View Full Version : You can lead a horse ...
A person I respect worte something in a thread several weeks ago. I cant find it now, and finding it may be irrelevent anyway. She said (in effect, and presumably in reference to working with hypnotheraputic situations), that she wanted to tell the unconscious what to do, that she didnt want to allow the unconscious to choose the new path. This in reference to remedial work. She wanted the control, because she didnt trust the unconscious to select wisely.
And as I read it, and as I thought about it, I thought, "She is right, but that is soooo wrong."
How is that for conflicted?
At first I thought it was just because it was "authoratarian", and that is why it felt so wrong to me.
And I have thought about it since, and mulled it over, and intended to write about it several times, but I am glad I didnt until now. It wasnt until I was working with a client, early this week, that it crystalized in my mind. How she could be both so correct, and incorrect at the same time.
And I dont presume that this is the only way this person thinks about the unconscious.
See if you just consider theraputic applications, you almost exclusively see examples where the unconscious has chosen "unwisely". People smoke, people drink, people use drugs, people have unhelpful habits and manerisms, people make themselves sick. People have numerous self destructive behaviors. And all are the result of unconscious patterns. Patterns the unconscious has chosen, for whatever reason. But more importantly or significantly, often patterns the unconscious insists on continuing to use, despite ample evidence to the contrary, and even heroic efforts to alter the behavior, because of the terrible effects.
Is it any wonder that she indicated, the unconscious isnt to be trusted?
Anyone with any degree of sense, would have to consider the 'evidence' and agree with her. And I agreed with her.
I also think we are wrong.
The client I was working with makes a lot of self sabatoging choices. She also mistrusts her unconscious. She believes that given free reign, her unconscious would run rampant, in the most self destructive way possible. She believes, that only by force of the most rigid conscious effort, is she able to refrain from literally running amok.
And I was 'discussing' this with her. And I asked her, "Have you ever considered the times when your unconscious has gotten it right?
Now Ill admit, it is a sleight of mouth technique. But just because it is a technique, doesnt mean it isnt valid. :)
She didnt understand the question, and honestly I didnt understand the implications either, until I started to explain it to her. (I just love the way my unconscious mind works. I trust... you can too... love the way yours does as well.)
Walking, driving, breathing, getting fork to mouth, tooth brushing, kissing, and on and on are all some of the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of unconscious "patterns" that we do every day. And we do them perfectly and much to our benifit.
I dont care how screwed up your life might be, you actually do vastly more things unconsciously well, than you mess up. And it goes without saying that even those things that you do mess up, you mess up "perfectly". We do the poor behaviors as "flawlessly" as we do do the good ones.
The question is, "What is the focus of your perception, when you say you cant trust the unconscious? The only possible answer is that it is focused on a very narrow set of 'poor' behaviors, out of the hundreds of thousands of 'good' behaviors that you do daily.
Now in my view, someone who gets things 'right' vastly more times than they get things wrong, is pretty darn trustworthy. Infallable? No, but trustworthy.
And to base an attitude on skewed data ...
Then I realized, this wasnt nexus of my dissagreement.
Do you realize, that you have no other choice?
It really doesnt matter what you think, or believe, or even try to do about it, your body/mind is going to continue to trust your unconscious.
If you could successfully overrule your unconscious when walking, how far would you get, before you fell down? How often would you bite your tongue? Would you choke every swallow, or just some?
So there I was, reading the posts in a thread, and logically agreeing with the poster, while my unconscious response was going .... "wrong, wrong, wrong!"
Who do you trust?
Well we all know, that despite the logic, and evidence, and good sense, any argument, or person, makes, if internally (unconsciously), we get the feeling, "el torro caca", we know, dont we? Even if we dont know why.
And I submit, "That is as it should be."
I further submit that what we need is more trust in our unconscious processes, not less.
I have often related to people that when working with clients, I am really more like an observer. I am observing my mind body interact with the client and my only job consciously, is to monitor that we are heading towards an outcome, and to enjoy the process. I let my unconscious decide how to get there. And when I do it that way, is when I do my most elegant work.
I havent always felt this way. I used to think I needed to control most everything. And everyone too. (A really thankless job, let me assure you.) ;)
Erickson often used the metaphor of a lost horse when he was speaking of the unconscious. He would talk about the time when he saw a horse wandering down the road, munching grass. Now he didnt recognize the horse. None of the neighbors recognized the horse. But presently the owner of the horse was surprised to see Erickson rinding into the yard on the horse. "How did you know where to bring him?" asked the owner. "I didnt." Erickson replied. "But the horse knew. All I needed to do was say, "Lets go home.", give him a nudge, and keep him moving, and I knew he would turn in at the right place."
I think it is important to note that implicit in this metaphor is the notion that Erickson didnt interfere with the direction the horse took. That he knew that if he interfered, he would force the horse, and quite likely end up at the wrong place.
Now there is a danger in reading too much into something like this. We dont have Erickson here to ask specifically.
But I can say this. If I keep in mind an outcome, whether it is my own, or a clients, I am better at getting that outcome if I trust my own and the clients unconscious, to figure out how to achieve it, than I am when I try to dictate the process.
YMMV
skip
Merlin
08-24-2005, 07:21 PM
Hi Skip.
It was me who said that.
The *context* was my answer to the 6-step reframe and one of the reasons why I personally choose not to use that particular method.
The 6-step particularly has the unconscious choose a new behaviour. Now I totally trust the unconscious to choose a new behaviour which will better meet its goals in the context of the pattern to change.
*But*
The unconscious may have a self-destructive or self-punishing goal. (Not always. Not Most of the time. But sometimes)
I trust it can find a better pattern to meet its currently desired outcome.
But, I think it's better to find out what the desired outcome is, and work with the unconscious towards a more meaningful outcome.
If a person comes to me, I do see this as a *Team* effort. If they could go it alone, they probably wouldn't have come to me in the first place.
I hope this better clarifies my thoughts.
The context is the 6-step reframe.
The issue is the unconscious mind choosing without knowing *its* desired outcome.
I know it was you who said it.
But my post wasnt about you, it was you who sent me on the thought journey, and the thought journey went off beyond Six Step Reframing, so I didnt name names.
And I recognize your comments were contextual, and as I said, in the context, at the time, I was agreeing with them, and disagreeing simultaneously.
Six step refraiming, if done correctly, is designed to generate an ecological outcome. All of us have to trust the unconscious to do a thorough ecology check, and recognize if an outcome is truly desirable, or not. No matter if the outcome is generated by you, or by the unconscious itsself. And irregardless of whether or not you are using six step reframing or some other form of hypnosis.
You still must trust both your clients, and your own unconscious.
Merlin says:
"The issue is the unconscious mind choosing without knowing *its* desired outcome."
If this is the issue you were adressing, then I can agree, because as you indicate, it could be pursuing an unknown agenda. I agree with one caveat. If you reach agreement, on an outcome. One that the client agrees on, both consciously and unconsciously, then your knoweledge of that outcome is unnecessary. All you need know, is that an agreed on outcome has been reached. Six Step does allow for that content free process, it doesnt mandate it, but it allows for it, and IMO, and experience you can trust it.
You dont have to, but you can.
cheers,
skip
Hello Skip,
I remember that Erickson metaphor and came to the same conclusion possibly using my own flawless subconscious to reach a flawed conclusion, but that's by the by.
By nature I am permissive in therapy, attempting to respect the perfect ability of the subconscious to get it right, even though I know it currently has it wrong because I have a client with a problem or an alleged problem in front of me.
Some years ago, I came to the no doubt flawed conclusion that nothing actually mattered very much in therapy with regard to how one went about it. Techniques are well and good, but often obscure the relationship between what we term subconscious(or unconscious) and conscious processing.
It happened with a phobic client. A middle aged woman, well educated, well dressed and obviously confident to the point of imperiousness came through my door. I'll call her Jenny. I took her details in interview then asked her what she wanted, although I knew.
(transcript from tape)
Jenny: I'm going on holiday next week to the Bahamas and I've never been on a 'plane before. I am dreading it. I feel sick every time I think about it and I know I'll let everyone down at the airport and not be able to go. I need to be cured of this today.
Jack: Who will you let down?
Jenny: My husband and my children. They are all looking forward to it so much, and my husband get very little time off as
Jack: OK.
Jenny: Can you do anything about it?
Jack: About your husband and children? No.
Jenny:(slightly exasperated) About my phobia.
Jack: Ah, that.
Jenny: (more exasperated) Yes, that. Do you cure phobias, or don't you? (Name of referrer) said you cured her fear of dogs.
Jack: I did.
Jenny: So...?
Jack: Close your eyes. OK. (10 seconds pause)You're cured. Open your eyes. That'll be £50.
Jenny: (well annoyed) What sort of a therapist are you?
Jack: One who has just cured you. If you get on the 'plane and feel frightened you can have your money back and I'll eat my fishing hat. But when you get on the 'plane you will have too much to do to be frightened. There's the Maeve Binchy book you'll buy at the airport, the CD player you'll take with your Chris De Burgh CDs, the inflight meals you can complain about, going to the toilet, the views out of the window, several glasses of Chardonnay, adjusting your 'sea bands', the great hotel you're staying in, the children, your husband - it's very busy for you, no space there for being frightened, just impossible and very probably stupid.
Jenny: Is that NLP?
Jack: No idea. Does it matter? How do you feel about the flight now?
Jenny:(deep breath and smiles) OK.
Jack: Enjoy your trip.
Jenny: I will.
She did.
The only reason I treated her in this way was no reason. It was a quirk of my own personality, maybe I didn't like her, maybe I thought she snotty, maybe I was just tired or disenchanted with the business, who knows? Whatever, I threw the Fast Phobia Cure, the inductions, the deepeners the metaphors, the suggestions out of the door and played a somewhat uncaring and obviously unpractised faith healer with an inability to establish any kind of rapport.
It worked. It has worked since. Never the same twice.
But only when I can really forget stuff. Which isn't very often.
Now I think my subconscious told me to do it like that for whatever reason it had. The reason may have been to make me feel better about myself, to boost my self esteem or to start me off on dreams of world conquest (the latter didn't happen as you will notice). It could conceivably have been that it was the best way to treat this particular client.
But it was massively authoritarian.
Not me at all. No, 'and if you really want to change you will', rather: 'you've changed, pay me'.
So, I agree in large measure with both you and Merlin but I also think you can over analyse (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) so I've stopped doing that. I've also stopped going to the seminars of famous practitioners, because for the most part(not all) they are involved in technique, which for me is a dead end.
I tell my sportspeople 'stop thinking' and do the job. I now take my own advice, but badly.:)
Jack
I know it was you who said it.
But my post wasnt about you, it was you who sent me on the thought journey, and the thought journey went off beyond Six Step Reframing, so I didnt name names.
And I recognize your comments were contextual, and as I said, in the context, at the time, I was agreeing with them, and disagreeing simultaneously.
Six step refraiming, if done correctly, is designed to generate an ecological outcome. All of us have to trust the unconscious to do a thorough ecology check, and recognize if an outcome is truly desirable, or not. No matter if the outcome is generated by you, or by the unconscious itsself. And irregardless of whether or not you are using six step reframing or some other form of hypnosis.
You still must trust both your clients, and your own unconscious.
Merlin says:
"The issue is the unconscious mind choosing without knowing *its* desired outcome."
If this is the issue you were adressing, then I can agree, because as you indicate, it could be pursuing an unknown agenda. I agree with one caveat. If you reach agreement, on an outcome. One that the client agrees on, both consciously and unconsciously, then your knoweledge of that outcome is unnecessary. All you need know, is that an agreed on outcome has been reached. Six Step does allow for that content free process, it doesnt mandate it, but it allows for it, and IMO, and experience you can trust it.
You dont have to, but you can.
cheers,
skip
I seem to have got these:( when I typed (.
Ignore.
Jack
parsa
08-25-2005, 06:39 AM
Nice thread guys. Thanks.
inandout
08-25-2005, 07:24 AM
Hi Jack,
I enjoyed your post. :)
Easy way to make £50 squid!!
"Stop thinking and do the job". Good advice!!
inandout
Terry (existing)
08-25-2005, 10:41 AM
This series shows why the person directly out of training school is barely at the tip of the iceburg of knowledge required in order to be a competent practitioner.
In training, you are taught that the subconcious can't think, and therefor sends all information to the concious to absorb and make decissions for it. At the same time, we are told that the subconcious is that part of the mind with direct access to the memory and the imagination. If you think about it, these statements are diametrically opposed to each other, and we are confusing decission making with weighing the pros and cons of facts.... If I ask the sub; to tell us why you act as you do, or think as you do, it has direct access to that information from the memory banks, and can tell us immediately what we want to know. No need for pros and cons, we can access directly, then ask if change is acceptable, which of course it is because that is why the client is there in the first place, and change is made without any pro or con thinking.... Now you can say that this change is made because we asked the right questions, and that is true, but that change was also a decission made by the subconcious of the client, so it was in fact self help directed by the skilled practitioner who knew how to guide the client into making that decission. Did the subconcious "think", or is thinking the process of weighting pros and cons? You decide, I have already, and am happy with that decission, even if it goes against basic training. Such statements work at the start, but must be discarded as we get better at what we do, and understand the process in greater depth..... Remember we know nothing about the mind except what we observe as we progress, and when something works we assume we know why, but that is all......Why did Jacks fun session work? Probably a mixture of belief in Jacks skills, hope and desire for a change in beliefs, and fear of ridicule if it didn't. He did say she was rather autocratic, and as such she would be a stickler for appearances. It would be much easier to accept a cure than to become ill at the airport, and now she has an excuse not to be sick, and have fun instead of misery. Lord knows if her fears would have been realised without Jacks intervention, but we will never know, and she will always believe Jack did it (G)
Merlin
08-26-2005, 07:34 PM
>I know it was you who said it.
Of course you did.
But other lurkers might not :)
>Six step refraiming, if done correctly, is designed to generate an ecological outcome.
Yes, it's *designed* to.
>All of us have to trust the unconscious to do a thorough ecology check, and recognize if an outcome is truly desirable, or not.
I disagree.
While the unconscious will do the best it can, and make the best possible choices given its understanding and available resources, it will not always simply make the best choice.
Sometimes it needs more resources or a reframe of its understanding.
It does not always get all it needs with just a 6-step.
>You still must trust both your clients, and your own unconscious.
The people I meet don't always have 100% resources.
That's usually why they seek help.
>If this is the issue you were adressing, then I can agree, because as you indicate, it could be pursuing an unknown agenda.
And that's really all I'm saying.
>then your knoweledge of that outcome is unnecessary.
I'm not claiming a 'need to know'
I'm saying we sometimes need to be sure that the client's unconscious has sufficient resources and adequate understanding.
The 6-step does not guarantee this.
Fair dinkum Merlin.
Still two sticking points for me, and we may just have to agree to disagree.
I believe you still must trust the unconscious. Anywhere from walking without falling down, to comming up with a solution to a behavioral problem, to identifying the goals of any given behavior, requires unconscious performance. You cannot live without it.
When you ask a client to do an ecology check, you can giude them, but you must trust their unconscious to accomplish it. When you ask a client for the ISE, you have to trust the unconscious to identify it. When you ask for a new behavior that is acceptable to both the conscious desires and unconscious desires you must trust the uinconscious to do what you have asked.
And you have to trust your own unconscious to remember and retrieve the necessary knowledge, and you must trust it to perform the skills you have learned.
It is a broader view of the topic than you were addressing and I realize that.
And I totally disagree with, "The people I meet don't always have 100% resources.
That's usually why they seek help." To me thats the 'people are broken' model. But that may be because of my understanding of resources.
I could agree with, "They dont have access to the necessary resources in the required context, and that's why they seek help." But they do have those necessary resources in other contexts. Our job is to be resourceful enough to recognize the resources as being able to apply, and to cross contextualize them, so they have access to the needed resource in the desired context.
Hypnosis potentiates.
It can expose new possibilities, or open new choices, but it doesnt create anything, it just seems to. Those possibililities and choices were already there, the client just couldnt percieve them. The new choices and possibilities are generated from the resources the person already has, either applied in new contexts, or combined in new novel ways.
cheers,
skip
Merlin
08-27-2005, 10:32 AM
Hiya Skip,
>Still two sticking points for me, and we may just have to agree to disagree.
It's possible.
But I'll still respect you in the morning :)
>I believe you still must trust the unconscious. Anywhere from walking without falling down, to comming up with a solution to a behavioral problem, to identifying the goals of any given behavior, requires unconscious performance. You cannot live without it.
OK, suppose you were having difficulty walking?
There was something wrong with the mind's methods.
Would you just keep trying, more and more, expecting a different outcome?
Or might you consciously intervene and try something different?
Also, this statement seems to imply the unconscious is all knowing and always is right.
Is there no room for learning?
While I may walk well today, it has not always been so.
*for me* walking is a learned skill, which took much conscious effort at first.
>When you ask a client to do an ecology check, you can giude them, but you must trust their unconscious to accomplish it. When you ask a client for the ISE, you have to trust the unconscious to identify it.
Often the UC won't reveal the ISE readily.
It sometimes takes 'detective' work.
The UC will sometimes even fabricate an ISE just to throw you off.
>When you ask for a new behavior that is acceptable to both the conscious desires and unconscious desires you must trust the uinconscious to do what you have asked.
And when it doesn't? Then what?
>And you have to trust your own unconscious to remember and retrieve the necessary knowledge, and you must trust it to perform the skills you have learned.
And if my own UC doesn't, then I need help.
>It is a broader view of the topic than you were addressing and I realize that.
Discussion is good :)
>And I totally disagree with, "The people I meet don't always have 100% resources.
That's usually why they seek help." To me thats the 'people are broken' model. But that may be because of my understanding of resources.
Skip, I disagree (in as pleasant a way as I can)
I don't think people are all knowing.
We may have the ability to learn and gain resources,
but I don't believe we are born with all knowledge.
>I could agree with, "They dont have access to the necessary resources in the required context, and that's why they seek help." But they do have those necessary resources in other contexts. Our job is to be resourceful enough to recognize the resources as being able to apply, and to cross contextualize them, so they have access to the needed resource in the desired context.
I'll just have to disagree.
>Hypnosis potentiates.
OK. I agree
But hypnosis does not in itself provide resources.
>It can expose new possibilities, or open new choices, but it doesnt create anything, it just seems to. Those possibililities and choices were already there, the client just couldnt percieve them. The new choices and possibilities are generated from the resources the person already has, either applied in new contexts, or combined in new novel ways.
I'll stick with the idea that we can _learn_ *new* things. :)
Hi ho Merlin,
You are right the unconscious isnt all wise, just more so, nor is it infallable, just less fallable, than the conscious. It is right vastly more often, and certainly is more capable, than the conscious. Plus once again, you have no other choice, but to trust it even when you 'think' you arent.
And yes, agreed, there are times when the unconscious 'seems' deceptive or contrary (not unlike some moderators no doubt ), but you still have no choice but to trust it, because it is what you are having to learn the 'truth' from, and it is what you must rely on to implement any change.
And I have no problem with the Regan-esq "Trust, but verify.", the problem is the verification requires trusting the unconscious. There is no way around it.
Either I communicate that fully or not.
If you still dont get my meaning (and if you did, I suspect you would agree), then the fault is mine not yours.
And as I suspected the 'other' problem is in a different understanding of resources. The ability to learn is a resource, we ARE born with it. Various behaviors, learned skills, are just that skills, not resources.
So when you say, "Learn some new resource.", I am hearing 'Learn something we are inherently born with.".
We can learn plenty of new skills, and behaviors, but resources are "God given".
Ask Wart, didnt you teach him, flying is a learned skill, but wings and feathers are resources. :)
cheers,
skip
Merlin
08-28-2005, 10:43 AM
>And as I suspected the 'other' problem is in a different understanding of resources.
I think so.
>The ability to learn is a resource, we ARE born with it.
I agree.
> Various behaviors, learned skills, are just that skills, not resources.
You seem to be saying that it is impossible to learn a new resource because what we are born with is what we have.
I disagree.
Ability to learn is a wonderful resource.
I just don't limit my usage of the word.
I beleive we can and do learn resources.
So, I guess we'll just keep this one on the list of disagreements :)
Resource: noun: a source of aid or support that may be drawn upon when needed.
From:
( http://www.onelook.com/?w=resource&ls=a )
I would consider the ability to fly a resource.
Another example:
I consider water a resource.
I was born able to drink. But without the resource of water, I still get thirsty.
After a few days in the desert, all the ability to drink is not of much use unless I find a resource of water.
Ruskie
09-07-2005, 09:08 AM
I tell my sportspeople 'stop thinking' and do the job. I now take my own advice, but badly.:)
Jack
That is the best way. Milton Erickson - didnt thing ever too much. Stop thinking and do the job.
Since ive started NLP few years ago, ive gone through many courses and teach hypnosis, luck, horsemanship and other things. I never prepeare myself for anything. Nor for a session of hypnotherapy, nor for a course. I trust myself. I know my sub knows everything and will always give me a good strategy. And all is good. I started teaching people even when i wasnt nlp master, but as a practitioner. Then when i learned how to build in models into other people, it was the way i did it for few month before hand.
When i have a choice to make, even then i dont think. i just listen to my feelings. i have it somwhere in my chest. and if its calm, or nice - i go for it. if it isnt - i dont. Thats all. When people ask me - why? i say - i have a feeling inside, and it tells me... thats it.
Ever since i strarted to be this way, my life sorted itself out so well :) i do what i love, i am happy, and i dont really expirience any negative feelings. sometimes, but i go into trance, asking to sort out whats going on, and i tells me - youve done a wrong desicion, re decide, and i go - ok.
Some sort of Blind Trust, to your sub.
Works great for me :-)
Sorry for mistakes, havent typed in english for several years.