Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
Tore Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
This really has been a question for me for some time now. I have been on this forum for some time (and user of paraliminals) and have for a long time been a believer of the cogitive perspective of well beeing and change. Change your beliefs and change yourself. I was always the paraliminal-user who wanted all change by the tapes (now paraliminal cds) alone and nothing from me. I was afraid of a lot of things and some fears I keep still.

Anyway... Thanks to the paraliminals, in some amount (conscious creating is always the weapon of choice... ), I'm now studying to become a psychologist. In Sweden it's one of the most sough after educations and hardest to get. My grades were so so but my intent was 100%.

Now I find myself in quite a rift between my experience with the paraliminals on the one hand and the discoveries of hard science. Cognitive therapy (not NLP or the derrivative products from LSC) is implied to have no greater value than using only behavior experiments. In studies with depressed patients getting cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and also only behavior therapy and waiting-list, the best results we're for behavior therapy (BT). What BT equates is trying to do the things you don't want (be social and try it even though you have a social fobia) and get exposure to it.

So the results have had some effect already. Behavior therapy which was dead is revived, certainly with the aid of some new BTs like Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and Dialectic behavior therapy (DBT). The cognitive sciences which was supposed to let us know that the mind works like a computer has had extremely little relevance for therapy. LSC isn't doing therapy but is still dependent on the notion that change is an affair of beliefs.

Some studies with CBT through the internet (therapy through the internet with mostly written text and no contact with a therapist) that a fellow student in Linköping, Sweden has done indicates that people who have done only cognitive changework, and not the behavioral part, has only come a step on the way away from an anxiety disorder.

NLP isn't the same as CBT but still works with the same assumption. I just wonder if that can explain that I've mostly only had temporary effects with the paraliminals. Yes, the neural pathways does stay in place but I think that the non-temporary change was delivered when I was out there and testing my new beliefs. Paraliminals without an environment to test it out with leaves little change.

I've had mindboggling experiences with the paraliminals but honestly, a lot of it has been temporary. I'm not back here to say that the paraliminals are not "the [deleted]". They are! But perhaps studies from therapy shows that changing beliefs are only the first half of lasting change. Paraliminal technology is more than that, but how much more than that?

Seeing that NLP hasn't advanced more than it has (yeah, how do I know how far it has come), I guess there's some things that haven't been finished. I do remember that Whispering in the wind by Grinder & co-author says that you should do behavioral experiments to have a lasting chagnge.

If Paul and Alex would like to comment, I would really like to read it!

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
Learning Strategies Admin
Member
Offline
Learning Strategies Admin
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
Paraliminals only open the doors to what you are internally capable of. As you know it takes 21 days to create a new habit and you have to use it or lose it.

The results of Paraliminals are not temporary as they might seem. What has happened is you've reached a plateau in your comfort zone and are noticing the new boundaries. Yes it requires you to be an observer in your life.

In my experience a couple of listening to Paraliminals a push out of my current comfort zone and a new zone is created. I feel good for a while at my new found comfort at handling something I used to find confronting. Then something happens that helps me to see that I can expand my comfort zone even further. It looks like the same problem resurfacing however I know from experience I handle it better and yet I feel I could have done better still. No I didn't go backward I just notice one size does not always fit all even in my improved approach to handling it.

Like Paul Scheele says about Natural Brilliance it's a continuous balancing act.

I think at this point most people consider the problem solved when they saw a major success and then return to the routines of their lives. However some people are looking for more and continue to notice that some habits keep them in a rut. These people are involved with the self improvement industry. Personal quest or as guides as yourself.

To clarify. I have two brothers and my parents. Their wives and kids. None of whom see much sense in what I do. They see the results but don't see any point in it for them. They are happy to go to work pay the mortgage raise the kids, create crafty things and that adds value to their lives. They have areas where they could be more effective with the use of Paraliminals. Quit smoking perhaps or improving relationship. It's not important to them.

I think our place is to quit saying there is something wrong with you you need fixing and your behaviour needs changing and learn a level of acceptance for what is. Only when we can accept what is a part of our experience, can we own it. Only when we own it can we decide to so something with it. That is our own part and our own responsibility in the success of any therapy, Paraliminals and courses of study we undertake.

When we succeed we usually don't know why but my observation is we owned the problem. Took responsibility and took a course of action that presented a probable solution. When we fail we often fix the blame outside ourself. Family, environment, timing, it don't work for me. when it might be more true that at some level we don't want what we think we want because at that level we know there is a price to pay..

One thing psychology courses and structures cannot measure is the humans discovery that there is a price they have to pay for the "improvement" in that area and it's much saver to go back to the old patterns. It's not wrong and it's not failure. The fact is we are human and each uniquely different. So nothing works until the individual lets it work. Convince enough people that CBT works better than NLP then research is going to find exactly that. (Paraliminals are not only NLP based check the articles on the Paraliminal page )

Nothing really works better than Learning though. Any way shape or form our experiences are opportunities to learn. And you cannot take the individual out of any experiment. Their enthusiasm, attitude and willingness to be part of the experiment affect the result of any test.

Alex

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
Tore Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
Thanks for the swift answer Alex!

Can you explain what you mean by a changed comfort zone? Is that through a belief change and also a behavioral experience?

The studies doesn't show that CBT is better than NLP but that doing therapy with some basic NLP skills for depression (I think, don't remember, could be social fobia) doesn't give the same results. It wasn't a study comparing NLP vs CBT. So there shouldn't be an allegiance-effect that you we're speaking of (I think).

