Compounding suggestions

[Merlin]

Skip said:

Poodle et al,

Just a thought about the so called 'law of compounding'.

Not to be taken as fact, but considered speculation.

The law of compounding is essentially saying the same thing several times, often, in practice, in different ways. (Not to be confused with fractionation)

This tends to have a more powerful effect, than simply offering a suggestion once.

Yet there are two issues I have with this.

If the postualte is correct, that repeating actually compounds the effect:

1. Wouldnt it work every time, given enough repetitions?

2. Wouldnt compounding hundreds of times not only 'guarantee' it working, but would also make the suggestion so 'compelling', as to be unable to be resisted?

Yet this isnt what occurrs in reality, is it?

If it were, you could simply put yourself into a sleight self hyopnotic trance and play a cd, that says the same thing, over and over, hundreds of times, and change anything you wanted.

I postulate a different take on the 'law of compounding' for the sake of discussion and further understanding.

First of all we all know that often there is the 'golden suggestion', the one comment, that hits like a sledge hammer, and the potentialities ripple thru the client, and you can watch their physiology work, as the dominoes fall. It works with the impact, supposedly comanded by compounding, but without the repitition.

It is the elegant, mental ju jitsu, we all love.

I dont know about you folks, but when I compound I dont simply repeat the same thing. I say it numerous different ways.

What makes us so sure that compounding isnt actually more like 'shotgunning', which eventually stumbles on the 'golden suggestion' or close enoiugh to it, that it 'takes'?

cheers,

skip

It seemed like a good topic to me.

[Stoic]

Here's an obvious example that comes to mind. This guy was doing a pre-induction convincer. The "your arms are stuck together" and after the instructions he went ahead to compound the effect, he started listing different uses of magnetism:
Animal Magnetism
Magnetic force
Strong Magnets
Magnet on your fridge
Magnetic lifts, lifting a car
and so on...

So skip is concluding that, the above is compounding, that in essence we are repeating the same message over and over just in different forms. Which will increase the likely hood of one of them being 'golden suggestion'?

[skip]

Stoic,

That's part of my contention.

See compounding is supposed to make a suggestion 'stronger'.

IMO nothing is 'stronger' than the 'golden bullet' I described.

NLP taught me how to 'set it up' so that I can get the 'golden bullet' almost every time. There IS a science to the golden suggestion.

My contention is that most hypnotists, when compounding, dont repeat themselves exactly, and by so doing, they inadvertantly increase their chances of the client 'hearing' it in a way that resonates for them, if they dont know how to set this up, deliberately.

That IMO makes 'compounding' as traditionally understood, actualy 'shotgunning', or 'spray and pray' as the Mac 10 users would say.

Now I could be completely wrong.

There could be something to compounding that I am overlooking.

Or I might have lead us off on an errant tangent with my premise.

That is why this ought be a discussion, IMO.

I can hope to learn something.

skip

[Stoic]

When I read:
Animal Magnetism
Magnetic force
Strong Magnets
Magnet on your fridge
Magnetic lifts, lifting a car

My mind goes to figure out the commonality in them all. The answer I get is something which is not represented by words/visual its a feeling. If I force an image out, I get 2 empty spaces in an infinite empty space being pulled together. Which I associate to the deeper conceptual understanding of magnetism (in the context he was referring to) I have.
Now, bringing out that 'conceptual understanding' would not be possible with just one phrase. I don't think so at least. <-- Weak claim, open to other possibilities.

Just trying to brain storm here...

Now, could it be that the 'conceptual understanding' is the 'golden bullet' for me?
If so, then its not where each 'shotgun shell' landed, but also the correlation between the pattern of holes in the target area?
Suggesting that maybe sometimes it not only a golden bullet, but a golden pattern? (Absolute vs Relative)

Merlin and Skip, you are both correct. I feel this is a great thought provoking topic. Not just in the sense of the outcome but the process as well.

[Terry (existing)]

In the example given it is not to my mind compounding, but rather repetition giving the impression that the suggestion is weak and must therefore be repeated several times to get results. If you must compound, for heavens sake know what you a doing and why. If the client's arm is stuck, you invite them to open their eyes and see this is so, then close them. I suggest the example offered was being done by an amateur, and not a skilled practitioner. First of all, all this messing about with the induction and then compounding takes away from the real purpose of the exercise. Secondly, why the need? Compounding should only be done if it makes sense to both the client and the practitioner.,, which is normally when passing on an ability to the client, such as analgesia for example, when compounding makes perfect sense to the client who has no expectation of being as good as the practitioner, and values the strengthening of the post hypnotic suggestion. This I usually did with those who came to me with a fear of dentistry, and it worked well because they also compounded while waiting for their turn in the chair.
Not sure what Skip was reffering to by the golden bullet, but I imagine he meant that by listening closely to the client, he was able to give the best suggestion for that client first time. If this is so, it indicates skilled work that requires no additives or "compounding" to improve on the taste:D

[Stoic]

I see your point Terry.
The example was done by Frankko in the role of a stage hypnotist.

[parsa]

Recently in a seminar one of the Profs started asking the speaker a question and when he was finished he said, "I don't think there was a question in what I said but you can answer it if you want to or you can just go ahead with your talk."

And I actually don't know if what I want to say makes any sense or not.

When you use the term "golden suggestion" I start thinking, then why does anyone need more than one session for their problem. Does it mean the practitioner is trying to find it?

[Jack]

When you use the term "golden suggestion" I start thinking, then why does anyone need more than one session for their problem. Does it mean the practitioner is trying to find it?

Because one suggestion even if 'golden' may only be addressing one aspect of the problem. Whether that makes it less than golden I do not know. Now if we could have a 'platinum' suggestion which would address all aspects simultaneously, wouldn't that be something?:)

And it sometimes happens.

The domino effect, each and every time...every client having one session only...paying one fee...oh, I can see the objections now!:D

Jack

[Poodle]

no one has figured out the "law of compounding" as was taught to Merl and me. Clue - it works on odds.

[Poodle]

just make that ONE SESSION have the same monetary value as the remainders or maybe even more. :D

[skip]

parsa,

The hypnotist sometimes says 'just exactly the right thing', and for the client everything 'falls into place', and they are transformed in the way they wanted to be. This isnt limited to hypnotism. Sometimes parents or teachers ...

It is the one suggestion, for that client, at that time, that was the most powerful and profound, that could have been made.

And the client doesnt 'need' any more to be said or done.

And done really elegantly, that is most often just a few words, or a question. I refer to it as mental ju jitsu. Least amount of 'effort' applied gaining maximum results. And it is REALLY COOL when you can get it where that is the only thing you say.

Now many, if not most, practioners stumble on to this 'golden suggestion' occasionally. I say stumble on to it, because they have no idea how to systematically go about achieving it.

My query, was wondering if compounding, repeating suggerstions, altering each a bit, wasnt actually simply increasing the odds that they would 'stumble' on to the 'golden suggestion', or one pretty close to it. Granted it would almost have to be increasing the odds, but is it doing something else as well, or merely that?

An NLPer, because of what they learn, (or should learn), can deliberrately create the situation, with the client, that the next suggestion will be the golden one. I wont pretend 100% here, but a percentage of times, far and away better than statistical odds.

I hope that clarifies.

skip

[Merlin]

This is a rather interesting topic.
The mind can learn quickly, one time, right?
Phobias are one time learning. no compounding needed.
But what if it is compounded?
Does the phobia become stronger?
2+2=4.
Does it become more '4' if compounded?

Ever compound a parts integration?
Why? or why not?

Ever repeat/compound a swish?
why? or why not?
Ever alter the swish pattern slightly for better effect?
Shot gun approach to swish?
Is there a 'golden swish'?

Do we compound new learnings?
Do we not compound reframes of existing learnings?

Thoughts?

[parsa]

>2+2=4.
Does it become more '4' if compounded?

What does more '4' mean? Would it mean that if someone decided to teach you 2+2=2 they would have a harder time doing it?

[Jack]

This is a rather interesting topic.
The mind can learn quickly, one time, right?
Phobias are one time learning. no compounding needed.
But what if it is compounded?
Does the phobia become stronger?
2+2=4.
Does it become more '4' if compounded?

Maybe we could ask whether stronger was important? If we
deal with a phobia in one session we are dealing with all the
aspects of the phobia, so it's relative strength may not be
significant.

Ever compound a parts integration?
Why? or why not?

Once parts are integrated they are integrated. I could imagine
the parts being compounded again and again and getting so
teed off with it all that they went back to the original behaviours:D

Ever repeat/compound a swish?
why? or why not?

Yes. It usually takes around 4-6 swishes to get the desired outcome.
But unless there is a regression to past behaviour (in which case I did
it wrong or missed something) then what would be the point of repeating it?

Ever alter the swish pattern slightly for better effect?

All the time, I bet you do too.

Shot gun approach to swish?

Do you mean swish everything at the same time? Honestly
don't know how that could be done.

Is there a 'golden swish'?

Yep, the one I use, or the one you use.:)

Do we compound new learnings?

Absolutely. We reinforce by constant reference.

Do we not compound reframes of existing learnings?

Since a reframe is now the status quo of our experience
it too is reinforced by reference (or weakened by new learning),
unless we did the reframe wrong and left bits of old frame
hanging about.

Jack

[Poodle]

Here's your "treat" for the day. Pood PS -- Good morning! :p

[Merlin]

Hi Jack,

I'm not implying right or wrong.
Just throwing out thoughts for comment.
Good comments!
Any more thoughts?

[Poodle]

I'd like to meet parsa's Prof - nice work there. Wonder if it was intentional or just happened. :confused: