L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
As you woke up this morning and moved out into the day, you did so by gathering up a host of beliefs to take with you. You then put them on as spectacles through which to view the world. You have beliefs about yourself, your skills, your value and dignity, etc. You have beliefs about other people--what makes them tick, what they want, how to relate to them, etc. You have beliefs about work, play, recreation, hobbies, volunteer activities, etc. You have beliefs about the world: politics, education, crime, police, the justice system, other countries, wars, journalism, environment, etc. You have beliefs about a thousand different concepts: time, history, the past, the future, causation, personality, emotions, destiny, etc.
Further, because you "have" these beliefs, you operate from them as one uses a map to navigate territory. Beliefs as mental maps govern our life, emotions, health, skills, and everyday experiences. Pervasive "things," these belief maps. But where did they come from? How did we develop, create, or absorb them? How much validity do they have? What comprises these beliefs? How would we change them if we wanted to?
Understanding Beliefs
When we explore the structure and content of beliefs, we recognize that beliefs arise from and exist in "thoughts." Let's do a mental experiment to explore the composition and nature of beliefs. Begin by simply thinking of something you believe... and pick something in the following realms:
Something you believe about politics.
Something you believe about yourself.
Something you believe about "time."
Something you believe about children.
Something you believe about spirituality.
Now step back to notice how you have represented your beliefs. Notice the VAK structure of your beliefs: what sights do you see that visually represents it? What sounds did you hear? What sensations or smells? How about words? What words did you say, see, or sense that enable you to code the belief?
"Beliefs" exist essentially as generalizations about something. As such, they provide us a way to summarize experiences and understandings and to code them into some kind of category. Now consider an even more critical question:
How do you tell the difference between a thought about something and a belief in something?
More experimentation. Notice that as quickly as you read the following list, thoughts immediately pop into your mind:
The White House
Black ice cream
Paying your taxes
Making a speech
The red flashing lights of a police car behind you
Asking for a raise
A crying baby
Sitting in a hot tub
The "thoughts" of consciousness zoom about so quickly that noticing our thoughts necessitates speeding up our noticing so that we can catch our thoughts before they vanish. Additionally, we can either slow down the "thoughts" that blast through consciousness, or hold on to them longer, so that we can recognize them.
How
do you differentiate the experience of entertaining a thought of the White
House from "believing in the existence of the White House"? How does
the "thought" of the President's White House in
Thoughts do differ from beliefs. To think the thoughts that make up a belief (as you undoubtedly did) while reading the previous paragraph does not mean that you necessarily "believe" such thoughts. This means that we can think without believing! It means that we can know and learn things without necessarily believing them. In other words, representation alone does not create a "belief." So what does?
Now read the following statements with the intention of noticing three things. First notice how you represent the thought, second, whether you believe the thought or not, and third, how you represent where you "believe the thought" or not.
"I have the skills to take criticism effectively."
"Adversity doesn't make or break a person,
but one's attitudes toward adversity."
"There is no failure; only feedback."
"Acceptance empowers me in adjusting to reality."
"Thoughts" take on greater complication and conceptual richness when we move away from just thoughts about "things" -- the objects and entities of static reality to "thoughts" about higher level concepts. In the first statement, "I have the skills to take criticism effectively" we can visualize the subject, "I" but what do we do with the concept "have the skills..." What picture, sound, or sensation represents that? Or how do we code "criticism?" Did you picture a specific person at a specific time saying words that critiqued something and used that memory to stand for "criticism?"
If the entire process of representation itself involves more complexity when we move to such statements, how much more complex does "believing!" How shall we explain this or conceptualize this?
The Meta-States Model suggests this distinction: thoughts (even complex ones) operate typically at the primary level of experience while beliefs operate at meta-levels.
When I think about taking criticism effectively, my consciousness goes "out there" into the world where I imagine a movie of someone saying something and imagining myself handling it by listening calmly, asking questions to explore in order to understand, using it as information, etc.
But when I believe in that thought ("I can take criticism effectively"), I move to a higher logical level. Reflexively, my thoughts come back to reflect on my previous thoughts. This puts me at a meta-level to my thoughts-and-feelings about the first level thoughts-and-feelings. They no longer refer to something out there in the world, but to something "in here" in my mind. They refer to a concept about conceptual realities.
Figure 1
MS:
T-F: "Yes!"
"I Validate that!"
(about-@)
PS:
"I can take 6 Criticism offered to me
effectively from someone in the world
[Code: T-F: Thoughts-and-feelings. - about. MS: meta-state, PS: primary state]
Structurally, a belief involves thoughts about something or another plus validating, affirming, accepting thoughts about those primary thoughts. This explains why merely repeating an empowering belief statement will not have the same effect as believing an empowering belief statement.
This provides insight into the structure of a disbelief. To disbelieve a statement, we essentially bring thoughts of doubt, unsureness, questions, etc. to bear on the primary thought. "I have questions about that idea." Hence, a state of doubt about a state of thought.
This follows O'Connor and Seymour (1990) who said that beliefs exist as "the various ideas we think are true, and use as a basis for daily action" (p. 78). So, "truth thinking" about ideas defines the meta-level structure of a belief and distinguishes it from just a thought. This further explains the quality of trust in beliefs. In beliefs, we trust or give our allegiance to the idea.
This answers, I believe, Major's (1996) question about "the nature" of belief in his excellent NLP World article, "A Critical Examination of the Place of 'Belief' in NLP." Beliefs do not exist as things, but higher level (meta-level) constructions of thoughts-and-emotions about other conceptual constructions, hence a generalization of a generalization.
The Stages of Belief
As we use consciousness to take cognizance of reality as it impacts our nervous system via our sense receptors, we first have vague representations of what we experience. We "think," but don't "know." We have questions and doubts about how to organize our thinkings into conceptual constructions of knowledge. Yet as these representations gain more and more clarity, we develop various forms of knowledge about things, and as that knowledge solidifies, it takes the form of our learnings or understandings, our definite ideas and mental constructs. At this point we have fewer doubts, less questions, and more of a solid sense of reality. Now we believe in those ideas. We feel convinced about them and so eventually we view these beliefs as our convictions.
In Figure 2, I have portrayed this process as a narrowing and focusing of consciousness until we build more and more structured understandings.
Figure 2
The Focusing & Narrowing Of Consciousness
Openness
Consciousness
Thoughts .... Understandings,
Ideas
Beliefs ...
Convictions
Awareness
Don't know... Know Sure No doubt Convinced
As we wrap our mind increasingly around some idea or understanding, we move more and more from thought to knowledge to belief. All ideas do not inevitably grow up into beliefs, although they can and frequently they do. Even the mere repetition of any idea (even weird, crazy, non-sense ideas) can eventually focus the mind more and more so that the idea seems more acceptable, "real," matter of fact, believable. This explains one of the contributing factors involved in how Hitler could convinced an entire nation to believe in him, his ideas, and his agenda. And if "Repetition is the mother of learning," then "repeated learning functions as the mother of beliefs."
After all, thoughts only exist as representations in consciousness, and beliefs only exist as our validation of those representations. This means the brain has no internal Quality Control mechanism for ferreting out stupid, ridiculous, or harmful beliefs. Beliefs do not even have to correspond to anything "out there" in the Territory!
People can, and do, believe all kinds of utterly idiotic things. I have so believed, and probably still do. How about you? Even Kant's a priori ideas (time, space, cause, etc.) do not indicate specific innate beliefs, only categories for thinking. The specific content ideas that we believe--can range from the sublime to the utterly ridiculous.
Now beliefs do need support to exist. What do we use to support beliefs? We "support" our beliefs using experiences, events, testimonies, and proofs. Ask anybody, "Why do you believe that?" They will then produce their evidence--their proof. They will provide information from experiences, readings, conversations, reflection, etc. You may or may not find it convincing or not, rational or not.
This highlights the role that experiences, events, and arguments play in developing beliefs. Such operates as our raw data to draw conclusions. We use such to draw generalizations and to create and attribute meanings. This explains why beliefs always and inevitably exist at a level meta to the primary level. People can experience the same event in life, even entertain a similar thought or representation, but draw different conclusions about that event. They construct different meta-level thoughts (beliefs and belief systems) about the lower level representations.
This underscores that meaning doesn't exist "out there" in the world on the primary level. Meaning exists only "inside" the mind as we connect and link ideas with experiences in our primary state and in our states-about-that-state.
