3D Mind video review by Robert Johansson.
Robert
But I get back to that.
I am an NLP Trainer and are of constant search for new improved ways
of achiving change. I read books, listen to tapes, watch some videos
and read a lot on the internet trough articles and also newsgroups.
I am trained in NLP by Mckenna-Breen and Bandler primary since I went
trough the master practitioner and trainer training trough them. I
also has exposure to DHE trough John la valle and Barb Stepp and NHR
from Bandlers intro in Scotland.
As promised I was going to watch the video the 3D mind which Tom
Vizzini and Kim Mcfarland has for sale on there website.
As some of you have been reading on this newsgroup and other places
some claims has been brought foreward from Tom Vizzini.
1. No need for NLP training other than anchoring and rapport and
calibration.
2. There is none so far who has said where the 3D mind has been done
in the NLP models.
3. Many who tryied it has reported great sucess.
I will try my best to give my take on this and will use NLP lingo to
some extent with this review.
I will try answer some questions like:
1. If it works - why does it work?
2. Is there any NLP involved and if so, what?
3. Is it a NLP model or a model?
4. Is it a NLP Application or stand on its own legs?
And maybe more.
The video is on 2 tapes.
On the first tape Tom Vizzini guides the people in the seminar trough
a step by step process doing one step at the time.
The second video is where he guide a person trough the 3D Mind
process.
In the 3D mind process Tom says we are looking for the driver state
which fuels the "recipe or "problem". (In NLP we call that a strategy)
The "state" who drives the problem is then taken out of the problem
state.
(It is like in a T.O.T.E where something has to start for the TOTE to
be run trough a decision point)
If something drives something then as I can understand this something
with submodalites. The NLP model propose that any sensorysystem has at
least 1 "critical" often more submodalities who affects one persons
representation.
Size or brightness can be 2 visual critical ones for example. (process
and structure)
When proposing to take the "state" out of the defined problem you are
using an overlap in synthesias, example would be "can you see what I
am saying?" Which would be a visual and auditory overlap a
"synthesia".
Tom also goes on to use spatial anchoring which this overlap of
senses.
Spatial anchoring is where you mark some spots and therefore "anchor"
the word, feeling or association of any connection between state and
behavior.
You can mark it out in the "air" and leave it in the air until you get
back to it. Very common with Richard Bandlers meta4 work.
Also analog marking is connected to this.
Tom also goes into how that "problem" are connected to other contexts.
When changed using the 3D mind process the person change other past
event and use that as a resource and then futurepace the event looking
trough the state.
This is also what I find, you take kinestetic information "states" and
overlap to visual modality and then sort the problem state out
spatially in the air and then "add" resources to the spatialt sorted
driver states.
Then when a state change has occoured you put everything back into the
"problemspace" and blend it togheter.
Then the person tests it stepping into the new drivers and look trough
the world from that.
What I can notice when Tom demonstrate on the second video is that he
is using a visual spatial anchor which then are used as a looking
glass (step into and look trough it) and reanchor old contexts trough
the new associations.
Tom`s language changes also when he does that, he also use a anchor
for different spatial positions (Perceptual positions) when going to
the guys left side and say "how does it look from here?"
The ambiguity for the guy who goes trough the change is not obvious.
Tom then goes to the right side to the guy and then changes language
to "going into the next event, how it will feel and similar things".
It is as it seems a reflection of the language of synthesia where he
blends a kinestetic and visual spatial anchor togheter.
The guy who is on stage also demonstrate that the strong drivers he
has are based on size and brightness. (Submodalites)
(When he changed his state trough the 3D mind process he also shifted
his submodalities of size and brightness which then would be the
proportions of one issue with the problem) Since the guy stated he
felt kinda down and small and pointed indirectly to the change had to
do with size.
John Grinder and Carmen states in the book whispering in the wind that
"performance" is a function of "state" and so to optimize performance
select a state which enhances performance and give acess to unconsious
recources. (Page 233)
On page 296 in whispering they state that seperate parts or
contradiction in information will spontaneous integrate if put into
kinestetic modality and put in visual modality will hold steady with
no movement to integrate.
So if using the 3D mind getting unconsious kinestetic information and
using spatial anchors (Visual) to sort things out and then get them
back will spontaneous integrate with each others.
(Not if part of strong dissociation or incongurent)
(Rare though)
Whats also noticable are to mark the space out where you help the
person sort things, the "intent" of the practitioner is crucial to
make the process work since it is based on accepting the "reality of
the person".
In essence you make things real for them using spatial anchors and
distance.
The state where you make things real are important.
(in NLP we know that we need to accept the subjective reality as real
for the client to make changes easy)
In Tom`s presentations he is using many advanced concepts when
introducing the 3D mind.
He use an example where a guy is afraid he be reversing the change
when he comes home.
Tom influence him using advanced sleight of mouth to set a double bind
where he has to "validating a change".
My personal reflection on this is that I notice nothing new with how
the change occours and the principles involved.
Writing that however there is also something new in how the principles
are used.
Even if it is easy to say in NLP that Bandler and Grinders work isnt
new since anything they put foreward humans have used in history.
In the how they used the knowledge like using linguistics as a tool to
map theraphy they found themselves discovering powerful patterns which
today are common knowledge.
I also notice that Tom is using the word of "adventerous fear" as a
possible combination between states.
This as for me sounds similar to what Michael Hall propose with his
metastates.
A state about a state how specifically?
Now, writing that I also stated earlier that I had mixed feelings
about this review.
Does the 3D mind process work?
Yes.
Does the 3d mind add as to an NLP model or an NLP application?
The 3D mind isnt a NLP model it is an NLP application more or less.
This is the one thing, when Tom says on the video that he make the
process work faster since he belives it will work and using intent, I
will say he is wrong.
If the 3D mind works it has nothing to do with belifs. (And if it does
it is content based)
It has to do with that you "know" it will work.
(Fully associate into a congurent state where you use all avalible
resources and then apply the pattern - Common NLP approach)
I have stated myself that placebo has nothing to do with belifs and
have had people tell me I am on the wrong track.
Richard Bandler for example is confusing the hell out of people in his
submodality belif change since he is using the wrong levels to explain
the process with.
Take the example:
1. Take a problem you "know" you have.
2. Lift the problem "up" into beliving that you have that problem.
3. Now, since you now are beliving you have a problem you have a lot
of other possibilities that it is possible to be able to handle the
problem easy and smoothless right?
4. Put the new belived idea "back into" the "know" spot ie "lift it
back in".
Doing the above using spatial anchors and changing what you know into
beliving and add a resource, a "possibility" and then back into the
old know will permanently make a belifchange easier than any other
pattern I know of.
I have done the above for a time and it will as you look at that
process notice the principle is the same as in 3D mind.
There is no need to use advanced linguistics like Bandler does if all
you want to do is a simple belif change.
And the above proces is also "new" in the same way as in the 3D mind
since it is based on that principle that all we do are to set a label
and experience and the experience is something we "know" is true...
If we change that expereince into something else by changing the label
we change what is true. Go figure what reality really is ;)
Important is also to notice the changepoints,
1. A stateshift occours when we change the drivers of the old problem
space state. (Submodalites)
2. The intention and "knowing this is true" will add only one choice
when working with the process. (New code NLP)
3. Pacing and changing old past events using the new resource and also
futurepace are based on 2 set of synthesias. (Eyemodel and repsystem
model)
4. Finding the right driver state or "critical" submodalities are very
important and to add the "right level of intensity of state.
(Anchoring and calibration)
In the NHR program and the process I got from there is that we are
using Hypnotic Restructuring trough a overlap between kinestetic and
visual and auditory acess.
The old problem state becomes the driver of the new positive state so
if they try to go back they end up reinforcing the new good states.
Combining those 2 processes will add to any easy to do NLP
application.
For those new to change I think the 3D mind is great to learn to do
either trough a seminar or the video.
For the old NLP practitioner the video should give enough material to
use the process and be able to try different combinations out.
In the 2 module of the current NLP Practitioner material I had the
chance to use the 3D mind process and to try things out.
Ex: 1. I asked one guy about his problems, he had 2 things and massive
past events which I held up my hand and said so what "is this problem
based on" I then sorted out in the air spatial anchors and left the
all anchors in the air and the old "problemspace" clean and empty. I
then anchored 2 assistants and used those anchors and pull the states
out of them into the spatially empty air spot where the guys "empty
spot" was and flung it into him.
Result was,
He couldnt remember what the problem was.
Ex 2. I let the participants test to do a group change for a woman who
had an issue.
They tryied different ways and when they finally find the right added
change she went trough massive change in her state. They used the 3D
mind process with a voice in her head.
As stated earlier I have mixed feelings since for me personally all
the things I see in the 3D mind video I myself can do and have done.
It is also a very applied variation of common NLP processes and
models.
Anyhow,
can you use the 3D mind for change of limiting belifs and/or problems
and make it work without any previous NLP training?
Yes no doubt.
NLP training does however also add a whole different level depending
on "who" is teaching NLP.
I can only say that most of those who are done with my 4 day of NLP
practitioner training can do changework which I think are exceptional
for the level of training.
The addition of the principle involved in the 3D mind makes a nice
addition to the NLP trainings I do.
It does so by adding a simple variation of using spatial anchors. I
often myself use colors and spatial markings on the floor.
A process which are based on walking spatial anchoring and time. Read
more here.http://www.svensknlp.nu/Engelsk/slowswish.htm
One thing the 3D mind process do are to overlap the Ceq which blend
different logical levels of experience as in sensory based information
(First Acess J.G) and the linguistic maps (Transformed sensorydata)
formed from that sensorybased expereince.
Motoric and kinestetic movement is important as to step into the
enlarged new state.
What I can say is that we humans use spatial sorted information into
our brains and if the information isnt sorted then confusion happens.
In NLP there has been doing a lot of patterns and applications and if
properly trained a NLP practitioner will be able to create new
techniques when faced with a client on the spot.
Techniques are only used as a guide to the processes and principles
involved.
The NLP Practitioner should then be able to map a clients process out
to go trough the steps they make when doing a problem.
Changing the basic states like,
when I had done the NHR program and also a bit before I used the
feelings of a state and reversed them and made new feelings to go into
the old feelings route.
My sisters son had a problem with being unsecure and afraid when
learning new stuff.
I changed the input he had with calm and security and replaced the old
feelings and let the startegy run with the new feelings.
I asked him "So if you do it like this then what happens?"
he paused for 15 sec and said a bit surprised "I will make it?"
I asked my sister about this 3 weeks later and she said he been calm
and secure since then.
If you notice there is a similar pattern involved here into the system
I was noticing in Bandlers work and the review I been writing about 3D
mind.
The 3D mind is a great changetool and are easy to use.
It is based as I see it on NLP principles well covered in NLP since
earlier.
The mix however and the format and the notion of skipping most of the
NLP models explicit makes it easy to do and use for many aspects.
As noted a NLP:er will be able to do a lot with the 3D mind which will
add to the toolbox a lot.
Rapport, calibration and use of spatial anchoring and some specific
language are much needed tools.
If we want to change something it is easier if we use anchors as
tools. The same change can however be accomplished trough language
alone.
There is also some concerns,
if not using a process and structured approach then it might be
possible to engage in content and argue what is needed for the client.
It is also very important to get a statechange since any changepattern
involves that.
(evidence criteria)
The pointers to belif when it is really that you "know" it will work
which make avaible only one choice and no doubt.
That is the NLP attitude to commit into a full force using the
subjective performer into the equation.
Science removed the one who observing and John Grinder and Richard
Bandler put it back using "as if" and full commitment to try patterns
out.
In the 3d mind the following are present,
Time as in timelines NLP applications of anchoring.
Anchoring as in NLP model.
Overlapping of repsystems. Synthesia.
Decision strategies. Duh...Elicitations.
Calibration.
Rapport.
State.
The good thing are the lack of a lot of jargong and some explicit
material well covered in NLP.
If a process work there should be no content to be able to perform.
If the need is to accept belifs and other things instead of a model
with no content then it isnt good.
Robert Dilts Neuro Logical model for example is content oriented model
and you need to accept Dilts own personal filtering.
(His personal filters)
The 3D mind is formaly done if the intent and state of the
practitioner is hold to some variables and acting "as if" with full
comitment.
It works by shifting kinestetic information into visual spatial
organized and reorganized with consious mind deciding.
The skill of the practitioner will decide how much success is made
since it is a bit to much consious mind.
That Tom himself says he not giving any choice to the client are to
making sure no consious deciding is being made.
For example;
1. Asking some Metamodel questions to get the desired result first
done. (Calibration)
(In essence to make sure what they want to achive) (Desired state with
contexts)
2. Do the 3D mind process of current problem. (Present state)
3. Test - do they display the state they wanted to achive? (Desired
state) If not go back and do it again.
4. Build in a generalization to past events and futurepace.
5. Test - Is there anything else thats need to be done?
The addition of what they want to go the desired state is important as
a guiding principle.
You can also as noted change the current state but often it isnt
enough since the old comparision of the old events still influence
current behaviors and state.
I have found so far the 3d mind a sound process using NLP principles
with a wast amount of possible applications.
There are concerns though, the 3D mind is to blend consious filtering
(consious minds deciding), if not careful of not giving the unconsious
the responses fully then it might be awry.
I would make sure to add more unconsious responsability to make sure
it is automatic.
At the last I reflect on one thing,
hypnosis dosnt exist and if it exist it only treat the symptoms.
I think a lot of old accepted knowledge at least in how it`s been done
and applied before will change trough the years.
Once there was a roar of screams that you could treat a phobia in 15
minuts.
Today it is common knowledge in NLP.
Once you couldnt spell and now you can fix dyslexia in one or a few
sessions.
Common knowledge in NLP.
There is still more to do and teach simple formats which range trough
a number of applications.
3d mind fits there.
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
Tom Vizzini
Thanks for the thorough review. I disagree with some of you conclusions but
overall you did a great job. I am going to draw some distinctions for you
that you might not have thought of. I realize that it is a habit for those
trained in NLP to filter everything through an NLP reality. Let me offer you
something different.
First let me say that I believe that the 3D Mind fit seamlessly into the NLP
Model. My extensive training in NLP is part of the 3D Mind. You do a good
job of drawing the distinctions of things that are similar to NLP. You also
miss some distinctions that are not NLP.
"Robert" <rob...@svensknlp.nu> wrote in message
>
> As some of you have been reading on this newsgroup and other places
> some claims has been brought foreward from Tom Vizzini.
Yep these are the basic premises of the 3D Mind.
> 1. No need for NLP training other than anchoring and rapport and
> calibration.
Anchoring is NOT needed. If you understand anchoring you can see there is no
anchoring at all. There is manipulation of a reality using states inside of
a constructive positive hallucination though. That is not anchoring.
> 2. There is none so far who has said where the 3D mind has been done
> in the NLP models.
Yes the entire process has not been done before in this combination and with
the new distinctions used. After reading your review, other than a few NLP
similarities, you still do not provide where it has existed before.
> 3. Many who tried it has reported great sucess.
Yes that is true. Also add how easy it was to use on themselves and others.
>
> In the 3D mind process Tom says we are looking for the driver state
> which fuels the "recipe or "problem". (In NLP we call that a strategy)
> The "state" who drives the problem is then taken out of the problem
> state.
> (It is like in a T.O.T.E where something has to start for the TOTE to
> be run trough a decision point)
OK here is where you draw a connection to NLP where I do not think one
exists. There is a difference between the construction of a problem and a
strategy for a problem. Strategies are linear and have movement. Constructs
exist as a reality not a strategy. There is no movement. They just exist.
The 3D Mind does not include a decision point. It works on what happens
before the strategy ever occurs. I do not concern myself with the sequence
of events that leads up to procrastination. I also do not treat
procrastination as an event. Procrastination is treated as a behavior that
is constructed of states. By example, I would never ask the question " How
do you know when to procrastinate?" That is unecessary information.
>
> If something drives something then as I can understand this something
> with submodalites. The NLP model propose that any sensorysystem has at
> least 1 "critical" often more submodalities who affects one persons
> representation.
> Size or brightness can be 2 visual critical ones for example. (process
> and structure)
I do not use submodalies anywhere in the process. Distance, shape, still or
movie, color and size have nothing to do with the process but if you want to
understand it by fitting it into what you already know, that would be a way
to understand it. What I might do is ask for a color or have them reach out
and touch it but that has nothing to do with submodalities.
>
> When proposing to take the "state" out of the defined problem you are
> using an overlap in synthesias, example would be "can you see what I
> am saying?" Which would be a visual and auditory overlap a
> "synthesia".
> Tom also goes on to use spatial anchoring which this overlap of
> senses.
>
> Spatial anchoring is where you mark some spots and therefore "anchor"
> the word, feeling or association of any connection between state and
> behavior.
> You can mark it out in the "air" and leave it in the air until you get
> back to it. Very common with Richard Bandlers meta4 work.
> Also analog marking is connected to this.
Actually this is a very common misunderstanding by those trained in NLP.
Think of this in a different way than spacial anchoring. Think of projecting
a spacial reality. For an anchor there is usually an elicitation. Not the
case in the 3D Mind. They already have the state. I just tell them where to
put it.
>
> What I can notice when Tom demonstrate on the second video is that he
> is using a visual spatial anchor which then are used as a looking
> glass (step into and look trough it) and reanchor old contexts trough
> the new associations.
>
> Tom`s language changes also when he does that, he also use a anchor
> for different spatial positions (Perceptual positions) when going to
> the guys left side and say "how does it look from here?"
> The ambiguity for the guy who goes trough the change is not obvious.
>
> Tom then goes to the right side to the guy and then changes language
> to "going into the next event, how it will feel and similar things".
Perceptual positions is one way to understand the process. Let me add this.
The use of perceptual positions is mainly a disassociated state. One
distinction with the 3D Mind is that the subject is always fully associated
in the state. The other is that positions are time based not perceptually
based.
>
> It is as it seems a reflection of the language of synthesia where he
> blends a kinestetic and visual spatial anchor togheter.
> The guy who is on stage also demonstrate that the strong drivers he
> has are based on size and brightness. (Submodalites)
> (When he changed his state trough the 3D mind process he also shifted
> his submodalities of size and brightness which then would be the
> proportions of one issue with the problem) Since the guy stated he
> felt kinda down and small and pointed indirectly to the change had to
> do with size.
>
> John Grinder and Carmen states in the book whispering in the wind that
> "performance" is a function of "state" and so to optimize performance
> select a state which enhances performance and give acess to unconsious
> recources. (Page 233)
The difference with the 3D Mind is that we view performance not in the state
you go out to chose, but in the restructuring of a combination of states
that already exist. Performance, confidence and happiness are treated as the
natural reality of people. The Random events of life sometimes construct
beliefs and behaviors that get in the way of that natural reality. So there
is no need to amp up states to get what you want.
> So if using the 3D mind getting unconsious kinestetic information and
> using spatial anchors (Visual) to sort things out and then get them
> back will spontaneous integrate with each others.
Again I want to be clear that there is a difference between anchoring and a
spacial reality. I really don't think things spontaneously integrate. Proof
of that is that when we go inside the belief or behavior that they states
are not integrated. The are part of a construct but still seperate. The only
integration occurs when adjusting the driver state and that is a conscious
integration not automatic.
>
> In Tom`s presentations he is using many advanced concepts when
> introducing the 3D mind.
> He use an example where a guy is afraid he be reversing the change
> when he comes home.
> Tom influence him using advanced sleight of mouth to set a double bind
> where he has to "validating a change".
No I did not. What I do say is that if he goes back to the way he was it
would just validate that what we did worked. It was a double bind to
maintain the change that already ocurred. It was not a double bind to force
the change to occur. There is a big difference.
>
> My personal reflection on this is that I notice nothing new with how
> the change occours and the principles involved.
Here is the problem I have with that statement. You are filtering everything
you see through the definitions of NLP. As long as you use NLP labels and
sort through that reality, you will never see anything different than NLP.
Based upon what you leave out of the rest of your review validates that
there is something different. I will explain those distinctions as we go
through it.
>
> Writing that however there is also something new in how the principles
> are used.
>
> I also notice that Tom is using the word of "adventerous fear" as a
> possible combination between states.
> This as for me sounds similar to what Michael Hall propose with his
> metastates.
> A state about a state how specifically?
Nope absolutely backwards. Hall goes through a series of disassociations as
to how someone feels about there anger. The 3D Mind delves inside the belief
or behavior and examines the construction of the belief down to the core
rather than banging on it from the outside. So it is not similar at all.
>
> Now, writing that I also stated earlier that I had mixed feelings
> about this review.
>
> Does the 3D mind process work?
> Yes.
>
> Does the 3d mind add as to an NLP model or an NLP application?
> The 3D mind isnt a NLP model it is an NLP application more or less.
Yep hard to define in NLP terms huh :) More or less? That would mean it did
not fit into the NLP model. You can use NLP to explain it though.
>
> This is the one thing, when Tom says on the video that he make the
> process work faster since he belives it will work and using intent, I
> will say he is wrong.
Let me add to this. I think it works faster because my intent is to help the
person I am talking to. My intent is to have them disvover something about
themselves and to change them for the better. My intent is fully congruent.
>
> If the 3D mind works it has nothing to do with belifs. (And if it does
> it is content based)
> It has to do with that you "know" it will work.
> (Fully associate into a congurent state where you use all avalible
> resources and then apply the pattern - Common NLP approach)
I hate to keep doing this but it is a common approach to LIFE. Really the
NLP filtering system is a bit odd. You can define anything using NLP terms
and jargon but not everything was spawned from NLP.
> I have stated myself that placebo has nothing to do with belifs and
> have had people tell me I am on the wrong track.
>
> Richard Bandler for example is confusing the hell out of people in his
> submodality belif change since he is using the wrong levels to explain
> the process with.
>
> Take the example:
> 1. Take a problem you "know" you have.
> 2. Lift the problem "up" into beliving that you have that problem.
> 3. Now, since you now are beliving you have a problem you have a lot
> of other possibilities that it is possible to be able to handle the
> problem easy and smoothless right?
> 4. Put the new belived idea "back into" the "know" spot ie "lift it
> back in".
>
> Doing the above using spatial anchors and changing what you know into
> beliving and add a resource, a "possibility" and then back into the
> old know will permanently make a belifchange easier than any other
> pattern I know of.
>
> I have done the above for a time and it will as you look at that
> process notice the principle is the same as in 3D mind.
Honestly I don't see it myself. There is no KNOW spot. You are totally
leaving out the idea of how beliefs are constructed and going back into NLP
patterns. The biggest distinction of the 3D Mind is being totally ignored
here. Then you atribute it all to spatial anchoring and submodalities.
Sorry but you nreally have to take you NLP filters off. They are really
getting in the way.
What you are doing is taking a problem momving it up into the visual area to
disassociate and moving it out of and into spacial anchors for knowing.
That is a toally different process. It does not explore the core states nor
the driver state INSIDE the problem. So there is no real similarity.
>
> There is no need to use advanced linguistics like Bandler does if all
> you want to do is a simple belif change.
> And the above proces is also "new" in the same way as in the 3D mind
> since it is based on that principle that all we do are to set a label
> and experience and the experience is something we "know" is true...
> If we change that expereince into something else by changing the label
> we change what is true. Go figure what reality really is ;)
>
> Important is also to notice the changepoints,
> 1. A stateshift occours when we change the drivers of the old problem
> space state. (Submodalites)
Again the driver state has nothing to do with how big it is, how bright it
is, the location, color, Sound or any of the other things that define a
submodality. So you are misunderstanding what is happening.
> 2. The intention and "knowing this is true" will add only one choice
> when working with the process. (New code NLP)
Nope there is no "knowing this is true" state or location other than the
congruency of the person doing the 3D Mind.
> 3. Pacing and changing old past events using the new resource and also
> futurepace are based on 2 set of synthesias. (Eyemodel and repsystem
> model)
Nope this has nothing to do with the eye model. NLP filters are really
getting in your way. Nothing to do with rep systems. The are totally
unimportant.
> 4. Finding the right driver state or "critical" submodalities are very
> important and to add the "right level of intensity of state.
> (Anchoring and calibration)
Yes calibration is crucial. But again you are defining everything through a
filter of NLP and forcing the 3D Mind model into that mold. It just does not
quite fit.
Energy guys see an energetic model. Magik guys see a magic model. Shamans
see a shamanistic model. It seems that for some reason that the 3D Mind fits
just about everywhere and can be explained in many different ways. NLP guys
see NLP everywhere.
What that shows me is that we have a very flexible model!!! You see I have
shown this to many different types of people. The all see it through what
they like. I don't mind. It just shows that the model is not something you
can put in a box and label as ONE thing.
>
> Anyhow,
> can you use the 3D mind for change of limiting belifs and/or problems
> and make it work without any previous NLP training?
> Yes no doubt.
>
.......Self promotion snipped :)
>
> The 3D mind is a great changetool and are easy to use.
>
> It is based as I see it on NLP principles well covered in NLP since
> earlier.
> The mix however and the format and the notion of skipping most of the
> NLP models explicit makes it easy to do and use for many aspects.
> As noted a NLP:er will be able to do a lot with the 3D mind which will
> add to the toolbox a lot.
Thanks.
>
> There is also some concerns,
> if not using a process and structured approach then it might be
> possible to engage in content and argue what is needed for the client.
"Might be possible" ? For whom specifically? Why would anyone argue with a
client when you are finding their states that construct their belief? How
could you argue about their reality? I really don't understand this at all.
> It is also very important to get a statechange since any changepattern
> involves that.
Huh? I would say that if you don't get a state change then nothing changed
at all. Thi seems to be just common sense to me.
> That is the NLP attitude to commit into a full force using the
> subjective performer into the equation.
It is not an NLP attitude. It is the attitude of anyone who is succesful in
any field. Again thw NLP bias is showing.
>
> In the 3d mind the following are present,
> Time as in timelines NLP applications of anchoring.
Not just timelines but Moving the entire body through time rather than just
sitting in a chair and imagining. The real time movement ot an integral part
of the model. You keep leaving it out along with several other parts of the
model that do not fit into the NLP box.
> Anchoring as in NLP model.
Not really. all that is really done is to provide a visual platform to
generate a change. It is a positive hallucination without any formal trance.
Positive hallucinations are not anchoring.
> Overlapping of repsystems. Synthesia.
Maybe but here is what you left out. Real time movement in the real world
engaging all four parts of the mind and the body.
> Decision strategies. Duh...Elicitations.
Nope I defy you to find one strategy in the tape. There is a difference
between strategies and constructs. Strategies are linear.
> Calibration.
> Rapport.
> State.
All necessary for any change. Now lets list what you left out because it
does not fit into the NLP box.
The concept of beliefs or behaviors being a specific combination of states.
The concept of core driver states being inside a behavior rather than a
result of a strategy.
The concept that we have not just eye accessing but real spacial realities
with physical properties.
The concept that it is easy to learn and use with no training at all.
>
> I have found so far the 3d mind a sound process using NLP principles
> with a wast amount of possible applications.
>
> There are concerns though, the 3D mind is to blend consious filtering
> (consious minds deciding), if not careful of not giving the unconsious
> the responses fully then it might be awry.
> I would make sure to add more unconsious responsability to make sure
> it is automatic.
Sorry I don't buy that the concious mind is stupid or in the way. The NLP
myth and limitation that conscious minds cannot be involved in the process
is just one more discinction that make the 3D Mind different. Conscious
minds do great things when given the right tools.
What you suggest would leave people with no choice but to rely on a
practitioner somewhere every time they have a problem. By involving the
conscious mind we are creating self sufficient people who can us the process
on themselves WITHOUT paying a practitioner repeatedly.
Robert you spent a lot of time writing this and I thank you for that. Most
of what you wrote was a comparison to NLP. It seemed that it was your desire
for the 3D Mind to fit into an NLP model. The 'everything is NLP' mindset is
very noticeable. In doing that you left out a great deal of the process. You
ignored what was different. It is as if you were watching and sorting for
anything similar to NLP rather than noticing what was not.
While I understand that you are being as objective as you can, there is a
certain bias towards NLP in your review. Many times you states how things
were very similar while ignoring what was different. You ignored some of
the prime premises of the model.
The several other major things were left out including the results, ease of
use, ease of learning and amount of total time it took to use.
Even if we say it is all NLP, the construct for it is new. The application
is new. The ease of use is new. I don't see it as all NLP. Of course I
don't see anything as all NLP. Some people do though. I think that is the
difference.
Have fun
--
Tom Vizzini
3D Mind Seminar March 8 and 9
http://www.essential-skills.com/3dmindseminar.htm
http://www.Essential-Skills.com
Real Skills for the Real World
Advanced Rapport Mastery-The Secrets of Accelerated Magical Rapport Video
http://www.essential-skills.com/AdvancedRapport.htm
3 Dimensional Mind videos now available
http://www.essential-skills.com/3dmind.htm
Wesley Anderson, DCH
A quick question for you about the 3-D mind.
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in
news:ytP4a.11487$jR3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net:
> Hi Robert,
>
<snip>
>
> First let me say that I believe that the 3D Mind fit seamlessly into
> the NLP Model. My extensive training in NLP is part of the 3D Mind.
> You do a good job of drawing the distinctions of things that are
> similar to NLP. You also miss some distinctions that are not NLP.
>
>
> "Robert" <rob...@svensknlp.nu> wrote in message
>>
>> As some of you have been reading on this newsgroup and other places
>> some claims has been brought foreward from Tom Vizzini.
>
> Yep these are the basic premises of the 3D Mind.
>
>> 1. No need for NLP training other than anchoring and rapport and
>> calibration.
>
> Anchoring is NOT needed. If you understand anchoring you can see there
> is no anchoring at all. There is manipulation of a reality using
> states inside of a constructive positive hallucination though. That is
> not anchoring.
"Manipulation of a reality" Could you define that for me and our other
readers, please? When I read "a reality" I go through a "I don't know
what he means by that" moment.
It'd help me appreciate the distinction that you're making.
Thanks!
--
Wesley
Wesley Anderson, DCH
www.trance-formations.com
Rex Steven Sikes
back up the original statements I asked you to back up
regarding NLP and drop all other useless bs answers.
no more drivel or sniveling please -
just address the erroneous NLP statements you made
or apologize for misrepresenting the facts about NLP.
Its a habit for everyone of butty boys to filter everything
through butty boys filters... yawn...
Robert
> Thanks for the thorough review. I disagree with some of you conclusions but
> overall you did a great job. I am going to draw some distinctions for you
> that you might not have thought of. I realize that it is a habit for those
> trained in NLP to filter everything through an NLP reality. Let me offer you
> something different.
Your welcome and I do not agree on some of the conclusions you draw
about my review ;)
I am well aware of some of the differences which occours in your
descriptions of the 3D mind and when you are doing the thing.
I am also aware that there hasnt been as you noted a process that is
exactly as you been describing and doing on the video.
It has however been done in similar facshions not just in NLP but
other areas.
(NLP is just a tool to gain access to stuff)
> > 1. No need for NLP training other than anchoring and rapport and
> > calibration.
>
> Anchoring is NOT needed. If you understand anchoring you can see there is no
> anchoring at all. There is manipulation of a reality using states inside of
> a constructive positive hallucination though. That is not anchoring.
Well actually this dosnt make sense if you dont mean that the anchors
used are the persons selfanchors into the reality they have?
I notice that if you does make your perceptions and behaviour
regarding the client as real as possible they will respond that way.
Thats however isnt new, I learned that from bandler in his books and
also seminars.
It seems we have a different criteria used in explaining some things.
If we broke down things we get states and anchors. Your thinking into
the intervention are a variable anchored to the process.
That we influence the client on many levels and viceversa on levels
most have little expereince is one thing. That we consiously engage in
changing things around for the client has been a forte in NLP and I am
sure in other systems outside pschology.
> Yes the entire process has not been done before in this combination and with
> the new distinctions used. After reading your review, other than a few NLP
> similarities, you still do not provide where it has existed before.
Let me give an example, I saw bandler change 2 pictures for a woman at
the 1997 master prac in London and he did that by moving around her
reality.
(She had no idea tho what did go on)
I moved a picture and changed a womans decisionstartegy and she didnt
know what happen.
The above is done in a way that takes the reality of the projection of
the outside and change them as suited for the indvidual.
It does however require some skills to do.
If getting thesame results or better using the 3d mind with little or
no training that be done to see.
> > (It is like in a T.O.T.E where something has to start for the TOTE to
> > be run trough a decision point)
>
> OK here is where you draw a connection to NLP where I do not think one
> exists. There is a difference between the construction of a problem and a
> strategy for a problem. Strategies are linear and have movement. Constructs
> exist as a reality not a strategy. There is no movement. They just exist.
> The 3D Mind does not include a decision point. It works on what happens
> before the strategy ever occurs.
So the decision point is before the startegy.
I am aware that strategy model is limited if we just use it in a
single event and linear fashion. The NLP models are models of specific
bit and things which humans seems to do. Used in a hologram fashion
you get the projection of the outside and reality based on that.
When bandler works with his NHR program he does this more or less,
he rewinds the feeling/energy/sensation and amplify another
feeling/energy/sensation (resource) and put the new
feeling/energy/sensation into the old circuit.
The combinations in this will make several things possible, we dont
need to engage into startegy elicitation since it will run with new
resource instead. That will change the behaviour and the mental
rehersal people engage in which is called sometimes a startegy.
Using that I get the same results as using the 3D mind as described so
far.
I do not concern myself with the sequence
> of events that leads up to procrastination. I also do not treat
> procrastination as an event. Procrastination is treated as a behavior that
> is constructed of states. By example, I would never ask the question " How
> do you know when to procrastinate?" That is unecessary information.
Agreed.
> I do not use submodalies anywhere in the process. Distance, shape, still or
> movie, color and size have nothing to do with the process but if you want to
> understand it by fitting it into what you already know, that would be a way
> to understand it. What I might do is ask for a color or have them reach out
> and touch it but that has nothing to do with submodalities.
It is implicit in your work.
What i mean is, when you helped they guy he stated, felt down, small.
the change occoured and the change got size and brightness as the
relationship between what he earlier stated and what he changed.
Calibrated to that the changeprocess (3D mind duh) it worked and the
new change changed those variables with size.
> > Spatial anchoring is where you mark some spots and therefore "anchor"
> > the word, feeling or association of any connection between state and
> > behavior.
> Actually this is a very common misunderstanding by those trained in NLP.
> Think of this in a different way than spacial anchoring. Think of projecting
> a spacial reality. For an anchor there is usually an elicitation. Not the
> case in the 3D Mind. They already have the state. I just tell them where to
> put it.
So anchoring the spacial concept of reality then.
Your saying that the difference is that anchoring is drawing forth
with elicitation.
And the 3d mind is the state of reality which you tell them to put
somewhere.
So then you anchor the spacial reality (Relationship)to the spot you
decide.
(Missed something?)
> Perceptual positions is one way to understand the process. Let me add this.
> The use of perceptual positions is mainly a disassociated state. One
> distinction with the 3D Mind is that the subject is always fully associated
> in the state. The other is that positions are time based not perceptually
> based.
Spacial anchoring in the mind as far as I know of perceptual
positions.
You are presupposing in the video that you are him looking trough the
position of here.
He isnt there.
Thats making a disassociated spacial anchor inside his reality or
"mind".
Essentially you are reorganizing how he sorts and how he percives the
issue he had. Doing that trough means of walking into the old spot and
using ambigious language and reinfroce the state are in itself nothing
new.
However, there is a crucial destinction to be made here,
there is important to accept whatever they say and state as real and
then move things around.
Or
you make it real outside making them to accept that and then move
around.
> > John Grinder and Carmen states in the book whispering in the wind that
> > "performance" is a function of "state" and so to optimize performance
> > select a state which enhances performance and give acess to unconsious
> > recources. (Page 233)
> The difference with the 3D Mind is that we view performance not in the state
> you go out to chose, but in the restructuring of a combination of states
> that already exist. Performance, confidence and happiness are treated as the
> natural reality of people. The Random events of life sometimes construct
> beliefs and behaviors that get in the way of that natural reality. So there
> is no need to amp up states to get what you want.
Agreed.
Amp up states can be made to enhance.
>
> > So if using the 3D mind getting unconsious kinestetic information and
> > using spatial anchors (Visual) to sort things out and then get them
> > back will spontaneous integrate with each others.
> Again I want to be clear that there is a difference between anchoring and a
> spacial reality. I really don't think things spontaneously integrate. Proof
> of that is that when we go inside the belief or behavior that they states
> are not integrated. The are part of a construct but still seperate. The only
> integration occurs when adjusting the driver state and that is a conscious
> integration not automatic.
That also depends if they have put it into kinestetic coding or
representations.
If any synthesias is still present that integration will not happen.
The molecule drill Robert Dilts does with seperate out the construct
of using the eyemodel, using and seperate out the synthesias the
person has to make up a new synthesia or added resources.
It has many similarites with how the 3d mind does things.
> No I did not. What I do say is that if he goes back to the way he was it
> would just validate that what we did worked. It was a double bind to
> maintain the change that already ocurred. It was not a double bind to force
> the change to occur. There is a big difference.
Agreed.
I did mean to say that.
> > My personal reflection on this is that I notice nothing new with how
> > the change occours and the principles involved.
>
> Here is the problem I have with that statement. You are filtering everything
> you see through the definitions of NLP.
No.
I test things and so far I am not done testing the 3d mind.
I say so far it has nothing new in how I been taught and found things
according to the principles involved.
That dosnt mean there is nothing new.
Remember this was a review of the 3D mind video not totaly the whole
process which can have destinctions I am not aware of consiously.
I do not go and analyze things when I am learning to do what others
do.
If there is a difference in how I have been doing things and how I
percive the variables it will be kown.
As long as you use NLP labels and
> sort through that reality, you will never see anything different than NLP.
> Based upon what you leave out of the rest of your review validates that
> there is something different. I will explain those distinctions as we go
> through it.
Agreed and answer above.
> Nope absolutely backwards. Hall goes through a series of disassociations as
> to how someone feels about there anger. The 3D Mind delves inside the belief
> or behavior and examines the construction of the belief down to the core
> rather than banging on it from the outside. So it is not similar at all.
I wonder of one thing, is diassociated a digital "state" or an
analogue one?
People talk about diassociated and associated and I have little
understanding if diassoiated means that the person has little or no
relation with that to the original problem.
If someone would enlight me in this.
> > Does the 3d mind add as to an NLP model or an NLP application?
> > The 3D mind isnt a NLP model it is an NLP application more or less.
>
> Yep hard to define in NLP terms huh :) More or less? That would mean it did
> not fit into the NLP model. You can use NLP to explain it though.
I am as noted staying open to new ideas and isnt done in testing this.
> > This is the one thing, when Tom says on the video that he make the
> > process work faster since he belives it will work and using intent, I
> > will say he is wrong.
> Let me add to this. I think it works faster because my intent is to help the
> person I am talking to. My intent is to have them disvover something about
> themselves and to change them for the better. My intent is fully congruent.
Agreed.
And it has nothing to do with belifs.
> >
> > If the 3D mind works it has nothing to do with belifs. (And if it does
> > it is content based)
> > It has to do with that you "know" it will work.
> > (Fully associate into a congurent state where you use all avalible
> > resources and then apply the pattern - Common NLP approach)
>
> I hate to keep doing this but it is a common approach to LIFE. Really the
> NLP filtering system is a bit odd. You can define anything using NLP terms
> and jargon but not everything was spawned from NLP.
Agreeed.
NLP only as I know it makes some destinctions more explicit and make
sure the practitioner does things to the set rules which can be a
model or an application.
We can asume if not knowing destinctions like the above that people
will try to conclude something dosnt work since they didnt apply the
intent or similar to the process.
I can disprove anything by making it a incongurent approach.
Most do that and thats also why they fail of making for example NLP
work.
>> > I have done the above for a time and it will as you look at that
> > process notice the principle is the same as in 3D mind.
>
> Honestly I don't see it myself. There is no KNOW spot. You are totally
> leaving out the idea of how beliefs are constructed and going back into NLP
> patterns. The biggest distinction of the 3D Mind is being totally ignored
> here. Then you atribute it all to spatial anchoring and submodalities.
> Sorry but you nreally have to take you NLP filters off. They are really
> getting in the way.
And you know this?
How more specifically do you know this?
Before you answer the question if needed I make that work since it is
at least for me it seems if you have a problem you "know" it since it
isnt soemthing you belive.
If applying a belif of something else you have a varity of range of
additions to make and changing the orginal what you did know.
The know spot dosnt exist I created that.
New ideas are often rejected since they dosnt fit into the known spot.
> > Important is also to notice the changepoints,
> > 1. A stateshift occours when we change the drivers of the old problem
> > space state. (Submodalites)
>
> Again the driver state has nothing to do with how big it is, how bright it
> is, the location, color, Sound or any of the other things that define a
> submodality. So you are misunderstanding what is happening.
So what has it to do with then?
I can make the same changes with submodlaity alone.
If this works without submodalites what are the relationships within
that model you propose?
> > 2. The intention and "knowing this is true" will add only one choice
> > when working with the process. (New code NLP)
>
> Nope there is no "knowing this is true" state or location other than the
> congruency of the person doing the 3D Mind.
And you "know" this?
This is important I seem to be making a destinction which native
english speakers dosnt agree on.
interesting.
> > 3. Pacing and changing old past events using the new resource and also
> > futurepace are based on 2 set of synthesias. (Eyemodel and repsystem
> > model)
>
> Nope this has nothing to do with the eye model. NLP filters are really
> getting in your way. Nothing to do with rep systems. The are totally
> unimportant.
So removing all repsystems will still make things work?
> Yes calibration is crucial. But again you are defining everything through a
> filter of NLP and forcing the 3D Mind model into that mold. It just does not
> quite fit.
>
> Energy guys see an energetic model. Magik guys see a magic model. Shamans
> see a shamanistic model. It seems that for some reason that the 3D Mind fits
> just about everywhere and can be explained in many different ways. NLP guys
> see NLP everywhere.
Filters as noted are a powerful sorting system.
>
> What that shows me is that we have a very flexible model!!! You see I have
> shown this to many different types of people. The all see it through what
> they like. I don't mind. It just shows that the model is not something you
> can put in a box and label as ONE thing.
This has to do with unclassified things.
Most things for example in NLP make destinctions which many in other
related fields dosnt even notice and see.
Labeling is one of those human things which is funny.
> > There is also some concerns,
> > if not using a process and structured approach then it might be
> > possible to engage in content and argue what is needed for the client.
>
> "Might be possible" ? For whom specifically? Why would anyone argue with a
> client when you are finding their states that construct their belief? How
> could you argue about their reality? I really don't understand this at all.
Thats why it was a concern.
Not maybe for you but for others who might come from backgrounds not
common.
> > It is also very important to get a statechange since any changepattern
> > involves that.
>
> Huh? I would say that if you don't get a state change then nothing changed
> at all. Thi seems to be just common sense to me.
yes, not obvious for others maybe.
> > In the 3d mind the following are present,
> > Time as in timelines NLP applications of anchoring.
>
> Not just timelines but Moving the entire body through time rather than just
> sitting in a chair and imagining. The real time movement ot an integral part
> of the model. You keep leaving it out along with several other parts of the
> model that do not fit into the NLP box.
Duh, timelines are both internal and external and you are biased in
putting NLP practitioner into the same filtering.
You can do both, walking a timeline or doing that internal visulazing.
the only difference is I ask the person what one they would like to
do.
The walking one is easier to calibrate the physical changes if new to
calibration.
> > Anchoring as in NLP model.
>
> Not really. all that is really done is to provide a visual platform to
> generate a change. It is a positive hallucination without any formal trance.
> Positive hallucinations are not anchoring.
oh really?
Interesting
> > Overlapping of repsystems. Synthesia.
>
> Maybe but here is what you left out. Real time movement in the real world
> engaging all four parts of the mind and the body.
Maybe?
So it is so then.
The only difference of real are the subjective coding a person has.
If using the same set of rules to make things real there is no need to
walk around the real world with real movements.
It happens anyway if done properly coded.
> > Decision strategies. Duh...Elicitations.
>
> Nope I defy you to find one strategy in the tape. There is a difference
> between strategies and constructs. Strategies are linear.
You sure?
Now, when you ask the person to specify the problem in whats in it he
has to make a decision.
Does he accept your suggestion that this is real or not.
If not accepting it is real then he has no problem!
Nice paradox.
> All necessary for any change. Now lets list what you left out because it
> does not fit into the NLP box.
>
> The concept of beliefs or behaviors being a specific combination of states.
Behaviours is coded in kinestetic information yes.
Thats how we learn to cope with the world from the begining and it is
also important to notice we have at least 2 ways of remembering
something that did happen. For me thats no news. It can be however for
95% or so NLP trained people.
> The concept of core driver states being inside a behavior rather than a
> result of a strategy.
This seems silly that a state would be the result of a strategy?
Or you mean a behaviour is a result of a startegy?
Either way at least for me dosnt make sense.
> The concept that we have not just eye accessing but real spacial realities
> with physical properties.
yes agreed.
> The concept that it is easy to learn and use with no training at all.
No training at all. hehe.
Well a minmimum of training at least.
> Sorry I don't buy that the concious mind is stupid or in the way. The NLP
> myth and limitation that conscious minds cannot be involved in the process
> is just one more discinction that make the 3D Mind different. Conscious
> minds do great things when given the right tools.
I disagree.
If done properly the unconsious are the system which make the change
even if engaging the consious mind.
It also seems that people changes trough a more wide range of
behaviours if the change is applied more unconsiously with little or
no consious insight what happened.
I do agree that consious minds can do great things with the right
tools.
> What you suggest would leave people with no choice but to rely on a
> practitioner somewhere every time they have a problem. By involving the
> conscious mind we are creating self sufficient people who can us the process
> on themselves WITHOUT paying a practitioner repeatedly.
LOL.
Ok, there are a lot of bad practitioners for example in NLP and other
methods since it is the human who make things work.
And meeting people often isnt good.
The students I have at least in how I trained them does rarely do more
than 3 sessions. If they do changework as privat practice that is.
> Robert you spent a lot of time writing this and I thank you for that. Most
> of what you wrote was a comparison to NLP. It seemed that it was your desire
> for the 3D Mind to fit into an NLP model. The 'everything is NLP' mindset is
> very noticeable. In doing that you left out a great deal of the process. You
> ignored what was different. It is as if you were watching and sorting for
> anything similar to NLP rather than noticing what was not.
Your welcome.
I also stated I had mixed feelings about this.
I only have acess to the video and this is an NLP newsgroup LOL.
This is also why engaging into discussion where you can clarify and
explain your 3d mind process are one concern when writing a review.
I am doing further testing and do not analyze what I do until I meet
the criteria I have set up.
This is the modeling bit.
> While I understand that you are being as objective as you can, there is a
> certain bias towards NLP in your review. Many times you states how things
> were very similar while ignoring what was different. You ignored some of
> the prime premises of the model.
Yes I did.
> The several other major things were left out including the results, ease of
> use, ease of learning and amount of total time it took to use.
Most will have np at all following the directions and step for step
manner you proposed. The results on the video isnt done with a long
term followed up.
It is done with one guy who get a great state regarding the issues he
had.
In that my review was appropriate to not include the results since a
long term wasnt included.
The testing and calibration done on the video suggest a success but
since no long term follow up I didnt include that.
> Even if we say it is all NLP, the construct for it is new. The application
> is new. The ease of use is new. I don't see it as all NLP. Of course I
> don't see anything as all NLP. Some people do though. I think that is the
> difference.
One of them at least.
A note,
I am not done with the 3d mind process at all and are still testing
and doing things with the instructions.
I am also testing things and playing with it.
If it is applyable in any language on earth it has the formal
charactersitics as a model. However the relationships and the ordering
principle has to be explicit.
/Robert
> Have fun
>
>
> --
> Tom Vizzini
Selfplug removed ;)
Tom Vizzini
Hi Wesley,
"Wesley Anderson, DCH" <wes...@trance-fromations.com>
>
> "Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in
> news:ytP4a.11487$jR3.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net:
> > Anchoring is NOT needed. If you understand anchoring you can see there
> > is no anchoring at all. There is manipulation of a reality using
> > states inside of a constructive positive hallucination though. That is
> > not anchoring.
>
>
> "Manipulation of a reality" Could you define that for me and our other
> readers, please? When I read "a reality" I go through a "I don't know
> what he means by that" moment.
When I speak of realities I am talking about the ongoing hallucinations that
make up the world each individual lives in. When I am working with someone
when dealing with something like procrastination. They are living inside of
the reality where that exists. That reality is projected outward and all
incoming information goes through that filter.
This is a reality that they exist in. When we examine what the components of
this reality are, we are discovering who the reality is physically
constructed. My thoughts are that reality projects from the inside outward.
Even if it is not true it is a model that works.
This is different that just anchoring a response. Unless you think that
reality is just a set of anchors :) Anchors on the other hand are externally
applied to realities.
You see if I would just anchor a bad feeling and apply it to a smoker and a
good feeling to not smoking then I am applying the anchor to the behavior.
If you go inside of the realities of the beliefs and behaviors you can
discover what they are constructed of. When you make a change on that level
you change the entire reality and how it projects outward and interacts with
other parts of someone's lives.
For example lets use the testimonial I posted earlier today. John did not
just anchor good feelings to reading. He adjusted his belief of reading but
change the states that constucted that belief. In essence changing his
reading reality. Thus he moved from about 850 WPM to almost 1800 WPM. Just
by one simple adjustment.
Let me know if that makes sense
BigJiim
>anchoring at all.
Baloney.
>There is manipulation of a reality using states insideof
>a constructive positive hallucination though
There is a manipulation of submodalities. What do you think a *state* is made
up of?
>That is not anchoring.
It *is* spatial anchoring. Care to discuss?
>NLP manipulates the sub modalities of any given modality to get change,3-D
>mind goes right after the emotion which drives a state. No where inNLP is
>this found.
C'mon. Don't buy your own bullshit. "NLP manipulates the submodalities of any
given modality to get change" you wrote. 3 D mind goes for the
*EMOTION*. An emotion is a configuration of submodalities.
Go back and study NLP. Practioner would be a good place to start.
>No where inNLP is this found.
When I wrote 'go back and study' in the above line I wasn't flaming you.
This line above says what is needed to say. You don't see.
By the way, did anyone mention Eric Robbie's name when mentioning all this
stuff that has never been done before. I make a somewhat
sarcastic statement based on some real facts. While you seem very well
intentioned and hyped about the process perhaps some additional distinctions
about spatial ahchoring and submodalities could be eatin'
for breakfast.
>. Procrastination is treated as a behaviorthat
>is constructed of states
Maybe you can define a *state* for us. You tell me you're good at NLP
and then you say something like this. I want to believe you but a
nominalization is a nominalization. Unless you're trying to con an audience?
>This is so true, way to much useless information, hell I don't even haveto
>know what the drivers are any more,
So you've made part of the process unconscious? "Nominalized it" so
to speak. Good for you, bad for us in your describing of it. I don't mean that
bad or as a remark about you it's just that I notice when you and Tom and
everyone else hypes this new design it seems that you tend to fall into
nominalization-land when describing. Now I notice that I'm not the only one to
call you on it. I hope it works for you and all is fine and I also notice that
you use the word *state* quite often. A BIG nominalization. You also mention
*moving* or *movement*. There is nothing new there. You're trained in NLP. Show
me something new there.
Also, if you don't want us to look at this from NLP eyes get off this newsgroup
and go to alt.maybe-its-psychology-and-maybe-it-isnt.
Don't give me your bullshit. I don't care how well-intentioned you are.
Big Jim
Tom Vizzini
"BigJiim" <big...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030220171149...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> >Anchoring is NOT needed. If you understand anchoring you can see thereis
no
> >anchoring at all.
>
> Baloney.
Another rather violent reaction so such a simple process.
I say again no understanding of anchoring is needed.
>
> >There is manipulation of a reality using states insideof
> >a constructive positive hallucination though
>
> There is a manipulation of submodalities. What do you think a *state* is
made
> up of?
I don't care what a state is made of. The 3D Mind does not work on that
level.
>
>
> >That is not anchoring.
>
> It *is* spatial anchoring. Care to discuss?
Care to explain?
>
> >NLP manipulates the sub modalities of any given modality to get
change,3-D
> >mind goes right after the emotion which drives a state. No where inNLP is
> >this found.
>
> C'mon. Don't buy your own bullshit. "NLP manipulates the submodalities of
any
> given modality to get change" you wrote. 3 D mind goes for the
> *EMOTION*. An emotion is a configuration of submodalities.
I have not realized that there was just this one definition of what emotion
is or is not. Submodalities OF an emotion is quite different that making a
change to a cluster of emotions that create a belif or behavior.
Again submodalites, ie. size shape, distance, color, moving or still, ect
etc....Have nothing to do with the 3D Mind.
>
> Go back and study NLP. Practioner would be a good place to start.
>
>
> >No where inNLP is this found.
>
> When I wrote 'go back and study' in the above line I wasn't flaming you.
> This line above says what is needed to say. You don't see.
>
> By the way, did anyone mention Eric Robbie's name when mentioning all this
> stuff that has never been done before. I make a somewhat
> sarcastic statement based on some real facts. While you seem very well
> intentioned and hyped about the process perhaps some additional
distinctions
> about spatial ahchoring and submodalities could be eatin'
> for breakfast.
Have you seen the process? Have you used the process? If so you would know
the difference. Again there are no submodalities involved because we are not
adjusting size shape ect.
>
> >. Procrastination is treated as a behaviorthat
> >is constructed of states
>
> Maybe you can define a *state* for us. You tell me you're good at NLP
> and then you say something like this. I want to believe you but a
> nominalization is a nominalization. Unless you're trying to con an
audience?
I don't have to con anyone. The results are the results. See the testimonial
about reading speed posted earlier today.
>
> >This is so true, way to much useless information, hell I don't even have
to
> >know what the drivers are any more,
>
> So you've made part of the process unconscious?
No, what you quoted is out of context. It is not an unconscious process.
"Nominalized it" so
> to speak. Good for you, bad for us in your describing of it. I don't mean
that
> bad or as a remark about you it's just that I notice when you and Tom and
> everyone else hypes this new design it seems that you tend to fall into
> nominalization-land when describing.
Isn't labeling everything a nominalization....a nominalization?
Here is what you are not getting. You can treat procrastination as a state.
You can also treat is as a belief. You can also treat it as a behavior. It
is the choices you make as to how you decide to treat it that makes the
difference.
Now I notice that I'm not the only one to
> call you on it. I hope it works for you and all is fine and I also notice
that
> you use the word *state* quite often. A BIG nominalization. You also
mention
> *moving* or *movement*. There is nothing new there. You're trained in NLP.
Show
> me something new there.
Tell you what. Lets pretend there is nothing new about the process. You
already knew everything in it and it is all NLP. Explain the results. How
can someone with no NLP training get the results that I have sent to the
group?
>
> Also, if you don't want us to look at this from NLP eyes get off this
newsgroup
> and go to alt.maybe-its-psychology-and-maybe-it-isnt.
OK Now you are in charge of the newsgroup? Sorry you aren't the king today.
Try again tomorrow. Of you do not have the ability to be objective, it is
certainly not my problem.
>
> Don't give me your bullshit. I don't care how well-intentioned you are.
Very intelligently put. I am amazed are how well you use NLP.....
Have fun...if you can
Rex Steven Sikes
>
> Here is what you are not getting. You can treat procrastination as a state.
> You can also treat is as a belief. You can also treat it as a behavior. It
> is the choices you make as to how you decide to treat it that makes the
> difference.
Yes and this notion is also very old. Please read your DILT'S, your O'connor
your traditional NLP manuals. You can treat it as many different things.
>
>
> Now I notice that I'm not the only one to
> > call you on it. I hope it works for you and all is fine and I also notice
> that
> > you use the word *state* quite often. A BIG nominalization. You also
> mention
> > *moving* or *movement*. There is nothing new there. You're trained in NLP.
> Show
> > me something new there.
>
> Tell you what. Lets pretend there is nothing new about the process. You
> already knew everything in it and it is all NLP. Explain the results. How
> can someone with no NLP training get the results that I have sent to the
> group?
>
Because people without NLP have gotten results for years. NO ONE I KNOW OF
INCLUDING ME HAS SAID YOU CAN"T OR DON"T GET RESULTS
- only that we don't care like you do care to sing your own praises.
We asked you to back up your statements and assessments and you have refused.
NLP infants have gotten results too. Gestalt therapists have gotten results. I
know
a poet who knows none of this stuff and he gets incredible therapeutic results.
You are lost in the world of your own exaggerated sense of self importance.
Just back up the erroneous statements you make with some facts and figures and
stop your grandstanding egocentric childish behavior of touting your
testimonials
in place of honestly answering questions or providing evidence for your
misrepresentations.
All of us are so glad you are so important to you and ross. But many of us
remain
unimpressed with your behavior, your knowledge as demonstrated by what you
post,
your lies, evasive behaviors and refusal to address issues. While your RESULTS
may or may not impress - you most certainly don't unless you care to offer
proof
for your statements - even an attempt to provide some evidence would begin to
impress
me. Otherwise you are just the loser you post testimonials up to cover.
Ya know - closet behavior - talk big about girls when you are hiding
something...
well you definitely exhibit closet behavior regarding the fragility of your
ego.
Hiding something - most certainly. Why not ask your trainers what they think of
your posts? NAw- forget it butty - go ahead post another testimonial show us
what
you are made of again.
>
> >
> > Also, if you don't want us to look at this from NLP eyes get off this
> newsgroup
> > and go to alt.maybe-its-psychology-and-maybe-it-isnt.
>
> OK Now you are in charge of the newsgroup? Sorry you aren't the king today.
> Try again tomorrow. Of you do not have the ability to be objective, it is
> certainly not my problem.
>
> >
> > Don't give me your bullshit. I don't care how well-intentioned you are.
>
> Very intelligently put. I am amazed are how well you use NLP....
I am so impressed with how you use essential skills and 3 d mind for convincing
others that you have something of merit. Victim sniveler... come on out of the
closet...
oooops no just post more testimonials...
Have fun posting them... if you can
>
>
> Have fun...if you can
feel flamed ... awe use your skills to get over it...if you can
>
>
Tom Vizzini
"Rex Steven Sikes" <r...@amazingrex.com> wrote in message
news:3E555DB6...@amazingrex.com...
> >
> >
> > Here is what you are not getting. You can treat procrastination as a
state.
> > You can also treat is as a belief. You can also treat it as a behavior.
It
> > is the choices you make as to how you decide to treat it that makes the
> > difference.
>
> Yes and this notion is also very old. Please read your DILT'S, your
O'connor
> your traditional NLP manuals. You can treat it as many different things.
Sorry but you took that paragraph out of context. It was in response to
someone asking me to define a state. It was not presented as anything new.
> > Tell you what. Lets pretend there is nothing new about the process. You
> > already knew everything in it and it is all NLP. Explain the results.
How
> > can someone with no NLP training get the results that I have sent to the
> > group?
> >
>
> Because people without NLP have gotten results for years. NO ONE I KNOW OF
> INCLUDING ME HAS SAID YOU CAN"T OR DON"T GET RESULTS
> - only that we don't care like you do care to sing your own praises.
Again I have to ask who this 'we' is that you keep speaking for? The rest of
your comment just sounds like sour grapes.
>
> We asked you to back up your statements and assessments and you have
refused.
Already did it. If you don't like how I did it then get more specific.
>
> NLP infants have gotten results too. Gestalt therapists have gotten
results. I
> know a poet who knows none of this stuff and he gets incredible
therapeutic results.
>
> You are lost in the world of your own exaggerated sense of self
importance.
Oh come on Rex. I have done nothing of the sort. about a month ago someone
asked a question about the 3D Mind and I answered them. SInce then you have
proclaimed yourself the moderator of this group and the 'one' person who
speakes for all of them. So who really is exaggerating their importance
here?
>
> Just back up the erroneous statements you make with some facts and figures
and
> stop your grandstanding egocentric childish behavior of touting your
> testimonials in place of honestly answering questions or providing
evidence for your
> misrepresentations.
Really? You want a panel to make decisions about what does and does not
work. I reject that idea and present those who are getting results. You want
proof. In my mind results are proof. I am posting the results.
>
> All of us are so glad you are so important to you and ross. But many of us
> remain unimpressed with your behavior, your knowledge as demonstrated by
what you post, your lies, evasive behaviors and refusal to address issues.
ALL of you? How many of you are in there? I hinestly do not think you speak
for anyone. I see no one paying any attention to you or your claims of being
the protector of this group. I have been evasive about mothing. I am right
here and still waiting for an intelligent post from you that is not simply a
flame or accusation.
While your RESULTS
> may or may not impress - you most certainly don't unless you care to offer
> proof
> for your statements - even an attempt to provide some evidence would begin
to
> impressme. Otherwise you are just the loser you post testimonials up to
cover.
OK so results do not matter to you. OK that makes sense. It certainly
explains a lot.
>
> Ya know - closet behavior - talk big about girls when you are hiding
> something...
> well you definitely exhibit closet behavior regarding the fragility of
your
> ego.
I would say that no one who has a fragile ego could last a day in this group
:)
> Hiding something - most certainly.
LOL! Like what? Paranoid Rex?
>
> I am so impressed with how you use essential skills and 3 d mind for
convincing
> others that you have something of merit. Victim sniveler... come on out
of the
> closet...
Who do you think I am trying to convince Rex?
>
> oooops no just post more testimonials...
Results speak Rex. If you want proof that is what you are going to get...the
results.
Of course since you have no clue about the process and never have even tried
it, your opinion means nothing.
Notice I have answered every intelligent question that has been asked by
many other people. So far you posts have not met the mark of intelligent.
You are free to try again.
Rex Steven Sikes
Only your bogus claims and misrepresentations WHICH you have NEVER addressed.
NOR do I care for your childish postings of testimonials. Get with it!!!
And paragraph wasn't out of context - only snipped. Geeez ...
drivel and more drivel from you - cluck cluck you are a coward.
Tom Vizzini
> How ignorant does one have to be - I am NOT interested in you or your
process.
That is obvious
> Only your bogus claims and misrepresentations WHICH you have NEVER
addressed.
Yes I did
> NOR do I care for your childish postings of testimonials. Get with it!!!
>
OK I thought I would try one more time but I see now this is a waste of
time.
> And paragraph wasn't out of context - only snipped. Geeez ...
It was snipped and presented out of context.
>
> drivel and more drivel from you - cluck cluck you are a coward.
I am real sorry this is the best you can do.
Goodbye Rex
Rex Steven Sikes
that can be verified.
You are a coward and will never ever post the replies because you can't. I am
still not interested
in you or your process - yes it should have always been obvious - what I am
interested in how
wrong you are about things when you post about things you know nothing about.
Now if I am wrong about this show me where I am wrong. Address the issue. If
you already have
then simply repost them. But you can't and you won't. You will only snivel.
That's why you
say goodbye... yes, take your marbles and go home --- cluck cluck
you don't like it when others do this to you - why do you do it to so many
others???
Don't you have choice in your life???
Hey post another testimonial I don't think we've seen enough. HEY POST THEM
ALL!
I have had some people tell me they enjoy you, and some tell me they enjoyed
your program.
What you miss is I am not interested. I think that is fine. Some have
remained unimpressed.
That doesn't matter to me either way.
What I am interested in is when you post outside your sphere of expertise and
make misrepresentations
(accidental or otherwise) and don't have the balls to apologize or back them
up.
If you were at all ethical, moral, a good business person whatever - perhaps
you'd have the
decency to do the right thing and make good on your claims when people ask or
demand.
BUT apparently your ego won't let you come out of your fabricated tower in
the sky of
the mighty innovator role to say you may have been mistaken if you were, or
that you would look
into it, or here's the evidence, or I was informed this way, or my trainer
told me, but instead both
you butty boys claim infallibility, act like little internet demigods, and
pretty mush just spread
lies -
complete falsehoods about NLP, how you represent it, nlp trainers, including
me,
myself and things you DON'T know - nor attempted to understand or ask about
either-
or my wife, or concepts... you are just full of crap and you never make the
time to demonstrate
that you know anything or can do anything in everyday life as you claim.
All you demonstrated to me so far is your skills and your understanding suck.
That you are a poor
excuse for a person and I wouldn't want anything to do with you if you
weren't representing something I
care about.
Lonely boy - point at crotch to men, can't get a girl Jeffries - he said he
could pick up
girls that made me sick or gave me a heart attach - I bet they would since in
all the years I've known him
he hasn't had a date - except for messing with his roommate - and then he had
to call us up for advice
on how to handle the situation - and alas now she is with you. Pretty
successful bachelor. But picking
up ugly women he can't even do. But I'm glad to see he thinks others would
die if they saw him do it.
BUT HE CAN MARKET A COURSE TO OTHERS - and hey they may get results even when
he can't.
He can gab - I enjoy that about him. But you two are a sorry case if you
represent the very finest.
Which of course you do in your minds - sorry if I am poking at your bubble
here. Wake up smell
'the coffee - butty boys the best thing ever. they have testimonials but
can't walk their talk or back their
talk up. But boy are they geniuses in their own minds.
Your best response was goodbye - because other than that - you have no
response apparently that could
interest me. You have no balls - lonely boy points to his when around men and
uses language patterns
at the same time to tell the men they want what he has to offer.
MMMMMmmmmm GO FIGURE.
Please remember he has invited me to numerous trainings of his where they all
sit at tables and take notes
while he sits in the front of the room and drones on reciting patterns
everyone can read in books. The only
time I ever saw anyone get up in one of his seminars was when I got them up
or when they needed to use
the tom. And then he would complain he was drained and go to sleep alone. So
tired was he reading from
his manual. He didn't know there was a body to be used - it was all words and
breathy Milton tonalities.
Hey I have been to a few - enough to know he has never gotten a girl or had a
girl as long as I have known
him - but even if he got a few - that would be exponentially upping his
average - which I guess makes him
feel he should brag. Then he complains that everyone else selling romance
packages, and pick up stuff
ripped him off. He tried to get me to not sell a product of someone else's
because he said the person ripped
him off. Yeah I know - now he has to go and holler and rant - you both do -
because you don't like having to look at your own fallibility. It's really
okay to be human - and humans
can be scared and turn tail and hide. So bye bye snivel snivel, you won't be
missed...
Stephen Embden
news:NNc5a.12378$jR3.6...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Tell you what. Lets pretend there is nothing new about the process. You
> already knew everything in it and it is all NLP. Explain the results. How
> can someone with no NLP training get the results that I have sent to the
> group?
Tom, I find this an odd comment. The most dramatic results I have
experienced have been when I knew little about NLP. My results began to
diminish, the moment I thought I new something about NLP and started getting
in my own way. I found that *knowing about*, hindered me.
I have applied basic NLP processes to others to rid life-long phobias, only
to hear that they did not know where the problem had gone, but that they
thought it was too easy.
Yikes
"Rex Steven Sikes" <r...@amazingrex.com> wrote in message
news:3E558303...@amazingrex.com...
Ross
> From: Rex Steven Sikes <r...@amazingrex.com>
> Organization: Rex Sikes Productions Inc.
> Reply-To: r...@amazingrex.com
> Newsgroups: alt.psychology.nlp
> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:38:11 -0600
> Subject: Re: 3D Mind video review - nothing
>
>
Wex, you ignorant slut...
> You are a coward and will never ever post the replies because you can't. I am
> still not interested
> in you or your process - yes it should have always been obvious - what I am
> interested in how
> wrong you are about things when you post about things you know nothing about.
This mental deterioration of yours is quite scary to witness. Is it possible
that you are bi-polar, or even just seriously depressed?
In many ways, your rants remind me of Gordon Ray Parker. Do you know GRP of
alt.hypnosis, alt.seduction.fast, alt.gymnastics and about a zillion other
usenet groups?
Geez....you are almost indistinguishable from him these days in posting
style. Truly scary.
>
> Now if I am wrong about this show me where I am wrong. Address the issue. If
> you already have
> then simply repost them. But you can't and you won't. You will only snivel.
> That's why you
> say goodbye... yes, take your marbles and go home --- cluck cluck
>
> you don't like it when others do this to you - why do you do it to so many
> others???
> Don't you have choice in your life???
Wex, I have the choice to torment idiots like you for fun and distraction,
but honestly, this is taking me from better things I have to do. For that, I
shall punish you a bit more and then move on, my boy. I do mean "BOY".
>
>
> What I am interested in is when you post outside your sphere of expertise and
> make misrepresentations
> (accidental or otherwise) and don't have the balls to apologize or back them
> up.
Expertise? As established by whom? By what standards? Wex, no one cares
about your delusion that YOU are the "expert" to whom we most all come for
prior approval for our "claims".
What I teach works. My students get results where they want to, as I
promise, in very vital areas of their life. POINT. SET. MATCH.
>
> If you were at all ethical, moral, a good business person whatever - perhaps
> you'd have the
> decency to do the right thing and make good on your claims when people ask or
> demand.
Wex, you are a joke. I would no more make good on my claims by bringing
them to you than I would approach the Pope for advice on cunnilingus.
Speaking of cunt-tongue and for the record; seriously my man, what IS cause
of that distracting speech-impediment? Don't you think your utter failure to
address it constituted and still constitutes a SCREAMING incongruity to your
audiences?
Now..please don't get all distracted as you look out at your next
corporate party or Wal-Mart grand opening..and wonder.."What do they think
of my Daffy Duck talk?" or "I bet they think I sound like a pig with a kazoo
shoved side-ways up its ass!" . No, Wex, I would hate to think that your
speech defect SERIOUSLY DETRACTS FROM EVERY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT and has, in
the past, made people wonder, "Wait a minute..this guy is a master of change
AND HE CAN'T FIX HIS OWN SERIOUSLY FUNNY PROBLEM?"
C'mon Wex..a public speaker who sounds like a ventriliquist trying to talk
with a mouth full of Wheatina is not offering the best possible product, now
is he? Do you let your "clients" know, prior to booking you, that you have a
distracting defect in how you talk? Do you really think NO ONE has noticed
or commented about it BEHIND YOUR BACK?
Wex..answer the qwestion: WHY CAN'T YOU FIX THIS? I've known folks who had
speech defects similar to yours..they went for help AND FIXED THE PROBLEM.
What is wrong with you, Daffy?
>
> BUT apparently your ego won't let you come out of your fabricated tower in
> the sky of
> the mighty innovator role
Wex, I have innovated. Whereas, you have failed out of the field of NLP.
Stop trying to make excuses. I remember Carolyn saying the reason you
decided to stop doing your own trainings was that after 911, you thought no
one would pay to fly anywhere anymore!
> complete falsehoods about NLP, how you represent it, nlp trainers, including
> me,
> myself and things you DON'T know - nor attempted to understand or ask about
> either-
> or my wife, or concepts... you are just full of crap and you never make the
> time to demonstrate
> that you know anything or can do anything in everyday life as you claim.
Wex, you ignorant slut...post an address and we'll send you the first of
the Palo Alto videos...
>
> All you demonstrated to me so far is your skills and your understanding suck.
> That you are a poor
> excuse for a person and I wouldn't want anything to do with you if you
> weren't representing something I
> care about.
Oh Geez......you are really of your rocker, chum.
>
> Lonely boy - point at crotch to men, can't get a girl Jeffries - he said he
> could pick up
> girls that made me sick or gave me a heart attach - I bet they would since in
> all the years I've known him
> he hasn't had a date - except for messing with his roommate - and then he had
> to call us up for advice
> on how to handle the situation - and alas now she is with you. Pretty
> successful bachelor. But picking
> up ugly women he can't even do. But I'm glad to see he thinks others would
> die if they saw him do it.
Ha ha ha...you rant like GRP on speed. What is wrong with you, man? You
have seriously deteriorated past retarded.
>
> BUT HE CAN MARKET A COURSE TO OTHERS - and hey they may get results even when
> he can't.
> He can gab - I enjoy that about him. But you two are a sorry case if you
> represent the very finest.
> Which of course you do in your minds - sorry if I am poking at your bubble
> here. Wake up smell
> 'the coffee - butty boys the best thing ever. they have testimonials but
> can't walk their talk or back their
> talk up. But boy are they geniuses in their own minds.
>
Ha ha ha. You have lost it. Does Carolyn read these posts of yours? Would
you want your daughters to read them when they grow to an age or maturity
sufficient to understand what a loon their Daddy became?
> Your best response was goodbye - because other than that - you have no
> response apparently that could
> interest me. You have no balls - lonely boy points to his when around men and
> uses language patterns
> at the same time to tell the men they want what he has to offer.
> MMMMMmmmmm GO FIGURE.
HA HA HA HA HA. HA HA HA HA.
Dude, as for no balls, it appears to me that when they finally succeed in
shrinking a tampon to a size that will enable insertion into your urethra,
you can finally seize your life's dream to be the world's first male
menstruator!
>
> Please remember he has invited me to numerous trainings of his where they all
> sit at tables and take notes
> while he sits in the front of the room and drones on reciting patterns
> everyone can read in books. The only
> time I ever saw anyone get up in one of his seminars was when I got them up
> or when they needed to use
> the tom. And then he would complain he was drained and go to sleep alone. So
> tired was he reading from
> his manual. He didn't know there was a body to be used - it was all words and
> breathy Milton tonalities.
Dude, this is not only a distortion of what I was doing back in 1993. It has
zero correlation to what I am doing today. But you've admitted, after being
backed into a corner, that you have no exposure or knowledge of any of my
work past 1993. I invite anyone who has attended a seminar of mine in the
past 5 years or longer to jump in and have their say. I'd comment about
YOUR current seminars but..oh yes...YOU FAILED OUT OF THE BUSINESS AND NO
LONGER OFFER THEM! Thank goodness!
>
> Hey I have been to a few - enough to know he has never gotten a girl or had a
> girl as long as I have known
> him - but even if he got a few - that would be exponentially upping his
> average - which I guess makes him
> feel he should brag. Then he complains that everyone else selling romance
> packages, and pick up stuff
> ripped him off. He tried to get me to not sell a product of someone else's
> because he said the person ripped
> him off. Yeah I know - now he has to go and holler and rant - you both do -
That person DID rip me off. As we both know. Now, why don't you rip off
another Depend from that jumbo-pack you keep in your kitchen for those
"embarrassing leaky moments" and make sure you fasten them Velcro straps.
Wouldn't want to have soggier diapers than Sydney and that other brat..what
was it's name again?
>
> because you don't like having to look at your own fallibility. It's really
> okay to be human - and humans
> can be scared and turn tail and hide. So bye bye snivel snivel, you won't be
> missed...
>
Wex, you ignorant slut. TAKE YOUR MEDS. You are insane. Put down the crack
pipe. GO dig in the garden or do something. You are the verge of a
seriously unstoppable slide into insanity and chaos!
And answer: WHY CAN'T YOU FIX THAT SPEECH DEFECT? Don't you care about the
quality of presentations you offer? Would you run a limosine service if the
cars all had flat tires?
>
Robert
>I found that *knowing about*, hindered me.
In martial arts often the novice is the dangerours one since they are
not predictable.
They dosnt follow the rules of the game.
To enter training and follow the rules and then to abanden the rules
are what they aim for.
That takes different time depending on who and what system they are
trained in.
Thats also why JKD is so popular to remove bullshit from trainings.
> I have applied basic NLP processes to others to rid life-long phobias, only
> to hear that they did not know where the problem had gone, but that they
> thought it was too easy.
Anything that takes a few minuts or an hour is to quick.
I personally dosnt fix problems.
I havent in a long time.
I weave a complex of things where essentially I create a new life for
the person which is much harder to be able to do than to fix a
problem.
I do that since fixing problems is to easy.
/Robert
Robert
> Wex, you ignorant slut...
Here he starts the advanced insulting going to personal attack.
Lucky it is to Wex and not Rex or it could be confusing.
> This mental deterioration of yours is quite scary to witness. Is it possible
> that you are bi-polar, or even just seriously depressed?
Ross has a degree of psychology and can make a diagnos of a mental
state from someone he hasnt been meeting.
Setting up credentials that he really knows what he does.
> Wex, I have the choice to torment idiots like you for fun and distraction,
> but honestly, this is taking me from better things I have to do. For that, I
> shall punish you a bit more and then move on, my boy. I do mean "BOY".
Here Ross make use of his advanced SS skills and seduce the "boy"
until he finds another one (He implys they are having sex and are
using whips, master and servant).
Or maybe he means something else?
I think this shows a very special love for people.
I guess sometimes we love those we hate the most.
> What I teach works. My students get results where they want to, as I
> promise, in very vital areas of their life. POINT. SET. MATCH.
One thing which is important to notice that anyone who teaches
congruently will make things work. It is called PLACEBO.
You can make people faith healers by being very congruent in your
teaching.
However one of the things with NLP is that no acceptance of special
belifs or anything from the person who teaches is needed to make NLP
work.
> Wex, you are a joke. I would no more make good on my claims by bringing
> them to you than I would approach the Pope for advice on cunnilingus.
Here Ross make a connection to Gods apostel.
Nested loops.
> Speaking of cunt-tongue and for the record; seriously my man, what IS cause
> of that distracting speech-impediment? Don't you think your utter failure to
> address it constituted and still constitutes a SCREAMING incongruity to your
> audiences?
Here he tryies to apply a cause-effect where speach defect is named
when we are writing things.
He also continues his personal attacks on Wex.
Opens a nested loop
>No, Wex, I would hate to think that your
> speech defect SERIOUSLY DETRACTS FROM EVERY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT and has, in
> the past, made people wonder, "Wait a minute..this guy is a master of change
> AND HE CAN'T FIX HIS OWN SERIOUSLY FUNNY PROBLEM?"
Here he tryies to sidetrack the issue to draw attention to Milton
Ericksons lack of teeths.
>Do you let your "clients" know, prior to booking you, that you have a
> distracting defect in how you talk? Do you really think NO ONE has noticed
> or commented about it BEHIND YOUR BACK?
Mindreading and personal issue from Ross side about Wex.
He also imply that Wex have bad hearing since he cant hear when people
talk about him from the back.
> What is wrong with you, Daffy?
Nested loops again to cartoons.
It is to make the other one seem less real.
Very advanced SS concept.
> Wex, you ignorant slut...post an address and we'll send you the first of
> the Palo Alto videos...
Aha as they know each others since before Ross is actually trying to
confuse since he is adressing Wex and not rex which he know.
I am very confused here since it isnt clear who ross is actually
targeting an ambiguity of a sort. Very advanced concept.
> HA HA HA HA HA. HA HA HA HA.
>
> Dude, as for no balls, it appears to me that when they finally succeed in
> shrinking a tampon to a size that will enable insertion into your urethra,
> you can finally seize your life's dream to be the world's first male
> menstruator!
Since Ross has a high skill in those areas of SS I guess one of the
things are to really collect inforamtion about people and how they
have things in the house.
It is also a nice mindread which looks like truth.
Or it is the truth since he knows him as a BOY?
He maybe is trying to confuse the readers here so he and Wex can set
up a meeting. Maybe there is really a code here? (Paranoia and
conspiration)
..oh yes...YOU FAILED OUT OF THE BUSINESS AND NO
> LONGER OFFER THEM! Thank goodness!
I think Wex has not been known in the business and what business?
We dont know since he is using a referential index of not knowing.
Rex as i know has started and continue to do public seminars in magic
and corporations.
He also closes the nested loop to Pope and God.
>Now, why don't you rip off
> another Depend from that jumbo-pack you keep in your kitchen for those
> "embarrassing leaky moments" and make sure you fasten them Velcro straps.
> Wouldn't want to have soggier diapers than Sydney and that other brat..what
> was it's name again?
Aha closed nested loop with reference to female stuff.
> Wex, you ignorant slut. TAKE YOUR MEDS. You are insane. Put down the crack
> pipe. GO dig in the garden or do something. You are the verge of a
> seriously unstoppable slide into insanity and chaos!
More female references.
> And answer: WHY CAN'T YOU FIX THAT SPEECH DEFECT? Don't you care about the
> quality of presentations you offer? Would you run a limosine service if the
> cars all had flat tires?
Here he overlaps into mindread, cause-effect, and meta4 all combined
to create a effect of Wex personal traits which is clearly made up
thing.
Or
he really knows him and have secret meetings and using this newsgroup
as a meeting place to set things up for a BOY to BOY meeting?
I think with my analytic skills I have stumbled upon a secret code
which is for you to find out.
It is very confusing and the issue must be to disguise the real issue
of using codes to set up a secret meeting.
/Robert
>
> >
Vapor rub
ramblings? Isn't that what the NLP experts call Deletion?
VR
rob...@svensknlp.nu (Robert) wrote in
news:627ff765.03022...@posting.google.com:
Wesley Anderson, DCH
Your explanation below helps. I'm looking forward to the 3D Mind seminar
in March.
Thanks!
--
Wesley
Wesley Anderson, DCH
www.trance-formations.com
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in
news:5lc5a.12365$jR3.6...@news1.news.adelphia.net:
Robert
> How come you don't do this extensive analysis of Rex's incoherent
> ramblings? Isn't that what the NLP experts call Deletion?
> VR
Use a mirror.
The rest is done in between.
/Robert
Rex Steven Sikes
Rex Steven Sikes
Robert wrote:
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates fill fast so book Rex Now!!! Call 262-790-1993
http://www.AmazingRex.com
Rex Sikes World's First Motivational Mind Reader - Corporate Speaker
Expert in persuasion & influence, specialist in non-verbal communication and intuition.
"Mystery is the fundamental emotion that stands at
the cradle of true art and true science." Albert Einstein
Vapor rub
> Vapor rub <n...@home.com> wrote in message
Cute. So how come you don't do as extensive an analysis of Rex's incoherent
ramblings?
VR
Tom Vizzini
Hi Robert.,
Sorry I am so late in replying to this but my server os not getting all the
messages from this group.
>Subject: Re: 3D Mind video review by Robert Johansson.
>From: rob...@svensknlp.nu (Robert)
.com>
>
>Your welcome and I do not agree on some of the conclusions you draw
>about my review ;)
Fun uhu?
>I am well aware of some of the differences which occours in your
>descriptions of the 3D mind and when you are doing the thing.
>I am also aware that there hasnt been as you noted a process that is
>exactly as you been describing and doing on the video.
>It has however been done in similar facshions not just in NLP but
>other areas.
>(NLP is just a tool to gain access to stuff)
Simlar is not ..The same as.
>
>> > 1. No need for NLP training other than anchoring and rapport and
>> > calibration.
>>
>> Anchoring is NOT needed. If you understand anchoring you can see there is
>no
>> anchoring at all. There is manipulation of a reality using states inside
of
>> a constructive positive hallucination though. That is not anchoring.
>
>Well actually this dosnt make sense if you dont mean that the anchors
>used are the persons selfanchors into the reality they have?
>I notice that if you does make your perceptions and behaviour
>regarding the client as real as possible they will respond that way.
>Thats however isnt new, I learned that from bandler in his books and
>also seminars.
>It seems we have a different criteria used in explaining some things.
>If we broke down things we get states and anchors. Your thinking into
>the intervention are a variable anchored to the process.
I understand what you are saying I just don't agree with the premise. My
premise is that there is a difference between an anchor and a reality. Let
me explain. An anchor is a button that activates a state. A reality is an
ongoing hallucination that has a variety of states as its foundation. These
states produce a perception of the world inside of that hallucination. This
hallucination has a physical structure. It is that physical stucture that we
are working with.
>
>> Yes the entire process has not been done before in this combination and
>with
>> the new distinctions used. After reading your review, other than a few
NLP
>> similarities, you still do not provide where it has existed before.
>
>Let me give an example, I saw bandler change 2 pictures for a woman at
>the 1997 master prac in London and he did that by moving around her
>reality.
>(She had no idea tho what did go on)
>I moved a picture and changed a womans decisionstartegy and she didnt
>know what happen.
>The above is done in a way that takes the reality of the projection of
>the outside and change them as suited for the indvidual.
>It does however require some skills to do.
>
>If getting thesame results or better using the 3d mind with little or
>no training that be done to see.
Changing pictures and changing constructs are two vastly different things.
If you move pictures you are just moving the representations of two
constructs. You are not changing the constructs themselves.
>
>It is implicit in your work.
>What i mean is, when you helped they guy he stated, felt down, small.
>the change occoured and the change got size and brightness as the
>relationship between what he earlier stated and what he changed.
>Calibrated to that the changeprocess (3D mind duh) it worked and the
>new change changed those variables with size.
Yes that is it exactly. But notice one important fact. The change effected
the size. It was not the size that brought about the change.
>
>So anchoring the spacial concept of reality then.
>
>Your saying that the difference is that anchoring is drawing forth
>with elicitation.
>And the 3d mind is the state of reality which you tell them to put
>somewhere.
>So then you anchor the spacial reality (Relationship)to the spot you
>decide.
>(Missed something?)
Let me put this is terms you are ore used to. If you tell someone to look at
a picture in their minds, and they tell you where it is, them you look at
that spot, are you anchoring it or was it already there?
>
>> Perceptual positions is one way to understand the process. Let me add
this.
>> The use of perceptual positions is mainly a disassociated state. One
>> distinction with the 3D Mind is that the subject is always fully
associated
>> in the state. The other is that positions are time based not perceptually
>> based.
>
>Spacial anchoring in the mind as far as I know of perceptual
>positions.
>You are presupposing in the video that you are him looking trough the
>position of here.
>He isnt there.
>Thats making a disassociated spacial anchor inside his reality or
>"mind".
Honestly I do not see where you are getting this stuff. Rather than examine
in detail the process I suggest you take all your preconceptions aside and
use it.
Here is what is happening. I am telling you my model, my beliefs about that
model, my visualizations about that model and how I use the model. What you
are forgetting to do is MODEL the model. You are trying something different
with all the same filters of something you already know. That is a
inefective way to study anything.
With that said I will try again. There is no disassociation occuring
anywhere in the model. To do that would make it much less effective.
>
>Essentially you are reorganizing how he sorts and how he percives the
>issue he had. Doing that trough means of walking into the old spot and
>using ambigious language and reinfroce the state are in itself nothing
>new.
Are you sure you watched my video. Because your explainations do not really
fit with what I remember from being the one doing it. The reason I do it is
to give the conscious mind a validation of the difference in the states.
>
>However, there is a crucial destinction to be made here,
>there is important to accept whatever they say and state as real and
>then move things around. Or you make it real outside making them to accept
that and >then move around.
OK ine last time. There is no outside. I accept what they state as real. I
do not always accept what they offer as a driver state. Through calibration
I can tell if they are offering something genuine or something to make me
happy.
.
>>
>> Here is the problem I have with that statement. You are filtering
>everything
>> you see through the definitions of NLP.
>
>No.
>I test things and so far I am not done testing the 3d mind.
>I say so far it has nothing new in how I been taught and found things
>according to the principles involved.
>That dosnt mean there is nothing new.
OK then do yourself a favor. Set aside all of your presuppositions and NLP
definitions and use the process as described. In order to explore any model
you have to build a new reality to explore that model in. So far you are
jumbling things up.
>> Nope absolutely backwards. Hall goes through a series of disassociations
as
>> to how someone feels about there anger. The 3D Mind delves inside the
>belief
>> or behavior and examines the construction of the belief down to the core
>> rather than banging on it from the outside. So it is not similar at all.
>
>I wonder of one thing, is diassociated a digital "state" or an
>analogue one?
Who cares? This si the kind os small chunk stuff that makes no difference at
all unless you want to define everything and catagorize it.
NLP.
>>
>> Honestly I don't see it myself. There is no KNOW spot. You are totally
>> leaving out the idea of how beliefs are constructed and going back into
NLP
>> patterns. The biggest distinction of the 3D Mind is being totally ignored
>> here. Then you atribute it all to spatial anchoring and submodalities.
>> Sorry but you nreally have to take you NLP filters off. They are really
>> getting in the way.
>
>And you know this?
>How more specifically do you know this?
>Before you answer the question if needed I make that work since it is
>at least for me it seems if you have a problem you "know" it since it
>isnt soemthing you belive.
>If applying a belif of something else you have a varity of range of
>additions to make and changing the orginal what you did know.
>The know spot dosnt exist I created that.
>New ideas are often rejected since they dosnt fit into the known spot.
The metaphor of a spot that contains things you know, is not a useful one
for me. It is all a useful hallucination.
>
>So what has it to do with then?
>I can make the same changes with submodlaity alone.
>If this works without submodalites what are the relationships within
>that model you propose?
OK here is what I propose. Working with submodalities is still working at
the behavior level. You are working on the problem by making the whole
problem bigger or smaller or changing the color or volume. These are all
working on the problem from outside of the problem and just sorting how the
client views that problem and feels about it.
You are not changing the structure of the problem. To do that you must get
the drivers and primary driver that are inside of the behavior.
)
>>
>> Nope there is no "knowing this is true" state or location other than the
>> congruency of the person doing the 3D Mind.
>
>And you "know" this?
>This is important I seem to be making a destinction which native
>english speakers dosnt agree on.
>interesting.
To me it is about congruency. Not some random spot inside or outside your
mind.
>
>> > 3. Pacing and changing old past events using the new resource and also
>> > futurepace are based on 2 set of synthesias. (Eyemodel and repsystem
>> > model)
>>
>> Nope this has nothing to do with the eye model. NLP filters are really
>> getting in your way. Nothing to do with rep systems. The are totally
>> unimportant.
>
>So removing all repsystems will still make things work?
They way you are explaining it...yes :)
>>
>> Not really. all that is really done is to provide a visual platform to
>> generate a change. It is a positive hallucination without any formal
>trance.
>> Positive hallucinations are not anchoring.
>
>oh really?
>Interesting
>> > Overlapping of repsystems. Synthesia.
FORMAL TRANCE.... Hallucination are not overlapping rep systems. By what you
are saying, reality would be overlapping rep sytems since I can feel the
keys as I press them ADN hear the clicks AND smell my coffee.
>>
>> Nope I defy you to find one strategy in the tape. There is a difference
>> between strategies and constructs. Strategies are linear.
>
>You sure?
>Now, when you ask the person to specify the problem in whats in it he
>has to make a decision.
>Does he accept your suggestion that this is real or not.
>If not accepting it is real then he has no problem!
>
>Nice paradox.
Still you have not provided a strategy for the problem state. I do not use
strategies as part of the model because they are linear.
>
>> The concept of core driver states being inside a behavior rather than a
>> result of a strategy.
>
>This seems silly that a state would be the result of a strategy?
>Or you mean a behaviour is a result of a startegy?
>Either way at least for me dosnt make sense.
Neither. I am saying that behavior and beliefs anf the result of the state
or states that the person is occupying at the time.
>
>> The concept that it is easy to learn and use with no training at all.
>
>No training at all. hehe.
>Well a minmimum of training at least.
LOL!!! Ok a Little :)
Have fun Robert
Robert
One thing I been done for many years is the remove grief thing.
I essentially did this when someone is in grief,
I ask them to make a new symbol/icon or such and the to put anything
which is positive into the new symbol about what did occour with the
relationship, lost job or lost child and such.
I then recode the stuff thats left into some other familar feeling of
loss which dosnt affect them and then futurepace the new symbol/icon
and such into the future to be with them.
The issue solved.
This I got from Steve Andreas book Heart of Mind.
Anyhow,
> I understand what you are saying I just don't agree with the premise. My
> premise is that there is a difference between an anchor and a reality. Let
> me explain. An anchor is a button that activates a state. A reality is an
> ongoing hallucination that has a variety of states as its foundation. These
> states produce a perception of the world inside of that hallucination. This
> hallucination has a physical structure. It is that physical stucture that we
> are working with.
