Posted by: Steve Andreas in: Articles
The Structure of Change: A Response to Steve Andreas by Shawn Carson Sep 01, 2016
Shawn’s reply is in regular type; Steve’s comments are in italics.
I have decided to divide my response into two parts; first to the two smaller items below which relate directly to the swish pattern. In a later post I’ll respond to Shawn’s discussion of the HNLP Meta Pattern, which goes far beyond the swish, to how we think about NLP processes in general.
I truly enjoy and appreciate intelligent discussion of NLP. Such discussions can make us all think more deeply about the principles that underlie this amazing discipline. I am therefore thrilled to have the opportunity to share ideas with Steve Andreas, one of the giants of early NLP development, regarding the Swish pattern.
Steve wrote a blog article regarding the Swish, I responded with my own article, and Steve commented in detail on my article. I guess this is now round 4! Steve made some great points in his last article, although on some matters we will have to agree to disagree. As Steve says, we will have to wait till there is serious scientific research into NLP to resolve these matters, something that seems unlikely in the near future!
To Read the Previous Exchanges Please Click the Links Below:
I would like to use this post to explain in detail the HNLP Meta Pattern, which Steve takes some objection to. But before I do that, I will make a few responses where Steve specifically requested.
Lifetime of a State
The first is the ‘life-time’ of a state (absent throwing logs on the fire). The estimated lifetime of around a minute first came to prominence (I believe) following the publication of Jill Bolte Taylor’s remarkable book, My Stroke of Insight. Dr. Taylor is a neuroanatomist and carried out her postdoctoral at Harvard Medical School. She talks about a state lasting 90 seconds (and who am I to argue?), which generated the famous ’90 second rule’ for state life-times. This is not a definitive rule as far as I can tell from consulting the Goddess Google, but the shortest time I could find anyone argue for is 6 seconds. Whatever the lifetime of a state is, it’s much longer than the time offered to a client to run the Swish, which casts doubt on Steve’s lap/butt joint theory.
As Shawn says, the question about how long a state lasts originated in his response to my writing that I thought that the “slingshot” swish, (in which the cue image first gets very small and distant, and then returns as the desired self-image getting bigger and closer) was less dependable because the two images only connect at a single point on the distant horizon, which I likened to a butt joint. In the standard swish, the cue image gets smaller and more distant as the desired self-image simultaneously gets larger and closer, so that there is a direction from cue to self-image at every point in the transition, what I called a lap joint. Shawn’s argument was that since states typically last longer than the swish transition, this wouldn’t make any difference—there would be ample overlap between states with both.
Steve uses a metaphor of anger-to-fear to argue that states can change quickly. Unfortunately anger and fear significantly overlap in terms of state; one of the major differences is blood-flow to the hands (higher in anger than in fear). Anyone who has been in a street fight knows that fight and flight are coded to allow smooth transition from one to the other; most street fights end when this anger-to-fear switch happens.
Anger-to-fear is an example, not a metaphor, and there are many others. Any situation in which an existing state is interrupted and quickly replaced with another was commonly used by Milton Erickson to change clients. Anyone who has experienced either surprise or embarrassment will have personal experience of a state shifting very quickly. Other states, often called moods, can last for a significant part of a day or more. Some, like depression or ennui, can last a lot longer, and are typically very hard to interrupt. So any generalization about how long a state lasts will be an overgeneralization unless the state is specified in greater detail.
Try less compatible states like ‘anger-to-forgiveness’ and you’ll feel the states battling it out over a longer period!
Actually, that’s not true at all. Our Forgiveness process—a specific application of Bandler’s “mapping across with submodalities”—requires some advance framing and information-gathering that takes some time, but the state shift in response to changing the submodalities of the representation—often a change in location is all that is needed—is almost instantaneous, and that is generally true of other applications of “mapping across,” for instance Resolving Shame, or Resolving Hate.
However, Shawn’s focus on how long a state lasts is irrelevant, because the submodalities transition in the swish doesn’t link states directly; it links two images. Since images can, and often do, change in a fraction of a second, a simultaneous transition will be much more dependable than the sequential slingshot swish. It took me a while to realize this simple, but crucial distinction (sometimes I’m a little slow, but I usually get there eventually). Thanks, Shawn, for raising this issue, and forcing me to think it through.
Resource to End-State Pathway
Originally Shawn wrote:
“Now it’s important to know that if you as a coach, generate a big powerful resource state in your client (“awesomely confident”, say) and use that to collapse the trigger, change will happen. And, over time, that “awesomely confident” will transform into a lower energy (but more sustainable) ‘end state’.”
“I would be interested in Shawn’s understanding of how this transition from a big energy state to a lower energy state occurs. I would say that sometimes that happens. Other times the change will fall apart, and the person will revert back to the other side of the polarity.”
The second specific point Steve asked about is the idea of end state energy, and how that takes place. I have a fantastic reference experience involving a great friend Bella Rabinowitz (now passed), who had a fear of public speaking. She could only speak to a small group, and had to sit down to do so (because she then felt she was talking to friends). She worked through this with John Overdurf (the session was recorded and is offered for sale on John’s website, hence my freedom to discuss it) and Bella went through some big state changes. I saw Bella at an NLP practice group perhaps a month afterward, and she told me she had just spoken to 200 people at a prominent New York women’s group, and when I made some comment about how much she’d changed she made a characteristic gesture like she was brushing dust off her hands, her way of saying “no big deal”.
Shawn’s first response is to provide an example, a reference experience, which is not an answer to my “How?” question. Shawn’s next response is to provide a neurological explanation, and then one of his own.
So how does a problem become a powerful resource, then change to lower-energy ‘end state energy’? Well, to learn a new way of behaving you have to lock the new information into the hippocampus (which encodes most memories) long enough and powerfully enough for the new memories to form. This requires the release of dopamine to ‘lock’ the hippocampus and instruct it to begin forming long-term memories. Dopamine is typically released through strong emotionally-charged experiences. Hence (this is now my explanation) big resource states tend to release dopamine, lay down long-term learnings, and create change. However, once the change (the new state and new behavior) is wired into the brain, the brain seeks energy efficiency, by ‘dialing down’ the required state. That’s how Bella’s ‘big change’ became “no big deal” over the course of a couple of weeks.
I have great respect for neuroscience, and also for nuclear physics. However, I don’t think either one has much to tell us (so far) about learning and change.
Let’s make a clear distinction between memory formation and memory reprocessing. Memory formation is often facilitated by emotional arousal, but reprocessing the same memory often doesn’t require that. A lot of NLP consists of reprocessing memories and/or the conclusions based on them. A well-known example is the phobia cure, in which a terrifying memory is not changed, only the point of view is changed. In the phobia process, dissociation is certainly not “a big powerful resource state,” yet it is the perfect state for resolving a phobia.
In an article I wrote many years ago, ‘Selecting a Resource to Anchor,’ I pointed out that the appropriateness of a state is far more important than its intensity. A resource state for mathematics is mostly mental, so it’s not likely to be useful for skiing which is mostly physical, and vice-versa. Different skills require very different kinds of resource state.
When a client has experienced the phobia process, they immediately have the kind of blasé state that Shawn reports Bella having, with no need to “dial it down” so that it’s “no big deal over the course of a couple of weeks.” For a nice example of that, skip to near the end of my bee phobia video (8:34) when I ask the client to imagine a bee landing on her hand. When I ask her what that’s like, she replies matter-of-factly, “It’s like having one sitting on my hand.” When someone is very, very confident, it doesn’t look awesome at all, because it is “taken for granted.” Most of us are so totally confident that we can open a door that we don’t even think about it, we just do it.
Whenever someone wants to be “awesomely confident,” a thousand red flags flutter in my mind, as I wonder if they have the competence to go with it. Some people need confidence in order to demonstrate their competence; but far more often I see people who have too much confidence, without the competence to back it up. Years ago, I knew a guy who came back from a Tony Robbins workshop “awesomely confident,” and signed a year’s lease on 10,000 square feet of conference/office space; it remained largely empty until the lease was up.
It is fairly easy to elicit and anchor confidence, but developing competence takes a lot more persistent work and practice. People who are confidently incompetent are often a danger to themselves as well as others. As Robert Fulghum said, “Ignorance, power, and pride are a deadly mixture.”
Not too long ago I watched videos of a weekend workshop with an NLP trainer who was “awesomely confident.” He had over forty years of experience teaching NLP, and had written a couple of books. In one demonstration he “stacked anchors” for 5 different “awesomely powerful” states. When he attempted to elicit these states, the demonstration subject didn’t show any state changes, and at the end she reported no change in her problem state. The demonstration was a complete failure (which he didn’t acknowledge to the group) for two reasons: 1. He didn’t realize that some of the states were totally incompatible with others, and 2. His sensory acuity was so poor he didn’t realize that the demonstration subject wasn’t actually accessing any of the states, so he wasn’t able to anchor them—and he didn’t test his “anchors” so he had no way to check them.
To summarize, careful selection of a resource, to be sure it is appropriate for the problem state, is far more important than its intensity.
Posted by: Steve Andreas in: Articles
Telephone session with an anxious client,
using Nick Kemp’s Spinning Feelings and Tempo Shift methods,
with commentary by Steve Andreas
A colleague asked me for feedback on a 25-minute phone session that he did with a middle-level manager who was anxious about an imminent meeting with several upper managers, in which she expected to be criticized and attacked verbally. The session was very successful, as indicated by her report the next day, “Thanks for the check in, and THANK YOU for that fantastic work in the afternoon. I felt really great about how I conducted myself. I was able to provide the center even in the midst of yelling.”
Feedback seldom gets much better than that! However, despite the complete success of the session, I had a number of suggestions for how to make the process even more elegant and effective. Some of my comments are minor, perhaps even “picky”; others are more substantial. Many clients will be able follow instructions appropriately even when they are sloppily worded, but others will not. (And of course some clients will manage to misunderstand even the most carefully worded instruction.) The more specific and precise you are with your words, the easier it will be for the client to change. When I offer this kind of feedback, I also see it as an opportunity to learn as much as I can, in order to make my own language more precise. I’ve made my living as an editor—in one form or another—for some 45 years, so I have quite a lot of practice. With the coach’s permission I have made a transcript of the phone recording, and interspersed my suggestions, which I hope will also be of interest to others.
(Steve’s comments are in italics)
Coach: So, what would you like to have different?
Client: What would I like to have different? I would like to be less anxious, going to this meeting.
Coach: OK, so you’d like to be less anxious. Now that’s a negative so you want to be less of something. What would you like to have in its place?
(Eliciting a positive outcome is an important part of many interventions, but in the case of anxiety, it’s not required. My experience with the spinning feelings process is that it is unnecessary, because the result is automatically positive and appropriate, without needing to rely on the client’s conscious mind to decide what the new response will be.)
Client: Well, I would like to be a calm, non-anxious presence.
Coach: “Non-anxious” is also a negative.
Client: I would like to be astute. I would like to be a centering influence on the group; I’d like to be a calm influence on the group.
Coach: Calm influence. Actually the word that I like, is in comparison to being non-anxious is to be assured.
(“Assured” is content, which may or may not fit for the client. Content interventions can be useful, but it’s good to realize that they are different from process interventions.)
Client: Be assured?
Client: That’s good.
Coach: But anyway the idea of being able to be calm, which to me also is about being centered and grounded in who I am—
(“Centered” and “grounded” are additional content.)
Coach: —rather than being totally reactive to what other people are doing.
Client: Totally, Right, yes.
Coach: So with that in mind I’ve got a couple of things that I’d suggest we do, and the first thing is to respond to the anxiety, deal with the anxiety.
(“Respond to the anxiety,” and “deal with the anxiety” are not the same thing, so this introduces ambiguity and is a little confusing. I think what you mean is “work with the anxiety” or “resolve the anxiety.”)
(Before working with the anxiety it would be good to find out what the client says to herself that triggers the anxiety. The coach does this much later, after using the spinning feelings process. At that point, the feeling is resolved, making it awkward to find out what she says to herself.)
So take a moment and just be aware of,
(This is “putting the cart before the horse”; you need to elicit the context before being aware of something in it.)
imagine being in this meeting and how you probably imagine you will be.
(This sentence is also not as clear as it could be. “Probably imagining how you will be in the future,” elicits hypothetical, intellectual, possibility rather than present actuality. Compare with, “Imagine you are in the meeting, and notice what you feel,” which is more direct and succinct. You want to start with “imagine,” but after that presuppose in your language that the client is actually in the meeting.)
So just anxious, right?
(“Anxious” names the feeling, which is unnecessary, and may limit or distort the client’s experience of the feeling; using the word “feeling” is more open-ended, and can also be used for any other strong feeling. The outcome at this point is not to name the feeling, but to locate it.)
Client: Right, right.
Coach: So just take a moment and be aware of the anxiety.
(The previous sentence is unnecessary; the following one is fine.)
Now as you are aware of the anxiety tell me where it starts in your body and where it goes to.
Client: And where it goes?
Coach: Yeah. Anxiety is kind of an interesting experience. It has a huge physiologic component.
(The two previous chatty sentences are unnecessary, and irrelevant to the location.)
So where does it start in your body?
Client: It starts in my chest with very shallow breath.
Coach: Very shallow breath. It starts in your chest so it’s sort of your upper chest?
(I would delete the “sort of” which suggests her experience is uncertain. Nothing is added by saying “upper chest,” which may not be accurate.)
Client: It’s in my upper chest, and I’m truly having hot flashes. Of course it is about 100 degrees here today, but I’m still having hot flashes about this meeting, yeah.
Coach: So and so you also experience an increase in temperature. So now it starts in your chest. Where does that anxiety travel to? Where does it—?
(There is no advantage to naming it “anxiety.” “Feeling” or “it” is enough.)
Client: Well it goes down to my stomach, but it doesn’t go— How shall I say? It goes to my stomach, but my feet are not on the ground. It does not go— I know that I’m not grounded; I guess that’s how to say it.
(There is a curious jump in her attention from stomach to feet. I would have asked if the feeling goes anywhere after going to the stomach. Since she mentions that her feet are not on the ground, I suspect that the feeling goes all the way down through her legs to her feet. Even when I think I have the full path, I usually ask once or twice more, to be sure I have the complete path.)
Coach: Oh, OK. So the feeling now goes from your chest down to your stomach.
(The “now” implies a change; I would delete it.)
Coach: OK. So it’s traveling that path. Now notice, as it’s traveling that path what color is it?
Client: What color is it? Red.
Coach: It’s red. OK.
(A step of the protocol is missing here—asking about the shape, size, etc. of the path. It’s not essential, but it amplifies the visual representation of the feeling, establishing a detailed context for asking the next question.)
And watch it going down that red path,
(“As the feeling moves along this red path,” presupposes both the moving and the watching, so it’s a bit better for engaging unconscious processing.)
and tell me which direction is it spinning—clockwise or anti-clockwise?
(I prefer “notice” to “tell me,” since the client has to notice it before telling me, and the context already implies telling.)
Client: It’s spinning, uh, anti-clockwise.
Coach: Anti-clockwise, OK.
(The following conscious-mind selection of an outcome color interrupts the process, requiring a shift in attention, and back again to gathering information about the problem state afterward. It’s not part of the spinning feelings protocol, and seems to be unnecessary. However, selecting the outcome might be a useful addition for some clients.)
Now just set all that aside and come back to that sense of being grounded, with a sense of assurance in who you are, that sense of confidence and calm. When you think of that, what color is that experience?
(“When you think of that” is an invitation to intellectualize. “What color is that experience?” is more direct.)
Client: Grass green
Coach: Green, grass green
Client: Grass green, yep.
Coach: Cool. OK, so the first thing I want you to do is to take a moment—
(There is a big jump in attention here between the outcome specification and the problem state. More important, the problem context for the intervention is not elicited. Adding sparkles was omitted here; it’s not necessary, but it amplifies the visual experience in a pleasant way for most. Better to say, “Go back into that problem context and notice the very beginning of that feeling. As it begins to move along that path, spin it in the reverse direction, change it to a color you like better, and add sparkles to it, and just find out what happens.”)
—and spin that anxiety as it’s going down. It’s going anti-clockwise
(“It’s going anti-clockwise” is not useful because it elicits the problem state, which is not what you want here. Doing it this way links the reverse direction to the problem response rather than to the context. This can lead to feeling bad first before feeling better. You want to link the context directly to the reverse spinning.)
so I want you to spin it clockwise and as it’s spinning clockwise let it turn from red into that grass green color, and tell me when it’s spinning quite quickly in the opposite direction. So it will be spinning clockwise and you’ll begin to see as it spins quickly clockwise it will be turning from red into grass green, and tell me when it’s completely green.
(Again, mentioning “red” elicits the problem state, when you want the context to link directly to the new color. “Change the color to a color you like better.”)
Client: Right. It’s marbled. It’s a marbled red and green.
(This is the result of mentioning “red,” making it more difficult for the client to change it.)
Coach: Just center into yourself and just let it spin, and spin it quite quickly and tell me when it’s completely green.
(Nice “save,” presupposing that it will become all green.)
Client: Yeah, it’s completely green.
Coach: OK, and now as you watch it spinning and it’s completely green just let it add some sparkles to it, so that you’ve got green and little sparkles going inside of it.
(Much better to add the sparkles earlier along with reversing the direction of spin and change of color. Using several instructions together tends to overload the client’s conscious mind, eliciting unconscious change.)
Client: I saw my temperature coming down. My hot flash is subsiding.
Coach: Cool. So you got little sparkles in it as well?
Coach: Brilliant, brilliant. OK, now just take a moment and check to see whether your feet are now on the ground.
Client: They are.
Client: It’s sort of amazing.
Coach: So now just see if you can get the anxiety back.
(This is imprecise. Better to say, “Go back into that meeting, and find out what happens,” to test and future-pace. If the process didn’t work, and the client still feels anxious, asking “see if you can get the anxiety back” would be a serious mismatch! Assuming the report is positive, then follow with a further challenge, “See if you can get the anxiety back.”)
Client: It’s interesting because now I can remember what red looks like but it’s hard to think about it. It’s actually harder than getting it to spin in the first place. The green is kind of overwhelming everything, which is good! Just the color, it’s a very common color to me.
Coach: Yeah. Cool.
Client: Yeah, amazing, amazing!
Coach: That really is quite amazing
Client: It’s so much better; I was out in my car searching, seeing if I could find a little happy pill to take. I don’t have any of those anymore, so there you go; I can’t take a happy pill—just do it the right way.
Coach: OK now so that’s the first thing so that sort of takes care of the physiologic part of the anxiety.
(The following elicitation of the voice that triggers the anxious feeling is a bit awkward now that the feeling has been changed. It would have been much easier and better to elicit the voice before changing the feeling.)
Now I want you to come back though and think about anxiety
(“Think about anxiety” is an invitation to intellectualize, rather than to notice.)
and to imagine I’ve never been anxious in my life. And so you are trying to teach me how to be anxious.
(“You are trying” implies effort that doesn’t succeed. Better to say something like, “Now I want you to imagine that I’ve never been anxious in my life, and your job is to teach me.”
And so the things that—particularly since you’re feeling anxious about a meeting that’s to come, so the meeting is not actually happening in the room with you at the moment, so it’s a future—
(That is a very confusing sentence. The focus has shifted from teaching the coach to the client’s experience. “You’re anxious about a meeting to come” would be much simpler and direct. But since she doesn’t get anxious any more, it’s hard for her to do. An explicit reorientation in time would be helpful here: “Go back 15 minutes to when you used to get anxious, and notice what you say to yourself just before the feeling.” In addition to gathering information, this sentence helps solidify the change that has been made.)
So you got to imagine the meeting right? Typically there are four things to pay attention to when we have an experience. And the four things are: what do we see with our eyes, what do we hear with our ears, and then what do we see on the inside, and what do we hear on the inside? And so I’m particularly interested in your experience of anxiety because it’s not happening at the moment.
Client: Right, right.
Coach: It’s just in your imagination that what do you have to see on the inside and what do you have to hear on the inside in order to get anxious?
(The foregoing would be fine as an introduction to a thorough elicitation. However, this is after putting the client into the situation, so it is requires a shift in attention, and is an invitation to pop out of the experience and intellectualize. For this process, the only thing you need is the voice and what it says.)
Client: Hmn, see on the inside, or hear on the inside. I need to see walls all around me like I’m in a tunnel.
Coach: OK, you need to see like you’re in a tunnel.
Client: Like I’m trapped.
Coach: So there’s a sense of being trapped. Now what do you have to hear?
Client: Actually what I have to hear is well inside of myself? Inside of myself I need to hear my voices, my mini-voices—
Client: —trying to figure things out.
Coach: And actually what you’ll find that in order to feel anxious there’s usually, well I call them, a negative mantra. It’s a little phrase that you repeat over and over and over again. It’s kind of in a loop like those old, old eight tracks.
(This may be true, but the client doesn’t need to know it, and it introduces content that may not fit for the client.)
Client: Right, right.
Coach: So this continuous loop and it’s doing, and it’s saying something. So just listen to the loop of all those voices and find the one that really elicits the anxiety.
(I would leave out “loop” and “all those voices” both of which may be a mismatch for the client.)
Client: Yeah, now I’ve got it, yeah.
Coach: And tell me what it is.
(“is” is vague, and confuses the client; “what it says” is more specific, and would avoid the confusion that follows.)
Client: You mean what it’s saying?
Client: It’s saying, “How can I get out of this?”
Coach: How can you get out of this?
Client: “How can I escape this?” Yeah, how can I? How can I? “I’ve got to flee.”
(Any of the above sentences will be in the fast voice tempo that elicits the feeling, so any will work to do the voice tempo shift.)
Coach: OK, now take a moment though. Why would—if you had to stay in this, why would that be a bad thing? ‘Cause getting out of this is an escape mechanism; you’re trying to escape some bad outcome.
(The foregoing is true but unnecessary. The voice is what used to trigger the anxiety. Asking about the precursors only confuses the client, as shown by what follows. )
Client: Yeah, why?
Coach: So what’s the bad outcome?
Client: Well, actually I think that when I’m trying to escape I’m trying to escape; I don’t even want to be part of it. But yeah, no on the level of—hmm—I’m not quite sure what you’re saying.
Coach: Well, it’s kind of like “I got to get out of this” and that may be the little negative mantra. Here’s what I often find though, is that underneath that is something like “They’re going to get me, I’m going to die.”
(“little negative mantra” and “underneath” may not be a good fit for the client.)
Client: Oh yeah, thank you, actually all day I’ve been saying I’m terrified.
Coach: “I’m terrified.”
Client: I’m terrified. I’m shaking. I’m peeing in my pants. I’m terrified.
(Being “terrified” describes the feeling elicited by the voice, not what the voice says that causes the feeling. This is where many people go wrong, mistakingly thinking that it’s the voice that causes the feeling.)
Coach: And so something—which tells me, something really bad, you’re imagining something really bad, like “They’re going to hate me, they’re going to fire me, they’re going to abandon me, or I’m going to be alone.”
(These are all content possibilities for what might cause the feeling.)
So take a moment, just take a breath, take a moment and listen and see if you can find what’s the sort of the darkest little mantra that’s way down underneath all of these?
(“The darkest little mantra that’s way down underneath all of these” introduces content that may not be a good fit for the client’s experience.)
Client: It’s really good. It’s very clear to me that if I stay in the thing I’m going to die.
Coach: “I’m going to die.” I’m just writing it down. “I’m going to die.”
(“I’m going to die” will also work. However, that meaning is carried by the voice tone in which she previously said, “How can I escape this?” etc. The words don’t matter that much. The fast tempo elicits the anxiety. If she said, “I’m going to the store” in that tempo that is will also make her anxious. It would be more efficient and equally effective to just use the first clear statement the client offered, “How can I get out of this? Or How can I escape this”)
(At this point in the protocol, the instruction is to ask, “When you have said this to yourself, do you say it in your normal conversational speaking voice, or is it said at a faster tempo? That’s all. Period. Compare this with the somewhat meandering instruction below, some of which is an invitation to think about her experience, in contrast to noticing it.)
So now let’s just take a moment and listen to “I’m going to die” and the first thing I want to do is figure out what do you have to do, and there’s usually two things but we’ll check both of them, to make the feeling of anxiety get worse? So I want to see what you need to do in order to get it worse. And the first thing is to change the volume of the, um—so for example, if we make the negative mantra “I’m going to die,” if we make it really loud does that make it worse?
(Although volume will have an impact, it is secondary. Asking about the volume is not in the tempo shift protocol, and unnecessary.)
Coach: OK, loud. Now check also the pace of it. So if it speeds up, does that make it worse?
(“Does that make it worse?” is pretty clear in the context, but “Does that increase the feeling?” would be more precise.)
Client: Yes, yes, more than slow, fast, yes.
(The next step in the protocol is to ask the client to say it the way they have been, then to slow the tempo by one-third, and then to slow it much more.)
Coach: So fast and loud?
Coach: OK. So now what I invite you to do is you know when you watch TV on like CNN they have a “crawl” that’s going along the bottom of the screen?
(The above is not in the tempo shift protocol.)
Client: Yeah, yeah.
(What follows is essentially a variation of the phobia cure, with green and sparkles added in, rather than the anxiety protocol.)
Coach: OK, so I want you to imagine in your mind you’re seeing this whole situation and you’ve got a crawl going down the bottom of your visual field and the crawl is this “I’m going to die” and it’s just going, it’s an endless crawl. So you’re no longer hearing it, you’re now seeing it. So tell me when you see it. So you can see it?
Client: I see it. I got it.
Coach: OK, now the background of the crawl I invite you to make it that green with the little sparkles in it.
Client: So I’m like looking at the television set? Is that what I‘m imagining?
(This points out an earlier ambiguity. “Seeing this whole situation” didn’t specify seeing it on a TV.)
Coach: Yeah, or that sort of the visual field of what’s going on.
(A very confusing sentence! “Sort of” weakens the instruction. Better to say, “Yes, you’re seeing this whole situation on a TV.”)
In the bottom of it you’ve got this crawl and the background of the crawl, so like typically it’s usually like black writing on white or something like that.
Client: I think I don’t understand the word you’re saying, “call”?
Coach: Crawl. C-R-A-W-L.
Client: Oh crawl! Got it, got it. (both laugh)
Coach: So as you’re watching the crawl, make the background of the crawl that grass green color with the sparkles. And what we’re going to do is (slowly) slow the crawl down.
(At last, the tempo shift, visual variation, though modified significantly from the protocol.)
So it’s going, (very slowly) “I’m . . . going . . . to . . . die.” So it’s getting slower and slower. (client laughs.) Keep watching it as it’s going really slow, and get really curious and see which of the words is the first one to just get so slow that it gets bogged down and absorbed into the background so you can’t even see it anymore.
Client: Yeah, “going.”
Coach: “Going,” OK. And just keep watching and tell me what’s the next one that’s—?
Coach: And just keep watching and tell me when they’ve all gone.
(This is an instruction for amnesia. In general we never want to erase experience, only modify it.)
Client: Yeah, pretty much green, pretty much green. I can still see a little vestige of it, but pretty much green.
Coach: OK. And what’s the vestige?
Client: It’s more that if there was lighting there, the vestige is that it’s not perfectly green, I guess is a way to say it.
Coach: OK, so there’s a little reminder. And would it be OK if that reminder was a memory of how you used to be, which reminds you to be calm instead of that other way?
(The first part of this is a nice hypnotic invitation to categorize the “vestige’ as a “memory of how things used to be,” which puts the old way into the past, and consolidates the change. However, “instead of that other way” invites her to re-elicit the problem state again, so that’s not useful.
In the tempo shift protocol, all that is done is to slow down the tempo, and that is sufficient to elicit a new response.)
Client: Right, right, right, umhmn.
Coach: And assured. OK, so now as you think of this meeting, yeah as you think about the meeting, see if you can get the anxiety back.
(“Think about the meeting” is an invitation to intellectualize. “Imagine you are in the meeting” would be more specific. I prefer to first ask an open-ended question, “What do you experience?” which invites the client to respond with whatever they experience. If the process didn’t work, and she is still anxious, then asking “see if you can get the anxiety back” would be a serious mismatch of her experience.)
Client: It’s totally gone. I’m not anxious right now. My feet are on the ground literally—literally and figuratively.
Coach: So now take a moment and be grounded, and remember we used to talk about compassion being tender, fierce, mischievous, that sort of—
(The above seems to me to be totally irrelevant to the stated outcome of the session, introducing content that may not fit for the client. Likewise what follow seems to be a meandering way to future-pace. Since the purpose of the session was to resolve the client’s anxiety in a meeting, the simple and direct way to do this is to say, “Imagine being in that meeting, and tell me how you experience it now,” to confirm that the new response is immediate and spontaneous. That would get the job done, and make what follows unnecessary.)
Coach: —think of your competence, the times when you have been grounded, that experience of you in your realm being responsive rather than reactive, with the full range of compassion.
(I think compassion is great, but I don’t see how it’s relevant here.)
Client: Right and I think that that’s— I’ve got that, and I think that it’s reminding me that my feet on the ground is important.
(The client returns to her own statement of the change she noticed, “my feet are on the ground” without mentioning the other things suggested, which adds to the likelihood that they are not particularly relevant to her.)
Coach: Now take a moment and just sort of internalize that experience
(“Sort of” weakens the outcome of internalizing the experience.)
of being really grounded, and now imagine having this meeting with these folks, being really grounded. And play that through like a movie, where you’re the lead character in the movie, not just watching yourself, but actually being yourself fully grounded.
(“Play it like a movie” suggests being separated from it rather than being in it; at best it’s ambiguous. And “not just watching yourself” is a negative command creating ambivalence. Better to say something positive like, “Imagine being in that situation now, seeing out of your own eyes, and find out how that scenario unfolds spontaneously.)
Client: Yeah, I mean I have a vision of myself being solid, you know—
(“A vision of myself” indicates seeing herself in the situation, rather than being in it, which is necessary for a dependable future-pace.)
Coach: And take a moment and imagine some other situation with some other people where you need to be this grounded and just imagine doing the same thing, playing a movie of you being grounded in the future.
(Again “playing a movie of you being grounded” is ambiguous at best, suggesting seeing herself. And since she is in “some other situation with some other people where you need to be this grounded,” “in the future” directs her attention to a future beyond that, which isn’t useful.)
Client: Right, I got that.
Coach: OK, cool. And now take a moment and go back in time to a situation where it would have been really good to have had this resource and just do the same thing, play it through like a movie as though you’re in the movie as the lead character but having this resource so we can use one of those past memories as a learning lab.
(This is fine, but out of order. Better to revise 1-3 past memories before doing a future-pace.)
Client: Yeah, I got that, and for me it’s a really good image because it’s like I’m taking up my space. I mean that in a really good way. I’m holding my space. My space is mine.
Coach: Yeah, and you’re fully inhabiting your body and your being.
(Nice reinforcement of the associated experience.)
Coach: And I should have done this a couple of moments ago,
(This is distracting, and not useful.)
but is there any situation that you could think of where this would not be appropriate?
(“This” is ambiguous, and “not be appropriate” is a negation, possibly causing the confusion that follows. Better to state this in the positive. “Can you think of any context in which you would want to have the old feeling, or some other response?”)
Client: Yes, I mean I think that this would not be appropriate in, um—you mean—
(The client is confused by the preceding ambiguities.)
Coach: Some kind of contextual limit and I don’t know—
(“Contextual limit” is unclear, and jargon.)
It may not be but I think of helping someone to be assertive and that we’re not actually doing that so much as we’re helping you to be grounded. It may not be the most beneficial to be assertive if you were in a 7-Eleven that was being robbed.
(The example of a robbery would be fine in a teaching context, but bringing in assertiveness is suggesting content that distracts from the simple question, “Can you think of any context in which you would want to have the old feeling?”
Client: Yeah, and I think I was actually thinking of the opposite if I had to, because it’s not about being grounded but it’s about being active, because what we’ve just done makes me feel calm and not inactive, but not a lot of frenetic energy. When we talked about the anxiety it was very frenetic and fast to me. So this seems very slow and deliberate, slow and deliberate. So I actually thought the only place that I can imagine—well no it’s not true. I was thinking if a building suddenly caught on fire I would still need to be deliberate. I might not need to be slow—I could be fast and deliberate.
Coach: Yeah, and just to sort of be aware that it seemed to be a pretty safe generalizable state
(What does it mean to “sort of be aware”? “A pretty safe generalizable state” is jargon. Better to say something like, “Being aware and grounded is a useful resource in almost any situation.”)
but there are times when maybe not like you said when you have to really— Well, I think there are times when there’s life and death where we need to act promptly, quickly, instantly if you like, and we can deal with the issues when we got people to a place of safety. Now so just take a moment and
(There have been quite a few times earlier when “take a moment” has been used without being particularly useful.)
with that in mind this seems to be a state that you would like to keep.
(“A state that you would like to keep” is somewhat dissociated and jargon. Better to say, “So you are fully satisfied with your new response.”)
Client: Yes, definitely, definitely.
Coach: Cool. Brilliant.
Client: Can you come to my meeting with me?
Coach: I don’t think you’ll need me, but here’s what I would— Just take a moment and thank yourself for your ability to learn and the resources that are within you to make these changes.
(This is a nice suggestion to view the change she made as a part of her identity, in contrast to just a change in behavior.)
Client: That’s a good reminder.
Coach: Ahah, Cool. Well I think we’re done.
Client: I think we’re done, too.
Coach: I look forward to hearing how it goes.
Client: Thank you very much. Thank you.
Coach: You’re welcome.
Client: Take care. See you next week.
Remember that despite all my comments, this session was very successful. Your clients want you to succeed with them, and they will often respond to what you mean, not what you say. Still, the middle word in NLP is “linguistic.” The words you say are important, especially in a phone session in which your gestures aren’t available to clarify the inevitable ambiguities in speech.
Furthermore, the as just words of sequence a sentence as in important is, the sequence of steps in leading a client through an effective intervention is just as important. Being precise makes it easier for your clients to change, and that makes your work with them easier and more satisfying for you as well.
Coach’s comments in response
Thanks Steve for the detailed review; it has been very helpful in several ways. Three things that I am really aware of:
Paying attention to 1 and 2 would make me more present with the client and my work with them more precise, efficient, and effective.
Once again thank you for refining my skills and the elegance of my work.
Posted by: Steve Andreas in: Articles
Response to Shawn Carson’s blog post on the swish pattern
I appreciate all the time and effort that Shawn put into his response to my blog post on the swish pattern. This has provided a unique and refreshing opportunity for me to think through many issues, and develop more clarity. Accordingly, it has taken me some time to compose my response. This kind of exchange of views and understandings is woefully infrequent in the field, and I think it’s absolutely necessary if NLP is going to become a coherent and systematic set of understandings and methodology—rather than a “herd of cats.” Shawn’s response appears below, with my comments in brown type interspersed, so that you can see exactly what I’m responding to.
How to Save the Swish: A Thoughtful Response to Steve Andreas
NLP in a State of Change
By Shawn Carson Aug 07, 2016
In this article we will comment on a blog post by Steve Andreas, entitled ‘How to Ruin the Swish Pattern: “Let me count the ways”’.
I believe the NLP and hypnosis community shares a common goal of ‘raising the bar’ in respect of change work and coaching, and healthy debate about NLP techniques, principles and the merits of different philosophical viewpoints supports this goal. No one can doubt the many contributions Steve Andreas has made to the field of NLP and it is with a due sense of the debt the NLP community owes to Steve that I respectfully disagree with some of the premises in Steve’s blog post.
In his blog post Steve critiques (although it might be more accurate to say ‘criticizes’) various YouTube videos of the swish, including videos featuring Michael Carroll, Tony Robbins as well as yours truly.
Steve has two problems with the various swish techniques or variations he critiques:
“Lack of ability to follow the steps of the pattern”
Let’s deal with the first point first. NLP has never been about following the steps of a pattern. Richard Bandler (co-founder and arguably the creative force behind the birth of NLP) defines NLP as “an attitude of wanton experimentation that leaves behind a trail of techniques,” meaning the steps of the pattern are something that are left behind after the application of NLP. If you are simply following the steps of an NLP pattern, it does not mean you are necessarily ‘doing NLP’.
Firstly, Bandler’s quote is at least partly a marketing statement designed to distinguish what he does from the rest of us. Grinder has made similar statements describing his work as “real NLP,” implying that the work of others is not.
Secondly, if we apply Shawn’s statement that, “NLP has never been about following the steps of a pattern,” to the context of cooking, then anyone who uses a recipe would not be a cook; only someone who creates a new combination of ingredients would deserve that title. While it may be useful to distinguish between creating a new recipe and following an existing one, I think most people would consider both to be “cooking.” Does Shawn really mean to say that someone who uses the swish, or 6-step reframing, or “mapping across” with submodalities is not doing NLP?
Neither of the co-founders of NLP (Richard Bandler and John Grinder) teach NLP using the deductive teaching approach of ‘follow these steps’.
I trained directly with Bandler for a dozen years, and Grinder for about half that, and I can assure you that they both offered many “follow these steps” patterns, from predicate matching to 6-step reframing. Anyone who doubts that can easily verify it by reading Frogs into Princes, Trance-formations, Reframing, or Using Your Brain—for a Change. In several recent Bandler videos he uses the same stepwise process to cure a phobia, “Take that picture, shrink it down to the size of a quarter, and blink it black and white 25 times.”
Rather they teach by encouraging their students to step into a state of personal excellence, and then to work with their ‘client’ from that state. As a result, their students all have unique experiences.
The principles underlying the Swish
I totally agree with Steve Andreas that it is vital to understand the principles underlying the NLP patterns. Once you understand these principles, you can step out of the confines of the ‘steps of the pattern’ mind-set, and enter the dance of change with your client. This is why we write our NLP Mastery books to fully explore the principles underlying each of the core NLP patterns (including ‘NLP Mastery: The Swish’ by Jess Marion and Shawn Carson).
Therefore I will re-analyze each of the videos Steve Andreas critiques, but with the intention of pointing out how these videos reveal some of these principles, especially where they vary from the “standard” swish Steve Andreas describes, i.e. from the perspective of ‘what is right’ rather than ‘what is wrong’ with the videos.
Before we get to that, I would like to point out a few areas of disagreement that I have with Steve’s discussion in his “Background” section.
What is a ‘swish’???
Steve defines the swish as “a rapid way to change any troublesome habit or other unwanted response”, and it’s certainly the case that the swish was originally described in the contexts of problems such as smoking and nail-biting (we will talk more about this ‘classical’ swish a little later).
*However, I would define the swish as a technique that chains or links two representations (typically two pictures) using a sliding submodality shift, in order to redirectionalize the mind.
I think both descriptions are accurate, each points out different aspects—and each is also incomplete.
As an example any technique that links a trigger picture with an outcome picture by making the trigger picture shrink, as the outcome picture gets bigger, is in my mind a swish pattern.
That definition omits the very important criterion that the outcome picture is a desired self-image, not a specific behavior (more on this later).
Obviously techniques that are swish patterns under my definition, would not necessarily be swish patterns under Steve’s definition, but this is semantics.
I think it is much more than semantics. If someone describes a suspension bridge as one that is suspended from cables, and later someone else describes a bridge built entirely of bricks as a suspension bridge, that is simply not true, even if it’s a useful bridge. And if you are building a suspension bridge, but you leave out the cables, it won’t work very well. The swish was described in great detail about 30 years ago, so that word has a very specific meaning. Using the word “swish” for an avocado and cheese sandwich isn’t useful, even if the sandwich is nourishing.
Does this matter? Well, certainly if you are teaching an NLP Trainers Training, then it is important. Trainers should be able to ‘speak the language’ of NLP in a way that allows them to communicate with each other. But if you are working with a client, or even teaching an NLP Practitioner course, it’s less clear that overly ‘standardized’ NLP terminology provides any substantive benefit to your client or students.
If I’m working with a client, I wouldn’t use any NLP terminology at all.
‘Classical’ or ‘standard’ swish
In the classical swish (Steve refers to this as the ‘standard’ swish), the issue is an unwanted behavior (say smoking). The trigger picture is whatever the client sees out of her own eyes immediately before she loses conscious control (e.g. the cigarette packet, or the newsagents where she buys her cigarettes, or the cup of coffee that precedes her first cigarette of the day, etc.). The outcome picture is how she sees herself being as a person (identity level dissociated picture) when the habit is no longer an issue for her. So far, so good, we all agree on this basic foundation.
I agree with this description. However Shawn’s earlier description (marked with an asterisk* above) omitted the “identity level dissociated picture.” My main criticism of the swish videos I reviewed was that this crucial piece was left out of all the demonstrations (except for Tony Robbins,’) replacing it with a specific behavior. This change is what I described as “replacing the engine in a Lamborghini with a hamster wheel.”
So why is the desired self-image dissociated? Richard Bandler told me that the classical swish was intended to maintain the client’s state while changing the context. Meaning the client has a desire for the cigarette, and the classical swish is intended to maintain the state of desire but to then apply that desire to the self-image. The client maintains the state of “I want” but changes from “I want to smoke” to “I want to be her”; meaning her ideal future self.
This is an interesting alternative understanding of principle. Perhaps someday when NLP has become scientific, someone will design an experiment to decide between Shawn’s view and mine. Until then I can only offer my rationale. Yes, the cue image triggers desire, but it also triggers a conflicting urge to not yield to the desire, a state of unpleasant incongruence, which is why the client wants to change it. If Shawn is correct in saying that the feeling state triggered by the cue picture is transferred to the self-image, that would mean that this incongruence would be transferred. I don’t think that would be useful, and I don’t think that is what happens. I think it is much simpler and more accurate to think of it as moving away from the unpleasant incongruence of the cue to the congruent desired self-image.
This is why the image is dissociated in the classical swish, because (as Steve Andreas rightly says), if it is associated there is no longer the ‘wanting’, rather a ‘being’.
I discussed this idea (that the classical swish is intended to maintain a state of desire) with my teacher and mentor, John Overdurf. John shrugged and said “well, maybe”, again because he sees the swish as a much wider pattern than mere changing of unwanted habits. In any case, if we limit our discussion to the classical swish as described by Dr. Bandler then there is no state change (the state is ‘desire’ for both the trigger and self-image pictures) and the state changes that Steve Andreas describes do not take place, i.e. they are inconsistent with Dr. Bandler’s original swish.
Shawn states that “the classical swish is intended to maintain a state of desire.” This does not appear in Bandler’s original description in Using Your Brain—for a Change. Since the state in response to the cue image is incongruent (both desiring and not desiring) and the state in response to the self-image is congruent desire, it doesn’t make sense to say that the first state is “maintained,” or to say that “then there is no state change.” If that were true, the incongruence would be maintained. It makes more sense to me to think it as a shift from incongruent desire to congruent desire, propelling behavior away from an incongruent state, and toward a congruently attractive self-image.
Self-delusion of change
Now Steve makes a strange and in my view a mistaken claim:
“if the self-image were associated, that would assume that the client had already become it, so there would be no motivation to change, only a self-delusion that change had already happened.”
Please see my next comment below, and also my more extensive comments clarifying what I mean by the word “delusion” in response to Shawn’s first video below, and in response to David Shepard’s video later.
The problem with this statement is that if the swish (however it is done) works then change has already happened; it’s no delusion, it’s reality. The reason to keep the image dissociated (in the classical swish) is to utilize the client’s (existing) state of desire, not to avoid self-delusion.
Perhaps we are talking about different time frames as if they are the same. The desired self-image is dissociated to create motivation, because at this point in time the client is separated from the image that they want to become. “If the swish works” is a bit later when the cue triggers the desire to become like the desired self-image, and this change is very fast, so they become it. But if the desired self-image were associated to begin with, there would be no motivation, and no change, because the client would think they had already changed, and this is what I referred to as a delusion. Again see my more extensive comments on delusion in response to Shawn’s first video below, and in response to David Shepard’s video later.
State based coaching
Steve suggests that seeing the self-image in a context, “doing a specific behavior” is a mistake. If so, then it’s a mistake that Richard Bandler made with the original swish as he describes getting smoke-free clients to see themselves happily co-existing with smokers (because he claims he did not want to create anti-smoking crusaders). Indeed it’s impossible to see a self-image absent any behavior; standing is a behavior, sitting is a behavior, so how can a self-image have no behavior?
Firstly, the word “behavior” usually means a movement is involved. A still image is not a behavior, even if the person is standing or seated, but a movement like standing up or sitting down is. So it is not at all “impossible to see a self-image absent any behavior.”
Secondly, I agree that Bandler often made statements like, “getting smoke-free clients to see themselves happily co-existing with smokers (because he claims he did not want to create anti-smoking crusaders),” and that could be understood to indicate a specific behavior. However, “Happily co-existing” is a general statement that could include a huge variety of specific behaviors. My understanding is that he wanted the self-image to have that attitude or capability, not a specific behavior.
Now in the HNLP (Humanistic Neuro Linguistic Psychology: Overdurf and Silverthorn) coaching model we are always looking for ‘context-trigger-state-behavior’, both for the problem and for the change. If the behavior has not changed then typically the problem hasn’t either. Therefore, there is no way to test change unless the coach sees (and the client experiences) a new state and a new behavior.
I’m OK with that; that is why all good NLP work is tested to be sure there is a change in behavior. The question boils down to whether the change is chosen in advance by a conscious mind (client or practitioner, or by the client’s unconscious mind as a result of wanting to become the desired self-image.
State based coaching is the basis of HNLP. State based coaching assumes that behaviors and other responses are based on:
For example, if you are in your cube at work (the context), and you notice your boss looming over you (the trigger) then your response will depend upon the ‘state’ you go into when you notice your boss. For example if you go into a ‘flapping panic’, then you are likely to respond inappropriately, while if you go into a state of ‘unflappable calm confidence’, then you will likely respond appropriately.
Change work is therefore about collapsing a problem trigger so that the trigger becomes an anchor for a resourceful state, rather than an unresourceful state.
Although I don’t think the word “collapsing” is a good metaphor (I think “linking” would be better) I otherwise agree with this.
The major issue I notice, when watching unsuccessful swishes (or any other NLP pattern for that matter) is that the coach fails to elicit a resourceful state or fails to attach that resource to the trigger.
In the case of the swish, that would be to make sure that the desired self-image elicits a resourceful state.
But you will all-ways create change if you follow the four steps of John Overdurf’s Meta-Pattern (associate into the problem, dissociate, associate into the resource, and collapse i.e. attach the resource to the trigger so the trigger becomes an anchor for the resource).
Earlier Shawn disparaged “following the steps” as “not necessarily doing NLP”; now he is advocating following “the four steps of John Overdurf’s Meta-Pattern.” This particular meta-pattern that Shawn attributes to Overdurf is one that we learned from Bandler many years ago, way before the swish.
The steps Shawn proposes are one useful sequence, but not the only one. Many other patterns don’t follow the Meta-pattern sequence, for instance context and content reframing, simply directing attention to a different scope of time or space, or a different categorization. “Mapping across” with submodalities, the compulsion blowout, and other patterns of change also don’t follow the Meta-pattern outline.
See The Meta Pattern by Sarah Carson and Shawn Carson for more.
The description of this book states that, “The Meta Pattern is at the heart of all successful influence whether in therapy or business.” “All” is an overgeneralization that is not true. It is one useful meta-pattern, but not the only one. Thinking that it’s the only meta-pattern puts a severe limitation on the “wanton experimentation” and “dancing with the client” that Shawn advocates.
So, if the new self-image triggers a sufficiently powerful resource state, and the swish attaches this resource to the trigger, the technique will be successful, if not, it won’t.
Agreed. Which is why it is so important to be sure the self-image is very desirable.
If you get hung up too much on the image, rather than the resource state, or ‘end state energy’, you are ‘focusing on the finger and missing all the heavenly glory’.
I would need to see a denominalized translation of that last sentence in order to respond to it.
‘State’ versus ‘end state energy’
Understanding the concept of a resource ‘state’ versus ‘end state energy’ (using HNLP terminology) is important. Typically, if you ask a client for a resource state, how they would prefer to be feeling in their problem context, they will offer a word that is more-or-less the ‘opposite’ of their problem state. For example, if they feel afraid of speaking in public, say, they might say they want to feel ‘awesomely confident’.
Yes, I agree. Clients often ask for the other half of a polarity, rather than a state of integrated resolution.
These big resource states are great for breaking down problems, but not so good for generative change.
“Big resource states” are not necessarily the best; they are much less stable, more likely to flip back to the other polarity, unless they two are integrated.
Why is this? Because these states are difficult to maintain over time; they are too high energy. An accomplished speaker will probably not say they feel ‘awesomely confident’ when they speak in public, they’ll say something like “I feel free, relaxed, open…”.
I couldn’t agree more with the paragraph above. When you approach a door, twist the knob and open it, you don’t say to yourself (or someone else) “Wow, I can open the door!!” In fact, you usually don’t even notice it at all. That is why it’s useful to say that the desired self-image is of “the you for whom smoking is no longer an issue,” in contrast to, “the you who is triumphant about having conquered the habit,” or some other “big resource state.”
These lower energy ‘end states’ are typically associated with ‘values’ or ‘identity’ level states, such as “freedom”, “love”, “being myself”. Think about it, it’s pretty easy for you to feel “free” all the time, but to feel “awesomely confident” all the time would be exhausting!
I wish Shawn, or somebody else, would convince Tony Robbins of this! He is very good at getting people to flip to the other side of a polarity (for example see him turn a stutterer into a speaker like Tony). This can be a useful first step, but Tony seldom takes the next step to integrate the polarity, so that, for instance the stutterer can talk like an ordinary person. There are several videos in which Tony asks for someone who is suicidal, and they end up saying something like, “I can conquer anything.” A statement like this is a universal quantifier that reality will soon refute.
Now it’s important to know that if you as a coach, generate a big powerful resource state in your client (“awesomely confident”, say) and use that to collapse the trigger, change will happen. And, over time, that “awesomely confident” will transform into a lower energy (but more sustainable) ‘end state’.
I would be interested in Shawn’s understanding of how this transition from a big energy state to a lower energy state occurs. I would say that sometimes that happens. Other times the change will fall apart, and the person will revert back to the other side of the polarity.
The swish pattern typically uses ‘end states’ (remember end states arise at ‘identity’ level, or ‘self-image’). BUT a good swish can (and should) also layer in more energetic resource states such as laughter, excitement, confidence, and so on. When you watch the videos, please look primarily for the state of the client, and how their state changes, as they go through the swish.
Before we get to the videos themselves, I think it’s important to bear in mind the purpose of a YouTube video. Most of the videos discussed are short videos, not extracts from lengthy trainings, and even the ones from trainings do not contain all the teaching that preceded and followed the demo. Such videos are never intended to teach chapter and verse on a specific pattern; wouldn’t life be easy if you could master an NLP pattern by watching a three minute video! I would suggest that you watch each video as a summary of the swish, more intended to raise the profile of the trainer than to lay out all the details of the swish.
I can agree with all this; in fact I wrote much the same in my blog post. However, what is presented in a short video should be accurate. Making sure that the cue is associated and that the outcome is a desired self-image are essential pieces, not “chapter and verse” minor details, and most of the videos did not get these right.
