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 involvement 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.