How to Ruin the Swish Pattern: “Let me count the ways”
metanymous в Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
Эффективность Моделирующей Психотерапии, выпуск 36
| Лингвистические модели | |||||
| 7. SWISH | metanymous | ||||
| Эффективность Моделирующей Психотерапии | |||||
| 36. How to Ruin the Swish Pattern: “Let me count the ways” | metanymous | ||||
| Руки(ex) -> ВАКОГ(in) + мотор. прог. <- ВАКОГ(ex) | metanymous | ||||
| 35. Авто фокусирование «самости» из текущих контекстов | metanymous | ||||
| Оракул metapractice | |||||
| 50. Оракул metapractice | metanymous | ||||
| Я-образ во "Взмахе" и summary image в Я-концепции | zoroastp | ||||
| Без прямой/точной цитаты не понятно | meta_eugzol | ||||
| 49. Оракул metapractice | metanymous | ||||
| Doing "SIWSH" the right way | meta_eugzol | ||||
| Комплаентность vs коучинг лечебный | |||||
| 1. Берёт начало в перинатальной матрице-3 | metanymous | ||||
| Темы MetaPractice (10.11.17) - 231 темы | |||||
| Темы MetaPractice (10.11.17) - 231 темы | metanymous | ||||
| Якорение | |||||
| 33. Внешнее vs внутреннее vs DHE | metanymous | ||||
| Руки(ex) -> ВАКОГ(in) + мотор. прог. <- ВАКОГ(ex) | bavi | ||||
| Эффективность Моделирующей Психотерапии | |||||
| 37. Поиск психотерапевта | metanymous | ||||
| 36. How to Ruin the Swish Pattern: “Let me count the ways” | metanymous | ||||
| Переработка моторных программ с конт. якорями | metanymous | ||||
| Иное моделирование | |||||
| 45. Значение этапов моделирования в контексте устранения проблем со «SWISH» | metanymous | ||||
| Ресурсы нагвализма | |||||
| N+4. Рекапитуляция — рекапитуляция | meta_eugzol | ||||
| Прямое извлечение ресурсов нарциссизма (с) | metanymous | ||||
How to Ruin the Swish Pattern: “Let me count the ways”
The disastrous state of NLP training. Steve Andreas—with even more valuable input from Connirae than usual
Introduction
I’ve spent the last 35 years of my professional life — and much of my personal life — learning, developing, and training high quality NLP. Recently I saw a video in which someone was teaching the swish pattern in a way that greatly weakened it. Looking around a bit, I found 16 videos of the swish online. I was dismayed to find that none of them taught it as originally presented, and all but one made the same very fundamental mistake, as well as many others. The fundamental mistake is equivalent to replacing the engine in a Lamborghini with a hamster wheel. Other mistakes are like putting wagon wheels on it.
These mistakes show not only a widespread lack of ability to learn and follow the steps of the pattern, but also a lack of understanding of the principles underlying each step. In this article, I’ll review the 16 videos (which provide you with sensory-based experience) and point out the mistakes. I hope this can add to the understanding not only of what to do, but why to do it, which is essential to the field’s integrity and progress. But first, a little history.
Background
The swish pattern is a rapid way to change any troublesome habit or other unwanted response, so it has a very wide range of applications. The swish was developed by Richard Bandler in the early 1980’s, and was first published in Using Your Brain for a Change (chapter 9) in 1985, over 30 years ago. Connirae and I taught it and used it extensively over the next couple of years. During this time we accumulated a lot of experience of when it didn’t work, or only partially worked, and we had to figure out what we needed to do to correct that. In Change Your Mind—and keep the Change (chapter 3) we included many additional details, including how to design a swish in the auditory modality. A case example, with follow-up, appeared in our later book, Heart of the Mind (chapter 17). We also produced a video on the swish in the early 1980’s, including two demonstrations, one of the standard size/brightness swish with nail-biting, and also an auditory “designer” swish with a woman who went “ballistic” when her daughter used a particular tone of voice. These sources provide a rich description of all the different essential elements in the process, the principles underlying each element, and specific examples of how to make the pattern work.
The “standard” swish using size and brightness, (or size and distance)
This swish is often used to teach the basics of the pattern. Often it’s demonstrated with nail-biting, because it’s easy to identify what the client will always experience immediately before the problem behavior or response — their hand has to move up toward their face just before biting their nails.
After identifying this cue image, the next step is to elicit a desired self-image of “the evolved you of the future, for whom nail-biting is simply no longer an issue.” The client is asked to see themselves in a dissociated self-image, much like a 3-D portrait. Seeing this positive self-mage provides strong motivation, engaging unconscious processes to develop ways to become like the self-image. This creates a direction for change at the more powerful identity level, in contrast to only selecting a specific replacement behavior.
This desired self-image works best when it is seen without context or background, and not doing any specific behavior. Any background would tend to limit the scope of generalization to that context, and picturing a specific behavior would limit the change to that behavior.
In the next step, the client is asked to see the cue image (of hand coming up to face) big and bright, and somewhere in that image to see a small dark dot containing the desired self-image. Then the client is told to allow the desired self-image to very quickly become big and bright as the cue image shrinks and becomes dark. This links the cue image to the desired self-image, so that any time they are in a situation that used to trigger the unwanted behavior, they will immediately see the self-image.
After a break state, the client is asked to exchange the images again, repeatedly, with a break state in between, to make sure the direction is always from the cue to the self-image. After 7-10 repetitions, the cue image often becomes insubstantial or disappears, while the self-image becomes prominent, so this is one way to test the intervention. Asking the client to bring a hand up to the mouth is another good way to test, and real-world follow-up is best of all.
The dissociated self-image provides powerful motivation to change, without specifying how the change will occur, which is left to the client’s unconscious processes. The change is usually instantaneous, and the client usually isn’t consciously aware of any specific behavioral change. Often they’re “just a different person” who wouldn’t even think of biting their nails. If the self-image were associated, that would assume that the client had already become it, so there would be no motivation to change, only a self-delusion that change had already happened.
This standard swish usually works well as a very simplified introduction to the pattern. But it makes a lot of assumptions, and omits many important details. For instance, it uses size and brightness because for most people those two variables will increase the feeling response to any image, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Ideally we would test this, and often use other visual (or auditory) submodalities that elicit the strongest response for a particular client. The standard swish doesn’t include training in how to elicit a dependable cue image when there is no obvious external image like the hand coming up to the face. There is no testing to be sure that the client has a strong positive response to their self-image, or training in what to do to increase their response. There is no mention of searching for a positive intention of the problem state, or what to do about satisfying it. There are no suggestions for how to “trouble-shoot” when the test at the end indicates that the process didn’t work. There is nothing about using other visual submodalities, or how to design a swish in the auditory or kinesthetic systems, etc. Despite all these limitations, the standard swish is a good way to teach the overall structure of the process; training in the additional details can be added later.
The importance of the desired self-image
The most significant mistake (which appears in all but one of the video presentations of this pattern that I reviewed) is that instead of a desired self-image, the client is asked to see themselves doing a specific substitute behavior. Using a specific behavior instead of an evolved self-image is an error that also appears in Robert Dilts Encyclopedia of NLP. “Form a mental image of herself engaged in the behavior she would like to do instead of smoking.” Since Dilts has written in great detail about the power of identity in change work, this fundamental mistake is particularly surprising. A consciously chosen image of a specific behavior provides only one option — which may not fit very well — in comparison to the infinite variety of possible choices that a positive self-image can generate unconsciously.
If you create a sequence from a problem behavior to a more desirable behavior, that is essentially chaining with submodalities, not a swish pattern. That can work, but it won’t be nearly as dependable or powerful, for several reasons.
A positive self-image is far more powerfully motivating and generative than an image of a different behavior. For example, an image of yourself flexing your fingers (instead of biting your nails) just isn’t as intensely motivating as seeing “the you that you would be without this problem.”
As the cue image for the problem behavior becomes smaller and darker, the unpleasant feeling decreases at the same time that the self-image becomes larger and brighter, and the pleasant feeling increases. This smooth analog transition can be diagrammed using a rectangle with a diagonal dividing it into two triangles, one green and one white, to show how this creates motivation away from unpleasantness (green) and toward pleasantness (white). (In the diagram, time goes from left to right.)
In contrast, the diagram for a simple chain from one state to another, would show one (black) state ending, and another (yellow) state beginning, an abrupt digital change that occurs in a moment in time. That can work, but the connection isn’t as solid. The diagram above is like a lap joint; the diagram below is like a butt joint. Anyone who has worked in wood, metal, or fabric will tell you that a lap joint is always far stronger and more lasting.
In Dilts’ article on the swish, he credits the power of the method to the submodality changes (size and brightness), but this is only partly true. These submodality changes can only amplify the existing feelings in response to the two images. If those feelings are not very intense to start with, there is little for the submodality shifts to amplify. It is really important that the feeling in response to the cue image is unpleasant, and that the feeling in response to the self-image is as strong as possible, so it’s important to test. “See that image of the evolved you for whom biting nails is simply no longer a problem; how desirable is that image?” and notice the nonverbal response as well as the verbal. If the response is weak, you need to do whatever you can do to intensify it before proceeding. Often this will involve resolving incongruence, or amplifying other submodalities.
In the 16 videos of the swish that I’ve watched recently there is quite a lot of variation, and only one of them (sort of) used a desired self-image. Every video either modified the pattern in ways that weakened it, or left out important steps. Only a few of them included how to test to find out if it had worked or not. If a test didn’t work, the only remedy offered was to repeat the process a few more times. None of the videos include any follow-up that would indicate how successful the process actually was. The specific details are in the video reviews below.
Reviews of videos
I found videos on YouTube by searching using the terms “swish” “swish pattern,” and “swish pattern NLP.” I may have missed a few, but the huge variation in them clearly shows how much they differ from the swish pattern as originally developed and taught by Bandler. I encourage you to watch the videos before reading my comments, because my comments will make a lot more sense if you already have the sensory-based experience provided by the video. That also gives you an opportunity to notice errors, and compare what you observed with my comments. If you have only a little time to watch videos, I suggest watching the first four, since they provide a wide range of examples. Quite often the language used in these demonstrations is ambiguous and imprecise, but there are so many examples of this I won’t usually comment on them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2biRiJsWqvg (6:10)
1. Michael Carroll describes the swish as being useful for “a minor behavior” which implies erroneously that it can’t be used for more intense difficulties. He role-plays the pattern in order to demonstrate it, walking himself through the steps. He uses nail-biting as the problem, and size and distance as the submodalities. His description of how to select the cue image could be more precise, but it’s basically correct — an image of what he dependably sees out of his own eyes just before the problem behavior/response, namely fingers moving toward the mouth.
Then he says, “Think about what it is that you’d like to do instead,” and goes on to specify “staying within the frame” of the cue image. This asks for a behavior (in the same context) rather than a desired self-image (without a context).
He suggests that he might pick “flex your fingers or do something with your hands,” as the new behavior to replace nail-biting. This is a specific behavior chosen by the conscious mind, in contrast to the evolved self-image. Michael is a primary sponsor of John Grinder and his “New Code” method, in which a decision about a new behavior is completely turned over to a client’s unconscious mind. So it’s particularly puzzling that this principle of relying on unconscious selection is ignored in this demonstration, despite its being an explicit part of the original swish pattern.
In the middle of self-demonstrating this change process, Michael switches from biting nails to cracking knuckles as the problem to be resolved. Changing the content “midstream” isn’t ideal for teaching, but isn’t a problem with the method itself.
Then he says and demonstrates “see themselves flexing their hands,” as the new behavior, and then to shrink that image “very small, and send it far out to the horizon.” Then he has the close cue image go quickly out to the horizon, as the outcome image quickly comes in. His verbal instructions only mention distance. The corresponding change in size is presupposed, but not mentioned explicitly. For the swish to be effective, it’s best to explicitly utilize two submodalities together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPu5cXaTZOw (8:50)
2. In what must be a quite old video, Tony Robbins teaches a group, also using nail-biting as the behavior to be changed. He is very expressive, and clear in his instructions to get the cue image. His instruction for the outcome image is a mixture of specific behavior and self-image: “What you want is a big bright colorful picture of myself looking good, lecturing, and being proud of myself, and also noticing that my nails are great, too.”