Michael describes the swish using the ‘slingshot’ method. This is not a client demo, and is not really even a ‘covert demo’ (compare this to the Tony Robbins video discussed below).
It does utilize the ‘slingshot’ swish, where the trigger image is sent out to the distance and returns as the new self-image. In HNLP we consider the slingshot to be often superior to the ‘standard’ swish because of two important underlying principles:
There are two issues here; one is the use of distance. I totally agree that distance will be a better driving submodality for some people, and using three submodalities rather than two is fine. If one of the submodalities truly is a driver, it will carry one or more other submodality shifts along with it spontaneously, without having to mention them. This is why when we teach the “designer swish” pattern we teach people how to identify which submodalities are drivers for the client, and use those.
The other issue is the way distance is used. The slingshot first sends one image into the distance, and then brings the other image back in, what I have called a “butt joint.” If one image goes off into the distance at the same time that the other comes in from the distance, this creates a continuous change, which I have described as a “lap joint,” which I think makes a more dependable connection.
Michael could have done a better job of stressing this in the video, but again it’s a short 6 minute YouTube video.
I agree that good NLP work depends heavily on nonverbal cues (“theater”). However, you can be just as theatrical (or even more so) using both hands going in different directions simultaneously, gesturing with one to indicate the cue image moving away, and the other hand to indicate the self-image moving closer. Given Shawn’s emphasis on the importance of nonverbal “theater,” it’s curious that his two videos below use still images of cartoon characters, leaving out theater altogether.
It’s true that Michael does emphasize behavior over state in the video (the antithesis of New Code), but again I suspect this is more to do with the ease of describing the swish in a short 6 minute video, than the way Michael would actually work with a client.
Possibly; we have no evidence on this. Shawn writes that “Michael does emphasize behavior over state.” However neither behavior or state is a desired self-image.
This is a great video.
The first thing to note about Tony Robbins’ video is that his definition of the swish is much wider than the classical swish, designed to change a habit, that Steve Andreas seems to be focused on.
I think Shawn means “application” rather than “definition.” I specifically wrote “troublesome habit or other unwanted response” (not just “habit”) which I think is pretty inclusive.
The video is excellent (of course, being Tony Robbins). I will point out a few of the principles Tony is using:
I agree. Good point.
Excellent observation; I missed that nice utilization of the hand movement.
Agreed. But it is the desired self-image that drives the generative change.
The really great thing about this demo is watching Tony use the theater of the pattern to create a big positive state in the audience. You will see this in the faces of the audience around 7.00 of the video. Tony creates this energy using speed and tempo, and voice tonality, as ‘sliding anchors’ as he repeats the swish (getting faster, more up-tempo and more energetic each time).
Yes, Tony does a nice job (excluding the role-play clips of the father and daughter) in using his nonverbal expressiveness to amplify his verbal instructions—the best of all the videos, in my opinion—and impossible to do in a cartoon animation.
Alkistis (Steve Andreas refers to ‘Akistis’), discusses a pattern she calls a swish, but which is closer to a map-across. As such we will not discuss this video further.
Note that Ms. Alkistis does not claim to be an NLP trainer, so it seems petty to fault her on calling a ‘map-across’ a ‘swish’.
Firstly, what she did is not even a “map across.”
Secondly, I didn’t research the trainer status or background of any of the people in the videos. However, this doesn’t seem to be a relevant variable. For instance, Mark Hayley’s web site states that he apprenticed for 5 years with Bandler, is licensed by Bandler as a Master Trainer of NLP, has been “attendee, assistant, apprentice, or the principal trainer of 150+ NLP and hypnosis seminars, has practiced for over 15 years, and is personally endorsed by Bandler as follows: “Mark Hayley is thoroughly trained, highly skilled and very elegant with my most up-to-date teachings. I highly recommend him.” Despite all that training experience, his demonstration of the swish (next video) is almost as bizarre as ‘Alkistis.’
This is a file download. I was not comfortable downloading this to my computer so did not open and review the video.
Shawn Carson (oh, wait, that’s me!)
This is part of a series we did using an animation program called ‘Two Minute NLP’ (although this video runs an impressive 3.17).
This sets out the classical swish, but using the ‘slingshot’, in a (hopefully) fun way. I lead the client Sophie into choosing a self-image not a behavior.
This is flat out false. The caption states: “Sophie, what if there were a way that every time you saw a donut, you felt motivated to work out?” “Felt motivated” is a feeling and “working out” is a behavior; neither is a desired self-image. The sketch is of Sophie with a barbell and exercise ball — doing a specific behavior. Sophie responds, “That would be fantastic!!” which is a clear indication that she hasn’t thought this “solution” through at all.
Firstly, it means that she can never enjoy choosing a donut, because if she has to exercise instead, she will be just as choiceless as when she’s not able to refuse it. That is replacing one robotic response for another — not necessarily progress, and certainly not generative.
Secondly, whenever a specific behavior is selected as an outcome, it’s important to expand the frame and ask, “How well will this work in the real world?” In this case, the answer is “Not very well!” If Sophie is offered a donut at a meeting, and feels motivated to work out, she won’t be able to, so now she’ll be frustrated by not being able to (on top of being tempted by the donut!). There will be many other contexts in which she won’t be able to work out in response to seeing a donut. This is a great example of the limitation of a specific behavior chosen by someone’s limited (and often downright stupid!) conscious mind. Another example is in David Shepard’s video, where the desired behavior is a dissociated image of himself going around a tight turn on a motorbike (see below).
The next frame says, “Make a picture of yourself as you want to be . . . your ideal self. . . Make it big and bright. . .” The image is of her with barbell and exercise ball again, looking slim, and the balloon over her head says, “OK I look fantastic!!” This image is either her behavior, or the result of her behavior (being slender and fit) but it’s definitely not an image of someone for whom responding to a donut is an easy and effortless choice.
To represent this in an animation there has to be a picture of something, in this case Sophie in work-out clothes (Steve Andreas describes this as a ‘behavior’; so be it).
The barbell and exercise ball clearly indicate a context in which the behavior is exercising.
Steve Andreas makes the point that the ‘standard’ swish uses a submodality change that allows the self-image to (for example) get bigger as the trigger picture gets smaller. The changes take place simultaneously. In contrast the slingshot swish, which is used in several of the videos including this one, uses sequential submodality changes. The trigger image gets smaller as it moves further away, followed by the self-image picture getting bigger as the picture returns.
We talked about a couple of the advantages of the ‘slingshot swish’, versus the ‘standard’ swish when we analyzed Michael Carroll’s video above. But what about Steve Andreas point that the simultaneous change in submodalities of trigger picture and self-image is like a “lap joint” and therefore “stronger and more lasting”?
This is another difference that perhaps can only be decided by experimentation when NLP becomes scientific.
As you watch all the videos, you will see that the swish pattern begins slowly, to allow the client to acclimatize, but ultimately each swish is being run in a fraction of a second. This does not allow time for one state to decrease and the other to increase.
That last statement is offered without proof or rationale, and in any case it is the images that increase/decrease, and those changes elicit the feeling changes.
States take up to a minute to ebb and flow, not fractions of a second.
If that were true, the swish couldn’t work, because the feeling elicited by the cue wouldn’t have time to transform into the feeling of desire for the self-image. If you vividly imagine that you are furiously angry at someone, and then that person points a loaded gun at you, with a facial expression that indicates they are quite willing to pull the trigger, and you will find that your anger response changes to fear in a very short period of time — certainly less than a minute.
In fact, the swish is run so fast that the client realistically does not have time to even change the pictures in a meaningful way;
That is a conscious-mind statement, without evidence or rationale. One of the reasons for doing it fast is to force the client’s unconscious mind to make the connection.
I would argue that the swish neurologically wires the end-state to the real-world trigger, via Hebb’s Law. As a result, the trigger becomes an anchor for this new state.
I agree, but that will happen with either a lap joint or a butt joint; it’s only a question of which is stronger.
Finally, Steve Andreas talks about images being ‘realistic’ (see discussion above or Steve’s swish video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0_mbC60aho). It’s pretty clear that in reality the trigger is not going to actually reduce in size. Imagine walking into Dunkin’ Donuts and seeing the donuts actually get smaller before your eyes (in reality). Ain’t gonna happen; not realistic.
Given the length and very basic nature of the video, there are no ‘important principles’ revealed here.
Thanks, I had forgotten about that little clip. When I used the word “realistic,” I meant “believable” to the client (which I think is clear from what I say in the video) not “realistic” in the size of the image. Luckily, readers can click on the video and decide for themselves — one of the great things about having a video to observe.
Shawn Carson (me again!)
This excellent video (did I just say that?) uses the swish to deal with difficult people. I learned this pattern (which Jess and I refer to as the ‘New Behavior Generator or NBG Swish’ in our book ‘NLP Mastery: The Swish’) from John Overdurf. When understood it does reveal some important and useful principles, including:
It is fine to use the DTI or NBG (both are patterns with steps that Shawn earlier disparaged as “not necessarily NLP”) to access qualities for a desired self-image. However, the NBG has an important step that Shawn has left out, namely to adjust the image of the model before you step into it, so that the face is mine, the body shape is mine etc. This both adapts the quality to make it appropriate to the individual person, and also provides a kind of reality check.
Regarding delusions, I think there are two related issues. One is the selection of an imaginary model like superman, in comparison to a real person. Superman relies on “superpowers” which don’t actually exist in the real world. If you identify with Superman, and think that bullets will bounce off your chest, I hope you don’t have an opportunity to test that delusion! Some kids who decide that they can fly like superman, so they put on a cape and launch themselves off a top bunk. There are a number of people in mental hospitals who believe that they ARE Christ or the Virgin Mary, and that is not particularly useful. Quite a few NLP trainers are deluded in much the same way.
When using DTI or NBG with a real person, it is relatively easy to access useful general qualities or attitudes like persistence, empathy, courage, kindness, etc. It is somewhat more difficult to access specific abilities and behavioral skills, particularly those that require systematic practice over time. Identifying with Usain Bolt may be useful, but it probably won’t get you to the Olympics. Gilligan spent a long time in his very thorough identification with Erickson, and learned a great deal from it, but even now, over 35 years later, he hasn’t reached Erickson’s level of perceptivity, subtlety, and skill — and I think he would be the first to agree with that.
I agree that stepping into an image can be useful to link to a specific behavior, but then it is no longer a swish (just as a bridge without cables is no longer a suspension bridge), and it will no longer be as generative.
(see NLP Mastery: The Meta Pattern by Sarah Carson and Shawn Carson).
I strongly disagree with that statement. I don’t think there is a break state in the compulsion blowout pattern, or in a content or context reframe, mapping across, or many other patterns. The break state is essential in the swish pattern because we using repetition to teach the client a certain sequence of experience, a direction and not a loop.
However here it is not the ‘blank-the-screen’ break state that appears the classical swish. This is presumably why Steve Andreas, focused on the classical swish, misses the break state. The break state at 2.12 of the video when the client sticks the post-it (or postage stamp) onto Burt’s forehead; if there is someone who makes the client feel bad, and you ask them to imagine sticking a post-it on that person’s forehead, you can get them to laugh (laughter is a break state). That’s why I crack a joke at this point in the video.
I didn’t laugh, so I guess it wasn’t a joke or a break state for me. However, let’s assume it’s a break state. The purpose of a break state is to interrupt one state to keep it from being connected to a following state. However since the next step is to have the “picture leap out of the forehead,” a break state at this point will only interfere with the sequence that Shawn wants to establish. A bit later (2:40) the instruction says, “Repeat several times to condition the change.” “Repeat” isn’t very specific about what exactly to repeat, and there is no mention of a break state in between the repetitions. This is where a break state is needed, because if there is no break state between repetitions, that can result in a yo-yo effect. Instead of creating a single direction from the problem image to the desired image, it may oscillate back and forth.
That’s an interesting point that I can agree with. However, my end goal would be equality, rather than either submission or dominance, which are opposite polarities.
For me this technique was more like a ‘double map across’ (such as is used in the NLP Belief Change) than a swish. But what the heck, who’s splitting hairs now!
I enjoyed this video because it shows a really important principle, namely that change arises primarily from the rapport between coach and client. Rapport is much more important than ‘following steps’. Anthony creates very nice rapport with Michelle and she gets her change quickly and easily as a result.
I can easily agree with all that, but what he did was not a swish, and it was not generative.
David Shepard – The Performance Partnership
The great thing about this video is that you can see how the coach enters into the dance with the client. As Steve Andreas notes, the client responds with several problems throughout the pattern. The coach responds to each with an elegant reframe, for example using submodalities, meaning reframes and hypnotic suggestions. The end result of the intervention appears to be extremely positive for the subject.
Steve Andreas does raise some excellent issues regarding the video which, I believe, come from the fact that driving a motorbike round a tight bend on a race-track is primarily a kinesthetic experience, while the swish is primarily a visual pattern. Perhaps this demo would have been better using a different NLP pattern?
Perhaps. But the swish can also work fine if done appropriately; the desired self-image would be someone with exquisite kinesthetic sensitivity and balance — far better than a dissociated image, or the delusion that the motorbike is actually on rails, so it can’t possibly slide. This is another example of expanding the frame to find out how well a specific behavioral outcome will work in the real world. In this case, the answer is that it would likely be catastrophic. The client would happily make an image of himself going around the turn fast “on rails” and have a nasty crash — and no one would realize that it resulted from an incompetent NLP intervention!
The video does not show the ‘demo selection process’ that preceded the demo, but in an ideal world I might have saved this problem to demo a more kinesthetic pattern, such as Bandler’s ‘backward spin’. At the end of the day, the change appeared to come more from the client’s feeling of ‘being on rails’ than the change in the (visual) picture.
In any case, this demonstrates the adage than any NLP Pattern can be used to address any problem,
Another universal statement that I strongly disagree with. If you use the phobia cure on grief (or the grief resolution process on a phobia) it will not work, because a phobia has a structure that is the opposite of grief.
assuming rapport between the coach and client, and the coach’s ability to ‘dance’. Again David Shepard’s rapport with the client is excellent, as is his dancing!
This is a very rich demonstration with lots of great learning points. I’ll point out a few of these:
That is what results from keeping the desired self-image dissociated. If the client associates into the self-image deliberately, the motivation to become it is lost.
One issue with the demo is (as in the last video), the swish might not be the best NLP pattern to use in Rene’s context. I say this because Rene had a workable strategy (the ‘machine gun’ strategy) for dealing with the problem. Simply changing the state does not necessarily offer the client a new strategy that will necessarily work to give her the desired outcome. To complete the change, Jevon might have used e.g. a strategy installation, to make sure the client had a new strategy.
I can agree with this. However Shawn’s “Meta-pattern” described earlier “state-based coaching” states that a resource state is all that is needed, and doesn’t say anything about strategies.
Of course, he might have done some additional work later in the course that we didn’t see. In any case Rene’s post course feedback indicates that the change was effective.
For those still uncertain as to the difference between the swish and the map-across, there is also an interesting discussion between a couple of the students in the audience.
Again Mel does not claim to be an NLP trainer, so it’s perhaps a little unfair to judge the video according to some strict standard of whether the pattern is a swish or not, or the fact that Mel does indeed appear to be consulting his notes as he speaks. Mel’s focus is clearly to get change for the client (which he appears to do).
This video is a pretty good straightforward demo of the swish with a nicely responsive client. Watch it for a nice, simple, clean demo of the swish.
No, whether good or bad, effective or not, it is not a demo of the swish; what he did was quite different from what Bandler described as a swish in detail some 30 years ago.
The one point I found interesting was that Mel used the image the client provided and chunked up on that, “what will that do for you, and what will that do…” He went as far as values (“make more money, grow your business” – Mel is after all an ‘entrepreneur’s coach’), rather than identity, but it’s a nice approach to get a new self-identity from a client who otherwise has difficulty finding that new self-identity.
“Make more money, grow your business” are both goals, not identity, and not even behaviors that would result in achieving the goals.
Pip Thomas Edge NLP
To me, this is more like a cross between a swish and the Coaching Pattern, because the new image is associated. Pip uses submodalities to boost Louise’s resource state. I would have liked to have seen more of a ‘pop’ in Louise’s state, although this may have been because the demo was more ‘staged’ than the typical demo in a seminar where the client brings a bigger issue.
It’s a nice demo of using submodalities within an NLP pattern (although not a typical swish pattern).
George Hutton – Mind Persuasion
This is not a demo, but rather a ‘hypnotic product’. George sets anchors for positive and negative states using blue and red circles, and then ‘swishes’ by changing the size of the circles. It’s a cute video (and has lots of fun state breakers). It will not teach you the swish but if you run through the video with a problem in mind you may find yourself getting some change! Enjoy!
Alex of TherapyTips.tv
This video contains one real gem of information. Unfortunately it is skipped over so fast it’s easy to miss. It’s this: for procrastination, one of the most powerful resource states you can bring to your client is the feeling of completion. Nobody likes doing their taxes (or their homework as in this case), but we all enjoy the feeling of having mailed our tax return off to the IRS and knowing we are done till next year.
I can easily agree with all that — changing the scope of time to elicit a useful state. Another key piece is to be able to chunk down the task into small enough pieces, and to have that good feeling of completion after each chunk is done, so that there are motivating rewards all along the way. If they only get the good feeling at the end of the entire task, it won’t work nearly as well.
This feeling of completion creates the new self-image of being a person who ‘gets things done’ so that you can enjoy the feeling of being free.
This is all ways a great starting point when using the swish for overcoming procrastination strategies.
The nice feeling of completion is great, but it doesn’t necessarily result in a change in identity. It can remain simply a useful learned behavior unless the client generalizes to “I’m someone who can get things done.” All of us have behaviors (both good and bad) that are not part of our identity. A client may use a change in behavior to conclude that they now have a different identity, but you can’t depend on it. If you assume that will happen, you (and your client) will often be disappointed. For how to work with many different aspects of self-concept, see my book, Transforming Your Self.
Ved Prakash – Programyourmind.org
I have to say the Caribbean or maybe Pacific background music does not add value to the quality of this video! I was unable to watch the whole thing, sorry Ved!
Terry Elston – NLPworld.co.uk
This is a demo from a seminar. Again, for me it’s a very clean demo of the Coaching Pattern rather than a swish. Terry doesn’t use a trigger picture or an outcome (self-image) picture, but rather attaches the client’s (Rachael) resource state to the ‘trigger’ by ‘stealing anchors’.
Terry discusses the importance of attaching the resource precisely at the trigger point, rather than when the client has already dropped into their negative state. He gives a good demo of rewinding the client’s story, although for me he did not actually identify the trigger point (meaning an external event that lets Rachael know it’s time for her to book her train and hotel). The trigger becomes ‘six o’clock’, rather than “I look at my watch and realize it’s six o’clock”.
Terry does give a good demonstration of ‘stealing anchors’ by mirroring Rachael’s physiology in her resource state. It’s worth watching this demo for that alone.
Keith Livingston – hypnosis101.com
This is a very short (2.40) description of the swish. As such it is a brief overview and will not add much to your understanding of the swish, if you have watched all the other videos so far.
It is my belief that NLP is a living, evolving discipline. The co-founders of NLP continue to develop their own techniques as do the those that I admire most in the field, such as Tony Robbins and John Overdurf. The moment we say “NLP is this and only this, so that is not NLP”, we remove the creative spark, the ‘attitude of wanton experimentation’ that created NLP in the first place.
That is chunking way up from “The swish is this and only this” which was my focus. Knowing how to do a swish correctly doesn’t prevent anyone from “wanton experimentation.” Neither does it prevent someone from proposing a new pattern, or a change in how the swish is done. But none of those is a swish, any more than a rabbit is a robin.
The moment we say “the swish is this and only this, so that is not a swish” we limit our ability to ‘dance’ with the client, and the dance is where we find the magic of change.
That is not a logical conclusion. You can dance with a client all you want to, or experiment wantonly all day long. But if you are communicating with someone else, and you say you did a swish, it would be nice to know that you both agree about what that means. If you order a chocolate cake from a bakery, you probably would expect that it had chocolate in it (not carob!).
Please do study other practitioners who are courageous enough to post their material publicly. Notice what they do well and absorb that. Notice the mistakes they make and avoid them. Focus on the true aim of this wonderful art, which is becoming more of the person you were born to be.
That is all well and good, but how does the average person “Notice what they do well and absorb that. Notice the mistakes they make and avoid them”? I may be a much slower learner than most, but I needed a lot of examples of both good and bad pointed out to me, along with some rationale for why something was useful or not useful. Sometimes learning what is a mistake is far more important than what to do correctly.
People often learn most easily from contrast — red looks much redder when it is next to green, for instance. Contrasting what to do with what to avoid clarifies both. That is why I wrote my original post, and why I have taken the time to respond to Shawn’s post. I hope this exchange of understandings has been useful, or at least identified interesting questions to be explored further.
Again, thanks to Shawn for his thoughtful post.
Posted by: Steve Andreas in: Articles
The disastrous state of NLP training
Steve Andreas—with even more valuable input from Connirae than usual
I’ve spent the last 35 years of my professional life — and much of my personal life — learning, developing, and training high quality NLP. Recently I saw a video in which someone was teaching the swish pattern in a way that greatly weakened it. Looking around a bit, I found 16 videos of the swish online. I was dismayed to find that none of them taught it as originally presented, and all but one made the same very fundamental mistake, as well as many others. The fundamental mistake is equivalent to replacing the engine in a Lamborghini with a hamster wheel. Other mistakes are like putting wagon wheels on it.
These mistakes show not only a widespread lack of ability to learn and follow the steps of the pattern, but also a lack of understanding of the principles underlying each step. In this article, I’ll review the 16 videos (which provide you with sensory-based experience) and point out the mistakes. I hope this can add to the understanding not only of what to do, but why to do it, which is essential to the field’s integrity and progress. But first, a little history.
The swish pattern is a rapid way to change any troublesome habit or other unwanted response, so it has a very wide range of applications. The swish was developed by Richard Bandler in the early 1980’s, and was first published in Using Your Brain for a Change (chapter 9) in 1985, over 30 years ago. Connirae and I taught it and used it extensively over the next couple of years. During this time we accumulated a lot of experience of when it didn’t work, or only partially worked, and we had to figure out what we needed to do to correct that. In Change Your Mind—and keep the Change (chapter 3) we included many additional details, including how to design a swish in the auditory modality. A case example, with follow-up, appeared in our later book, Heart of the Mind (chapter 17). We also produced a video on the swish in the early 1980’s, including two demonstrations, one of the standard size/brightness swish with nail-biting, and also an auditory “designer” swish with a woman who went “ballistic” when her daughter used a particular tone of voice. These sources provide a rich description of all the different essential elements in the process, the principles underlying each element, and specific examples of how to make the pattern work.
The “standard” swish using size and brightness, (or size and distance)
This swish is often used to teach the basics of the pattern. Often it’s demonstrated with nail-biting, because it’s easy to identify what the client will always experience immediately before the problem behavior or response — their hand has to move up toward their face just before biting their nails.
After identifying this cue image, the next step is to elicit a desired self-image of “the evolved you of the future, for whom nail-biting is simply no longer an issue.” The client is asked to see themselves in a dissociated self-image, much like a 3-D portrait. Seeing this positive self-mage provides strong motivation, engaging unconscious processes to develop ways to become like the self-image. This creates a direction for change at the more powerful identity level, in contrast to only selecting a specific replacement behavior.
This desired self-image works best when it is seen without context or background, and not doing any specific behavior. Any background would tend to limit the scope of generalization to that context, and picturing a specific behavior would limit the change to that behavior.
In the next step, the client is asked to see the cue image (of hand coming up to face) big and bright, and somewhere in that image to see a small dark dot containing the desired self-image. Then the client is told to allow the desired self-image to very quickly become big and bright as the cue image shrinks and becomes dark. This links the cue image to the desired self-image, so that any time they are in a situation that used to trigger the unwanted behavior, they will immediately see the self-image.
After a break state, the client is asked to exchange the images again, repeatedly, with a break state in between, to make sure the direction is always from the cue to the self-image. After 7-10 repetitions, the cue image often becomes insubstantial or disappears, while the self-image becomes prominent, so this is one way to test the intervention. Asking the client to bring a hand up to the mouth is another good way to test, and real-world follow-up is best of all.
The dissociated self-image provides powerful motivation to change, without specifying how the change will occur, which is left to the client’s unconscious processes. The change is usually instantaneous, and the client usually isn’t consciously aware of any specific behavioral change. Often they’re “just a different person” who wouldn’t even think of biting their nails. If the self-image were associated, that would assume that the client had already become it, so there would be no motivation to change, only a self-delusion that change had already happened.
This standard swish usually works well as a very simplified introduction to the pattern. But it makes a lot of assumptions, and omits many important details. For instance, it uses size and brightness because for most people those two variables will increase the feeling response to any image, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Ideally we would test this, and often use other visual (or auditory) submodalities that elicit the strongest response for a particular client. The standard swish doesn’t include training in how to elicit a dependable cue image when there is no obvious external image like the hand coming up to the face. There is no testing to be sure that the client has a strong positive response to their self-image, or training in what to do to increase their response. There is no mention of searching for a positive intention of the problem state, or what to do about satisfying it. There are no suggestions for how to “trouble-shoot” when the test at the end indicates that the process didn’t work. There is nothing about using other visual submodalities, or how to design a swish in the auditory or kinesthetic systems, etc. Despite all these limitations, the standard swish is a good way to teach the overall structure of the process; training in the additional details can be added later.
The importance of the desired self-image
The most significant mistake (which appears in all but one of the video presentations of this pattern that I reviewed) is that instead of a desired self-image, the client is asked to see themselves doing a specific substitute behavior. Using a specific behavior instead of an evolved self-image is an error that also appears in Robert Dilts Encyclopedia of NLP. “Form a mental image of herself engaged in the behavior she would like to do instead of smoking.” Since Dilts has written in great detail about the power of identity in change work, this fundamental mistake is particularly surprising. A consciously chosen image of a specific behavior provides only one option — which may not fit very well — in comparison to the infinite variety of possible choices that a positive self-image can generate unconsciously.
If you create a sequence from a problem behavior to a more desirable behavior, that is essentially chaining with submodalities, not a swish pattern. That can work, but it won’t be nearly as dependable or powerful, for several reasons.
A positive self-image is far more powerfully motivating and generative than an image of a different behavior. For example, an image of yourself flexing your fingers (instead of biting your nails) just isn’t as intensely motivating as seeing “the you that you would be without this problem.”
As the cue image for the problem behavior becomes smaller and darker, the unpleasant feeling decreases at the same time that the self-image becomes larger and brighter, and the pleasant feeling increases. This smooth analog transition can be diagrammed using a rectangle with a diagonal dividing it into two triangles, one green and one white, to show how this creates motivation away from unpleasantness (green) and toward pleasantness (white). (In the diagram, time goes from left to right.)
In contrast, the diagram for a simple chain from one state to another, would show one (black) state ending, and another (yellow) state beginning, an abrupt digital change that occurs in a moment in time. That can work, but the connection isn’t as solid. The diagram above is like a lap joint; the diagram below is like a butt joint. Anyone who has worked in wood, metal, or fabric will tell you that a lap joint is always far stronger and more lasting.
In Dilts’ article on the swish, he credits the power of the method to the submodality changes (size and brightness), but this is only partly true. These submodality changes can only amplify the existing feelings in response to the two images. If those feelings are not very intense to start with, there is little for the submodality shifts to amplify. It is really important that the feeling in response to the cue image is unpleasant, and that the feeling in response to the self-image is as strong as possible, so it’s important to test. “See that image of the evolved you for whom biting nails is simply no longer a problem; how desirable is that image?” and notice the nonverbal response as well as the verbal. If the response is weak, you need to do whatever you can do to intensify it before proceeding. Often this will involve resolving incongruence, or amplifying other submodalities.
In the 16 videos of the swish that I’ve watched recently there is quite a lot of variation, and only one of them (sort of) used a desired self-image. Every video either modified the pattern in ways that weakened it, or left out important steps. Only a few of them included how to test to find out if it had worked or not. If a test didn’t work, the only remedy offered was to repeat the process a few more times. None of the videos include any follow-up that would indicate how successful the process actually was. The specific details are in the video reviews below.
Reviews of videos
I found videos on YouTube by searching using the terms “swish” “swish pattern,” and “swish pattern NLP.” I may have missed a few, but the huge variation in them clearly shows how much they differ from the swish pattern as originally developed and taught by Bandler. I encourage you to watch the videos before reading my comments, because my comments will make a lot more sense if you already have the sensory-based experience provided by the video. That also gives you an opportunity to notice errors, and compare what you observed with my comments. If you have only a little time to watch videos, I suggest watching the first four, since they provide a wide range of examples. Quite often the language used in these demonstrations is ambiguous and imprecise, but there are so many examples of this I won’t usually comment on them.
1. Michael Carroll describes the swish as being useful for “a minor behavior” which implies erroneously that it can’t be used for more intense difficulties. He role-plays the pattern in order to demonstrate it, walking himself through the steps. He uses nail-biting as the problem, and size and distance as the submodalities. His description of how to select the cue image could be more precise, but it’s basically correct — an image of what he dependably sees out of his own eyes just before the problem behavior/response, namely fingers moving toward the mouth.
Then he says, “Think about what it is that you’d like to do instead,” and goes on to specify “staying within the frame” of the cue image. This asks for a behavior (in the same context) rather than a desired self-image (without a context).
He suggests that he might pick “flex your fingers or do something with your hands,” as the new behavior to replace nail-biting. This is a specific behavior chosen by the conscious mind, in contrast to the evolved self-image. Michael is a primary sponsor of John Grinder and his “New Code” method, in which a decision about a new behavior is completely turned over to a client’s unconscious mind. So it’s particularly puzzling that this principle of relying on unconscious selection is ignored in this demonstration, despite its being an explicit part of the original swish pattern.
In the middle of self-demonstrating this change process, Michael switches from biting nails to cracking knuckles as the problem to be resolved. Changing the content “midstream” isn’t ideal for teaching, but isn’t a problem with the method itself.
Then he says and demonstrates “see themselves flexing their hands,” as the new behavior, and then to shrink that image “very small, and send it far out to the horizon.” Then he has the close cue image go quickly out to the horizon, as the outcome image quickly comes in. His verbal instructions only mention distance. The corresponding change in size is presupposed, but not mentioned explicitly. For the swish to be effective, it’s best to explicitly utilize two submodalities together.
2. In what must be a quite old video, Tony Robbins teaches a group, also using nail-biting as the behavior to be changed. He is very expressive, and clear in his instructions to get the cue image. His instruction for the outcome image is a mixture of specific behavior and self-image: “What you want is a big bright colorful picture of myself looking good, lecturing, and being proud of myself, and also noticing that my nails are great, too.”
Then Tony demonstrates the transition. He uses size, and gestures with his right hand grabbing the self-image and bringing it up so that it gets larger and explodes and breaks through the cue image, without mentioning a second submodality. Grabbing the small image is a nice kinesthetic addition that will make it more powerful for some clients. Tony says, “I get the experience of feeling good about myself,” in response to the self-image. Tony summarizes the overall pattern nicely as, “I don’t need to do this (the problem behavior), this (the outcome image) is who I really am,” continuing to emphasize the positive self-image.
The basic process here is correct. However, he uses only one submodality, size, and the self image “breaks through the cue image, rather than simply getting larger as the cue image gets smaller. In his desired self-image, he mixes in a specific behavior, i.e. “a picture of myself … lecturing.” This context tends to limit the unconscious from generalizing the change to other contexts where it would be useful.
“Being proud of myself,” is certainly a motivator for Tony, but it’s not ideal, because pride (one of the 7 deadly sins) is one half of a very troublesome polarity (the other half is shame) that compares the self to others. Pleasure or satisfaction is a much better motivator, because it’s an evaluation that doesn’t require a comparison with others — and when many people use the word “pride” loosely, that is what they really mean. The detailed structure of pride and shame is beyond the scope of this article; if that interests you, see chapter 10 of my book, Transforming Your Self.
Next is a short staged video vignette of a father and daughter in which Tony gives a summary of the steps to the swish. In this description, Tony makes a significant error in each step. Tony says the first step is to “see how you’re behaving now,” a dissociated image. The cue image will only work if it’s what you’ll actually see at the time (your hand coming up to your face).
In the second step Tony says to “think of how you want to behave — get a clear picture of what you’d like to behave like in the future.” Here he asks for a behavior, rather than an image of the person you want to become — the person who would no longer have this problem.
Tony suggests making the background of the cue image red (“stop”) and the background of the outcome image green, (“go”) which is a cute addition, but one that has a problem. The green, signifying “go” for the desired self-image might make it more powerful for some people. However, the cue image works best when it is a close match for what the client will see in the problem context. Very seldom will the problem context actually have a bright red background, so that will make it a poor match for the real world, and less likely to work as a cue.
Next Tony walks the group through using the swish to change a fear, asking them all to “get a picture of the fear” for the cue image. That language is ambiguous at best; “see what scares you,” or “see what you see just before you get scared” would be more precise.
Then when he asks for the outcome, it’s a self-image as in his first description — “seeing yourself as you would be, free of that fear, but also seeing yourself the way you’d be if you were totally proud of yourself; if you felt really good about who you are as a person, something that would really motivate yourself.” This instruction is basically fine, except for including the emphasis on pride.
Tony then walks the group expressively through the size transition, break state, repetition and testing, and then talks about how the self-image has a generative ripple effect, “It didn’t just make me feel different about my fingernails. . . . it now makes me think to be like the person who’s elegant, who I respect, who I want to be. So I found myself doing a lot of other things I wasn’t doing before, like just picking up things around the house. Before I’d just let it go, but the person I pictured in my mind wouldn’t just let it go, so I’d handle it.” This is a very nice description of the generative impact of the desired self-image, which goes far beyond any specific alternate behavior chosen by the client’s conscious mind.
3. Akistis guides the viewer through the process, starting out with, “In your upper left (gesturing with her right hand) I want you to imagine the thing you want to improve,” which is more than a bit vague, since “thing” could indicate a partner, a garden, or an automobile. Then she clarifies, saying, “See a holographic image of yourself going through some negative emotions.” This instruction is a little more specific but has two problems. One is that she asks the viewer to be dissociated, rather than associated. The second problem is that she asks the viewer to see multiple emotions, rather than select one.
Next she gestures with her left hand (the viewer’s upper right) and says, “Imagine yourself in something that you know for certain, something that you do well, and that you are confident in.” Then she says to bring that first image over to the same space as the desired image, put it in front of it, and “integrate those feelings” (gesturing with both hands in a swirling motion) “until the stronger sense takes over the weaker sense.” This is much more like a clumsy version of the “visual squash” than a swish.
Then she asks the viewer to imagine someone on your left “who you dislike, who makes you feel weak, disempowered, in a situation where they’re getting you upset.” (3:42) “And now I want you to imagine on your right hand, right here, see the positive feeling, your feeling when you’re self-confident, the faces of people who really make you smile — think about those people’s smiles, let those feelings, let those juices flow, let those positive hormones come out, and just feel all that positive energy that you have in exchange with those people.” This is verbatim; I couldn’t make up such a mishmash of instructions. What does it mean to “see a positive feeling” or to “let those positive hormones come out”? And how do you combine seeing yourself confident with seeing other people’s smiles? Then she “integrates” the two pictures “So the strong image is washing over and disintegrating the old image.” (integration becomes disintegration!) Akistis then follows with a lot of new-age feel-good bogusities, such as, “the image will no longer find anything to grab upon in your own mind,” and “going to the next level.” This has got to be the worst example of teaching the swish I have ever seen, though the next one is a close second.
https://nlptimes.infusionsoft.com/app/linkClick/18/c653bb2c3318fa3f/15144818/15afcc432f1e2660 (This is a download link; 34:14)
4. Mark Hayley demonstrates what he calls a “kinesthetic swish” with a workshop participant. In this “director’s cut” the demonstration is interrupted so that Mark (and an interviewer) can discuss the process. If you want to bypass the discussion, the demonstration alone can be viewed in the following short segments: 5:04-7:00, 10:55-12:33 16:30-17:39 Mark first asks the client to:
Whatever you think of this intervention, it bears no resemblance to the swish. The only submodality change that links all these steps is location; there is no second submodality as in the original swish pattern, and no self-image (or behavior) representation.
Curiously, step 3, pulling the feeling out of her body, is much the same as the last step in which the feeling dissipates out of her body. Why not just pull the feeling out of her body at step 3 and fling it across the room and be done with it, as many masseurs or “body workers” do in order to get rid of accumulated tension or “bad energy”? If you want to learn how to do a true kinesthetic swish, read this article published 18 years ago:
5. NLP and Hypnosis Training New York (animation). The unwanted behavior is eating donuts; the cue is a hand reaching for a donut. The new behavior is working out (image of woman in gym clothes with barbell and exercise ball). “Fling the picture out into the horizon. It will get far away, small, and dark.” (three submodalities rather than two, which is OK.) “When it comes back, it comes back as your ideal self.”
In the swish, the cue image gets smaller, etc., at the same time as the self-mage gets larger, etc., so the motivation dynamic, “away from negative, toward positive” is active throughout the analog transition. In this example, the two are only connected at the horizon, like the butt joint I mentioned earlier, making both the motivation and linkage much weaker. In addition the positive image is of a behavior (working out), instead of being an identity image (the you who you would be without this problem).
6. (animation) Shawn Carson applies the swish to dealing with a difficult person “Burt.” “How would you like to feel? If you could be anyone when dealing with Burt, who would you choose to be?” (image of superman in cape) This mixes in a bit of the “new behavior generator” pattern to get an image; there is no instruction to make this into a self-image, rather than an image of someone else. The superman image also makes it a “magical solution” rather than something real, suggesting that the only way to deal with Burt would be to have super-human powers. When the self-image is unreal, it won’t be very motivating. If the client believes in something unreal, that is a delusion. Either way, it’s not useful.
The next instruction is: “Take this ideal you, the new you, and shrink the picture down until it’s small enough to fit on a postage stamp. In your imagination, stick the stamp with the picture of the new you on Burt’s forehead. Have the picture of the new you spring out from Burt’s forehead. The new you appears life-sized in the space in between you and Burt.” In these instructions the image of Burt does not change, so it will continue to elicit the unwanted response. “Repeat several times.” There is no mention of a break state in between repetitions, which can result in a yo-yo effect, instead of the single direction from the problem image to the desired image. “Step forward into that new you, as you step forward to greet Burt. Feel how good it feels to be this new you.” This implies that the change has already happened, so there is no motivation to change further. The self-image needs to stay dissociated in order to elicit motivation to change.
