You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Gunnar_Zarncke comments on Summary and Lessons from "On Combat" - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: Gunnar_Zarncke 22 March 2015 01:48AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (64)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 22 March 2015 08:00:27PM 0 points [-]

it's my understanding that it's practitioners can change a variable like the heart beat quite directly.

And Zen monks being able to change body temperaure quite selectively, yes. But I wonder how direct this actually is. To make it measurable I imagine directness as something like the number of neural layers between the conscious parts of the brain and the actual physiological circuitry. The more layers there are and the more precise the physiological processes you have to trigger the more training is needed (though more layers that are capable of learning - as in deep learning algorithms - may make it easier). That it 'feels' direct once you have acquired the skill is an illusion in so far as any acquired skill appear easy once one has mastered it.

Comment author: ChristianKl 22 March 2015 08:38:36PM 1 point [-]

And Zen monks being able to change body temperaure quite selectively, yes.

Most of the reports I read about that isn't about direct intervention the way biofeedback is. Imaging a fire in a certain parts of the body would be an example.

I don't think it's as direct as biofeedback.

That it 'feels' direct once you have acquired the skill is an illusion in so far as any acquired skill appear easy once one has mastered it.

I don't think directness and easiness are the same thing.

I don't think so. The NLP technique anchor is to have an imagined symbol produce a conditioned emotional response. If you work well when creating an anchor you can basically do this to create any kind of emotional response.

It's still possible to do this in a second but visualizing a symbol still isn't doesn't feel as direct.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 22 March 2015 08:51:03PM 0 points [-]

Sorry. I don't clearly understand your explanation. Is biofeedback more direct or not? I don't get the NLP anchor thing (I have no NLP background). Maybe giving a link to an NLP site would help.

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 March 2015 11:39:14AM *  1 point [-]

NLP anchors are basically about using a conditioned response.

Pavlovs dogs salviate in response to the bell. The bell produces a bodily reaction. If you want to control your own state, then carrying a bell around with you is impractical. Visualized symbols are more practical because you can trigger them without needing to do anything externally.

Going through the intermediate step of the bell or a visualized symbol would be an indirect way to change bodily sensations. Biofeedback allows a practitioner to learn to have more direct control over a variable.

In NLP the creation of an anchor is usually done with a coach leading the process for another person. It's not something that's as easily done when you are alone. On the other hand once the anchor is there you can use it whenever you want. But you actually have to remember to use it which people often fail to do in high stress situations. I'm not sure whether it's useful to link you to some online description.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 23 March 2015 11:06:24PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure whether it's useful to link you to some online description.

I'm autodidact amd learn most things my reading and trying out. I admit that some things don't really work that way but I'd appreciate the link nonetheless.

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 March 2015 11:18:30PM 1 point [-]

Chris Mulzer from whom I learned NLP has written in German 7 articles about anchoring (German: Ankern) under https://www.kikidan.com/bibliothek/nlp-grundlagen-techniken .