From: davpascal@aol.com (Davpascal)
Newsgroups: alt.psychology.nlp
Subject: Re:  'Speed Seduction Is Not Scientific'
Date: 30 Apr 1995 18:39:56 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3o13js$sla@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: davpascal@aol.com (Davpascal)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Although Ross Jeffries personally has been roasted on a spit on this
newsgroup and elsewhere because of the goals to which he chooses to
apply speed seduction, the structure of speed seduction itelf has been
ignored and virtually unexamined.  Needless to say, that hasn't kept it
from being systematically pilloried as unscientific and unworkable. 
But is there, apart from all the shouting, any scientific evidence that
the system itself works or doesn't?  Yes.  I'm afraid there is.

Ross Jeffries' method is fundamentally based on one premise:  that
describing a particular state to a person evokes that state (and,
additionally, that once evoked, it can be anchored, linked, directed,
intensified, combined with embedded commands, etc).

Now what Jeffries refers to as 'describing' is known in the scientific
literature as 'priming' or 'seeding'.  Priming refers to 'the
activation or change in the accessibility of a concept by the earlier
presentation of the same or a closely related concept' (Sherman, 1988,
p. 65).  Kihlstrom (1987) relates it to preconscious processing: 
"..Preconscious processing can influence the ease with which certain
ideas are brought to mind, and the manner in which objects and events
are are perceived and interpreted.  Finally, in order for preconscious
processing to affect action it is necessary that relevant goal
structures be activated in procedural memory."

Have studies supported those assertions.  Yes.  A few examples:

Kunst-Wilson and Zajonc (1980) gave test subjects tachitoscopic
exposure to a series of geometric figures for spans of one millisecond
(which is considered too brief for conscious perception).  Subsequently
presented with various shapes, the test subjects showed a clear
preference for the previous non-consciously processed primed shapes.

In two separate studies run by Gregory, Cialdini, and Carpenter,
subjects were exposed to various scripts involving pleasurable and
unpleasurable experiences -- vacationing in Hawaii and being arrested. 
The subjects of both subsequently rated themselves as more likely to
undergo those experiences in real life.

Brent B. Geary ran a series of double-bind arm levitation inductions. 
He proceeded to seed one of the inductions with a seemingly irrelevant
talk about the morning weather, ie, 'the sun was RISING, I could hear
birds LIFTING their voices in song, and as I saw a hot-air ballon
RISING UP to the sky, I felt LIGHT, my spirits RAISED', etc.  Subjects
showed a three-times increase in the desired target behavior.  (Those
interested in pursuing the research, incidentally, are directed to
Geary's unpublished dissertation, 'Seeding In Hypnosis, which, along
with Norman Dixon's "Preconscious Processing", seem to be the
definitive texts for the moment.)

There is in the literature an occasional distinction between seeding
and priming.  A 'seed' is a hint or cue that makes a person more
'response ready', but that hint or cue needs to be developed or
elaborated.  "The essential distinction is whether or not there is
follow-up." Zeig characterized seeding as 'building therapeutic
momumentum' in small, graded steps.  And neither Geary nor Zeig make
claims that either priming or seeding is invariably effective with
everyone (nothing is invariably effective with everyone).  But an
experimental history of its effective use has clearly been recorded in
the literature.

Geary does emphasize that there are certain factors to watch:

1.  Relevance.  People are more likely to actually engage in a seeded
behavior if the seed ties into their values, self-image, hopes,
situation, background, etc.

2.  Imaginal rehearsal.  People are more likely to actually engage in a
seeded behavior if they imagine personal involement in such occurences.

3.  Direct Vs. Indirect Seeding.  Both seem to work, the question being
whether the seed is readily acceptable to the conscious mind or not.

4.  Awareness.  In Geary's view, one should strive to use both the
conscious and the unconscious; suggestions, reframes, etc., work best
if they're also at some point processed consciously and/or integrated
with conscious awareness.

5.  Timing.  First, 'strategic' seeding involves coordinating and
delivering the various hints and cues in accordance with the subject's
reactions.  Second -- a very important practical point -- according to
Geary, the effect of a successful priming (one that seems to evoke the
desired state) lasts four minutes.  After which it begins to decay.  (I
would imagine, then, that that *four minute interval* would seem to be
the window of opportunity for anchoring, linking, chaining to a
different or related state, etc.)

6.  'Gift wrapping'.  My own term; it simply means that the hints or
stories or metaphors should be good, interesting, memorable, powerful
ones.

Interested parties should read:

Geary, B.B. (1992).  "Seeding In Hypnosis".  Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Gregory, W.L., Cialdini, R.B., & Carpenter, K.M. (1982). 
"Self-relevant Scenarios As Mediators Of Liklihood Estimates And
Compliance:  Does Imagining It Make It So?"  Journal Of Personality And
Social Psychology, 43, 89-99.

Kihlstrom, J.F. (1987).  "The Cognitive Unconscious".  Science, 237,
(4821), 1445-1452.

Kunst-Wilson, W.R., & Zajonc, R.B. (1980).  "Affective Discrimination
Of Stimuli That Cannot Be Recognized".  Science, 207, 537-558.

Sherman, S.J. (1988).  "Ericksonian Psychotherapy And Social
Psychology". 
In J.K. Zeig & S.R. Lankton (Eds.), "Developing Ericksonian Therapy". 
New York:  Brunner/Mazel.

   And my personal favorite:

LaRue, A. & Olejnick, A.B. (1980).  "Cognitive Priming Of Principled
Moral Thought".  Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 6,
413-416.
	
And I would like to conclude with an unscientific, but I think
relevant, point.

Consider:  "Can you remember a time when you felt really very attracted
to someone?  Can you remember the physical sensations you felt, the
look on your face, your heartbeat, your breathing, the way you reacted
to that person?  Remember what it was like when that person walked by
you and smiled at you?  Remember the things you wanted to say to that
person, and the daydreams and thoughts that kept coming in and out of
your head about the two of you?  Privately, deep inside you -- do you
remember how you felt?"

Now that isn't scientific.  And it doesn't involve any of the fancy NLP
frills of speed seduction such as submodality shifting or anchoring or
analogue marking, or even very fancy or evocative writing.  But as you
read it, tell me:  don't those questions access certain memories and
feelings for you?  And as you recall them, don't you re-experience them
somewhat? Be completely honest with yourself:  examine your own
subjective experience:  isn't that true?  Look at those questions
again.  Read them seriously.  Think about them.  Imagine someone asking
you those questions over a casual cup of coffee.  Do they honestly
bring up no feelings, pictures, memories, associations; nothing
whatsoever?  For me, they do.  And I believe they would for most
people.

But I don't suggest you take my opinion for it, or even the opinion of
academicians like Geary, Kihlstrom, Zeig, and the rest.  I suggest you
simply try it.  Try it:  you don't have to seduce anyone:  just go up
to someone you know and ask them those questions and watch their
reaction.

And judge for yourself.