Blkwolf,
You certainly raise some interesting points.
I was certified some years ago as a practitioner of NLP. That's as far as I went but it has given me perspective. It's true that an individual gifted in NLP techniques could plant triggers and anchors, however, any of these acts require your cooperation at some level. It may be that I've never met anyone truly gifted at NLP, but I am skeptical that too much damage could be done using "stealth" NLP. A person could elicit a state in you and then anchor that state. I would argue that this happens all the time and that we all do it to one degree or another on others (albeit without our conscious awareness). But,bear in mind, those triggers and anchors require reinforcement. I believe that we all have this discernment and we will pick up on continued "stealth" efforts. I think you're in far greater danger from inept use of NLP at the therapeutic level than you are from an acquaintance slipping techniques in on you. People tend to turn themselves over to therapists much more readily than to strangers.
As far as subliminal advertising goes, they couldn't make you do anything that you weren't already predisposed to. For instance, they can't make you go buy a bucket of popcorn at the movie if you: 1. Don't like popcorn. or 2. Think it's an absolute crime to spend $4 for $0.30 worth of raw materials...
There are certainly NLP language patterns in the Learning Strategies tapes and you DO turn yourself over to them to some extent. However, I've not detected anything in their tapes that would suggest an intent to do anything more than is promised in their literature.
Regarding levels of communication, there is a relatively new book called "The Other 90%" by Robert Cooper. He points out recent discoveries that we each have three brains: the brain we think of, a "heart" brain, and a "gut" brain. These areas are called brains because of the neurological "bundles" discovered there. He contends that we all use the three brains in a specific sequence. We first process with the gut brain, then the heart brain, then the brain. Each is progressively slower than its predecessor. When we feel uneasy about an issue, it's because one of the brains came to a different conclusion and the lack of consensus is bugging us. He also states that the "heart brain" gives off a MUCH stronger signal than the "brain brain." It has a signal that can go out 10 feet or so and others pick up on it. When we can sense that a friend or loved one has a problem before they tell us or show it, it's because we're picking up on that signal. It's an interesting book and this contention has interesting implications about our interactions with others and about the idea of intuition.
Getting back to the idea of filters...If you're willing to accept that the unconscious mind is able to evaluate text that is "scanned" into it to find information relevant to your probing questions, it doesn't seem like a stretch to also assume that it is capable of applying filters to the content. If it can look for answers to questions, why can't it also evaluate that material and say, "You know what, this author is suggesting things that are repugnant to my world view."
Sorry for the rambling. Just some thoughts triggered by your thoughts.
