3D Mind brain facts
Lexsida
I am writing to alt.psychology.nlp concerning a thourough explanation
of the 3D mind neuroscience facts. Can you account for one?
The explanation on Tom Vizzinis fine homepage mentioning such vague
terms as Reptilian - Limbic and Neocortical brain areas, explains
nothing with all due respect.
The term Association, referring to cell connections I suppose, is a
platitude.
The idea that Dopamine, serotonin and all the other Neurotransmitters
are placed in 3 contained areas seems to be just a great way to
simplify things. Receptors able to receive serotonin are spread over
vast areas of the brain.
I hope I have misrepresented the 3D mind theory, and that there is in
fact more indepth info on the idea so that the 3D mind psychological
idea made by Tom Vizzini holds water.
I am unable to find any homepage or articles by Ken Guiffrie.
The 3D Mind theory seems to collide with the Working Memory theory by
Joseph LeDoux.
LeDoux' Working Memory theory fits in neatly with Michael L. Halls
Moviemind idea, which holds water.
I hope you would agree with me on the fact that NLP is about Cognition
- cognition is about Neuroscience - there ought to be a connection
between NLP and Neuroscience.
To be honest, I would not mind if Michael L. Halls Neurosemantics area
could be made quite a lot simpler. Fx by Ken Guiffrie and Tom Vizzini.
interested posts and links would be greatly appreaciated
Have a nice day
Kim.
Myron lronhubbardisanut@fastmail.to
Vizzini/McFarland's task). However, I would like
to clarify something.
>The explanation on Tom Vizzinis fine homepage mentioning such vague
>terms as Reptilian - Limbic and Neocortical brain areas, explains
>nothing with all due respect.
The concepts of pale-cortex/paleo-mammalian brain/reptilian
brain/R-complex, limbic system and cortex/neocortex come from MacLean's
"Triune Brain" theory. See MacLean, P.D. (1990) "The Triune Brain in
Evolution". MacLean's terms are not vague. The anatomy and functions
of the triune brain are well-defined by MacLean.
This is not to say that the "Triune Brain" theory is the only model of
brain structure and function. The other major model
is that of the "adapted mind" (Cosmides, Tooby, Horgan, Barkow). That
notwithstanding, triune brain theory has more
explanatory power than the adapted mind model and it is an integrative
model.
>I hope you would agree with me on the fact that NLP is about Cognition
>- cognition is about Neuroscience - there ought to be a connection
>between NLP and Neuroscience.
I agree with you that NLP (and mainstream psychology and psychiatry)
should be consistent with discoveries in neuroscience.
We have learnt much about the brain in the last decade and will learn
much more in the next. NLP should be reviewed and criticized
with regard to neuroscience.
>To be honest, I would not mind if Michael L. Halls Neurosemantics area
>could be made quite a lot simpler. Fx by Ken Guiffrie and Tom Vizzini.
Mind/body/emotion are complex so it is very likely that any
_explanatory_ model will be similarly
complicated. This does not entail that a therapeutic model need be
complicated but an
explanatory model will likely be so. A simple model is most likely an
incorrect one.
Also, it was refreshing to read a positive reference to Hall and
neurosemantics on alt.psychology.nlp.
-Myron
Tom Vizzini
"Lexsida" <salin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11f4a9f9.05041...@posting.google.com...
> Hello fellow NLPersons.
>
> I am writing to alt.psychology.nlp concerning a thourough explanation
> of the 3D mind neuroscience facts. Can you account for one?
>
> The explanation on Tom Vizzinis fine homepage mentioning such vague
> terms as Reptilian - Limbic and Neocortical brain areas, explains
> nothing with all due respect.
I'm not sure what kind of explanation you actually desire. If you are
educated and how the brain functions then you'll understand this. The 3-D
Brain model is based upon the visual cortex of the brain and the function of
the visual cortex.
>
> The term Association, referring to cell connections I suppose, is a
> platitude.
>
> The idea that Dopamine, serotonin and all the other Neurotransmitters
> are placed in 3 contained areas seems to be just a great way to
> simplify things. Receptors able to receive serotonin are spread over
> vast areas of the brain.
In this context the simple answer is the best. The 3-D Brain model simply
explains how the 3-D Mind works. You have to understand how dopamine and
serotonin interact. You have to understand what areas of the brain are
dopamine driven and what areas the brain are serotonin driven. Dopamine and
serotonin balance each other out when everything is functioning normally.
Of course I'm not gonna write the entire book here. The explanation that we
use is just enough of the brain model to explain to the average person how
problems are generated. It is also used to explain to the average person
how the 3-D Mind changes how brain chemistry actually works.
If you would like in-depth brain research, I don't have time to get into
that. My goal is to make the technology understandable and accessible to
everyday people. For that the simple explanation holds water.
>
> I hope I have misrepresented the 3D mind theory, and that there is in
> fact more indepth info on the idea so that the 3D mind psychological
> idea made by Tom Vizzini holds water.
There is a lot more in-depth information in this area. Ken has just been
hired by Johns Hopkins University to do research. He will be coming out
with a book within the next year fully explaining all the technicalities.
For my purposes with the 3-D mind all those technicalities are not relevant.
>
> I am unable to find any homepage or articles by Ken Guiffrie.
> The 3D Mind theory seems to collide with the Working Memory theory by
> Joseph LeDoux.
>
> LeDoux' Working Memory theory fits in neatly with Michael L. Halls
> Moviemind idea, which holds water.
You seem to be holding a lot of water. The 3-D Mind does collide with many
theories. That is exactly what makes it so powerful. It is a totally
different way of looking at the mind and how it physically affects the
brain. It is also a totally different way of looking at how the physical
behaviors of the brain affects the mind.
The idea that it collides is good news for me. Who would want to hear the
same rehashed information in just a pretty new package?
Ken does not have a web site. The specifics of his research are not yet
public for a variety of reasons.
What I will say is this. There is enough information to make the model
usable. Any in-depth research as to how and why the 3-D Mind works would be
a waste of time for anyone who desires results.
The new 3-D Mind Practitioner product will have a two-hour lecture by Ken
explaining how the 3-D Brain model fits into what the 3-D Mind does. That
will be out in the next few months.
Tom
--
Tom Vizzini
Real Skills for the Real World
www.essential-skills.com
New Gold Members Area www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1056
3D Mind www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1043
Tom Vizzini
From Claire:
................Over the years I've tried: psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, Time
Line, systematic desensitisation and various relaxation techniques. but
usually I used avoidance, I was just very very good at this.................
The history of my phobia is that I'm 44 now, and my phobia of heights began
when I was about 3 yrs old, my FIRST conscious memory is of the event that
created the phobia. Everything that came after that - which is EVERYTHING I
can remember - has been filtered through the beliefs that caused the phobia.
At 3 yrs old I was (I'm told) having screaming panic attacks if I had to
step off a road side kerb.
I can only recall a few of the ways the phobia affected me as I became so
expert at knowing what would cause me to panic I was able to just avoid
these things without even consciously acknowledging the avoidance. So, often
it was only when I was others that my phobia became a problem for me/us,
with: bridges, stairs, escalators, balconies, standing on chairs or step
ladders, cliff walks, hill walking, using a cruise liner's companionway,
driving up mountains and also (as a nurse) refusing to collect patients from
the 6th floor theatre suite.
Over the years I've tried: psychotherapy, hypnotherapy, Time Line,
systematic desensitisation and various relaxation techniques. but usually I
used avoidance, I was just very very good at this.
The few months before I bought the tapes, a really stressful situation at
work was causing my phobia to get much worse and it was now affecting my
work as I was getting frightened by any escalator or set of stairs and
visiting my clients by bus was very time consuming. The deciding factor was
having a panic attack and nearly falling down a long empty escalator. I
bought the tapes that evening.
The biggest affect is knowing that I CAN change, that I'm not a trapped
victim anymore of events that happened over 40 years ago. I'm finding it
amazing and almost hard to believe that this phobia is unravelling and I've
lost the belief that I must learn from or forgive the past before I can move
on. This is going to sound weird, but as you know I'm very
visual/metaphorical: it's like a giant octopus!! It's head and body are the
origin and on the timeline that part of the animal is in 1960's and the
super suction tentacles stretch up to the present day - well it's like I can
peel the tentacles off and see them spring back to the 1960's where the
whole animal then naturally shrinks to fit in with its surrounding landscape
instead of dominating it.
On the day the videos arrived which was just about 3 months ago, I watched
the first one. The following day (!) I crossed back and forth over a canal
using three glass sided minimalist/modern style bridges. That would have
been totally beyond me the day before. I've developed what I call my Anxiety
Richter Scale to measure the problem and my success, and just the thought of
using those bridges would have put my ARS at 20 out of 10. About 3 weeks
later I crossed the Millennium bridge - similar in style to the others but
much longer and higher over the Thames!! I've now repeated this crossing
about 6 times and my ARS is now at 4/10 and I can stop and have my photo
taken. This really is incredible and it's all been made possible by 3D Mind,
Tom, Kim, Tim and all the support that I've had on the 3D Mind list.
Thank you.
Claire ....
"Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself"
George Bernard Shaw
3D Mind... www.essential-skills.com to find out more.
terran...@yahoo.com
>
> The new 3-D Mind Practitioner product will have a two-hour lecture by
Ken
> explaining how the 3-D Brain model fits into what the 3-D Mind does.
That
> will be out in the next few months.
>
Tom,
Will you be doing the next 3-D Mind in Atlanta? It would be great if
you could hold it in the Southeastern U.S. again.
Terry
Ray Gordon
Tom Vizzini
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:1sS8e.16174$mp6.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> That's a heck of an advertising claim to be making!
It is not a claim...it is a fact. It is a real life testimonial. It
happened.
Tom Vizzini
<terran...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113847164.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
August 2005.....I am setting it up as I type this. The dates should be firm
in the next few days. I will post it to the website when I have it sorted
out.
Tom
--
Tom Vizzini
Real Skills for the Real World
www.essential-skills.com
New Gold Members Area www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1056
3D Mind www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1043
>
> Terry
>
Ray Gordon
>
> It is not a claim...it is a fact. It is a real life testimonial. It
> happened.
I don't doubt for a second that the testimonial is real and that the man
feels great about what happened.
What I wonder about, however, is how one can measure results without the
benefit of whatever extensive testing establishes phobia (or did he have
those?).
It's like someone smoking for 40 years then saying they'll never smoke
again.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
Tom Vizzini
> >> That's a heck of an advertising claim to be making!
> >
> > It is not a claim...it is a fact. It is a real life testimonial. It
> > happened.
>
> I don't doubt for a second that the testimonial is real and that the man
> feels great about what happened.
>
> What I wonder about, however, is how one can measure results without the
> benefit of whatever extensive testing establishes phobia (or did he have
> those?).
This is actually a great question. If you read the testimonial you will
see that she was not able to even cross small bridges. What is not in the
testimonial is that the first day she used the process she was able to save
20 minutes each way walking to work by being able to walk over bridges.
How I measure results is by what someone is able to do now that they were
not able to do for 41 years. For instance, the Millenium bridge in London
is a thin walking bridge over a huge and rough river. She was able to walk
across that, as she stated in her letter.
She also tried all kinds of other treatments that failed. That is another
test. Comparing what did not work to what is working now.
>
> It's like someone smoking for 40 years then saying they'll never smoke
> again.
Not really. She is not saying she will never be afraid again. She is saying
that she now knows how to take care of those fears and has.
Ray Gordon
>> >
>> > It is not a claim...it is a fact. It is a real life testimonial. It
>> > happened.
>>
>> I don't doubt for a second that the testimonial is real and that the man
>> feels great about what happened.
>>
>> What I wonder about, however, is how one can measure results without the
>> benefit of whatever extensive testing establishes phobia (or did he have
>> those?).
>
> This is actually a great question. If you read the testimonial you will
> see that she was not able to even cross small bridges. What is not in the
> testimonial is that the first day she used the process she was able to
> save
> 20 minutes each way walking to work by being able to walk over bridges.
>
> How I measure results is by what someone is able to do now that they were
> not able to do for 41 years. For instance, the Millenium bridge in London
> is a thin walking bridge over a huge and rough river. She was able to walk
> across that, as she stated in her letter.
>
> She also tried all kinds of other treatments that failed. That is another
> test. Comparing what did not work to what is working now.
I definitely am not a fan of yours, or even your products. On the other
hand, I support the free, open market and leave it to the individual
consumer to find the worth in what they buy.
I just don't think anyone can conclusively evaluate their entire condition
based on self-reported feelings or experiences, though she obviously felt an
improvement.
Think of a "dry alcoholic" versus one "in recovery" for a similar debate.
>> It's like someone smoking for 40 years then saying they'll never smoke
>> again.
>
> Not really. She is not saying she will never be afraid again. She is
> saying
> that she now knows how to take care of those fears and has.
Time will of course tell for her, but what I say still applies in that she
could just as easily be shifting the underlying condition somewhere else, or
maybe she's not.
I also don't consider the fear of heights to be a "phobia" per se, since
there's a genuine danger associated with them. Not sure I'd be too thrilled
on that bridge myself, though I used to cross the 59th street bridge all the
time on foot and on my skates.
Gavin DeBeckett wrote "The Gift Of Fear" as a counterpoint to those who
dismiss fear as irrational or weak.
Greg Alexander
Tom Vizzini wrote:
> In this context the simple answer is the best. The 3-D
> Brain model simply explains how the 3-D Mind works.
There are 2 separate issues here right?
- does the model you present allow effective change work?
- is the model accurate, detailed, etc.
If approaching a client AS IF something is true is going to help them,
I think it is useful.
> You have to understand how dopamine and serotonin
> interact. You have to understand what areas of the brain
> are dopamine driven and what areas the brain are serotonin
> driven. Dopamine and serotonin balance each other out
> when everything is functioning normally.
>
> Of course I'm not gonna write the entire book here. The
> explanation that we use is just enough of the brain model
> to explain to the average person how problems are
> generated. It is also used to explain to the average person
> how the 3-D Mind changes how brain chemistry actually
> works.
Are you saying that you've measured changes in dopamine and serotonin
levels after a 3D-Mind session and found significant effects? Can you
provide more information, I'd be very interested.
Thanks,
Greg
ps. Bad form posting a testimonial in the middle of someone's question
thread!
Tom Vizzini
"Greg Alexander" <gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:1113867230.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Tom,
>
> Tom Vizzini wrote:
> > In this context the simple answer is the best. The 3-D
> > Brain model simply explains how the 3-D Mind works.
>
> There are 2 separate issues here right?
> - does the model you present allow effective change work?
> - is the model accurate, detailed, etc.
There is a huge difference between accurate and detailed. I detailed
explaination of the workings of all the chemical interactions of the brain
might be detailed. It would also be more information than is necessary to
understand how the 3D Mind Process actually affects the way the brain works.
>
> If approaching a client AS IF something is true is going to help them,
> I think it is useful.
It is not an "AS IF" situation. It is how the brain actually functions. It
is not a fantasy "useful metaphor" as is commonly used by some to explain
why a process works.
>
> > You have to understand how dopamine and serotonin
> > interact. You have to understand what areas of the brain
> > are dopamine driven and what areas the brain are serotonin
> > driven. Dopamine and serotonin balance each other out
> > when everything is functioning normally.
> >
> > Of course I'm not gonna write the entire book here. The
> > explanation that we use is just enough of the brain model
> > to explain to the average person how problems are
> > generated. It is also used to explain to the average person
> > how the 3-D Mind changes how brain chemistry actually
> > works.
>
> Are you saying that you've measured changes in dopamine and serotonin
> levels after a 3D-Mind session and found significant effects? Can you
> provide more information, I'd be very interested.
That is going to soon be researched. The 3D Brain Model explains how
problems are generated by how events effect brain chemistry. There are
several other chemicals that come into the mix including acetylcholine and
adrenaline.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
> ps. Bad form posting a testimonial in the middle of someone's question
> thread!
Bad form according to whom? I posted the testimonials when I get the
testimonials. I think it demonstrates precisely how easily someone can use
the 3-D Mind without any detailed explanation of how the brain works. It is
also a good example of why that information is not necessary but can be
useful because it helps in the process.
Once you understand how the brain that generates problems and what parts of
the brain are activated or deactivated, it's easy to understand how to fix
those problems. It's easy to understand the structure of the problem. It's
also easy to understand what happens when the brain is rebalanced.
Dr. Ken has included a two-hour lecture in our tape set that soon will be
released. It explains the full model and how it applies to the 3-D Mind.
The bottom line is this. Results are what matters. When someone who has
tried everything else to get rid of a 41 year phobia is able to take care of
it herself in one day, that is a result. You can argue the minutia all you
want that being able to do someone how to take care of themselves in a
simple one hour tape is powerful.
Greg Alexander
> "Greg Alexander" <gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > Tom Vizzini wrote:
> > > In this context the simple answer is the best. The 3-D
> > > Brain model simply explains how the 3-D Mind works.
> >
> > There are 2 separate issues here right?
> > - does the model you present allow effective change work?
> > - is the model accurate, detailed, etc.
>
> There is a huge difference between accurate and detailed.
Yes there is a huge difference. I clouded my question by adding the
word "detailed".
I was trying to say that
- a model can be accurate but not useful for change.
- Or a model can be useful for change though not accurate.
- (Or of course a model can be both, or neither)
> I detailed explaination of the workings of all the chemical
> interactions of the brain might be detailed. It would also be
> more information than is necessary to understand how the
> 3D Mind Process actually affects the way the brain works.
Absolutely. And a detailed explanation might not be effective in
change, nor accurate in what it says. It is certainly a 3rd option.
> > If approaching a client AS IF something is true is going to
> > help them, I think it is useful.
>
> It is not an "AS IF" situation.
I didn't say it was, nor did I presuppose it. I said sometimes it
doesn't matter if it's true or not. If acting "AS IF" helps change,
then great.
> It is how the brain actually functions. It is not a fantasy "useful
> metaphor" as is commonly used by some to explain why a process works.
Although a metaphor might be used to explain why a process works, a
metaphor can also improve the effectiveness of the change process
(whether the metaphor is used on the practitioner or participant).
Anyway, cool, your comment brings us back to the claim that 3D mind is
an effective change model AND an accurate model. The original poster
didn't ask if it was effective, she asked about the accuracy of the
model.
> > Are you saying that you've measured changes in dopamine and
> > serotonin levels after a 3D-Mind session and found significant
> > effects? Can you provide more information, I'd be very interested.
>
> That is going to soon be researched. The 3D Brain Model explains
> how problems are generated by how events effect brain chemistry.
> There are several other chemicals that come into the mix including
> acetylcholine and adrenaline.
I look forward to the research.
So are you saying both:
1) that research relating to the 3D Brain Model has found that
events effect brain chemistry and then generate problems?
and
2) New research will attempt to show changes in dopamine,
serotonin, acetycholine, adrenaline (etc) after a 3D-Mind session?
I assume #1 would refer to separate studies - some linking events to
brain chemistry changes, other research linking brain chemistry and
generating problems?
> > ps. Bad form posting a testimonial in the middle of someone's
> > question thread!
>
> Bad form according to whom? I posted the testimonials when I
> get the testimonials.
Bad form according to me. I didn't see any relevancy in your reply. The
question was about the 'facts' you give on your website, and you
responded by changing the subject and posting a testimonial on the
effectiveness. (You then also responded separately to their question,
which is great.)
> I think it demonstrates precisely how easily someone can use the
> 3-D Mind without any detailed explanation of how the brain works.
Okay, now I see where you think there is relevancy.
> The bottom line is this. Results are what matters.
Sure, results are what matters. But there are other things that matter
too.
Unfortunately I've witnessed results that were then given reasons that
worked on building a new belief structure for the participants. Largely
setup through presuppositions, focussed attention on some aspects of an
experience with generalisation into others - the beliefs were ones that
discouraged self sufficiency. Perhaps my concern with what I witnessed
relates to unforseen results and consequences
I want results, and I want to identify what are metaphor, true, useful,
and useless (among other things).
> You can argue the minutia all you want that being able to do
> someone how to take care of themselves in a simple one hour tape
> is powerful.
yes if someone can achieve something listening to a 1 hour tape, that
is powerful.
Greg
Lash Rambo
>> Not really. She is not saying she will never be afraid again. She is
>> saying
>> that she now knows how to take care of those fears and has.
>
> Time will of course tell for her, but what I say still applies in that
> she could just as easily be shifting the underlying condition
> somewhere else, or maybe she's not.
>
> I also don't consider the fear of heights to be a "phobia" per se,
> since there's a genuine danger associated with them. Not sure I'd be
> too thrilled on that bridge myself, though I used to cross the 59th
> street bridge all the time on foot and on my skates.
>
> Gavin DeBeckett wrote "The Gift Of Fear" as a counterpoint to those
> who dismiss fear as irrational or weak.
Certainly, it'd be an error for her to go to the opposite extreme and
completely eradicate her fear of heights. The key for her is to learn to
better differentiate the risks of various heights. Stepping off a curb is
not the same as walking across a bridge, which itself isn't the same as,
say, mountain climbing. From what was suggested by the story, she couldn't
differentiate the risk of any of those.
Tom Vizzini
>
> Anyway, cool, your comment brings us back to the claim that 3D mind is
> an effective change model AND an accurate model. The original poster
> didn't ask if it was effective, she asked about the accuracy of the
> model.
I am not sure what the point is. Is it that you are suggesting that the
model is not accurate?
>
> So are you saying both:
> 1) that research relating to the 3D Brain Model has found that
> events effect brain chemistry and then generate problems?
Yes. Brain chemistry is directly related to problems and how the brain
accesses.
> and
> 2) New research will attempt to show changes in dopamine,
> serotonin, acetycholine, adrenaline (etc) after a 3D-Mind session?
More than that. It should show that the brain actually accesses differently
after using the model. It is not about measuring brain chemistry. It is
about 'how' the brain accesses.
>
> I assume #1 would refer to separate studies - some linking events to
> brain chemistry changes, other research linking brain chemistry and
> generating problems?
Assume what you wish.
>
> > > ps. Bad form posting a testimonial in the middle of someone's
> > > question thread!
> >
> > Bad form according to whom? I posted the testimonials when I
> > get the testimonials.
>
> Bad form according to me. I didn't see any relevancy in your reply. The
> question was about the 'facts' you give on your website, and you
> responded by changing the subject and posting a testimonial on the
> effectiveness. (You then also responded separately to their question,
> which is great.)
Ahh.....typical. You assume one has anything to do with the other.
>
> > I think it demonstrates precisely how easily someone can use the
> > 3-D Mind without any detailed explanation of how the brain works.
>
> Okay, now I see where you think there is relevancy.
>
> > The bottom line is this. Results are what matters.
>
> Sure, results are what matters. But there are other things that matter
> too.
Huh?
>
> Unfortunately I've witnessed results that were then given reasons that
> worked on building a new belief structure for the participants. Largely
> setup through presuppositions, focussed attention on some aspects of an
> experience with generalisation into others - the beliefs were ones that
> discouraged self sufficiency. Perhaps my concern with what I witnessed
> relates to unforseen results and consequences
>
> I want results, and I want to identify what are metaphor, true, useful,
> and useless (among other things).
Huh? Look you are look at this stuff ass backwards. You are so used to
having people bullshit you that you suspect everyone is bullshitting you.
That is something that you have to deal with. I have written many times how
the brain model works. If you choose to assume it is bullshit than that is
your choice.
I choose differently. The bottom line s that I don;t care. We were theaching
the 3D Mind for several years when a brain researcher came to us and
explained how and why it was working. That explaination made other
innovations possible and improved the 3D Mind Model.
>
> > You can argue the minutia all you want that being able to do
> > someone how to take care of themselves in a simple one hour tape
> > is powerful.
>
> yes if someone can achieve something listening to a 1 hour tape, that
> is powerful.
Finally we can agree on something :)
Take care
Tom
--
Tom Vizzini
Real Skills for the Real World
www.essential-skills.com
New Gold Members Area www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1056
3D Mind www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1043
>
> Greg
>
Tom Vizzini
"Lash Rambo" <lra...@obmarl.com> wrote in message >
> Certainly, it'd be an error for her to go to the opposite extreme and
> completely eradicate her fear of heights. The key for her is to learn to
> better differentiate the risks of various heights. Stepping off a curb is
> not the same as walking across a bridge, which itself isn't the same as,
> say, mountain climbing. From what was suggested by the story, she
couldn't
> differentiate the risk of any of those.
Great point. It is when an unreasonable fear gets generalized to even the
most minor events that problems occur. This fear generalized to escalators
and even stairs. The beuty of the 3D Mind is that it BALANCES the reactions
rather than removing fear. A balanced brain can tell the difference between
what is a real threat and what is not. an unbalanced brain cannot make that
distinction.
Tis is a problem is the opposite direction as well. If someone had no fear
it would also be a problem and need to be balanced by adding fear to the
event rather than removing it.
It is all about balance.
Ray Gordon
> most minor events that problems occur. This fear generalized to escalators
> and even stairs. The beuty of the 3D Mind is that it BALANCES the
> reactions
> rather than removing fear. A balanced brain can tell the difference
> between
> what is a real threat and what is not. an unbalanced brain cannot make
> that
> distinction.
>
> Tis is a problem is the opposite direction as well. If someone had no fear
> it would also be a problem and need to be balanced by adding fear to the
> event rather than removing it.
>
> It is all about balance.
Wouldn't it be ideal to do this under the supervision of a doctor or
psychiatrist? I believe this should be the case with all forms of
"alternative healing" or whatever they call it these days. I'm not singling
out NLP.
Greg Alexander
Ray Gordon wrote:
> > A balanced brain can tell the difference between what is
> > a real threat and what is not. an unbalanced brain cannot make
> > that distinction.
> >
> > It is all about balance.
>
> Wouldn't it be ideal to do this under the supervision of a doctor or
> psychiatrist? I believe this should be the case with all forms of
> "alternative healing" or whatever they call it these days. I'm not
singling
> out NLP.
If something you call "alternative healing" was done under the
supervision of a psychiatrist, would you still call it alternative?
Tom Vizzini
"Ray Gordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:6K19e.16239$mp6.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Wouldn't it be ideal to do this under the supervision of a doctor or
> psychiatrist? I believe this should be the case with all forms of
> "alternative healing" or whatever they call it these days. I'm not
singling
> out NLP.
No. Well not in this case. Let me tell you why.
Let me give you a quick example. In this case where a 41-year-old phobia
was unable to be cured by all times of traditional doctors, a $70 tape set
was able to accomplish the goal.
The doctor and psychiatrist became unnecessary. No drugs were needed.
Doctors and psychiatrists are necessary only one prescription drugs are
going to be used. What would doctor know about helping people with phobias?
They have absolutely no training in that area. Psychiatrists seem to be
overly focused on events of the past and finding when a problem occurred.
With the 3-D Mind no drugs are needed and the past is irrelevant.
Your belief about supervision just reflects your programming. It is the
programming that suggests that some other authority figure always knows
better about your problems than you do. What you are ignoring is that this
nice lady was seen by all kinds of psychiatrists and doctors. Nothing
worked.
She was finally able to help herself or everyone else had failed.
You can't ignore that result. Is that kind of result was rare I might
understand your point of view. The truth is said that kind of result is now
very common. Doctors and psychiatrists are becoming an unnecessary expense.
The goal of self-help is to teach people to help themselves without the
expense of psychiatrists and doctors.
Greg Alexander
The 3D mind is interesting to me and I would like to learn more about
it. I know that you don't answer questions that might give away the 3D
mind here, in a public forum, because it is something you've developed
- and you deserve to make money off a product you've produced.
I don't expect to learn HOW to do the 3D mind from here for that
reason.
I am still interested in the scientific underpinnings, in so far as
what you can talk about without giving away how to do your 3D mind
stuff. Like the original poster, I thought the web page explanation
didn't actually explain much. I've just gone back and reread it (I
hadn't looked in a while) and I think you've rewritten it since I
looked (or did I find a different page!?), anyway I liked this
description more.
Anyway,
I know that the levels of serotonin etc in the brain affects people,
and I've read the reptile etc brain theories a while back (and I
definitely need a refresher!)
You say that the creative, reflexive, and primal areas of the brain
need to be in balance and this sounds fair enough. It may be just as
fair to say that if any area of the brain is simply not being used,
this will be a problem - it doesn't matter how you label the areas.
Just labelling areas as creative, reflexive, and primal does provide a
REALLY nice presupposition that you can work with though. The
presupposition is that we ALL have these 3 parts, and then any problem
is simply an imbalance. It adds to the presupposition that we have all
the resources we need within ourself, it adds these 3 key content areas
(creative, reflexive, primal). Then we work with these content areas
(presupposing with 'scientific backup' that we all have them) to boost
a certain area, adding a resource to a context.