What does a harsh tonality "mean?" It all depends upon the ideas that you have connected to it. It depends upon the thoughts-and-feelings you bring to bear upon it from a meta-level. If you connect the experience of "a harsh tonality" with the idea of "insult," "contempt," "disapproving me," etc., and then you feel convinced that this truly means this, then you believe that "a harsh tonality means someone intends to insult, disapprove, etc. you."
Did you catch the multi-level structure of a belief in that last statement? The belief state (of feeling convinced) stands as about the tonality statement. Then to move up one more level, suppose you believe in that belief! Belief-about-belief generally creates fanaticism.
Beliefs develop. Over time... out of our experiences, we construct our beliefs via the ideas, thoughts, feelings, meanings, etc. that we bring to bear upon various concepts. At birth, we have no beliefs. Rather, beliefs arise as our perceptions, understandings and learnings grow up and solidify as a form of focused awareness. In this way they develop into some very durable internal maps about the territory "out there."
What helps a belief to grow? Repetition really, really helps. In fact, if we repeat pure non-sense, we can eventually even install such as our belief systems. Take care what you repeatedly expose your mind to! This includes looping around a fretful thought. The more you loop, the stronger the representation seems! Then you might jump to the conclusion that "since it feels real, it must be real." Too much exposure to any thought can very well lead to belief.
Consistency contributes to the growth of a belief. Any consistent system of thoughts helps because it counteracts the influence of contradictory facts or information. So the more we have a coherent systemic thinking about something--the more we will come to believe it.
Desirability makes our beliefs grow. Many people only use desirability for watering their beliefs. If they want to win the Lottery, they believe that they will. If they want to become rich and famous, then they believe that they should and will. If they want to believe that things ought to go smoothly for them in life, so they believe! This represents the thinking of children and primitives--those without a more scientific outlook on the world, without the ego-strength to look unpleasant and undesired experiences straight in the face without caving in, or personalizing in an unproductive way.
An authority or expert voice also helps makes beliefs grow. The sense of "proof" or evidence that arises from thinking that "the authorities say...", "the statistics indicate...", "the facts lead to the conclusion..." "everybody uses Dial!" enables us to more solidly represent our ideas--thereby making them grow and solidified.
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
You have a lot more thoughts, ideas, and representations than you do beliefs. You can think lots of things without believing them. When we believe--we trust our thoughts, validate our ideas, and say "Yes" to those representations as right, true, reflective of reality, and something we can hang-on to.
Getting the Feel of a "Belief"
What does a belief feel like? Recall the earlier mental experiments that you did ("Changing Beliefs at Meta-Levels," in Belief 1 of this series). What did it feel like to "have" or "experience" a belief?
Interesting enough a belief tends to feel so "normal" and "real," and "matter of fact," that we usually don't have much feeling attached to it. If we pick out a "strong belief" then we experience certain "strong" or intense emotions of like or dislike about the idea. Here we may have cranked up your convictions about the idea until we feel passionate, excited, motivated, etc. about it.
Yet more typically, the feel of a belief involves a "sense" that the idea simply represents reality. "Of course, the sun will rise tomorrow." The belief state gives us a feeling of "reality," a solid sense of "matter of fact." Thus we feel certain ... sure, categorical, definite, etc. Matter-of-factness seems, more than anything else, to qualify most beliefs.
Of course, these "feelings" exist more as meta-level feelings rather than primary level feelings. They also indicate our "Reality Strategy." Challenge, dispute, or violate someone's belief and they will feel sure and categorical about their belief, because, after all, "it's reality!" "Silly thing, he just doesn't know better!"
The Power of Beliefs
Does it now surprise you that the mental constructs of "beliefs" operate so powerfully in our lives, bodies, neurology? Bandler (1982) wrote,
"Behaviors are organized around some very durable things called beliefs. A belief tends to be much more universal and categorical than an understanding. Existing beliefs can even prevent a person from considering new evidence or a new belief."
Via our beliefs, we send commands to our neurology. This mind-body connection explains how our beliefs have the power to make us sick or healthy. Our beliefs inevitably effect our biochemistry, perceptions, digestion, glands, immune system, etc. Because we exist most essentially as neuro-semantic beings--we cannot not but act out our beliefs and live out from them as our conceptual center. This should alert us to "ecology check" our beliefs to make sure we have healthy and empowering beliefs, not toxic and limiting ones.
This also separates beliefs from thoughts. We can "merely think" about neat and wonderful and powerful things with very little effect in our emotions and body. It takes confirmation of the thought to turn it into a belief.
Because beliefs operate as self-validating constructs, this explains their power and danger. Once installed, a belief functions as part of our perceptual system and therefore filters out everything that does not fit with it. In this way, beliefs blind. As a meta-level construction, beliefs function as a canopy of consciousness above and beyond our everyday thinking and perceiving--controlling, monitoring, modulating, and organizing our thinking and perceiving. We see the world in terms of our beliefs.
Because beliefs command our neurology and filter our perceptions, they organize us psycho-logically. Over time we tend to actualize (or "become") our beliefs. Not only do our beliefs govern our behaviors (if you believe you can't take criticism well--then you won't), but it also motivates us to start to identify with our belief-behaviors: "I am the kind of person who... (doesn't take criticism well, who does take criticism effectively, etc.)."
In NLP, beliefs correspond to our "programs" (and frames) for thinking, feeling, functioning, being, relating, etc. Whatever you believe functions, so to speak, as your "mental" neuro-linguistic software that runs your system. So, accordingly, our beliefs create our "sense of reality." It governs and manages our "Reality" strategy. This explains why every "belief" once accepted and validated seems "real," "solid," "factual," etc.
Levels of Beliefs
Dilts (1990) has created a list of beliefs existing on different levels. These levels of beliefs answers to the indexing questions: what, where, how, why, who, etc. In his excellent work, Changing Belief Systems with NLP, Robert has insightfully indicated how beliefs operate "on a different level than behaviors or capacities" and so "they don't change according to the same rules" (p. 8). Processes of change, transformation, and communication operate in different ways and according to different "logics" when it comes to different logical levels. This plays a crucial role in belief change.
Further, because beliefs exist at a higher logical level than the environment, our abilities, and behaviors, they do not describe reality.
"A belief isn't about reality. You have a belief in the place of knowledge about reality. Beliefs are about things that nobody can know in reality." (9)
This means that our beliefs function as our high level maps of conceptual constructions and evaluative conclusions (generalizations) rather than empirical representation and description of things that occur on the primary level of sights, sounds, sensations, smells, etc.
We develop beliefs as conceptual constructions about classes, categories, and abstractions: "time," "purpose," "destiny," "self," "mankind," etc. Yet we can't see, hear, feel, taste or touch any of these things. Try to taste "time." What does "cause" smell like? Picture "purpose." These do not exist on the level of empirical reality where we encounter specifics, but at higher logical levels where we create classes, categories, generalizations, etc.
Figure 1
Meta-level: Beliefs
@ (about)
Identity
@ (about)
Meta-level: Environment Abilities
@ (about) @ (about)
Primary Level: Learning/Condition The Person T-F -- The World
History
Because beliefs operate as generalizations about non-empirical realities, this puts beliefs up two logical levels and explains how they can generate self-fulfilling prophecies. In identifying some toxic beliefs that create personal limitations, Dilts noted that toxic beliefs about outcomes (hopelessness, "It won't work."), ability (helplessness, "I can't get over this.") and identity (worthlessness, "I don't deserve it.") represent three really sick beliefs (meta-level knowledges) that we need to address (pages 22-23).
Without getting into meta-levels, Dilts (1990) yet presupposed meta-levels in his explanations of beliefs.
"'The clearer I see it the more it makes me feel I probably won't be able to do it.' This is an example of how beliefs can affect visualization. Ability to visualize is a function of one's capabilities, but what gives the visualization meaning is the belief." (26)
Here the person has brought his thoughts-feelings (T-F) involved in the languaged meaning (the cause-effect statement, "the clearer...the more") to bear upon his "ability." Thus his belief refers to, and stands as, a concept about another conceptualization (ability) and these over-arching constructions drive and organize his primary level experiences.
The meaning we give to concepts (ability, identity, purpose, etc.) functions as a "belief." We bring a generalization to classify other generalizations. Our "beliefs" then function as our classification categories. In Dilts' list of levels of belief we find the following distinctions:
Figure 2
Levels of Beliefs
|
6. Why? (big) |
Spiritual |
God/ Universe |
Transmission |
|
5. Who? |
|
Identity |
|
|
4. Why? (little) |
Motivation/Meaning |
Beliefs/Values |
Permission |
|
3. How? |
Process/Strategy/Plan |
Capabilities |
Direction |
|
2. What? |
Actions/Reactions |
Behaviors |
Actions |
|
1. Where? When |
Opportunities |
Environment |
External context |
|
Constraints |
With regard to these levels, Dilts identifies how belief statements will differ depending upon the level at which a person processes his or her belief (Figure 3). Dilts provided another example (Figure 4). "The following statements indicate the different levels in someone who is working toward a health goal." (211).
Figure 3
|
5. Identity |
"I am a cancer victim." |
|
4. Belief |
"It is false hope not to accept the inevitable." |
|
3. Capability |
"I am not capable of keeping well." |
|
2. Behavior |
"I have a tumor." |
|
1. Environment |
"The cancer is attacking me." |
Figure 4
|
5. Identity |
"I am a healthy person." |
|
4. Belief |
"If I am healthy I can help others." |
|
3. Capability |
"I know how to influence my health." |
|
2. Behavior |
"I can act healthy sometimes." |
|
1. Environment |
"The medicine healed me." |
This provides insight into the nature of beliefs as meta-frames (frames about our frames). Robert described beliefs as setting "a frame that determines how everything afterwards gets interpreted" (1990: 133), hence a meta-level construct. Beliefs function as thoughts-about-thoughts at a higher logical level and therefore "is not about reality" but about our ideas--ideas of meaning, cause, ability, self, mission, time, etc.--in other words, about various categories, including Kantian categories.
Beliefs At Unconscious Levels
We create meaning as we move through experiences by constructing meanings in the form of "beliefs." Eventually, these beliefs become so much a part of our reality strategy, that they move to a meta-level as our frame-of-reference. Then we always use them in thinking, feeling, perceiving, behaving, etc. Through this habituation process, our beliefs more "above" and out of consciousness as we assume them as "the way things are."
We work with beliefs whenever we identify a frame of reference, deframe that construction, or reframe it. "Frames" and "framing" simply provide another metaphor for talking about beliefs. With regard to our perceptual frames--whenever we put a piece of meaning (a neuro-semantic frame) around an event, we thereby create our neuro-semantic world.
Conclusion
Understanding this structure of beliefs now enable us to pick and choose our beliefs. This empowers us to choose the commands that we want to send to our nervous system. It gives us the ability to outframe our beliefs at a meta-level so that we "have" our beliefs rather than letting them "have" us.
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
Transforming Toxic and Limiting Beliefs
With this understanding of the role, functioning, nature, and structure of beliefs, we can now identify those that poison and sabotage us and construct beliefs that will empower and enhance life. What totally empowering belief would you like to get stuck in your head as a frame-of-mind to operate from?
Beliefs Change Pattern
1) Think about some old belief that you, once upon a time, believed, but that you no longer believe. Did you once believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, that "chocolate is the most wonderful thing in the whole world," etc.? Notice how you represent your "old belief no longer believed." How do you know that you no longer believe it?
2) Think about a time when you did believe the idea and allow yourself to go back, in your mind, to a specific time and a place when you did fully and completely believe that belief. As you situate yourself back in that experience, notice how you represent it. Get your "I really believe in this!" representation.
3) Now quickly move through time up to the present and notice that old belief changing. How did that come to occur? When you have seen the entire process, reorient yourself back into the present moment as you take a moment to specify the change factors.
Debriefing
As beliefs grow and solidify by the focusing of consciousness so that one has fewer questions and fewer doubts, and one feels sure. Then one feels convinced. So the reverse happens when we experience the undoing of a belief. We go through those stages in reverse. First we start having some questions. We may experience some confusion, and then some doubts, and so we become a little unsure and then more unsure.
When a thought grows up into a belief, our mind closes more and more around the idea so that it allows less and less "openness" to other ideas. Conversely, when a belief moves backward into a thought, the mind opens up more and more to other thoughts. It loosens its hold on just one thought. Rather than more focus, consciousness expands and diffuses.
When we experience a strong, intense, categorical belief, we have a thought or learning to which we say emphatically and without a shadow of a doubt, "Yes!" "Of Course!" "Without Question!" When we undo that belief so that we can weaken it and begin to replace it with something more enhancing, we start saying about that thought, "I wonder..." "What about this other idea...?" "What about these other factors...?" Then, when we get to the place of disbelief, we definitely, emphatically and categorically say "No, of course not!" "Ridiculous!" "No way!" to that thought.
Preparation Work for Belief Change
1) Identify your representations of doubt. Think about something you doubt, something about which you really don't know much and toward which you have lots of questions. How do you represent a doubt? (By the way, a doubt does not describe the opposite of a belief. A doubt (especially a strong doubt) operates as a belief that something "is not so."
2) Identify your representation for disbelief. Think of something that you definitely do not believe. What do you not believe in? How do you represent it?
3) Identify your representations of not sure. Think about something--regarding which, you feel unsure... you just don't know... you wonder... you question... Will you eat salad tomorrow? "Maybe I will, maybe I will not." Will you do some sit-ups this evening? "I could, but I also could not." Pick out something small and simple and get your modality (VAKO) and submodality representations.
4) Identify your representation for a sudden belief change. Have you ever experienced a jarring into a new belief? Have you ever suddenly discovered a new insight, truth, or fact that all of a sudden shifted you to think about things in a completely different way? Get your representations of that sudden belief change.
If
not, then creatively imagine someone like Saul on the
5) Identify your representation of your museum of old beliefs. Think about something that you once believed, but no longer believe. If you think of this as a mental museum where you have stored those old beliefs, you can appreciate them as "old" beliefs. How do you represent such?
5) Identify your representation of openness. Think of a time and place where, mentally-emotionally, you thought and felt in a very open, receptive, curious, and playful way.
Debriefing
Your doubt representations access your skill and state of questioning: calling into question, wondering, opening the mind to new and different information, etc. Here you experience thoughtfulness, openness of mind, curiosity, wonderment, unsureness. Here you will probably have a broader perspective with some formulations but less definition, less specifics, much "fusing" together (con-fusion) of thoughts and feelings about the subject.
In your disbelief experience, you undoubtedly have a meta-level experience of going above some thought or idea and saying a strong "No!" to it. Here, you probably have other thoughts and beliefs that get in the way of saying "Yes" to it. Here you will have specific sights, sounds, and sensations that give you clarity of what you do believe in contradistinction to your not-belief.
In your unsure experiences, you probably have two (or more) sets of representations vying for attention so that internally you keep going back and forth, back and forth between the representations. Maybe this... not maybe this... no... Do you go back and forth laterally (right to left) or vertically (up and down) or from back to front?
With your sudden belief change, your experience of a sudden, shocking, unexpected event, fact, or idea will probably induce a floating feeling of un-reality, a sense of not having a good grasp on reality, a lightness, even a dizziness. One's thoughts-emotions feel as if the very foundation of life has crumbled beneath the feet. Sometimes after a natural disaster (tornado, flood, etc.), or a man-made disaster (bombing, terrorism) we see people "in a daze," unsure, dissociated, unable to cope, saying, "I can't believe..."
Your museum of old beliefs representations gives you the ability to store away in a safe place old beliefs that have outlived their usefulness without just outright trashing them. Here you might feel amused about such old fashion, non-relevant, and musty beliefs. Or you might appreciate the value they once offered you. Or you might enjoy their knowing how you have outgrown them.
Mapping Over The Transformation
Sometimes we can simply map over from belief to unsure and then to doubt. As an experiment, play with this and see if it works sufficiently to transform your limiting belief. Pick out some limiting, sabotaging, and toxic belief that you would like to change.
Take your representation of the belief (typically, a sight or sound--close, in color, associated, bright, clear, etc.) and code it with your codings for unsure (two sights and sounds, one to the right, the other to the left, one up and bright, the other down to the right and more of a sensation, etc.). Listen to your internal voice saying "Yes" to it, and "No" to it, and then "I just don't know." Stay in the unsure experience until you really loosen up your sense of the belief and now you feel that you just don't know anymore.
Now map over into doubt. Use your representations for doubt to re-code the old limiting belief. As you do let other ideas begin to get in the way of the old belief so that your doubt of the old belief grows stronger.
The NLP technique of mapping submodalities across from one experience to another offers a way to transform experiences. Many times this will suffice as a belief change pattern. Play with it on some of the limiting beliefs you want to weaken.
