence to support its associated hypotheses.
-Popular in business management, sales, and self-help.
-Originally developed by Bandler and Grinder, since taken in different directions by a number of outside individuals making a wide variety of claims.
-When magicians/mentalists talk of using suggestion, the majority are using principles of hypnosis, not NLP.

Props to My Peeps

If there is one thing that bizarre magic really loves, it's props. Incidental items, devices, brick-a-brack, curiosities, novelties, antiques, crafts, oddities, tchotchkes, sundries, and other odds and ends. Bizarrists are all over props like ugly on ape. The issue however is that just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Think for a minute. Do you have the budget to live in an Old World abode, travel the globe, and collect occult paraphernalia like Ronnie James Dio? No? Then perhaps you should leave the accursed antique whatchamahoochie at home for your next performance. In fact, how much do you really need props? Rick Maue, author of the superlative The Book of Haunted Magick, has some truly astounding mentalism and haunted magic routines with materials culled almost entirely from Office Depot.

Now while I concede that theatricality can aid the willing suspension of disbelief, there are limits based mostly on the little/big rule, which I'll cover in the next entry. The gist of it is that people are less likely to suspend their disbelief when the devil is in the details. I frequently use a pendulum, which isn't a big deal. They can be bought at most New Age or Neo-Pagan shops and are pretty easy to track down through the internet as well. If anyone questions where I got it, I tell them the truth because there's no reason not to. The pendulum is just a tool that enables the effect, there's nothing particularly special about it as a prop. On the other hand, people would be more skeptical if I were to pull out a pair of antique thumb screws because it just seems so unlikely that a shaggy young guy fresh out of college would be able to get his hands on that. And if I were to actually start talking about how they're haunted or something, we have officially crossed the line into a serious WTF moment that is going to bring your credibility and the immersion of your act to a sudden... screeching... end.

When you're young, you have to play to your strengths. If you do use a prop, let it be something fairly unremarkable used in the same way as most magic props are meant to be: incidental. There's a school of thought in magic that we need to be honest that we're doing sleight of hand all the time, that we need more flourishing, all to make sure that we get the credit for the effect and not the prop. I don't buy that logic. Whatever prop you use should be entirely incidental and a matter of convenience.

Docc Hilford has a superb close-up routine called the Nightmare Coins which you can find in his booklet Band of the Hand and the Monster Mentalism DVD set. This is an excellent usage of a prop incidentally and the narrative starts with the idea of having a dream within a dream. A lot of people have experienced this phenomenon or are at least familiar with it. It's believable, provided it's congruent with the character you've established. Remember that you're an actor. So act.

Overall, props can be great but it's very easy to overuse them or mishandle them. Don't get overly exotic for its own sake, and don't do something hokey. I once had a chat with a young spark who thought he was clever for coming up with a "creepy" routine vanishing a fake severed finger. He said to claim it was real and that it was discovered at the site of a grisly murder and that the ghost of the murderer was trying to reclaim it. Try not to injure yourself face-planting your desk in exasperation. I don't want that on my conscious.

The point is, that example neatly illustrates an itemized checklist of the things bizarrists do with props that they shouldn't, and neither should you.

Until next time.