Everything about the art of unlocking the unconscious mind through clever communication tactics.
You will discover how to stand up for yourself and handle any verbal conflict without losing your cool.
Those methods helped me to detach from all the negative conditionings I grew up with.
Based on Neuro Linguistic Programming, they will help you to form better relationships in your personal and professional life, and distance yourself easily from toxic people.
For line #1 I like to say "You're just trying to make me blush" with a very playful tone with a hint of being challenging. If she is highly interested and you have proper tonality, she will say something like "Is that bad?" or "What if I am?". Thus, she agrees with your frame.
@@Abby-x9d This one is the most complete I have ever created on the subject: mindtitans.com/hypnoticseduction/ I may open consultancy later, but fully booked at the moment sorry ^^'
Gordon Liddy used to debate Timothy Leary, who had help from Robert Dilts to hone his argument skills after being soundly beaten in their debates. After using pattern maps such as yours his argument skills improved.
Hello, I would like to ask a question although It's not related to the video. I purchased several course (it's funny how investing in one helps to actually do the work with the sunk cost bias 😂). I am on my 6th day of "7 day confidence booster". ----- When you take a anchore about things you believe, is it possible to take something you know is true but not about you ?(like the Earth is round, the sky is blue etc). ------- Btw thanks for your work and making information available. Have a nice day
Nice! :D Yes, you can use an anchor for anything that you inherently know to be true. Usually, the best answer option is the very first one that pops up in your mind when you wonder "What should I use for this exercise?" If you're worried about it not having the same effect though, you can stay close to the belief structure by using "something you know to be true about ANOTHER PERSON", that way it keeps your mind involved in the identity structure. But any belief will work as long as it makes sense to you. :)
@@mindtitans thanks for your answer :) The first thing that pop was about the Earth being round because it something that so established that i Don't doubt it 🤣. I am testing different things for the last day. Because i have an Idea on which state to use to negate the Bad one. Keep going with the good content Have a nice day
1- Unlimited Power 2- Trance-Formations (1981 version) 3- Ross Jeffries PDFs I would say that sums it up, but I tend to change my mind from times to times based on my current interests.
It's worse because God does make direct commands to take virgin female slaves, after slaughtering all the males and women and animals. A direct injunction, not merely allowing the practice of slavery and telling them how they ought to be treated but a direct mandate on who they should enslave as spoils of war and conquest. There is no scripture that reforms the practice or suggests that under different circumstances at a future time it would and ought to be considered abhorrent. Alex is great in these situations because he doesn't allow Ben to Gish gallop; having him pause to clarify single integral points of contention.
I don't pretend any of my courses can make you become "like somebody else", but if you're talking specifically about this type of frame control abilities, I would suggest "Control the Frame with Simple words": mindtitans.com/control-the-frame-with-simple-words/ Or, if you only want to model Russel Brand or any advanced speaker, you can get in their mind and identify more easily with their identify beliefs and skills under hypnosis with "NLP modeling": mindtitans.com/nlp-modeling-secrets/
I would say Ben Shapiro was correct in saying some laws were time bound but always immoral. For example, God says in Malachi 2:16, "I hate divorce. Jesus says in Matthew 19:8 (New Testament), "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." So God permitted/tolerated something on a temporary basis that he knew for all of eternity was wrong. The toleration for slavery was time bound as divorce was time bound but permanently wrong. Jesus discourse on divorce: 19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Ben Shapiro reminds me of an Israeli... Just shouts whatever he wants, whether it be lies, truth, insults, anything... And claims victim and gets insulted whenever challenged. He's such a smug, snooty, petulant child. He's not a nice person.
Shapiro has no skills in debating, he simply throws out such a huge load of lies, falsehood, misrepresentations and logical fallacies in a very short time that his opponent cannot even debunk a single one of them in the same time, then he insist that both sides should have the same time to speak and then he claims to be right because the opponent couldn't debunk him. In comparison that's as if O'Connor was saying just one short sentence in under 5 seconds, beginning with "the bible says you should" and then listing a load of keywords for real bad criminal things one could think of. Then whatever Shapiro would answer O'Connor would interrupt him after 5 seconds, because his time to speak is up.
@@justmbhman I didn't make you do anything, apparently you were interested enough to decide yourself to read it and you even decided to spend more of your time by writing an answer, which means I did quite well in getting your attention.
@@justmbhman Nah, there's actuallty something really interesting about the way Ben handles debates. He has this strategy that makes him seem incredibly sharp and unbeatable, but if you look closer, it's not about actual debating skills. It’s more about overwhelming his opponent with a flood of information, much of which isn’t accurate. He talks so quickly and covers so many points that it’s almost impossible for the other person to address everything he says. By the time they start to respond to one thing, he’s already moved on to the next three points, leaving them perpetually behind. What’s more, Ben always insists that both sides get equal time to speak, which sounds perfectly fair in theory. But because his opponent is often stuck trying to untangle and counter his rapid-fire points, they end up spending all their allotted time just playing catch-up. They hardly get a chance to put forward their own arguments. This creates an impression that Ben’s points are unassailable because his opponent never gets to fully address them. Then, at the end, he claims victory on the grounds that his points went unchallenged, which isn’t really the case - his opponent just didn’t have enough time to respond properly. To put this into perspective, suppose O'Connor kicks off every debate with a quick statement like "the bible says you should," and then rattles off a list of serious crimes or wrongdoings in just a few seconds. No matter what Ben tries to respond with, O'Connor would immediately cut him off after five seconds, declaring that Ben’s time is up. This approach leaves Ben with no real opportunity to counter the initial claims, making it look like O'Connor’s points stand unchallenged. It’s the same kind of unfair tactic. Watching this unfold can be pretty frustrating, especially if you’re looking for a genuine exchange of ideas. Debating should ideally be about thoroughly discussing and challenging each other's views in a fair and structured way, not about who can talk the fastest and throw the most information out there in the shortest time. It’s like watching a game where one player keeps bending the rules to stay ahead. In the end, it’s not a true measure of who has the better arguments, but rather who can manipulate the format to their advantage. In essence, if you're still reading this, my point is that Ben lies but talks fast so its hard to debunk. You're welcome.
@@mindtitans it's a way to use your every day research to help organise it and when you need to write something you Can compile more or less. So you save a lot of Time. It's like puting the brick separatly, then having a plan. And when you need to, you Can build the house
Have you ever thought about making a channel where you interview successful people like Rob Moore so you can learn how they do what they do that’s makes them successful?
Williams was on his way out and he knew it. He ended things on his own terms. Going out with some dignity vs going through the last days of his life not really being himself. I hope it’s a decision you never have to make.
Quite a lot yes ^^ But would be better if you give me the type of situations in which you're getting stuck, and I can make a video on that specifically ;)
@@mindtitans honestly, if you can share everything you know it would be perfect ^^ But for now an interesting subject would be the start of the interaction: how to approach, how to build comfort and attraction, what to talk about... Anyways if you do a paid training where you share everything you know I'd be interested for sure. NLP, Hypnosis, Psychology for seduction is fascinating!
My favorite embedded command was " I really feel your opening up to me" Had it work with my girlfriend, she really felt her opening up to me! I told her afterwards and she was a bit surprised.
Ross Jeffries is Jewish as was Michael Landon. The latter's son said that when Michael Landon was a boy, the Christian children would check to see if he had horns. He mentioned it in a documentary on Amazon Prime. Not sure whether or not drawing horns on Ross Jeffries could be considered antisemitic, although I once had that done to an image of me as well. Sometimes women will do something like that because they "like" you, seriously.
I think the reference is so old it would be lost on current generations and anyone kn their 20s or 30s wouldn’t have it occur to them. The horns are probably just a joke with no whiff of “Jews have horns” which was brought over from Europe when Jews lived apart from the Christian majority in ghettos and all sorts of rumors would believed. They’re poisoning the wells . “They put the blood of Christian babies in the matzoh. And they have horns which pop up when nobody’s looking “.
It's not really a double bind, more an illusion of choice. A double bind would be more like if she's attracted to you and caught between fight and flight or an approach/avoid conflict. As Jeffries once put it, a person seeks pleasure and avoids pain, and will do more to avoid pain than they will to experiences pleasure. As I put it, if a woman is really attracted to you, she doesn't know whether to eff you, kill you, or run. This happened with me many, many times, and they would freeze, tremble, hyperventilate, and forget to breathe. One girl stood in front of me and laughed, stopped, and started again for what seemed like 15 minutes, similar to how masses of girls reacted to The Beatles, mass hysteria. That was without my actually having said a word to any of them. I had to learn to make women laugh so they wouldn't try to kill me, and some women actually hallucinate things that never happened, and some spread malicious gossip and get others to believe their lies.
In hypnosis a double bind is the term used for the illusion of choice when both options go in the direction the hypnotist wants . An example is “would you like to go into a trance now or in a few minutes “. Presupposes they will go into trance either way .
@@abemurray2407 Different terms for the same thing. In NLP it's referred to semantic ambiguity. It's no wonder the average person is insane and walking around in a state of hypnosis.
Do you have a specific conversation from him that could be relevant? Sometimes I see interviews passing by with him but where he is mostly rehearsing generalized political obvious stuff, so not the best for a breakdown ^^
The question is how to optimise for TIME and for Win-Win and Win-Win-Win with this Control and frame control. So to do it you need to be well informed, isn't it? And if ppl lie to you then guess what? THEY BECOME THE ENEMY TO BE DESTROYED 100%.
I think it was initially bought from a shop in my hometown something like 20 years ago, and the shop is probably closed by now ^^' But you can look up "Andy Warhol Einstein Poster" maybe there's some version of it still for sale on Ebay or something.
So a guy on court TV trial modeled AL Pacino as gangster Scarface and became a famous you tuber apparently . Then he murdered somebody. Which demonstrates the need for filters when modeling.
Always love to see these analysis videos What’s your opinion on the new Sleight of Mouth 2 book by Dilts? I’m currently reading it. I think it really shows me the gaping difference between an ‘empathetic’ use of sleight of mouth which you may do in coaching or de-escalation of conflict, as Dilts heavily emphasizes in the new book, vs a more combative use of Sleight of Mouth, as shown in situations like this one in the video, where you are aiming to control the frame. I think that would be a great a topic for a video. I prefer the frame control lens because it seems more applicable in more situations. Dilts books don’t tend to go into that arena at all, and I like that you do. There seem to be many uses for and ways to look at Sleight of Mouth and I would be interested to hear more of your take on the different ways it can be used/viewed, and even how you would categorize them. (Edit: Just now seeing the end, you do have a form of categorization related to this )
I saw that book passing by a few months ago but didn't find anything I didn't already knew in it. Probably good though for people new to this. But you read my mind because I'm planning my own book on the topic for a while, which is the reason for that "new" model I've put in. I want to make SOM known on a wider range than only therapy/coaching, and there will be many breakdowns coming during the next weeks to demonstrate this ;)
@@mindtitans @@mindtitansIt seems to have wide applications as a communication model, and you show that much better than all other sources I’ve seen, so I am looking forward to the upcoming content. Thanks.