Meta-State Your Toxic or Unbalanced Belief
To use the meta-states model to transform an old belief that doesn't serve you well or that creates some kind of sabotage or unbalance in life--do the following.
1) Identify your representation of the belief. How do you code it and what internal representations drive it?
2) Transform your "Yes!" As you notice how you sometimes say "Yes" to that belief, begin to say that "Yes" in a questioning tone of voice. Use a doubting and unsure voice, weak in volume, small in expression... increase the doubt. Keep increasing the unsureness until your questioning questions it so much that it feels sure of its doubt. Experience fully your sureness of this doubt about the belief. "Now I feel sure of my doubt." As you do this, notice where (the location) you store this doubt.
3) Bring in the new empowering belief that you would really like to believe. Represent it fully and clearly... appreciating how it will make life so much better, command your neurology in an exciting way, and generate a self-fulfilling prophecy that you'd love to suffer... Again, notice where you locate this belief.
4) "Yes!" your new belief. Now begin to say "Yes!" to this new enhancing belief. Make your internal voice of "Yes!" strong and firm, then make it firmer, louder, closer, etc. Use your auditory submodalities that really make it compelling for you... then double it... until you feel more and sure about the "Yes!"
5) Future pace. Now imagine, fully and completely moving out into life tomorrow with the confidence of "Yes!" about that enhancing belief... see and hear and feel yourself orienting yourself in the world with it... at work, at home, in all the contexts of importance to you...
Beliefs as Languaged Constructions
Because a meta-level phenomenon that do not refer to "real" things in the world, but to mental constructs of ideas, beliefs need language. We therefore inevitably code our beliefs primarily linguistically. Now after you have done the linguistic work of coding a belief, you may use a symbol to symbolize that belief (a pair of scales to symbolize your concepts and beliefs about "justice"). But looking at a pair of scales or any other icon alone does not and cannot contain all of the rich linguistic ideas involve in that idea. We need words and language to perform this task.
Notice then the language you use to represent your beliefs. In NLP, the meta-model offers these distinctions about beliefs.
Complex Equivalence Beliefs. "This external behavior, action, response, event, entity, etc. equals or means this internal significance." We write this in the formula format: EB = IS. "Failing in that business (EB) means I'm just don't have any business sense (IS)."
Cause-Effect Beliefs. We frame some event as the cause of some effect. Often we do so in an ill-formed way. "Having a painful childhood explains why I've had, and will have, dysfunctional relationships." "The lecturing way he comes across when he gives me a task to do makes me feel like a child."
Mind-Reading Beliefs. We frame our ideas about certain internal states and intentions of others without checking with them, thus mind-reading or second-guessing them. "When she looks at me like that (EB), it means she's upset with me (IS)."
The Linguistic Belief Change Pattern
1) Write out an effective and compelling language statement of an enhancing belief that would enrich your lie.
* "I can trust people and stay alert to signals bout who may or may not behave in a trustworthy way."
* "I can graciously welcome and appreciate my fallibility, take it into account, and treat myself in a kinder/gentler way when I mess up. I will view mistakes as a sign of my humanity, not my depravity!"
2) Language yourself with the Belief Statement. Take a meta-level position to yourself about the subject of the belief (self, fallibility, relationships, criticism, etc.) and speak the enhancing belief to yourself in a convincing and compelling voice as you imagine yourself using that belief as you move through life.
Belief Change Conversationally
Now that you know about beliefs (their structure, multi-leveled nature, etc.) and know how language primarily drives them, notice the power and elegance of the following statements. These statements provides a pathway whereby you can conversationally invite belief changes in others--without the need to do "therapy" on them!
Suppose you hear someone say, "I can't believe that..."? You know that you have a three-leveled structure: "can't-ness" (a state of thinking-and-feeling of impossibility) about the belief statement about some primary state. So "I can't believe that..." translates to (creates the gestalt of), "I doubt that I have the ability to accept your idea."
I like to respond to, "I can't believe that...." with some of the following. (1) "How surprised would you feel if you discovered that this belief, 'People can't change' (or any negative belief) suddenly changed and you found yourself unable to believe it anymore?" (2) "Yes, I know that you can't believe this, and I wonder what it would feel like if you began to, in just a little way, doubted that... because if you began to have some questions about your inability to entertain such thoughts, you might find yourself at least entertaining the possibility of believing it, can't you, now?"
(3) "Would you like to become open to doubting that that idea contains the whole story?"
(4) "Do you have even the slightest doubt about that? .. Yes, a little doubt...? A little doubt that you can allow to grow and double and become stronger and strong as the days pass... so that when you think about five years from now and turn around and look back to this realizing that your belief has changed..."
Conclusion
Like it or not we inevitably use beliefs to navigate our way through life. Problematically, we can develop unenhancing beliefs about beliefs like the idea that "You're stuck with your beliefs!" "It's sacrilegious to change your beliefs." "People can't change their basic beliefs." Of course, such limiting beliefs only lock in our beliefs so that we close our minds to new information and new possibilities. A belief about a belief does this! So believe... but avoid believing in your belief!
Would you like to become more open to changing all of your limiting and self-sabotaging beliefs? How much would you give to develop the belief changing skills so that whenever you find an old toxic belief that limits your effectiveness in business, personal relationships, your own personal empowerment, etc., you can change it quickly and immediately and replace it with a positive mental map that will take you to more enjoyable places?
How to Change a Die-in-the-Wool
Fundamentalist
An Old Belief Change Pattern in a Biblical Text
"I'll have none of that crap anymore! It's all dung!"
Belief #4
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
Some people do not merely have beliefs about certain things, they go further -- to a higher logical level. They believe in their beliefs. Yet (as Korzybski pointed out) when you hold a second-order abstraction of "conviction of conviction" this typically causes a person to end up thinking-feeling, talking, and acting like a fanatic!
Imagine trying to change the rigid, dogmatic, and legalistically driving belief systems of a Pharisee! A tough order. Fundamentalists (whether in religion, politics, education, etc.) typically do not change very easy.
So when I stumbled on to the story of one Pharisee and how his old fanatical beliefs completely and absolutely changed, I sat up and took note. I came across this one linguistically. A certain phrase in the old text caught my eye. Then, because Dr. Bobby Bodenhamer and I had just finished a text on the basic NLP model for Christian counselors, pastors, and thinkers (Patterns For Renewing the Mind*1), we decided to put this into our work -- in spite of the four-letter word that we found in the biblical text (!).
The story begins with Saul of Tarsus (now "Paul") looking back on how he shifted his beliefs as a true-blue Pharisee, totally fundamentalistic, "right," and proud of his rightness!
"We
are the true circumcision... who put no confidence in the flesh. Though I
myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he
has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the
eighth day, of the people of
The phrase, "reason for confidence," first caught my attention. It cued me to the presence of a meta-state. Confidence obviously refers to the primary state. Saul the Pharisee had felt totally confident in his beliefs and lifestyle.
What do you feel confidence about? Access that state of confidence so that you re-experience it fully ... and as you do, allow yourself to notice where your mind goes and what it does when you think about your "reasons for confidence."
In other words, if someone asked you, "Why do you believe that?' Or, 'Why do you have confidence in that?" the thoughts and feelings that you would then experience specifies your reasons. Then as you think about those "reasons," they become your thoughts-and-feelings at a higher logical level. As you answer the question, "And how do you feel about those reasons?" you move up a level.
In this text, Paul uses as his "reasons" for confidence facts about his external situation. His thoughts-emotions went to those things outside of himself at the primary level, namely, his past history as a Pharisee, his Jewish racial status, his parents and heritage in that culture, his religious training, his role as persecutor of Christians, etc. These comprised his "reasons for confidence." And the more he thought about all these "reasons," the stronger his confidence grew.
Do the same. Think about your "reasons for confidence" regarding whatever area your state of confidence relates to .. now think about those reasons some more... and now repeat this process ... Does it not amplify your confidence?
Now think about something that you know about yourself, and do this thinking with confidence. Think about something that you like, and toward which you can say, "Yes, that describes me!" For instance, you may definitely know yourself as a kind person. You have confidence about that. And you have "reasons for that confidence," do you not?
As you do, now notice how you represent this durable knowledge. Describe where you put your pictures and sounds, the quality of your visual images and sounds, the kind of words you use, your "confident" tone of voice, etc. We'll call this your durable self representation. [By the way, you have just meta-stated your "self" and this "knowledge of self" with confidence. How did that feel?
"But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ..." (Phil. 3:7-8).
For a thought experiment, think about something that you confidently believe about yourself, but which you wish you didn't. For instance, "I know that I blow up and say ugly things when I get stressed." "I know that I cave in and feel self-pity when things don't go my way." Pick a confidence you have (you feel confident that you think, feel, or do something that limits you in some way!). Next, notice all the "reasons for confidence" that come to you (memories, statements of others, etc.) In other words, how do you support that belief?
Okay, break state. For the next step, think of something that you know about yourself ... kind of... You think of yourself as X, but then again you have doubts, questions, you don't feel sure... Where do you put that picture or sound? What tone of voice? How do you know you doubt it?
Would you like to blow that old confidence, and all your reasons, out of the water? Would you like it to shatter so much that it no longer operates as a self-fulfilling prophecy inside you? Then try this Pauline B.S. Belief Change Pattern.
1) Access the primary level confidence (PS). What do you have confidence in that limits you? What do you represent this limiting confidence in VAK terms?
2) Access a meta-state of validation of that confidence. Next move your thoughts-feelings to the next higher level up by thinking about all of your "reasons for confidence." What ideas, concepts, representations of experiences support your belief? How do you confirm and validate these thoughts?
3) Access a discounting state about the "reasons" state. Move to the next higher level as you say to yourself, "All of those reasons amount to nothing! Nothing at all!" Just say it. You don't have to believe it at this point, just say it congruently and firmly. Say, "It all amount to mental garbage!" See it as garbage... as junk... as "dung."
This term "dung" in the biblical passage actually uses a pretty coarse representation -- one with which we can use to really gross ourselves out. After all, it pictures the meta-level "reasons" and primary state representations, as human waste, "refuse," or "dung" (as the old King James Version puts it), in other words, shit!*2
So what happens when you outframe your old Ideas and confirmations of those ideas as "refuse?" What happens when you "count it as dung" (to use the biblical phrase)? Go meta and see. From that leverage point, say and see all of the lower level states and representations as human waste. How does that effect that old confidence? Doesn't it blow it out of the water? Or, to continue to run with this coarse metaphor, doesn't it just flush it all down the toilet?! Now.
With this experience, now read again Paul's words in the previous text about counting all of that "confidence in the flesh" (e.g. in fulfilling the Jewish law) and having earned righteousness) as "counting it as loss" ... "counting it as dung." When you so outframe the lower states in that way -- they will begin to deframe, de-construct, and shatter to pieces. They can't cohere when you so frame them.
|
Meta-Meta-State |
"It's all B.S.!" -- State of Discounting, Treating as "Dung" or shit the Lower Concepts/States |
@
|
Meta-Level |
Reasons for believing in the Old Idea. Explanations, Supporting Evidence for Validating, confirming the Idea. |
@
|
|
The Old Idea -- VAK Representations |
Note: In the above figure, each block represents a logical level... The higher level always modulates (controls) the lower level.
4) Build up new, positive, and more useful constructs. Now that we have taken our old "confidences" and outframe them by going meta and framing them with attributions of "loss," we have now created a space wherein we can create a new structure. We can now fill that space in with new constructs. In Paul's particular case, he did this:
"...and be found in him, not having my own righteousness, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith, that I may know him and the power of his resurrection..." (Phil. 3:9-11).
Paul replaced his old beliefs in his own righteousness with the belief that God gives the gift of righteousness via his trust in Christ. But before he could shift to that idea and make it a solid part of his thinking, he had to get rid of the old belief. He had to de-construct the idea, "I get my religion the old fashion way; I earn it!" Here we see him doing that by reframing it as a pile of manure! That became the smell of legalism for him. Doesn't that shed a new smell on that subject? Would that wipe-out the Pharisee in you?
5) Finally, access a state of confidence in your new frame-of-reference. Develop a full representation of confidence along with all of your "reasons for confidence." Having done that, next move to a higher logic level above those "reasons" and think of them (esteem them) as "of surpassing worth." What does that do for you? What meta-level state does that induce in you?
As we "go meta" and move above whatever state of mind and emotion we have accessed at the primary level -- we not only access a higher state of consciousness, but we also thereby construct a meta-level semantic state. What mechanism explains this process?
In the context of this biblical example, Paul used the phrase, "reason for confidence." Now while the sensory-based referents of his "reasons" existed "out there" in the world -- the nominalization "reasons" refers to a mental construct, hence a semantic state.
Similarly when you think about your reasons for a belief, a conviction, or an understanding --you thereby access a semantic state, or a belief state. This provides insight into how we use experiences (events, interactions, relationships, conversations, etc.) to build "beliefs." We represent such as "evidence" and "support" for our ideas. This endows them with "reality" -- neuro-semantic reality (it becomes "real" inside our nervous system)!
Paul first represented his "facts" of race, religion, heritage, etc. (primary level of processing). Then he used them as "reasons." In other words, he treated them as the basis of his self-definition, purpose, spirituality, etc.
This means how we think, conceptually, about the things in our external world -- totally determines the furniture, geography, and content of our internal world. "As we think in our heart--so we are." Thus as we think and reason, and count or discount, as we attribute significance to this or that, or attribute the lack of significance to something else -- as we so think, so we populate our inner world of consciousness.
"Reasons" do not exist "out there" in the world. "Reasons" describe our internal "reasoning" in how we use our cognizing, valuing, believing, and processing. It speaks about what we say "counts." As long as Paul said that all of those "reasons" really counted -- he lived, thought, felt, and acted like a Pharisee! He could do none other.
When he changed the way he counted things (attributed meanings), his whole life changed. When he came to say, "Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ" (Phil. 3:7), he became transformed in a new and wonderful way. When he said, "Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus the Lord" (3:8), he solidified that new way of attributing meaning.
Notice the two-fold action of his mind: on the negative side he first had to de-construct the old --" I count as loss," "I count them as dung." He said, "Baloney!" to it all. He said, "Enough, I now flush it down the toilet!" Then he constructed a bright and gloriously new image (the "surpassing worth" of knowing Christ). What a powerful propulsion system of values that moved him away from Pharisaism. When you treat something as B.S. (to use our expression) and something else as Pure Gold -- you propel yourself away from one and toward the other.
Understanding this process, and seeing how Paul utilize it, now enables us to shift our consciousness to re-"count" our attribution of meanings. We can simply stop giving positive or significant meanings to anything and everything we want to de-energize in our mind-and-emotions, and we can start giving the highest and most celebrative meanings to everything we want to energize as an attractor.
Treating anything as B.S. not only deframes those experiences and ideas, it outframes them from a discounting meta-position. This semantic process (e.g. "treating something like dung") enables us to alter neuro-linguistic reality. Of course, taken to extreme it creates the "Bevis and Butthead" syndrome wherein you can reject, mock, and deframe anything. Again, we have another illustration that the structure of this subjective experience doesn't represent a "bad" thing -- but a skill that we can contextual and then use when appropriate.
Bobby G. Bodenhamer, D.Min.
Do We Now Have a 10 Minute
Belief Change Pattern?
After I learned about the Meta-States Model (Hall, 1995, 1996) and began to see and experience its power in making changes in people's lives, I began to think that Graham Dawes' review of Dragon Slaying (Anchor Point, June 1997) made a serious point when he described the Meta-States model as "the model that ate NLP." I will not go so far as to say, however, that it "ate" NLP, I will go so far as to say it has advanced it further than any other addition has since the discovery of submodalities. And, I encourage the reader to take me seriously with that point.
In the last two years, having teamed up with Michael and co-authored several books with him (Time-Lining, Figuring Out People, Mind-Lining, Patterns for Renewing the Mind), I have used and tried out Meta-States Patterns as we discover them. Last year, Michael came up with the distinction that separates a "thought" or representation from a "belief." More recently, he published that in the series on Belief Change Patterns Using Meta-States (Anchor Point, Nov., Dec. 1997, Jan, Feb. 1998).
Recently I have put this belief change pattern to the test and found that it does indeed streamline the process. In doing so I discovered that "beliefs" do indeed exist and operate at a higher logical level than do "thoughts," and that beliefs do not always change by mere submodality shifting, but by shifting the frame of reference at a higher logical level.
