Search the Community

Armadillo Mystery: https://mindpersuasion.com/live-training/

Banana Slicer: https://mindpersuasion.com/live-training/

Peanut Butter Mind Control https://mindpersausion.com/mm/

Magic Jewelry https://mindpersuasion.com/3x3/

Scuba Fishing https://mindpersuasion.com/3x3/

Peanut Butter Chaos https://mindpersuasion.com/3x3/

Banana Whiskey Diet https://mindpersuasion.com/3x3/

Peanut Butter Amnesia https://mindpersuasion.com/3x3/

Peanut Butter Mayhem https://mindpersuasion.com/3x3/

Peanut Butter Love https://mindpersuasion.com/3x3/

Telepathic Alien TV Evangelists https://mindpersuasion.com/dh/

Psychic Taste Test: https://mindpersuasion.com/psychic-taste-test/ https://loopvids.s3.amazonaws.com/Nov15Loop.mp4

https://loopvids.s3.amazonaws.com/Nov01Post.mp4 Imagine if you were watching your favorite cooking show. And you get inspired, and wanted to cook something fantastic. So you went into your kitchen, ready to rock. But the only raw ingredients you had were half a jar of mayonnaise, two moldy pieces of cheese, and some leftover takeout from three weeks ago. Or how about this goofy idea. Suppose you were out wandering around and stumbled into a Home Depot weekend class about how to build a deck in your back yard. The teacher was charismatic and inspiring. There were plenty of hot ladies in the class. And you talked to some of these hot ladies during the break. And they said things like: "I love a guy with a deck, especially if he built it himself." "It makes me SO horny!" So you excitedly rushed home, ready build a deck for your future fantasy weekend orgy parties. Only you don't have a back yard, you don't have any wood, and you don't even have a hammer, let alone nails. These silly ideas sound pretty goofy. But this is pretty much how people go about doing things. We want a bunch of cool results, but we don't have the tools. Or the skills. If you want to cook some pretty cool stuff, you'll need three things. Plenty of raw ingredients. Plenty of cooking utensils. Plenty of cooking skills. Same goes with building a deck or building any other physical structure. But this isn't just true for specific things. This is true on the META level. For example, suppose you wanted to cook something, but you had no idea WHAT. So long as you had ingredients, utensils and some basic skills you could make something up. Some people can ONLY cook from a recipe. Some people can ONLY live life from a recipe. That's fine if you want an average and safe life. But if you want to live life like an experimental chef, you've got to have a KEY ingredient. The ability to look at what exists, both in the world and in your brain, and MAKE SOMETHING NEW. Suppose you waned to make something new, in your kitchen, but all you had was a slice of cheese and a half empty jar of peanut butter. Not much flexibility. But suppose you wanted to make something new and your kitchen was FULL of good stuff? Much easier. Suppose you wanted to make something new in your life, but all you had in your brain were copy and paste recipes? On the other hand, suppose you wanted to make something new, and you looked into your brain and found an INFINITE reserve of ideas? That would be much easier, much more enjoyable, and much more FUN. Get Started: https://mindpersuasion.com/creativity-accelerator/

Pancake Hero: https://mindpersuasion.com/pancake-hero/ https://loopvids.s3.amazonaws.com/Aug17ALoop.mp4

Self Guided Misdirection: https://mindpersuasion.com/self-guided-misdirection/ https://loopvids.s3.amazonaws.com/Aug15ALoop.mp4

Russian Impostor: https://mindpersuasion.com/russian-impostor/ https://loopvids.s3.amazonaws.com/July05Loop.mp4

Peanut Butter Industrial Complex: https://mindpersuasion.com/peanut-butter-industrial-complex/ https://soundcloud.com/mindpersuasion/peanut-butter-industrial-complex https://loopvids.s3.amazonaws.com/Sept21Loop.mp4

