5 Tips for Staying Safe on the Street with NLP

by Martin Reed
lead NLP Trainer with Talisman Training Ltd

In his book “Tricks of the Mind”, Derren Brown relates how he used an NLP/Hypnosis technique to divert an aggressive drunk from his intended action of assault and ended up sitting on the kerb talking to the guy. If you have read the book you will know that the technique used was a “pattern interrupt”.

This is a technique I learnt many years ago, while a serving police officer, to diffuse potential aggressive situations before they got out of hand.
There are a number of articles available that apply what I now know to be an NLP/Hypnosis strategy, to a potentially aggressive or threatening situation.

Interestingly enough from my previous role as a police officer, protection officer and instructor and my current role as NLP trainer, NLP patterns have many applications to creating a safer environment for yourself once you step outside your door, (and even indoors if there is a need).

The pattern interrupt is an excellent way to diffuse a strategy that has already begun. However, once someone gets close enough or starts their strategy for violence, theft, etc. they have the initial upper hand. You now have to interrupt their strategy or run your own strategy to get ahead of their plan.
So here are a few considerations from Talisman Training Ltd’s  “Safe Self”™ programme of how you might apply NLP patterns to a street situation before a potential aggressor makes contact.

1. Awareness – Awareness is a key aspect of avoiding potential trouble. Awareness is not paranoia it is about being open to possible incidents and allowing yourself to notice the information that is available to make an informed judgment and decision on your next action. Think about the application of sensory acuity, in NLP terms we often apply this to individuals or possibly groups of individuals we are working with. However, developing your sensory acuity to notice signals in the street environment is key to staying safe.
Street criminals often rely on the “sucker punch” or ambush to commit their crimes. By being aware you begin to destroy their confidence in success and they will go elsewhere.

2. Confidence – Street criminals who carry out these types of attack are confident they will succeed; otherwise they will not start their strategy. Research has shown that street criminals often attack people in a “victim state”. People who appear un-aware (dealt with above) and not confident of themselves or surroundings. State management and anchoring patterns obviously have a lot to offer in maintaining and sending a confident self image when walking in any public place.

3. Crisis rehearsal – We build neurological pathways and physical responses based on what we do and what we imagine doing. If we imagine failure, freezing with fear, etc. then that outcome becomes more likely. Both NLP and Hypnotherapy demonstrate the importance of our thinking in terms of managing ourselves and events. By using positive crisis rehearsal we can develop a menu of strategies to deal with potential threatening situations.

4. Use the Neuro-logical Levels model to create your safe self.
The model created by Robert Dilts states that we operate across a number of neuro-logical levels that impact on how we function in the world. When considering your awareness, levels of confidence and crisis rehearsal think about their application at every level of the model and how what you do can put you at risk or keep you safe.

Environment Where are you and who else is, or will be there. What is it about this particular environment that can put you at risk or keep you safe?

Behaviour What behaviours may put you at risk and what behaviours can you develop to keep you safe? Learn the behavioural indicators of potential aggressors.

Skills/Capabilities What skills do you have or need to develop to keep you safe.
Beliefs and Values Why is staying safe important to you? Who do you need to stay safe for? What would you do to protect yourself or others? (Remember this is about staying safe and within the law).

Identity When you step into a known or unknown environment who are you?
In the face or potential aggression are you a “victim”, “defender” or “aggressor”?

5. Self Talk – The study of NLP identifies the importance of the words we use, for example in Identity above notice what impact each word has on you. In my training I avoid the term “victim” because of the state it creates, likewise “defender” has negative implications for me. Ideally once a potential threat is identified thinking of your self as an “aggressor” will create a more positive, confident state. “Aggressor” does not mean that you will necessarily employ aggressive physical techniques, but simple that you will be aggressive in your decision making and the NLP techniques that you employ. Trust me it is possible to do this and still create excellent rapport if you have to.

John Boyd a military strategist of the 20th century stated that the key to victory was to be able to manage situations where one can make appropriate decisions faster than the opponent.  His concepts are now widely applied to business strategy and utilising NLP it is possible to take his concept into the realm of personal safety and avoid confrontation and aggression before it begins.

Follow the link for details of the courses Talisman Training Ltd offer

Which Company to Train with?

How do you choose which training company to do your NLP Training with?

There are hundreds of training organisations offering “certificated” NLP courses, from short 7 day Practitioner to full 120 hours face to face training, all require an investment of time and money, so how do you choose where to spend your money and time, and be sure of getting the best value and level of training?

Does an organisation that has a well known NLP author or NLP “celebrity” necessarily provide what you want?

Does an organisation with a less well known trainer necessarily provide what you want?

Do you want to attend courses that have a large number of participants or smaller number of participants where personal attention from the lead trainer(s) is more available?

The quality of the course, training and subsequent skill and knowledge level of successful students doesn’t always depend on price, or whether the course is run by a known individual. A course should be judged on its quality of content, delivery and ultimately student assessment methods.

Currently most NLP training organisations either belong to self regulating bodies or none at all for the regulation of their training. The Professional Guild of NLP was set-up, to set a minimum standard of training in NLP by its member organisations. This followed discussions and some disagreement within the NLP community as to what constitutes a valid “practitioner” training.

One of the Guilds standards is that any NLP training should be a minimum of 120 hours face to face training which means that companies offering 7 day intensive trainings cannot have their courses validated by The Professional Guild. Other regulating bodies will accept graduates from courses that have had less face to face training, but may have completed some “home study” programme in conjunction with the 7 day “intensive” training.

However, if all the NLP governing bodies are self regulating and set their own standards for training and practitioner registration, how will this help you decide on selecting the right course for you?

In light of the above question, some training companies have sort some form of external validation for their courses, through nationally recognised academic regulatory bodies. These bodies are not affiliated with any NLP organisation and are often recognised by UK government and examination authorities as regulators of training and courses across a wide range of educational subjects, usually in higher education.
This means that individuals, organisations and employers can make a judgment about the level and quality of a NLP course based on a nationally recognised and accepted framework.

To my knowledge Talisman Training Ltd is the only NLP training organisation that has sought and obtained the equivalent, level 4 award (Certificate in Higher Education) within the National Qualifications Framework for their NLP Practitioner Course. The award means that their syllabus, training and assessment is independently validated by an NCFE assessor and successful candidates will receive a certificate at level 4 from NCFE, together with their NLP Practitioner Certificate, recognised by The Professional Guild of NLP and other NLP regulatory bodies. This also means that Talisman Training Ltd is an approved NCFE Training Centre and has met all the necessary requirements to be approved.

I have no doubt that other training organisations will follow the example of Talisman Training Ltd as students and organisations rightly demand even higher standards from their NLP training providers.

Binds, Double Binds and Unconscious Double Binds – Part One

By Alan Jones,
Principal of Empowerment Trainings
Trainer with Talisman Training Ltd & Communicating Excellence

Over a number of articles I intend to examine binds, double binds and unconscious double binds in relation to therapy and hypnosis.

In this article I intend to introduce the various types of binds and offer some of my initial thoughts. Later articles will explore how a client’s unconscious structure, and use of ‘various binds,’ creates and sustains their “problems”.

These articles are based on my observations and understanding of various types of binds as used in Hypnotherapy and NLP as at the time of writing. They are by no means exhaustive or proven and are offered here for your consideration. I do however, believe that they play an important part in client problems and solutions.

Firstly, I would like to point out that NLP and NLP’s version of Ericksonian hypnotherapy have their own terminology, some of which has been borrowed from the linguistics of Transformational Grammar; the surface structure and deep structure of language postulated by Noam Chomsky.

The more common everyday English term “A double bind” comes from Chess or Card games, where a player only has two moves available, or two cards left to play and whichever move or card they play they will loose the game, there is no way out. The concept is also stated in colloquial phrases such as, “Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t” or “Caught between a rock and a hard place.” I’m sure you can think of some more.

The simple Ericksonian style linguistic double bind of, “Would you like to go into trance in this chair or that chair?” Could be answered by, “Who said I want to go into trance.”, or, “Neither, I don’t want to go into trance.”   So the linguistic binds that NLP and Hypnotherapy refer to might best be called pseudo, optional or self imposing binds, as they do not meet the criteria of the binds of Chess or Card games, (which offer no real choice!).  Provided the client accepts the binds offered to them, then they are binding themselves; if they don’t accept the binds then they have the third option of rejecting them altogether. Anyone who has children and tried the bind, “Will you do your homework before or after dinner?” knows that the stock answer is likely to be, “Who said I’m going to do my homework?” An obvious rejection or non-acceptance of the bind offered.

To paraphrase Dr Milton H. Erickson, “I give my client’s all the freedom they need to follow my suggestions.” I believe that a part of his strategy was his use of binds directed to the unconscious mind, working in conjunction with his many other unique skills.

I intend to examine the structure of NLP/Ericksonian binds, double binds and unconscious double binds in two ways; as tools to assist someone to make changes, and as circular arguments that people use on themselves to block or inhibit change.

Binds

Binds can be used to assist someone into an altered state, they can be used by the client to keep themselves in a stuck state and they can be used to effect change. They can also be the basis of belief structures. In NLP the L stands for Linguistic, though this can be misinterpreted to mean simply words, my understanding is that it is anything a person does or does not do that is perceived as a communication either by a another or by themselves.

A bind can be explicitly or implicitly, stated. Implicit binds maybe recognised as incongruent communication. As in the case of a partner stating verbally “I don’t mind you going out”, whilst their non-verbals state “I don’t want you to go”. This type of bind, incongruent communication, is sited as a possible cause for some forms of schizophrenia, where a parent gives mixed messages on a consistent basis.

Single binds.

One dictionary definition of the word “bind” is, “To impose an obligation” as in someone agreeing to be bound by the rules of an organisation they wish to join. The linguistic pattern known as cause and effect, (where one thing is said to, or is implied to cause something else to happen, which may or may not be true) is often a bind.
For example, “the more you practice binds the better you will become at using them”.
By accepting this suggestion you are agreeing (Obligation) that this is a truth and therefore binds you to the outcome that by practicing them (Cause) you expect to improve (the effect) your ability to use them, don’t you?”

The simple question, “Are you ready to go into trance now?” Met with a congruent yes reply, binds the client into going into trance, if they do not go into trance, then they were not ready. Here the implied bind is ‘ready to go into trance.’

The question, “You don’t expect to make changes without going into trance, would you?” appears to be a simple reverse yes set question, which at one level it is. However, when the client provides a congruent “No” response to this question the client is binding themselves to the subtle suggestions of expecting to make changes, and that in order to make those changes they will have to go into trance. They are imposing these obligations on them self, more often than not outside of their conscious awareness. Although there are two binds in that question they are considered to be multiple single binds as there is no implied choice, (see double binds).

You may have also recognised this bind as a tag question with an embedded command and of course you are right. The “expect to make changes” is the embedded command. Deconstruct any sentence within the frame of Ericksonian Language Patterns and you will be surprised at what subtle language patterns you can find and finding them means you can use them even more effectively now, can’t you?

Double Binds

The next bind we will examine is the Double Bind or the illusion of choice.
The question, “Would you like to go into trance quickly or slowly?” appears to offer the choice of speed, whilst the assumption that the client will go into a trance is presupposed. By answering the question either “slowly” or “quickly” they are imposing the obligation on them self to go into trance.

An Unconscious Double Bind is a question framed in the present, where the answer is not known at the time of the question, and can only be known at a point in time in the future as in, “I wonder will it be your left hand or your right hand that relaxes faster as you go into trance?” Until the trance occurs the client will not know which hand will relax more, by accepting or expecting that one hand will relax more than the other, or just being curious that this is a possibility, they bind them self to the outcome.
This type of bind is also used in conversation such as, “Will it be your love of language or your desire to ethically influence people that will make you practice binds more than other language patterns?” The chances are that this question had not been considered in this way before, therefore the answer could not have been known to you. In order for you to answer the question you had to go inside and check, any answer yes or no to either or both still means that the suggestion, you will practice binds has been accepted at some level by your unconscious.

A bind can be a cliché or a paradoxical argument which is often ironic, or a belief that we have accepted, they can be family injunctions, mottos or beliefs. None of these become binds unless we accept that they hold a truth for us at some level, and therefore buy into the bind, either consciously or unconsciously.

Here are a few examples:

“Don’t take life too seriously you will never get out of it alive.” (Bind ironic truth – you will die)

Or as found on a door at the Computing Centre, University of Hawaii..

“Good judgement comes from experience, (Belief and Single Bind)
experience comes from poor judgement” (Belief and Single Bind)

As recorded in “Is There Life Before Death” by Steve Andreas

“No one in our family will ever be famous.” (Belief Single Bind)

“No one in our family makes it to old age.” (Belief Single Bind)

“No pain no gain.” (Cliché Single Bind)

“When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” (Cliché Single Bind)

“A tidy desk means a tidy mind.” (Cliché Single Bind)

I’m sure you can think of lots more.

If we accept that we create our own reality the only question is, whether a particular bind is useful either generally or in the specific circumstances to which it is applied?

For example, “When the going gets tough the tough get going,” has been a useful bind and anchor (The song) for me and there are lots of times when it may not be appropriate.

You may be surprised, and delighted at how many binds and double binds you notice from now on. When you become aware of yourself, or others using them; you do not have to ask yourself, what effect they have, it is an option though.

In a future article I will examine deeper the construction and use of binds, double binds and unconscious double binds.

If you enjoyed thinking about the effects of binds then you might like to come back and read the next instalment, you might also like to let you friends know about the articles.

It’s Only Words or why the 7% 38% 55% rule should be abolished

by Alan Jones

An often quoted study by Albert Mehrabian Professor Emeritus of Psychology, UCLA),  is his findings on inconsistent messages of feelings and attitudes known as the 7%-38%-55% Rule.

7 Percent of the meaning of a communications is in the words, 38 percent in the tonality and 55 percent in the general body language.

Mehrabian’s rule is quoted in communication seminars, sales training, human resources etc. as some amazing psychological fact. Is it fact, fiction or both? In my view it is mainly fiction with perhaps a little bit of fact when taken in context and it has been widely taken out of context rendering it useless. Firstly think about speaking to someone who does not speak your language and making them understand you. Hey, this should be very easy according to the Golden Rule, shouldn’t it? After all only seven percent of all meaning in communication is the words, isn’t it? Go one better, speak to someone who knows a few words in your language like yes, no and no understand and explain something complex. I think you get the scenario, you know the time when you are making hand gestures to emulate a fish swimming in the sea to the waiter to let them know you want fish and chips and end up getting grilled snake instead. Your hand gesture of a fish was seen by them as a snake.

A large portion of communication is done through words with little of no emotion, we call it chit chat. What Mehrabian was pointing out is that possibly 93 percent of the emotion of an utterance is delivered by the tone of voice and the body language and even this is open to misinterpretation. Try a small experiment yourself, get a friend of the opposite sex to interpret the meaning of six words said in different tones emphasizing different words. Ask, “What is this thing called love?” Say it slow with deep philosophical thought in mind, say it fast with something a bit risky in mind or just imagine you have something in your hand that you don’t know what it is and you are just asking the question and the love on the end is just a word like mate or buddy. Hopefully you will find that the communications, all three will have different meanings to your friend and yes this has been done deliberately using tone. However, say the same words to someone who does not speak the language and get their responses through an interpreter and you might get some interesting results.

So yes tone and body language do convey meaning if you know the language. There was an interesting advert for the British Army that showed a British Soldier being confronted by an African who was shouting in his own language in the soldier’s face. The impression was one of aggression and anger. This subsides into smiles, the idea is being cool when confronted by the unknown; in this case language, custom and intent is what we teach you in the Army.

If you want someone to go away, you can in a soft voice say, “Bug off.” They may think you are joking as your tone is not matching your intention. Say, “Bug off” in an aggressive loud tone and look annoyed and they may go away without further question. This is about where tone and body language match or don’t match the intended message which we call congruence.

On balance the 7, 38 – 55 rule is only valid within the context of Albert Mehrabian’s experiment which was very narrow and limited. Think about it for a moment, when you are on the telephone, according to the rule, 55 percent of your communication is lost. You only have the tone and tempo and the words your are using, that would mean that only 43 percent of all telephone calls would be understood. As Judge Judy says, “That’s baloney.”

Also the communication model does not take into account the state of the sender or receiver of the communication at the time. Think about this, you have just been told that your bank have mucked up your account and that your salary was not credited to your account last month so you can’t get any money out of your account and they also inform you your car insurance was not renewed. Your next door neighbour knocks on your door to tell you that the refuse collection lorry has just run into your old car and it is a total write off and you know your car is not insured. Just think how you would be feeling. Now imagine that in between the call from your bank and your neighbor knocking to tell you about your old car, you had another call from a friend who informs you that they have won the lottery and they are going to give you £100,000. Then your neighbour knocks to tell about your car being totaled. Now you might just start laughing, because you wanted to get rid of the old banger anyway. Also your neighbour may think you have gone mad. Same words different, states.

Or we could just take if back to the simple NLP Maxim or operating principal, “The meaning of a communication is the response it gets no matter how it was intended.”

At Empowerment Trainings and Talisman Trainings we teach calibrating of the response you get to your communications and how to make your communications more congruent with the message you want to convey to be better understood.

When you next hear someone give the 7, 38, 55 rule ask them where the evidence is and for them to prove it. Most won’t even know who originated the rule let alone the how it was arrived at.

Yes tone and body language, facial expression, gestures and body distance in a face to face communication have an effect but that effect is also dependent on the states of the communicators, sender and receiver, and context.  Just ask yourself how many times you have either said something or heard something and taken it the wrong way?

A model or a theory are just that a model and a theory; some are more useful than others and non of them are reality, whatever reality is or is not.

Empowerment Trainings Wish for Good Fortune to you

“May you always keep an open mind as truths are out and in there”

Alan Jones

Meta Modelling

by

Ian Berry, NLP Trainer

Introduction

It is all too easy for some of us to find that we accept the ideas and techniques of NLP without realising that we are falling into the trap of nominalsing, making ‘concrete’, what is sometimes better thought of as a dynamic process.

So, please consider what is written below as a reminding of something I think is an essential part of the fullest understanding of one of NLP’s most basic processes

First, a little verse:

I know no better model
Than the Grind-ler Meta Model
And, if you pressed, I’d say I never will.
I’ve sometimes meta-meddled,
Yes, sometimes, meta-muddled,
And yet, somehow, I love the process still.

De-nominalising the Meta-Model

It’s not the Meta-Model, it’s meta- modelling.

We don’t make Deletions, we delete

We don’t make Generalisations, we generalise.

We don’t make Distortions, we distort

We don’t use Simple Deletions, we simply delete.

We don’t use Comparative Deletions, we delete elements of what and how we compare (it’s better, not worse, that way).

We don’t use Unspecified Verbs, we ‘verb’ unspecifically with any verb we use.

We don’t use Unspecified Referential Indices, we do not specify what exactly we refer to.

We don’t use Nominalisations, we nominalise/’nounify’ /’thingify’ our ‘verbing’.

We don’t use Modal Operators, we modify how we act or operate, necessarily and/or (im)possibly.

We don’t use Universal Quantifiers, we universalise what we quantify.

We don’t use Cause Effects, we cause… then arbitrarily effect.

We don’t use Complex Equivalences, we complicate events that we equalise.

We don’t use Lost Performatives, we ’lose whoever it is performs ‘it’ in the first place.

We don’t use Mind Reads, we ‘read/misread’ what another is or has been ‘minding’.

We don’t use Presuppositions, we pre-suppose something(s) to be that isn’t/aren’t necessarily so.

Can you really tell when someone is lying using NLP?

Recently I have seen some daytime television where shows are using Lie detector machines or so called experts who claim they know when someone is lying with 96% accuracy. Jeremy Kyle, Tricia and Judge Judy are some.

Judge Judy claims to know when someone is lying by their “Eye Accessing Cues,” a little more about them in a moment, Jeremy Kyle uses a lie detector machine and Tricia uses an expert. Some of the results and the shows hosts assertions change people’s lives; for the good or the worst only the individual’s concerned will know in time.

On a recent repeated show of Jeremy Kyle’s, five people took lie detector tests, four came back that they were telling the truth, the fifth’s result came back as inconclusive. Apparently the person being tested had a slight reaction, not enough for the expert to say they were lying. Jeremy Kyle then added, “One day you may tell her the truth.” This is a very damaging and dangerous remark because of the asserted implication that the person was lying and the seed of doubt is sowed in the other four minds. The preverbal, “Maggot eating away inside the apple,” as they now cannot help but question everything the other person says or does and go over events to look for clues that they may have lied.

At Talisman Training and Empowerment Training we know there is a difference between “The Truth” and someone lying. If someone believes what they are saying is the truth, then they are telling “Their Truth,” and cannot be said to be lying. This may not be the objective truth of say a video of a particular event, and even a video will only see and record sound from where it is placed, one perspective. For example four people can witness an accident; there will be four different versions of what happened. They can all be telling their truth and yet all four may not be telling “The Truth,” that’s why the Police have special accident investigators and scene of crime investigators. This is not done to prove someone is lying but to piece together their recollections and corroborate their experience of the event. Our truth’s are subjective and are limited by our sensory equipment, sight, hearing, feeling, taste, smell and our filters. Quantum Physics now accepts that the way an experiment is set-up and what the experimenter expects to prove has an effect on the results of their experiment. For more information have a look at Rupert Sheldrake Online

Electrical Lie Detectors

The lie detector or PolyGram only detects changes in emotions; it alone cannot tell if someone is lying. I will repeat that last bit, “It alone cannot tell if someone is lying,” only that the individual showed emotional reactions outside of a base mark about the question asked. This is the same for the so called experts. The only real way of telling if someone is lying is for them to tell you they lied. Anyone wanting more information about the PolyGram can visit Skeptics

Recent research suggests that in the future there may be a more accurate way of telling if someone is lying using brain scans, though as one of the researchers Feroze Mohamed, PhD, says, “There’s a lot more reseach required.”  See utube clip here

Firstly let’s look at the advice of the world’s foremost expert in lie detection and FBI interview trainer Paul Eckman PhD. “There is NO ONE THING that a person may or may not do that indicates they are lying.” Paraphrased, “There are indications of inconsistency which need to be gone over again and again and areas where corroborating evidence needs to be sort.”

In NLP we use the information from “Eye Accessing Cues” for increased rapport and the benefit of our client’s so this is very useful model. At Talisman Training and Empowerment Trainings we teach a combination of Analytical Interviewing, NLP and Clean Elicitation for interviewing, this is amazingly effective and is one of the most respectful ways of interviewing young and other vulnerable witness, and interviewing generally for jobs and critical incident interviewing.

Eye Accessing Cues Explained.

Eye accessing cues are the movements our eye’s make when we are seeking information. With calibrating, that is continually checking it out; Eye Accessing Cues can tell us how someone is processing information, not if they are lying.

The Eye’s can be split into three zone, Upper, Middle and Lower. When the eyes move into the upper zone either left or right the person is processing visually, in pictures or movies, when the eyes move left or right in the middle zone, that is horizontally, the person is processing sounds, which we call auditory. When the eyes move into the lower zone the person is either processing through feelings, emotions or tactile feelings and playing internal tape loops, called inner dialogue. Generally a right-handed person will look up and to the left to remember pictures or movies and right to construct pictures or movies, look left in the middle zone to remember sounds and middle right to construct sounds, look down and to the left for internal dialogue and down right for emotions and tactile feelings. See diagram. The big misconception is that is a person is constructing either pictures or sounds they are lying. The only thing it means, if they are right-handed and conform to the model, is that they are processing information by constructing or reconstructing it, rather than it being a remembered picture or sequence of sounds.

Let me give you an example. If I asked you what you had for dinner on a Wednesday four weeks ago can you remember? Some people can, some will work backwards and reconstruct, piece together, what they had and others like me would not have a clue.

The Eye Accessing Cues is a model, not everyone conforms to it, not all left-handed people are the reverse of the right-handed model. The only way to find out how a person is processing information is to check it out on an individual basis. Remember that this is only a model of someone’s processing and not a lie detecting model. Also remember that a constructed picture or sound, once constructed can become a memory and change to a remembered picture or sound.

Conclusions on lying.

If someone is willing to deliberately tell lies so the observer or a Polygraph can be calibrated to the act of lying then are asked simple questions of no value, for example they turn over a deck of cards one at a time and they can either tell the observer the truth of a lie about the cards then you may get good at telling if they are lying about this trivial matter. Ask them a question about something that is important to them, something they don’t want you to know or is sensitive, then you might get a reaction and still you won’t know for sure if they are telling the truth or lying, especially if they believe what they are telling is “Their Truth.”

It is unsafe to presume you know someone is lying without independent corroborating evidence and even then they could still be telling you what they believe, which to them is not a lie.

I would suggest that we should all be very careful what we consider to be a lie as everyone’s truth is only as good as their senses, their filters and what they paid attention too at the time.

Using the Clean Elicitation Interviewing model developed by Talisman Training and Empowerment Training you can effectively recover more information from the interviewee than they consciously remember in a safe and respectful way.

Alan Jones

Point of interest:

Paul Eckman PhD has spent years studying micro muscle movements of the face there is an interesting clip of a micro part of his work on U-tube.  To view the clip click here His interviewing technique is called “Analytical Interviewing.”

Clean Processing Elicitation Questions Syntax

This post assumes some knowledge of NLP, the Meta Model & Dilt’s Logical Levels.

 At Empowerment Trainings and Talisman Training there is an emphasis on ‘Clean Processing,’ in their coaching, modelling, therapy and training. Which honours the NLP Principle, “Everyone has all the resources they need.”

Caveat.
“Everyone lives in their own unique Model of the World.
All posts are opinions, either mine, mine through reading or experiencing someone else’s or those of other contributors. It is hoped that the opinions expressed here will inform and encourage you to question and develop the ideas; thereby forming yet another opinion, your own.
There is no such thing as ‘THE TRUTH’ only truths. Edward de Bono speaks of ‘Proto Truth’ a workable truth until another better truth comes along. What follows is my truth until a better one comes along. New truths are not always better. We now have Quantum Physics, however if you want to build a bridge you will still use Newtonian Physics. One builds on the other, Quantum Physics doesn’t usurp Newtonian Physic it adds to it.” Other times a truth changes and destroys the old truth. The Ancients thought that the Sun went around the Earth and that the Earth was the centre of the universe. We now believe that the Earth goes around the Sun and who knows we may discover that something else is also true.

The Article

Some of you may be familiar with the work of David Grove and ‘Clean Language,’ the modelling of David Grove by Penny Tompkins and James Lawley called ‘Symbolic Modelling.’ In my view Symbolic Modelling is a complete process in its own right and worthy of study and practice. And to me it is a tool, methodology and a principle I use both explicitly and implicitly in all my work.

Here ‘Clean’ in the term ‘Clean Language’ refers to the absence of content imposition by the therapist or facilitator, keeping their stuff, opinion and or judgments out of the session. Very few, if any, questions are totally content free; my aim is to keep my questions as content free as possible and to always be on my guard when a question I ask is loaded with my content.

My early introduction to Clean Language has disciplined me into keeping my stuff out of any session I do with clients. This is also in keeping with most coaching models and whilst I love the syntax of the ‘Clean Language’ of Symbolic Modelling, there has been many times I have not wanted to go into Metaphor and some people do find Metaphor uncomfortable. So thinking around the issue and with my commitment to ‘Clean Therapy’ I have come up with what I consider are operational principles based on ‘Clean Language’

Before I go into the questions I would like to set out my frame and what I mean by ‘Clean Therapy.’ One of the operating principals of NLP is that “Everyone has all the resources they need.” I would like to add something to that and that is, “though they may not have access to those resources.” If they did, they would not need a facilitator. Operating out of this belief I don’t have to install something in my client they will discover their resources themselves by my questions. Here I would like to paraphrase Dr Richard Bandler, “The dividing line between elicitation and installation is fine, if it indeed exists at all.” Or put another away, elicitation is installation.

Problems or issues cannot exist in a vacuum. What I mean by that is that a problem will have either or both a complex equivalence or a cause and effect holding the problem together and that the C>E and C.Eq. must have a comparison, either known or unknown consciously. This is also getting into the structure of beliefs which have a ‘Cause’ and ‘Effect’ and a ‘Meaning.’ More about beliefs in future post.

Patterns, habitual behaviours, are a product of our beliefs either known or unknown and they generally process outside of our conscious awareness.

Beliefs can occur through a one instance learning such as a ‘Phobia,’ or they can be constructed by multiple exposure to our empirical experiences or they can be installed by others. Here others can be anyone, parents, authority figures, advertisers, politicians, sales people etc.

Why do we learn patterns in this way and once learnt let them run at the unconscious level?

The answer is quite simple, as human-beings we like to label things and put them into categories. If we had to question everything, each and every time we had an experience, we would spend all our time checking things out.

Just think of the things you like, if every time you came to, for example an apple if didn’t have the pattern or memory of I like apples, you would have to go through a process of experiencing the smell, the look the taste to see if you liked apples. Not so bad when you think of apples; however a bit more dangerous if each time you came across a man eating tiger you have to check out if it is dangerous or not. If that were the case then there would certainly be fewer humans alive. Your system, I’m not going to say ‘your brain,’ because it might not be, processes information at the speed of or faster than light. See a man eating tiger and your system immediately goes in to fight or flight, outside of conscious awareness.

Another example might be useful, if you drive a car, when you drive you are constantly adjusting the distance between you and the car in front and varying your speed to other factors such as weather conditions and speed limits etc. Most of the time this is done outside of your conscious awareness, even the sudden breaking you do to avoid the odd bad driver in front of you. You react then think consciously. That process is one best left to your unconscious mind, also referred to as unconscious competence.

So what is ‘Clean Processing Elicitation?’

To us at Empowerment Trainings and Talisman Training clean elicitation is any question with the minimum of presuppositions in it. So, “Tell me more,” is a clean question. Here the presupposition is that there is more to tell. A friend of mine who is a teacher has a nice one word clean question and that is,“Explain?”

One stock question that NLPers use is ‘How do you know?’ Whilst this is a very good question and is seeking process, there are in my view better ones.

When (x) is true for you…what’s going on inside that’s letting you know that this is true?

This question paces the client’s belief and validates it, “When (X) is true for you,” also has the opposite possibility that there are times when (X) is not true, a possibility that the individual may not have considered. “What’s going on inside that’s letting you know that this,” has a number of implications, here the ‘That’ disassociates the client and puts them into the observer position of their process and the ‘This’ re-associates them into their belief. They maybe observing their process or questioning their own belief for the first time.

What processes are you going through that is letting you know this is true for you?

How do you know this is true for you?

What comparisons are you making that is letting you know this is true for you?

The use of Dilt’s logical levels is also very useful. For example you can take, “When (x) is true for you…what’s going on inside that letting you know that this is true?” and replace the ‘When’ with ‘Where.’ Again this question, by implication opens up the possibility that there are places where the issue, problem or belief is not true.

Clean questions give you the most information and lets you know how someone is processing, I hope this is useful and that you will go on to develop many new clean elicitation questions of your own.

© Alan Jones 2008

Drop-down through Process

At Empowerment Trainings and Talisman Training Ltd we use our own updated version of the process known as ‘The Drop-down through.’ We find this is a very useful process and readers can find other versions on the internet.

What I like about this process is that it is simple and is what we call ‘Clean.’ Clean means without content imposition from the facilitator. And has been derived from ‘Symbolic Modeling’ More about this in a future posting. For now lets get back to the process.

Drop-Down Through

Dropping through a feeling is only one direction and does not appear to be very flexible, so taking the feedback from a colleague’s wife I decided to look at other ways of running the principals of this process.

The presupposition is that there is another feeling outside of the current feeling, whether this is beneath the original feel, above it or to the side of it all directions work. It may be that some clients have an anchor to the idea of dropping through something. When a client chooses to go sideways, backwards or forwards I ask them to imagine that when the push through a feeling that they are pushing through big plastic doors like the ones you see in warehouses, supermarkets or hospitals.

The wording of question changes slightly depending on the direction the client chooses to explore.

Process

Client has an unwanted feeling or state.

1. Explain to the client that you are going to facilitate an exploration of the feeling or state. To do this they will either drop-down through the feeling, float up above the feel or push through the feeling to find out what lies beneath, above or beyond this feeling.

2.a. Ask the client which they would prefer to explore.

2.b. Ask the client on a scale of one to ten, with ten being very strong to calibrate the feeling.

3. Ask the client to then, “Get the unwanted state or feeling fully and completely and only when they are ready either:

a) Drop-down through it and tell you what lies beneath this feeling?”, or:

b) float up above this feeling and tell me what feeling sits above this feeling?”, or

c) “Push through this feeling and tell me what feeling lies beyond this feeling?”

4. Allow client time to process and wait for their answer and make a note of it.

5 Repeat step 3 using their word for the new feeling or state until the client either says something like, nothing, no feeling, void etc.

6. Ask the client to feel this, whatever word they use, fully and completely and when they are ready either drop-down through, rise above or push though “Nothing” and tell you: What lies beyond “Nothing”? (Here Nothing is taken to be their word.)

7. This is usually a positive state though you can go one more step beyond this state or feeling.

8 Ask the client to try and get any of the original feeling or state back. If they can repeat steps 3 to 7.

Please note that the feeling chain may be the same with fewer feelings or contain new feelings. A chain of feelings can be as short as 3 or 4 feelings, or as long as 25 feelings.

Once past the void repeat step 8 and see if they can get any of the original feeling or state back. If they can repeat steps 3 to 8 again.

9. Ask the client, “When you try and get (Original feeling) what happens?”

Some clients will collapse the chain with just one exploration others can take four or five explorations before they can’t get the original feeling or state back.

Example.

Original feelings 9 After 1st Exploration 3 After 2^nd Exploration 0

Anger Anger Can’t get Anger

Hate Powerless Feels Peace

Powerless Fear

Fear Nothing

Nothing Peace

Peace

(c) NLP4Everyone 2007

Welcome to the wonderful world of NLP

NLP 4 Everyone is a blog dedicated to informing everyone about the benefits of Neuro Linguistic Programming which, is the study of subjective experience originally developed by Richard Bandler and John Grinder back in the late 1970’s.

Richard Bandler developed the first NLP model called the Meta Model, which was extracted from watching two therapist who were getting remarkable results, Fritz Perls and Virgina Satir. Grinder and Bandler were joined by other interested students, Robert Dilts, Leslie Cameron-Bandler, to name a couple. And in only thirty years has developed into a world wide understanding of how humans process information.

In less than thirty years the methods of understanding human processing and modelling excellence have established themselves into nearly all European languages. It is independent of race or religion and it’s goal is to improve the quality and capability of every human being willing to investigate how, what, where, when and why they do and think the way they do. And to ask the questions, “Is this way of thinking or acting useful to me?” Once you know the answer to this question NLP gives you the processes to enhance or change, if you want to. The important thing is that NLP always gives you a choice and choice is better than no choice, isn’t it?

NLP has a number of operating beliefs. These are not truths and I would suggest that you fully consider them. And maybe, if you want to, try them on and see what happens when you ‘Act as if’ they are true.

Operating beliefs courtesy of Talisman Training

1. Everyone lives in their own unique model of the world.

2. NLP is not a model of repair… it is a model of acquisition… it is generative and provides choice

3. A person is always communicating.

4. Choice is better than no choice.

5. Memory and imagination use the same neurological circuits, and potentially have the same impact.

6. Failure equals feedback. There are no mistakes, only results. Without failure and mistakes, learning would be impossible.

7. Mind and body are the same system. What affects one, affects the other.

8. The meaning of a communication is the response it gets.

9. If one person can do it, other people can too.

10. People make the best choices available to them at the time.

11. Everyone has all the resources they need.

12. Every behaviour has a positive intention (for the person doing it). The
intention may well be different from the effect.

14. If what you are doing is not working do something else.

Just thinking about these beliefs can change the way you perceive the world and make it and even nicer place. Try it and have fun.