4 Step Change Format

[Psych Knight]

I have read somewhere Grinder mentioning a thing called a "4 Step
Change Format". Anyone here know the details and steps of this? An
outline maybe?

[Greg Alexander]

Essentially, the 4 step change format involves...

1. Have a subject select a context in which they want to behave
differently. Do this from 3rd position - so they can see themselves
doing what they do in that context. They may mark this out at a place
on the floor.

2. The subject steps into the context (1st position) and experiences it
as it is now. Calibrate their state! (they may also self calibrate)

3. Dissociate from the context (check they have dissociated - use your
calibration, a 4th position if necessary etc). Then have the subject do
a new code game until they enter a content-free high performance state.
As normal, this may take 15 minutes.

4. When the subject has a resourceful state, step into the original
context. Observe and calibrate their state now. If necessary, continue
change work.

Of course, this format can be used with many patterns.

Some minor changes we might do include
- the unconscious may select the context you are working with.
- In step 3 I sometimes use a specific state, instead of content free,
as long as it has been selected by the subject's unconscious (or agreed
to congruently).

It's a neat pattern but when I was told the steps specifically it'd
didn't do much for me - the pattern is already quite a natural part of
the other stuff I was trained in. Calibration, content free,
resourceful states, 1st and 3rd positions.

Does anyone here use this pattern or a similar one now? If it's
different, in what way?
Greg

[Chris]

Greg Alexander wrote:
> Essentially, the 4 step change format involves...

> 3. Dissociate from the context (check they have dissociated - use

your
> calibration, a 4th position if necessary etc). Then have the subject
do
> a new code game until they enter a content-free high performance
state.
> As normal, this may take 15 minutes.

Hi Greg,

So what's a 4th position? Surely you are referring to an alternative
3rd position?
As in, there are 3 perceptual positions, first, second and third. Each
perceptual position offers a different type of description. In Grinder
and DeLozier's book "Turtles All the way down" perceptual positions
are decribed within the frame of "Triple description".

Dilts has a process he calls a "Meta Mirror" which uses a so called
"4th position". However, it is really simply an alternative 3rd
position.

Bostic St Clair and Grinder address this distinction in their book
"Whispering in the Wind".

Regards Chris Collingwood

[Greg Alexander]

Thanks Chris, Yes I was referring to Dilts and his process for making
sure the subject is cleanly dissociated. A 3rd position on the 3rd
position.

:-)

[Trance-formation]

Slightly off topic for the thread, I know, but is there room in our
philosophy for equating a 4th position with the transpersonal
experience?

Adam

[Trance-formation]

Actually, I find the term "transpersonal experience" too vague (which
has its uses at times, but not in this context:-)

I've been thinking about this more, and it seems to me that Dilts' uses
the term 4th position to describe an "associated into" 3rd position,
which is different in quality to the more usual associated 3rd position
(http://www.nlpu.com/Patterns/patt21.htm)

Adam

[Trance-formation]

sorry, that should have been more usual dissociated 3rd position

[Greg Alexander]

Trance-formation wrote:
> I've been thinking about this more, and it seems to me that
> Dilts' uses the term 4th position to describe an
> "associated into" 3rd position, which is different in

> quality to the more usual dissociated 3rd position

Before talking about 4th position, I'd like to address the 3rd
position...

3rd position is dissociated from 1st (& 2nd) positions. But in fact,
all 3 positions are associated positions, they all have their own state
etc.

3rd position is often confused for a dissociated position as we
sometimes approach it from whether we are in 1st or not. We say we're
associated into 1st, or dissociated from 1st (though we are actually
associated into something else called 3rd).

In doing perceptual positions, sometimes we carry over some part of our
state from 1st into 3rd position. In 3rd position we want a clean,
separate perception of the interaction - and there are several ways of
making sure we have that 3rd position state (some people call it the
scientific observer, or the anthropologist). Dilts' said to go 3rd
position on the 3rd position - which dissociates from the original 3rd
position. This position is often a more useful state for the purposes
of the perceptual positions exercise, and Dilts named it a 4th (or 5th
etc) position.

> http://www.nlpu.com/Patterns/patt21.htm

Perceptual positions takes the terms 1st, 2nd, and 3rd from common
language (I, you, him/her). If we're exploring 3 positions in an
exercise and giving each position a name (1st, 2nd, 3rd), then when we
want another state to further explore from, it's natural to give the
4th state we're working with a name too....

The NLPU pattern and Dilt's pattern use the term "4th position" in
totally different ways. The NLPU article is interesting in it's own
right (thanks for the link!) - to me it seems more related to modelling
and finger touch dancing.

Given the multiple meanings of the term 4th position I think I'll refer
to it differently now as Chris pointed out.

[Trance-formation]

Of course, you are right. It is useful to acknowledge that we always
associate into the positions. Thanks for the opportunity to stretch the
way I think about things a little more rigorously:-)