I would say this,
you relabel some things for pedagogial purposes which are mainly to
make sure no old associations or references are to the old wording.
Anchoring is the same as stimuli-respons as in psychology but a new
word make sure the old stuff isnt dragged...as an anchor ;)
Physical structure and your reality.
> Changing pictures and changing constructs are two vastly different things.
> If you move pictures you are just moving the representations of two
> constructs. You are not changing the constructs themselves.
You sure?
Depending on how you change the information around´which they have you
can alter reality or constructs they have.
You need to find what makes them ticks since change a picture at
random isnt the best way.
> Yes that is it exactly. But notice one important fact. The change effected
> the size. It was not the size that brought about the change.
Yes.
One main thing sometimes are to notice what happens which is the
calibration done.
What the person says and how they say things and what physical changes
are all part of the calibration.
> Let me put this is terms you are ore used to. If you tell someone to look at
> a picture in their minds, and they tell you where it is, them you look at
> that spot, are you anchoring it or was it already there?
The shared reality we have are succomed to the fact we think in those
repsystems.
The example you give would presume to be it is there even if I cant
see it.
The reference to the picture and look at it can eb enough to create an
anchor in itself.
This is also a notion of how we define anchors and whats there or not
there.
> Honestly I do not see where you are getting this stuff. Rather than examine
> in detail the process I suggest you take all your preconceptions aside and
> use it.
hehe, you asume I dont test things and use them Tom?
As I have stated earlier I am not done with your reality of the 3d
mind.
> Here is what is happening. I am telling you my model, my beliefs about that
> model, my visualizations about that model and how I use the model. What you
> are forgetting to do is MODEL the model. You are trying something different
> with all the same filters of something you already know. That is a
> inefective way to study anything.
Nope.
I am maybe obnoxious regarding the review of the video which I used
NLP destinctions to explain what I could draw forth in a consious way.
It is however as acurate I can do the review based on what I know.
You might not agree what I review that dosnt mean my review is out of
order it only means it might be a representation of how you did things
in regards to the observer.
> With that said I will try again. There is no disassociation occuring
> anywhere in the model. To do that would make it much less effective.
You also stated there is no meta.
For me that is not correct.
Why do people step into the representation at all if no meta?
I quote,
"The appliations of NLP has clearly selected representations as the
leverage point." The underlying presupposition that makes coherent all
this activity is the proposition that if an agent of change can
effectively manipulate these underlying representations (The so called
mental maps at FA or post-FA) of the client, the client`s behaviour
and quality of expereince will shift as a consequence" end quote
Whisper in the wind page 200.
State are one of those mental maps.
I think it is clearly well defined in NLP that state is one of the
variables to change.
However,
as noted there isnt one exactly step for step as you have described
things with your 3D mind. (To my knowledge)
If you put someone in a good state and have the anchor of the old
state or problem and fire that off or let the person be thinking about
the old state or problem they cant acess the old state since that
seems like practically impossible.
Using that you can get the same results using for example a number of
other processes even the 3D mind.
For example using the NHR process I got from modeling bandlers work I
could make all people in the audience to change a problem and not
remember what the problem was in a couple of minuts.
However, as noted the 3D mind seems to be very effective to apply with
no previous knowledge.
> >
> >Essentially you are reorganizing how he sorts and how he percives the
> >issue he had. Doing that trough means of walking into the old spot and
> >using ambigious language and reinfroce the state are in itself nothing
> >new.
>
> Are you sure you watched my video. Because your explainations do not really
> fit with what I remember from being the one doing it. The reason I do it is
> to give the conscious mind a validation of the difference in the states.
It was when you walked into his past (old spot) and there used
ambigious language.
Not him going back to the old state spot.
> OK ine last time. There is no outside. I accept what they state as real. I
> do not always accept what they offer as a driver state. Through calibration
> I can tell if they are offering something genuine or something to make me
> happy.
Well so have I done for a number of years.
Subjective reality.
> OK then do yourself a favor. Set aside all of your presuppositions and NLP
> definitions and use the process as described. In order to explore any model
> you have to build a new reality to explore that model in. So far you are
> jumbling things up.
No.
I have tested and also stated earlier the 3d mind process works.
No jumbling here.
> Who cares? This si the kind os small chunk stuff that makes no difference at
> all unless you want to define everything and catagorize it.
Well there is a point into finding what the formal chacteristics are.
There is however another thing with label everything.
> The metaphor of a spot that contains things you know, is not a useful one
> for me. It is all a useful hallucination.
Yep got that.
> >If this works without submodalites what are the relationships within
> >that model you propose?
>
> OK here is what I propose. Working with submodalities is still working at
> the behavior level. You are working on the problem by making the whole
> problem bigger or smaller or changing the color or volume. These are all
> working on the problem from outside of the problem and just sorting how the
> client views that problem and feels about it.
>
> You are not changing the structure of the problem. To do that you must get
> the drivers and primary driver that are inside of the behavior.
No.
All that was needed for the guy in the video was to change the size
and brigtness of the issue.
So instead of being smaller when thinking about it he would be
switching into maing things bigger instead.
Changing the critical submodalites or drivers if you would like.
/Robert
Thomas
rob...@svensknlp.nu (Robert) wrote in message news:<627ff765.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> I have mixed feelings about this review.
> But I get back to that.
>
I thought your post was brilliant. Very well thought out and a great
summary of many NLP approaches.
I would agree that there is basically nothing new in Tom's 3D
approach.
I also agree that it is good.
It is also a great example of marketing IMO.
10 out of 10 for marketing.
The new approach to NLP is RE-naming IMO.
Put a few NLP processes together and call it something catchy and
you're onto a good thing.
Here are a few suggestions for future models:
Instant 7 dimensional mindfulness model. (The instant disassociation,
sensually balanced, mind altering approach to meditation).
Seduction sensation skin-tingling generation rapport model. (for those
blast them away moments) :-)
Adam Sargant
"Thomas" <nlper...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94b8c9c0.03022...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> Here are a few suggestions for future models:
>
> Instant 7 dimensional mindfulness model. (The instant disassociation,
> sensually balanced, mind altering approach to meditation).
wotchit or i'll get you for copyright violation
<g>
Adam
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free for your viewing pleasure :-)
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/2003
Robert
> I thought your post was brilliant. Very well thought out and a great
> summary of many NLP approaches.
thx.
> The new approach to NLP is RE-naming IMO.
> Put a few NLP processes together and call it something catchy and
> you're onto a good thing.
well it isnt that easy.
Some of the NLP models are also renamed from psychology to not bring
unwanted associations with it.
You could say it is for pedagogical purposes.
Since anchoring works to sort things out it is sometimes very good to
sort things out to make sure people have a more appropriate view of
the stuff.
One important thing is to notice that when we do changework we can
apply different set of rules to change.
We can change remidial ie: one change affects only that small portion
of a persons life.
We can change in a more evolutinary or generative way making more
contexts generalized affecting by the small change.
Let say we use a linguistic base for change with for example a smart
slieght of mouth.
Then the change would not be so much into a state change even if it is
there but would slowly integrate into the whole system the person had
built.
(this is simply an example)
If however a change into the state which everything is built or
associated with then things change faster.
There is many quick fixes, EMDR, EFT and other similar methods of
applying some portions of change.
Whats important is that NLP are a set of destinctions to map out what
works in any area of human interaction. Thats also what is so much
different with NLP than any other method or change technology.
The psychology and pedagogical society is going to be hit badly the
next 10 years when NLP drives trough in society at large.
The common person is going to have the knowledge in how to do change
and learn things and how they can run there brain better.
> Here are a few suggestions for future models:
>
> Instant 7 dimensional mindfulness model. (The instant disassociation,
> sensually balanced, mind altering approach to meditation).
>
> Seduction sensation skin-tingling generation rapport model. (for those
> blast them away moments) :-)
Like the names it suggest some bad ass states.
Unlimited power.
Wanna feel like a God?
Call Mr Robbins...the next Jesus reborn.
One main thing with Robbins is state and state and unlimited power...
Build states so strong and you blast anyone trough presence alone.
Not a bad startegy.
/Robert
oh, when doing modeling no previous model is applyied.
no known state.
Grinders view is that if using a no content state and applied with no
consious insight then the change will generalize into severeal layers
which has resemblance with the change applied.
Thomas
rob...@svensknlp.nu (Robert) wrote in message news:<627ff765.0302...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > The new approach to NLP is RE-naming IMO.
> > Put a few NLP processes together and call it something catchy and
> > you're onto a good thing.
>
> well it isnt that easy.
> Some of the NLP models are also renamed from psychology to not bring
> unwanted associations with it.
Which is what is happening with NLP now IMO.
>
> There is many quick fixes, EMDR, EFT and other similar methods of
> applying some portions of change.
> Whats important is that NLP are a set of destinctions to map out what
> works in any area of human interaction. Thats also what is so much
> different with NLP than any other method or change technology.
>
EFT is pretty specific and well mapped out. Covers everything so
you're certain to get at the problem if you do it enough IMO.
>
> Grinders view is that if using a no content state and applied with no
> consious insight then the change will generalize into severeal layers
> which has resemblance with the change applied.
That'd be Grinder all right.
Whispering in the Wind - still. :-)
Best Wishes
ThomasR
Robert
> > consious insight then the change will generalize into severeal layers
> > which has resemblance with the change applied.
>
> That'd be Grinder all right.
> Whispering in the Wind - still. :-)
> Best Wishes
>
> ThomasR
Actually I have learned a lot trough his and Carmens new book and also
the postings he has done on the website.
He has a great sense of humor and has a nice way of thinking.
The destinctions he propose are to map out the relationships in formal
models which are in nature logic and intutive as we native speakers
knows.
He also states what he does and why he does things and is not in for a
popularity contest which is funny.
Science has never been this fun.
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
BigJiim
>thoughtout, thru NLP filters. I'll give ya the anchoring one but none of the
>rest.Traditional
Sorry hooka puffa you're wrong. Why don't you look around. You've
been posting for years and still don't get it. Submodalities are the basis of a
state. You call the 3d mild uses emotions and not submodalities.
And you say you're NLP trained. Give me a break. What do you think an emotion
is made of? Look around you? Are you lost? Also if you don't
want to look at 3d mild from an NLP perspective then go post in
alt.I-don't-know-what-I'm-talking-about.hooka-puffa.
Traditional. Give me a break.
>NLP goes after the sub-modalities to, in effect, manipulatethe drivers of
the
>state. 3-D mind goes right to the source, the raw emotionwhich drives the
>state.
LOL. You still don't get it do you.
>Sorry Kids, but the 3-D mind is a new concept in the way change canoccur, so
>sit there and call it what ever you wish, your choice and itreally doesn't
>matter who is right and who is wrong but the real fact thatremains is, IT
>WORKS and it is an easy process to learn.
"Sorry kids?" You've never gone ... nevermind. Your post says it all.
You know what I hate? I hate buying a new NLP book and it's just
a mild rehash of some other NLP stuff.
Get the real stuff.
And then... (now I'm really going) your team blasts M. Hall for the
whole meta states stuff and then you say "we go after the emotion that
drives the state?"
Duh... can you say meta state?
Read any good books lately?
Big Jim
Robert
> You know what I hate? I hate buying a new NLP book and it's just
> a mild rehash of some other NLP stuff.
This I think due to many errors in the field.
As the videos I seen there is not an emphasis on how to think freely
outside the box it was more or less teaching new patterns and make
sure people would get them
Grinder and Carmens book adress this area I think in a good way. Even
though they are nitpicking in extreme and I do think it is good to get
things down in this scientific field called NLP.
I hate to repeat myself and to teach what someone else have discover
seems like a good way to keep the field closed.
> And then... (now I'm really going) your team blasts M. Hall for the
> whole meta states stuff and then you say "we go after the emotion that
> drives the state?"
>
> Duh... can you say meta state?
It is easy to teach people go around making change using all smart
patterns of NLP and have no clue what they do. Thats part of the
training. To get them to engage consiously and discover patterns
belongs to them.
Its a different empasis on how you do teaching NLP or whatever.
And as you noted there is a lot of metastates about states..
/Robert
Elvis Lester
process.
Now, there I have said it.
It is "just another 'state'" (if that is what we choose to call 'it' - could
be a thought, feeling, concept, etc.). One that comes 'after' the other.
Continuous and never ending (until you die & even then what do we know). You
don't go down on the other state, you just "GO ON". It streams on and on and
on...
Remember, "the word is not the thing" - MINDMADE stuff!
What model we choose to use or to invest in is the one we have chosen...
more choices exist...
didn't they?
Elvis Keith Lester, MA, LMHC, NCC
NEUROTECHNICS(tm)
http://www.neurotechnics.biz
"Robert" <rob...@svensknlp.nu> wrote in message
news:627ff765.03022...@posting.google.com...
Robert
> THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A "META-STATE"! It is just a word to describe a
> process.
> Now, there I have said it.
Elvis,
hum you start to make sense somehow.
You didnt say it, you wrote it...
Some I guess will actually hear what you wrote...
great BIG ears.
And yes, all process and why many get lost in DHE since bandler dosnt
want as I can notice to name anything as new.
La Valle was heavy into that.
Paradoxical cushioning and fulcrum point does make sense but it did
take me 4 years to trancelate into enlgish ;)
/Robert
www.svensknlp.nu
Where magic begins your thinking is late.