NLP. M.Erickson-Explorer In Hypnosis( pickup girls, npl videos,books

01. July 2011 by Admin
Categories: NLP | Tags: , , | 25 comments

Comments (25)

  1. Thank you for uploading this I have been studying Erickson since 1993 and this is the first time I heard him! thanks!

  2. I think it is not to decide who is the best…and it doesnt even matter.
    It`s interesting, that it seems like everybody, even the first student generation of Erickson, developed different views of his work.
    Look at Zweig, Haley, Gilligian and even on Bandler.
    I think what Bandler is doing is his approach or his understanding of what Erickson was doing.
    So you cant tell…read the source, the Erickson books by Erickson and Zeig and then compare with Bandler et al.

  3. @f0rger2 I think that biggest mistake is to compare Milton Erickson books to Grinder and Bandler books. Ofcourse you will know why if you read them all. 🙂

  4. no bandler is better right now bcos milton is dead

  5. @f0rger2 um badler is curently bettr than miltoever was in part cuz he had miltons work as a foudation with whihhecould achieve more than milton ever did -natural progresion

  6. @snowbizznz i wonder if youve begun to realise yet, how oblivious you are to this mans genius?

  7. @aepaepaepaepaepaep7
    грустно что это малкому понятно – великийц мастер – а достойных учеников нету нихуя – долбоебвы обни

  8. плохие субтитры – во многих местах он слова которым бы следовало звучать переменяет на иные, а иногда пропускает эти ненужные to the и пр. для восттановления слушателем

  9. Erickson is so good at conversational hypnosis that they still haven’t figured out what he’s actually doing. This man was born to hypnotize people through his voice.

  10. Erickson has the most serene, hypnotizing timber and tone to his voice i’ve ever heard. I go into a trance the moment I hear it

  11. @snowbizznz what do you think is rubbish there? I’d say that it’s a little demonstration of his amazing skills. He could accustom to everyone’s feeling, he made hypnosis famous, and even if you believe in hypnosis or not (that is completely your opinion and I don’t want to alter it), it is said that those who need it can have big use of hypnosis

  12. Erickson was not an average hypnotist, but he may indeed be considered an average hypno-marketeer under today’s standards! If the chapter on your page 20, starts with the heading; “How Grandiose Charlatans Market Their Own Hypnosis Courses On Youtube’, then I would concur with you that we are definitely there!

  13. rubbish

  14. I have never seen anyone with his skills after 10 years of searching. He was the original and only master of the metaphor in hypnosis.

  15. Ericson was an average hypnotist and a so so psychologist but he was on page 5 when the rest of the world was on page 3 so he looked to those around him like a God.

    We’re on page 20 now and it’s about time we let him lie.

  16. Bandler made nowhere near the contribution Erickson did in his lifetime. Bandler didnt borrow from Erickson he took what Erickson was doing and ‘codified it ‘ to use his own words. Hypnosis and therapy is a bigger field than NLP , Erickson e.g. 50 years of work, more articles, more (recognised)qualifications, admired by leaders in the field, more patients, more innovative. Ericksons ideas are used more in therapy than Bandlers. Erickson redifined what can be done in therapy and the limits of it.

  17. Erickson was to hypnosis what Albert Einstein was to physics.

  18. What B&G did was very good. They did make it possible for many therapists to be able to use techniques of Erickson. No question. Thank you B&D! But that’s it. B or D themselves did not/do not have anywhere close to the skills that M.E. had or that many therapists that are alive today have. The very good ones, the ones most like M.E., do not promote themselves the way B & D do, but then they dont need to tell everyone how good they are… its obvious to their peers.

  19. Bandler has developed new techniques. If your model is still with the ‘old’ NLP frame then Bandler may seem to have lost the plot in his new vids but give the guy credit, he is the co-founder of NLP! Anything you learnt on any contemporary NLP course has passed through Grinder and Bandler. It may be that someone looks back at the Erickson tapes and says “How the hell did anyone miss these techniques” Who knows, but Grinder and Bandler did a fantastic job.

  20. I respect your opinions, my point is Bandler is still alive. Erickson is dead. Einstein is dead. Jung is dead. Bohr is dead. Schwinger is dead. Oppenheimer is dead. There are others who take up where these humans left off and carried on the work. They stood on the shoulders of giants and saw even further. Bandler like anyone else has to make money so he has gone commercial. It doesn’t mean he has lost his touch. I take your point but Erickson was number one while he was alive.

  21. And if you enjoyed “Uncommon Therapy” you will also like “My Voice Will Go With You”.

  22. Google Richard Bandler. Dont take my word on it and at the same time dont listen to the NLPers, just read the facts and make up YOUR mind. And if that doesnt convince you, check out any of Bandler’s later videos because that is the guy you are saying is currently the best.

  23. 1 Erickson is a bit dead and has been for some time!
    2 Bandler and Grinder are alive and are the number one in their field. Grinder was able to explain Erickson’s work with transformational grammar (which he studied at the time)
    3. They researched all the best at the time and took all of what worked and threw away all that didn’t. They parctised what they learnt and developed it into NLP.
    4. You need to do some research!

  24. Are you nuts or just mistaken? Erickson was amazing, Bandler and Grinder write books, how can you possibly compare the two? You need to do some better research on who you think the best is currently.

  25. I recommend reading a book called “Uncommon Therapy,” by Jay Haley. It’s about some of Erickson’s case histories, which are pretty amazing. Erickson was a genius who tailored his therapy for each patient. He seemed able to intuit exactly what they needed. The case histories read like short stories. I remember reading some of them to a friend, and he wanted me to keep going.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *