Текст книги "Using Your Brain —for a CHANGE"
Автор книги: Richard Bandler
Жанр:
Психология
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 8 (всего у книги 12 страниц)
6. Belief to Doubt: Keeping the content the same, change the unwanted belief to doubt by using one or more of the most powerful submodalities you discovered in step 4. For instance, if the two most powerful differences were movie to slide, and close panorama to distant framed picture, have the panoramic movie slow to a still slide as it moves away and becomes a framed picture.
7. Change Content: Using some other submodality, change the content from the old unwanted belief to the new desired belief. Use something she already does, or any gradual analogue method. For example, if she flips pictures back and forth in doubt, she can flip from the old content to the new content. You could have the old belief picture go off into the distance so far that it's impossible to tell what it is, then have it come back with the new belief image. You can have the picture get so bright or so dim that the old content disappears, and then have it come back with the new content, etc.
8. Doubt to Belief: Keeping the new content, change doubt to belief by reversing the same submodality changes you used in Step 6. If shifting location to the right changed the old belief to doubt, you now shift location back to the left to change the new content from doubt to belief. As you do this, be very alert for any «resistance,» or difficulty that your partner has. If the new belief is stated poorly, or has any negations in it, some part of the person may object to it. When you encounter objections, honor them, gather information, and back up to step 5 to redefine the new belief.
C. Testing9. There are several ways to test. You can ask «How do you think about this new belief?» Ask for information about submodalites, and use nonverbal behavior to confirm (or disconfirm) the verbal report.
10. When the new belief is in place, the old belief will probably change to the submodalities of disbelief. If you find out how the old belief is represented now, you can compare that with the submodalities of doubt, which you already know, or with the submodalities of disbelief, which you can find out by asking the person to think of something else she firmly disbelieves.
I've often said that good NLP work is 95% information–gathering and 5% intervention. The first five steps are setting things up for the intervention. That makes it easy to make the actual intervention smooth and fast. Remember, brains learn quickly; they don't learn slowly. If you get it all set up ahead of time, it's a lot easier to do a good job. It's a little like setting up a whole string of dominoes, and then tapping the first one.
Go ahead and try this pattern now, in groups of three. I know some of you have questions; many of those questions will be answered by the exercise itself. The questions you still have later will be a lot more interesting after you have had some experience of actually trying out this pattern. My answers will make a lot more sense to you, too.
Now that you've had some experience trying this, let's take some questions and comments.
Man: When I made the belief change, I had a lot of profound internal sensations. It felt as if there were a lot of little fish swimming around in my brain and my body, and the two people observing saw a lot of visible shifts, too. Is this typical?
When the belief is a major one, that's a typical report. Core beliefs organize a lot of a person's behavior. When you make a change in a core belief, you often get a profound internal reorganization. If it's a more peripheral belief, the changes aren't as striking.
Man: I found it hard to think of a useful belief to change. I'd like to hear some content examples of what people changed. Woman: I've been struggling and struggling for years to lose the last five pounds to get to the weight I want to be. It's easy for me to get close to the weight I want to be, but I've always believed I had to struggle and fight to control myself in order to lose that last five pounds. So I changed my belief that it was hard, to the belief that it will be easy to lose those last five pounds. What a relief; I feel so much more relaxed,
Man: I worked with her on that, and it was really nice to watch her go through the change. Her face, her voice, her whole body – everything was a lot more relaxed afterwards.
Woman: I've had a runny nose and I changed the belief that I couldn't do anything about it. I was amazed, because I can actually feel my nose beginning to dry up.
Man: I started with the belief that it was dangerous for me to drive at night without my glasses. I wanted to change it to the belief that I could safely drive without my glasses at night. Then my partner pointed out that my desired belief was a goal, and that it might be dangerous to change to that belief, I might go driving at night thinking I was safe when I wasn't. So we changed to the belief that I can learn to drive safely at night without glasses. I think I was really working on a much more general belief that I couldn't learn, period. I have a sense that this will affect much more than just driving at night; it seems much broader than that.
Great. Changing the belief that you can't learn something is useful for a lot of people. Many people try something once, don't succeed at it, and conclude they can't do it and they can't learn to do it. I know a man who "knew" he couldn't play the piano: "I sat down at the piano and tried it once, but nothing came of it." I start off with the belief that as long as you have most of your brain cells intact, anyone can do anything. You may need to chunk down the task, or learn to do it differently, and it may take you a while to get good at it, but starting with the belief that you can learn will take you a long way. My belief may even be wrong sometimes, but it makes it possible for me to do things and get results that I would never even consider if I assumed people were genetically incapable.
Man: Several people are using firewalking as a way to change people's limiting beliefs. Can you comment on that?
If someone believes they can't do something like firewalking and you get them to discover that it's possible, that can certainly shatter an old belief, particularly if they're told, "If you can walk on fire, you can do anything!" However, there's no way to carefully specify the new belief that gets put in its place. I read about one person who went through a firewalk and said, "Now I believe that I could be standing right at the explosion of a nuclear warhead, and it wouldn't affect me." If he's lucky, he won't ever get to test that belief, but it's an example of the kind of junky beliefs that can get installed that way. If you install beliefs that way, people often put in beliefs that don't relate to evidence or feedback. One firewalk teacher is calling himself "the foremost NLP trainer," when he hasn't even been certified as a master practitioner, much less a trainer! Some of his other beliefs have even less evidence for them.
I know that some people have gotten some very useful belief changes from doing the firewalk. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The problem with firewalking is that you have little control over the new belief that takes the place of the old one. There are enough bizarre and dangerous beliefs in the world without adding to them with a random process.
Another problem with something like firewalking is that it tends to install the belief that it takes a really dramatic external event to get you to change. I'd rather install the belief that change happens constantly, and easily, and making it work for you is a matter of understanding how to run your own brain. It doesn't take walking on hot coals to do that.
There is a completely separate issue of whether firewalking is actually something that's difficult to do or not, and whether the six hours of evangelistic preparation makes any difference in being able to walk on the coals. A reporter from the Rolling Stone timed people as they walked across and found a range of 1.5 seconds to 1.9 seconds, with an average of about 1.7 seconds. The length of the walk was about 10 feet, so if you have a 30" stride you can easily make it across in 4 steps – two on each foot. That gives a maximum of less than half a second of actual contact per footstep. Firewalkers make a big deal about the temperature of the coals—1,400 to 2,000 degrees – but they don't mention that each foot has only two contacts with the coals lasting less than half a second each. When you pick up a hot coal that's landed on your carpet to throw it back into the fireplace, your fingers probably contact the coal for about that long– and your fingertips are much more sensitive than your feet.
Burning requires heat transfer, not just temperature, and the contact time is only one factor in heat transfer. Another factor is conductivity. Let's say you're in a cabin in the mountains and you get out of bed in the morning when it's 20 degrees below zero, and one bare foot lands on a steel plate, while the other lands on a sheepskin rug. Even though the rug and the steel are both at 20 degrees below, the steel will feel a lot colder than the rug, because of it's greater heat conductivity. The conductivity of charcoal is greater than sheepskin, but a lot less than steel. Ask the next firewalker you meet if he's willing to walk the same length on a steel plate that's at the same temperature as those coals!
There is an additional factor that physicists call the "Leiden–frost effect." When there is a significant temperature difference between two substances, and the cooler one is a liquid or contains liquid, a thin vapor layer forms to create an insulating barrier that reduces heat transfer significantly.
All the evidence I have indicates that a ten foot, 1.5 second firewalk is something' anyone can do, with or without evangelistic preparation, but very few people think they can do.
Woman: Some people have beliefs that don't seem to influence their behavior much. For instance, I have a boss who always talks about how people should be nice to each other, but he's usually mean to people himself. How do you explain that?
I try to understand how things work, not "explain" them. There are several possibilities. One is that this belief is not really something he believes, even though he talks about it. A lot of "intellectuals" have beliefs like that which have no effect on their behavior. In that case you could use the belief change pattern to make his belief into one that is subjectively real enough to affect his behavior.
Another possibility is that his belief is real enough, but it's selective: other people should be nice to him, but he doesn't need to be nice to them, because he's special. Kings, dictators, and some movie stars are like that. Beliefs aren't always reciprocal.
A third possibility is that your boss' belief is real, and reciprocal, but what he thinks of as "being nice" seems "mean" to you. In the 60's a lot of humanistic psychologists would hug everyone too hard because they believed it was a nice thing to do, without noticing whether the "huggee" liked it or not. They'd also go around insulting people, because they thought it was always good to be honest and tell the truth. The crusaders believed that saving souls was an important thing to do, and they didn't care if it was sometimes necessary to kill the body in order to do it.
The process of changing a belief is relatively easy, as long as you have the person's consent. It's a little tougher if the person doesn't want to change a belief. I've also presupposed that you can identify a belief that's worth changing. Sometimes that's not obvious, and it may take some work to determine what someone's limiting belief is. Often the belief that the person wants to change isn't the one that actually limits his behavior.
My principal goal here is to teach you a. process that you can use to change a belief. However, the content that you put into a belief is also important. That's why I asked you to be sure to do an ecology check, as well as to state the new belief in terms of a process, rather than a goal, and to state it in positive terms. I asked you to do this belief change process without knowing the content of the new belief, because I know that some of you would get lost in the content and have trouble learning the process. After you have learned the process thoroughly, you won't be as likely to get lost in the content. When you're working with your clients, it's a good idea to know something about the content, so that you can verify that the new belief is stated in positive terms, is a process rather than a goal, and that it's likely to be ecological. Beliefs are very powerful things; when you change one it can do a lot of good, but if you install the wrong one, it can do a lot of harm, too. I want you to be very careful about the kinds of new beliefs you go around installing in people.
VII.Learning
I have always thought it was interesting that when people are arguing about a point that doesn't matter, they say «It's academic.» John Grinder and I were forced to leave teaching at the University of California because we were teaching undergraduates to do things in their lives. That was the complaint against us. They said school was only for teaching people about things.
When I was an undergraduate, the only courses I did badly in were psychology and public speaking. I flunked psychology 1A, and I got a "D" in public speaking! How's that for a joke? NLP is my revenge.
In my contacts with educators, I've noticed that the people who teach a subject may be very good at it, and know a tot about that particular area. However, they usually know very little about how they learned it, and even less about how to teach it to someone else. I went to a lecture in a beginning chemistry class once. The professor walked up in front of 350 people and said, «Now I want you to imagine a mirror here, and in front of the mirror is a DNA helix molecule, rotating backwards.» Some people in the room were going «Ahhh!» They became chemists. Some people in the room were going «Huh?» They did not become chemists. Some people in the room were going «Urghh!» They became therapists!
That professor had no idea that most people can't visualize in the detailed way that he did. That kind of visualization is a prerequisite for a successful career in chemistry, and it is a skill that can be taught to people who don't yet know how to visualize well. But since that professor presupposed that everyone else could already do what he did, he was wasting his time with most of the people in his classes.
Most studies of the learning process have been "objective." What NLP does is to explore the subjective experience of the processes by which people learn things. «Objective» studies usually study people who have the problem; NLP studies the subjective experience of people who have the solution. If you study dyslexia, you'll learn a lot about dyslexia. But if you want to teach kids how to read, it makes sense to study people who can read well.
When we made up the name "Neuro–Linguistic Programming," a lot of people said, "It sounds like 'mind control,' " as if that were something bad. I said "Yes, of course." If you don't begin to control and use your own brain, then you have to just leave it to chance. That is sort of what our educational system is like. They keep the content in front of you for twelve years; if you learn it, then they taught it to you. There are a lot of ways that the existing educational system is failing, and I'd like to discuss several of them.
"School phobias "
One of the most pervasive problems is that a lot of kids have already had bad experiences in school. Because of this, a certain subject, or school in general, becomes a cue that triggers bad memories that make a kid feel bad. And in case you haven't noticed, people don't learn very much when they're feeling bad. If a kid's response is really strong, psychologists even describe it as a «school phobia.» Feeling bad in response to school situations can be changed rapidly by using a number of the techniques we've described and demonstrated earlier, but I'd like to show you another very simple way to do it.
How many of you have bad feelings about mathematics —fractions, square roots, quadratic equations and stuff like that? (He writes a long string of equations on the board and a number of people groan or sigh.)
Now close your eyes and think of an experience you had that was absolutely marvelous – some situation in which you felt excited and curious. . . .
Now open your eyes for a second or two to look at these equations, and then close your eyes and return to that marvelous experience. . . .
Now open your eyes to look at the equations for several seconds more, and then return to your exciting experience again. Alternate a few more times until those two experiences are thoroughly integrated. . . .
Now it's time to test. First look away and think of any experience that's neutral for you, . . . and then look up here at the equations, and notice your response – Man: My God, it works!
This is actually an old NLP method we call "integrating anchors." If you want to know more about that, you can read Frogs into Princes. Changing most bad responses to school can be done that easily and quickly, but you have to know how the brain works to be able to do it. (If you want to try this method yourself, you will find a page of equations in Appendix VI.)
A more imaginative way to use the same principle is to always connect learning with fun and enjoyment to start with. In most schools they have the kids all lined up sitting still in neat, silent rows. I always ask, "How long until the kids get to laugh, move, and enjoy themselves?" If you connect boredom and discomfort with learning, it's no wonder nobody wants to do it. One of the great things about computer–assisted education is that computers are more fun to be with than most teachers. Computers have infinite patience, and never make kids feel bad the way a lot of teachers do.
Remembering
Another major problem for many kids is remembering the stuff they learn in school. A lot of what is called education is simply memorizing. This is changing somewhat. Teachers are starting to realize that the amount of information is so huge, expanding so rapidly, and changing so fast, that memorization isn't nearly as
important as they used to think. It's much more important now to be able to find the facts when you need them, use them, and forget them. However, you do have to be able to remember how to do that.
One aspect of memory is similar to what we just discussed: Is the memory paired with a pleasant or unpleasant experience? In order for someone to remember something, he has to go back into the state of consciousness in which the information was provided. That's how memory works. If you make someone angry or unhappy when you ask him to do something, in order to remember it he has to get back into that state. Since he doesn't want to feel bad, he is not likely to remember it. This is why most of us have total amnesia for 12 or 16 years of education. I can't even remember teachers' names let alone most of what I was taught or any of the events. But I can remember the last day of school!
What's your name?
Woman: Lydia.
You forgot your name tag.1 The only way I can remember names is to hallucinate name tags on people. Every time I meet people I keep looking at their left breast; people think I'm a pervert now. I taught for Xerox once and since everybody had Xerox labels on, I kept calling people «Xerox» all day. It's one of those things; your brain learns to do it, and once it realizes it's of no value it continues anyway.
Lydia, if you forget your name tag, I'll think that you are sneaking into this seminar, and I'll install certain suggestions . . . that will stay with you for the rest of your life. If you have a name tag, I don't do that. You only get suggestions that stay with you for a short period of time.
Lydia, I'm going to tell you a number: 357. Now I want you to forget the number I just told you. . . . Have you forgotten it yet? (No.) If you can't forget one number when a number has no meaning, how could you forget your name tag, or important content in a seminar? Have you forgotten it yet? (No.) Now, how is it possible that you can't forget something that has no importance?
Lydia: If we keep talking about it, I'll remember it even more. It doesn't matter if it is important or not. Especially since you are asking me to forget it, I won't forget it.
That makes sense. . . . Did you see how many people nodded when you said that? "Oh yeah, you asked me to forget it, so I have to remember it. After all, it has no importance but we are talking about it. If you ask me to forget something that has been talked about for a long time that isn't important, I have to remember it." It's bizarre, isn't it? ... But she is right.
It sounds weird, but even though it sounds weird, you know she's right. Her saying that is as weird as her doing it. Yet psychologists will ignore that as if it has no significance, and go on to study things like "oedipal complexes" and many other strange things. Psychologists will pass up studying how people remember things in favor of studying what "depth" of trance you have been in – that's the metaphor where trance is a hole that you fall into, and going deeper is of great value. The people who talk about "levels of consciousness" disagree; they think it's better to go higher, not deeper.
If I didn't talk about it very long, and talked about it in just the right way, she could forget a number with only three digits. Lydia can forget her name tag, even though people told her it was important. Many of you try to get people to remember things. How many of you talk to people about things that are important, yet they forget what you said? And you thought it was their fault! Remember that when you want someone else to remember something.
Except for torturing rats, probably more psychologists' time has gone into studying memory than any other subject. However, they've never really gotten at how people do it in terms of subjective experience.
How many of you have trouble remembering telephone numbers? Most of you probably try to do it auditorily, by verbally repeating the numbers to yourself. Many of you were taught the multiplication tables by auditory recitation. Even when that is successful, it's very slow, because you have to recite all those words inside to get to the answer. "Nine, seven, three . . . zero, four, six, eight"; "Nine times six is fifty–four." For a lot of information it's much more efficient to memorize it visually instead of auditorily: 973–0468, 9 x 6 = 54. When you remember visually, the entire picture pops into your mind at once, and you just skip to the information you need, and read it or copy it down. A lot of kids who are considered «slow learners» are simply remembering auditorily instead of visually. When you take an hour or two to teach them how to do it visually, they learn much more rapidly.
On the other hand, some people try to remember music by making pictures or having feelings, instead of hearing the sounds. So it's always a matter of remembering in a way that's appropriate to what you want to remember.
Another good way to have a bad memory is to do something totally irrelevant to memorizing the data. If you repeat to yourself, "I've got to remember the phone number," then what you will remember is that sentence, rather than the phone number! A lot of people do something like that, and then wonder why they have such «bad memories.» Actually their memories are excellent; they're just using them to remember idiotic things.
If you study people who have phenomenal memories, you find out that they do some really interesting things. One man with an excellent memory puts subtitles under all his pictures. He actually prints words on his pictures that describe what the pictures are about. That short verbal description codes and categorizes the memory, so that it's easy to go back to it. It's like putting a title on a movie, so you can glance at the title and know what it's about without having to watch the entire movie. In the computer business we call that a "drop tag code" – something that is arbitrary but distinctive, that relates to this and also relates to that, linking them together.
We had a woman in a seminar once who was rapidly introduced to forty–five people by first and last name. That's all it took for her to know everyone's name. I've seen Harry Lorayne do the same thing with about three hundred people on a TV show. When this woman was introduced to someone, she would focus on something very distinctive in what she saw – the shape of the nose, skin coloring, chin, or whatever she spontaneously noticed that was unique about that person. She would continue to focus on this distinctive feature as she heard the person's name, and that would connect the two together. She even checked herself quickly by looking away briefly to visualize that unique feature, and listen for the name, to make sure the connection had been made. I like to have people wear name tags, so I don't have to bother to do that. However, it certainly is a useful talent that could be taught to salespeople. They often have to deal with many people, and it's considered important to remember their names and be personally friendly with them.
If you deal with people mostly over the telephone, this visual method won't work. However, you can easily adapt it to the auditory system: notice something distinctive about the person's voice tone or tempo as you hear the name, and hear the name spoken with that distinctive feature. Very visual people might prefer to imagine the name visually as they hear it. You can always adapt a memory strategy in this way, to make it appropriate to the context or the skills of the person who wants to recall something.
If you really want to remember a name, pair it with something unique in all three major representational systems: auditory, visual, and kinesthetic. While you listen to the sound of the name, spoken in his voice tone, you could notice something unique in what you see as you look at him, and also what you feel as you shake hands. Since that gives you a drop tag code in each major system, you will have three different ways to recall the name.
Another way to have a "good memory" is to be as efficient and economical as possible in what you do remember, and to use what you have already remembered as much as possible. For instance, if you always put your keys in the right front pocket of your pants, you only have to remember that once. Someone who puts her keys in many different places may have to remember it four or five times each day, instead of once in a lifetime.
One of our students has a couple of businesses and has to file a lot of papers and records. Whenever something has to be filed, he asks himself, "Where would I look for this when I need it," and starts moving toward the file cabinet. As he does this, an image of a particular file tab appears in his mind, and he files it there. This method uses what he has already remembered to organize his files, so he seldom has to remember anything new. Each time he files this item he strengthens the existing connection between it and the file tab, making the system more dependable each time.
One way of thinking about these two examples is that they create a situation in which you have to remember as little as possible. Here's another example. Take a look at the set of numbers below for a few moments, and then look away and see how much of it you can remember. . . .
149162536496481100
Now look at it long enough so that you can still remember it when you look away. . . .
If you have actually tried this, you probably started to group the numbers into twos or threes to organize the task and make remembering easier:
14,91,62,53,64,96,48,11,00
Or
149,162,536,496,481,100
This is a process we call "chunking": breaking a large task down into smaller, more manageable, pieces. In business there's an old joke, "How do you eat an elephant?" The answer is, "One bite at a time."
At this point, how long do you think you could remember this number accurately? – an hour? – a day? – a week?
Now let's chunk the number a little differently. Does this suggest anything to you?
1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100
We can write this same set of numbers a little differently, as squares of numbers:122232425262728292102
Now it's obvious that the number we started with is the squares of the numbers 1 through 10, strung together. Knowing this, you can easily remember this number ten or twenty years from now. What makes it so easy? You have much less to remember, and it's all coded in terms of things that you have already remembered. This is what math and science is all about – coding the world efficiently and elegantly, so that you have fewer things to remember, leaving your brain free to do other things that are more fun and interesting.
Those are just a few of the principles that can make remembering a lot easier and faster. Unfortunately they're not yet used much in mainstream education.