There's a very simple yet very powerful technique from covert hypnosis. The collection of insanely persuasive language patterns created by Milton Erickson. There are about 50 or so linguistic patterns, and a couple dozen structural techniques. Any time you see anybody "using" any kind of persuasive technology, it's usually ONE or at most TWO of the fifty or so linguistic patterns. This pattern is one of the structural element. It's also pretty famous, but it's nearly always misused. This is the famous "quotes pattern." Here is how it's usually taught, which is useful only if you want to get a laugh. Suppose there's a cute barista you see once a week or so. She always smiles at you, so you want to say something to push the envelop. Enter the quotes pattern. Right when you're about to place your order, you pretend your phone rings. You pick it up, listen, smile, and then hang up. "Sorry," you say. "That was my roommate. She's really weird. She just called to say I really want to have sex with you, and then she hung up. This means she probably broke the remote again, sorry," and then go out with your order. When you say the, "I want to have sex with you," you say it DIRECTLY to the cute barista and you really mean it. In this example, it only allows you to say something to somebody that you REALLY want to say, good or bad, but would otherwise be too shy or scared. Like I said, this might get a laugh, but it WON'T make the barista want to jump into the sack with you. But the quotes pattern is VERY flexible. Once you get the hang of it, you can use it in many, many different ways. So long as it's clear you are quoting another source, you can say pretty much anything in any context. But it's even better when you put it in the middle of a bunch of random stories. That way you can STACK quotes. You can use it to deliver commands. Or you can use it to convey information. Like the other day, when I was walking through this health expo. And there was this crazy guy selling blenders. He kept going on and on about the benefits of peanut butter. He kept saying that everybody should eat peanut butter. You should eat peanut butter for breakfast. You should eat peanut butter for lunch. You should eat peanut butter for dinner. He seemed to sell a lot of blenders, too. There was this other guy there, selling books. Books about magic. But he didn't have a pitch. He was surrounded by gorgeous super models. Whenever people would walk by, he would look at them with a crazy look in his eyes, and just start screaming: Buy this book! Buy this book! Buy this book! If you buy this book, you'll get tons of super models! http://mindpersuasion.com/storytelling-magic/

There's a famous metaphor about God and an elephant. Or the elephant being a metaphorical idea of God. A bunch of blind guys are walking and come across an elephant. None of them have ever encountered an elephant before. So they each kind of feel around a different part. One guy grabs the tusk, another one the trunk, one guy the skin, another guy one of his feet. And based only on what they can feel, they have a completely different experience. Each one thinks his "thing" is unique. This is usually used to show how different cultures experience God in different ways, but It's (He or She) is really the same thing. But it makes an assumption about human perception. Maybe the metaphor, or maybe our brains. Most metaphors are incomplete. They have to be, since they are oversimplified pictures of a much more complex process. In NLP, this is described as the map not being the territory. Metaphors are not that which is being described. The are only helpful in giving a "big picture" idea. Because just as there are people who would like us to all have the same, vague, "God," there are plenty who are happy with the "my God is better than your God" argument. But what I want to point out is the metaphor itself. Why didn't those guys spend a little bit more time feeling around the elephant? If they spent a few minutes getting more data, feeling more areas, they would have had a much more complete idea of what they were encountering. The metaphor is pretty accurate when it comes to human ideas and thinking. We all have a "first glance" idea, and that first glance pretty much makes up our entire perception. Then we get into arguments because our "first glance" idea is different from somebody else's "first glance" idea. Way back in the day of Plato and Socrates, they had the idea of a dialectic. Meaning two guys would go back and forth, exchanging ideas. One guy would share his idea, and the other guy would look at that idea, and mix it into his idea, and they would go back and forth. The process of this "argument" was to DEVELOP a more complete idea. Very much like guys slowly moving around and reporting the ever changing structure of his part of the elephant. Eventually, they'd figure it was some huge animal with a long nose and a couple of tusks, and some big floppy ears. The "art" of developing more and more complex ideas is definitely a lost "art." But you can easily develop it. Which means you can take ideas from EVERYWHERE, and ALL TIME, and mix them together and see what you can come up with. And develop a much more complex view of "reality" in the process. Learn How: http://mindpersuasion.com/hallucinating-mind/