I often work with a client to find their "creative part", through
presuppositions and short stories. Some believe they aren't creative to
start with. Your way may be easier. A creative part is useful for
behavioural flexibility - perhaps there is scope to explore a primal
and reflexive part. In general once the client is in a resourceful
state, we ask the unconscious for an appropriate state that would be
useful in the context. Working only with the 3 above states may be
quick and easy, with the disadvantage of not providing the best state
but rather a good enough one.
I will need to explore that a bit - for instance are the 3 states
generic enough to work with someone, or is it useful to use the Big 5
traits that most personality research has identified?
I'm not saying any of that is the 3D mind, just doing my best to pick
what might be used from the neuro underpinnings you give, and relate it
to what I already do. I would like to read new studies of the Triune
Brain theory - it is only a theory, but I can see some usefulness for
change work.
Tom Vizzini wrote:
> "Greg Alexander" <gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > So are you saying both:
> > 1) that research relating to the 3D Brain Model has found that
> > events effect brain chemistry and then generate problems?
>
> Yes. Brain chemistry is directly related to problems and how the
> brain accesses.
Hence psychiatric treatment which alters brain chemistry.
You say "yes" - so it is research relating to the 3D Brain model that
you're refering to?
> > I assume #1 would refer to separate studies - some linking
> > events to brain chemistry changes, other research linking
> > brain chemistry and generating problems?
>
> Assume what you wish.
Are you saying they're not separate? I'd love to read some research
following events which affect brain chemistry, and leading to problems.
It would be very difficult research - if you've got some links could
you please supply them?
> > and
> > 2) New research will attempt to show changes in dopamine,
> > serotonin, acetycholine, adrenaline (etc) after a 3D-Mind
> > session?
>
> More than that. It should show that the brain actually accesses
> differently after using the model. It is not about measuring
> brain chemistry. It it about 'how' the brain accesses.
That'll be very interesting. It's great that there's research going on
with regards to 3D mind and brain access. I'd like to see similar done
with New Code NLP.
> > I want results, and I want to identify what are metaphor, true,
> > useful, and useless (among other things).
>
> Huh? Look you are look at this stuff ass backwards. You are so
> used to having people bullshit you that you suspect everyone is
> bullshitting you. That is something that you have to deal with.
You're making a big assumption there.
Assuming for a moment that I'm looking at it backwards, what's the
right way?
I want results (long term consequences being most important), and I
like to know the backing too.
> I have written many times how the brain model works. If you choose to
> assume it is bullshit than that is your choice.
I don't assume anything like that.
I do think you give a cause-effect relationships occasionally without
backing up the cause-effect. That doesn't make a model bullshit, it
means you've made a connection that may be there or not, it just isn't
explained.
> I choose differently. The bottom line s that I don;t care.
> We were theaching the 3D Mind for several years when a
> brain researcher came to us and explained how and why
> it was working. That explaination made other
> innovations possible and improved the 3D Mind Model.
That's great. Similar ideas about behaviours and states may have lead
to his model and yours, the question becomes how do the ideas relate to
the research. The bottom line is that ongoing research will continue to
learn more about the brain and underlying neurology (I'd definitely
like to find out the latest), but no matter what they find, the ideas
can be a useful approach to getting results in change work.
Greg
Lash Rambo
> Tom Vizzini wrote:
>> "Greg Alexander" <gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> > 2) New research will attempt to show changes in dopamine,
>> > serotonin, acetycholine, adrenaline (etc) after a 3D-Mind
>> > session?
>>
>> More than that. It should show that the brain actually accesses
>> differently after using the model. It is not about measuring
>> brain chemistry. It it about 'how' the brain accesses.
>
> That'll be very interesting. It's great that there's research going on
> with regards to 3D mind and brain access. I'd like to see similar done
> with New Code NLP.
Not to piss on the parade here, but what would changes in either brain
chemicals or electrical activity prove about 3D-Mind? Aren't our brains
in a constant state of chemical and electrical flux anyway? Can't you
cause radical changes in the chemical and electrical state of the typical
adult's brain by, say, showing them some porno, or reading them a
suspense-thriller, or sticking them in the arm with a fork, or feeding
them an oyster, etc.? None of those things are necessarily indicative of
anything generative, therapeutic, or useful going on. Why would such
changes be so indicative of a 3D-Mind session? (Note that this is a
commentary on the study, not 3D-Mind itself. Hopefully all respondants
can keep that in mind.)
Tom Vizzini
"Greg Alexander" <gale...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> I am still interested in the scientific underpinnings, in so far as
> what you can talk about without giving away how to do your 3D mind
> stuff. Like the original poster, I thought the web page explanation
> didn't actually explain much. I've just gone back and reread it (I
> hadn't looked in a while) and I think you've rewritten it since I
> looked (or did I find a different page!?), anyway I liked this
> description more.
Thanks. I believe we have added to it.
>
> Anyway,
> I know that the levels of serotonin etc in the brain affects people,
> and I've read the reptile etc brain theories a while back (and I
> definitely need a refresher!)
>
> You say that the creative, reflexive, and primal areas of the brain
> need to be in balance and this sounds fair enough. It may be just as
> fair to say that if any area of the brain is simply not being used,
> this will be a problem - it doesn't matter how you label the areas.
Yes and no. There is a difference in how these two parts of the brain
interact. The reptilian part of the brains connections all go basically
vertical. The creative/adaptive outer layer of the brains connections are
more weblike and interconnected. That means the creative/adaptive outer
layer of the brain control upon other concepts and other ideas to generate
solutions to problems.
The reptilian part of the brain is more of the movement initiator. On a
very basic level it is the fight or flight part of the brain.
>
> Just labelling areas as creative, reflexive, and primal does provide a
> REALLY nice presupposition that you can work with though. The
> presupposition is that we ALL have these 3 parts, and then any problem
> is simply an imbalance.
That is certainly not the presupposition. It is a very simple and the basic
explanation about how problems are generated and sustained and how solutions
are generated.
These three parts of the brain are not metaphors. They actually do exist.
They actually do have the functions on a physical level. They are not some
metaphor about levels of the brain.
It adds to the presupposition that we have all
> the resources we need within ourself, it adds these 3 key content areas
> (creative, reflexive, primal). Then we work with these content areas
> (presupposing with 'scientific backup' that we all have them) to boost
> a certain area, adding a resource to a context.
Again, yes and no. There is no boosting in the 3-D Mind model. That would
just be using one in motion to overpower another. That's not balancing that
is using effort and energy.
There is indeed scientific backup that these actually exist. If you would
like to know more about these parts of the brain I suggest you get a good
book on the brain and do some research.
Specifically do research on how the chemicals and dopamine and serotonin are
supposed to balance each other out. Dopamine runs the reptilian part of the
brain. This is where the primal urges exist. Keep in mind in this is a
very simple explanation. Getting into all the micro specifics of brain
function is just not useful.
Whenever we have a fear response we have a rush of dopamine. Under normal
situations serotonin is released to balance the dopamine. That is why most
normal fears do not last very long.
Serotonin primarily runs the creative/adaptive part of the brain. This also
generates a balance from dopamine which stimulates the primal part of the
brain which initiates movement.
We all met people would sit around all day and do nothing but imagine what
they should be doing. These people are out of balance and the other
direction. Too much serotonin not enough dopamine stimulation. For these
people we have to add states like fear and anxiety to balance out the brain
function and get them to actually move.
>
> I often work with a client to find their "creative part", through
> presuppositions and short stories. Some believe they aren't creative to
> start with. Your way may be easier. A creative part is useful for
> behavioural flexibility - perhaps there is scope to explore a primal
> and reflexive part. In general once the client is in a resourceful
> state, we ask the unconscious for an appropriate state that would be
> useful in the context. Working only with the 3 above states may be
> quick and easy, with the disadvantage of not providing the best state
> but rather a good enough one.
This is where what you are doing and what I am doing take to different
routes. I would never ask the unconscious to do anything. I direct the
unconscious and conscious mind together to perform a task.
You assume there is a creative part of the brain or the unconscious. Your
assumption that there is a creative part is nothing more than a metaphor in
the weight you are using it because you are asking that part to make a
decision.
What the 3-D Mind does is actually change the way the brain functions. This
is significantly different. The creative/adaptive, reflexive and primal
brain functions are actual physical parts of the brain. They are not
metaphors. Getting these parts of the brain to work in a balanced fashion
generates solutions to problems that are not limited by the guidance of a
therapist or a suggestion.
Also, your operating under the assumption that the unconscious mind does not
have the same limited view of the world has the conscious mind. The idea of
the unconscious mind and the conscious mind are indeed nothing more than
metaphors because they are just different levels of thinking coming out of
the same physical brain. The idea that the unconscious mind is not
operating out of the same limitations of the conscious mind is dangerous if
you are asking the unconscious mind to make decisions on its own.
That is just my opinion.
>
> I will need to explore that a bit - for instance are the 3 states
> generic enough to work with someone, or is it useful to use the Big 5
> traits that most personality research has identified?
Here's a difference in the weight you are thinking and what I'm presenting.
The creative/adaptive, reflexive and primal parts of the brain are not
states. They are physical functions of the brain. They are not personality
traits. They are physical functions on the brain. These physical functions
of the brain generate chemical reactions and build neurological connections
to access in specific ways.
Yes this is a radically new way of looking at the mind and how to generate
solutions to problems.
The biggest problem with hypnosis and NLP at this point is that they still
follow the map of psychotherapy even though they may use a different tool.
My suggestion is that the map of psychotherapy is a flawed map.
>
> I'm not saying any of that is the 3D mind, just doing my best to pick
> what might be used from the neuro underpinnings you give, and relate it
> to what I already do. I would like to read new studies of the Triune
> Brain theory - it is only a theory, but I can see some usefulness for
> change work.
Here is the best way that I think you should examine anything like the 3-D
Mind. Set aside what you are doing already. Learn the model as the model
is presented and become functional in that model. Only after that can you
even think about relating to do what you already do because before that it
will be tainted by what you already do. When learning any new skills you
should never taint it with what you already think you know. If you do
you'll be polluting the original intent of the model.
Have fun
Tom Vizzini
None of those things are necessarily indicative of
> anything generative, therapeutic, or useful going on. Why would such
> changes be so indicative of a 3D-Mind session?
Every study on brain science mind science or any other kind of science start
with a baseline. The monitor the brain and find the normal operating
parameters.
If you monitor someone's breathing and then have them run a mile and a
breathing changes. These easy to assume that running a mile has an effect
on the breathing even though they were already breathing before the past and
the fact that they breath all the time. The rates of their breathing are
always changing.
Just because something is happening all the time doesn't mean that you
cannot figure out what is stimulating a change in that occurrence.
Lapdance
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:FOWdnSxdS5U...@adelphia.com...
LMAO......maybe you should have tired "tools for dreamers" by robert dilts.
Lapdance
> Also, it was refreshing to read a positive reference to Hall and
> neurosemantics on alt.psychology.nlp.
>
> -Myron
>
Hall is THE MAN! No hocus pocus or farbor get high kiss satans ass with
Hall.
Myron
If all the nlp trainers were made to take a sanity test, how many do you
think would pass?
UnKaH
Ray Gordon wrote:
> That's a heck of an advertising claim to be making!
Well Ray, since I was the Tim she was referring too, I guess I can
stand up and say the same thing Tom said, it's a fact jack, not
advertising.
Tim
John
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 21 Apr 2005 21:39:26 -0700, "UnKaH"
<monst...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
So if you provide facts it's not advertising. That seems to be a
narrow definition which is probably not what you meant.
Logically you seem to be saying therefore advertising only contains
lies or opinions. In the UK trading rules are such that all
advertising has to be legal, decent, honest and truthful otherwise you
could be prosecuted, of course the decisions are often subjective.
--
John
Tom Vizzini
"John" <kg...@hotmull.cin> wrote in message
> So if you provide facts it's not advertising.
OK....Where did you read that anyone suggested anything like this at all?
Let me offer you this fact. Any trainer who responds to any post here is
advertising. There just is no other reason to post here.
At least I am honest and up front about it.
As for you post, The response was about the 'CLAIM' being a fact not that
facts were not advertising.
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>
>"John" <kg...@hotmull.cin> wrote in message
>
>> So if you provide facts it's not advertising.
>
>OK....Where did you read that anyone suggested anything like this at all?
Er.. the last six words of Tim's post.
>Let me offer you this fact. Any trainer who responds to any post here is
>advertising.
Oh dear here we go again. How might you substantiate this 'fact' for
any trainer here so that it rises above being simply your opinion.
>There just is no other reason to post here.
If you substitute advertising with marketing I would agree with you.
However, some posts will, and have contained pure help i.e. the
trainer has done nothing except answer the posters (client's?)
question. If poster likes the content and the style of response and
wish to take the relationship further then that is their prerogative.
There doesn't only have to be one reason. Some people simply get a
kick from helping fellow human beings.
>At least I am honest and up front about it.
I have never thought you have been anything else on this point and
that doesn't mean it's any better than what other trainers might do
here though.
>As for you post, The response was about the 'CLAIM' being a fact not that
>facts were not advertising.
OK I can accept that. So the claim was a fact. But you said it was a
fact that trainers only advertise here and you are a trainer.
Therefore the claim was also an advertisement.
--
John
Tom Vizzini
Oops....I didn't realize I was talking with a moron.
Where did I say postng a testimonial was not an advertisement?
Now read slow so you can understand this. Ray potsed that the claim about
the 41 year phobis being fixed in one day was quite a claim. I stated that
it was not a claim but a fact. Unka also stated this.
Somehow you read it and thought that someone was claiming it was not an ad.
I am not sure how you put that together in your mind but it is obvious that
you don't understand much of what you read.
It was a blatant ad .
So now what?
Tom
"John" <kg...@hotmull.cin> wrote in message
news:3ffi611mc568jbesu...@4ax.com...
John
<T...@essential-skills.com> wrote:
>
>Oops....I didn't realize I was talking with a moron.
Yes you did, you knew it all the time.
>Where did I say postng a testimonial was not an advertisement?
>
>Now read slow so you can understand this. Ray potsed that the claim about
>the 41 year phobis being fixed in one day was quite a claim. I stated that
>it was not a claim but a fact. Unka also stated this.
OK I'll read Ray's post slowly - That's a heck of an advertising claim
to be making!
Er.. he said 'a heck of a..' not 'quite'
and
an 'advertising claim' not just claim.
Tim then said it wasn't advertising.
Us morons really do have trouble with what people mean when they write
stuff I'm afraid not like the clever people who can read minds.
>Somehow you read it and thought that someone was claiming it was not an ad.
Tim then said it wasn't advertising.
Indeed, that's what I read.
>I am not sure how you put that together in your mind but it is obvious that
>you don't understand much of what you read.
That's why it so good to have the great trainers here helping us to
understand better.
--
John
Ray Gordon
>> psychiatrist? I believe this should be the case with all forms of
>> "alternative healing" or whatever they call it these days. I'm not
> singling
>> out NLP.
>
> No. Well not in this case. Let me tell you why.
>
> Let me give you a quick example. In this case where a 41-year-old phobia
> was unable to be cured by all times of traditional doctors, a $70 tape set
> was able to accomplish the goal.
>
> The doctor and psychiatrist became unnecessary. No drugs were needed.
> Doctors and psychiatrists are necessary only one prescription drugs are
> going to be used. What would doctor know about helping people with
> phobias?
> They have absolutely no training in that area. Psychiatrists seem to be
> overly focused on events of the past and finding when a problem occurred.
Doctors have an oath that protects patients. When the alternative
practitioner is working under the supervision of the doctor, the doctor has
to take legal responsibility for the treatment. I would also imagine that
it'd be much easier to get insurance to pay for such treatments.
> With the 3-D Mind no drugs are needed and the past is irrelevant.
>
> Your belief about supervision just reflects your programming.
That would apply to your belief as well.
>It is the
> programming that suggests that some other authority figure always knows
> better about your problems than you do.
Nope. Has more to do with legal protections that come with the Hippocratic
Oath.
>What you are ignoring is that this
> nice lady was seen by all kinds of psychiatrists and doctors. Nothing
> worked.
>
> She was finally able to help herself or everyone else had failed.
>
> You can't ignore that result. Is that kind of result was rare I might
> understand your point of view. The truth is said that kind of result is
> now
> very common. Doctors and psychiatrists are becoming an unnecessary
> expense.
>
> The goal of self-help is to teach people to help themselves without the
> expense of psychiatrists and doctors.
Without taking sides in the debate (I'm not taking a position on 3D-mind and
this isn't a positive or negative endorsement of it), what you say is very
likely true, but that has to cast a pall on either the established medical
profession, or the alternative practitioners.
Either the medical professionals are racketeers who put profits above their
patients, or the alternative healers are unqualified laypeople trying to
cash in on the sick. If what you say is true, one of the previous two
statements almost has to be true.
Logically, the doctor could easily recommend the tape set, even "prescribe"
it, and again it might be covered by insurance (in which case you'd benefit
as well).
I've seen medical racketeering up close and it's pretty ugly and stupid.
The biggest scam they have now is refusing to treat minor illnesses in the
uninsured, so that when they become major illnesses, they wind up dumped on
the same hospital's ER, where the patient is billed 20 times as much money,
and that unpaid bill is used to create a writeoff against other income, thus
giving the hospital the appearance of being a nonprofit.
This isn't minor: those bills wind up pushing people into bankruptcy, often
with the hospitals getting money that should be going to the legitimate
creditors (like credit-card companies and department stores), and the
writeoffs are coming straight out of the treasury, because they represent
what would otherwise be taxable income.
Another cute scam the medical profession engages in is finding fault with
any drug whose patent has expired, even if it gets the job done effectively
and cheaply. Most every drug you see TV commercials for these days is a
replacement for some older, less-expensive drug that the companies can no
longer profit from.
As for your motivation to help people, that can be admirable and all, but
it's not like you're not making some good coin for yourself in the process.
Greg Alexander
>> need to be in balance and this sounds fair enough. It may be
>> just as fair to say that if any area of the brain is simply not
>> being used, this will be a problem - it doesn't matter how
>> you label the areas.
> Yes and no. There is a difference in how these two parts of the
> brain interact. The reptilian part of the brains connections all go
> basically vertical. The creative/adaptive outer layer of the brains
> connections are more weblike and interconnected. That means
> the creative/adaptive outer layer of the brain control upon other
> concepts and other ideas to generate solutions to problems.
The Triune Brain concept refers to 3 parts, yet you talk of 2.
Do you work with all 3 or 2... am I missing something there?
Anyway, I was differentiating the content of the theory from the
pattern itself. If the content is guaranteed to be correct, of course
there would be less reason to chunk up to pattern level.
With regards to the Triune brain concept, I found an interesting quote:
"It is no surprise that such a fundamental conceptual understanding
would power educational businesses, and several have already emerged.
The Educational Kinesiology Foundation has used it to create a powerful
set of neurological balancing processes. Wayne Topping's Biokinesiology
processes, and Three-in-One Concepts Inc, have each produced workshops
based on individual communication to each of the three brains that each
person has. These sophisisticated triune brain processes assist a
person in discovering one's own solid goals, and to provide a
congruency among all three brains toward those goals. Although in
general human societies are hierarchical and ritualistic, the potential
for improvement in human social systems by using these processes
provides new hope for humanity's future."
http://home.earthlink.net/~jedcline/tribrn.html
A couple of other ways of researching the Triune brain and use in
change work.
> These three parts of the brain are not metaphors. They actually do
> exist. They actually do have the functions on a physical level.
> They are not some metaphor about levels of the brain.
It is still considered a concept and there are alternative theories.
I happen to like the concept though, it sounds quite reasonable.
> There is indeed scientific backup that these actually exist.
As you suggest, I will look some of this up.
>> we have all the resources we need within ourself, it adds
>> these 3 key content areas (creative, reflexive, primal).
>> Then we work with these content areas <snip> to boost
>> a certain area, adding a resource to a context.
>
> Again, yes and no. There is no boosting in the 3-D Mind model.
> That would just be using one in motion to overpower another.
> That's not balancing that is using effort and energy.
Later you say:
> For these people we have to add states like fear and anxiety
> to balance out the brain function and get them to actually move.
If someone has a belief or behaviour, you can add one state to the mix
and the belief (or behaviour) will change. I'd say you add a resource
to it.
If you are balancing levels of something, that requires adding
something or taking something away doesn't it? Even if it's balancing
neural activation levels.
>> In general once the client is in a resourceful state, we ask the
>> unconscious for an appropriate state that would be useful
>> in the context.
>
> This is where what you are doing and what I am doing take to
> different routes. I would never ask the unconscious to do
> anything. I direct the unconscious and conscious mind together
> to perform a task.
Isn't that still asking the unconscious to perform some task?
In general, people I've worked with don't listen to their unconscious
signals, so part of any session involves becoming aware of them or
setting up new ones.
You are right that the best idea is a balance, and John Grinder
explicitly says this too. In general people are more conscious than
unconscious though so communication with the unconscious is encouraged.
> You assume there is a creative part of the brain or the unconscious.
> Your assumption that there is a creative part is nothing more than
> a metaphor in the weight you are using it because you are asking
> that part to make a decision.
I don't assume it. I presuppose it to activate that state. Or put a
creative state together.
> What the 3-D Mind does is actually change the way the brain
> functions. This is significantly different. The creative/adaptive,
> reflexive and primal brain functions are actual physical parts
> of the brain. They are not metaphors. Getting these parts of
> the brain to work in a balanced fashion generates solutions
> to problems that are not limited by the guidance of a
> therapist or a suggestion.
There are many ways to generate solutions not limited by the guidance
of a therapist or a suggestion. If you think I've in any way endorsed
guidance like that, let me know what I've said that's misleading you.
I mean that - this is very important to me.
As an example, just helping the client to enter a resourceful state
(there are certainly resourceful states do you agree?) from which they
can resourcefully explore a given context (or behaviour) will allow
them to generate their own solutions.
> The idea of the unconscious mind and the conscious mind are
> indeed nothing more than metaphors because they are just
> different levels of thinking coming out of the same physical brain.
This is somewhere we disagree. There are things we are conscious of,
and things we are not conscious of (yet are important to us anyway).
The conscious (linguistic transforms) and unconscious are also real
ways the brain functions (whether different levels or not), and getting
them to work in a balanced fashion is effective.
I guess in so much as that - the disagreement here is that the
difference is just a metaphor. Our conscious approach to life is more
limited to our attention, and chunks of information - shown in many
studies (including the famous 7+/-2 chunks of information stuff)
> Also, your operating under the assumption that the unconscious
> mind does not have the same limited view of the world has the
> conscious mind.
Nah, the unconscious has a different limited view to the conscious.
Less limited, but still limited. Certainly more systemic.
I don't believe in "God consciousness" or anything of the sort.
> The idea that the unconscious mind is not operating out of
> the same limitations of the conscious mind is dangerous if
> you are asking the unconscious mind to make decisions
> on its own.
Odd.
If it has the same limitations then any decision will be just as
limited as a conscious one. So why would it be dangerous?
If it has different limitations then a balance is going to lead to a
more effective decision.
The conscious mind is the tip of an iceberg, there's a lot going on
below that we're not able to see at first glance. Though there is
always a lot going on in our mind, the conscious mind is limited in the
amount of information it can hold at once (limited to about 5-9
things).
> That is just my opinion.
No worries.
>> I will need to explore that a bit - for instance are the 3 states
>> generic enough to work with someone, or is it useful to use
>> the Big 5 traits that most personality research has identified?
>
> Here's a difference in the weight you are thinking and what I'm
> presenting. The creative/adaptive, reflexive and primal parts
> of the brain are not states. They are physical functions of the
brain.
There is a big difference between "physical functions" of the brain,
and "parts" of the brain. In addition, "creative/adaptive" is a label
that is helpful in understanding the Triune brain concept, but are you
saying that adapting can only happen in this part? The generalisation
is useful though.
> The biggest problem with hypnosis and NLP at this point is that they
> still follow the map of psychotherapy even though they may use a
> different tool. My suggestion is that the map of psychotherapy is
> a flawed map.
What, in your opinion, is the map of psychotherapy??
> Here is the best way that I think you should examine anything
> like the 3-D Mind. Set aside what you are doing already. Learn
> the model as the model is presented and become functional in
> that model. Only after that can you even think about relating to
> do what you already do because before that it will be tainted by
> what you already do. When learning any new skills you should
> never taint it with what you already think you know. If you do
> you'll be polluting the original intent of the model.
Yeah, the same principles as NLP modelling. That is a much better way
of learning something. And it would involve buying your product.
I am learning, but to decide if I want to invest in your course I'd
need to decide if I was going to learn anything I wasn't already doing.
Your replies to what you believe I do, what you believe are my
approaches, indicate to me that you certainly don't know what I do or
how I've been trained (which is fair enough, we only know so much!).
Your money back guarantee (which is a great offer by the way) is
offered to people if what you teach isn't effective. What you teach is
most likely quite effective, I just am not convinced of your reasons
WHY it is effective, whether it is different to what I am already doing
(at the pattern level, not content and reasoning), or whether it is any
MORE or LESS effective than what I am already doing.
Thanks for your replies
Greg
Joe Bloggs
you still have no shame in showing your face here after trolling this group
under the monickers above for several months. Even after trolling
alt.religion.islam calling the people there terrorists and such.
Have you no shame John Humberstone?
---------------------------------
The John Humberstone FAQ:
John responds to his puppet Headstone:
http://tinyurl.com/6dmf7
Headstone's initial tirade on this group:
http://tinyurl.com/5qkft
The Genius of John Humberstone:
http://tinyurl.com/4d3te
Want Quality Discussions?
http://tinyurl.com/5ljwz
John Humberstone's (Dumberstone aka STONEHEAD's) actual email:
jhu...@net-coms.co.uk
His puppet emails:
jg...@hotmill.con
tombston...@yahoo.co.uk
ronhubbardlo...@yahoo.com
nlptra...@yahoo.com
anonymou...@yahoo.com
Dumberstone says this about himself:
" I am a quality specialist working with companies who want or need to
improve upon the way they do business primarily with ISO 9000 and Business
Excellence. I am also an experienced ISO 9000 Lead Assessor working with
Quality and Environmental Certification - QEC, a UKAS accredited assessment
company and as a Lead Assessor Trainer with QECT."
Look at a picture of A STONEHEAD:
http://www.businessadviser.com/humber.htm
The best part of all of this is that STONEHEAD accused Myron and myself of
trolling whilst creating multiple identities, conversing with themselves,
and trolling the folks at alt.religion.islam with the jg...@hotmill.com id.
The Headstone of:
----------------
/ R.I.P. \
| |
| John |
| "Dumberstone" |
| Humberstone|
| |
------------------
A Tombstonetales4U (tm) production
(c) Blogg Inc. 2005
"John" <kg...@hotmull.cin> wrote in message
news:3ffi611mc568jbesu...@4ax.com...
Tom Vizzini
"Joe Bloggs" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ITjae.88$tg1.51@edtnps84...> news:vradnaRPO4z...@adelphia.com...
> >
> > Oops....I didn't realize I was talking with a moron.
>
> Tombstonetales4U, aka NLP Newbie. See the Dumberstone FAQ below....
It all makes sense now
John
>Subject: Re: 41 Year Phobia gone in ONE DAY with 3D Mind
>Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:52:38 -0400
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2742.200
>Message-ID: <Xrqdne32XrK...@adelphia.com>
>Lines: 19
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.34.136.163
>X-Trace: sv3-6xuwAzLcLWVm2/ExG0rswndJw5dtkS+GeaJB2VBzC35pycp3Zkrh7JuEIHjP1uLsHTgBc85OI7bmENu!cGyAuSsnD2Vb8qM/hkLm5V8KNOcZjA46l6cAXIk6VZO05ePxyDcNuPdeuCDHIPwTzhXcInXBUgcA!67EvwGN4L+w+ZreP
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@adelphia.net
>X-DMCA-Complaints-To: copy...@adelphia.net
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.31
>Xref: atl-c01.usenetserver.com alt.psychology.nlp:173463
>X-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 09:09:37 EDT (be02)
I am disappointed that someone of your stature should belive all this
rubbish.
If can't argue your case on its merits then stooping to abuse does you
no favours.
--
John
Joe Bloggs
"John" <kg...@hotmull.cin> wrote in message
You shameless dinkus maximus, stonehead, headstone, tombstonetales4u, John
Humberstone, Dumberstone idiotic puke.
> If can't argue your case on its merits then stooping to abuse does you
> no favours.
You won't win any friends by denying the obvious John Humberstone you
trolling fucktard.
> --
> John Humberstone aka Dumberstone AKA STONEHEAD!