When I ran these Meta-Stating Pattern of Meta Yes-ing & No-ing on a client (Jim Polizzi - name used with permission) recently, it struck me that we now have a Ten-minute Belief Change pattern along with the ten minute Phobia Cure. The closer we get to the structure of subjective experience -- the more streamlined becomes our working with such structures. When I presented the following demonstration of the pattern to Dr. Hall, he wrote,
"What an incredible application of this meta-stating pattern! The simplest and briefest Belief Change Pattern by far."
"Meta-NO-ing" & "Meta-YES-ing" With Jim
Jim, 39 years old and married, has struggled for years with a limiting belief that goes, "I alienate and drive away friends." He has also held another belief, one meta to that first belief, that goes, "Nothing will ever work in helping me overcome my limiting belief."
Recently, after seeing a particular counselor weekly for a year and a half, Jim and his wife in frustration stopped seeing their counselor. It had not helped. So I began working with Jim on reframing the belief that nothing would work on him. Also, we did some work in re-imprinting some childhood roots from which the limiting belief arose which said that he would sabotage all his relationships with friends.
One day, Jim came in and announced that the old belief of his driving away old friends "was loosening." Ah, deframing! However, he still experienced some of it this past weekend when he met with some of his peer "computer geeks." After leaving this business meeting, Jim experienced some old internal dialogue nagging at him that "You may have alienated them!" This triggered a negative feeling of fear. So, even though we had loosened up the limiting belief, the belief still ran although not with as much intensity as before. We both wanted it to completely disappear.
I asked Jim for permission to try out and experiment with Michael's suggestion of "Meta-NO-ing" the old limiting belief and "Meta-YES-ing" the new desired belief about his ability to build and maintain relationships. Jim said he'd enjoy doing that.
"Jim, when have you said 'No!' and really meant it?"
"You mean like when I say 'No' to the kids when they do something they shouldn't?"
"Yes, I believe that will work."
"Well just recently I said no to my daughter."
"How did you do that Jim? What did you see, hear, and feel as you express that definitive No? What tone of voice did you say that in?"
Jim experienced his Meta-NO-ing high in his chest with a feeling of tightness. His voice came across to me as very firm.
"So, Jim, as a meta-stating process, I want you to bring that 'No!' to bear upon the limiting belief that you alienate friends. Repeat that meta-level No! several times."
As Jim did this his face flushed. His head move forward and down firmly as he grunted out a 'No!' He did so with real firmness in his tonality.
Jim replied, "This is neat, Bob. It sounds silly that you could bring a 'No!' that you say to your daughter to bear upon an old limiting belief like this. But, this works, this really works. How neat!"
Then, without any directions from me, Jim said, "What do you do when the kids do something good?" And continuing he said, AWhen my little girl does something good, I say, "Yes, that's right, you have done good. You have really done good. You can do it!"
Then Jim, again without directions from me, brought to bear the "Yes!" to his daughter to the desired belief, "I can build friends and relate to them with compassion." (The meta-stating process). He uttered a bold and definitive Yes to -- "These guys really care about me. I am not alienating them, they really care about me."
At this Jim started taking notes on a notepad and then noted, "I have two powerful resources here. The No! I say to the kids, and the Yes! I say to the kids."
I then decided to test the old limiting belief of his sabotaging relationships through the old belief of his coming across as arrogant and rude. "Jim, what do you think about the old belief of your alienating your friends?"
Jim recalled the experience of last weekend. "These guys really love me. They really love me. They don't believe I am a jerk and arrogant, they really love me."
Then Jim recognized part of the process, ABob, you just did an auditory swish on me with my internal dialogue. Instead of hearing myself say 'I am a jerk' I hear myself saying these guys really love me."
ATrue enough and that's insightful. For by Meta-NO-ing the old limiting belief and then Meta-YES-ing the new desired belief, you essentially give your brain instructions about where to go, from the old limiting ideas to the new enhancing ones, an auditory swish. Great point. How neat, Jim, that you automatically moved from the Meta-NO-ing the old belief to Meta-YES-ing the new desired belief. I had planned to move you to that, but your unconscious mind beat me to it and did it automatically. You did good, real good." (Hear me say that in my Appalachian dialect!)
Next we checked out some of the previous thoughts-and-feelings that he had about his dysfunctional family of origin.
"Bob, I now realize that I may never have a deep relationship with my family. And yet that does not mean that there is something wrong with me. However, I still have a sense of 'aloneness' when I think about that."
"Okay, put that thought aside for just a moment and think of your own family -- your son, daughter, and wife."
As Jim accessed a representation of his family, his physiology, breathing, and facial expressions shifted and seemed to become more pleasant. Jim thought about his family's nighttime ritual of story telling as the four of them gather just prior to bedtime.
"Now bring this to bear upon that representation you had of the aloneness from your family of origin."
Jim, immediately brought this family frame-of-reference and the state that it put him in to bear upon his family of origin thoughts. As he did, he became teary eyed, his facial color reddened, his breathing deepen as he generated new neurological connections.
"It sure is hard to feel alone with a little boy and a little girl on your lap and your wife sitting beside you. This is a powerful thing to bring to bear on your aloneness. The aloneness is not congruent with the family I now have. The aloneness is no longer valid. It is not that it is no longer true. It no longer matters. My old family does not have the significance it did. I have a sense of connectedness."
The Pattern
1) Get a good strong representation of saying "No!" to something. You will want to make sure that the person's No looks, sounds, and feels congruent and that it truly fits with their beliefs and values. Anchor the resource experience of congruently, firmly, and definitively saying No! to something.
2) Get a good strong representation of saying "Yes!" to something. Once you do, reinforce it by asking about it, and amplifying it so that the person has an intense experience of his or her Yes! Anchor either with a touch, the way you say Yes!, where you gesture to, etc.
3) Invite the person to identify the limiting belief that they no longer want to run their programs. Meta-model the limiting belief to assist in deframing it, loosening it up, and preparing for the belief change. Find out how it has not served them well, how it has messed things up, etc. Notice how they represent the belief, pace its positive intentions.
4) Fully elicit from the person an enhancing belief that he or she wants in the head. What specifically will the person think and say in the new belief. Write out the language of it. Get several versions -- and make sure that the person finds the expression of it compelling.
5)
"And you can keep on saying No! to that limiting belief until you begin to feel that it no longer has any power to run your programs."
6)
Conclusion
Don't take my word for this powerful process. Try it yourself. I know it works. I have seen it change lives and alter old belief systems.
A few weeks ago, I received a call from an NLP Trainer on the West Coast. He had heard some positive statements about the Meta-State Model and desired more information. I spent about thirty minutes on the phone explaining the basic theoretical concepts supporting Meta-States. I then E-mailed him the major articles and techniques on this web site that referred to Meta-States. I particularly pointed out the brief statements about the Yes/No pattern in Michael's address to the ANLP about "Updating the Submodality model.
Well, the next day I received this E-mail message from that NLP Trainer:
"Thanks so much for your email message. This old Trainer has seen and done most everything in the 'NLP'/hypnosis world. . . but this is absolutely REVOLUTIONARY! And it's the first time ANYTHING has EVER worked on me too. AMAZING, just absolutely amazing. Working with my client this AM consisted of 1 3/4 hours of talking to her and giving her strategies for her business that will make her lots of money. She thought we were done, when I said, look let's just take this a step further and really cement this in, shall we? She said, Great. Then Bob, I just did the pattern as written - I elicited the problem. . . I elicited a strong congruent 'NO'. I elicited the desired state - rewording it several times till it became compelling. Had her step into the bad state. . . then out of it and ABOUT the situation, say with much congruence - NO, repeatedely. Coupled with my exquisite hypnotic language patterns :-), I then had her do it a few times until when she spoke of the 'problem' she did so from a new chunked up perspective. WOW! Then I reminded her of the good state. . . got her CONGRUENT 'yes'. Told her to 'TRY' and experience the bad (she couldn't, Ha Ha) and from what ever she could get to just imagine the new experience zooming in until she stepped into and felt it's compelling power and then step out and ABOUT the experience, say 'YES' congruently. Had her do it a few times. Future paced and was done. She literally sat there for a moment and tears started welling up and then streaming down her face. Her boyfriend was blown away. She was so thankful. Then jumped up and began pitching me on how she could help me with her marketing (what she was previously afraid to do) with such force and conviction, I was amazed. She said she was over the problem - couldn't get it back if she tried. Boyfriend even more amazed. They left thrilled. THANKS YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! This stuff is amazing. And I'm pretty dog gonned good at making changes in people - but this was truely amazing in scope and depth. I'm hooked beyond belief. Monday first thing, I'm ordering everything you and Michael have. Thanks again, my friend.
I really appreciate this person's taking the time to share the response he received the first time he used the "Yes/No" pattern. One can tell from reading his case study that he has great ability in working with clients. Though he made light of his ability to utilize hypnotic language patterns, he obviously does it well, very well. Note however, the results he received through the utilizing the power of meta state languaging within the context of hypnosis. Excellent job of "doing" therapy.
|
Adding Passion to Empowering Beliefs |
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
We spend a lot of time in NLP and Neuro-Semantics on identifying limiting and toxic beliefs and building up and installing empowering beliefs. Why do we do that? We do so because we know all too well about the self-fulfilling nature of "beliefs." Beliefs are not innocent things. These entities of the mind do not just process information, they are "commands to the nervous system" (Richard Bandler). We know that "thoughts" send signals and messages to the body. As we "think," so we begin to feel and respond. And if that's so with "thoughts," it is a thousand times more true of "beliefs."
What are these entities of the mind that we call "beliefs?"
How do they differ from mere "thoughts?"
In Neuro-Semantics we have demonstrated how we turn a thought into a belief through the process of validation and confirmation. As we confirm the validity and reality of a thought, it transforms the thought as mere information, and commissions it to become a person's reality strategy. When this happens, the belief commands the body and nervous system since it sets several frames: "This is real," "This is important," "This is the way it is." And when you have a mental-emotional frame like that, no wonder the rest of the mind-emotion-body system simply responds to fulfill that frame.
So, how do we confirm a thought? What validates a thought?
Lots of things. It depends upon the person, the culture, the situation. Cross-culturally, repetition will confirm an idea. Repeat it often enough, and it seems "believable." The repetition creates a sense of familiarity, another convincer. Authority, vividness, desire (wish), drama, continuation over time, etc., can all work as convincers in our psycho-logical system. We can use lots of variables as "evidence" to feel assured that a thought is accurate, real, and/or inevitable. And with such higher frames, we are ready to validate a thought.
We get all of our early beliefs, the ones we did not think or reason to create, as we received them from what parents and authority figures told us. They not only told us about Santa Claus, they told us the story so that we had a full vivid movie playing in our minds. And they would read the story from books, get others to confirm it, watch movies about it, etc. We experienced a whole cultural conspiracy to get us to believe it. There were so many convincing factors. Then there was the final coup de grace, all the presents under the tree on Christmas morning! "Santa did come! It is real!" "And look! The milk and cookies left out are gone!"
No wonder we bought it! We would have had to deny our senses, reject our parent's words, the books about it, our whole culture. So, at a higher level in our mind, we rose above all of our thoughts, images, words, and feelings of Father Christmas and the whole story and gave it our seal of approval. We said, "Yes, it is so. I do believe, I do believe!"
And that validated it.
This reveals the special power we have when we say "Yes!" to a thought. Saying "Yes" to a thought enables us to validate that thought. In saying "Yes" we confirm the thought. In this way the mere thought becomes a full-fledged "belief." It transforms. It metamorphosizes. What was just an idea, just images and representations now becomes something more, something more powerful and dangerous. It becomes a "belief." We now trust that this thought describes reality and gives us a map about what to do, think, feel, expect, etc.
The more we say "Yes" to an idea, the more we believe it. The more we add passion and intensity and ferociousness to the thought so that you shout, "YES!!", the more emotional the belief. Eventually, our "Yes" even our great big intense "Yes!" becomes a matter-of-fact "Of course." And when it reaches that stage of development, we have--at a higher level of mind-- created a reality strategy. Now it just seems "the way it is." It loses its emotion and it just is.
This explains why we begin with the emotional "Yes" and repeat it until our neurology gets used to it and it becomes a matter-of-fact "Yes." Doing this helps the belief grow up and move outside of awareness as we say, "Of course, what else would you expect?"
Meta-YES-ing a Thought
In Neuro-Semantics we introduced the Meta-Yes Pattern several years ago as a way to turn a desired thought (an inspiring idea) into a belief. We build up or construct a "belief" from a thought through the process of validating it. We access a state of "Yes!" and apply it to the idea that is just a thought. This meta-stating structure sets a sense of "yes" as a frame to the thought. We start with a strong and emotional "Yes!" and then repeat it over and over until we feel the validation.
Sometimes we find that it will not work to just "Yes" the thought. Why not? When this happens, we probably have to first blow out various limiting and hindering beliefs that are in the way. If you say "Yes" to your desired thought and it doesn't seem to become a belief, look for an opposing frame that discounts, dis-validates, and excludes the validation.
We
deal with this by then accessing a state of "No!" or
dis-confirmation, dis-validation and we apply that sense of "No!" to
the old belief. We to this to de-construct (de-frame) the old validation. The
new won't slide in until we eliminate the old. So we
Typically in this process we do not ask the person about "why" he or she can say "Yes" to the thought and validate it. This is intentional. We leave it alone on purpose. We don't do that so that the person him or herself will do it.
And that's inevitable. Why? Because we are a species that have to have reasons to validate things. We just can't believe for the hell of it. We have to have reasons, understandings, explanations, even rationalizations to believe. Marketing people know this and so provide lots of overt and covert "reasons" to say "Yes" to a product or service. The reasons don't have to be true, accurate, real, etc. They can be mere rationalizations, superstitions, and junko-logic. You may remember with me the old cigarette commercial jingle, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should." Talk about junko-logic.
It is when we say, and feel, and act out a "Yes," especially a strong and emotional "Yes," that we evoke the higher levels of our mind. Now the higher levels of mind have to come up with reasons, or rationalizations, or evidences of some sort to support the "Yes."
Figure 1
Meta-YES-ing & NO-ing
Belief Construction/ De-Construction
In reading Figure 1, begin at the bottom at the first level of mind. Here we merely represent the thoughts in our heads. This create our cinematic movie that plays out on the screen of our mind a scenario of the thought. This movie has images, pictures, a sound track with music and words, and even a feel track that creates emotions. Above and beyond that movie, we step into a state of validating, of saying "Yes." This higher level of validation transforms thought into belief. Then above that, we have our reasons and rationalizations that we use to support and give meaning to why we can say "Yes." The movement (indicated by the arrows) that we move from one level to the other is how, or the way, we "reason" from one level to another. Sometimes a line of reasoning moves us, sometimes a feeling, sometimes even a physiology. It is in this way we create the psycho-logical world of our mind-body-emotion system.
To Believe or not to Believe
What thought would you like to turn into a belief?
What ideas would you like to operate as a command to your nervous system and body?
Given that we now know the structure of a belief, we can utilize this structure to build up new empowering beliefs, can we not? We can use this understanding to dis-validate ideas that we inherited or absorbed from our early cultural experiences in our families, schools, books, media, peers, etc.
What is the feeling or affective tone of a belief?
We say that a belief is a solidified thought that "feels real and true and accurate." Yet these are not feelings. Where in your body do you feel that something is true or accurate? These are evaluations, judgments.
So what does a belief feel like?
When we believe, we feel sure, we have a feeling of assurance and trust. "I trust this as true." "I feel sure that this is right."
The feeling of a belief is the feeling of strength and assurance. We speak of "conviction." When you think about something that you really believe--you feel sure. You feel confident. You feel the strength of your conviction. The stronger the belief, the more you "know" and don't have a shadow of a doubt. The weaker the belief, the more questions you have, doubts, wonder, etc.
Consider what this means. It means that a belief inevitably moves to a seemingly non-emotional state where we just "know" "for sure" that our thoughts accurately and really map the way things are. That's why it's hard to even notice our beliefs. We have to step back and move to a meta-position to even become aware of them.
What do I believe about ... ?
So the feeling of a belief, feeling sure and trusting, becomes the "sense of reality" and so loses it's emotional affect. It just "is." We feel, "Of course, that's the way it is." What do we think about or do with this feeling? Most commonly we treat it as a convincer of the reality of something. When we do, we have come full circle.
We believe a thought when it feels real; when it feels real, we believe it.
We don't believe something because it doesn't feel real; when something feels unreal, we refuse to believe it.
Yet the feeling level of a belief (or the lack of the feeling) actually does not prove anything. At best it only "proves" that you have validated it so much that you have closed your mind to any question of doubt. "But it feels real!" we may complain. What we feel is familiarity, habituation, etc. Most of us do not have the feeling that the planet is a circle and that we are upside down to people on the reverse side. Yet that lack of it feeling real doesn't disprove it.
Consider the idea that a when a thought becomes a belief, our belief leads us to close our mind to other ideas. The more we believe in something, the more closed, rigid, dogmatic, and unquestioning we become. In itself, this is neither good or bad, but it can become healthy or unhealthy depending on the content of what we believe. The worst thing is to believe in your belief. Do that and kiss learning, development, openness, creativity, etc. goodbye. Do that and you become a fanatic.
What does all this mean?
It means that beliefs are great and powerful mental entities as long as we do not believe in them. As long as we keep them open to new data and input, tentative for this moment, and recognize them as just a mental-emotional state, they are fine. They will do us no damage. Because of the feelings of a belief, beliefs give us a sense of power--conviction, assurance, confidence, etc. Believing in ourselves, in others, in the usefulness of something, the meaningfulness of life, such beliefs enhance life.
Beliefs then are a mixed bag. If you have great ones, they really enhance things. They make you confident, hopeful, meaningful, and powerful. If you have toxic and sick ones, you endanger yourself and others. Hitler has some really morbid beliefs. Yet he felt so sure about them. What made him truly dangerous and sick was that he believed in his beliefs. Doing that caused him to close his mind. That made him a fanatic. That made him a sick and dangerous man.
In NLP and NS, we run a Quality Control program on our beliefs to make sure we have healthy beliefs that will do us good over the long-term. We check the ecology of the belief by stepping back and asking questions about long-term effects, ecological effects on health, relationships, others, etc. This helps us to make sure that they are balanced, healthy, and wholesome.
Expanding the Quality Controlling of our Beliefs
You meta-state your belief yet one more level up when you step back from your beliefs and run a Quality Control on them. Doing so allows you to texture your belief with ecology. It enables you to bring the state of "quality" to the belief so that you qualify your belief with the frame of quality. This is one of the most powerful and magical things we do in Meta-States--we qualify and texture our states and our meta-states. This enables us to have our states rather than them having us. This also enables us to run and master the higher frames of our mind rather than being a victim of whatever matrix of mind we have inherited.
Given this, we can also texture our beliefs so that they are not only empowering and enhancing, but so that we experience them with passion, excitement, playfulness, fun, and other qualities. This is important. Why? Because we can build new beliefs with great ideas, yet experience the beliefs as humdrum. We may focus so much on the accuracy and truth of the idea, that we program in the matter-of-factness of the belief that we feel as an "of course" and in the process forget about making sure the belief has some punch--some passion.
I discovered this recently when working with a man at a training.
Learning How to Feel Great about Believing
What would you like to believe, that if you believed, would empower you as a person, make your life better, improve your relationships, make you more successful at work, more focused, healthier, something like that?
"I'd like to believe that the trouble and work it takes to change myself is worth it."
Hmmm, so you doubt that? You question that?
"Yes. It always seems like so much work, and I just don't know if it's worth it."
Well if you doubt that, what do you think that making some changes in yourself will do for you?
"Well, it would make me more focused and effective, and help me to succeed."
Sounds good to me...
"That's just it, is it really worth it?"
In the long run?
"Yeah, I mean I wonder if success is worth it."
So, what do you think is the value of becoming more effective so you can succeed? Suppose you got that, then what?
"That's my point. It just seems pointless."
You've fooled around in philosophy, haven't you?
(Laughing) "Yeah."
I knew it. Contaminated by existential angst and doubt. "Does life have any meaning?"
"I know it sounds funny when you put it that way, but that's what stops me. I just don't know if it is really worth it."
So you eat your passion, commitment, skills, and effectiveness up with doubt, questioning, worrying ... and that really makes life a party for you. Right?
"No it doesn't."
So your limiting belief is that you have to figure out the meaning of life before you can engage in life meaningfully?
(Laughing) "That sounds pretty stupid."
Well, exactly. And that's because it is! ... Have you had enough of that? Or do you want to wallow around in existential angst for what another 40 years?
"But I don't know if it is worth it ..."
Right. And as you now know, that is precisely the sick belief that needs to be blown to smithereens. That's the dragon that keeps sucking you into its den.
"But it feels so ..."
Real?
"Yes. Real."
Well, that's because it is -- to you. And it will become more and more real to you if you don't stop running your brain this way. Beliefs feel real because that's how "beliefs" feel--real. If it didn't feel real, it wouldn't be a "belief." "Da!" ... But that feeling of reality and of conviction doesn't make it real. It only makes it compelling-- on your insides. Okay, I think we're ready to Quality Control it. Do you want or need this belief to run your programs, to send these commands to your body to feel doubt and despair, and to question effort and the value of success, do you need this old belief?
"No, I don't."
Well, you don't sound very convinced about that. Maybe you should just keep this old toxic morbid belief. Let it keep undermining life, effort, success, passion ...
"No! I've had enough of it."
Then say "No!" to it with all of the neurological power you have. ... That's right. Again. And again. Would you push an infant in front of a speeding car just to enjoy the gore? No? Is that all the "No!" you can feel?
"No! No! NO!"
Good, now if you didn't believe that, then what? You'd believe that become focused and effective and successful would be a good thing, enrich your experience of life, open up new possibilities, and create meaningfulness as you go? Would you like that one?
"Yes. That sounds good."
Are you going to doubt this one?
"NO!"
Good, then put it in your own words. What is the idea that you'd like to confirm and validate and commission to run your programs?
"That I can become effective if I get focused and I can create meaning as I succeed, step by step, I will create more meaning."
Notice how you represent that as you say it again ... good. Turn it into a movie, an internal movie in your mind... moving into your future, being more focused ... more effective ... succeeding ... creating meaning ... Now the movie bigger, brighter, more colorful ... there you go... anything that makes it feel more compelling. Mmmmmmmm. Do you like that?
"Yes."
Sorry to hear that. I thought you would like that.
"I do. I like this very much."
Doesn't sound like it.
"Yes I do."
Then say so... Repeat your "Yes!" again and again. You want this? You like this? You'd like this more than the angst and despair? Really? And would it make things feel warmer, brighter, more fun as you move into all of your tomorrows? Good. (Pause) ... What do you think?
"It's fine. I like it."
Kind of ho-hum fine, huh? Just fine?
"Well, it's good."
Well, I want you to think of some of the finest feelings you've ever experienced. You know pure pleasure... have you ever felt pleasssuurre? How about wonder? Awesome wonder? Fabulous and playful wonder? Have you ever got lost in some good feelings and forget what time it was? Good. ... feel that and I want you to feel it about that new belief.... (Pause) ... There you go, that's nice glow... We don't want a just okay belief, we want a passionate one, a ferocious one, one that's feels great. As you imagine taking this into your future-- are you fully aligned with this? Does this fit with who you are becoming? Any objections? Good.
Texturing Good-Feeling Beliefs
Since it is not enough to just have good strong solid beliefs, but to feel passionate about those beliefs so that they excite us, do the following.
1) Specify useful thoughts that you want commissioned as a belief.
What
do you want to believe?
How do you represent it?
Employ the best NS cinematography to make the graphic features on the idea as
vivid, dramatic, and exciting as possible.
2)
Access a
What
can you say "No" to with every fiber of your being?
Access fully.
Is there anything that stands in your way to believing your great idea?
3) Access a
What
can you say "Yes" to with every fiber of your being?
How can you coach a greater and stronger "Yes" in yourself?
Show it to me.
4) Enrich with Good Feelings.
What's
the feel of the belief?
How much better would you like the belief to feel?
What thought, feeling, physiology, state makes you feel passionate?
Access and apply each resource that you want to texture the belief with.
5) Put into your Tomorrows and Quality Control
Imagine
taking this into the days and weeks to come ... and notice how it changes
things.
Do you like this?
How will this transform things for you? For your relationships? Health? Work?
Does this fit for you? Are you aligned with this? Any internal objections?
Summary
It's not enough to just eliminate negative and dis-empowering beliefs. After we eliminate the limiting beliefs, we have to replace them with more empowering ones.
Yet it is not enough to have empowering beliefs. Those beliefs that support our resourcefulness need to be embedded inside of some really great feelings so that they have some real punch to them, pizzazz, ferocity, passion. We don't need humdrum beliefs, but those that make us powerful, charming, compassionate, etc.
There's enough people to believe the right things but are still boring people. We want to texture our enhancing beliefs with the qualities that allow our beliefs to be jet-propelled with the best feelings: joy, playfulness, love, surprise, wonder, ecstasy, and the like.
|
