John Grinder

[Stoic]

Anyone else want to worship him? For the first time I just got my paws on a video of him, and I almost wet myself!!!
I had read books by him and it was very impressive, but never seen him in action. It was an eye opening experience!


Side note: The video was called "Human Excellence" and he referred to someone in the seminar as Skip! Pretty cool!

PS. I know this is old news to some of you, but empathize with my joy of discovery!

[Poodle]

From what I have heard from people that have trained with him he is a wonderful human being and loves to teach. You may wish to relay your thoughts to Jimr1 as he is definitely in the Grinder camp.

I'm very happy you are sooo excited! It is a great world, isn't it?

[Jack]

Worship is a bit strong. I went to one of his seminars here in the UK some time ago and left feeling not exactly disappointed but less than elated. I think the problem is that he still needs the other chap to fill in the missing pieces, and Paul McKenna just doesn't do it.

But I agree with Pood; he does seem like a pleasant sort of bloke.

Jack

[Charlie]

I just got my paws on a video of him......The video was called "Human Excellence"....

Stoic, I gotta ask........ where on earth did you find this video???

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

[Stoic]

A friend of a friend... he had it on his computer. Just another one of those worthless speed seduction junkies =P

Here's something interesting to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCE3etbeXx0

[Poodle]

If you check MORE on the Forum, you will find out that eye accessing cues are NOT 100%. :)

[Stoic]

If you check MORE on the Forum, you will find out that eye accessing cues are NOT 100%. :)

Will calibration make it 100% or close?

[Poodle]

Nope! This is what was originally thought by B&G. It was first published in Frogs Into Princes and at that time they didn't even have Ad yet. It was just A. It's just a model that works a lot of the time, not ALL of the time and, if one is aware that it exists, it won't work at all as it's too easy to control. We change states all the time in nano-seconds. Law enforcement is taught it works ALL of the time on EVERYONE so when ya meet the fuzz, control those eyes!

[Jack]

And it is worth pointing out that eye accessing cues can be faked if the 'watcher' is not absolutely skilled. Micro movements, rather than the obvious ones are the key, but if you watch for them you will not see them.

Jack

[skip]

Eye accessing cues are an unconscious response.

They cannot be 'wrong', or incorrect.

They are what they are.

You may interpret them incorrectly, but that isnt their 'fault'.

A couple of things MUST be remembered.

They are different for different people. They can change, in the same person, from one context to another, and thru time.

Calibration, calibration, calibration.

Also:

You MUST be careful in your communication, so that you know what the person is responding to. I have seen people with unclear communication get the eye accessing cure for a decision making strategy, when they thought they were simply eliciting a state, because of sloppy communication, on their part.

For example, "Can you imagine what feeling good would be like?"

You will get both the eye accessing cues for 'feeling good' and for making the decision 'Can you imagine'. Now which, will be which?

Sloppy communication!

Eye accessing cues cannot be faked. Well yes they can, you can move your eyes deliberately, and someone skilled could fool an unskilled practioner. BUT eye accessing cues are unconscious response, and thus cannot be avoided, or faked. If someone is trying to fool you, you will ALWAYS see the honest unconscious response(s) first, and then the deliberate faked response second.

That said, you must realize some people access extremely fast, and their eye movement can be mere micro movement. And they dont stop and stick around, they go on to other things.

Some people close their eyes to access, but usually you can track the eyeball movement beneath the eye lid.

Most mistakes I have seen, and made myself, cluster around someone who is fast and has moved on, and we calibrate to the wrong response.

That could be sloppy communication in eliciting ...

Or we simply missed the response we were wanting and caught a different (later) response.

my 2 cents,

skip

[Poodle]

writes in "Time For A Change", 1993 that the accessing cues also include breathing and shoulders and are for a "typically wired right handed person". Further stated is: "Any behavioral cue that indicates processing of a certain sensory system is called an accessing cue." Appendix 1

It's a fun book as it incorporates a lot of Ericksonian with NLP which is what most NLPers do anyway.

Skip made a marvelous point above GIGO - sloppy language gets you no where.

[Stoic]

Where should I look for more information on accessing cues? Any upto date information I can find? What book? Site?
If you believe all sources are unreliable or misguiding, whats the 'most' reliable one?
Also any specific instructors you know that focus more on reading unconscious communication?

[Poodle]

Have you read Training Trances -- it is to be read as trance which equals conscious/unconscious installation. It's a combo of NLP & Ericksonian. If you understand the concepts of that book, you can and do read any book conscious/unconscious integration.

For more info. on accessing cues, you'd have to ask Skip. The latest I have read is the one above by Bandler. This is Skip's world and you can trust him on it. He is a NLP Trainer. He has read about all the NLP books marketed - good and bad. He does know his business which is much more than babysitting this Forum. Accessing cues are only one very small part in a very large product called NLP and they are not meant just to determine the state of another person. With correct use you can lead people to other states.

I would guess Bandler said it all when he wrote ANY BEHAVIORAL CUE. Just stop and think for a second how far reaching that word ANY is.

[Jack]

Hello Skip,

I have the greatest respect for your NLP knowledge which I am sure is far superior to mine, but I have to disagree that eye accessing cues cannot be faked. The process is subconscious, agreed, but it may be that the subconscious can be trained or distracted to elicit a different response.

Quite recently, we did a few ad hoc tests on this very subject using psychology students and two well respected Master Practitioners. In one test the students were told to mentally hum a favourite tune and allow their eyes to move in response to the music whilst being questioned by the experts. 7 out of 10 were able to fool the experts. They did not do this by creating a coarse secondary response, but by a primary response related to the music, and not the dialogue. It would be interesting to see if a subject could be hypnotised to give post hypnotic random responses unrelated to the question.

Similarly, a skin galvanometer - a simple lie detector - can be defeated quite easily with very little training, and the heartbeat can be slowed and speeded at will using a post hypnotic suggestion. This also relies on subconscious processing, although it is unknown if the same area of the brian is used for eye cues.

Watch T Blair when he is being questioned; there is not a flicker of secondary obfuscation even when he is lying through his teeth. This could be because he actually believes the lie, of course, but I fancy that some training has taken place since even he could not believe all of his lies at such a profound level and with such consistency.

But I do agree that most mistakes in interpretation are caused by sloppy communication, lack of skill or calibration errors in most cases, and it could be that the finest NLP practitioners in the world are able to detect microscopic primary eye movements that ordinary mortals could not, but I think we would have to use high speed cameras to catch these movements since we cannot get inside the brain of said practitioners. Are you volunteering?

My 2 pence :)

Jack

[skip]

Hi Jack,

I have the greatest respect for your NLP knowledge which I am sure is far superior to mine, but I have to disagree that eye accessing cues cannot be faked. The process is subconscious, agreed, but it may be that the subconscious can be trained or distracted to elicit a different response.

The respect is mutual. What would happen if I accept your experiment, accept your results, and come up with a different conclusion?

First let me define the 'house of cards' my opinion is based on, and if that house falls, so be it. I am ready and willing to learn. :)

For those of you who dont know NLP or some of the shorthand terms I am going to use, but not necessarily take time to explain, refer to: http://www.nlpuniversitypress.com/ for assistance. This is an excellent reference, it is free for anyone to use. Its only limitation is in the number of pages you can access in 24 hours. I would urge you to buy it, to support this type of effort. Advertisement over.

OK Jack, to the house of cards ...

Memories are stored in all 5 senses Visual,Auditory, Kinesthetic, Olfactory, and Gustatory (VAKOG) and we tend to track accessing of those memories using a model called a a 4 Tuple, Visual, Auditory, Ad AuditoryDigital (self talk) and ,Kinesthetic; (V,A,Ad,K).

In order to make meaning of any communication, our memory must be accessed, (the VAKOG), or we have no meaning. The memory is accessed using a specific 'strategy' , that strategy can be described using the 4Tuple, or the framiliar six representations normally presented with the smiley face. Once accessed, via the transdiversional search, we are able to make meaning of the communication.

A very simplistic example: If I say, "Mother"; each of us will go to our memory, using a transdiversonal search, find that memory such that a representation of our mother, or someone elses, comes up in all 5 senses VAKOG and we each have our own experience of "Mother".

In, accessing it, in bringing that memory to concsiousness, we will use a 'strategy' that can be revealed by observing 'accessing cues'. For example, someone may access the VAKOG "Mother", by first hearing a voice, having a feeling, saying to themselves, "That's Mom.", and seeing a picture of their Mom, and have a feeling about it.

The accessing strategy used to get to the full representation "Mother", would be, in the above example, A,K,Ad,V,K. and we have to do that with everything in order to make any meaning of it. That's a lot of work, it happens very fast, and it is no wonder we are tired at night!

The bottom line, Jack, and where I place all my apples, is simple.

You cannot make meaning of any communication, without having the transdiversional search, and bringing up the VAKOG. The VAKOG is brought to consciousness, via an accessing strategy, and that strategy is revealed by observing the accessing cues. This is an unconscious process, and because it occurrs outside of conscious control, it cannot be faked.

The 'strategy' can be changed, but if it is, you do not get to the origional VAKOG, you get to a different one. This obviously is the basis for changework. Disrupt the strategy, and the person cannot get back to the unwanted response. Learn a new strategy, and the person will arrive at a new response.

Now let me look at what I know of your experiement, and show you how I come to a different conclusion, while completely accepting all your results.

A person has a strategy for accessing a memory. You asked your test subject to silently hum a tune, either instead of, or following the NLP practioners instructions. It doesnt matter.

The practioner was fooled, because they misinterpreted the accessing cues for the tune, as the accessing cues, for what they were trying to elicit.

Does that accurately reflect your methodology and results Jack?

Under my 'theory' your test subject was honestly revealing the accessing cues for the silent tune. And your test subject HAD to have revealed, even if very fleetingly, the 'valid cues' if they understood at all, what your practioner asked them to elicit.

That isnt faking accessing cues.

That simply means (to me) your practioner thought they were getting accessing cues for one thing, when it was actually another.

Fooling the practioner doesnt necessarily mean accessing cues were faked, it merely means the practioner didnt calibrate accurately.

That may be a fine point, but it is curcial, I believe.

But let me dig myself a deeper hole.

I submit that the 'real' accessing cues were 'presented' to the practioner. They HAD to be. (Back to my house of cards) In order for the communication to have been understood at all, your test subject HAD to do the TD search, and access the VAKOG. This is a completely unconscious response, so the practioner HAD to have seen them, but simply didnt recognize them for what they were.

That is, of course, entirely dependant on the VAKOG, 4 tuple, TD 'model', being accurate.

It is an excellent experiment Jack, and certainly goes further than I have carried it.

Your results seem, to me, to fit both your AND my postualtes. Unfortunately our postulates are in opposition, and somewhat mutually exclusive.

I confess, after considering this, that I have not come up with a way to make a difinitive test. an experiment that would demonstrate for sure. That is because we are dependant on the 'practioners' interpretation. If the interpretation is correct, that is good. If incorrect, then the 'practioner' was certainly fooled, but that doesnt prove the cues were faked, it simply means the 'practioner' didnt get an accurate calibration.

I suspect that is one of the reasons Erickson was fond of saying, "It is important to know that you dont know."

Did I miss something Jack, or have I slipped on a premise and spraweled to a faulty conclusion? Do you percieve a way to make the experiment difinitive?.

Watch T Blair when he is being questioned; there is not a flicker of secondary obfuscation even when he is lying through his teeth. This could be because he actually believes the lie, of course, but I fancy that some training has taken place since even he could not believe all of his lies at such a profound level and with such consistency.

Sometimes the simple answer is the right one. He could very well believe he is telling the truth. And who knows maybe he is.

... and it could be that the finest NLP practitioners in the world are able to detect microscopic primary eye movements that ordinary mortals could not, but I think we would have to use high speed cameras to catch these movements since we cannot get inside the brain of said practitioners. Are you volunteering?