Oh well, I'm having a cold and don't have the energy to argument about this. And I do think we operate from different basic assumptions here. Nothing wrong with that.

Have a nice New Years Eve!

//Tore

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
Learning Strategies Admin
Member
Offline
Learning Strategies Admin
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
I wasn't really talking pro NLP Or CBT or anything for that matter. I was pointing out that as soon as you involve a person in a study the study becomes flawed.

Belief creates behaviour, behaviour creates a belief. It's the same as asking asking whether it was the egg or the chicken that came first. I don't think you can separate the two. Changing the comfort zone is doing what you wouldn't normally do because you believed that you, because you haven't already learned what to do, or because you haven't reached the level of physical development before expanding your comfort zone.

Unfortunately psychologist try to separate the elements like scientistt to work out the optimal mix. We can talk about changing belief, or behaviour Yet they are also influenced by environment, experience and thinking. Moving beyond the the current comfort zone takes both and more.

There is no one formula. That's why Paraliminals are different. They are not one set of instructions that tell you how to behave. They are invitations to you to explore and pull up what it is you want and can do. To discover how to expand your comfort zones by exploring the actions you can take and beliefs that you can adopt to help you on your journey. The important element in their success is the individuals purpose for listening. They bring into what allows the Paraliminal to add energy to skills, resources, beliefs and habits you already have but are not using to move beyond your current comfort zone.

Alex

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
Tore Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
"Belief creates behaviour, behaviour creates a belief. It's the same as asking asking whether it was the egg or the chicken that came first."

Well, the jury (that I like to listen to) is out on that one. In time, we'll see. Or which is the largest factor.


"Unfortunately psychologist try to separate the elements like scientistt to work out the optimal mix. We can talk about changing belief, or behaviour Yet they are also influenced by environment, experience and thinking. Moving beyond the the current comfort zone takes both and more."

Behavior therapy (for one) takes all of these into account so I don't see a contradiction here but it is true that reductionism is sometimes a flaw.


"The important element in their success is the individuals purpose for listening."

That is so true. And that is congruent with Abundance for life. Sheer Creation will always be the best changer of ways. Although, there are still few who think that way.


This is just a theoretical discussion and I do think that ACT, a new therapy focusing on values and mindfulness and committed action is the way ahead. So much of conscious creation fits well into that. It's grounded in basic behavioral research so it will probably be quite accepted in time.

Last edited by Tore; 01/02/07 08:33 PM.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
Tore Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
" I was pointing out that as soon as you involve a person in a study the study becomes flawed."

Yes, flawed, but unusable? The big science papers don't even allow NLP-papers anymore so we'll probably not know if there are newer studies of NLP in therapy settings which perhaps would show different results.

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
Learning Strategies Admin
Member
Offline
Learning Strategies Admin
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 1
I never suggested it was unusable. I said research was flawed.

Just as you can put 30 individuals of similar ages from a similar environment through through the same course environment with the same instructor and have results that the instructor was a dismal failure, merely okay and and outrageous success for only one or 2 of those individual.

These experiements do not say that the technique is a failure it just shows for the majority it is not an outrageous success and there is still room for improvement and they are still on the hunt for better methods. Because how we think is what makes us unique and there is no one formula that can understand every aspect of what makes up an individual. It's what makes us each unique.

Therapy will naturally have results that are merely OK or a dismal failure for most and an outrageous success on occasions. They have less control over age, environment and motivating the individual to do what is asked.

Alex

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 326
Member
Offline
Member

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 326
Hi Tore

I would rather take a wholistic and eclectic approach to therapy. This lets therapists have a variety of tools to use. Setting up a competitive "a vs b" mindset would for me, at least, be limiting. Of course, it is good to recognise the strengths and limitations of different modes...

I recall 15 or so years ago working with youth in crisis at an emergency shelter. We used a combination of (Officialy) behaviour mod, group process, Satir and psychoeducation, and (Unofficialy) NLP, Gestalt, Reality Therapy, hypnotherapy, therapeutic ritual, Jungian archetypes, and everything else staff could bring to the table. It was a great place, miraculous things happened with a very touph client group...

Alex mentioned that "Therapy will naturally have results that are merely OK or a dismal failure for most and an outrageous success on occasions. They have less control over age, environment and motivating the individual to do what is asked"

I think that that will be true if a therapist only uses one model in one way. The chances of success increase with the number of tools avaliable and the therapists ability to choose according to client and situation.

vitaman

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
Tore Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
@ vitaman

I'm not disagreeing with your points. Eclectic and wholistic may be good, using methods from different traditions may be great, and experience with the tools and multiple ways of approaching a client may be good too. I'm sure there are expert clinicians that are extremely specifik about a few techniques that they use very well and others that rely on more techniques and get the same result.

The opening question is although how to adress cognitive restructuring and change of beliefs. If some techniques are irrelevant I want to know so I can do other stuff. EMDR is one method which has been "proven" to use only exposure and no additional component. The technique with the eyes is not useful.

Thanks for joining the conversation!


Moderated by  Wendy_Greer 

Link Copied to Clipboard
©, Learning Strategies Corporation, All Rights Reserved
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.6.40 Page Time: 0.037s Queries: 32 (0.011s) Memory: 3.2028 MB (Peak: 3.5968 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 15:25:18 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS