OUr Belief System

[rally37]

I have recently read many books and listened to tapes on the NLP traing and I am picking up on one theme at the moment.
That is our conscious and sub-conscious mind with the beliefs we hold. One tape at least has suggested that these beliefs are initially formed whilst we are still in the womb and are then reinforced throughout our life, some stay some are re-evaluated and changed.
What are your thoughts on this and do you have any thoughts on how our beliefs are formed in the womb, this one bit is a little stumbling block for me.
Thanks for any info you may be able to provide.

[skip]

The idea that beliefs are formed in the womb, is just a belief, like any other belief.

It may be true and it may not.

Id be curious to know what difference it would make if a belief were indeed formed in the womb as opposed to one formed after birth. Do you think it would make a difference?

And beliefs change. You have adopted new beliefs and discarded old no longer useful beliefs all your life. And that would also be true of in the womb if it indeed occurrs. I imagine it does because I dont believe consciousness arises only at birth, but is there long before birth.

skip

[Persuasion Skills]

I agree with Skip.

Beliefs forming in the womb is simply a belief of the author that may be true or not - its part of the whole nature / nurture debate.

Another example of a belief may be like the other thread NLP does not work!

What I do know/ believe is that beliefs can be challenged and even changed sometimes very quickly using NLP. I've included an article I wrote on slieght of mouth, which looks at changing beliefs conversationally enjoy!

Changing People’s Minds: Transforming Beliefs and Perceptions Using NLP

Our beliefs are a very powerful force on our behaviour.

I’m sure you like me, have seen people, who really believe that they can do something, and they do it. Conversely you probably know people who believe something is impossible, and no amount of effort will convince them otherwise.

Beliefs like, “that will never work”, “I’m stupid”, “they’ll never go out with me” can really limited person from taking full advantage of their natural resources.

Of course not all beliefs limits us, there are beliefs that protect us:

“I believe a man can’t fly!”

However, luckily the Wright brothers didn’t have the same belief!

Even the beliefs that others have about us can affect us.

This was demonstrated by the following study. The intelligence of a group of children was tested. Those who had average intelligence were then split at random into two equal groups.

Group A was assigned to a teacher who was told that the children were slow learners.

Group B was assigned to a teacher who was told that the children were of above average intelligence.

1 year later the two groups were retested for intelligence.

The majority of Group B, who had been arbitrarily labelled as gifted, scored higher than they had previously, while the majority of Group A, labelled slow, scored lower.

Did the teachers’ beliefs about their students affect their ability to learn?

In medical studies you see many examples of the Placebo Effect. Participants are divided into two groups, those who will take the real drug, and those who will take a placebo. Neither party knows which they are taking. Results of many studies show that people start to experience improvements in their disease whilst taking a placebo.

Because they believe that the placebo is in fact a drug which helps their disease, their beliefs start to affect the disease and their symptoms start to improve!

Our beliefs about ourselves and what is possible in the world around us greatly impact our day-to-day effectiveness. All of us have beliefs that serve us as resources as well as beliefs that limit us.

So why is Persuasions Skills interested in this?

How many of us have clients, customers, friends, loved ones who have certain beliefs/perceptions that are unhelpful to the? If we could start to make them think about these beliefs and perceptions in a different way, then we would be able to help them move forward in their life.

One of the key learnings in NLP is reframing.

Reframing literally means to put new or different frame around an image or experience. Psychologically to reframe something means to transform its meaning by putting it into a different framework or context than previously perceived.

Obviously one of the ways that an experience or belief can be transformed is through the use of language.

Sleight of Mouth patterns come from the study of how language has been and can be used to make an impact on people’s lives and emotions.

Many sleight of mouth patterns were formulated as a result of modelling the language patterns of people such as Socrates, Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi, Hitler and Milton Erickson.

Sleight of Mouth patterns are made up of verbal categories and distinctions by which key beliefs can be established, shifted or transformed through language. These patterns provided a powerful tool for persuasion and conversational beliefs change. - Encyclopedia of NLP

Persuasion Skills Example

Let us look at the different ways we can begin to alter people’s perceptions and beliefs:

There are 15 patterns that can be used to begin to alter perceptions.

Where appropriate I’ve also included some explanations on why you would use this pattern

Remember depending on the person, some patterns will be more effective than others!

I have used these patterns with people to increase sales, to motivate people, to help clients overcome fears, and more importantly to better understand people’s needs.

Always ensure you are in Rapport, the idea is to challenge gently, not annoy!

The following objection / belief is often mentioned to me by participants before they attend a Persuasion Skills seminar:

“Going on a Persuasion Skills course may not meet my needs”

I will now use this to illustrate how the sleight of mouth patterns can be used to effectively begin to change people’s perceptions and attitudes for the better.

Firstly, we must break the statement into smaller components:

X = Going on a persuasion skills course
Y = May not meet my needs

Apply to X
“Have you gone on a great course before?”

Here we begin to get an idea of what a great course means to them.

If they have gone on great course, we could elicit why it was great, and anchor it to our course.

Apply to Y
“What if it did meet your needs?”

We could then ask, what they could achieve – the benefits – and show them testimonials and examples of other people who went on the course and achieved similar results.

Counter Example
“Is it possible to go on any courses that have exactly met your needs?”

Here we could begin to find out if there are courses that have met some of their needs. And then link those good feelings and criteria to Persuasion Skills

Meta Frame
“Isn’t it actually about learning valuable skills which can be applied in the real world and give you the results you need”

Helping you to think bigger, think about the results.

Intent
“You’re saying that because you want to make the right decision”

Gain agreement, “and I want to help you make the right decision… , can you give me an example of a course and it was the right decision…”

Then anchor these good decisions to Persuasion Skills.

Consequence
“What would happen if you never took a risk and tried something new”

Another Cause
“Maybe it’s not that other courses haven't met your needs but it’s simply that you haven't been shown how to apply the theory”

Then show them how Persuasion Skills is designed to be applied in real world situations.

Change Context (Y)
“Can you think of where this would meet your needs?”

Redefine Y
“Its not that it may not meet all your needs, it’s that it may meet only some of your most important needs.”

Elicit what their most important needs are, and show them how Persuasion Skills will meet them.

Reality
“How do you know for sure?”

Challenging their perception that it will not meet their needs - finding doubt.

Then by providing more information we would erase that doubt.

Universal Qualifier
“Going on a course has never met any of your needs?”

Chunk Down
“Tell me how specifically going on a course may not meet your needs.”

Once we know what they don’t want we can ensure that we link what they do want to Persuasion Skills and therefore you will find it easier to buy.

Another Outcome
“Maybe it’s not just about meeting your present needs, it’s about discovering other ways to become more flexible?”

Change Context (X)
“When or under what circumstances is it useful to try new courses?”

If I know when, or under what circumstances it’s useful to try new course, I can make sure that I deliver the criteria necessary for them to choose the course.

Hierarchy of needs
“What's most important to you? Going on a course and taking the risk to really improve your outcomes or is it saving your money and never really knowing.”

As you can see, these powerful patterns can be very useful in beginning to overcome doubts or beliefs that hold people back. Obviously this is very useful in a variety of contexts, whether business or personal.

As I have said, I have used these patterns with people to increase sales, to motivate them, to help clients overcome fears, and more importantly to better understand people’s needs.

Because I believe that if you truly understand someone’s needs, you can really ensure that you meet those needs, making happier clients/customers/friends.

Regards

Marc

www.persuasion-skills.co.uk (http://www.persuasion-skills.co.uk/)

[rally37]

Thanks Skip and Marc for your replies. The reason I ask is that this has come up as a question to me directly. I now the way beliefs can be changed e.g. prove them wrong and replace them ( simplistic I know ). I use the 4 minute mile and Roger Banister as an example.

But the question posed to me was to do with very young children, 5 and under, whose parents both died.
The debate I was involved in was mostly about babies in the womb being able to hear what is going on outside such as music being played, people talking even to the extent of the parents interaction with each other.
Lets say both parents argue and are sometimes violent towards each other, would the baby form a belief that relationships are faulty and best avoided in later life?
Or both parents are regular church goers, actively involved in the church, all the music is of a religeous context, would the baby then form a sort of belief that the parents have?

I agree with what you say Skip that "I imagine it does because I dont believe consciousness arises only at birth, but is there long before birth."

I dont think we will get a final answer here but your thoughts are much appreciated.
Thanks again
Peter

[Merlin]

Hello,

My take is that beliefs can be formed in the womb.

Sometimes children are separated from parents at birth.
Curiously, they sometimes will have the beliefs of their bio-parents.

Other evidence: regressions have shown children picking up on parental conversations while they are still in the womb.

Granted, not proof. But evidence enough for me :)

[j0hnny#]

Personally, I don't think any kind of progress can be made on rally37's question until we examine what exactly a belief is.... What exactly is a belief? If you want to know if a child in the womb can possess beliefs, you must first understand what a belief is. That seems to me basic and noncontroversial. So, I think that would be the best place to start. What is it, for example, to believe that 'I woke up this morning', 'I had breakfast', 'It is raining', 'the sun is trying to break through', 'I feel confident', 'the time is now 10.30am', 'God exists', 'I die when I stop thinking', 'Charles Kennedy will be the next Prime Minister', 'there are problems in Iraq', 'the US troops are heavy handed', 'our governments are lying to us'..... ? If these are beliefs, in virtue of what are they beliefs? If they are some kind of possession, what kind of thing are they? What is it about them that makes them beliefs? In virtue of what can we call them beliefs? 'This is an interesting issue', when is that a belief? And when that is a belief what makes it believed? If we can get to the route of these kind of questions then we might be in a better position to determine to what extent, if any, a child (or children) obtains beliefs whilst in the womb.

j

[skip]

I think you are asking for some pretty complex beliefs to be formed based on insufficent information. Not that it takes much information to form beliefs, just look around at some peoples beliefs and the information behind them.

What I mean is that a baby that does not yet understand the language, nor anything at all about something as complex as 'relationships', is going to be hard pressed to form a belief that all relationships are faulty.

the baby could 'know' the reaction the mother has when the father is around, but would the baby always know when the fahter is around? And could the baby distinguish between when it was the father being around or just a traffic snarl, that was upsetting mom?

I suspect that babies are going to form some beliefs in the womb, but I would hesitate to guess what they might be, and would never assume something as complex as one about relationships.

skip

[j0hnny#]

Something else that came to mind: can there be beliefs without agency (or conception of self)? If the answer to this is no, then babies would not have beliefs. Belief could be characterised as 'disposition to behave a certain way'. I.e. will act in a way appropriate to the 'belief's content' (linguistically represented) when presented with certain stimulus. This seems a very external characterisation, with it (I think) we could say that a dog has beliefs, for example. But is this a fair characterisation of belief? Do dogs really have beliefs? It could be/ they could, I suppose. What about the subjective element though i.e. the believer's believing of the belief? Another person could interpret my behaviour as being evident of beliefs that I might not be willing to ascribe to. Does this mean I am capable of having beliefs that I don't know I have - even leaving aside the possibility of 'bad faith'? (It could, I suppose.. then again I'd be looking for some criteria to determine beliefs I do have from those I only think I have... what would that amount to? - the disposition to behave model might work quite well there.. as a principle for rational ascription of beliefs, perhaps.) Having said that, it still seems that there is something it is like to have a belief - and this will invariably involve the subject-object (intentional / aboutness / ofness) relation, which involves a conception of self-and-other in operation. I find it hard to believe a child in womb (or a dog) would have a conception of itself and things as distinct from it i.e. internally, even though they might externally produce behaviour that would fit with the disposition to behave model. So where exactly is the study going? I suppose that might be something I am trying to understand... What would it mean to say a belief was formed in the womb? A disposition, an aptness, a potential, representational pattern in accordance with sensory stimuli, a complex construction? What are the meanings of these words, even? What imposes the structure?

man, this is difficult....
J

[parsa]

I can't articulate it quite right but it seems to me that almost anything that you can think of can be characterized as a belief except for an anction that you express you want to do in the future like, 'I want to walk tommorrow'. Until the action has not taken place you can't say it is a belief. What do you think?

It appears that a baby can experience everything in the womb but does not yet know how to experience something as an 'abstract'. She/he can feel different things and associate experiences he/she has with those feeling and so form beliefs.

[j0hnny#]

I can't articulate it quite right but it seems to me that almost anything that you can think of can be characterized as a belief except for an anction that you express you want to do in the future like, 'I want to walk tommorrow'. Until the action has not taken place you can't say it is a belief. What do you think?


I can believe 'that I want to walk tommorrow' - seems fine as a belief.


It appears that a baby can experience everything in the womb but does not yet know how to experience something as an 'abstract'. She/he can feel different things and associate experiences he/she has with those feeling and so form beliefs.

to associate you would be saying it has a memorable content along with some means of identifying them. The only way I can think this could happen is with abstraction (though I could be wrong).... For association, there must be some rules for identifying past experiences and connecting them with present ones. That's pretty complex behaviour for a child of <9months to be doing... and then to 'form' a belief - I'm still not sure what that amounts to... what you got it down as?

J

[Terry (existing)]

Babies body, and babies mind form during the guestation period, therefor it is born with this system complete. Prior to birth therefor, it seems reasonable to assume that some beliefs are formed, since the system exists..... There can be little doubt that such beliefs are limited to what the baby might experience in the womb, but that is just common sense.... Mother meets a barking dog, and reacts with fear, so does baby know about dogs, or does it just react to the feeling of fear without knowledge of why the fear exists? The only way I know of to test this, is to expose baby to a barking dog before mother can lead the fear, which would mean taking the baby out with someone who didn't fear dogs, and exposing it to the barking, or even exposing it to the SOUND of barking on a tape, before mother was able to instal that fear after birth.....

[parsa]

>>to associate you would be saying it has a memorable content along with some means of identifying them. The only way I can think this could happen is with abstraction (though I could be wrong).... For association, there must be some rules for identifying past experiences and connecting them with present ones. That's pretty complex behavior for a child of <9months to be doing... and then to 'form' a belief - I'm still not sure what that amounts to... what you got it down as?

>>For association, there must be some rules for identifying past experiences and connecting them with present ones.



Why do you need rules? I thought identification of a past experience and connection with a present one is the most primitive thing we can do.



>>to associate you would be saying it has a memorable content along with some means of identifying them. The only way I can think this could happen is with abstraction (though I could be wrong)



Does the memorable content have to be an abstraction in order to be identifiable? Isn't an abstraction a specific character that many different things have in common? In order to associate one thing with another do I 'need' an abstract idea of the two? I don't think so, maybe I'm wrong.



It seems to me that to form a belief what you need is first: an input getting through, it being an image or a sound or...and a place to store this input

Second: a learning center. A center that is equipped with making 'use' of this input. The word 'use' would be content dependent.



So now I guess the question is that when do we get these tools? I don't seem to be able to find a reason not to say the minute we start life.

[j0hnny#]

>>to associate you would be saying it has a memorable content along with some means of identifying them. The only way I can think this could happen is with abstraction (though I could be wrong).... For association, there must be some rules for identifying past experiences and connecting them with present ones. That's pretty complex behavior for a child of <9months to be doing... and then to 'form' a belief - I'm still not sure what that amounts to... what you got it down as?

>>For association, there must be some rules for identifying past experiences and connecting them with present ones.



Why do you need rules? I thought identification of a past experience and connection with a present one is the most primitive thing we can do.

How else could you guarantee you have identified a past experience if you are not following rules? Let's say feeling X is something you want to re-identify - how will you guarantee that feeling at T1 is the feeling referred to as 'X' at T2 (replace T with 'time'). Without a rule governing the identification of X there will be no guarantee (means of identification) of determining X's. Identifying some aspect of our experience (remembering, associating with a memory) involves, it seems, structure. How else could there be structure if there are no rules imposing this structure? To say that it is the most primitive thing we can do might be the right thing to say, I'm not sure, maybe if you filled out in what respect it is the most primitive thing we can do it might be a pretty cool piece of knowledge.


>>to associate you would be saying it has a memorable content along with some means of identifying them. The only way I can think this could happen is with abstraction (though I could be wrong)



Does the memorable content have to be an abstraction in order to be identifiable? Isn't an abstraction a specific character that many different things have in common? In order to associate one thing with another do I 'need' an abstract idea of the two? I don't think so, maybe I'm wrong.

Think of the most basic means of identification, it doesn't even have to be articulate, say it is pointing to some particular, distinguishing. Imagine pointing to some thing. Ok, now how did you point to the thing you pointed to? What makes it the thing you pointed to that you identified? Say it is the monitor in front of you. How did you distinguish it? What determined it as the monitor you pointed to and not the thumb smudge on the screen, or the screen itself? Isn't 'thing' itself an abstraction? How do you point to particulars without your prepossessed understanding?

So now I guess the question is that when do we get these tools? I don't seem to be able to find a reason not to say the minute we start life.

You could be right, innate ability to identify particularity, and this could be the most 'primitive' thing there is......

[Merlin]

The question is (IMO)
Can the mind build patterns of thought while in the womb.
The child's mind may not understand those patterns, but can the patterns be made?
Can the patterns later be recognised and/or influence behaviour?
Even by the adult unconscious?

[j0hnny#]

The question is (IMO)
Can the mind build patterns of thought while in the womb.
The child's mind may not understand those patterns, but can the patterns be made?
Can the patterns later be recognised and/or influence behaviour?
Even by the adult unconscious?

Hi Merlin :)

I was watching a programme on ITV last night called 'life before birth' (caught the last half hour or so of it), which was concerned to communicate the life of an infant before birth during its development in the womb. It was a very interesting documentary. :)

So, the part of the programme I got to see began with talking about memory. A child in the womb shows signs of memory. The test for this is that the mother would sing a nursery rhyme daily in the last month prior to birth. The child's heart rate was monitored to gauge its reactions to hearing the rhyme and it was found that it relaxed when it heard the repeated rhyme (say after about a weeks worth of repeating) and became slightly agitated when it heard a new rhyme. This is thought to show that it has developed some capacity for memory, pre entrance to the world. The programme also showed a child's reactions to different kinds of music, its reaction to sudden noises, to its mothers stress, happiness, emotions....

So the way of talking seems to be that physiological reaction is a sign of something we perhaps ordinarily associate with a phenomenology (it feels, it remembers,.... it believes?). Is there a phenomenology (experiencer who experiences)? (....who has 'memories' of before they learned a language? i.e. things that can be willfuly recalled?). But the programme showed that something is familiarised - physiology.

At this point I think I must be engaging in some kind of madness (raising the doubt that a child experiences pre birth). I have a son of 18months.. he was experiencing (I'm sure of it) when I first met him (his day of birth), why not before! Maybe it's more that our memories expand when we learn our language. Or our memory is our physiological reactions, just with language we communicate them more effectively (lastingly? <or some temporal verb>) to ourselves and others.....? But then there is consciousness to consider... What is the role of consciousness? How does that feature? It seems the best explanation for why the child would remember (in some respects) is consciousness, yet the best thing I can think of for having such an ability (imposing this structure for recal and association) is having a language (or some system of rules). Of course, we could keep the description purely physiological, but then, it seems we are equivocating when we say that a child believes, or remembers - for 'believes' and 'remembers' is not being ascribed to any phenomenolgy, rather only to some physiology. The other alternative is to say there is some innate structure imposing device (like Chomsky's Universal Grammar, perhaps) i.e. if you want to start making unequivocal ascriptions of beliefs and memories. However, it seems pretty clear that there is physiological recognition of familiarisation with certain stimuli (from the experiments). That would leave room for your way of thinking, perhaps - i.e. that patterns of reaction occur (perhaps habitually formed, even?).... I don't know anymore, I could be getting more confused........:confused: I think it is important to get clear about the way of talking about the issue though, and about the reasons why we ought to talk about it in whatever way is decided upon. It does little in the way of understanding to make unqualified confident assertions. I'm sure most people will agree with that.

