Performance & The Subconscious Mind- Part 18 Beyond Reframing- NLP- Dilts- Sleight of Mouth- Mind Lines
March 6, 2011 by Richard Matteson
Hi,
Understanding the Subconscious Mind
Robert Dilts
If, therefore, the frame control governs the meaning (which then controls the emotions, states, experiences, behaviors, etc.), then framing things in ways that make solutions possible provides a very powerful intervention at the paradigmatic level which is, outside the consciousness of most people. [from Michael Hall's book, Mind Lines]
In 1980 the reframing concepts of NLP guru Richard Bandler were organized into a comprehensive system of language patterns by Robert Dilts called “Sleight of Mouth” as a word play on the phrase “Sleight of Hand” which refers to a magician’s skills in making things happen which appear impossible.
These “language patterns” interpret events and emotional responses to the events which make up our belief systems. By applying “Sleight of mouth” techniques, which Dilts calls “verbal reframes,” to limiting beliefs the underlying belief in the subconscious mind can be examined, deframed (taken apart), reframed (viewed differently) and changed.
Since this is a blog about performance we will be taking different performance beliefs and applying “sleight of mouth” patterns to them.
The “Sleight of Mouth” system developed by Robert Dilts and Todd Epstein by modeling Richard Bandler was published by Dilts as Sleight of Mouth: The Magic of Conversational Belief Change in 1999. The sleight of mouth patterns are extended and recategorized in Michael Hall’s book, Mind Lines.
After reading Dilts’ book, Sleight of Mouth and also Hall’s Mind Lines, I thought I’d apply the “Sleight of Mouth” language patterns to limiting performance beliefs. So this blog will explore this process.
Remember that these systems of language patterns are complex and you’ll need more information than just the patterns (Hall has 20 different patterns- see below). Applying this information is difficult- take for example this statement by a student:
“If I practice hard, then I’ll be able to perform.”
This is a cause-effect statement i.e. “if I do this” then “this happens.” Even without applying NLP language (sleight of mouth) patterns, the statement lacks in judgement. If you don’t “practice” correctly then you probably won’t perform well. If you don’t practice performing you won’t perform well either. I can make these judgments about performing because I understand performance concepts (see earlier blogs).
Now if a student or performer says, “When I perform, I’m afraid I won’t be able to finish the piece.” With this example we can do our “sleight of mouth” or “mind lines” patterns. We can break this down and ask questions- deframing until we understand the beliefs that cause the fear.
performance = fear
fear of performance > inability to finish playing the piece
What we are trying to do in this blog is get to the root of our performance anxieties and reframe them.
With this information we can help our students, we can help ourselves and other performers. Remember, when you deframe you are breaking apart beliefs- proceed with compassion!
Before we look at the “sleight of mouth patterns” we need to look at how our minds process events and understand them. We process what we learn through our senses (hearing, seeing etc. our VAK system), which is our External Behavior (EB), and attach meaning with our Internal State (IS).
This basic formula, “External Behavior = Internal State,” is one the foundations of deframing. Dilts says either the behavior (event or EB) causes our internal state (IS) or the behavior (event or EB) equals our internal state (IS). Micheal Hall adds “meanings of identity” to the equasion code.
Your statement about your performance belief will need to be broken down (reframed) into one of the fundamental formats like the “External Behavior = Internal State” format. Here’s a description from Michael Hall’s book, Mind Lines:
We have two major factors, one external, the other internal. The external component: Events, The internal component: a nervous system taking cognizance of the event. (Cognizance means awareness.)
We cognize the event via our sensory-system languages: visual sights (V), auditory sounds (A), kinesthetic sensations (K), olfactory smells (O), and gustatory tastes (G) as well as by our digital language system of words (Ad). [This is our VAK system- see blog on affirmations]
These two phenomena occur at different levels and in different dimensions. But when we connect them, we have suddenly created neuro-linguistic meaning/magic.
In formula format we have:
External Behavior = Internal State
Here’s an explanation including the types of meanings attached (casuation-equation-identity) by Hall:
As you do, notice that at the very heart of meaning we have a semantic equation. This equation codes meanings of causation (C-E), meanings of equation (CEq), and meanings of identity (Id.). The equation, as simply X=Y, or EB=lS summarizes very succinctly that as we move through life, we experience events (EB, External Behaviors, events, empirical see-hear-feel stimuli) and then to those events we attach meaning (or IS, Internal States). And we do so in a variety of ways that we have summarized as causation, linkage or association, and identity:
Cause that creates and leads to Effects (C-E) Linkage that associates a meaning (thought-emotion) to an event (CEq)
Identifying that generates “identities” (personal and impersonal, Id.) Here we truly enter into the wild and wonderful human world of meaning. [By the way, people often use the term "semantics" to refer to language or words, rather than "meanings." They say, "Oh that's just semantics." And with that they complain about the term or phrase used rather than the "meaning" connected.
Here we experience, and produce, the product of a human mindbody, a neuro-linguistic construct (or belief) wherein we connect, associate, relate, and equate something of the world of forces, physics, and energy (the world of Plethora, Bateson, 1972)—the EB—with something of the world of ideas, information, communication, organization (the world of Creatura). Bateson used the terms Plethora and Creatura to distinguish two very different realities. We commonly label these as "objective" and "subjective" realities.
These neuro-semantic constructions, as our maps of the world, our personal and professional paradigms or our frames-of-reference specify our beliefs. They create the context and frame within which we work, live, move, breathe, and feel. Yet sometimes they do not serve us well. Sometimes they make life a living hell.
Sometimes they box us in and create all kinds of personal limitations. At such times, we need to reframe. We need a paradigm shift to transform our limiting beliefs into enhancing beliefs.
First, you need to be able to identify beliefs. Here's more from Michael Hall's book, Mind Lines:
The Meta-Model identifies numerous linguistic markers, namely, key words that mark out beliefs. We have just identified a few central ones: "is, makes, causes, equals, equates to," etc. So to identify beliefs, simply listen for:
1) Causation statements — how we model the way the world works, functions, relates to itself, etc.
2) Equation statements— how we decide and model regarding meaning, what abstractions equate with behaviors, our paradigms of significance.
3) Value words and ideas— the model of ideas that we think important and significant.
4) Identifications—what things equal other things, what we identify as the same.
5) Presuppositions— unquestioned assumptions that we simply assume as true.
To develop skill in hearing such, move to a meta-conceptual position. "Go above and beyond" the statements and words that you hear, and think about them from a higher level.
Then inquire about the kind of words and patterns that you detect:
"What representational signals do these words imply?"
"What affirmations of 'Yes' does this presuppose about
some idea?"
"What frames-of-references do they imply?"
"What operational beliefs drive these statements?"
"What does the person assume as real for this to make
sense?"
Let's take an example: "I love to perform but I get nervous." Let's break this down. First, let's change the connector "but" to "even though."
"I love to perform even though I get nervous."
performing=nervousness
Let's redefine "love" (like, enjoy, get a rush from)
Let's redefine "nervous" (anxious, jittery, feel the adrenaline)
Let's chunk down: Perform >play the guitar> play Bach on the guitar>play the Prelude from Bach's first Lute Suite in Em on classical guitar
Let's chunk down again focusing on the performance location audience: Perform> play the guitar at the recital hall>play the guitar at Shirley Recital Hall before and audience>play a solo classical guitar program at Shirley Recital Hall before an audience of 100 people in the PCGS series.
Let's chunk down on "nervous" i.e. What makes you nervous?: I begin to sweat> I feel my hands sweat and my fingers twitch and begin to shake> when I walk on stage and sit down I notice my hands begin to sweat, my fingers twitch and I begin to lose focus and my mind wanders.
Here's an inner dialog:
Was there a time that you didn't feel nervous?
Maybe when I was young, I remember when I was in a play in 4th grade and I forgot one of my lines. The students teased me for months.
Do you think that's applicable now?
No.
Can you see yourself in the future, performing without fear?
Yes.
We're beginning to understand the problems now. See my earlier blogs for performance remedies.
Let's chunk up on "Nervous": nervous<emotion or nervous<feeling or nervous<bodily response to being the center of attention
I love to perform even though I get emotional.
I love to perform even though I get an adrenaline rush.
Sometime chunking up takes the negative connotation to a larger perspective that's more accurate. performance = excitement
Another set of questions that may be asked come from Cartesian Logic:
What will happen if you do? (Theorem)
What won't happen if you do? (Inverse)
What will happen if you don't? (Converse)
What won't happen if you don't? (Non-Mirror Image Reverse)
Take the statement, "When I perform, nobody cares."
Examples:
"Was there ever a time when you performed and nobody cared?"
"Was there ever a time when you didn't perform and nobody cared?"
"Was there ever a time when you performed and nobody didn't care?" [Double negative so "Was there ever a time when you performed and somebody cared?"]
“Was there ever a time when you didn’t perform and nobody didn’t care?”[Double negative so "Was there ever a time when you didn't perform and somebody cared?"]
To elicit this pattern from your conversations, use one of the following four choices:
(1) Invert the belief.
(2) Make it into a universal statement or question.
(3) “Was there ever a time when EB was not equal to IS?”
(4) “Not IS means not not EB.”
Robert Dilts: “Sleight of Mouth” book
In his “Sleight of Mouth” book Dilts establishes the meaning of the frame, talks about verbs and connectors then goes into intention and redirecting which are two of his 14 sleight of mouth patterns. He discusses context reframe and content reframe (see my last blog).
Chapter 4 deals with Criteria and Values. Here’s some information from Robert Dilts article, Hierarchies of Criteria:
As the example illustrates, the identification of counter examples can help to uncover ‘higher level’ criteria which override others. To get a sense of your own hierarchy criteria by exploring counter examples, answer the following questions:
What would motivate you to try something new?
