Posted by ace on October 21, 2003, at 22:57:07
In reply to Re: Anthony Robbins...! » ace, posted by madwand on October 19, 2003, at 14:17:15
> Well guys, I have to disagree with you (let me rephrase that - I "choose" to disagree with you).
How dare you!!! Just Kidding!
BTW, Ace, glad to finally "meet" you (you were in the middle of a block when I first joined the board).
Glad to meet you too, bro!
> First of all, I do agree that Anthony Robbins does not come across well on the infomercials. I think that is due in part to the medium itself -- infomercials inherently involve a lot of hype. Perhaps my perspective on Robbins is influenced by the way I first encountered him. An ex-girlfriend had purchased his tape series and I had listened to it long before seeing the infomercial.
> And while I can't call myself a Robbins "success story", I did derive some benefit, despite the fact that I had had some previous exposure to some of the concepts. If you are willing, he does invite you to look at some things in a different way. And some of the exercises do seem silly, but then so do some of the things in 12 Step Recovery. The trick is to get past that and *do* them.
> Here is one example. One of things he talks about is what drew him into the motivation field. Many in that field seem to have started out "down and out" until one day they read a book by one of their predecessors and it changed their life. Some even have an elaborate mythology around their "technique" and its origin (Og Mandino comes to mind). Or they claim to have made the unique discovery of *the* way to success.
> And admittedly some of Robbins' informercials make it sound like he has found *the* way. But that is an artifact of marketing hype -- everyone who is selling a version of something claims they invented it.
> However, Robbins' own take on it in his tapes is a little bit different. He had an early curiousity/fascination with the "success gurus" and concluded that there must be some secret that is common to all of them. He also wondered what made the difference between people it worked for and people it did not.
> So, he "studied success" and came up with a program that attempted to distill the essence of the others into a purer form. He also noticed that the main difference between people for whom the various programs worked and those for whom they didn't work was the extent that the person was willing to *do* the program (as opposed to reading through and saying, "yeah, that's right"). In other words, it makes a lot less difference which program you choose than whether you actually *do* the program you choose. Obviously he would prefer you chose his, but he stresses the "do" part even over that.
> Perhaps that is one of reason I am positively disposed to him. I confess I am drawn to the "success programs" (and spend too much time reading and going, "yeah, that's right"), but I really liked the way he approached the whole process.
> And as for NLP (BTW, Robbins brands his variant as NAC -- NeuroAssociative Conditioning), that could be a debate unto itself. Like other things
> (12 Step Recovery, therapy, Scientology, or even medication), it has worked miracles for some and failed to work miracles for others. So some swear "by" it and others swear "at" it.
> On the down side, Robbins does not seem to quite understand things like addiction or depression and believes his techniques are the solution (I remember one notion that depression stemmed from how you hold your body.)
>
> One thing I find interesting though, is that this thread started out with a seemingly out-of-hand dismissal of Robbins and techniques along those lines (as opposed to medication). When I listen to Robbins and folks in that "camp", I notice a similar out-of-hand dismissal of medication! My personal belief (which I won't go further into on this thread -- the note is getting long anyway), is that no particular camp has "the" answer. Whatever route you take (including medication!), it takes personal choice and personal committment to make it work.
> And as for Robbins personal "story"? I think that is a lot less relevant than whether his techniques work for you. And I apply the same standard to others whose "back story" has been called into question (Elron Hubbard, Carlos Castenada, etc.). "What actually happened" can be an interesting line of historical inquiry, but has no particular relevance in determining whether the end result is helpful to you.
> I would be happy to go into some of Robbins' other techniques, but only if there is a genuine interest (i.e., if everyone on the thread is convinced he is a quack from the get-go then that would be a waste of bytes). There also might be someone lurking here who is a genuine Robbins success story and they would be the better ones to go down that road. However, due to the self-selection effect (i.e. this is essentially a "meds" board), that might not be overly likely.
> Peace everyone, and have a wonderful weekend (or what's left of it).
>
> Michael
I'm glad that you get something out of him, Mike. But, I don't know, I really feel adverse to the guy and his books...I don't know, maybe if their was less of this 'superman' nonsense...Not really my cup off tea!But tell me, have you quit smoking or anything like that through his method?
The other guy that annoys me is this deepak Chopra- heard of him?
Take care ,
Ace.
poster:ace
thread:270487
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031011/msgs/271682.html