Breakthroughs and Meltthroughs – A Discussion

A series of articles by Richard Bolstad, Steve Andreas and L. Michael Hall.

Providing Heroic Challenges On Trainings

© Richard Bolstad

The Science Behind The Magic

In this article I want to reveal the secrets behind one of the most important training techniques ever developed: the heroic challenge. At the end of my first training in traditional Chinese Chi Kung, my teacher had me do a rather intriguing exercise. I stood up in front of him, with my hands clasped behind my own back. In front of me, he stood with the hilt of an old Chinese sword braced against his abdomen. He placed the sword tip against my neck, just above the top of the sternum and pressing against my trachea (windpipe). The tip was sharp (he had first demonstrated this by cutting paper with it). Then, he had me do the chi kung breathing exercise I had practiced every day for the last month; a form of the ancient “Iron Shirt” (armour) chi kung. While I was holding my breath, I then leaned forward so that my entire weight was resting on the sword. The metal bent under my weight, and I was held up on that single point. When I stood up again, I felt my neck. The blade had not even pierced my skin.

The teacher smiled, and in halting English explained that if I continued to do the exercise every day, in three months he would drive a car over my abdomen, and I would again be totally unscathed. I was one of two students selected to perform this demonstration that evening. I have not attempted the sword demonstration since, and I have decided not to have a car driven over me.

This demonstration is one of a series of traditional “tests” which concluded Chinese martial arts trainings. Like most of these tests, the one I endured was largely based on a physiological fact which most students will not know. In this case, that fact is that the cartilage surrounding the trachea is quite hard (none-the-less, do NOT attempt this stunt without qualified supervision!). In some western workshops, a similar demonstration involves having the person break an archery arrow by pressing the point into the same place on the neck (Burkan, 2001, p 71-76).

Several such practices occur in the world of chi kung training. Another popular chi kung trick is breaking bricks on the head. The graduate places several bricks on his head and an assistant hits the bricks with a large hammer. The bricks break, and the head remains uninjured. Impressive… except that bricklayers repeat the same trick every day, placing a brick on their hand and hitting it with a cleaver to snap it in half. Once again, this trick requires training to do safely, but it does not require any special powers. In their book Qigong: Chinese Medicine or Pseudoscience? Lin Zixin (retired editor of China’s Science and Technology Daily) and other Chinese scientists reveal the truth behind a number of such demonstrations (Zixin et alia, 2000, p 73-86).

The Magic Behind The Science

The extent to which the use of body energy, or chi, is significant in these demonstrations is debatable. There is one almost guaranteed magical result of these demonstrations, though, and it lies in their effect on the minds of the graduates who first do them. That is what this article is about. Let’s take firewalking, also offered by chi kung teachers such as Master Mantak Chia, as an example.

Walking across hot coals is a ritual in almost every ancient culture, and was first demonstrated to modern American audiences by the Kashmiri magician Kuda Bux in New York in 1935 (Sternfield, 1992, p 101-105). In 1978, stage magician and personal development expert Tolly Burkan introduced the “Firewalk” experience to his workshops. Burkan had observed his friend Linda doing the firewalk as taught to her by her Tibetan Buddhist guru Ajari Warwick (Sternfield, 1992, p 41-51). It was at one of Tolly Burkan’s workshops that NLP trainer Tony Robbins first firewalked, and by the early 1980s his trademarked “Firewalk Experience” was up and “running” reportedly closely modelled on Burkan’s work (Sternfield, 1992, p 50-51). In 1984, Taoist Master Mantak Chia attended Tony Robbin’s firewalk and soon Chia and NLP practitioner Larry Short began running their own “Taoist” firewalks (Sternfield, 1992, p 55-61). America was soon aflame with firewalking.

At first sight, firewalking seems almost magical. A large quantity of pine wood is burned along with paper and some accelerant such as kerosene. After an hour or so, the embers are raked into a relatively flat bed of glowing red-hot wood chips, spread out perhaps four metres long. Participants then walk directly across this bed of “hot coals” in bare feet from end to end. Most people find that their feet remain completely unburned. How can this be?

There is plenty of research demonstrating that the response of a burn is psychologically controlled. Paul Thorsen, for example, conducted experiments in which he touched the arm of a person under hypnosis with a tip of a pen and told him that the pen was a hot skewer. Soon, a blister (as would have been produced by a second degree burn) formed in the region where the tip of the pen touched (Thorsen, 1960, p 52-53). Studies of Kuda Bux, the Indian who reintroduced firewalking to America and Britain in 1935 showed that he was walking through 9 inches of embers with a surface temperature of 806 degrees F., placing his feet deep in the embers each step, and showing no evidence of burning at all. Every researcher who attempted to replicate his feat received severe burns (Sternfield, 1992, p 101-105). Nonetheless, five years later, a Scientific American study into Bux and other firewalkers by Albert Ingalls concluded that anyone could do firewalking, without any special “trance” state, because the embers had such low conductivity (Ingalls, 1939).

Disagreement has flared up ever since between advocates of belief, and skeptics who claim that belief is not a factor in the results of firewalking (and who thus generate a powerful belief in the minds of their “skeptical” participants). Medical doctor Andrew Weil contrasts three firewalks undertaken by him in quite different states of mind. The firewalk with embers at a lower temperature none-the-less resulted in severe burns while the longest walk resulted in no burning at all because, in Weil’s words, “I felt strong, healthy and incredibly high…. I had consciously controlled my attention and my thoughts” (Burkan, 2001, p xv-xxi). I have run just two firewalks, but it was my impression that the only person to get dramatic burns was a person who did the walk in a very unresourceful state and had previous traumatic experiences with fire. From this kind of anecdotal evidence, I strongly suspect that firewalking results are very much influenced by state of mind.

For those who attend firewalking experiences, though, whether belief affects the results in terms of burning usually seems irrelevant. The result that matters to them is that they faced and overcame their fear. Tony Robbins’ advert said “This is an opportunity to join the over 150,000 people who have walked across a bed of hot coals as a demonstration that even the seemingly impossible becomes possible when we overcome limiting belief systems.” (Robbins Research International, 1991). Tolly Burkan adds “In essence, this is what firewalking is all about. The fire is a metaphor for all the challenges we usually shrink from. In learning how to walk unharmed across a bed of glowing coals at a firewalk, People are really learning how to overcome fear. We learn that fear is a belief, in this case, an obstacle between where we are and where we want to go.” (Bukan, 2001, p 11). The true magic of firewalking is the magic of taking charge of one’s life in a dramatic situation.

Why Use Heroic Challenges?

Why do people seek such challenges? One model for understanding this comes from the notion of the heroic quest. Our protected lives do not usually offer us the life-and-death struggles that previous generations often faced (thank goodness!). Our society does not give us the challenging initiation ceremonies that many pre-industrial societies provided for their young people. Firewalking and other such ceremonies offer participants an opportunity to face the fear of serious physical danger and know that they can manage, just as people did in earlier times. In a previous article I discussed the use of real-life quests as a model of psychotherapy (Bolstad, 1997). I noted that Joseph Campbell describes the quest as humanity’s “monomyth” (one myth which encompasses all other myths), explaining “The standard path of the mythological adventure of the hero is a magnification of the formula represented in the rites of passage: separation-initiation-return: which might be named the nuclear unit of the monomyth. A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.” (Campbell, 1968, p30)

Similarly, Jay Haley suggests that many of the tasks given by Milton Erickson to his psychotherapy clients were “ordeals”. Haley says “With the ordeal technique, the therapist’s task is easily defined: It is to impose an ordeal appropriate to the problem of the person who wants to change, an ordeal more severe than the problem. The main requirement of an ordeal is that it cause distress equal to or greater than that caused by the symptom, just as a punishment should fit the crime. Usually, if an ordeal isn’t severe enough to extinguish the symptom, it can be increased in magnitude until it is. It is also best if the ordeal is good for the person…. The ordeal must have another characteristic: It must be something the person can do and something the person cannot legitimately object to. That is, it must be of such a nature that the therapist can easily say “This won’t violate any of your moral standards and is something you can do.”…. An example of a standard ordeal is to exercise in the middle of the night whenever the symptom has occurred that day.” (Haley, 1984, p6-7)

Catherine Walters and Ronald Havens say “Erickson was aware that challenge, change, and self-efficacy, the ingredients of psychological hardiness, also contribute to well-being and happiness…. Metaphorical anecdotes, so-called paradoxical prescriptions, and “ordeals” no longer look like mystical koans or clever manipulations of symptoms from the wellness perspective. Rather they appear to be straightforward requests for normal, healthy behaviours.” (Walters & Havens, in Zeig, 1994, p181)

Teachers such as Tony Robbins, Tolly Burkan and Mantak Chia also know that their firewalk experience has many spin-off benefits for participants and for the training they are running. Andrew Weil says that firstly, the person learns that they can survive dangers, including physical dangers in other places. He says “Well, if you don’t have to experience pain, redness, and blisters on exposure to red-hot coals, then you don’t have to get infections on exposure to germs, allergies on exposure to allergens, cancer on exposure to carcinogens.” (Burkan, 2001, p xxi). Secondly, Weil claims that the experience produces a profound alteration in self-perception. “Done with the right attitude and expectations, it strips away your self-imposed limits. It brings you to a clarity where you see the difference between your ego – your worry-based, me-centered self – and your divine nature.” (Burkan, 2001, p xv), Thirdly, it bonds the people experiencing this challenge together as a group. Weil says of his most successful firewalk “I got caught up in the group excitement, which made me feel I was a member of a revival meeting or a celebrant of some tribal ritual. An ensemble of African drummers provided a rousing background tempo. Those huge beds of coals glowed incredibly in the night. People shouted and crowded toward them.” (Burkan, 2001, p xix).

Choosing Heroic Challenges For NLP Trainings

There is an art to producing these beneficial effects in a training situation. Firstly, the art involves deciding which quest is appropriate for your group. I have already mentioned the firewalk and the broken arrow as choices. There are many others. Fire-eating is another which I have used in training. In this event, participants have a dowel stick with 2cm cotton bandaging wrapped around the end and dipped in cigarette lighter fluid. When lit, this produces a 4-6 cm flame. This flame is then placed in the mouth (after a full in-breath, to ensure than the person does not inhale the fire) and with a sudden outbreath the person extinguishes the flame. Tolly Burkan has also used walking barefoot over shards of broken glass, as demonstrated on TV by Marshall Sylver. Burkan uses a crate filled with 50 pounds of carefully raked and crushed glass from broken bottles, jars and glasses. He  says “Of the thousand people I have led over six foot beds of broken glass, not one has cut their feet. The way to walk across shards of broken glass is exactly the opposite way one walks across hot coals. The glass demands slow, conscious moments of extreme attentiveness, just like the boy with the bowl of water on his head.” (Burkan, 2001, p 90).

All these experiences have been used in the past by pactitioners of yoga, by sufi dervishes and by others in meditative states. Pushing a five inch needle through one’s hand (without bleeding or pain) is another feat used by Tolly Burkan. While anyone can do this, it would be hard to argue that attitude has nothing to do with it, as the sceptics claim in relation to firewalking. Burkan says of his first successful experience of piercing “To my amazement the needle slid through my hand like a warm knife through butter. No pain whatsoever. There was no blood. None! The skin all over my body began to tingle, and the hair on the back of my neck stood up. I could barely catch my breath. The experience was not unlike an orgasm. I was in bliss!” (Burkan, 2001, p 33-34). Breaking a board with ones hand, karate style, is another (simpler) choice, which I will discuss in more depth later.

Other quests have been developed by western sports practitioners. Skydiving and tightrope walking are examples discussed by Tolly Burkan. John Grinder set his students the assignment of walking in trance across the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, first with a guide and then solo (DeLozier and Grinder, 1987, p 89). One challenge we have used at a training is abseiling and climbing high structures with a rope. YMCAs, military academies and gyms often have climbing courses which can provide significant challenges. Many of these challenges must be surmounted by a group or pair working together; an added bonus for the training experience.

How do you choose which is right for you? Availability of equipment (eg in ropes courses), land (eg in firewalking) and permits to use your building in certain ways (eg in fire-eating) will be issues. The level of potential danger will be another issue to consider. Out of 500 people doing the firewalk, Even Tony Robbins will have perhaps ten people getting serious blistering (Sternfield, 1992, p 37). When the local branch of the Skeptics Society do their firewalks at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, they have St John’s emergency paramedical team standing by. Out of a thousand people who have done the board break with me, two have fractured a bone by hitting a concrete block accidentally. With the firewalk, I have people sign a disclaimer saying that they understand that the event is not a requirement of the training, and that they are choosing to complete it as their own personal decision, releasing our institute and staff from any responsibility for that decision, for their actions and for any consequences of those actions. In some countries it is obviously appropriate to have insurance against any such complaints.

Another issue is to consider what rationale you will offer to people for the experience. This has several levels. For example, in doing the board break, I have had people write their goals on one side of the board and their previous limitations on the other side. This makes the breakthrough a metaphor. Then I have incorporated the board break into the training process by having the participants learn NLP material while they elicit from me the strategy for the board break. On other occasions, I have used the board break to explain the notion of chi (energy) or to demonstrate both anchoring and hypnosis.

Perhaps the most important issue to consider in choosing to guide people through these experiences is your own level of confidence, comfort and familiarity with the technique. I do know of at least one NLP trainer who has run the board break without ever having broken a board: I do not recommend this choice.

The Board Break

The best way to explain the thinking behind designing heroic quests is to use an example. Let me explain how I run the board break. I first experienced a version of this technique as run at an Advanced Neuro-Dynamics NLP Master Practitioner course offered in Hawaii by Tad James, John Overdurf and Julie Silverthorn. The technique is taught on the Advanced Neuro-Dynamics Master Practitioner audiocassette series. I will explain the applied physics and physiology of the boardbreak first, and then explain how I run it to produce a powerful breakthrough experience. Let me emphasise once again, the key prerequisite for successfully running a boardbreak is having had the experience of breaking a board oneself. The following information is for those who have actually done this and already know what they are doing in practical terms. It also provides an example of the design of a breakthrough experience. In no sense does it claim to teach you how to break a board. For that, attend a training.

The breaking of a board by hand (called tamashiwara in Japanese) is usually done as an advanced level test in martial arts. In general, for this purpose, a single board of pinus radiata or similar (medium soft) wood is used. The board is what used to be called one inch “dressed pine” (dressed meaning that the sides have been smoothed leaving it about 18mm thick). We use the widest planks they make, and cut them into pieces 20cm by 30cm (well, it’s called “30cm wide”; actually about 28cm). Each piece of wood is thus 1.8cm x 20cm x 28cm (8 inches by a foot by ¾ inch). The wider the board the better. A 10 inch wide board is 20% harder to break than a 12 inch wide board (Hewko, 2002). The two concrete blocks between which the wood will be placed are standard concrete blocks (called cinder blocks in the USA) with flat sides and ends. The board is placed, with the minimum possible overlap, between the blocks (about 2mm of board overlaps each block). The grain of the board as seen from above should run lengthwise parallel to the sides of the blocks on which it rests. The board will break slightly easier if hit from the side which used to be the core of the log it was cut from (the grain curving upwards like a bowl as viewed from the end of the board. Be aware that some modern boards are made by gluing together sections of wood: that looks the same but is almost impossible to break – the glue is stronger than pine.

The board is hit by a downward stroke of the arm, making contact with the soft spongy muscles of  the thenar and hypothenar eminences (the lower palm). This open hand hit is called shuto in Japan. The force delivered by the hit on the board is a result of the mass of the hand multiplied by the speed it moves at. The average hand must move at between 14.8 and 29.6 kilometres per hour to break a single board. That means that the swing must take 0.3 seconds to happen (Hewko, 2002). The hand must move at twice this speed to break two boards and at 3-4 times this speed to break three boards (which several people have done on my trainings). A longer swing by the arm increases the chances that this speed will be reached, as does pulling up the other arm as the arm swings down to the board. However, swinging over this distance increases the need for an accurate aim towards the centre of the board. People can break the Ulna or Radius bones in their forearm if they swerve to the side and hit the concrete block with full force. Early on in our trainings two people did this, and I have since learned that it can help for the board to be marked with an “X” at the centre, and even for the trainer to place her/his hand over the concrete block.

Participants can injure the tendons in the wrist or the muscles in their hand if they repeatedly hit the board with insufficient force to break it. If they hit with sufficient speed, the energy from the swing will be transferred into the board and the board will snap. The board bends about a centimetre (1/2 inch) before breaking. If the force of the swing is insufficient (eg if the hand slows down just below the former level of the board), this energy in the board is transferred back to the hand as the board bounces upward. To ensure the hit occurs at sufficient speed, the person needs to hit directly from above (not at an angle glancing off the board) and needs to aim below the surface of the board. The arm reaches its maximum speed when it is 80% extended (Rist, 2000), so aiming to have the arm fully stretched out a few centimetres below the board also maximises the speed it is travelling when it hits the board. I get each participant to practise this before they put the board in place, by hitting my hand held palm up between the blocks and about 10cm below the level the board will be. After feeling 1000 people hit my hand, I can now be certain whether the force is sufficient to break the board. I do not let a person continue with the actual board until their swing is fast enough. Speed of muscle movement also requires oxygenation of the muscles, and taking several deep breaths before the action ensures a more powerful swing. All this is extremely important. I’ve seen NLP practitioners try to run the boardbreak without personal experience of all this, and then have all their students break or injure their arms. With correct technique, children and elderly people can safely do this exercise. The oldest person I’ve had do it on my training was a 79 year old woman. The youngest was a 14 year old girl. (Men have also succeeded).

Making The Challenge Both Heroic And Successful

To provide the board break experience I need to create a balance between reassuring people that it can be done, on the one hand, and showing them that it is a serious challenge on the other. If I make it seem too easy, they will be at risk of injury (by not giving their swing full commitment) and the event will seem a bit of an anticlimax if they do succeed. On the other hand, if I terrify them, they may not be willing to try it, or may pull back their hand as they swing, thus reducing their speed and again injuring themselves.

I demonstrate the risk by hitting the board flat against the side of one of the concrete blocks, making a loud bang. I tell them that if done incorrectly this action can lead to serious injury. Next, to demonstrate that it is possible, I tell them that 14 year old girls and 79 year old women can do it easily once they know how.

Before anyone does the board break, I take them through a series of preparatory exercises. The first preparatory exercise is deep breathing, which they will again perform immediately before their swing. The second preparatory exercise is setting a resource anchor using the hand that will break the board. The third preparatory exercise involves practicing holding out their arm as for muscle testing in applied kinesiology. While a partner carefully pushes down on the arm, they imagine first that their arm is weak, and next that their arm is connected to a fire hydrant and is pouring a vast amount of energy out their palm. The latter condition produces dramatically stronger muscle response. I point out that during the board break, they need to pay attention to the imagined sensation of energy pouring out their arm. They should block any less helpful internal dialogue by repeating to themselves “I’m already through the board! I’m already through the board!”. We also play music in the background to assist this blocking of self-talk.

In the fourth preparatory exercise, we have the person picture what it looks like to look down and see their hand through a board as each half falls to the sides. To do this, I take a board I’ve broken in my demonstration and hold the two pieces in the position they would be in as the hand goes through the board (the position the board is seen in, in the photo of me breaking the board above). Each person in turn comes and stands in the same position they will break the board in, and places their hand between the two broken pieces of board. They look at this and store that image in their memory, to be re-evoked when they next stand above that place with their board.

Now, each person is ready to do a board break. I and a woman assistant trainer each demonstrate the process. Each person then comes up in turn, does some deep breathing, and stands in position. For right handed people, the right foot is stretched back behind them pointing to their right, and the left foot is placed in front of the concrete block on their left, with that foot pointing forward. This means that for shorter people they are virtually sitting on that left block. Their arm, when hanging down relaxed, should hang down directly into the space between the blocks. I have each person practice the swing, pulling up their left hand (for right handed people) while their right hand swings down full force from shoulder height into my hand. Once I know that they are swinging correctly, I place the board in position, and begin repeating “You’re already through the board!” while they make the break.

Taught in this way, most people will break the board on their first swing. For those who don’t I re-teach the process briefly and have them practice with my hand again, pointing out when they are doing an adequate swing. I emphasise that they need to be totally committed to breaking the board, and reassure them that the discomfort they felt when they slapped the board will disappear when they break through the board. Some people continue to slow down their swing, out of fear of injury or other doubts. After about three attempts, I have them rest and refer them to an assistant to use an NLP process such as collapsing anchors, or to develop reframes ensuring that it is OK to breaking a board with their hand. At times, due to performance anxiety, we may need to have the person do the board break with no-one watching. Finally, we can offer the person who is not yet succeeding the chance to break the board with their bare foot. To do this they lie the concrete blocks on their side with the board between them, and they stand with their foot raised above the board. They then swing the foot down in one swift blow. I emphasise that this still requires absolute commitment (although in truth the force applied by the thigh muscles is far in excess of that applied by the arm muscles).

I expect, with this sequence, that every person will have a positive experience of breaking their board. Once each person is complete I invite them to hug someone else and to set a gestural anchor that will enable them to re-access the sense of exhilaration they get from this moment of breakthrough. I remind them that their success is evidence that they can “do anything they decide to do”. The board break is an event which I timetable for the last afternoon of a training block. In that way, we have a flexible amount of time to get everyone through the event, and we leave people with a sense of exhilaration at the end of their training.

Karate grand master Sihak Henry Cho (who introduced Bruce Lee to co-star Chuck Norris) says “Being good at karate is a lot like being good at telling a joke…. It’s not what you break; it’s how you break it.” (Rist, 2000). Everything I do in setting up and running the board break is designed to create a great punch-line. One that takes people’s breath away. The air feels electric after our board break. Virtually everyone in the room is on a high. The group feels closer, after facing and surmounting this challenge together. And people are already beginning to reframe all their other experiences on the training, as they realise that they have just run through a real life test of their resourcefulness.

Summary

Physically challenging tasks offer an opportunity for NLP training participants to experience the kind of heroic quest that Milton Erickson often set his clients upon. They alter the person’s sense of who they are, what they can achieve, and how they feel about the others who are with them. The true magic of these challenges lies not in the performance of a supernatural feat, but in these “breakthrough” personal changes which occur as participants accept and go through the challenge. These physical challenges, it seems likely, all require participants to make a change in consciousness, or in attitude, in order to succeed. Examples include fire-walking, fire-eating, walking across broken glass, walking across a high bridge, doing a climbing or abseiling course, skydiving, body piercing, breaking an arrow on the neck, and breaking a board with the hand. Designing the challenge to use in your training requires some knowledge of the physics and physiology behind the feat, so that you can present it in a way that is both challenging and relatively safe. A number of levels of training can be built into the exercise, including teaching specific NLP processes using the event as an example. The timing of the event, the preparation for the event, and the utilization of the event (eg by anchoring the state attained) can all add to the value of it for participants.

Bibliography:

• Bolstad, R. “Questing: Aligning Change with Life’s One Great Search” in Anchor Point, Vol 11, No 4, p 3-12 and Vol 11, No 5, p 3-16, 1997
• Burkan, T. Extreme Spirituality: Radical Journeys for the Inward Bound Beyond Words Publishing, Hillsboro, Oregon, 2001
• Campbell, J. The Hero With A Thousand Faces, Princeton University, Princeton, 1968.
• DeLozier, J. and Grinder, J. Turtles All The Way Down Grinder, DeLozier and Associates, Bonny Doon, California, 1987
• Haley, J. Ordeal Therapy, Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, 1984
• Hewko, R. “Karate and Board Breaking” Kyokushin Karate Rocky Mountain Dojo, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada, 2002
• Ingalls, A. “Fire-walking” p 135-178 in Scientific American, No. 160, 1939
• Paul Thorsen, Die Hypnose in Dienste der Menschheit, Bauer-Verlag, Freiburg-Haslach, 1960
• Rist, C. “Breaking Boards (The physics of a karate chop)” in Vol 21, No. 5, Discover magazine, May 2000
• Robbins Research International “ANTHONY ROBBINS LIVE UNLIMITED POWER WEEKEND” San Diego, 1991
• Sternfield, J. Firewalk: The Psychology of Physical Immunity Berkshire House, Stockbridge, Massachusetts, 1992
• Ulman, M. “Herpes Simplex and Second Degree Burn Induced Under Hypnosis,” p 828-830 in American Journal of Psychiatry, Issue 103, 1947
• Zeig, J. ed. Ericksonian Methods: The Essence Of The Story, Brunner/Mazel, New York, 1994
• Zixin, L., Li, Y., Zhengyi, G., Zhenyu, S., Honglin, Z. and Tongling, Z. Qigong: Chinese Medicine or Pseudoscience? Prometheus Books, New York, 2000

This article above was published in 2002 and initiated the following responses and counter-responses, which I found really interesting and I believe are really positive examples of disagreement within the field.

Breakthroughs and Meltthroughs*

by Steve Andreas © 2003

Introduction

The field of NLP is not really a “field” at all, but much more like a jungle, with here and there a little clearing where someone is tilling and defending a small plot and raising a crop. It is now a bit over 25 years since the beginnings of NLP, and that is about where physics was in the early 1800’s, with a few investigators scattered here and there, occasionally communicating with each other and sharing ideas and the results of experiments. It took roughly another 100 years for physics to reach some kind of maturity, in which there was sufficient agreement among those working in the field on what constitutes appropriate methodology for testing and validating ideas. That agreement on assumptions and criteria for testing observations allowed it to become a cooperative effort,  independent of any particular authority or personality. The Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman describes physics (in the early 1960s) as follows:

” We have a way of checking whether an idea is correct or not that has nothing to do with where it came from. We simply test it against observation. So in science we are not interested in where an idea comes from.

” There is no authority who decides what is a good idea. We have lost the need to go to an authority to find out whether an idea is true or not. We can read an authority and let him suggest something; we can try it out and find out if is true or not. If it is not true, so much the worse–so the ‘authorities’ lose some their ‘authority.’

” The relations among scientists were at first very argumentative, as they are among most people. This was true in the early days of physics, for example. But in physics today, the relations are extremely good. A scientific argument is likely to involve a great deal of laughter and uncertainty on both sides, with both sides thinking up experiments and offering to bet on the outcome. In physics there are so many accumulated observations that it is almost impossible to think of a new idea which is different from all the ideas that have been thought of before, and yet that agrees with all the observations that have already been made. And so if you get anything new from anyone, anywhere, you welcome it, and you do not argue about why the other person says it is so.

” Most people find it surprising that in science there is no interest in the background of the author of an idea, or in his motive in expounding it. You listen, and if it sounds like a thing worth trying, a thing that could be tried, is different, and is not obviously contrary to something observed before, it gets exciting and worthwhile. You do not have to worry about how long he has studied, or why he wants you to listen to him. In that sense it makes no difference where the ideas come from. Their real origin is unknown; we call it the imagination of the human brain, the creative imagination.

” Many sciences have not developed this far, and the situation is the way it was in the early days of physics, when there was a lot of arguing because there were not so many observations. I bring this up because it is interesting that human relationships, if there is an independent way of judging truth, can become unargumentative.” (6) pp. 21-22

If NLP is to mature into a field, we need to communicate more between those isolated little plots in the jungle, and take a closer look at what is being raised in each of them. Not to search for truth with a capital T–physicists gave that up long ago–but to find out what works dependably, and think about how it works, so that we can continually improve what we do. We also need to follow the lead of physics and separate this search from the personalities involved in the search–shifting our attention from “Who’s right,” to “What’s right.”

Grinder and Bostic’s book, Whispering in the Wind, invited readers to engage in a “professional high quality public dialogue among the practitioners of NLP,” and it was in that spirit that I recently wrote an extensive review (3) commending and sometimes amplifying parts of the book, while questioning and criticizing other sections, and offering alternative understandings. Sadly, neither the authors nor anyone else has stepped forth to continue this kind of dialogue that is essential if our jungle is to become a cooperative effort to refine and develop a field out of what we do.

Surmounting Heroic Challenges

I am writing this long overdue article partly in response to Richard Bolstad’s fine article, “Providing heroic challenges on Trainings” (5). As usual, Richard is clear and detailed, and does an excellent job of demystifying heroic challenges by helping us understand much of the simple physics underlying them.

My wife Connirae and I have used ropes course challenges in trainings, and we can verify how useful such challenges can be, especially for some people. One young Native American woman who had started serious drinking when she was 12 had a truly life-changing response to succeeding at these physical challenges. However, for a former army signal corpsman who had climbed trees to string telephone lines under enemy fire, it was something of a “snooze,” since he had already faced far more difficult challenges.

The cooperation required by many ropes challenges is also a very valuable living metaphor for many people who have not previously experienced that, due to our society’s (and NLP’s) imbalance in emphasizing individual achievement over cooperative effort.

In the first section of Bolstad’s article, “The science behind the magic,” he writes about a martial arts test that he experienced, in which the point of a sword was placed against his larynx just above his sternum and “while holding my breath, I then leaned forward so that my entire weight was resting on the sword.”

He states, “Like most of these tests, the one I endured was largely based on a physiological fact that most students will not know. In this case, the fact is that the cartilage surrounding the trachea is quite hard.” I would like to add a little more to this “science behind the magic.”

During a delightful visit to my home a few years ago, when Richard demonstrated his position during this test, he was leaning at about 30 degrees from the vertical. Since Richard is a bit over 6′ tall, I’d guess that his larynx is about 5′ from the floor. Since his weight is 190#, using simple geometry and the Pythagorean theorem, we find that at an angle of 30 degrees, a scale under Richard’s feet would register a weight of about 164#. Does that mean that the sword is only bearing 26#? (190#-164#) No, depending on the angle of the sword, it would bear about  85#–still pretty impressive, but a good deal less than half of Richard’s “entire weight.”

Richard also writes that “The tip was sharp (he had first demonstrated this by cutting paper with it).” It is almost impossible to cut paper with the extreme tip of a sword, if for no other reason than because of the difficulty of keeping the tip exactly in the plane of the paper–either you miss the paper entirely, or you cut it with the blade behind the tip. I would be willing to bet that the tip of that sword was not nearly as sharp as it appeared.

I have examined the swords that sword-swallowers use, and both tip and blade edge are quite dull. They often sink the sword into a block of wood as an apparent demonstration of how sharp it is, but even a very dull blade of a heavy sword will stick quite nicely into the end grain of a block of wood. Magicians often use such “demonstrations” to impress and distract people from actually examining their props.

Granted, this is still a very impressive stunt, and not to be tried lightly, but not quite so amazing as it appears. To know whether this is anything more than a cute stunt we need it a controlled experiment in which some of the people who are tested have had the “iron shirt” Chi Kung training that Richard had, while others have not–though it might be hard to find willing subjects!

Firewalks

Firewalks are also very impressive, partly because they are always done at night, so that the glowing coals look very bright to dark-adapted eyes. The same coals appear much less impressive and threatening in daylight, because you see very little glow, mostly only a light covering of gray ash.

A few years ago, my three sons decided that they wanted to do a firewalk. They had heard their uncle talk about doing his own firewalk with friends, and they asked me what I knew about it. Then, unsupervised, they built a big fire, spread the coals and spontaneously walked on them in a way that I thought showed an unusual degree of common sense. They first stood on the side of the 12′ path of coals, and took one step onto the coals and across to bare earth.

Then they faced the coals at a slight angle, and took two steps (one with each foot) to reach safety. Then they took three steps, continuing until they were walking the entire length of coals.

By doing it in this way, they created a series of graded risks, with opportunities for feedback. Take one step, and notice the result, take another, and notice the result, etc. This breaks the challenge down into much smaller steps, effectively transforming it into an analog function that changes over a range, with opportunities for feedback at each increase in risk.

In contrast, every other firewalk I have seen, or read about, presents people with a digital, all-or-none choice: walk the entire length or not. This is also true of the challenge of breaking a board with a karate chop, which Richard describes so well. You can’t do it half-way, it is either all or none. Of course this task could also easily be transformed into an analog one by starting with very thin boards, and then gradually increasing the thickness of the board.

Digital vs. Analog Functions

Milton Erickson often transformed a digital limitation into an analog series that the client could vary over a range until it was no longer a limitation. One man  had a compulsion to pee through a metal or wooden tube that was 8-10 inches long, which prevented him from joining the army. Erickson had him purchase a bamboo tube that was 12 inches long, and then gradually shorten it by 1/4,” 1/2,” or even an inch, until he realized that he always peed through a tube–his penis.