7. Anthony Beardsell works with a live client, Michelle, who has difficulty responding in a meeting with superiors when she is asked a question. He asks “Is there a state or mood that you’d prefer to be in at that point in time?” This asks for a resourceful feeling, rather than either a behavior or a self-image. Michelle says, “I’d like to feel as confident as I do when I talk to them on a one-to-one basis.” Anthony uses her feeling as a lead to elicit images, both of which are in the same location close in front of her and associated. Although it’s not entirely clear, she appears to be seeing what she saw when she had the feelings. Neither is an image of her evolved self. He has her step out of the desired image to use in the swish, using size, brightness, and distance (three submodalities rather than two). In order to use distance, he has to ask her to move the positive image away from her, which is inelegant at best; if he had only used size and brightness, that would not have been necessary. Michelle soon reports that she has only an empty frame for the cue image, so the chaining appears to have been successful, but it isn’t likely to be generative.
8. David Shepard begins with a clear description of the dynamics of the swish, before eliciting the client’s problem state, which is fear of sliding when he’s on a motorbike going around a turn. After identifying the cue picture of beginning a turn, David asks, “How do you want to be?” asking for an alternate behavior, not a self-image. The client replies, “I can feel the tires completely locked into the road,” indicating an associated experience. David asks, “As you think about that, do you have a picture?” and then “For a moment, step into that picture, so that you’re looking out of your own eyes.” This assumes that the client previously had a dissociated image, which I think is probably not the case. David then asks the client to change the size, brightness, color, speed of the movie image, to intensify the response — all of which would have been more useful if it were a self-image. Then he asks the client to step out of the picture again, and uses this as the picture to swish to.
After a couple of swishes using size and brightness, the client reports (7:33) “It’s very fast, it goes about half-way when you tell me to open my eyes; it takes a bit of time to get up there,” with expressive gestures indicating great effort. This slowness and effort could be just inexperience with the transition, but it could also be an indication of incongruence that needs to be taken into account.
There is a real danger in the “solution” David invites his client to construct. If you’re going around a turn fast on a motorbike, and you have a dissociated image of yourself going around the turn, you’ll have reduced access to the feeling experience of being on the motorbike, which is an important part of what you need in order to turn safely. Although an evolved self-image is also dissociated, the result of using a desired self-image will be useful, since this change will occur almost instantaneously — long before he gets on a motorbike again.
After several more swishes, when David asks the client to get the first picture back (8:10) he replies that he can “sort of” see it, that it is indistinct, and (8:40) that the second image doesn’t expand to fill the whole screen. “It doesn’t go ‘whist,’ it goes ‘uurngh’ ” and again he gestures expressively indicating great effort. Since this slowness and effort persists, it is more likely to indicate incongruence, and I think it likely that it is because of the danger of having a dissociated image while going around a turn. David urges him to do it faster, and tells him that the first picture will eventually disappear. Since he has made this suggestion, when the picture later disappears, it’s not a good test of the process, since it might only be response to the suggestion. After some more swishes, David tests by asking him to imagine being on a motorbike on a turn and the client feels very different, and as if the bike is “on rails,” so it will keep to the turn. While it’s possible that being “on rails” is only a metaphor, I worry about that. In fact, a motorbike is not on rails; it will definitely slide if it goes too fast on a turn, so this could establish a dangerous delusion.
9. Jevon Dangeli spends the first 8 minutes or so offering a number of frames, both general and specific to the swish, before asking for a volunteer and eliciting the cue image, which is a “picture of things not going the way I want them to go, me being ignored.” When Jevon asks her to identify what in the external world triggers this internal picture, she says, “an aggressive look” in their eyes. Then he says, “Tell me about that peaceful confident state (which she mentioned earlier) that you’d like to have,” and she says, “feeling relaxed, no tension in my body.” “When you’re feeling relaxed, there’s no tension, and you’re peaceful and confident, what image represents that for you?” When she asks, “An image of myself, or?—” Jevon says, (14:27) “Both — anything you want,” and she responds, “(I see) myself walking on a beach.” Not only is this an image of a specific behavior, rather than an evolved self-image, but if the swish works so that she sees herself walking on a beach in response to an aggressive look in someone else’s eyes that’s not likely to be useful in the real-world context.
Then he sets up the cue image, with the beach image shrunken to a speck in the middle of it, and whooshes that image out beyond the horizon, and come back as the beach image. This uses only one submodality, distance, and the two images are only connected at the horizon. This makes both the motivation and the linkage much weaker than if one image increased at the same time as the other decreased. He repeats the whoosh a number of times, each time following with hypnotic suggestions about the cue image changing. Jevon tests using the cue image, and in several future scenarios, and the client reports feeling peaceful and confident. He ends the demonstration at 24:07 and then responds to questions from the group.
10. Mel Cutler works with a very responsive client who has trouble organizing papers on his desk. Mel appears to be reading most of what he says from notes. “How would you like to feel or act instead?” asks for a feeling or behavior rather than an evolved self-image. “Step into that picture so you’re looking through your own eyes, . . . adjust the submodalities of that new positive picture to make it more desirable than ever before, etc.” Stepping into this image isn’t necessary, and isn’t in the original swish, but since he later has the client step back out of the picture to use for the swish, it’s not likely to be a problem. He tests at the end, getting a 9 out of 10 and does the swish a few more times, until the client reports only seeing the desired image.
11. Pip Thomas (edge NLP) asks client for an image of a “current negative behavior that you have in a certain context,” and then asks her to “step out of the image so you can see yourself in it.” Then she asks the client to get an image of the “new behavior you want to have in that set of circumstances,” rather than a self-image. She asks the client to adjust the color, brightness, volume, feeling, to make her response more compelling, and then to step into the picture. Both images are of behaviors; the old behavior is dissociated, the new behavior is associated, the reverse of the standard swish. Then she does a size/brightness swish, “Old behavior up on the screen, new behavior in the bottom right-hand corner, ready, one, two, three, swish—big and bright, old behavior gone.” Pip tests by asking client to imagine being in the problem context, and she feels “completely different.”
12. George (mindpersuasion.com, audio with graphics) explains that the pattern is used to replace an unhelpful feeling with a “good emotion that you’d like to feel instead.” (No behaviors or self-image) “Next we’ll attach those emotions to some colors and shapes. As you think of that negative emotion, think of the situation where this comes up, and focus on this red circle (on screen, left). . . . Now think of that good feeling that’s going to replace the bad feeling, focus on this blue circle (on screen, right).”
Then George repeatedly tests the connection between the colored circles and associated feelings, using circles that start small, and grow to be the same size as the previous circles. Then the intervention appears on the screen: a small red circle appears on the left and grows to its previous size, followed by the blue circle that grows and covers the red circle. The growing red circle will increase the old feeling (rather than decrease it) and after that the blue circle will increase the replacement feeling. The two changes are only connected at the point where the blue circle first appears, a butt joint. This sequence is gradually sped up until it is very fast.
13. Alex (therapytipstv) asks the client, who procrastinates doing homework, “And how would you like to be in that situation. I’d like you to build an image of you doing your homework in exactly the way you’d like to do it,” which is an alternate behavior, not a self-image. Size is the only submodality mentioned when he has her do the “swish.” After some repetitions, he has her check with the homework image, and rehearses her twice in the future. Each time she reports feeling calm and relaxed.
14. The Indian accents make this one very hard to hear — and the background music makes this worse. The practitioner asks for a preferred behavior, and then asks about positive intent, and checks to see if the new behavior satisfies the positive intent. This is fine, except that eliciting the positive intent ought to come before the target image, so that it can guide its selection and elicitation. He adds in additional pieces of having the client compliment himself, and see himself “achieving all his goals.” I gave up trying to hear about half-way through the video.
15. Terry Elston works with a client who has some kind of trouble (hard to hear her) on Sunday evening. He asks her, “What would you like to do instead?” asking for a behavior rather than a self-image. She describes a positive feeling, using the word “possibilities,” with nice expressive expansive gestures. Then Terry talks her through a transition from “six o’clock to the positive feeling,” using her gestures. There is no mention of any submodality shifts, so this is simple behavioral rehearsal (chaining), without even using the word “swish.” Since the change is contextualized to Sunday evening, it will only occur then, even though it might be useful at other times.
16. Keith Livingston describes (rather than demonstrating) how to change an image of a cigarette when they answer the phone that “takes them to a bad place. How would you like to feel when you answer the phone?” (feeling rather than behavior or self-image) “Can you see yourself relaxed and confident?” Then he “swishes” the pictures using size, not mentioning brightness or any other submodality. Keith talks about rehearsing this repeatedly, but with no mention of a break state in between swishes.
All these examples are from trainers who are confident enough about their knowledge and skill to teach others by publicly demonstrating. This makes me wonder how much more variation there is among all the practitioners who didn’t make videos. The kindest thing one could say about all these variations is that they can’t all be correct. These trainers either never read the original sources mentioned at the beginning of this article, or they forgot many important aspects of what they read — or they were taught by someone who didn’t. The wide variation also indicates that most practitioners don’t understand the key principles that underlie each aspect of the pattern.
This brief survey indicates that the problem with NLP’s public “image” is not just a result of a few mavericks who gave the field a bad name. Nor is it just a result of the inappropriate research, the NLP trademark lawsuit, or the Bandler murder trial. The problem goes much deeper than that, to the lack of any kind of quality control over the processes used. It seems likely that a similar review of different people teaching the phobia cure, or any other NLP pattern would show the same kind of essentially random variation. Unless we can come to some kind of agreement about what we do, NLP will continue to be — and be seen as — no different from astrology, numerology, aromatherapy, crystal healing, or all the other bloviations out there.
Of course it’s possible that the original swish pattern can be improved; perhaps one or more of the different ways of doing the pattern is more effective than the original. In that case, anyone proposing changes in the pattern ought to be able to provide a principle for the change, and/or explain how the principles supporting an aspect of the original swish are erroneous. That could be the basis for some interesting discussion that would result in agreement about the best way to do a swish, and perhaps to modifications that would make it work more dependably. That kind of discussion is an essential part of the development of any scientific field, but it is entirely lacking in NLP. If anyone would like to respond to this article, I’m willing to offer you space for it in a future blog post; send your thoughts to me at andreas [at] qwest [dot] net.
“Briefest Moments” video of Steve.
In January 2015 I invited a colleague, Chris Gunn, who is also a videographer, to spend a week with me in a house on the beach in Kauai. One afternoon Chris set up a couple of cameras and asked me some questions — some professional, some personal, some both — and edited the result into a 40-minute movie that might be titled, “Hanging out with Steve.” A sample from the video appears below. Chris created the video as a gift, but knowing the time and skill that went into this project, all proceeds will go to him.
Watch a sample on Youtube! https://youtu.be/Y3jIVIPv81k
Therapy Case Example article by Ron Soderquist
The current issue of the Psychotherapy Networker has an elegant example of using careful framing, and both conversational and overt hypnosis to change a simple unwanted habit. (with comments by Steve)
How to motivate a family member to participate in therapy
In the same issue of the networker I have a letter to the editor about using “mental Aikido” to gently motivate a family member to join in change work by expanding the scope. The editor shortened my letter somewhat to fit the magazine. The slightly longer version of my letter is below:
In Kirsten Lind Seal’s case study, “Managing Hecklers in the Therapy Room,” the father insists that the problem is his daughter’s disrespect, and wants Seal to treat the daughter without involving him in therapy. Seal quite rightly wants him to be involved, and says, “Can we try it my way first?” The father responds, “All right, you win,” clearly indicating that he sees this as a struggle between them, and that he has given in—not the greatest for eliciting rapport and cooperation.
Whenever a client attempts to take charge of what happens in therapy in ways that are not likely to be productive, there is a more subtle intervention to elicit voluntary compliance.
“Look, you’re a lawyer, and I’m not. It would be pretty silly if I told you how to prepare for and handle a case, don’t you agree?” That sentence is something that the father has to agree with—and the more arrogant and dictatorial he is, the more he will have to agree. The implication is that it would be equally silly for the father to dictate how to do therapy. But since this is unstated, the father can change his response without a struggle or having to “give in.”
Whenever a family member refuses to participate in therapy, there is another intervention that will usually elicit compliance without a struggle. “You’re saying that the problem is entirely your daughter, so there is no need for you to participate. I’m OK with working with your daughter alone on this. However, that means that you will have no opportunity to contribute your views and ideas, and I assume that also means that you will have no objection to whatever changes we make without your participation.”
The changes in the father’s facial expression in response to this expansion of scope are a delight to watch, and if the daughter is present, her change in expression will be even more precious.
If you rehearse these two interventions so that you can deliver them smoothly and congruently, you will find many opportunities to use them to avoid struggling with this kind of client.