Then Tony demonstrates the transition. He uses size, and gestures with his right hand grabbing the self-image and bringing it up so that it gets larger and explodes and breaks through the cue image, without mentioning a second submodality. Grabbing the small image is a nice kinesthetic addition that will make it more powerful for some clients. Tony says, “I get the experience of feeling good about myself,” in response to the self-image. Tony summarizes the overall pattern nicely as, “I don’t need to do this (the problem behavior), this (the outcome image) is who I really am,” continuing to emphasize the positive self-image.
The basic process here is correct. However, he uses only one submodality, size, and the self image “breaks through the cue image, rather than simply getting larger as the cue image gets smaller. In his desired self-image, he mixes in a specific behavior, i.e. “a picture of myself … lecturing.” This context tends to limit the unconscious from generalizing the change to other contexts where it would be useful.
“Being proud of myself,” is certainly a motivator for Tony, but it’s not ideal, because pride (one of the 7 deadly sins) is one half of a very troublesome polarity (the other half is shame) that compares the self to others. Pleasure or satisfaction is a much better motivator, because it’s an evaluation that doesn’t require a comparison with others — and when many people use the word “pride” loosely, that is what they really mean. The detailed structure of pride and shame is beyond the scope of this article; if that interests you, see chapter 10 of my book, Transforming Your Self.
Next is a short staged video vignette of a father and daughter in which Tony gives a summary of the steps to the swish. In this description, Tony makes a significant error in each step. Tony says the first step is to “see how you’re behaving now,” a dissociated image. The cue image will only work if it’s what you’ll actually see at the time (your hand coming up to your face).
In the second step Tony says to “think of how you want to behave — get a clear picture of what you’d like to behave like in the future.” Here he asks for a behavior, rather than an image of the person you want to become — the person who would no longer have this problem.
Tony suggests making the background of the cue image red (“stop”) and the background of the outcome image green, (“go”) which is a cute addition, but one that has a problem. The green, signifying “go” for the desired self-image might make it more powerful for some people. However, the cue image works best when it is a close match for what the client will see in the problem context. Very seldom will the problem context actually have a bright red background, so that will make it a poor match for the real world, and less likely to work as a cue.
Next Tony walks the group through using the swish to change a fear, asking them all to “get a picture of the fear” for the cue image. That language is ambiguous at best; “see what scares you,” or “see what you see just before you get scared” would be more precise.
Then when he asks for the outcome, it’s a self-image as in his first description — “seeing yourself as you would be, free of that fear, but also seeing yourself the way you’d be if you were totally proud of yourself; if you felt really good about who you are as a person, something that would really motivate yourself.” This instruction is basically fine, except for including the emphasis on pride.
Tony then walks the group expressively through the size transition, break state, repetition and testing, and then talks about how the self-image has a generative ripple effect, “It didn’t just make me feel different about my fingernails. . . . it now makes me think to be like the person who’s elegant, who I respect, who I want to be. So I found myself doing a lot of other things I wasn’t doing before, like just picking up things around the house. Before I’d just let it go, but the person I pictured in my mind wouldn’t just let it go, so I’d handle it.” This is a very nice description of the generative impact of the desired self-image, which goes far beyond any specific alternate behavior chosen by the client’s conscious mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9rCMdP17Zg (7:38)
3. Akistis guides the viewer through the process, starting out with, “In your upper left (gesturing with her right hand) I want you to imagine the thing you want to improve,” which is more than a bit vague, since “thing” could indicate a partner, a garden, or an automobile. Then she clarifies, saying, “See a holographic image of yourself going through some negative emotions.” This instruction is a little more specific but has two problems. One is that she asks the viewer to be dissociated, rather than associated. The second problem is that she asks the viewer to see multiple emotions, rather than select one.
Next she gestures with her left hand (the viewer’s upper right) and says, “Imagine yourself in something that you know for certain, something that you do well, and that you are confident in.” Then she says to bring that first image over to the same space as the desired image, put it in front of it, and “integrate those feelings” (gesturing with both hands in a swirling motion) “until the stronger sense takes over the weaker sense.” This is much more like a clumsy version of the “visual squash” than a swish.
Then she asks the viewer to imagine someone on your left “who you dislike, who makes you feel weak, disempowered, in a situation where they’re getting you upset.” (3:42) “And now I want you to imagine on your right hand, right here, see the positive feeling, your feeling when you’re self-confident, the faces of people who really make you smile — think about those people’s smiles, let those feelings, let those juices flow, let those positive hormones come out, and just feel all that positive energy that you have in exchange with those people.” This is verbatim; I couldn’t make up such a mishmash of instructions. What does it mean to “see a positive feeling” or to “let those positive hormones come out”? And how do you combine seeing yourself confident with seeing other people’s smiles? Then she “integrates” the two pictures “So the strong image is washing over and disintegrating the old image.” (integration becomes disintegration!) Akistis then follows with a lot of new-age feel-good bogusities, such as, “the image will no longer find anything to grab upon in your own mind,” and “going to the next level.” This has got to be the worst example of teaching the swish I have ever seen, though the next one is a close second.
https://nlptimes.infusionsoft.com/app/linkClick/18/c653bb2c3318fa3f/15144818/15afcc432f1e2660 (This is a download link; 34:14)
4. Mark Hayley demonstrates what he calls a “kinesthetic swish” with a workshop participant. In this “director’s cut” the demonstration is interrupted so that Mark (and an interviewer) can discuss the process. If you want to bypass the discussion, the demonstration alone can be viewed in the following short segments: 5:04-7:00, 10:55-12:33 16:30-17:39 Mark first asks the client to:
- Identify a bad feeling that she has experienced repeatedly.
- Notice the location of this feeling in the heart area of her chest.
- Mark pulls it out of her chest and asks her what it looks like.
- She sees it as a “yucky green rotating blob.”
- Mark tells her to shrink it down and make it black and white.
- Mark elicits a sudden feeling that dissipates quickly, which is located in her throat area.
- Mark tells her to bring the shrunk-down black-and-white image back into her body in the location where she has the sudden feeling (in #6 above).
- Which then dissipates quickly and automatically out of her body.
Whatever you think of this intervention, it bears no resemblance to the swish. The only submodality change that links all these steps is location; there is no second submodality as in the original swish pattern, and no self-image (or behavior) representation.
Curiously, step 3, pulling the feeling out of her body, is much the same as the last step in which the feeling dissipates out of her body. Why not just pull the feeling out of her body at step 3 and fling it across the room and be done with it, as many masseurs or “body workers” do in order to get rid of accumulated tension or “bad energy”? If you want to learn how to do a true kinesthetic swish, read this article published 18 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7GsOQR_jpc (3:17)
5. NLP and Hypnosis Training New York (animation). The unwanted behavior is eating donuts; the cue is a hand reaching for a donut. The new behavior is working out (image of woman in gym clothes with barbell and exercise ball). “Fling the picture out into the horizon. It will get far away, small, and dark.” (three submodalities rather than two, which is OK.) “When it comes back, it comes back as your ideal self.”
In the swish, the cue image gets smaller, etc., at the same time as the self-mage gets larger, etc., so the motivation dynamic, “away from negative, toward positive” is active throughout the analog transition. In this example, the two are only connected at the horizon, like the butt joint I mentioned earlier, making both the motivation and linkage much weaker. In addition the positive image is of a behavior (working out), instead of being an identity image (the you who you would be without this problem).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ00plfm84w (3:31)
6. (animation) Shawn Carson applies the swish to dealing with a difficult person “Burt.” “How would you like to feel? If you could be anyone when dealing with Burt, who would you choose to be?” (image of superman in cape) This mixes in a bit of the “new behavior generator” pattern to get an image; there is no instruction to make this into a self-image, rather than an image of someone else. The superman image also makes it a “magical solution” rather than something real, suggesting that the only way to deal with Burt would be to have super-human powers. When the self-image is unreal, it won’t be very motivating. If the client believes in something unreal, that is a delusion. Either way, it’s not useful.
The next instruction is: “Take this ideal you, the new you, and shrink the picture down until it’s small enough to fit on a postage stamp. In your imagination, stick the stamp with the picture of the new you on Burt’s forehead. Have the picture of the new you spring out from Burt’s forehead. The new you appears life-sized in the space in between you and Burt.” In these instructions the image of Burt does not change, so it will continue to elicit the unwanted response. “Repeat several times.” There is no mention of a break state in between repetitions, which can result in a yo-yo effect, instead of the single direction from the problem image to the desired image. “Step forward into that new you, as you step forward to greet Burt. Feel how good it feels to be this new you.” This implies that the change has already happened, so there is no motivation to change further. The self-image needs to stay dissociated in order to elicit motivation to change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyRfpod2fxw (10:50)
7. Anthony Beardsell works with a live client, Michelle, who has difficulty responding in a meeting with superiors when she is asked a question. He asks “Is there a state or mood that you’d prefer to be in at that point in time?” This asks for a resourceful feeling, rather than either a behavior or a self-image. Michelle says, “I’d like to feel as confident as I do when I talk to them on a one-to-one basis.” Anthony uses her feeling as a lead to elicit images, both of which are in the same location close in front of her and associated. Although it’s not entirely clear, she appears to be seeing what she saw when she had the feelings. Neither is an image of her evolved self. He has her step out of the desired image to use in the swish, using size, brightness, and distance (three submodalities rather than two). In order to use distance, he has to ask her to move the positive image away from her, which is inelegant at best; if he had only used size and brightness, that would not have been necessary. Michelle soon reports that she has only an empty frame for the cue image, so the chaining appears to have been successful, but it isn’t likely to be generative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b15h9F_Yfrc (13:45)
8. David Shepard begins with a clear description of the dynamics of the swish, before eliciting the client’s problem state, which is fear of sliding when he’s on a motorbike going around a turn. After identifying the cue picture of beginning a turn, David asks, “How do you want to be?” asking for an alternate behavior, not a self-image. The client replies, “I can feel the tires completely locked into the road,” indicating an associated experience. David asks, “As you think about that, do you have a picture?” and then “For a moment, step into that picture, so that you’re looking out of your own eyes.” This assumes that the client previously had a dissociated image, which I think is probably not the case. David then asks the client to change the size, brightness, color, speed of the movie image, to intensify the response — all of which would have been more useful if it were a self-image. Then he asks the client to step out of the picture again, and uses this as the picture to swish to.
After a couple of swishes using size and brightness, the client reports (7:33) “It’s very fast, it goes about half-way when you tell me to open my eyes; it takes a bit of time to get up there,” with expressive gestures indicating great effort. This slowness and effort could be just inexperience with the transition, but it could also be an indication of incongruence that needs to be taken into account.
There is a real danger in the “solution” David invites his client to construct. If you’re going around a turn fast on a motorbike, and you have a dissociated image of yourself going around the turn, you’ll have reduced access to the feeling experience of being on the motorbike, which is an important part of what you need in order to turn safely. Although an evolved self-image is also dissociated, the result of using a desired self-image will be useful, since this change will occur almost instantaneously — long before he gets on a motorbike again.
After several more swishes, when David asks the client to get the first picture back (8:10) he replies that he can “sort of” see it, that it is indistinct, and (8:40) that the second image doesn’t expand to fill the whole screen. “It doesn’t go ‘whist,’ it goes ‘uurngh’ ” and again he gestures expressively indicating great effort. Since this slowness and effort persists, it is more likely to indicate incongruence, and I think it likely that it is because of the danger of having a dissociated image while going around a turn. David urges him to do it faster, and tells him that the first picture will eventually disappear. Since he has made this suggestion, when the picture later disappears, it’s not a good test of the process, since it might only be response to the suggestion. After some more swishes, David tests by asking him to imagine being on a motorbike on a turn and the client feels very different, and as if the bike is “on rails,” so it will keep to the turn. While it’s possible that being “on rails” is only a metaphor, I worry about that. In fact, a motorbike is not on rails; it will definitely slide if it goes too fast on a turn, so this could establish a dangerous delusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je-2DURoanA (32:28)
9. Jevon Dangeli spends the first 8 minutes or so offering a number of frames, both general and specific to the swish, before asking for a volunteer and eliciting the cue image, which is a “picture of things not going the way I want them to go, me being ignored.” When Jevon asks her to identify what in the external world triggers this internal picture, she says, “an aggressive look” in their eyes. Then he says, “Tell me about that peaceful confident state (which she mentioned earlier) that you’d like to have,” and she says, “feeling relaxed, no tension in my body.” “When you’re feeling relaxed, there’s no tension, and you’re peaceful and confident, what image represents that for you?” When she asks, “An image of myself, or?—” Jevon says, (14:27) “Both — anything you want,” and she responds, “(I see) myself walking on a beach.” Not only is this an image of a specific behavior, rather than an evolved self-image, but if the swish works so that she sees herself walking on a beach in response to an aggressive look in someone else’s eyes that’s not likely to be useful in the real-world context.
Then he sets up the cue image, with the beach image shrunken to a speck in the middle of it, and whooshes that image out beyond the horizon, and come back as the beach image. This uses only one submodality, distance, and the two images are only connected at the horizon. This makes both the motivation and the linkage much weaker than if one image increased at the same time as the other decreased. He repeats the whoosh a number of times, each time following with hypnotic suggestions about the cue image changing. Jevon tests using the cue image, and in several future scenarios, and the client reports feeling peaceful and confident. He ends the demonstration at 24:07 and then responds to questions from the group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9haD3Qb7gQ (7:17)
10. Mel Cutler works with a very responsive client who has trouble organizing papers on his desk. Mel appears to be reading most of what he says from notes. “How would you like to feel or act instead?” asks for a feeling or behavior rather than an evolved self-image. “Step into that picture so you’re looking through your own eyes, . . . adjust the submodalities of that new positive picture to make it more desirable than ever before, etc.” Stepping into this image isn’t necessary, and isn’t in the original swish, but since he later has the client step back out of the picture to use for the swish, it’s not likely to be a problem. He tests at the end, getting a 9 out of 10 and does the swish a few more times, until the client reports only seeing the desired image.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJDAA-86os4 (8:15)
11. Pip Thomas (edge NLP) asks client for an image of a “current negative behavior that you have in a certain context,” and then asks her to “step out of the image so you can see yourself in it.” Then she asks the client to get an image of the “new behavior you want to have in that set of circumstances,” rather than a self-image. She asks the client to adjust the color, brightness, volume, feeling, to make her response more compelling, and then to step into the picture. Both images are of behaviors; the old behavior is dissociated, the new behavior is associated, the reverse of the standard swish. Then she does a size/brightness swish, “Old behavior up on the screen, new behavior in the bottom right-hand corner, ready, one, two, three, swish—big and bright, old behavior gone.” Pip tests by asking client to imagine being in the problem context, and she feels “completely different.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s97Dacdzg (8:51)
12. George (mindpersuasion.com, audio with graphics) explains that the pattern is used to replace an unhelpful feeling with a “good emotion that you’d like to feel instead.” (No behaviors or self-image) “Next we’ll attach those emotions to some colors and shapes. As you think of that negative emotion, think of the situation where this comes up, and focus on this red circle (on screen, left). . . . Now think of that good feeling that’s going to replace the bad feeling, focus on this blue circle (on screen, right).”
Then George repeatedly tests the connection between the colored circles and associated feelings, using circles that start small, and grow to be the same size as the previous circles. Then the intervention appears on the screen: a small red circle appears on the left and grows to its previous size, followed by the blue circle that grows and covers the red circle. The growing red circle will increase the old feeling (rather than decrease it) and after that the blue circle will increase the replacement feeling. The two changes are only connected at the point where the blue circle first appears, a butt joint. This sequence is gradually sped up until it is very fast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNSWDGqCMlE (6:00)
13. Alex (therapytipstv) asks the client, who procrastinates doing homework, “And how would you like to be in that situation. I’d like you to build an image of you doing your homework in exactly the way you’d like to do it,” which is an alternate behavior, not a self-image. Size is the only submodality mentioned when he has her do the “swish.” After some repetitions, he has her check with the homework image, and rehearses her twice in the future. Each time she reports feeling calm and relaxed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFhVMLnJs9g (9:22)
14. The Indian accents make this one very hard to hear — and the background music makes this worse. The practitioner asks for a preferred behavior, and then asks about positive intent, and checks to see if the new behavior satisfies the positive intent. This is fine, except that eliciting the positive intent ought to come before the target image, so that it can guide its selection and elicitation. He adds in additional pieces of having the client compliment himself, and see himself “achieving all his goals.” I gave up trying to hear about half-way through the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdLlgQGGvbo (11:41)
15. Terry Elston works with a client who has some kind of trouble (hard to hear her) on Sunday evening. He asks her, “What would you like to do instead?” asking for a behavior rather than a self-image. She describes a positive feeling, using the word “possibilities,” with nice expressive expansive gestures. Then Terry talks her through a transition from “six o’clock to the positive feeling,” using her gestures. There is no mention of any submodality shifts, so this is simple behavioral rehearsal (chaining), without even using the word “swish.” Since the change is contextualized to Sunday evening, it will only occur then, even though it might be useful at other times.
http://www.hypnosis101.com/nlp/submodalities/kinesthetic-swish/ (2:46)
16. Keith Livingston describes (rather than demonstrating) how to change an image of a cigarette when they answer the phone that “takes them to a bad place. How would you like to feel when you answer the phone?” (feeling rather than behavior or self-image) “Can you see yourself relaxed and confident?” Then he “swishes” the pictures using size, not mentioning brightness or any other submodality. Keith talks about rehearsing this repeatedly, but with no mention of a break state in between swishes.
Conclusions
All these examples are from trainers who are confident enough about their knowledge and skill to teach others by publicly demonstrating. This makes me wonder how much more variation there is among all the practitioners who didn’t make videos. The kindest thing one could say about all these variations is that they can’t all be correct. These trainers either never read the original sources mentioned at the beginning of this article, or they forgot many important aspects of what they read — or they were taught by someone who didn’t. The wide variation also indicates that most practitioners don’t understand the key principles that underlie each aspect of the pattern.
This brief survey indicates that the problem with NLP’s public “image” is not just a result of a few mavericks who gave the field a bad name. Nor is it just a result of the inappropriate research, the NLP trademark lawsuit, or the Bandler murder trial. The problem goes much deeper than that, to the lack of any kind of quality control over the processes used. It seems likely that a similar review of different people teaching the phobia cure, or any other NLP pattern would show the same kind of essentially random variation. Unless we can come to some kind of agreement about what we do, NLP will continue to be — and be seen as — no different from astrology, numerology, aromatherapy, crystal healing, or all the other bloviations out there.
Of course it’s possible that the original swish pattern can be improved; perhaps one or more of the different ways of doing the pattern is more effective than the original. In that case, anyone proposing changes in the pattern ought to be able to provide a principle for the change, and/or explain how the principles supporting an aspect of the original swish are erroneous. That could be the basis for some interesting discussion that would result in agreement about the best way to do a swish, and perhaps to modifications that would make it work more dependably. That kind of discussion is an essential part of the development of any scientific field, but it is entirely lacking in NLP. If anyone would like to respond to this article, I’m willing to offer you space for it in a future blog post; send your thoughts to me at andreas [at] qwest [dot] net.
64 комментария
сначала старые сначала новые
I’ve spent the last 35 years of my professional life — and much of my personal life — learning, developing, and training high quality NLP. Recently I saw a video in which someone was teaching the swish pattern in a way that greatly weakened it. Looking around a bit, I found 16 videos of the swish online. I was dismayed to find that none of them taught it as originally presented, and all but one made the same very fundamental mistake, as well as many others. The fundamental mistake is equivalent to replacing the engine in a Lamborghini with a hamster wheel. Other mistakes are like putting wagon wheels on it.
Во всех 16 примерах все исполнители паттерна взмаха сделали "фундаментальные" ошибки.
И Стив всю жизнь учил прямо и косвенно этих исполнителей.
И он не написал: я сделал фундаментальную ошибку. Я неправильно учил НЛП.
Swish опубликован 30 лет назад. И за 30 лет ни Андреасы, ни сам Бандлер не удосужились обозначить самую главную фишку этой терапевтической техники – обозначить что есть первичный феномен, который лежит в основе техники.
И ключевой паттерн не описали.
И модель Swish-а не сформулировали.
Вот, такой вот 30-ти летний бэкграунд, который в результате служит источником ошибок практиков.
взмах
https://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D0%B2%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%85&site=http%3A%2F%2Fmetapractice.livejournal.com%2F®ion_name=&rstr=&zone=all&wordforms=all&within=0&from_date_full=&to_date_full=07.08.2016&from_day=&from_month=&from_year=&to_day=7&to_month=8&to_year=2016&numdoc=10&lr=65&redircnt=1470558889.1
феномен, паттерн, модель, методика, техника, шаблон, упражнение...
https://yandex.ru/search/?text=%D1%84%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%20%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%20%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C&lr=65&site=metapractice.livejournal.com%2F&to_date_full=07.08.2016
С определением указанного переживания: «немедленно перед проблемным поведением», - есть отдельные проблемы.
В общем виде: внешний якорь1 + внутренний якорь2 –> проблемное поведение. Их типично, определяют мета моделированием субъекта.
При этом, внешний якорь1 -> запускает внутренний якорь1. А внутреннему якорю2 соответствует внешний якорь2.
Т.е. типично, проблемное поведение стимулировано двумя внешними якорями1,2 и двумя внутренними1,2.
И вот, внешний якорь2 и внутренний якорь2, - про них даже и не думают.
Итак, успех определяется в самом начале идентификацией четырех якорей.
Далее, успех SWISH-а определяется качеством self-image.
Проблема в том, что у ряда субъектов его вообще нет. Его приходится конструировать. А для выполнения работы конструирования требуется делать отдельную масштабную работу.
Интересно, напишет об этом далее Стив, или нет.
В статье речь идет о том, что кусание ногтей удобно использовать для техники взмаха, так как наглядно видно, как рука поднимается ко рту.
Тут нет не только внешнего якоря2 и внутреннего якоря2, но и внутреннего якоря1.
Для простоты разберём пример с тем же компульсивным обкусыванием ногтей.
Сделаю предположение, что ваши слова: «наглядно видно, как рука поднимается ко рту» (- в качестве слов, указывающих на стимул S, запускающий проблемное поведение «обкусывание ногтей») относятся к тому, что видит сам субъект перед своим лицом.
Т.е. субъект видит свою руку возле лица и это приводит к автоматическому засовыванию ногтя на пальце в рот и его дальнейшее обкусывание.
И лечение такой проблемы заключалось бы в простой рекомендации ЗАКРЫТЬ ГЛАЗА, чтобы не видеть соблазнительного ногтя и тем не запускать его автоматическое обкусывание.
Что? Кажется сомнительным, что одного закрывания глаз окажется достаточным, чтобы остановить обкусывание ногтей? А что в таком случае будет стимулом (S) проблемного обкусывания? Принципиальных варианта два:
--некий, в общем случае, внутренний ВАКОГin
--некие ощущения в мышцах руки, которые можно отнести к упомянутому выше ВАКОГin, но можно выделить в отдельно рассматриваемые «моторные программы»
…таким образом:
(1) когда субъект указывает на вид своей собственной натуральной руки в качестве стимула S обкусывания, он не осознает, что с рукой связан некий параллельный ВАКОГin, который обладает не меньшей пусковой силой S, нежели натуральный вид руки. При этом, наличие указанного ВАКОГin обнаружит сторонний наблюдатель-оператор.
(2) сотрём техниками внутренний ВАКОГin техниками; заставим субъекта закрыть глаза и не видеть своей руки. А он всё рано грызёт ногти. Прометамоделируем его опыт и обнаружим, что в руке есть что-то – некие мышечные ощущения, которые сами по себе заставляют руку тянуться ко рту. Моторные программы. Пусть они у нас будут считаться «внутренним опытом». Но, всякий внутренний опыт актуализируется некими внешними якорями. Найдём эти якоря. И это вовсе не вид руки. Эти якоря относятся к более широкому контексту.
Теперь, посчитаем наличие и общее число якорей:
Первый якорь – вид собственных рук для субъекта
Второй якорь – ВАКОГin, который связан с видом собственных рук субъекта рефлекторно-ассоциативной связкой. Если субъект его не осознаёт, то вытаскивается мета моделирующими расспросами.
Третий якорь – моторные мышечные программы. Если не осознаются, то вытаскиваются мета расспросами.
Четвёртый якорь – чаще группа якорей из более общего контекста, в котором, почему-то чаще запускается проблемное поведение.
Тут нет не только внешнего якоря2 и внутреннего якоря2, но и внутреннего якоря1.
Таким образом, строкой выше я вам насчитал ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНЫЕ ЧЕТЫРЕ ЯКОРЯ, каждый из которых в отдельности и все они в сумме запускают проблемное поведение, в разбираемом примере, обкусывание ногтей.
Почему 30 лет Стиву Андреасу не оказалось достаточным, чтобы заметить такой простой расклад с якорями? Можно не отвечать.
Руки (ex) -> ВАКОГ (in) + моторные программы <- ВАКОГ (ex)
Да, дело вовсе не в наличии неких контекстуальных рамок для генерализации. Дело в том, что в контекстах прячутся моторные программы, которые запускают проблемное компульсивное поведение.
Например, уже по прошествии нескольких лет после того, как я оставил курение:
--общий контекст «попить кофе в кафе», нахождение в кафе
--шум кафе, музыка, запахи
--манипуляции с чашками и питьем напитков
…провоцируют чёткие моторные программы, и руки сами начинают искать по карманам пачку сигарет.
Как известно, контекстуальные якоря легко обрастают контекстуальными «ассоциациями», так что в весьма отдалённых от значимых контекстов, всегда можно обнаружить внешние якоря, которые запустят моторную программу компульсии. Вот поэтому обращение к контекстам нежелательно: потому, что это потребует непростой переработки моторных стереотипов.
На примере работы с наркоманами я могу авторитетно указать, что переработка моторных стереотипов через контекстные якоря возможна и очень эффективна, но требует значительных временных затрат.
Идея избавиться от всего этого через «идеальный образ себя» замечательная.
Но, как я уже говорил, проблема в том, что у проблемных субъектов эти самые «желаемые образы себя»/ «идеальные образы себя» слабы, дефектны или вообще отсутствуют. Так что приходится планировать и выполнять довольно большую работу по созданию таких образов. Заметные временные затраты.
И с моторным программами прямо работать – время. И саможелаемые/ идеальные образы прорабатывать – время.
Как в народе говорят: что в лоб, что по лбу.
И снова риторический вопрос: почему же так неточен Стив Андреас, который тридцать лет и три года преподавал-преподавал, да так и не научил толком народ, как делать технику Swish. И какие проблемы скрываются за лицевой стороной такой простой и красивой техникой.
Руки (ex) -> ВАКОГ (in) + моторные программы <- ВАКОГ (ex)
http://metapractice.livejournal.com/524942.html?thread=13405326#t13405326
Ну вот, образ конкретного заместительного (замещающего проблемное) поведения вызвать всегда легко. А желаемый/ желаемый притягательный образ себя вызывает у субъекта значительные затруднения. Его приходится создавать, конструировать. Какими-то специальными техниками.
Если субъект ранее не имел desired self-image (DSI), то такой образ приходится буквально конструировать. Так что, по моему мнению, Дилтс вовсе не ошибался. Его предложение идти в направлении от заместительного поведения к идеализации/ идеальному образу себя. Производя эту замену сразу или постепенно.
Так что генерализацию множества вариантов поведения, которые ничем не отличаются от разнообразия способов поведения себя, которые генерирует положительный образ себя, можно организовать как в шестишаговом рефрейминге.
Desired self-image (DSI) -> обширная база поведения <- генерация поведенческого разнообразия средствами рефрейминга.
Positive self-image (PSI) не просто «сильнее мотивирует», - PSI разносторонее мотивирует.
PSI подобен ценностной ирерархии – в нем заключены множество мотиваций.
Так что субъект может не отреагировать на инструкции и внушения оператора и так и не выдать требуемый образ себя, который уже справился с проблемой.
Между тем, так образ можно извлечь с помощью предварительно примененной техники ЦИ ( в частности, с помощью так называемого «реверса ценностей» https://yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%20%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B9&site=http%3A%2F%2Fmetapractice.livejournal.com%2F®ion_name=&rstr=&zone=all&wordforms=all&within=0&from_date_full=&to_date_full=08.08.2016&from_day=&from_month=&from_year=&to_day=8&to_month=8&to_year=2016&numdoc=10&lr=65&redircnt=1470655988.1):
(1) Выявить у субъекта ценностную иерархию на альтернативе: справился с проблемой <> не справился с проблемой.
(2) Выполнить реверс выявленных ценностных уровней «не справился с проблемой» в сторону уровней иерархии: «справился с проблемой». Так что оператор получает безальтернативную иерархию на основании посыла «справился с проблемой».
(3) Вся вышеописанная иерархия активизируется и ставится на один якорь «справился с проблемой».
(4) Указанный якорь «справился с проблемой» активизируется и далее сублимируется (в том числе визуализируется) в искомый образ «справился с проблемой».
Далее процедура SWISH-а следует установленным порядком.
9. Jevon Dangeli spends the first 8 minutes or so offering a number of frames, both general and specific to the swish, before asking for a volunteer and eliciting the cue image, which is a “picture of things not going the way I want them to go, me being ignored.” When Jevon asks her to identify what in the external world triggers this internal picture, she says, “an aggressive look” in their eyes. ...
Jevon Dangeli понимает ситуацию совершенно в том же духе, что я писал в этом посте: внешние якоря, запускающие внутреннюю картину, которая запускает проблемное реагирование.
1. Клиент заявляет "пусковой" якорь1(ex) - тот, который он осознает. Но при этом, якорь1(ex) запускается в каких-то определенных жизненных контекстах, это якоря2(ex)
2. якорь1(ex) связан с неким якорем1(in) - некие внутренние ощущения, происходящие при активизации якоря1(ex).
3. Якорь1(in) вызывает моторную активность - якорь2(in). Причем, так как якорь1(in) вызывается якорем1(ex), который активируется якорями2(ex) контекста, то возникает связка
якоря2(ex)->якорь2(in).
Что-то как то сумбурно вышло.
(1) Я утверждаю, что в общем смысле/ случае, с точки зрения оператора-моделиста, проблемное реагирование запускается четырьмя якорями:
--двумя внешними якорями, один из которых, скорее всего, находится в ближнем пространстве - в коммуникации это называют "личное пространство", - условно говоря, до него можно дотянуться рукой. А второй внешний якорь, находится/ рассредоточен в окружающем. Он, скорее всего комплексный (ВАКОГ) в разных модальностях восприятия. Второй якорь задаёт контекст проблемного поведения.
--двумя внутренними якорями. Один внутренний якорь, скорее всего, кинестетика моторных программ. Второй внутренний якорь, скорее всего ВАКОГ, результирует во внутренних напряжениях гладкой мускулатуры, которые задают ощущения, чувства, эмоции.
(2) Но, в реальных жалобах пациентов, скорее всего, будет присутствовать скупое указание на что-то одно из перечисленного обязательного комплекса четырех якорей.
(3) Я вовсе не утверждаю, что весь комплекс из 4-х якорей следует всегда вытаскивать из субъекта. Но, иметь в виду, что он такой в полном объеме есть для оператора вполне обязательно.
(4) Оператор должен быть технически оснащен, чтобы уверенно работать со всем комплексом из четырех якорей.
12. George (mindpersuasion.com, audio with graphics) explains that the pattern is used to replace an unhelpful feeling with a “good emotion that you’d like to feel instead.” (No behaviors or self-image) “Next we’ll attach those emotions to some colors and shapes. As you think of that negative emotion, think of the situation where this comes up, and focus on this red circle (on screen, left). . . . Now think of that good feeling that’s going to replace the bad feeling, focus on this blue circle (on screen, right).”
Then George repeatedly tests the connection between the colored circles and associated feelings, using circles that start small, and grow to be the same size as the previous circles. Then the intervention appears on the screen: a small red circle appears on the left and grows to its previous size, followed by the blue circle that grows and covers the red circle. The growing red circle will increase the old feeling (rather than decrease it) and after that the blue circle will increase the replacement feeling. The two changes are only connected at the point where the blue circle first appears, a butt joint. This sequence is gradually sped up until it is very fast.
Несмотря на общее несовершенство процедуры, я считаю очень ценной идею работы с символическими якорями ресурсов и проблем.
All these examples are from trainers who are confident enough about their knowledge and skill to teach others by publicly demonstrating. This makes me wonder how much more variation there is among all the practitioners who didn’t make videos. The kindest thing one could say about all these variations is that they can’t all be correct. These trainers either never read the original sources mentioned at the beginning of this article, or they forgot many important aspects of what they read — or they were taught by someone who didn’t. The wide variation also indicates that most practitioners don’t understand the key principles that underlie each aspect of the pattern. This brief survey indicates that the problem with NLP’s public “image” is not just a result of a few mavericks who gave the field a bad name. Nor is it just a result of the inappropriate research, the NLP trademark lawsuit, or the Bandler murder trial. The problem goes much deeper than that, to the lack of any kind of quality control over the processes used. It seems likely that a similar review of different people teaching the phobia cure, or any other NLP pattern would show the same kind of essentially random variation. Unless we can come to some kind of agreement about what we do, NLP will continue to be — and be seen as — no different from astrology, numerology, aromatherapy, crystal healing, or all the other bloviations out there. Of course it’s possible that the original swish pattern can be improved; perhaps one or more of the different ways of doing the pattern is more effective than the original. In that case, anyone proposing changes in the pattern ought to be able to provide a principle for the change, and/or explain how the principles supporting an aspect of the original swish are erroneous. That could be the basis for some interesting discussion that would result in agreement about the best way to do a swish, and perhaps to modifications that would make it work more dependably. That kind of discussion is an essential part of the development of any scientific field, but it is entirely lacking in NLP. If anyone would like to respond to this article, I’m willing to offer you space for it in a future blog post; send your thoughts to me at andreas [at] qwest [dot] net.
Заключительные сожаления Стива можно свести к более краткой формулировке: все проблемы в передаче знания о техниках НЛП возникают от недостаточности моделирования техники SWISH.
Следующим шагом будет генерализация подозрений на всю систему обучения нлп.
![[userpic]](http://localhost:4000/images/none.gif)
А внутренний диалог, как отдельный пятый якорь?
--формально, Ad есть элемент VAKOGAd. И тогда якорей всего четыре
--по своему особенному содержанию Ad, конечно, стоит выделить особняком - тогда, всего будет пять якорей
Поэтому Бендлер вводит такую формулировку - подумайте о себе, как о решившем эту проблему, каким вы будете (ВАКОГ). Но и эта формулировка не отменяет большой работы по созданию такого образа.
Формально, задание вроде бы простое - подумаешь, сфантазировать картинку. Но, это такого сорта картинка, что на её появление будет тот час же сотня возражений, ежели ранее такой картинки не было.
Вот, когда не надо, воображение готово вытворят всё что захочешь. А когда надо на особенную тему - нет.
Кстати, это же касается и оператора изменений. Всегда ли оператор, работающий по изменениям САМ ВИДИТ в своём воображении картинку изменений проблемного субъекта в самом начале терапии. Вопреки сотне рабочих возражений.
Поэтому, воронка пресуппозиций, необходимых для реализации техники SWISH. Например, в книге (плане семинара) SWISH появляется в самом конце/ ближе к концу.
В одной демонстрации Б. искал/внушал/создавал такой образ за счет эээ рычага. Типа, клиенту - ну, ты же не всегда это делаешь? А значит, что-то тебя останавливает это делать постоянно. Что это? и т.д. Т.е типа такой образ уже есть/якобы есть - осталось его вытащить/осознать и уже достроить/до-конструировать. Это хороший переход, иногда помогает плавно перейти к конструированию образа с меньшими возражениями.
Если пройти по другим демонстрациям Б. - он последовательно/отдельно в каждой демонстрации работает со всеми 4 якорями. Нет ли некой иерархии этих якорей со своими сигналами, которые и покажут оператору тот мета-якорь, который необходим для этого клиента/с которым работать?
--В одной демонстрации Б. искал/внушал/создавал такой образ за счет эээ рычага.
Гипнотическая техника-то!
Типа, клиенту - ну, ты же не всегда это делаешь? А значит, что-то тебя останавливает это делать постоянно. Что это? и т.д. Т.е типа такой образ уже есть/якобы есть - осталось его вытащить/осознать и уже достроить/до-конструировать.
Сложные пресуппозиции «на исключение».
Это хороший переход, иногда помогает плавно перейти к конструированию образа с меньшими возражениями.
Несомненно.
Если пройти по другим демонстрациям Б. - он последовательно/отдельно в каждой демонстрации работает со всеми 4 якорями.
Ну, я бы сказал, что он вынужден работать со всеми четырьмя якорями проблемного автоматического поведения.
Нет ли некой иерархии этих якорей со своими сигналами, которые и покажут оператору тот мета-якорь, который необходим для этого клиента/с которым работать?
Ага!
Твой вопрос весьма прагматичен.
Типа, если есть такой объединяющий мета-якорь, то он выводит на эти четыре рабочие якоря, которые тянут основной процесс. А тогда вовсе не обязательно мучиться с выявлением ресурсов, необходимых для построения ресурсного само-образа.
Ну, здесь картина такая:
--У нас есть проблемное/ антиресурсное поведение.
--есть четыре антиресурсных якоря, запускающих проблемное поведение
--ему соответствует общий мета-антиресурс. Такой может быть и не сформирован, но, он, теоретически, есть.
--общему мета-антиресурсу соответствует идеальный антиресурсный образ себя
…это негативная часть картина. Она есть и, в этом смысле, она полная. А вот, позитивная часть, которая не полная. Точнее, пустая:
--ресурсного поведения нет
--четырёх ресурсных якорей, которые бы запускали ресурсное поведение нет
--общего мета-ресурса нет
--идеального ресурсного образа себя нет
…все, вроде бы, плохо, но последнее перечисление является планом, как подобраться к идеальному ресурсному образу себя:
--придумать ТРИ варианта/ примера ресурсного поведения – это довольно просто
--на трёх вариантах ресурсного поведения описать обобщенные четыре ресурсные якоря, которые тянут это р. поведение
--четыре ресурсные якоря для удобства дальнейшей работы обобщить в общий ресурсный мета якорь
--общий ресурсный мета-якорь более менее свободно конвертируется в искомый ресурсный образ себя, который способен вместо проблемного поведения генерировать ресурсное поведение.
Бинго. Ресурсы: три поведения, четыре якоря, мета якорь, само образ.
Итог1: Приведённая схема полная и избыточная. Не обязательно пользоваться ей целиком. Но, имея ввиду эту схему, задача извлечения ресурсного само образа выполнима на 100%.
Итог2: Приведенная схема снимает идиотское противоречие, которое сгенерировал Стив Андреас. Типа, ЗАПРЕЩАЕТСЯ ПОЛЬЗОВАТЬСЯ ОБРАЗЦАМИ РЕСУРСНОГО ПОВЕДЕНИЯ. Даже думать об этом является вредно. Но, схема показывает, что ключ к ресурсному само образу спрятан именно в образцах ресурсного поведения!
Response to Shawn Carson’s blog post on the swish pattern
19Aug
Posted by: Steve Andreas in: Articles
Response to Shawn Carson’s blog post on the swish pattern
Steve Andreas
I appreciate all the time and effort that Shawn put into his response to my blog post on the swish pattern. This has provided a unique and refreshing opportunity for me to think through many issues, and develop more clarity. Accordingly, it has taken me some time to compose my response. This kind of exchange of views and understandings is woefully infrequent in the field, and I think it’s absolutely necessary if NLP is going to become a coherent and systematic set of understandings and methodology—rather than a “herd of cats.” Shawn’s response appears below, with my comments in brown type interspersed, so that you can see exactly what I’m responding to.
How to Save the Swish: A Thoughtful Response to Steve Andreas
NLP in a State of Change
By Shawn Carson Aug 07, 2016
In this article we will comment on a blog post by Steve Andreas, entitled ‘How to Ruin the Swish Pattern: “Let me count the ways”’.
I believe the NLP and hypnosis community shares a common goal of ‘raising the bar’ in respect of change work and coaching, and healthy debate about NLP techniques, principles and the merits of different philosophical viewpoints supports this goal. No one can doubt the many contributions Steve Andreas has made to the field of NLP and it is with a due sense of the debt the NLP community owes to Steve that I respectfully disagree with some of the premises in Steve’s blog post.
In his blog post Steve critiques (although it might be more accurate to say ‘criticizes’) various YouTube videos of the swish, including videos featuring Michael Carroll, Tony Robbins as well as yours truly.
Steve has two problems with the various swish techniques or variations he critiques:
- Firstly they reflect a “lack of ability to learn and follow the steps of the pattern”
- Secondly they reflect a “lack of understanding of the principles underlying each step”
“Lack of ability to follow the steps of the pattern”
Let’s deal with the first point first. NLP has never been about following the steps of a pattern. Richard Bandler (co-founder and arguably the creative force behind the birth of NLP) defines NLP as “an attitude of wanton experimentation that leaves behind a trail of techniques,” meaning the steps of the pattern are something that are left behind after the application of NLP. If you are simply following the steps of an NLP pattern, it does not mean you are necessarily ‘doing NLP’.
Firstly, Bandler’s quote is at least partly a marketing statement designed to distinguish what he does from the rest of us. Grinder has made similar statements describing his work as “real NLP,” implying that the work of others is not.
Secondly, if we apply Shawn’s statement that, “NLP has never been about following the steps of a pattern,” to the context of cooking, then anyone who uses a recipe would not be a cook; only someone who creates a new combination of ingredients would deserve that title. While it may be useful to distinguish between creating a new recipe and following an existing one, I think most people would consider both to be “cooking.” Does Shawn really mean to say that someone who uses the swish, or 6-step reframing, or “mapping across” with submodalities is not doing NLP?
Neither of the co-founders of NLP (Richard Bandler and John Grinder) teach NLP using the deductive teaching approach of ‘follow these steps’.
I trained directly with Bandler for a dozen years, and Grinder for about half that, and I can assure you that they both offered many “follow these steps” patterns, from predicate matching to 6-step reframing. Anyone who doubts that can easily verify it by reading Frogs into Princes, Trance-formations, Reframing, or Using Your Brain—for a Change. In several recent Bandler videos he uses the same stepwise process to cure a phobia, “Take that picture, shrink it down to the size of a quarter, and blink it black and white 25 times.”
Rather they teach by encouraging their students to step into a state of personal excellence, and then to work with their ‘client’ from that state. As a result, their students all have unique experiences.
The principles underlying the Swish
I totally agree with Steve Andreas that it is vital to understand the principles underlying the NLP patterns. Once you understand these principles, you can step out of the confines of the ‘steps of the pattern’ mind-set, and enter the dance of change with your client. This is why we write our NLP Mastery books to fully explore the principles underlying each of the core NLP patterns (including ‘NLP Mastery: The Swish’ by Jess Marion and Shawn Carson).
Therefore I will re-analyze each of the videos Steve Andreas critiques, but with the intention of pointing out how these videos reveal some of these principles, especially where they vary from the “standard” swish Steve Andreas describes, i.e. from the perspective of ‘what is right’ rather than ‘what is wrong’ with the videos.
Before we get to that, I would like to point out a few areas of disagreement that I have with Steve’s discussion in his “Background” section.
What is a ‘swish’???
Steve defines the swish as “a rapid way to change any troublesome habit or other unwanted response”, and it’s certainly the case that the swish was originally described in the contexts of problems such as smoking and nail-biting (we will talk more about this ‘classical’ swish a little later).
*However, I would define the swish as a technique that chains or links two representations (typically two pictures) using a sliding submodality shift, in order to redirectionalize the mind.
--I think both descriptions are accurate, each points out different aspects—and each is also incomplete.
As an example any technique that links a trigger picture with an outcome picture by making the trigger picture shrink, as the outcome picture gets bigger, is in my mind a swish pattern.
--That definition omits the very important criterion that the outcome picture is a desired self-image, not a specific behavior (more on this later).
Obviously techniques that are swish patterns under my definition, would not necessarily be swish patterns under Steve’s definition, but this is semantics.
--I think it is much more than semantics. If someone describes a suspension bridge as one that is suspended from cables, and later someone else describes a bridge built entirely of bricks as a suspension bridge, that is simply not true, even if it’s a useful bridge. And if you are building a suspension bridge, but you leave out the cables, it won’t work very well. The swish was described in great detail about 30 years ago, so that word has a very specific meaning. Using the word “swish” for an avocado and cheese sandwich isn’t useful, even if the sandwich is nourishing.
Does this matter? Well, certainly if you are teaching an NLP Trainers Training, then it is important. Trainers should be able to ‘speak the language’ of NLP in a way that allows them to communicate with each other. But if you are working with a client, or even teaching an NLP Practitioner course, it’s less clear that overly ‘standardized’ NLP terminology provides any substantive benefit to your client or students.
--If I’m working with a client, I wouldn’t use any NLP terminology at all.
‘Classical’ or ‘standard’ swish
In the classical swish (Steve refers to this as the ‘standard’ swish), the issue is an unwanted behavior (say smoking). The trigger picture is whatever the client sees out of her own eyes immediately before she loses conscious control (e.g. the cigarette packet, or the newsagents where she buys her cigarettes, or the cup of coffee that precedes her first cigarette of the day, etc.). The outcome picture is how she sees herself being as a person (identity level dissociated picture) when the habit is no longer an issue for her. So far, so good, we all agree on this basic foundation.
--I agree with this description. However Shawn’s earlier description (marked with an asterisk* above) omitted the “identity level dissociated picture.” My main criticism of the swish videos I reviewed was that this crucial piece was left out of all the demonstrations (except for Tony Robbins,’) replacing it with a specific behavior. This change is what I described as “replacing the engine in a Lamborghini with a hamster wheel.”
So why is the desired self-image dissociated? Richard Bandler told me that the classical swish was intended to maintain the client’s state while changing the context. Meaning the client has a desire for the cigarette, and the classical swish is intended to maintain the state of desire but to then apply that desire to the self-image. The client maintains the state of “I want” but changes from “I want to smoke” to “I want to be her”; meaning her ideal future self.
--This is an interesting alternative understanding of principle. Perhaps someday when NLP has become scientific, someone will design an experiment to decide between Shawn’s view and mine. Until then I can only offer my rationale. Yes, the cue image triggers desire, but it also triggers a conflicting urge to not yield to the desire, a state of unpleasant incongruence, which is why the client wants to change it. If Shawn is correct in saying that the feeling state triggered by the cue picture is transferred to the self-image, that would mean that this incongruence would be transferred. I don’t think that would be useful, and I don’t think that is what happens. I think it is much simpler and more accurate to think of it as moving away from the unpleasant incongruence of the cue to the congruent desired self-image.
This is why the image is dissociated in the classical swish, because (as Steve Andreas rightly says), if it is associated there is no longer the ‘wanting’, rather a ‘being’.
I discussed this idea (that the classical swish is intended to maintain a state of desire) with my teacher and mentor, John Overdurf. John shrugged and said “well, maybe”, again because he sees the swish as a much wider pattern than mere changing of unwanted habits. In any case, if we limit our discussion to the classical swish as described by Dr. Bandler then there is no state change (the state is ‘desire’ for both the trigger and self-image pictures) and the state changes that Steve Andreas describes do not take place, i.e. they are inconsistent with Dr. Bandler’s original swish.
--Shawn states that “the classical swish is intended to maintain a state of desire.” This does not appear in Bandler’s original description in Using Your Brain—for a Change. Since the state in response to the cue image is incongruent (both desiring and not desiring) and the state in response to the self-image is congruent desire, it doesn’t make sense to say that the first state is “maintained,” or to say that “then there is no state change.” If that were true, the incongruence would be maintained. It makes more sense to me to think it as a shift from incongruent desire to congruent desire, propelling behavior away from an incongruent state, and toward a congruently attractive self-image.
Now Steve makes a strange and in my view a mistaken claim:
“if the self-image were associated, that would assume that the client had already become it, so there would be no motivation to change, only a self-delusion that change had already happened.”
--Please see my next comment below, and also my more extensive comments clarifying what I mean by the word “delusion” in response to Shawn’s first video below, and in response to David Shepard’s video later.
The problem with this statement is that if the swish (however it is done) works then change has already happened; it’s no delusion, it’s reality. The reason to keep the image dissociated (in the classical swish) is to utilize the client’s (existing) state of desire, not to avoid self-delusion.
--Perhaps we are talking about different time frames as if they are the same. The desired self-image is dissociated to create motivation, because at this point in time the client is separated from the image that they want to become. “If the swish works” is a bit later when the cue triggers the desire to become like the desired self-image, and this change is very fast, so they become it. But if the desired self-image were associated to begin with, there would be no motivation, and no change, because the client would think they had already changed, and this is what I referred to as a delusion. Again see my more extensive comments on delusion in response to Shawn’s first video below, and in response to David Shepard’s video later.
State based coaching
Substitute behavior
Steve suggests that seeing the self-image in a context, “doing a specific behavior” is a mistake. If so, then it’s a mistake that Richard Bandler made with the original swish as he describes getting smoke-free clients to see themselves happily co-existing with smokers (because he claims he did not want to create anti-smoking crusaders). Indeed it’s impossible to see a self-image absent any behavior; standing is a behavior, sitting is a behavior, so how can a self-image have no behavior?
--Firstly, the word “behavior” usually means a movement is involved. A still image is not a behavior, even if the person is standing or seated, but a movement like standing up or sitting down is. So it is not at all “impossible to see a self-image absent any behavior.”
--Secondly, I agree that Bandler often made statements like, “getting smoke-free clients to see themselves happily co-existing with smokers (because he claims he did not want to create anti-smoking crusaders),” and that could be understood to indicate a specific behavior. However, “Happily co-existing” is a general statement that could include a huge variety of specific behaviors. My understanding is that he wanted the self-image to have that attitude or capability, not a specific behavior.
Now in the HNLP (Humanistic Neuro Linguistic Psychology: Overdurf and Silverthorn) coaching model we are always looking for ‘context-trigger-state-behavior’, both for the problem and for the change. If the behavior has not changed then typically the problem hasn’t either. Therefore, there is no way to test change unless the coach sees (and the client experiences) a new state and a new behavior.
--I’m OK with that; that is why all good NLP work is tested to be sure there is a change in behavior. The question boils down to whether the change is chosen in advance by a conscious mind (client or practitioner, or by the client’s unconscious mind as a result of wanting to become the desired self-image.
State-based coaching
State based coaching is the basis of HNLP. State based coaching assumes that behaviors and other responses are based on:
- Your state,
- In a context,
- Presented with a trigger.
For example, if you are in your cube at work (the context), and you notice your boss looming over you (the trigger) then your response will depend upon the ‘state’ you go into when you notice your boss. For example if you go into a ‘flapping panic’, then you are likely to respond inappropriately, while if you go into a state of ‘unflappable calm confidence’, then you will likely respond appropriately.
Change work is therefore about collapsing a problem trigger so that the trigger becomes an anchor for a resourceful state, rather than an unresourceful state.
--Although I don’t think the word “collapsing” is a good metaphor (I think “linking” would be better) I otherwise agree with this.
The major issue I notice, when watching unsuccessful swishes (or any other NLP pattern for that matter) is that the coach fails to elicit a resourceful state or fails to attach that resource to the trigger.
--In the case of the swish, that would be to make sure that the desired self-image elicits a resourceful state.
But you will all-ways create change if you follow the four steps of John Overdurf’s Meta-Pattern (associate into the problem, dissociate, associate into the resource, and collapse i.e. attach the resource to the trigger so the trigger becomes an anchor for the resource).
--Earlier Shawn disparaged “following the steps” as “not necessarily doing NLP”; now he is advocating following “the four steps of John Overdurf’s Meta-Pattern.” This particular meta-pattern that Shawn attributes to Overdurf is one that we learned from Bandler many years ago, way before the swish.
--The steps Shawn proposes are one useful sequence, but not the only one. Many other patterns don’t follow the Meta-pattern sequence, for instance context and content reframing, simply directing attention to a different scope of time or space, or a different categorization. “Mapping across” with submodalities, the compulsion blowout, and other patterns of change also don’t follow the Meta-pattern outline.
See The Meta Pattern by Sarah Carson and Shawn Carson for more.
--The description of this book states that, “The Meta Pattern is at the heart of all successful influence whether in therapy or business.” “All” is an overgeneralization that is not true. It is one useful meta-pattern, but not the only one. Thinking that it’s the only meta-pattern puts a severe limitation on the “wanton experimentation” and “dancing with the client” that Shawn advocates.
So, if the new self-image triggers a sufficiently powerful resource state, and the swish attaches this resource to the trigger, the technique will be successful, if not, it won’t.
--Agreed. Which is why it is so important to be sure the self-image is very desirable.
If you get hung up too much on the image, rather than the resource state, or ‘end state energy’, you are ‘focusing on the finger and missing all the heavenly glory’.
--I would need to see a denominalized translation of that last sentence in order to respond to it.
‘State’ versus ‘end state energy’
Understanding the concept of a resource ‘state’ versus ‘end state energy’ (using HNLP terminology) is important. Typically, if you ask a client for a resource state, how they would prefer to be feeling in their problem context, they will offer a word that is more-or-less the ‘opposite’ of their problem state. For example, if they feel afraid of speaking in public, say, they might say they want to feel ‘awesomely confident’.
--Yes, I agree. Clients often ask for the other half of a polarity, rather than a state of integrated resolution.
These big resource states are great for breaking down problems, but not so good for generative change.
--“Big resource states” are not necessarily the best; they are much less stable, more likely to flip back to the other polarity, unless they two are integrated.
Why is this? Because these states are difficult to maintain over time; they are too high energy. An accomplished speaker will probably not say they feel ‘awesomely confident’ when they speak in public, they’ll say something like “I feel free, relaxed, open…”.
--I couldn’t agree more with the paragraph above. When you approach a door, twist the knob and open it, you don’t say to yourself (or someone else) “Wow, I can open the door!!” In fact, you usually don’t even notice it at all. That is why it’s useful to say that the desired self-image is of “the you for whom smoking is no longer an issue,” in contrast to, “the you who is triumphant about having conquered the habit,” or some other “big resource state.”
These lower energy ‘end states’ are typically associated with ‘values’ or ‘identity’ level states, such as “freedom”, “love”, “being myself”. Think about it, it’s pretty easy for you to feel “free” all the time, but to feel “awesomely confident” all the time would be exhausting!
--I wish Shawn, or somebody else, would convince Tony Robbins of this! He is very good at getting people to flip to the other side of a polarity (for example see him turn a stutterer into a speaker like Tony). This can be a useful first step, but Tony seldom takes the next step to integrate the polarity, so that, for instance the stutterer can talk like an ordinary person. There are several videos in which Tony asks for someone who is suicidal, and they end up saying something like, “I can conquer anything.” A statement like this is a universal quantifier that reality will soon refute.
Now it’s important to know that if you as a coach, generate a big powerful resource state in your client (“awesomely confident”, say) and use that to collapse the trigger, change will happen. And, over time, that “awesomely confident” will transform into a lower energy (but more sustainable) ‘end state’.
--I would be interested in Shawn’s understanding of how this transition from a big energy state to a lower energy state occurs. I would say that sometimes that happens. Other times the change will fall apart, and the person will revert back to the other side of the polarity.
The swish pattern typically uses ‘end states’ (remember end states arise at ‘identity’ level, or ‘self-image’). BUT a good swish can (and should) also layer in more energetic resource states such as laughter, excitement, confidence, and so on. When you watch the videos, please look primarily for the state of the client, and how their state changes, as they go through the swish.
Before we get to the videos themselves, I think it’s important to bear in mind the purpose of a YouTube video. Most of the videos discussed are short videos, not extracts from lengthy trainings, and even the ones from trainings do not contain all the teaching that preceded and followed the demo. Such videos are never intended to teach chapter and verse on a specific pattern; wouldn’t life be easy if you could master an NLP pattern by watching a three minute video! I would suggest that you watch each video as a summary of the swish, more intended to raise the profile of the trainer than to lay out all the details of the swish.
--I can agree with all this; in fact I wrote much the same in my blog post. However, what is presented in a short video should be accurate. Making sure that the cue is associated and that the outcome is a desired self-image are essential pieces, not “chapter and verse” minor details, and most of the videos did not get these right.
Michael Carroll
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2biRiJsWqvg
Michael describes the swish using the ‘slingshot’ method. This is not a client demo, and is not really even a ‘covert demo’ (compare this to the Tony Robbins video discussed below).
It does utilize the ‘slingshot’ swish, where the trigger image is sent out to the distance and returns as the new self-image. In HNLP we consider the slingshot to be often superior to the ‘standard’ swish because of two important underlying principles:
- Different clients react to different submodality shifts. The swish Andreas describes uses two of the principle submodalities (size and brightness), while the slingshot uses three (size, brightness and distance), so if your client’s driving submodality is distance, she would get a better result using the ‘slingshot’ than using the ‘standard’ swish.
--There are two issues here; one is the use of distance. I totally agree that distance will be a better driving submodality for some people, and using three submodalities rather than two is fine. If one of the submodalities truly is a driver, it will carry one or more other submodality shifts along with it spontaneously, without having to mention them. This is why when we teach the “designer swish” pattern we teach people how to identify which submodalities are drivers for the client, and use those.
--The other issue is the way distance is used. The slingshot first sends one image into the distance, and then brings the other image back in, what I have called a “butt joint.” If one image goes off into the distance at the same time that the other comes in from the distance, this creates a continuous change, which I have described as a “lap joint,” which I think makes a more dependable connection.
Michael could have done a better job of stressing this in the video, but again it’s a short 6 minute YouTube video.
- NLP is ultimately theater; it relies on communication between coach and the client’s unconscious (this by-the-way is the basis of New Code NLP, which Michael practices – to maximize unconscious involvement in each key step of transformation). The slingshot swish is often better geared toward a theatrical presentation by the coach, which is more likely to engage the client’s unconscious.
--I agree that good NLP work depends heavily on nonverbal cues (“theater”). However, you can be just as theatrical (or even more so) using both hands going in different directions simultaneously, gesturing with one to indicate the cue image moving away, and the other hand to indicate the self-image moving closer. Given Shawn’s emphasis on the importance of nonverbal “theater,” it’s curious that his two videos below use still images of cartoon characters, leaving out theater altogether.
It’s true that Michael does emphasize behavior over state in the video (the antithesis of New Code), but again I suspect this is more to do with the ease of describing the swish in a short 6 minute video, than the way Michael would actually work with a client.
--Possibly; we have no evidence on this. Shawn writes that “Michael does emphasize behavior over state.” However neither behavior or state is a desired self-image.
Tony Robbins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPu5cXaTZOw
This is a great video.
The first thing to note about Tony Robbins’ video is that his definition of the swish is much wider than the classical swish, designed to change a habit, that Steve Andreas seems to be focused on.
--I think Shawn means “application” rather than “definition.” I specifically wrote “troublesome habit or other unwanted response” (not just “habit”) which I think is pretty inclusive.
The video is excellent (of course, being Tony Robbins). I will point out a few of the principles Tony is using:
- Tony is doing a ‘covert demo’, meaning he is overtly talking about his own experience, but covertly is leading his ‘client’ (in this case his audience), to actually experience the swish. This means that when they actually come to practice it their unconscious minds have already been through the swish at least nine times!
--I agree. Good point.
Tony not only uses the visual association of chaining the two pictures, he also uses the physical behavior (raising the hand to the nail-biter’s mouth) to trigger the swish. So when the client actually raises their hand to their mouth, this physical motion (as well as the visual cue of the hand) will trigger the swish.
--Excellent observation; I missed that nice utilization of the hand movement.
Tony triggers the swish by reaching down with his right hand to a resource (in this case Tony’s identity level self-image as a communicator). For a normally organized individual, this reaching down-right accesses their kinesthetic resources, and moving the hand up toward the chest associates into the chosen resource by ‘pulling it’ into the body. If you are familiar with Tony Robbins’ work you will know this is a common feature of his ‘swish’ patterns (and one described in detail in Jess and my book ‘NLP Mastery: The Swish’).
- This reaching down also sets a gestural anchor that can be used by the client whenever they need. Tony refers to this at 7.40 of the video.
- Tony also plants a post-hypnotic suggestion that the change he has installed will transform the audience’s life in unexpected ways (generative change).
Agreed. But it is the desired self-image that drives the generative change.
The really great thing about this demo is watching Tony use the theater of the pattern to create a big positive state in the audience. You will see this in the faces of the audience around 7.00 of the video. Tony creates this energy using speed and tempo, and voice tonality, as ‘sliding anchors’ as he repeats the swish (getting faster, more up-tempo and more energetic each time).
--Yes, Tony does a nice job (excluding the role-play clips of the father and daughter) in using his nonverbal expressiveness to amplify his verbal instructions—the best of all the videos, in my opinion—and impossible to do in a cartoon animation.
Alkistis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9rCMdP17Zg
Alkistis (Steve Andreas refers to ‘Akistis’), discusses a pattern she calls a swish, but which is closer to a map-across. As such we will not discuss this video further.
Note that Ms. Alkistis does not claim to be an NLP trainer, so it seems petty to fault her on calling a ‘map-across’ a ‘swish’.
--Firstly, what she did is not even a “map across.”
--Secondly, I didn’t research the trainer status or background of any of the people in the videos. However, this doesn’t seem to be a relevant variable. For instance, Mark Hayley’s web site states that he apprenticed for 5 years with Bandler, is licensed by Bandler as a Master Trainer of NLP, has been “attendee, assistant, apprentice, or the principal trainer of 150+ NLP and hypnosis seminars, has practiced for over 15 years, and is personally endorsed by Bandler as follows: “Mark Hayley is thoroughly trained, highly skilled and very elegant with my most up-to-date teachings. I highly recommend him.” Despite all that training experience, his demonstration of the swish (next video) is almost as bizarre as ‘Alkistis.’
Mark Hayley
https://nlptimes.infusionsoft.com/app/linkClick/18/c653bb2c3318fa3f/15144818/15afcc432f1e2660
This is a file download. I was not comfortable downloading this to my computer so did not open and review the video.
Shawn Carson (oh, wait, that’s me!)
This is part of a series we did using an animation program called ‘Two Minute NLP’ (although this video runs an impressive 3.17).
This sets out the classical swish, but using the ‘slingshot’, in a (hopefully) fun way. I lead the client Sophie into choosing a self-image not a behavior.
--This is flat out false. The caption states: “Sophie, what if there were a way that every time you saw a donut, you felt motivated to work out?” “Felt motivated” is a feeling and “working out” is a behavior; neither is a desired self-image. The sketch is of Sophie with a barbell and exercise ball — doing a specific behavior. Sophie responds, “That would be fantastic!!” which is a clear indication that she hasn’t thought this “solution” through at all.
--Firstly, it means that she can never enjoy choosing a donut, because if she has to exercise instead, she will be just as choiceless as when she’s not able to refuse it. That is replacing one robotic response for another — not necessarily progress, and certainly not generative.
--Secondly, whenever a specific behavior is selected as an outcome, it’s important to expand the frame and ask, “How well will this work in the real world?” In this case, the answer is “Not very well!” If Sophie is offered a donut at a meeting, and feels motivated to work out, she won’t be able to, so now she’ll be frustrated by not being able to (on top of being tempted by the donut!). There will be many other contexts in which she won’t be able to work out in response to seeing a donut. This is a great example of the limitation of a specific behavior chosen by someone’s limited (and often downright stupid!) conscious mind. Another example is in David Shepard’s video, where the desired behavior is a dissociated image of himself going around a tight turn on a motorbike (see below).
--The next frame says, “Make a picture of yourself as you want to be . . . your ideal self. . . Make it big and bright. . .” The image is of her with barbell and exercise ball again, looking slim, and the balloon over her head says, “OK I look fantastic!!” This image is either her behavior, or the result of her behavior (being slender and fit) but it’s definitely not an image of someone for whom responding to a donut is an easy and effortless choice.
To represent this in an animation there has to be a picture of something, in this case Sophie in work-out clothes (Steve Andreas describes this as a ‘behavior’; so be it).
--The barbell and exercise ball clearly indicate a context in which the behavior is exercising.
Steve Andreas makes the point that the ‘standard’ swish uses a submodality change that allows the self-image to (for example) get bigger as the trigger picture gets smaller. The changes take place simultaneously. In contrast the slingshot swish, which is used in several of the videos including this one, uses sequential submodality changes. The trigger image gets smaller as it moves further away, followed by the self-image picture getting bigger as the picture returns.
We talked about a couple of the advantages of the ‘slingshot swish’, versus the ‘standard’ swish when we analyzed Michael Carroll’s video above. But what about Steve Andreas point that the simultaneous change in submodalities of trigger picture and self-image is like a “lap joint” and therefore “stronger and more lasting”?
--This is another difference that perhaps can only be decided by experimentation when NLP becomes scientific.
As you watch all the videos, you will see that the swish pattern begins slowly, to allow the client to acclimatize, but ultimately each swish is being run in a fraction of a second. This does not allow time for one state to decrease and the other to increase.
--That last statement is offered without proof or rationale, and in any case it is the images that increase/decrease, and those changes elicit the feeling changes.
States take up to a minute to ebb and flow, not fractions of a second.
--If that were true, the swish couldn’t work, because the feeling elicited by the cue wouldn’t have time to transform into the feeling of desire for the self-image. If you vividly imagine that you are furiously angry at someone, and then that person points a loaded gun at you, with a facial expression that indicates they are quite willing to pull the trigger, and you will find that your anger response changes to fear in a very short period of time — certainly less than a minute.
In fact, the swish is run so fast that the client realistically does not have time to even change the pictures in a meaningful way;
--That is a conscious-mind statement, without evidence or rationale. One of the reasons for doing it fast is to force the client’s unconscious mind to make the connection.
I would argue that the swish neurologically wires the end-state to the real-world trigger, via Hebb’s Law. As a result, the trigger becomes an anchor for this new state.
-I agree, but that will happen with either a lap joint or a butt joint; it’s only a question of which is stronger.
Finally, Steve Andreas talks about images being ‘realistic’ (see discussion above or Steve’s swish video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0_mbC60aho). It’s pretty clear that in reality the trigger is not going to actually reduce in size. Imagine walking into Dunkin’ Donuts and seeing the donuts actually get smaller before your eyes (in reality). Ain’t gonna happen; not realistic.
Given the length and very basic nature of the video, there are no ‘important principles’ revealed here.
--Thanks, I had forgotten about that little clip. When I used the word “realistic,” I meant “believable” to the client (which I think is clear from what I say in the video) not “realistic” in the size of the image. Luckily, readers can click on the video and decide for themselves — one of the great things about having a video to observe.
Shawn Carson (me again!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ00plfm84w
This excellent video (did I just say that?) uses the swish to deal with difficult people. I learned this pattern (which Jess and I refer to as the ‘New Behavior Generator or NBG Swish’ in our book ‘NLP Mastery: The Swish’) from John Overdurf. When understood it does reveal some important and useful principles, including:
- Creating patterns by Integration. Some great hybrid patterns can be created by incorporating elements of one NLP pattern with another. For example we use Deep Trance Identification or New Behavior Generator as Steve Andreas rightly points out, within the swish. This can be a particularly powerful approach with clients who can’t imagine their ideal future self, but can find a model (Superman, Oprah Winfrey, James Bond, Emelia Earhart or whoever) with the qualities they wish they had. Seeing, then stepping into, this image can create powerful change. Just ask Steve Gilligan who used DTI to model Milton Erickson. Steve Andreas refers to this image as “unreal”, and “a delusion”; it’s actually called a “positive hallucination” in hypnosis!
--It is fine to use the DTI or NBG (both are patterns with steps that Shawn earlier disparaged as “not necessarily NLP”) to access qualities for a desired self-image. However, the NBG has an important step that Shawn has left out, namely to adjust the image of the model before you step into it, so that the face is mine, the body shape is mine etc. This both adapts the quality to make it appropriate to the individual person, and also provides a kind of reality check.
--Regarding delusions, I think there are two related issues. One is the selection of an imaginary model like superman, in comparison to a real person. Superman relies on “superpowers” which don’t actually exist in the real world. If you identify with Superman, and think that bullets will bounce off your chest, I hope you don’t have an opportunity to test that delusion! Some kids who decide that they can fly like superman, so they put on a cape and launch themselves off a top bunk. There are a number of people in mental hospitals who believe that they ARE Christ or the Virgin Mary, and that is not particularly useful. Quite a few NLP trainers are deluded in much the same way.
--When using DTI or NBG with a real person, it is relatively easy to access useful general qualities or attitudes like persistence, empathy, courage, kindness, etc. It is somewhat more difficult to access specific abilities and behavioral skills, particularly those that require systematic practice over time. Identifying with Usain Bolt may be useful, but it probably won’t get you to the Olympics. Gilligan spent a long time in his very thorough identification with Erickson, and learned a great deal from it, but even now, over 35 years later, he hasn’t reached Erickson’s level of perceptivity, subtlety, and skill — and I think he would be the first to agree with that.
This pattern is structurally different to the classical swish. In the NBG Swish, the client steps into (associates with) the new self-image. This is particularly effective when the pattern is being used to generate a specific new state and behavior (rather than to eliminate a compulsion as in the classical swish). So in this case, the client steps into a state of (say) confidence so he can deal with his difficult boss.
--I agree that stepping into an image can be useful to link to a specific behavior, but then it is no longer a swish (just as a bridge without cables is no longer a suspension bridge), and it will no longer be as generative.
The coach presupposes the change has taken place (as Steve Andreas notes), so that the client can search for and notice what is different.
- It is vital that there be a break state in any pattern
(see NLP Mastery: The Meta Pattern by Sarah Carson and Shawn Carson).
--I strongly disagree with that statement. I don’t think there is a break state in the compulsion blowout pattern, or in a content or context reframe, mapping across, or many other patterns. The break state is essential in the swish pattern because we using repetition to teach the client a certain sequence of experience, a direction and not a loop.
However here it is not the ‘blank-the-screen’ break state that appears the classical swish. This is presumably why Steve Andreas, focused on the classical swish, misses the break state. The break state at 2.12 of the video when the client sticks the post-it (or postage stamp) onto Burt’s forehead; if there is someone who makes the client feel bad, and you ask them to imagine sticking a post-it on that person’s forehead, you can get them to laugh (laughter is a break state). That’s why I crack a joke at this point in the video.
--I didn’t laugh, so I guess it wasn’t a joke or a break state for me. However, let’s assume it’s a break state. The purpose of a break state is to interrupt one state to keep it from being connected to a following state. However since the next step is to have the “picture leap out of the forehead,” a break state at this point will only interfere with the sequence that Shawn wants to establish. A bit later (2:40) the instruction says, “Repeat several times to condition the change.” “Repeat” isn’t very specific about what exactly to repeat, and there is no mention of a break state in between the repetitions. This is where a break state is needed, because if there is no break state between repetitions, that can result in a yo-yo effect. Instead of creating a single direction from the problem image to the desired image, it may oscillate back and forth.
Many patterns use physiological tricks to enhance their effect. This one is no exception: the act of looking at someone’s forehead (i.e. above their eye level) is associated with social dominance. Having the client stick the post-it (and hence look at) the forehead of their nemesis tends to put them into a more socially dominant physiology, and hence will tend to shift the dynamics of the encounter in their favor.
--That’s an interesting point that I can agree with. However, my end goal would be equality, rather than either submission or dominance, which are opposite polarities.
Anthony Beardsell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyRfpod2fxw
For me this technique was more like a ‘double map across’ (such as is used in the NLP Belief Change) than a swish. But what the heck, who’s splitting hairs now!
I enjoyed this video because it shows a really important principle, namely that change arises primarily from the rapport between coach and client. Rapport is much more important than ‘following steps’. Anthony creates very nice rapport with Michelle and she gets her change quickly and easily as a result.
--I can easily agree with all that, but what he did was not a swish, and it was not generative.
David Shepard – The Performance Partnership
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b15h9F_Yfrc
The great thing about this video is that you can see how the coach enters into the dance with the client. As Steve Andreas notes, the client responds with several problems throughout the pattern. The coach responds to each with an elegant reframe, for example using submodalities, meaning reframes and hypnotic suggestions. The end result of the intervention appears to be extremely positive for the subject.
Steve Andreas does raise some excellent issues regarding the video which, I believe, come from the fact that driving a motorbike round a tight bend on a race-track is primarily a kinesthetic experience, while the swish is primarily a visual pattern. Perhaps this demo would have been better using a different NLP pattern?
--Perhaps. But the swish can also work fine if done appropriately; the desired self-image would be someone with exquisite kinesthetic sensitivity and balance — far better than a dissociated image, or the delusion that the motorbike is actually on rails, so it can’t possibly slide. This is another example of expanding the frame to find out how well a specific behavioral outcome will work in the real world. In this case, the answer is that it would likely be catastrophic. The client would happily make an image of himself going around the turn fast “on rails” and have a nasty crash — and no one would realize that it resulted from an incompetent NLP intervention!
The video does not show the ‘demo selection process’ that preceded the demo, but in an ideal world I might have saved this problem to demo a more kinesthetic pattern, such as Bandler’s ‘backward spin’. At the end of the day, the change appeared to come more from the client’s feeling of ‘being on rails’ than the change in the (visual) picture.
In any case, this demonstrates the adage than any NLP Pattern can be used to address any problem,
--Another universal statement that I strongly disagree with. If you use the phobia cure on grief (or the grief resolution process on a phobia) it will not work, because a phobia has a structure that is the opposite of grief.
assuming rapport between the coach and client, and the coach’s ability to ‘dance’. Again David Shepard’s rapport with the client is excellent, as is his dancing!
Jevon Dangeli
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je-2DURoanA
This is a very rich demonstration with lots of great learning points. I’ll point out a few of these:
Utilization: at an early point in the demo there is the sound of construction, an electric drill or saw, from outside the seminar room. Jevon utilizes this by commenting, ”we are cutting through already!”
Jevon elicits a nice ‘clean language’ metaphor for the problem behavior, a ‘machine gun’ (although he doesn’t utilize it further in the demo).
Jevon associates the client (Rene) into the problem state and calibrates Rene’s physiology nicely (so he can test his change later on).
After associating Rene into the problem state, Jevon breaks state nicely by first ‘wiping’ away the internal image, then re-associating Rene back into ‘now’ by getting her to focus on the light coming into the room through the leaves of the trees outside. He uses this break state several times through the demo.
Jevon elicits a ‘last time and place’ trigger very nicely (the look in the other person’s eyes; 11.40 through 13.00). Those familiar with John Overdurf’s work will recognize this as the first step in the Meta pattern. This is not surprising as Jevon is an HNLP coach.
Jevon first finds the client’s desired state, and uses this state to elicit an image. This presupposes (correctly) that if the feeling elicits the picture, then seeing the picture will elicit the feeling. At the end of the day, in my opinion the swish relies on the ‘end state energy’ feeling associated with the new self-image.
--That is what results from keeping the desired self-image dissociated. If the client associates into the self-image deliberately, the motivation to become it is lost.
Jevon gently challenges Rene’s change using Overdurf’s ‘testing loop’ (“Are you sure…”). When the client responds with “90% sure”, Jevon utilizes the Ericksonian technique (‘90%? Not 91% or 89%?’).
In the Q&A Jevon gives a good explanation of the positioning of chairs (or relative position of client and coach) for the swish.
One issue with the demo is (as in the last video), the swish might not be the best NLP pattern to use in Rene’s context. I say this because Rene had a workable strategy (the ‘machine gun’ strategy) for dealing with the problem. Simply changing the state does not necessarily offer the client a new strategy that will necessarily work to give her the desired outcome. To complete the change, Jevon might have used e.g. a strategy installation, to make sure the client had a new strategy.
--I can agree with this. However Shawn’s “Meta-pattern” described earlier “state-based coaching” states that a resource state is all that is needed, and doesn’t say anything about strategies.
Of course, he might have done some additional work later in the course that we didn’t see. In any case Rene’s post course feedback indicates that the change was effective.
For those still uncertain as to the difference between the swish and the map-across, there is also an interesting discussion between a couple of the students in the audience.
https://youtu.be/u9haD3Qb7gQ
Again Mel does not claim to be an NLP trainer, so it’s perhaps a little unfair to judge the video according to some strict standard of whether the pattern is a swish or not, or the fact that Mel does indeed appear to be consulting his notes as he speaks. Mel’s focus is clearly to get change for the client (which he appears to do).
This video is a pretty good straightforward demo of the swish with a nicely responsive client. Watch it for a nice, simple, clean demo of the swish.
--No, whether good or bad, effective or not, it is not a demo of the swish; what he did was quite different from what Bandler described as a swish in detail some 30 years ago.
--The one point I found interesting was that Mel used the image the client provided and chunked up on that, “what will that do for you, and what will that do…” He went as far as values (“make more money, grow your business” – Mel is after all an ‘entrepreneur’s coach’), rather than identity, but it’s a nice approach to get a new self-identity from a client who otherwise has difficulty finding that new self-identity.
--“Make more money, grow your business” are both goals, not identity, and not even behaviors that would result in achieving the goals.
https://youtu.be/RJDAA-86os4
To me, this is more like a cross between a swish and the Coaching Pattern, because the new image is associated. Pip uses submodalities to boost Louise’s resource state. I would have liked to have seen more of a ‘pop’ in Louise’s state, although this may have been because the demo was more ‘staged’ than the typical demo in a seminar where the client brings a bigger issue.
It’s a nice demo of using submodalities within an NLP pattern (although not a typical swish pattern).
George Hutton – Mind Persuasion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s97Dacdzg
This is not a demo, but rather a ‘hypnotic product’. George sets anchors for positive and negative states using blue and red circles, and then ‘swishes’ by changing the size of the circles. It’s a cute video (and has lots of fun state breakers). It will not teach you the swish but if you run through the video with a problem in mind you may find yourself getting some change! Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNSWDGqCMlE
This video contains one real gem of information. Unfortunately it is skipped over so fast it’s easy to miss. It’s this: for procrastination, one of the most powerful resource states you can bring to your client is the feeling of completion. Nobody likes doing their taxes (or their homework as in this case), but we all enjoy the feeling of having mailed our tax return off to the IRS and knowing we are done till next year.
--I can easily agree with all that — changing the scope of time to elicit a useful state. Another key piece is to be able to chunk down the task into small enough pieces, and to have that good feeling of completion after each chunk is done, so that there are motivating rewards all along the way. If they only get the good feeling at the end of the entire task, it won’t work nearly as well.
This feeling of completion creates the new self-image of being a person who ‘gets things done’ so that you can enjoy the feeling of being free.
This is all ways a great starting point when using the swish for overcoming procrastination strategies.
--The nice feeling of completion is great, but it doesn’t necessarily result in a change in identity. It can remain simply a useful learned behavior unless the client generalizes to “I’m someone who can get things done.” All of us have behaviors (both good and bad) that are not part of our identity. A client may use a change in behavior to conclude that they now have a different identity, but you can’t depend on it. If you assume that will happen, you (and your client) will often be disappointed. For how to work with many different aspects of self-concept, see my book, Transforming Your Self.
Ved Prakash – Programyourmind.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFhVMLnJs9g
I have to say the Caribbean or maybe Pacific background music does not add value to the quality of this video! I was unable to watch the whole thing, sorry Ved!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdLlgQGGvbo
This is a demo from a seminar. Again, for me it’s a very clean demo of the Coaching Pattern rather than a swish. Terry doesn’t use a trigger picture or an outcome (self-image) picture, but rather attaches the client’s (Rachael) resource state to the ‘trigger’ by ‘stealing anchors’.
Terry discusses the importance of attaching the resource precisely at the trigger point, rather than when the client has already dropped into their negative state. He gives a good demo of rewinding the client’s story, although for me he did not actually identify the trigger point (meaning an external event that lets Rachael know it’s time for her to book her train and hotel). The trigger becomes ‘six o’clock’, rather than “I look at my watch and realize it’s six o’clock”.
Terry does give a good demonstration of ‘stealing anchors’ by mirroring Rachael’s physiology in her resource state. It’s worth watching this demo for that alone.
Keith Livingston – hypnosis101.com
http://www.hypnosis101.com/nlp/submodalities/kinesthetic-swish/
This is a very short (2.40) description of the swish. As such it is a brief overview and will not add much to your understanding of the swish, if you have watched all the other videos so far.
Conclusion:
It is my belief that NLP is a living, evolving discipline. The co-founders of NLP continue to develop their own techniques as do the those that I admire most in the field, such as Tony Robbins and John Overdurf. The moment we say “NLP is this and only this, so that is not NLP”, we remove the creative spark, the ‘attitude of wanton experimentation’ that created NLP in the first place.
--That is chunking way up from “The swish is this and only this” which was my focus. Knowing how to do a swish correctly doesn’t prevent anyone from “wanton experimentation.” Neither does it prevent someone from proposing a new pattern, or a change in how the swish is done. But none of those is a swish, any more than a rabbit is a robin.
The moment we say “the swish is this and only this, so that is not a swish” we limit our ability to ‘dance’ with the client, and the dance is where we find the magic of change.
--That is not a logical conclusion. You can dance with a client all you want to, or experiment wantonly all day long. But if you are communicating with someone else, and you say you did a swish, it would be nice to know that you both agree about what that means. If you order a chocolate cake from a bakery, you probably would expect that it had chocolate in it (not carob!).
Please do study other practitioners who are courageous enough to post their material publicly. Notice what they do well and absorb that. Notice the mistakes they make and avoid them. Focus on the true aim of this wonderful art, which is becoming more of the person you were born to be.
--That is all well and good, but how does the average person “Notice what they do well and absorb that. Notice the mistakes they make and avoid them”? I may be a much slower learner than most, but I needed a lot of examples of both good and bad pointed out to me, along with some rationale for why something was useful or not useful. Sometimes learning what is a mistake is far more important than what to do correctly.
--People often learn most easily from contrast — red looks much redder when it is next to green, for instance. Contrasting what to do with what to avoid clarifies both. That is why I wrote my original post, and why I have taken the time to respond to Shawn’s post. I hope this exchange of understandings has been useful, or at least identified interesting questions to be explored further.
Again, thanks to Shawn for his thoughtful post.
Но, ежели хочется, то почему бы и нет )
http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/transcript-of-a-telephone-session-with-an-anxious-client-with-steves-feedback?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SteveAndreasNlpBlog+%28Steve+Andreas%27+NLP+Blog%29
Либо репост в ЖЖ аж тремя кусками, так много текста и видео:
1. Начало: http://vseslavrus.livejournal.com/99403.html
2. Середина: http://vseslavrus.livejournal.com/99696.html
3. Окончание: http://vseslavrus.livejournal.com/100020.html
21 Oct Posted by: Steve Andreas in: Articles
A further response in the ongoing dialogue between Shawn Carson and Steve Andreas, regarding the HNLP Meta Pattern, (including comments from Connirae Andreas) (round 5b)
http://realpeoplepress.com/blog/a-further-response-in-the-ongoing-dialogue-between-shawn-carson-and-steve-andreas?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SteveAndreasNlpBlog+%28Steve+Andreas%27+NLP+Blog%29