That gets back to the rub. It is in the interpretation. I generally test three different times with interviening material in between each, so that I have some assurance that I am getting an honest unconscious response. I suspect that if someone were humming a tune, I would get conflicting results instead of a consistant, in error, result. BUT that is a guess.

I am curious.

I assume your Master Prac's gave you some V,K,A,Ad,K ... whatever strategy, instead of "Inconclusive.". How did you test it against the 'true' strategy, to verify that it was indeed in error?

Merry Christmas, and the best to you,

skip

[Poodle]

Would it then be accurate to say that it is equal to ideomotor movements in hypnosis? It makes no difference which finger lifts or even if it does lift, as we have "other ways" of knowing that? Pood

[Jack]

Skip, it's Christmas, and I won't do the usual nitpick and go through your post line line by line in an attempt to disprove even one jot of it.

Besides which I think it is mostly true and accurate.

Our only real point of difference is in what we think is happening. And I think that this is down to our interpretations of what is happening during a memory access through a transderivational search. Or more specifically whether this information is set in stone.

Using your 'Mother' example, what would happen if I were to hypnotise a subject and change the representation of Mother? What would happen if I were to instruct the subconscious to cue incorrect images for any iconic memory? Using your example I would contend that the information being accessed is capable of being changed, otherwise no learning would be possible and no mental therapy would work. In changing the content of the memory it is likely that the valid cues you mention could be completely valid, but nevertheless totally untrue. An NLPer would pick up every cue absolutely accurately, but the cues would lead to a lie.

Of course, you might say that the subject was not faking since his subconscious was telling the truth as it perceived it, but I would contend that using eye accessing cues would be futile and would lead to 'constructive fakery' which would not have any value.

Whether or not the subject could also be consciously aware that the the memories were false whilst subconsciously providing the cues for them would be an interesting area to explore, but I have no reason to believe that it would not be possible. Venturing into the realms of fantasy(?) for a moment perhaps that is how T Blair managed to maintain that WMD were actually present in Iraq for such a long time, in the face of such overwhelming information that they were not, and possibly why he cannot bring himself to apologise to the electorate since his memory tells him that he did no wrong. It brings a whole new meaning to the term 'conflict'.

The experiment? Well, I did say it was ad hoc, and as such capable of interpretation and I can see nothing wrong with the progression of your thoughts on it, given your premise that no distraction could fully eliminate the subconscious response to an interrogator's questions.

In the experiment our MPs used a standard set of questions concerning the students' personal and academic lives to which I already knew the answers, but the MPs did not. The students were instructed to answer the MPs' questions and lie on every alternate answer. Some didn't quite get this sequencing right since they were distracted by the 'head music' and possibly Stella lager from the night before, but we videotaped each session to confirm responses. Our MPs noted down their observations on a VKAdD sheet and these were collated after each session and compared to the 'true' response. The answers which were lies were collated separately from those which would have been a true response if not for the distraction. The result was a 79% inaccuracy on the 'lied to' answers and a 64% inaccuracy on the 'truthful' answers. Not watertight, I know, but the best we could do on a budget of fresh air.

An interesting experiment to verify if indeed there is a primary eye movement when distraction techniques are being used would be fairly definitive if a high speed film camera were to be used. I remember one, called a Fastax used for stress testing in the 60s, but the newer ones like the Hycam give frame speeds of up to 44000 frames per second. The only problem, apart from getting the money for the many thousands of feet of film and hire of the camera, is that at those speeds the camera makes an enormous BANG, so would have to be in a soundproofed booth to avoid interference with the subject(which would also be expensive).

Anyway, a very merry Christmas to you too, and if I make any more progress on this (like money) I will let everyone know.

Best,

Jack

[Poodle]

now you have me confused Jack. Lager? Head music? I would guess the response or lack thereof would have a direct connection to how much was drunk and the purpose of the "head music" I could not even try to guess :confused:

[Jack]

In the UK first degree courses are three years. 2.7 of those years are, on average, spent doing something other than the actual degree course. This might be drinking alcohol, chasing the opposite(or same) sex, sleeping for days at a time, watching TV, playing videogames and in a few rare cases taking hard drugs.

It is what is called a liberal education.:eek:

So, when we use students for research projects it is likely that they will either have a hangover, be thinking about sex (a good distraction technique) or still be asleep on some level.

The 'head music' in this instance was the tune we asked them to internally hum, but we probably didn't need to use one since they were already distracted by how quickly they could get away from this old guy and his weirdo friends and into the pub with the £10 they had earned participating in the study.

Many years ago, I taught briefly at UCLA, and it was a comparative delight with well mannered and sober students who turned up for lectures. This may have changed, now.

Although I paint a bleak picture, there are some UK students who are the brightest I have ever encountered, who will go on to do incredible things, but fortunately I don't have to teach any of them anything, anymore. for which I am sure they are mightily grateful!

Jack

now you have me confused Jack. Lager? Head music? I would guess the response or lack thereof would have a direct connection to how much was drunk and the purpose of the "head music" I could not even try to guess :confused:

[skip]

Jack,

Agreed.

"Our only real point of difference is in what we think is happening. And I think that this is down to our interpretations of what is happening during a memory access through a transderivational search. Or more specifically whether this information is set in stone.

Using your 'Mother' example, what would happen if I were to hypnotise a subject and change the representation of Mother? What would happen if I were to instruct the subconscious to cue incorrect images for any iconic memory? Using your example I would contend that the information being accessed is capable of being changed, otherwise no learning would be possible and no mental therapy would work. In changing the content of the memory it is likely that the valid cues you mention could be completely valid, but nevertheless totally untrue. An NLPer would pick up every cue absolutely accurately, but the cues would lead to a lie.

Of course, you might say that the subject was not faking since his subconscious was telling the truth as it perceived it, but I would contend that using eye accessing cues would be futile and would lead to 'constructive fakery' which would not have any value."

It definately centers around how we are defining "faking".

My contention is that unconscious responses cant be faked. They can be misinterpreted. And therefore the 'interpretor' is the issue.

Your contention seems to be that if the 'interpretor' is fooled, by following the incorrect accessing cues, the cues were, or could have been faked. That you could change the accessing cues so that the individual has 'new' unconscious ones.

I would respond to that with, "Yes", that is the essence of as lot of NLP changework, if the accessing cues are changed, then they DO lead to a different response, but they are the honest cues to that new response.

Does fooled = faked?

Im curious Jack, given that it IS easy to fool the 'interpreter' of the accessing cues. A point we both do agree on. Does it matter if it was faked verses misinterpretation as long as the interpreter keeps in mind that they cannot really be sure?

What will we KNOW, if it is conclusive, that they can be faked either consciously or altered to be fake unconsciously?

I use eye accessing cues to facilitate changework. I have taught eye accessing cues to many people to help them facilitate what they do. For example, I have taught people who collect oral histories, to use eye accessing cues to help people with their recollections, when they are trying to remember.

I have always considered eye accessing cues to be a useful tool, never a 'lie detector'.

People can be telling the truth, believing it is a construct, and the cues will indicate a construct.

People can be telling a lie, believing it is the truth, and the cues will indicate 'remembered'. (truth)

I can misinterpret one set of cues, as accessing a specific state, when it actually means accessing another.

And that is all without any 'faking' going on at all.

Geeze Jack, it is not frought with enough potential error, without you adding to the mix!!!!!!! :) ;)

Darn ya, now you have me started.

How 'experimentally' could you teach someone to use a second set of eye accessing cues, and be sure they are accessing the exact same memory (no change between it and the one accessed by the other set of cues)?

Otherwise they arent 'faking', they are simply accessing something else and fooling the interpreter.

Many times I see identical sets of cues, when talking about different memoroies or states. But that isnt faking.

Damn Jack, Im not sure what faking would mean anyway. If the unconscious response brought you to one or more memories, would it indeed be faking?


OH head hurt!

skip

[Connie]

...this old guy and his weirdo friends...

That's so funny. :)

[Jack]

Mmm.Mmmm (was that by Crash Test Dummies?)..

Fooled and faked cannot be the same thing.

If a subject could be consciously aware that the given responses were untrue but still continued to give those responses, then it would be fakery. With a simple lie detector this is easily achieved.

If the subject had had memories modified to respond to a cue intended for the original memories but was not aware that the memories had been modified then I agree that the interpreter would be honestly responding to cues that were indicative of the internal state of the subject, even though the memories themselves were false. That would be foolery.

But maybe it would not be foolery if the subject had specifically requested that the memories were changed but the accessing cues left be, or at least reassigned? Then the subconscious response would be accurate for the cue, accurate for the false memory, but inaccurate for the ‘real’ memory. I would call that constructive fakery even though the eye cues were accurate for the false memory. Intention is all. Perhaps.

It would be interesting to know if a subject could still retain two or even seventy-three alternate memories of the same event or person, and consciously switch between them as ‘truth’.

How 'experimentally' could you teach someone to use a second set of eye accessing cues, and be sure they are accessing the exact same memory (no change between it and the one accessed by the other set of cues)?

This is the nub of it, I think. You could not teach them. What you could do is pick a simple but emotion-laden memory and either change selected submodalities, or modify the memory without removing too much of the structural characteristics (don’t try this at home, kids). Now whether this would be the same memory is perhaps moot. If you wanted to use exactly the same memory then would it not be possible to use a direct suggestion to that effect? I will not mention the words I might use on an open forum, but I’m sure you are thinking of some appropriate ones and ways of structuring them as you read.

Of course, fiddling about with memories in this way is totally unethical and could only ever be ethically done in laboratory conditions and with the full and legally watertight consent of any participants and I do not recommend this practice to anyone under any circumstances since there are many dangers involved for both participant and therapist.

Next, we can rig up a wire to the lightning conductor and ask Bella Lugosi or old Boris for some technical input...

My head used to hurt, before I realised that it was caused by thinking, so I stopped all that nonsense.

Jack

[Poodle]

You have just got a very, very old A anchor outta me -- UCLA, Kingston Trio, UCRA. Humor great, Spanish - No. Pood

[Jack]

You have just got a very, very old A anchor outta me -- UCLA, Kingston Trio, UCRA. Humor great, Spanish - No. Pood

It is always strange when something like that pops up. I tried some shoes made in Spain a few weeks ago and was immediately reminded of a seaside holiday taken when I was 4. (Fish glue in the shoes - seafront - Fish & Chip restaurant - battered fresh cod - a thin waitress laughing and a big leather football covered in bladderwrack and sand).

Jack

[Poodle]

you were too young for the sangria -- I could down that stuff by the pitchers! Yummie!! We had gone in for a large pitcher and I had convinced my dear mother it was nothing more than wine with fruit juice so we polished off the pitcher. Was she ever a happy camper but not too happy with me the following day. I still tease her about it.

[bruce bundock]

Anyone else want to worship him? For the first time I just got my paws on a video of him, and I almost wet myself!!!
I had read books by him and it was very impressive, but never seen him in action. It was an eye opening experience!


Side note: The video was called "Human Excellence" and he referred to someone in the seminar as Skip! Pretty cool!

PS. I know this is old news to some of you, but empathize with my joy of discovery!

I would enjoy taking a training with Dr. Grinder. For now, I will content myself
to absorb the learnings from " Whispering In the Wind" which he co-authored with Carmen Bostic St.Clair.

[Charlie]

.......... I just got my paws on a video of him....

If anyone is interested, I just found this on the 'Net..........

John Grinder Video (http://www.inspiritive.com.au/jg-video.htm)

(it can be watched over the web)

[moe]

A friend of a friend... he had it on his computer. Just another one of those worthless speed seduction junkies =P

Here's something interesting to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCE3etbeXx0

Can't see it :( , says

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Bandler® products