J

[Merlin]

Interesting, huh?

[j0hnny#]

yes, Int3rEsting, veRry IntEre5Ting.....

so... no takers then?

:rolleyes:

[Cassandra 8]

I have recently read many books and listened to tapes on the NLP traing and I am picking up on one theme at the moment.
That is our conscious and sub-conscious mind with the beliefs we hold. One tape at least has suggested that these beliefs are initially formed whilst we are still in the womb and are then reinforced throughout our life, some stay some are re-evaluated and changed.
What are your thoughts on this and do you have any thoughts on how our beliefs are formed in the womb, this one bit is a little stumbling block for me.
Thanks for any info you may be able to provide.See what you think about this for an explanation:

Clearly, our brain continues to grow in complexity from the first neuron onwards, until eventually, deterioration overtakes its ability to make new connections, which is okay because, by then, we're usually very old.

Now, just as clearly, in pur prime, we can process incoming information to act and form beliefs in great detail, and we know that as we look further back we see that this ability has been getting more pronounced throughout our lives.

We can say, I suppose that there's a parallel between brain complexity and our ability to think. I mean, we actually know this personally, so to speak.

Even a single nuron holds a value, an opinion perhaps, in response to whatever has stimulated it. The more neurons and the more complexity between them, it would seem, the more complex the processing and the detail of the information we can handle. We ugrade ourselves constantly.

So, yes, we form beliefs from the first neuron onwards. It's the information content and our abiliy to process it that increases.

Evolution is a ruthlessly efficient killing machine, so we must be born with too low a cerebral complexity to generate any meaningful self-consciousness for a reason. It must be more efficient to rely on parental bonding instead of growing a body inside that of your mothers capable of carrying out the kinds of actions your fully formed, conscious brain can instruct it to perform. Your mother would have to eat for two adults or die, before being ripped apart anyway.

[DrAdrianaJames]

The discussion about beliefs being formed or not in the womb is certainly an interesting intellectual exercise. But, ultimately, what matters is the fact that some beliefs we hold as "true", serve us and some do not. Whether our beliefs come from mommy or daddy, or school, or friends is ultimately irrelevant for our mental health and our personal successful and continuous development. The real question is, "Do my beliefs support me in my life or do they limit me?"

There are people who use the beliefs they have as an excuse for not succeeding in life. "I am just not good enough, what can i do? No wonder i cannot amount to anything!"

For many hundreds of years people were prisoners of their beliefs. This fact had a major role in how they progressed (or not), succeeded (or not), were happy (or not), healthy (or not), etc in their lives.

It is now 2005, and we have the technology to change our beliefs (those beliefs that do not support our development) and replace them with other beliefs. It takes about 10 min to do that with Time Line Therapy. This proves that even if every neuron is involved in the process of retaining information, the situation can be changed. This is what ultimately matters.

Adriana James Ph.D.
NLP Master Trainer
Hypnosis Trainer
Time Line Therapy Trainer

www.nlp.com

[Alonso]

I have recently read many books and listened to tapes on the NLP traing and I am picking up on one theme at the moment.
That is our conscious and sub-conscious mind with the beliefs we hold. One tape at least has suggested that these beliefs are initially formed whilst we are still in the womb and are then reinforced throughout our life, some stay some are re-evaluated and changed.
What are your thoughts on this and do you have any thoughts on how our beliefs are formed in the womb, this one bit is a little stumbling block for me.
Thanks for any info you may be able to provide.


There is just too much data that would basically make that theory one of those really bad hypotheses thrown by a great thinker. I mean come on, how can a baby develop any structure in his/her thinking at that point in time. And who ever said we learned things up until 5 years old. I learned a lot of stuff way after that, otherwise, things would be really not the way they are.

I would say discard that theory and move on to more interesting stuff.

[skip]

I agree witrh the Doc.

If it is all movable furniture, who cares when you bought it?

skip