A digital, all-or-none challenge provides a lot of drama. The high arousal, emotional state of fear, and then surviving the fear can definitely create lasting learning. People often do learn to move beyond the limitations of what they think think they can do. 

However, we know that many people often learn utterly ridiculous and severely limiting beliefs in such highly focused experiences of great fear, narrow focus, and arousal. My favorite example of this is a woman who had a phobia of not seeing her feet. When she was seven years old, in a moment of extreme fear, she happened to be looking at her feet, which were hidden by 10 inches of muddy water. When someone is in a state of intense arousal during a heroic challenge, we don’t know how or where they are attending, either externally or internally. What is to prevent them from learning something very different than what is intended?

In the adrenalin rush of a heroic challenge, and the highly-focused attention that results, someone is quite likely to learn something else that is potentially quite harmful and even dangerous. They may conclude that they have to make changes digitally, by taking a big leap of faith, rather than by chunking down a risk into an analog series and testing the results of their exploration at each step.

They may also chunk very large, and conclude from a small success that they can now do anything. As Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, said after striking a match, “Look, a common twig. Think what I could do to a tree!” Participants are often even told to chunk very large in this way. For instance, Bolstad writes, “I remind them that their success is evidence that they can ‘do anything they decide to do.’ ” As a result, some people develop somewhat grandiose ideas of what is possible for them, flipping from one limiting belief, “I can do nothing,” to an equally extreme limiting belief, “I can do anything.”

After a firewalk, one man declared that now he knew that he could be at ground zero of a nuclear explosion and not be hurt. Hopefully he will not have a chance to test that new belief, but it may lead him to take a lot of other risks that he is equally unprepared for. Another firewalk “graduate” was so convinced of his abilities that he went home and signed a year lease on 10,000 square feet of office space to use for self-development seminars (which never happened).

Lack of Congruence in Digital “Breakthroughs”

These are only a couple of examples that point to the complete lack of congruence in many “breakthrough” experiences. I assume that every belief–no matter how limiting, archaic, or unlikely it is–has a positive function. Protection from some kind of harm is a very common function, one that is certainly present when contemplating the challenge of a firewalk or leaning on a sword! Whenever someone “breaks through” or “overcomes” a limitation, that means that no respect whatsoever is given to its positive functions, or other reasons for the limitation. It is simply “broken through” or demolished, just as an invading army conquers all opposition.

While some people’s limiting beliefs may be purely imaginary, others are very real, and usually there is at least some degree of reality or validity. If we hold to the fundamental NLP idea of entering the other person’s map of the world, then we also need to respect their limiting beliefs, no matter how extreme, ridiculous, or harmful they might appear to someone else.

Analog Changes Permit Congruence

When a limiting belief is respected and gently explored, NLP has many ways to gather information about its concerns or objections, and its positive outcomes. We can contextualize it, explore its historical origins, utilize its positive outcome to reframe it, educate it, chunk it down, update it, or teach additional behavioral resources and skills, etc., etc.

When and if we decide to challenge it experientially, we can do it in a way that is analog and carefully contextualized, gradually going from an easier task to more difficult ones, and make use of feedback to adjust each succeeding task to make it more relevant and effective. When a limiting belief has been softened in this way, the person gradually becomes capable of a richer and wider range of behavior, without falling into the trap of thinking that s/he can do anything, anywhere, anytime, with anyone.

Meltthroughs

In contrast to a “breakthrough,” this kind of process can be described as a meltthrough, in which someone’s personal congruence has been so thoroughly respected that there is no longer a belief or objection to be “broken through.”

A breakthrough is much less likely to last, because the belief that has been ignored and shoved aside tends to reassert itself, particularly when the new belief, “I can do anything,” bumps its nose against the unyielding (and sometimes rough and painful) surface of real events.

As John McWhirter has often pointed out, every change involves both development and safety. Many people think of this as an either/or choice: “Either I can have development or safety, but not both.” This kind of assumption often underlies the use of a “breakthrough” experience. In contrast, a meltthrough respects both the person’s wish to be more than they are and their legitimate concerns about what they might lose if they changed.

Safety and development are both valid needs. They exist simultaneously, and both can be analog functions, varying over a range.  A meltthrough respects both our needs for safety and for development: “How can I change in the direction that I want, while at the same time keeping a degree of safety?” My sons’ exploration of firewalking respected and satisfied both their curiosity about going beyond the boundaries of what they thought they could do, and their concerns about safety, by  gathering information first, and then exploring in a step-by-step analog way.

Digital breakthrough experiences have been the focus of many change methods, in many contexts, over a very long period of time. Such breakthroughs are not limited to the heroic challenges that Bolstad describes so well; the same pattern of “breaking through” concerns and objections can be found in many other methods that don’t involve physical challenges. I would like to explore one other such method that has the same kinds of limitations and dangers that I have described.

“Meta-Yes and Meta-No”

Briefly, in this process by Michael Hall the client is asked to access a very strong representation of saying a firm “No” to something. Then s/he is asked to say this “No” to a limiting belief, loudly, intensely, and repeatedly, in what is referred to as a “neurological No.”

The client is then asked to access a very strong representation of saying a firm and congruent “Yes” to something. Then s/he is asked to say this “Yes” to a new more enhancing belief, loudly, intensely, and repeatedly, a “neurological Yes.”

Eliciting the Meta-No

Hall describes how to elicit a Meta-No:
” 1. Get a good strong representation of saying ‘No!’ to something. Think about something that every fiber of your being can say a definite and unquestionable ‘No!’ to. Recall several examples so that you can fully get this resourceful disconfirming state. ‘Would you push a little child in front of an oncoming bus?’ ‘No, I wouldn’t.’ ‘No, I don’t believe you; you would!’ ‘No I would not!’ ‘Yes you would. You would do it for the thrill.’ ‘No, damn it, I would not!’ When you get the person to that place, anchor it!” (7) p. 164.

When you say a No loudly, intensely, and repeatedly, there is an inherent incongruence that becomes obvious when you ask the question, “Why do you have to say it so loudly?” This is not a new observation. As Shakespeare wrote over 400 years ago, “The lady protests too much, methinks.” When you really believe something solidly, it is so much a part of you that there is no need to shout it, you just say it. I once saw a filmed interview with C. G. Jung, in which the interviewer asked Jung if he believed in God. Jung replied in a soft, deep, slow voice, “Oh no, . . . I don’t believe; . . . I know.”

Hall says, “Even stronger than the neurological no (or yes) is the matter-of-fact no (or yes),” and that the neurological no (or yes), repeated loudly and intensely, will eventually result in a matter-of-fact no (or yes). To summarize, the client is asked to utter an incongruent No (or Yes) until it becomes a congruent one. When and if this happens, it is only by overwhelming the initial incongruence. The “neurological No” is an incongruent No.

Congruence is what is often referred to as “ecology.” However, as John McWhirter has pointed out, it is better described as congruence. Even when someone is congruent about a change, that may not fit with the larger ecology of spouse, children, co-workers, larger social group, etc. To test for ecology, we would have to ask all of these other people whether or not the change fits well for them. Usually we are not able to do this, so we are limited to asking the person if it fits for all parts of them. Even if we ask them to imagine how others would respond to the change, that is only checking with the person’s own representation of these other people, not the others themselves, so we are still checking for internal congruence, not the larger ecology.

The Meta-No/Yes is Used Out of Context.

The Meta-No/Yes is Used Out of Context. The Meta-No (and Yes) is elicited in a particular context (e.g. pushing a child in front of a bus). That No is a response to the person’s values as they exist in that context. Then the Meta-No is applied to the limiting belief, which exists in a different context, with different values operating. While there may be some overlap between the values expressed in the two contexts, they are likely to be at least somewhat different, and may be very, very different indeed. For instance, the values existing in the experience of “not pushing a child in front of a bus” are certainly very different than the values involved in “giving up a regular job.” So the Meta-No is in response to values that may be entirely irrelevant to the context of the belief it is applied to! Put another way, the Meta-No is in response to values in one context; when applied to a different context, it ignores the values that are expressed in that context, and this is another source of incongruence.

Digital Alternative.

Just as in a heroic physical challenge, in the Meta-Yes/Meta-No process, the client is asked to make a digital, all-or-none shift from the old belief to the new one. It is either “Yes” or “No” and no compromise or integration of the old and new beliefs is even contemplated, much less attempted. As Hall writes: 

“And how many more times do you need to utter this disconfirmation to that old belief to really blow it out of the water and allow it to have no place in your mind” (7, p. 165).

“Blow it out of the water” and “have no place in your mind” are statements that use violent terminology, and do not demonstrate respect of the old belief, or any of the positive intentions or consequences of that old belief. A lack of congruence is inherent to either/or alternative methods. In the following two descriptions of the technique there are further statements in regard to the limiting belief (4, p. 3;  8, p. 65):

“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. As you notice how they represent the belief, pace its positive intentions.”

Almost all of this instruction is about realizing how the old belief has been limiting, and “pace its positive intentions” is short of respecting and acknowledging those positive intentions, and integrating them into the creation of the new enhancing belief.

In another description of this step, Hall writes:

“Check the ecology and realism of the limiting belief. How does this belief limit you? How does it get in your way? How does it sabotage your success, happiness, resourcefulness, etc. What would you get if you did not have this belief interfering as it does? Meta-modeling the limiting belief in this way will assist you 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, and pace its positive intentions” (7, p. 164).

Although this is described as a check for “ecology,” again it is all about weakening and destroying the old limiting belief, ending with the same inadequate instruction to “pace its positive intentions.”

When it comes to the new enhancing belief, there is the following instruction (8, p. 65) “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.” Here again there is no testing or checking for congruence at all, only a test for how compelling it is.

Primary and Secondary Experience.

There is an additional problem with only exploring what the person will “think and say.” For most people, “think and say” means auditory digital words, which Bandler and Grinder pointed out long ago is “secondary experience” in contrast to the primary experience of images, feelings and auditory sounds, based on sensory experience.

With the exception of articles, like “a” and “an,” etc. and proper nouns, like “Bill” or “Omaha,” words indicate categories of experience. In order to have a category, you have to have some experiences to put into the category, and the category also has to have an effective submodality structure to hold the different experiences together as a group. Both the content experiences and the structure of the belief determine how well it will function. I have written extensively about this in great detail elsewhere (2).

Since the new belief in this process is purely verbal, there is no exploration of the underlying experiential content basis for the belief, nor is there any exploration of the underlying submodality structure of the belief. While some people are resourceful enough to use appropriate content and structure, I don’t like to assume that they will; I like to be sure. Without a solid structure and content, a new belief is “just words,” or what some people call an “intellectual” belief that will have no real impact on their experience, and will not last.

An Example.

Let’s take a look at what Hall and Bodenhamer say about a client who Bodenhamer took through this process. The client originally “had struggled with the limiting and toxic belief, ‘I always alienate and drive away friends’ ” (7, p.161). After using the Meta-Yes/No process with him, the authors wrote:  

“Recalling the experience of last weekend, he said, ‘These guys really love me. They really love me. They don’t believe I’m a jerk and arrogant. They really love me. . . . Instead of hearing myself saying ‘I am a jerk,’ I hear myself saying these guys really love me” (7, p.163).

That statement clearly indicates a very large chunk, digital, shift from “Everyone hates me” to “Everyone loves me.” That may be a more pleasant belief–at least for a while–but it is just as universal and all-or-none, and equally limiting. In the old belief, he was deaf to authentic expressions of caring. Now he will be equally deaf to any expression of dislike! In the real world, some of his friends may be truly caring, others may be more casual, and a few may not like him, at least at times.

A much more useful belief would be something like, “I can make friends,” or “I am a likable person,” and to be sure that the belief is represented in primary experience, and includes a number of feedback mechanisms for noticing whether or not others’ responses are congruent with that belief. Including counterexamples to the belief within the structure of the belief is one powerful way to insure feedback, and I have discussed this and other structural feedback mechanisms quite thoroughly elsewhere (2).

Reaching Congruence.

Despite the digital Yes/No alternative that is the basis of this method, it could be made into a useful method:

If there were respectful and careful elicitation of the values and positive intentions of the limiting belief, inviting and utilizing the person’s unconscious mind to the fullest,

If these concerns were then used to modify and contextualize the new enhancing belief,

If this new belief were then thoroughly tested for both its advantages and disadvantages, to be sure that it did not interfere significantly with any other outcomes that the person has,

If all this exploration and testing were done in the person’s primary experience of images, sounds and feelings–examples of memories of past experience and representations of future experiences–not just words.

However, if you do this kind of thorough checking and testing, a very interesting thing happens: then there is absolutely no need to go though the meta-yes, meta-no process. If you do your work well, the person will do their own Meta-Yes and No automatically, based on all their relevant needs and values. This technique seems effective when congruence checks are inadequate, while if the congruence checks are done adequately, the technique is no longer necessary.  

A Videotaped Example.

The foregoing has been largely based on written descriptions of the Meta-Yes/Meta-No process. However, I have seen a videotape of Hall using it with a woman who wanted to quit her regular job and work independently instead. The advantages of a regular job that would be lost–like a secure and regular paycheck, were not explored, nor were the possible problems or difficulties that she would face in free-lance work–such as having to sell her services repeatedly through some kind of publicity, how to survive financially during start-up and other lean times, establishing and managing her own office, overhead expenses, etc. It was simply “No” to the old, and “Yes” to the new.

I have changed what I do a number of times in my life–for example, from chemist, to college instructor, to Gestalt Therapist, to NLP trainer and researcher. I have not had a regular job working for someone else since 1970, and I love the independence and freedom that I have enjoyed. However, I can also tell you from over 30 years of experience of developing three small businesses, that there is sometimes a considerable price for that wonderful independence and freedom. I think it is wise to explore that price before jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire (a very digital shift). My advice has always been to “Keep your day job while you find out if following your dream will pay the rent” (an analog shift).

A Positive Example

In this article I have criticized the work of others, and described in detail what I believe is a much better way to work. I would like to go beyond that to offer a detailed and concrete example of the meltthrough way of working with limitations that I advocate. There is a complete transcript online (1) of a videotaped session with a young woman (with no prior knowledge of NLP) who found herself with a “lot of anger” “exploding” at “stupid things,” who wanted to be more calm and resourceful. I spent about 50 minutes with her, respecting her needs, outcomes, concerns and objections, helping her reach forgiveness with an ex-boyfriend, testing her response repeatedly with a detailed future-pace, gradually working toward her outcome. If you take the time to read the transcript (or watch the the video, which provides additional nonverbal information) you will also see that I make several mistakes along the way–and correct them, as we work together toward a congruent and satisfactory outcome.

If you take the time to read the transcript, I would like you to then imagine that I had simply asked her to say “No” to the old response of getting angry, and “Yes” to a new response of being calm, and to consider how inadequate that would have been in terms of her complex needs.

Meltthrough work is not only much more respectful and ecological for the person changing, it is also much easier for the change agent. When you respect all parts of the person, they all become resourceful allies, supporting and driving the change process from within, as you and the client problem-solve together to find solutions that are congruent and that will last. Then there is no need for the dramatic heroic challenge or breakthrough, which is always disrespectful, unecological, and ineffective, often harmful, and sometimes even dangerous.

*published in Anchor  Point, Volume 18, N0. 2. pp.25-43

References

• Andreas, Steve. “Diffusing Reflexive Anger” (forgiveness) Phoenix AZ, Zeig/Tucker/Theisen, 1999 (A complete verbatim transcript of this session can be found online at: http://www.zeigtucker.com/andreassg.htm )
• Andreas, Steve. Transforming Your Self: Becoming who you want to be. Moab, UT Real People Press, 2002
• Andreas, Steve. Book Review: Whispering in the Wind, by John Grinder and Carmen Bostic St.Clair. Anchor Point, Vol. 17, No. 3 March, 2003, p. 3
• Bodenhamer, Bobby G. “The Meta-Yes and No pattern.” Neuro-sematics web site, 2003 http://www.neurosemantics.com/Articles/Meta_Yes-No.htm
• Bolstad, Richard. “Providing heroic challenges on Trainings.” Anchor Point, Vol. 17, No. 6, June-July 2003, pp. 9-20
• Feynman, Richard, The Meaning of it All, Reading, MA Perseus books, 1998  
• Hall, L. Michael, and Bodenhamer, Bobby G. The Structure of Excellence. Grand Junction, CO Action Printing, 1999
• Hall, L. Michael. Meta-money: wealth building excellence. The society of neuro-semantics, Grand Junction CO 1999

(Steve Andreas sent his article to both Richard Bolstad and Michael Hall in advance of publication, in order to give them an opportunity to comment. their replies follow)

A Response to “Breakthroughs and Meltthroughs” by Steve Andreas

From Richard Bolstad

What a pleasure to read Steve’s article which both extends and critiques my comments on breakthrough experiences. Those who read my article will know that I enjoy the ability of NLP to question the emperor’s new clothes, and Steve continues that process with my story about falling on a sword.

One of the main themes of Steve’s article is that breakthrough experiences are digital and analog transitions may be more respectful of ecology as well as simply safer. He correctly challenges my use of the universal quantifier “anything” in my statement “I remind them that their success is evidence that they can do anything they decide to do.” Clearly, I do not want my students to overcommit their finances, or to stand in the way of a nuclear explosion. There is also, I agree, something rather disrespectful about the terminology of “breaking through” a limitation, if we accept that limitations were put there for a reason.

The actual process is more like seeing the limitation disappear in front of one’s eyes, or–as Steve’s metaphor suggests–feeling it melt away. The metaphorical learning from the board-break or a ropes course is perhaps that many of our worst fears are based on perceptual mistakes. Your hand can go safely through a board, and you can walk safely a considerable distance from the ground. You can also often find a career that you love, and create a relationship that is worth living in. In each case. it is important to preserve ecology. Sometimes, that means acting decisively and totally enough to be sure of success.

At the same time, I think there is some degree of wishful thinking in the idea that all change can be done slowly or gently. One cannot leap across a chasm a small step at a time, and it is my experience that the real world has chasms, just as a ropes course does. We do not do our students a service by trying to cover that up by finding ways that all their experiences are gradual. This may be a metaprogram difference between Steve and I. As a nurse, I have watched people facing life-or-death challenges where it seems to me that they need to make a clear, unequivocal decision, rather than do a little better than they have done. Let me give you a personal example:

When I ran my first two NLP Practitioner trainings and NLP weekends, I was employed teaching in a state tertiary institution. I had a stable income guaranteed, and was “transitioning” to private work, by running NLP seminars on my holidays and weekends. The first trainings worked like clockwork. Many of my friends and colleagues from round New Zealand enrolled, and my very first course was actually booked out. Then I ran a weekend that didn’t attract so many people. In fact, I got about eight enrollments, so I canceled it in disgust. That was a bit puzzling.

I had another weekend coming up though, and this one was to be videotaped by a professional video company. It was costing me a few thousand dollars, but I figured that all the best trainers had videos out, and it might be a great way to get well known. On the Thursday evening before that weekend, it finally dawned on me that I had six people enrolled, that the course had to go ahead because I’d paid for the video, and that essentially I was in trouble. For the first time, I really needed a training to work!

That night I didn’t sleep at all–not because I was worrying; but because I was working. I thought again about who might be interested in attending this particular weekend. I listed all the possible ways to get people onto a weekend training one day away. I worked out what advertising would be needed, and who could help distribute it. I produced the adverts by hand. I left home with the adverts and began distributing them at 5.00 am on Friday. Twenty-eight hours later the training began, and it was full.

That was the first time I actually took my business seriously. I stopped “transitioning,” stopped rehearsing, and treated it as real. I had learned that my slow, careful approach was not ecological. Of course, as Steve might point out, I still kept my day job, so in his sense I was still melting through. But there is no way I would describe that day psychologically as a melting through. It is in this sense that I hold to the value of the board-break as a metaphor.

A Response to “Breakthroughs and Meltthroughs” by Steve Andreas

From  L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

1. In reading over the Breakthroughs and Meltthroughs article above and its critiques, I am concerned with what I perceive as numerous misrepresentations. I am left to assume due to the number of these that Mr. Andreas wants to find fault with Meta-States. I do not believe that he understands to (sic) overall context of Neuro-Semantics and its consistent emphasis on ecology, balance and systems checks that dominate the trainings where concepts like this are covered. Steve has never attended a Neuro Semantic training and this explains the lack of understand (sic) of the overall context of Neuro-Semantics and its pervasive influence (sic) on ecology, balance, mindfulness, and systems checks.

2. The Meta-State Belief Change pattern is misrepresented inasmuch it is assumed (erroneously so) that the ecology is not emphasized before we begin, we “check the ecology” of a limiting belief to make sure it is not (sic) toxic and not (sic) sabotaging.  “All the ecology is in the preparation step” is instructed in regard to this pattern.  “So make sure you choose a really great belief, one that is well-formed, balanced, and ecological.”

3. In recent trainings during 2003 in San Francisco (NLP of California), Paris (PNL Repere Center), England (John Seymour Associates), Johannesburg (Institute of Neuro-Semantics, Africa), etc. the very first thing done with this pattern is to emphasize the importance of ecology in the preparation step. This includes asking about positive intentions, meta-modeling the belief, exploring what the person means, the states that it creates, and so on.

4. From the review, he does not seem to know or realize that the Meta-Yes pattern for changing a belief is presented after we describe and discuss the meta-levels of a belief and how that differs from a mere thought. This is based on the Bateson and Korzybski distinctions about “logical levels or types” which I have written extensively about in NLP: Going Meta (2002) and in numerous articles on the Neuro-Semantic website wwwneuro-semantics.com

5. The pattern doesn’t start until we have had a conversation with a person that meta-models the limiting belief and that finds the right words for an enhancing belief, we access two primary states of confirmation and disconfirmation.  These are expressed and summarized in the words, “Yes” and “No” respectfully. (sic) That a video may exist where it appears sufficient time was not spent doing that with a given person does not mean that ecology is not emphasized. “An exception does not make a rule.”

6. There are many kinds of negation. I wrote an entire chapter on eight kinds of negations in The Structure of Excellence: Unmasking the Meta-Levels of “Sub-Modalities” (1999). The negation of “making up your mind” to stubbornly refuse something is the kind of “no” or negation that the pattern works with. And in this pattern, there is a digital shift of either/or processing that we’re working with. This is similar to the digital shift of either/or processing in Steve’s “Thresholding Pattern,” when a person goes over threshold, something snaps.

7. Without an understanding of meta-stating, of the reflexivity that exists within Meta-States, and of the levels of states, I am not surprised that the process is mis-understood, and mis-perceived thoroughly.

8. Additionally, the “incongruent no” as it is referred to, or the yes that Andreas criticizes is not “incongruent” in the way we actually work the pattern. It does not represent the hundreds of people who I encounter every year. From a presuppositional point of view, that he labels it in this way does not make it so.

9. When the Meta-No or the Meta-Yes is referred to as being used “out of context,” it again shows that it is not understand (sic) in regards to the basic meta-stating process. It is in that process that we take a thought, feeling, or physiology of a state, or a piece of that state, access it, amplify it, and then apply it into a different context. This is the heart of the meta-stating process, something we all do anyway, and what we do with intentionality, ecology, congruency, and mindfulness in Meta-States. Again, merely announcing that I “take it out of context” does not make it so.

10. The assertion that the process is digital is another misunderstanding. It is an analog process. We ask people to increasingly experience the state, to experience it more and more. That’s an analog process, not a digital one.

11. Further, the critique that we do not “respect” the intentionality of the old limiting belief shows a lack of understanding of the process, an attempt to understand the process from a very limited source and using one very old tape. This does not represent an honest seeking first to understand before critiquing.

12. Andreas inserts his understandings of words into my words and then criticizes that interpretation. “Thinking and saying” for me (and I emphasize “for me”) includes the VAK of the movie playing in the mind. That Steve doesn’t interpret it that way is perfectly fine. That he projects his meanings into my words and then criticizes his interpretations of my words saying things like “since Hall’s process is entirely verbal” is not acceptable. That conclusion is his, not mine and as a matter of fact, does not accurately represent me.

Steve had originally submitted a response to Bolstad and Hall’s responses which the editor of Anchor Point magazine decided not to publish. Here is his response to Bolstad and Hall.

Steve Andreas Responds:

The two responses to my article beautifully exemplify and confirm many of the major points that I made in my article.

Bolstad’s response is a“both/and” response, directed toward what I had written, agreeing with some sections, disagreeing with others, and giving specific contextualized examples and reasons for his views. This is the kind of respectful exchange that exemplifies a cooperative search for a broader and deeper understanding, and it is the kind of dialogue that I said was desperately needed and lacking in NLP.

In contrast, Hall’s response is a digital, either/or response–he is right and I am wrong. The only argument that he provides to explain this difference of opinion is that what he really does is very different from what he has written in three different  books that I referred to, and what I observed in a videotaped demonstration. I have since found essentially the same description of the “Meta-Yes/Meta-No” pattern in three more of Hall’s books.

Hall states that I have “never attended a Neuro Semantic training,” as if that were a reason to dismiss my comments about his writing and a videotaped demonstration. In fact I have watched videotapes of an entire weekend training by Hall (which included the Meta-Yes/Meta-No demonstration that I referred to). I have also attended a demonstration by Hall of his “Mind to Muscle” pattern (which was equally underwhelming).

However, since all my comments were about his written descriptions (and a videotaped demonstration), what he says or does elsewhere is totally irrelevant. If Hall will provide me with a videotape of what he really does, I will be happy to find the time to review it.

Writing that what he really does in seminars is very different from what he has written in six different books is a very curious argument, one that casts a long, dark shadow over all his writing!

In addition, there are some serious contradictions in what he has written in response. In Paragraph (P) 2 he writes, “before we begin, we check the ecology of a limiting belief to make sure it is not (sic) toxic and not (sic) sabotaging.” Presumably Hall meant to describe what he does with a new empowering belief, rather than a limiting belief. This could be dismissed as a simple error, but for other, much more significant contradictions.

In P 6, Hall writes, “And in this pattern, there is a digital shift of either/or processing that we’re working with.” However, in P 10 he writes, “The assertion that the process is digital is another misunderstanding. It is an analog process.”

Either it is an analog process or it is not, but Hall does not notice this contradiction. There are five other indications that Hall does not read and review what he has written, indicated by a (sic) in P 1, 5, & 9.

In P 9, Hall writes, “When the Meta-No or the Meta-Yes is referred to as being used “out of context,” it again shows that it is not understand (sic) in regards to the basic meta-stating process.” However, in the next sentence, he writes, “It is in that process that we take a thought, feeling, or physiology of a state, or a piece of that state, access it, amplify it, and then apply it into a different context,” which certainly is a description of using the Meta-No out of its original context.

It can be useful to transfer an analog resource experience from one context to another, as in the “change personal history” pattern (but only if it is done with careful attention to ecology/congruence). It is very different to attempt to do this with a digital Meta-Yes or No, which is at a higher logical level, as Hall indicates by using the word “Meta-.” However, in P 5, he describes these states as “primary,” while as “Meta” states, they have to be secondary.

Taken together, these errors and contradictions indicate that Hall simply does not carefully read and review what he has written, something that is characteristic of much of his other writing as well. (As a further irony, Hall teaches workshops in “Prolific Writing.”) It is interesting to speculate to what extent this lack of feedback also applies to his spoken words.

For yet another extensive example of Hall’s confusion and lack of attention to detail, read my critique of of his article on the “kinesthetic swish” at: http://www.steveandreas.com/kinesthetic.html

In P 2 Hall writes, “All (emphasis mine) the ecology is in the preparation step, is instructed in regard to this pattern.” I have already commented in my article that Hall’s written descriptions of this first step are severely lacking in ecology, and this was also true in the videotaped example that I reviewed. The client demonstrated a lot of hesitation in both movement and speech as well as other nonverbal incongruities, which is inherent in the use of the “neurological No” (and Yes), as I have already written.

In addition, ecology/congruence is not something that can be done in one beginning step and then ignored. Like rapport, it must be continually checked and maintained throughout a process, and the best check is incongruity in the client’s nonverbal behavior.

In P 6, Hall mentions two other topics: “the meta-levels of a belief, and how that differs from a mere thought,” and “eight kinds of negations,” but since Hall doesn’t say anything about how these topics are relevant to any part of my article, it is impossible to respond to them intelligently.

In the same P 6, Hall writes of “the digital shift of either/or processing in Steve’s Thresholding pattern.” There are several different threshold patterns, but none of them are mine; Probably Hall is referring to Richard Bandler’s “Last Straw Threshold Pattern.” (1, ch. 6)  Threshold patterns are indeed digital, and because of this they must be used with great care and caution.

In P 4, Hall mentions “the Bateson and Korzybski distinctions about logical levels or types.” Although he again does not say how that is relevant to any part of my article, I would like to comment on it. The “Theory of Types” was introduced by Whitehead and Russell (4) almost a hundred years ago, and has been used more recently by Bateson, Dilts, Hall, and others as a foundation for understanding human communication. G. Spencer Brown proved this theory unnecessary, to Russell’s satisfaction in 1967, well over 35 years ago, yet many still use this outdated theory as a basis for their conclusions.

“The theory was, he (Russell) said, the most arbitrary thing he and Whitehead had ever had to do, not really a theory but a stopgap, and he was glad to have lived long enough to see the matter resolved.”(3)

Russell’s pleasure at having a key theory of his corrected is a beautiful example of the scientific attitude that puts truth first, and ego last.

Hall’s response consists almost entirely of negations of what I wrote (I count 30 of them), rather than positive alternative statements. In P 5, there is a sentence with three negations: “That a video may exist where it appears sufficient time was not spent doing that with a given person does not mean that we do not emphasize ecology.” For those who are familiar with the importance of positive outcomes and statements, it will be obvious that this statement is meaningless, since it doesn’t say what it does mean, only what it doesn’t.

Finally, most of Hall’s responses are not directed at the substance of what I wrote, but are directed toward me, personally, and my “misunderstanding” in particular. Hall repeatedly refers to my “misrepresentations,” (P 1, 2) “(not) understand,” and “lack of understand” (sic) (P 1) “does not seem to know or realize,” (P 4) “Without an understanding,” P7 ” mis-understood, and mis-perceived thoroughly,” (P 7) “it is not understand,” (sic) (P 9) “another misunderstanding,” and (P 10) “lack of understanding.” (P11) It is as if he thinks that if he repeats this allegation often enough it will become true, even without any supporting evidence

It is one thing to disagree with what someone writes; it is quite another to accuse someone of “misrepresentation,” diverting attention from the real issues. While Hall accuses me of misrepresenting, mis-understanding, and mis-perceiving his work, he doesn’t present specific counter-arguments or alternative understandings which could be the basis of a productive discussion. 

In P 1 Hall also attacks my motives, “Mr Andreas wants to find fault with Meta-States.” I do not “want to find fault” with anyone; I want to advance understanding in the field of NLP. This accusation is a further diversion from the real issues.

In P 11 Hall goes on to write, “This does not represent an honest seeking first to understand before critiquing.” When someone disagrees with me, I can ask for more information, so that we can come to some kind of mutual understanding, but when someone calls me dishonest, that is totally beyond any legitimate discussion of issues.

To summarize, Hall accuses me of misrepresentation, wanting to find fault, and dishonesty. Over 2,000 years ago the Romans described in detail quite a variety of fallacious arguments; one of the most well-known is Argumentum ad Hominem,  “argument directed at the man,” which is described in detail on the following link:

            http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#homine

I sent this link to Hall in a previous email communication in regard to my original article, but apparently he did not find it compelling.

Personal attacks are exactly the kind of irrelevant argument that distracts from the serious practical and theoretical issues facing NLP, and prevents the exploration and resolution of the differences in understanding that different people have.

I repeat my plea for an open, vigorous, and respectful dialogue about the theory and practice of NLP, separate from personalities, so that the “field” can take its first awkward steps toward becoming a respected branch of science.

References:

• Andreas, Steve; and Andreas, Connirae, Change Your Mind-and Keep the Change. Moab, UT Real People Press, 1987
• Anonymous, “Logic and Fallacies” web site URL: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#homine
• Brown, G. Spencer, Laws of Form, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1969 (preface, pp. viii-xi)
• Whitehead, Alfred North; and Russell, Bertrand. Principia Mathematica, Cambridge, England, Cambridge at the University Press, 1910-13