What would cause to stop doing something, even if it satisfied your answer to question 1? (Counter example A)
What would make you start doing something again, even if you stopped for the reasons you identified in question 2? (Counter example B)
What would cause to stop doing it again? (Counter example C)
As you reflect on your answers, notice which criteria have emerged, and in what order of priority. Perhaps you would do something that you felt would be “creative,” exciting” or “fun.” These would be your first level “criteria.” You might stop doing something that was creative, exciting and fun, if you felt you felt that you were being “irresponsible” to your family (Counter example A). In this case, the criterion of “responsibility” would override “creativity” or “fun.” You might, however, do something that you thought was “irresponsible” anyway if you felt it was “necessary for your growth as a person” (Counter example B). “Growth” would thus be higher on your ‘hierarchy of criteria’ than “responsibility” or “fun.” Going more deeply, you might find that you would quit doing something that was “necessary for your growth as a person” if you believed it would “jeopardize the safety of yourself or your family” (Counter example C). Thus, “safety” would be the higher on your “ladder” of criteria than the others.
Incidentally, another way to identify counter examples (and thus hierarchies of criteria) is to ask:
What would motivate you to try something new?
e.g., “If it were safe and easy.”
What would motivate you to try something new, even if it did not did not satisfy your answer to question 1? (i.e., If it was not safe and easy.)
e.g., “If I could learn a lot from doing it.”
Chapter 5 talks about Beliefs and Expectations and Chapter 6 Basic Structure of Beliefs covers “Complex Equivalence” and “Cause and effect” (See this explained earlier in this blog). Chapter 7 is Internal States and Natural Belief Change. Chapter 8 is Thought Viruses and Meta Structure of Belief. Chapter 9 applies the “sleight of mouth” patterns as a system. Understanding and applying the information in book requires time. Here are the basic patterns with short descriptions:
Robert Dilts: “Sleight of Mouth” Patterns
Intent: Focus on the intention behind the statement. This can be done by finding the positive intent behind the belief, and by challenging the negative intent.
Redefine: Use similar words to say the same thing, ensuring that the implication is changed.
Assertive (confident; nasty)
Redefining is also known as “Chunking laterally” which is using different examples of the same thing: driving a car=riding a horse
Model of the World: Taking a second position by looking at statement from another person’s perspective. Dilts mentions walking in another person’s shoes. This goes to the NLP presupposition that the map is not the territory (that everyone has different viewpoint and that reality is different for everyone)
Chunk Down: “Chucking” means breaking down experiences into bigger or smaller pierces. Chucking down means to define in smaller pieces by being more specific. A “car” is chucked down into a specific type (Chevy) then it’s parts; engine; tires; doors; body etc.
You can chuck down in size to different levels until you reach a better understanding of the experience or belief.
Chunk Up: Is moving up to a more general abstract form of information. Cars and trains are “means of transportation.” Dandelions and tulips are types of “flowers.”
Consequences: Find a consequence (even an unintended consequence) which results in the belief being challenged.
Another Outcome: Maybe people who XYZ need ABC.
Counterexample: Use an exception where their statement would not be true – which causes the belief that underlies the statement to be questioned.
Apply to self: Turn the comment back to them – by saying (or implying) that the consequence they suggest applies to you, actually applies to them for making the original statement.
Reality strategy: Challenge the belief based on the fact that beliefs arise from certain perceptions. Ultimately, this is about asking how they know their belief is true, or what aspects of the belief are really the issue. (This is like the Metamodel)
Meta frame: Challenge the basis behind the belief, rather than the belief. Suggest that their belief presupposes something.
Change Frame Size: Extend the implications of the belief to a larger (or a smaller) scale; or to a larger (or shorter) time frame.
Hierarchy of Criteria: Challenge the belief based on more important criteria, suggesting something more important they should be considering.
Timeline: Challenge the belief on the basis of how long it holds true. A challenge may initiate: “That’s true today, what about next year? Still true?”
Redirect: Attack the belief by questioning the underlying beneficial motives. Query “Yes, and what positive value leads you to believe that?”
Dilts: Additional Patterns
Chunking Laterally: Redefining is also known as “Chunking laterally” which is using different examples of the same thing: driving a car=riding a horse. it’s also used when you have and analogy or metaphor about an experience: Driving a car is like riding a horse. Beginning a performance is like jumping off a ski slalom. In this last example the excitement of a performance is likened to the excitement of jumping off a ski slalom.
Chaining criteria is another example of chunking laterally.
The “As If” Frame- To the statement: “I can’t perform,” you’d ask, “What would it be like if you could perform.”
You think “as if” you could perform and what you would experience. You can go into the future and see performing after you’ve been successful.
Adapting Sleight of Mouth patterns by Robert Dilts to a performance type statement:
Here are some examples of different sleight of mouth reframes on the following:
“Performing is difficult, so I have to work hard.”
1. Intention — I’m doing the best I can to perform.
2. Redefine — Performing is a valuable skill that’s worth putting some effort into attaining.
3. Consequence — If I continue to work hard I may not be able to perfrom.
4. Chunk down — What hard work do I have to do to perform?
5. Chunk up — I need to be able to perform well in this competitive music industry.
6. Counter-example — My friend performs with minimal effort.
7. Analogy — Nothing worth having comes easy.
8. Apply to self — It must be hard work for me to hold on to that belief.
9. Another outcome — The issue isn’t whether you have to work hard, it’s whether performing is worth it.
10. Hierarchy of criteria — Don’t you think it’s more important to have time with your friends and family than learning to perform?
11. Change frame size — It may seem hard now, but it will be easier in years to come.
12 Meta frame — I only believe I have to work hard because I haven’t found a better way of performing.
13. Model of the world — It may seem like hard work in my model of the world but to some people performing is fun.
14. Reality strategy — How do you know that performing is hard?
The last section of this long blog covers Michael Hall’s reworking of the “sleight of mouth” patterns which he calls “mind lines”:
Hall’s 7 Types of Framing (with 20 patterns) from Mind Lines
1. Deframing. We first go down. We move to chunking-down the meaning equation by pulling apart the component pieces of the VAK and Ad that make up the belief format. The chunking-down movement involves deductive thinking and reasoning processes.
In Deframing, we say, “Undermine your mind by thinking like this.” This shift helps us to de-think (our belief thoughts) as we analyze the magic and see it evaporate.
#1 Chunk Down on EB or IS
#2 Reality Strategy Chunk Down
2. Content Reframing. We then reframe in the center of the chart at the heart of meaning—inside the box of meaning. Here we find the Complex Equivalences and Cause—Effect statements (to be explained in the next chapter). These meaning equations and attributions define the heart of neuro-semantic reality and magic.
Here we shift the meaning associations, “It doesn’t mean this, it means this.” This entails various facets of content reframing. In content reframing, we say, “Don’t think that about this thing, event, act, etc. in that old way, think about it in this new way.”
#3 Reframe EB
#4 Reframe IS
3. Counter Reframing. Next we move to offer a reframe that counters the content. Here we let our consciousness reflect back onto its own content (the ideas within the meaning box) and apply the meaning equation to the other side of the equation to see if it coheres or if that breaks it up and deframes it.
This easy to do reframing process involves what we call “reflexivity” or self-reflexive consciousness—”mind” that can think about its own thoughts. In Counter Reframing, we ask, “What do you think of the belief when you apply it to yourself?” “What do you think of the belief when you apply it to those cases, times, and events, where it does not fit?”
#5 Reflexively Apply EB to Self/Listener
#6 Reflexively Apply IS to Self/Listener
#7 Counter-Example
4. & 5. Pre-Framing and Post-Framing. In these conceptual moves we reframe by moving to (in our minds, of course) the prior state, or a post state, to the meaning construction (the formula in the box) and then “run with the logic” to see if the meaning equation makes sense. Then we essentially ask, “Does the magic still work?”
This reframing move introduces “time” reframing as we play
around with the “time” frame that surrounds the meaning box. Here we bring various “time” conceptualizations (thoughts) to bear upon our belief-thoughts in the meaning box.
In Pre-Framing, we say, “Put this thought in the back of your mind.” Whereas in Post-Framing, we say, “Keep this thought in the front of your mind about that belief as you move into your future.” Again, this challenges the magic in the box.
Before Time:
#8 Positive Prior Framing (Intention)
#9 Positive Prior Cause
After Time:
#10 First Outcome
#11 Outcomes of Outcome
#12 Eternity Framing
6. Outframing to meta-levels. In outframing we move to chunk up the meaning construction to higher and higher levels of concept, bringing new and different facets to bear on our neuro-semantic construction (our construct of meaning in our neurology). All of these chunking-up moves involve inductive thinking and reasoning processes.
In Outframing, we say, “Wrap your mind around the belief in this way.” Frequently, these moves not only challenge the old magic, but bring new and higher magic to bear on the belief.
#13 Model of the World Framing
#14 Criteria and Value Framing
#15 Allness Framing
#16 Have-To Framing
#17 Identity Framing
#18 All other Abstractions Framing
#19 Ecology Framing
7. Analogous Framing. Finally, we shift from inductive and deductive thinking as well as horizontal and counter thinking, and we move to analogous thinking (or “abduction,” Bateson, 1972).
We do this by shifting to storytelling, metaphor, and narrative. In this abducting type of framing, we essentially say, “Forget all of that, and let me tell you a story…”
#20 Metaphoring/Storying and Restorying Framing
Hall’s 20 Patterns from Mind Lines:
Detecting & Identifying the “Magic” of the Belief:
#1 Chunk Down on EB or IS: “What component pieces of VAK comprise this?”
#2 Reality Strategy Chunk Down: “In what order or sequence do this parts occur?”
#3 Reframe EB: “What really is EB is…” “What else would qualify as this EB?”
#4 Reframe IS: This isn’t IS1, it is IS2.”
“What other IS could we just as well attribute to this EB?”
Immediate Concept about Concept, Reflexive Applying
#5 Reflexively Apply EB to Self/Listener:
“What a X statement!”
#6 Reflexively Apply IS to Self/Listener:
“So you’re doing X to me?”
Reversal of Reflexive Applying to Self—Not-Applying Concept
#7 Counter-Example:
“Do you remember a time when the opposite occurred?”
“When does this Formula not apply?”
Run the Reverse of #5 and #6 —not apply.
Time — Past
#8 Positive Prior Framing (Intention):
“You did that because of… (this positive intention).”
“Weren’t you attempting to accomplish X positive purpose?”
#9 Positive Prior Cause:
“You did that to accomplish… (this positive consequence).”
Time — Future
#10 First Outcome:
“If you follow this belief, it will lead to…”
#11 Outcomes of Outcome:
“If you experience that outcome — it will then lead to…”
#12 Eternity Framing:
“Ultimately, this belief will lead to … how do you like that?”
Recognition of a Map as a Map
#13 Model of the World Framing:
Frame as merely one Model of the world, one worldview.
“Who taught you to think or feel this way?”
“When you think of this as a mental map, how does that
changes things?”
Values, Criteria, Standards
#14 Criteria and Value Framing:
“What do you find more important than this?”
“How does X (some other value) affect this?”
Allness, Universal Quantifier
#15 Allness Framing:
Bring a Universal Quantifier to bear on the belief.
“Always? To everyone?”
Modal Operator of Necessity/ Impossibility
#16 Have-To Framing:
Bring a Modal Operator of Necessity to bear on the belief.
“What forces you to think this way?”
“What would happen if you did?”
“Do you have to?”
“What would it be like if you couldn’t?”
Identity, Self-definitions
#17 Identity Framing:
Bring the Identity question to bear.
“What does this say about you as a person?”
All Other Abstractions
#18 Abstracting the EB or IS:
Create an abstraction or concept about the belief formula.
“This is a case of… X, isn’t it?”
Ecology, Evaluation of Evaluation
#19 Ecology Framing:
Bring the ecology question to bear.
“Does this serve you well? Does it enhance your life?”
Meta-phoring—Transferring Over another Domain of Knowledge
#20 Metaphoring/ Storying and Restorying Framing:
Literally, “meta-phrein” —Carry over and apply to this idea
some other referent so that we can understand it in terms of
something else.
“I had a friend who just last month was telling me about…”
1) Chunk Up Do you think “are” a “failure,” do you? So as you think about something for which you define yourself as “a failure,” now/ specifically do you represent this idea? What pictures, sounds, feelings, and words do you use to create this meaning? How do you represent the action of failing at one thing as “making” you a failure?
2) Reality Strategy Chunk Down
So up until now, you have accepted the idea of viewing and
defining yourself as “a failure.” Well, help me understand this. How specifically do you know that failing at one thing on a particular day makes you “a failure?” What do you see first, then what do you say about that, and so on as you think about this? To teach me how to do this the way you do, what would I have to think, see, hear, etc.?
3) Reframe the EB
The significance of not reaching your goal means that you have received information about numerous ways that will not get you there. Now you can feel free to explore new possible avenues, can you not?
4) Reframe the IS
Interesting that you say that. What I really find as a failure— and I mean Failure with a big “F”—occurs when someone doesn’t reach a goal, and then just sits down in the dirt and quits, and won’t learn or try again. I’d call that a “failure.”
5) Reflexively Apply To Self
Does that mean if you don’t reach your goal in presenting this limiting and painful belief to me, that just talking to me will turn you into a failure?
6) Reflexively Apply to Listener
Then with that way of thinking about things, if I don’t succeed in coming up with a good way of responding and helping you with this distress, I will become a big failure also! In other words, my success or failure as a human being depends on succeeding in this conversation in just the
right way?
7) Counter-Example Framing
When you think about some of your successes—and how good and resourceful you feel about them, you mean if you mispronounced a word, or failed in any aspect of any goal
surrounding that, that such would turn you into a failure?
8- Positive Prior Intentional Framing
Reaching the goals that you set for yourself must mean a lot to you. I can imagine that you take that view in order to protect yourself from messing things up and to push yourself to higher levels. And since you want that, perhaps some other attitudes about failure might help you to really succeed in your goals.
9) Positive Prior Causation Framing
It seems important to you to set and reach goals. So you probably have taken on this limiting belief because you have had some painful experiences and you want to protect yourself against more pain. I wonder what other beliefs you could build that you would find even more effective than this one?
10) First Outcome
What results for you when you move through life defining experiences and yourself as “failures” just because you don’t reach a goal as you want to? Do these serve you well in setting and reaching goals or in feeling successful? Do you like those negative unresourceful feelings?
