This is John La Valle's answer to Steve Boyle's question about beliefs.

"Q: Is DHE™ about getting rid of limiting beliefs?

A: It's not about getting rid of limiting beliefs. People can get rid of limiting beliefs. Beliefs don't really exist inside our mind. They are just language patterns. A culmination of language patterns. And those language patterns have built up synaptic connections that prevent other information from getting through gateways. ..."

--------------------------------

What do you people think? Are beliefs only contained in language patterns? I know of highly visual people who don't think auditory much. What about them? I'm highly auditory so I don't know.

I think what you're witnessing here is not the "truth" but John La Valle trying to bypass a limit by redefining or reframing a problem.

That is, what he does is teach language patterns and language interventions, so having a person consider their problems in terms of what he teaches is of benefit to him as a teacher (source of knowledge, source of solution) and to the client hearing his words as the client (if he buys it) will feel it is possible to bypass his or her limiting beliefs.

It's a reframe, a shell game, a trick to get someone to think a certain way and do something. It isn't "the truth."

Beliefs are more than simply language. Can a non-verbal person have a belief? You bet. A belief is simply a fixed representation of reality that makes us expect a certain outcome in terms of cause and effect.

It can involve distortions created by way of language, but I do not believe that it has to. Language can certainly affect beliefs, but I think that relying solely on language is an unnecessary limitation.

My distortion of John Grinder's prescription for belief change is as follows:

1) Elicit from the client the counter example to a limiting belief that had the client experienced it, it would completely negate and transform the limiting belief.

2) Arrange an experience for the client that provides the counter example in such a way as you are not perceived as being involved.

3) Get out of the way.

Beliefs are "frozen experiences." I do not know if the only way they are frozen is by linguisitc transformations. However, they do exist because of our ability to create a model of reality that is not reality and respond to it as if it were reality. Is that model primarily or totally linguistic in nature? No. Because we build our models of reality before we learn language, however, we do have our own natural coding system.

My ideas exactly.

Language is a way of accessing/commenting the idea-constructs/frozen experiences. And not the initial encoding.

I guess we have to start using telepathy to communicate so we can get away from this limited auditory way of accessing eachother.. :]

What do you think of Whispering in the wind? I've read on his forum that he makes a woman fly by plane and have some change. That seemed somewhat metaphorical (don't remember the example). Have you tried that mode of changework?

And what do you think of Michael Hall's works? Are meta-states old hat?

How long have you played with NLP?

Tore

I have been mucking around with NLP since ... jeez, I don't know ... 1990? Before that I had an interest in hypnosis and bought a lot of crappy metaphysical meditation/hypnosis tapes and was reading books like "TNT: The Power Within You" which my dad gave me. The book was basically saying you can manifest what you visualize. Eh. Had limited results with all that.

NLP was the first thing that I used that actually had an immediate result with me, so I was hooked. While Tony Robbins represents a lot of things I don't like (using the techniques to make yourself match the status quo criteria for success and happiness), he introduced me to NLP in a brilliant fashion. So for that I am thankful. I basically now look at him as a bunch of empty rhetoric, seeing how much more can be done with the techniques.

I went to one of his seminars. After that I went to see Bandler for a three day seminar and had my head majorly ****ed with. A lot of good and bad stuff went on there. Then I went to a little two day NLP seminar with a local trainer in New Olreans. Then NLP Comprehensive for my Practitioner and then NLPU with Dilts and Delozier for my Master Practitioner.

Aside from that, I have made a personal investment in several seminars on tape by Bandler, Grinder, Stephen Gilligan, Rex Sikes and others.

I do not like Michael Hall one bit. He has a view much like that of traditional psychotherapy. That is, his focus seems to be on the diagnosis of pathology. I haven't looked much into his, what does he call it? Neuro-semantics? But it looks like BS to me. States about States about States. Seems like mental masturbation to me. The subject is much more elegantly handled by Tamara and Connirae Andreas in their Core Transformation technique.

Have you read Steve Andreas's critique of Whispering? It's on his website and is worth a read.

Are you talking about the example of the woman who needed her world turned upside down? I believe that is a powerful means of change and probably on of the most effective. He had the sensory acuity to perceive a message from her unconscious and instead of giving words, gave her actual experiences, multiple descriptions of what she requested. Simple but brilliant. That is bound to create a change, definitely. That is the sort of belief change process that I argue for. I think it is probably going to be the most profound and powerful type.

Beliefs are based, I think, upon experiences, and it takes experiences to shatter experiences. That is, a racist man who is dying but taken in an cared for by a chinese or black or east indian or whatever kind of family he is racist against and nursed caringly back to life ... how is he going to remain a racist with that powerful counter example in his life? It is possible, yes, but unlikely.

Belief change also starts, I think, with linguistic intervention. What really clinches it are the experiences we have after the linguistic intervention as a result of it. My guess.

Whispering is a very difficult read and unnecessarily so. I think Grinder has a big ego and he's trying to impress everyone with how obscure he can be. There are sentences in which the subject and object are way far apart, and there are misplaced modifiers ... so that you don't know which word in the sentence the modifier is supposed to modify. Maybe he did this on purpose for a reason other than arrogance, I don't know.

There is a lot of good in that book, but I haven't been willing to finish it. I had photoread it (fat lot of good that does, I have to consciously, slowly go over some paragraphs 3 or more times to understand them), skimmed it, etc. I have read maybe a littler more than the first quarter of the book slowly and deliberately. He makes some very good points and is very skeptical, which I like.

I like reading stuff that is based in experience, is logically sound, and doesn't require you to go out on a limb.

I think that Steve Andreas's critique are right on the mark, though. What the hell is a "content free" state, anyway? Is one really possible? Of course not. States involve some sort of content. I do appreciate his intention, though, which is, I think, to give the unconscious of the client free reign to make the appropriate changes with as little interference as possible.

A lot better and more respectful to the individual, IMHO.

With most change work, people are pushing some kind of philosophy. They have an agenda. The only person I have ever worked with who helped me in an "agenda free" (I know that everyone has *some* agenda, but the extent of the amount of control they try to have over your beliefs varies) was Robert Dilts.

I was having trouble with this exercise where you use values to solve a problem on a "lower" logical level. The way he helped me was very directly to get me to chunk up. I cannot really describe it, but he utilized my natural thinking to help me succeed in the exercise ... an exercise I had always had problems with. And I did it. It was one of the most respectful pieces of work I'd ever had done. I really knew that the way to do it was inside of me, not something outside of me being put in by someone else ... which is what a lot of NLP techniques (the term "installation" for example) feel like.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited May 02, 2004).]

Lenghty reply. Interesting read. I wont comment everything even tho I'd like to.

"Have you read Steve Andreas's critique of Whispering? It's on his website and is worth a read."

I read it and was most interested in his critique of logical levels. Seems like a working model to me. But I didn't really grasp the scope/category difference. Haven't examined/used the core elements of NLP to much anyway. This is all quite new to me.

About Michael Hall. I think his books suits me pretty good. I'm a systembuilder (mind-wise) and need coherent systems with structure. NLP was at first really confusing. Just presuppositions? I never knew where to begin. I wasn't at all used to the idea of just using what worked. I'm more into generalizations and buying into beliefsystems. So it's been good for me but easier to get into it with Hall.

My first experience of Dilts was yesterday when I popped in the Sleight-of-mouth-course that had just arrived. Yeah, he's quite different from Bandler. But I like what I see. He's way simpler to follow.

Have you tried any DHE?

/T

I have the old DHE cassettes and the more recent one on CD.

I went to one seminar with him during the whole DHE thing. It's pretty much just Bandler.

I knew a lady who was taking seminars with the old crew, and she said that DHE was just a lark. It's was just Bandler and she really didn't see anything new about it.

So, yeah, I have tried it. I think there is a lot of cool stuff to pick up from Bandler. A lot of it is unconscious skill.

I was asking that lady I just mentioned about inducing states and if you had to bring someone back, perfectly, into a past experience with a state in order to induce it fully. She said yes. I smiled and said I didn't think so. She replied, "Alright then, smarty pants, how?"

And then I told her about this time these teenagers were asking me to buy alcohol for them. I told them they could get drunk without alcohol. They said, "Nuh-uh." I said, "Yeah huh," and asked if any of them would dare to be hypnotized. One guy said, sure.

So I hypnotized him and made him drunk. It'd be too long to go into the particulars here, but I basically used anchoring, suggestion, and stacked states to create a really, really powerful state of drunkenness in him. I mean, he had flushed skin, sweating, blurry, red eyes ... the whole deal. After a minute or two of being on the ground and unable to get up he yelled, "Get me out ... make it stop!" So I did.

He was totally sober again in less than a minute.

She looked at me, surprized, after telling my story and said, "You learned more from Bandler than you think." Thing is, I think my recounting of the story was even affecting her. It was a great compliment. I knew, deep down, that I was using voice inflection and language patterns I'd picked up from the good old Dr. Bandler himself.

For someone who is curious about NLP and learning more, what should I look at first? It sounds fascinating and I'm enjoying reading your posts.

You know, that is a very tough question to answer.

I could tell you to save up your money and vacation time and check out NLP Comprehensive.

Some of the best introductory NLP books are out of print. TranceFormations is a really good one about NLP and hypnosis, but out of print.

The basic books are: Using Your Brain for a Change, Frogs Into Princes, Tranceformations, Using Your Brain and Keeping the Change, Reframing, Magic in Action, and any books on or by Milton Erickson you can find.

All books by the Andreas's are good. Core Transformation by Connie-Rae and Tamara Andreas is good. Heart of the Mind by Steve and Connie-Rae is good. And Steve Andreas's Transforming the Self is really good, too. It is NLP meets the self-image. Nice.

My intro to it was from Tony Robbins, and he's a good intro person. A bit gung ho, but, hey. It's what was needed to catch my attention at the time.

Really, though, there is no replacing good training. And you should not skimp on it if this is a financial possibility. NLP Comprehensive is expensive, but I *highly* recommend it.

NLPU with Dilts and Delozier is good, if slightly more laid back and academic. NLP Comp is very polished. Good polished. They know what they are doing and are very professional about it. At the same time they are very personable.

You know, you might want to also check out Turtles All the Way Down as well as Whispering in the Wind by Grinder, et al.

The way I'd do it is read some books, play with the techniques, maybe get a seminar on tape or two. The NLP Comprehensive website has tons of tapes. When you're ready, make the investment and go to a month long training.

If your experience is like mine was, a whole new world will open up to you and you will have a month of sheer heaven. It was one of the best times in my life.

However, there is no telling if your experience will be like mine. There's the rub, eh? So, maybe shop around. There are weekend long seminars people give that are fairly inexpensive. NLP patterns are best learned in social scenarios where you can do them and have the experience of multiple perceptual positions. That is, the doer, the do-ee, and the observer.

Definitely read all the books you can and listen to some good tapes. Maybe watch some videos. Bandler is extremely entertaining and sophisticated.

You will find a lot of stuff about NLP on the internet. A lot of people share a whole bunch of files with NLP content. Some infringe upon copyright laws, some don't.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited May 07, 2004).]

Babayada I see that you are quiet skilled in NLP, there is no email on your profile and i really would lkie to speak to you. Please contact me.

[This message has been edited by Ivan (edited May 11, 2004).]

Yeah, funny story about the drunken teenager. What states for example do you put in to create that effect?

Tore,

Reinducing a drug state is a pretty basic pattern. All you do is have a person relive the kinesthetic sensations associated with the drug state.

Basically, these are the questions I asked:

"You know how it feels to be sober, right? You're standing here with me and you're sober right now, right? You know how it feels to stand up sober, to listen to me sober, to feel your body sober, it's distinct."

Then, have then contrast that.

"And you know how it feels to be drunk, right? It's very different from being sober. It's very different from how you feel now. Go back and remember the last time you were drunk. Now, you didn't just go WHAM and get there, right? You went through a series of stages as you drank to get yourself drunk. For instance, when you start to have your first drink or two, I don't know how much it takes, but you have a sensation in your body that lets you know that you are no longer just sober, but you're certainly not yet drunk, but it's starting, right? Remember that? Tell me what it feels like."

Then you go through the next stage, and the next stage of continuing intoxication until full blown drunkenness. You ask for descriptions and pick a few of their key words for each state or stage in the process regarding body feelings. You then go through it again and again, the process of getting drunk using their own language, their own feelings, and tell them to feel those sensations. Ask questions about it.

You can cycle through the whole thing maybe three times. Then don't talk about all the stages, but the last 4, then the last 3, then the last one.

If you do this with anchoring and embedded commands then it'll work pretty well.

Bandler goes through this technique on a lot of his tapes.

Remember, all hypnosis is essentially self-hypnosis. What you do, mainly, is to get them to do your work for you. All you need is to recognize a few key buttons to push and when and how to push them. When someone wants to be hypnotized, it's usually in the bag, because they are so curious and helpful. They want to experience something unusually. You're basically assisting them with self-stimulation.

The stacked states were states of trance and suggestibility, drukenness, and the state of being stuck in a state for a long time. The guy wanted to experience full-fledged drunkenness, so I made sure he got his money's worth.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited May 11, 2004).]

Interesting. About NLP and all.. Have heard some critique over time about NLP beeing pretty temporary in it's effects. What do you think?

Keeping the change...

T

How speciifically is NLP pretty temporary in which of its effects?

NLP is still around and still has people interested in it and practicing it. It was started years ago. That's pretty un-temporary if you asked me. It continues to fascinate. That's one effect.

I started to learn NLP while in college, around 1993, I think. It's 2004. Still has had an effect on me. I am still talking about it. The stuff that happened at the month long training *still* has me talking about it and still informs my behavior in some way. I think a decade is a fairly long time, don't you?

The mind is alive and is always changing. There are information structures that are fairly solid. It is not impossible to influence these structures in a significant way that will alter their functioning over time.

Think of our solar system. Remove or add a planet. It affects the whole system. Alter the orbit of a planet or a moon, alters the whole thing.

The trick is, where and how do you make the change that will have the desired effect throughout time.

Here is one example: once I learned the distinction regarding eye movements and sensory modalities, I could *not* look at people's eye movements the same way. Still can't. That was a permanent change.

And here is the real clincher regarding your question: your question has deleted the actor. That is, NLP is not a thing in an of itself. People do NLP. So, my question is, which person practicing what they called NLP produced a temporary effect?

Which person practicing an NLP technique can have a positive long term effect how?

That person could be you or me or the garbage man. It just depends on how the person does it and with whom. Each client is different. Each practitioner is different. And when you get any two people to interact, the nature of their interaction will be unique.

In short, you *can* produce long term change with NLP. Of course you can. You can create long term change in someone with a hatchet. The question is, what change do you feel is worthwhile and whats the best way to create it for you or for the client?

"The mind is alive and is always changing. There are information structures that are fairly solid. It is not impossible to influence these structures in a significant way that will alter their functioning over time."

I'm guess it's pretty possible that the people with critique against NLP haven't had success in that.

"The stuff that happened at the month long training *still* has me talking about it and still informs my behavior in some way. I think a decade is a fairly long time, don't you?"

Oh yeah. And 30 days of training must be great.

I think the hazards lies in going to a short training or walking over some coal with Tony, and getting into some fantastic state. I can do anything, etc. But the state is temporary and will soon wane. There's been no change of beliefs at the right place in the beliefsystem.

I've read shortly about eye-cues. What info can _you_ register from it?

I'll be gone for a few days. I look forward to read more after that. : )

T

With eye accessing cues, calibrate.

Ask questions that require someone to think a certain way, visually, auditorily, kinesthetically, whatever.

When you get their patterns down, you can then ask questions like, "Is that an image you're looking at there? What do you see?"

You can basically help people get conscious of what is unconscious. And, if you're sneaky, you can manipulate people's thinking by gestures and analogue vocal marking that tells them what to do.

I can register that someone has a mental image, or they are talking to themselves inside, etc. I can then ask questions regarding their mental processes and learn about it, thus having a greater influence over their mental processes.

Think of it this way, when you interact with a person, you are walking inside of their minds. Their minds are projecting their internal universe in 3D space around them. You can stand right in front of someone and they won't see you because an image is between you and them. Watch people when they space out and describe scenes, watch how their eyes focus and defocus. You can tell they are looking at something yonder, or right next to them. Or when they are talking to themselves or hearing a voice, their body will orient to listen.

After a while, you can sort of start to see and hear what is going on inside their minds. The more you do that, I think, the more influence you have.

Influence can be a good thing. I am not just talking about manipulation here. I am talking about a dialogue that deepens and deepens over time. Because the more you affect them, the more they affect you. So, as the process continues, you and the other can really get somewhere. Sometimes people are not used to having others so deep inside their thinking, to have someone there with them inside the thinking process. You can have a dialogue, and you both can end up thinking about things in ways you never have. What was a dead process becomes alive again.

This is, I think, part of what therapy is all about. Bringing life to a dead decision, belief, or thought.

You can influence someone deeply in a short amount of time. Thing is, people have many continual influences on them. Family hypnosis will always win, I believe that is a quote from someone ... don't remember who.

This is why cults want to get you away from your family and friends, because they want to control the influences upon you.

Certain changes can be difficult to make, no doubt. But here the example of the engineer applies. There was a ship that was having massive problems. They bring in an engineer. He goes to the engine room, asks them to describe the problem. Looks around. Checks gauges and what not. Feels along various pipes. Sniffs the air. He then grabs a wrench and whacks a certain pipe with it. The problem disappears.

He gives them the bill, and they are flabbergasted. "$3002.00? How do you explain this.?" "The 2 dollars was for hitting the pipe with the wrench. The 3 thousand was for my knowledge of knowing exactly where and how to hit."

The emphasis on eye movements makes a larger statement about the entire human physiology. The entire body is involved in the thinking process. Therefore, it reveals information about the thinking process. Because people process information in internal maps that, with the internal senses, mimics reality, they will react with their bodies to that second reality (their map) and the way it is coded. The more you open your senses to that, the more information you get about someone, the deeper you are able to connect.