11) Outcome of Outcome
Imagine going out, say five or even ten years from now, after you have defined every unsuccessful attempt at reaching a goal as turning you into a “failure,” and then living from that “failure” identity and feeling unresourceful… what will come out of that? Will you take on many risks? What other outcomes emerge when you feel like a “failure” and take that into your future?
12) Eternity Framing
When I think about this, I wonder what you will think when you look back on this belief about failure when you step over into eternity, and I wonder how you will think and feel about this limiting belief that you used as you moved through life?
13) Model of the World Framing
What an interesting way to think about events that so overloads them with meaning! Do you know where you got this map about “one un-success equally failing?” Do you know that most people don’t use that map to torture themselves?
14) Criteria/Value Framing
When you think about your values of enjoying life, appreciating people, doing your best, etc., do you not think of those values as more important the making than “success /failure” judgment about every action?
15) Allness Framing
So since everybody has failed at something at some time in life, that must make everybody on this planet a “failure!”
16) Have-To Framing
What would it feel like for you if you did not evaluate events in terms of success or failure? What would happen if you didn’t do that?
17) Identity Framing
What an interesting belief about your self-identity—so totally dependent on your behaviors. Do you always identify people with their behaviors? Do you really consider that people “are” their behaviors?
18) Ecology Framing
How enhancingly do you think this belief serves people just learning a new skill, trying a new sport, taking a risk and practicing a new social behavior? Would you recommend this belief as a way for them to succeed with greater ease and positive feelings? Does it empower or limit your endeavors?
19) Other Abstractions
So as you think about not reaching a goal and labeling it as making you a “failure,” I take it that you do this a lot? You take a specific instance and over-generalize it into a whole category? And you do this so successfully, don’t you? Would you like to fail at this success?
20) Metaphoring/Storying and Restorying Framing
So the day that you brushed your hair but did not get every single hair on your head in just the right way that you wanted them, that also made you a failure?
Well there you have it!!!! Use these patterns to understand your limiting beliefs and deframe (break them apart) then reframe with more empowering beliefs.
More to come,
Richard
Performance & The Subconscious Mind- Part 17 Re-framing; Bandler; NLP
Posted on March 1, 2011 by Richard Matteson
Hi,
Understanding the Subconscious Mind; NLP
Richard Bandler
I’m our last voyage into the subconscious we looked at presuppositions, which we will take an in depth look at in another blog. In this blog we’ll look at re-framing (reframing).
Here’s one of my favorite fables about reframing:
A very old Chinese Taoist story describes a farmer in a poor country village. He was considered very well-to-do, because he owned a horse which he used for plowing and for transportation. One day his horse ran away. All his neighbors exclaimed how terrible this was, but the farmer simply said “Maybe.”
A few days later the horse returned and brought two wild horses with it. The neighbors all rejoiced at his good fortune, but the farmer just said “Maybe.”
The next day the farmer’s son tried to ride one of the wild horses; the horse threw him and broke his leg. The neighbors all offered their sympathy for his misfortune, but the farmer again said “Maybe.”
The next week conscription officers came to the village to take young men for the army. They rejected the farmer’s son because of his broken leg. When the neighbors told him how lucky he was, the farmer replied “Maybe.” . . .
The meaning that any event has depends upon the “frame” in which we perceive it. When we change the frame, we change the meaning. Having two wild horses is a good thing until it is seen in the context of the son’s broken leg. The broken leg seems to be bad in the context of peaceful village life; but in the context of conscription and war, it suddenly becomes good.
This is called reframing: changing the frame in which a person
perceives events in order to change the meaning. When the meaning changes, the person’s responses and behaviors also change. [From Introduction of Grinder & Bandler's book Reframing 1982]
The basic NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) concept is: Behind every behavior (belief) is a positive motive. There’s a positive reason why we do anything.
You may have a fear of public speaking; You may have a fear of being the center of attention; You may have a fear of performing.
The positive motive or intention behind these typical performance type fears and resulting behaviors is most cases to ‘protect’ the individual from the possibility of failure or embarrassment.
I’m using info from a number of sources and especially from the excellent article by NLP authority Robert Dilts, “Reframing”:
The Principle of ‘Positive Intention’
One of the most important and useful principles for managing change relates to the notion of ‘positive intention’. This principle is especially valuable when dealing with resistances and objections. The principle essentially states that: At some level, all behavior is intended or has been developed for some “positive purpose”. According to this principle, for instance, resistances or objections would actually emerge from some underlying positive intention or purpose. For example, the positive purpose behind the objection, “It is not desirable to be successful,” may be to ‘protect’ the speaker from oversaturation or failure. The positive intention behind a resistance such as, “It is not possible to change,” might be to prevent ‘false hope’ or to avoid unrewarded effort. [Robert Dilts; Reframing- 1995]
Most of these negative beliefs and fears are found in the subconscious and may have been establish in early childhood. Through an inner dialog or working with someone who knows the six step process, the belief can be understood and reframed in a positive view, then replaced.
The positive motive can be satisfied by other behaviors. Then the objectionable behavior can be replaced by a behavior that doesn’t have the unwanted side-effects of the original negative behavior.
Let’s step a moment- into the twilight zone:
You have a fear of performing, you don’t like having people staring at you and judging you. Just the thought of getting up in front of people makes you panic. You want to get up and run out of the room.
Close your eyes. See yourself playing the guitar (or singing or playing another instrument). You’re playing without a care in the world. No one is staring at you judging your appearance; no one is noticing your mistakes; no one is concerned if you stop or lose your place. You are completely comfortable.
You think, “This is great finally I can play without worrying what people think. Then you realize:
You’re all alone in a soundproof room. No one can ever see you, no one can ever hear you. The people you love are nowhere to be found.
You think, “This isn’t what I really want, where are all my friends. People are so important to me. Anything is better than isolation.”
So you think, if I go ahead and make a mistake- at least someone will notice. It’s better to have people around to share the experience.
So you reframe the belief from one of “fear” to one of “sharing.” If the subconscious mind likes the belief of “sharing” instead, it will make “sharing” the dominant belief held in the deeper mind. This was reframe my mentor classical guitar teacher Aaron Shearer proposed. Of course he didn’t call it a reframe.
Let briefly consider the benefits or positive intentions of fear and performance by asking “Where could this behavior be useful?” or “In what other context would this particular behaviour be of value?”
“Fear” can be a great motivator. If you know you have a performance coming up, you’re most like going to practice twice as hard and get organized and be prepared.
“Fear” can be reframed (Aaron Shearer 1990) into performance excitement, a positive intention and physiological condition that allows the performer to exceed any rendition of the piece in the practice room.
Performance anxiety can reframed as “sharing music” and the natural body response to being the “focus of attention” can be experienced as “performance excitement.”
Re-framing (usually “reframing”) was developed by NLP founders Bandler and Grinder, who created the standard six step reframe technique and included it in their 1979 book, Frogs into Princes. Here’s a bio on Bandler from wiki:
Richard Wayne Bandler (born February 24, 1950) is an American author and trainer in the fields of alternative psychology and of self-help. He is best known as the co-inventor (with John Grinder) of Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), a collection of concepts and techniques intended to understand and change human behavior-patterns. He also developed other systems known as Design Human Engineering (DHE) and Neuro Hypnotic Repatterning (NHR).
Curiously, the bass player in one of my bands Jim Zils knew Richard Bandler back in the late 1960s and early 1970s and we talked about some anecdotes and memories.
Let’s look at what NLP is also. Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski (July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950) was a Polish-American philosopher and scientist remembered for developing the theory of General Semantics. As early as 1936 Korzybski introduced the term, Neurolinguistics, and in 1941 stated that Neurolinguistics was an important part of General Semantics.
Korzybski’s work influenced Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, as well as Neurolinguistic Programming (especially the Meta model, Korzybski’s critique of cause-effect thinking, and ideas behind human modeling for performance). In the early 1970s Richard Bandler and John Grinder developed Neuro-Linguistic Programming by modelling therapists Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir and Milton Erickson and published their first book, The Structure of Magic; Vol. 1 in 1975.
Here’s an description of NLP taken from Mindlines By L Michael Hall, Ph.D. and Bobby G. Bodenhamer, D.Min:
“Bandler and Grinder found and experienced the magic of words in three diverse fields: Family Systems Therapy, Gestalt Therapy, and Ericksonian Hypnosis. But they explained the structure of the magic using the insights of other fields: General Semantics, Transformational Grammar, Cybernetics, and Cognitive Behavioral Psychology. Subsequently, they gave birth to a new movement that took up the term Alfred Korzybski introduced in 1936-”neurolinguistics.” This term holistically summarizes the mind-body connection between language (words, symbols, etc.) and neurology. It specified how our neurology (i.e., nervous system and brain) processes language and thereby responds to our languaging.”
Here’s some information from Wiki:
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a controversial approach to psychotherapy and organizational change based on “a model of interpersonal communication chiefly concerned with the relationship between successful patterns of behaviour and the subjective experiences (esp. patterns of thought) underlying them” and “a system of alternative therapy based on this which seeks to educate people in self-awareness and effective communication, and to change their patterns of mental and emotional behavior”.
The co-founders, Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder, claimed that NLP would be instrumental in “finding ways to help people have better, fuller and richer lives”. They coined the term “Neuro-Linguistic Programming” to denote their belief in a connection between neurological processes (“neuro”), language (“linguistic”) and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience (“programming”) and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life.
Neuro-linguistic programming was originally promoted by its co-founders in the 1970s as an effective and rapid form of psychological therapy, capable of addressing the full range of problems that psychologists are likely to encounter, such as phobias, depression, habit disorder, psychosomatic illnesses, and learning disorders. It also espoused the potential for self-determination through overcoming learned limitations and emphasized well-being and healthy functioning. Later, it was promoted as a “science of excellence”, derived from the study or “modeling” of how successful or outstanding people in different fields obtain their results. It was claimed that these skills can be learned by anyone to improve one’s effectiveness both personally and professionally.
Despite its popularity, NLP has been largely ignored by conventional social science because of issues of professional credibility and insufficient empirical evidence to substantiate its models and claimed effectiveness. It appears to have little impact on academic psychology and limited effect on mainstream psychotherapy and counselling. However, it has had some influence among private psychotherapists, including hypnotherapists, to the extent that some undertake training in NLP and apply it to their practice.
Two Types of Reframing
Bandler and Grinder identify two forms of reframing: meaning and context.
Context Reframing takes an undesired attribute and finds a different situation where it would be valuable. Reframing can also be used to describe changing the context or representation of a problem.
A context reframe is useful for statements such as: “I am too pushy,” or “I wish I did not focus on what could go wrong.” In this type of situation, you have assumed that this type of behaviour has no value.
Your job is to discover when it is of value by asking yourself the question “When or where would this behaviour be useful or viewed as a resource?” A possible reframe might be: “Isn’t that a great skill to have when you need to get things done or to avoid potential problems?” Once you have the positive intention, you can then discover behaviors that may be more appropriate.
Content Reframing is giving another meaning to a statement by recovering more content, which changes the focus. (Also called a Meaning Reframe).
The content or meaning of a situation is determined by what you choose to focus on. An electrical power failure can be viewed as a disruptive disaster or it can be viewed as an opportunity to spend some time practicing and relaxing at home.
Ask the questions: “What else could this mean? or “In what way, could this be positive or a resource?”
Here’s Bander’s basic six step reframing as explained by Robert Dilts in his 1995 article- Reframing:
6-Step ‘Reframing’
1. Identify the problematic behavior.
“What is the behavior or symptom you want to change?”
2. Establish communication with the part of yourself that is responsible for the behavior.
“Go inside of yourself and ask the part of you that creates this behavior, ‘Please give me a signal if you are willing to communicate with me.’ Pay attention to any internal words, images or feelings that might be a signal from that part of yourself.”
2.1. If you do not get a clear signal, ask the part to exaggerate the signal. You may also use the symptom itself by asking “Please intensify the symptom if your answer is ‘yes’.”
2.2. If the part is not willing to communicate, ask “What is your positive purpose in not wanting to communicate with me?”
[If you have continued difficulty establishing communication with the part, you may want to try a different change process.]
3. Separate the positive intention of the part from the problematic behavior.
“Go inside and thank the part for communicating with you and ask, ‘What are you trying to do positively for me or communicate to me with this behavior?’”
3.1. If the intention of the part seems negative, keep asking “And what will that do positively for me? What is your positive purpose?”
4. Find three other choices that satisfy the positive intention of the part but do not have the negative consequences of the symptom or problematic behavior.
“Go to the ‘creative part’ of yourself and ask it to come up with at least three other ways to satisfy the positive intention of the problematic behavior.”
5. Have the part that creates the symptom or problematic behavior agree to implement the new choices.
“Go inside and ask the part responsible for the problematic behavior, ‘Signal me if you accept the alternative choices.”
5.1. If any choices are not acceptable, or there is no signal, go to step 4 and modify or add choices.
6. Ecology check. Find out if any other parts object to the new choices.
“Go inside and ask, ‘Do any other parts object to these new choices?’”
6.1. If yes, identify the part and go to step 2, repeating the cycle with that part.
Implement the new choices. “Go inside and ask the part responsible for the problematic behavior
According to Bandler in his 1982 book Reframing, there are also physiological benefits from reframing. He states that autonomic nervous system assumes a fight or flight state when threatened (see my earlier blog). This state is similar to one a performer faces during a stressful performance. Bandler says there is a shift to parasympathetic activation when the reframe works which results in muscle relaxation, flushing of the skin, dilation of blood vessels, dilation of the pupils etc.
Bandler’s statement means that reframing may be an effective way to relax during a performance.
Here’s the information from Grinder & Bandler’s 1982 book, Reframing:
“What we are describing now are some of the visible signs of the functioning of the autonomic nervous system. There are two parts to the autonomic nervous system: the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. The two tend to balance each other through opposite effects.
Sympathetic activation results in increased muscle tension and a readiness to respond physically to some threat. There is more adrenalin, and the skin whitens as the blood vessels and pupils constrict.
Parasympathetic activation results in muscle relaxation, flushing of the skin, dilation of blood vessels, dilation of the pupils, etc.
These are some very general visible characteristics of those two systems. What we have been describing is that people tend to have sympathetic activation when presenting a complaint and considering the reframe. Then they shift to parasympathetic activation when the reframe works, which is what you would expect to occur. If the reframing works, what was perceived as a problem to cope with becomes not a problem at all.
Certainly NLP concepts are important in exploring the inner workings of the subconscious mind. Even though science has not validated many NLP concepts yet, there’s certainly more to explore in….
The subconscious mind!
More to come,
Richard