Tom,

Would it be fair to say that 3D Mind and DHE operate in pretty much two different domains?

I think that 3D Mind is its own model. If I wanted to I could translate it into NLP terms but that's suppose to be the thing about NLP, to have Multiple Descriptions of experience. And to squeeze everything into one description it think is pretty one dimensional.

Now what I think is interesting about 3D mind is that it accomplishes something that all the different styles of NLP, i think in my opinion attempt to do.

Take a look at Dilt's NLP, or what Hall is trying to do with MS/NS, John Grinder has his 4 step change format, Steve A. just came out with Six Blind Elephants.

I think that everyone is moving towards trying to create a simple method or way to navigate the change process. I think that everyone is constantly attempting to create newer more reliable methods for working with themselves and others.

Grinder desribed his 4 step change format as being a way to bring down the bar, I took that to mean he was trying to make it more user friendly to novices.

Chris

Tom,

Would you agree with Michael Perez's characterization 3D mind as, ''a belief change technique''?

I'm curious.
Chris

Interesting question.

When I refer to the NLP doctrine what I am talking about is the the mindset that NLP is flawless.

Questioning any part of NLP is prohibited. Criticizing any part of NLP is heresy.

If you decide to question part of and NLP then you are fair game to any type of personal attack.

That's what I'm talking about when I referred to the NLP doctrine. It is well exhibited in this thread.

No one will talk about NLP. What they will do is attack me instead.

That's a damn shame. I was told that this list was much more civil.

Notice one thing in this thread so far if you notice nothing else. I have not insulted anybody. I will not insult anyone.

I am still hoping for one on the topic post in this thread. So far we are 0 for 16.

have fun

Tom

Hi Tom,

If you look around the forum, just about every knock and cranny of NLP gets questioned around here with startling regularity.

I think that a few people have made some efforts to be on topic in this thread. For example, I thought that your first post, Chris's efforts and even my own initial post or reasonable attempts to address the issue.

People calling people idiots doesn't stand for long around here and, in my experience, will not be tolerated. One can always hope that people can learn different discussion strategies than the ones that they picked up whilst in day care...

Be Well,

Michael Perez

''Tom,

Would you agree with Michael Perez's characterization 3D mind as, ''a belief change technique''?

I'm curious. Chris''

partially. Let me go one step further than what Michael suggests. The 3-D mind is a ''self belief change technique''.

Let me give you an example.

Let's say that somebody has a phobia of snakes. There are two ways to handle this in the context of beliefs.

One is to change the way that they believe about snakes.they might think snakes are dangerous and aggressive.you could change what they believe about snakes.

That might actually generate a change but it will be a very specific change in a very specific context.

The way that the 3-D Mind model would handle this would be to treat the fear of snakes as a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself.

What would it be that they believe about themselves that would generate the fear? They could believe that they are fragile or weak. That is a self reference belief.

If we change the belief that they are fragile or weak not only are they no longer afraid of snakes they are also no longer afraid of many different things.

Here is a case in point. James had a phobia of elevators. I met him in London and worked with him for less than 10 minutes. Not only was he no longer afraid of elevators. He was also no longer afraid of escalators. A six-month depression disappeared. He had an eating disorder that disappeared. He had social anxiety that disappeared.

Because I recognize that the fear of elevators was just a symptom of his able to use the 3-D Mind to find the belief that generated that symptom.

There was a whole group of symptoms that were generated by one belief. Instead of working on five or six different problems I just found in the one belief that generated those problems.

The belief was a self referenced to belief rather than a belief about something else or someone else.

Here is a link to a video interview with James:

http://www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1104

There is also a letter that he wrote me documenting his experiences.

Let me know if this makes sense

Tom

Tom

Does the client make the limiting belief explicit to themselves using this method?

And so, is the 3D method designed to elicit limiting beliefs?

Cheers

Carl

I'm not sure what you mean but imagine this.

Imagine having the belief that you are very fragile.

Now look at doing the simplest tasks through the filter of that belief.

This is what we mean when we say that the belief is three-dimensional. We live inside of a bubble of the belief and sort the entire world through it.

Yes we do have a way of eliciting the limiting beliefs. I'm not sure I like Word limiting. Because the belief itself is not limited. It is pervasive.

Let me give you an example. At the Manchester UK seminar we had a guy whose problem was that he didn't like cutting the grass. In four questions we got from cutting the grass to the belief that he was a piece of crap.

that belief was underlying everything that he wanted to do. From what he believed he deserved to what he would try to accomplish that one belief was everywhere.

Let me know that makes sense

Tom

I do think that it is interesting how 3D Mind, in my experience, you don't 'cherry pick' the belief.

Meaning we don't pick a new belief to change the limiting belief from.

I think Symptom/Cause distinction is an interesting one that 3D Mind places an emphasis on. I don't see that in alot of NLP, I see it in some places.

Also I think the use of 5 questions has been a valuable contribution to the model.

Chris

I see you trained in NLP. Which aspects inspired you to create the 3D Mind offshoot?

I trained in NLP for many years.

I have trained in many things.

I would not say that was inspired by NLP. I was frustrated with the complexity.

I didn't like the programming aspect because it treated the brain as it was a computer that could simply be reprogram or repatterned.

Unfortunately there is a physical aspects of brain function that NLP had totally ignored. So I began studying the physical brain and neuroscience. I have done with the brain researcher who helped me understand the interactions between emotions ,brain chemistry and physical brain function.

NLP and hypnosis primarily tapped into the reactive layer of the brain that simply change the outcome of a series of events or states.

Simply replacing one pattern with another limited the client to a better pattern but just one better pattern.

the technology never addressed the physical brain and the interaction between the creative/adaptive parts of the brain and the reactive/primal parts of the brain.

So rather than reprogramming I looked at the personal change methods as a balancing method. I learned about balancing from my studies of acupressure, Qi Gong, Chinese medicine, studying shamans, and a few more things.

The idea of using balance was much more appealing than the reprogramming.

So the 3-D Mind is not an offshoot of NLP. The 2 technologies have completely different philosophies.

let me know this makes sense

Tom

Seems to me it's the theory and Presuppostions that differentiate 3D Mind from NLP.

Chris

It seems very similar, with anchoring, rapport etc

What seems similar?

I have to ask. What do you know about the 3D mind to allow you to make that judgement?

Why are you ignoring the differences that I already pointed out?

If you cannot set the NLP model aside long enough to examine the 3D mind then you will see everything at NLP.

This is an example of the NLP doctrine that I mentioned before. Seeing everything as NLP is a huge flaw in learning.

Have fun

Tom

I think if you break down the model you can decompose it down in to chunks that can be coded into NLP.

To me it's, the basic orientation of the model that seperates it from NLP. But if I were to strip certain features and characteristics out then like it said I can decompose it into things like Anchoring, Rapport, etc...

But then again just about anything can be decomposed into NLP terms. That's the nature of the NLP Model.

For a while there I did think of 3D Mind as a bunch Visual/Spatial Anchoring...but with the addition of 5 questions, and a re-examination of the methodology that is used to make changes, i'm comfortable referring to it as it's own Model.

Tom, as far as people calling 3D Mind, NLP, remember M. Hall's work that he now refers to as Neuro-Semantics was called NLP with a play on the Meta Position, some probably still think that now. I consider it different because he places an emphasis on content and semantics as opposed to NLP placing an emphasis on representational systems.

Also remember many have labeled, DHE by Bandler just repackaged NLP.

So the comparisions aren't new. There is probably more examples that I can't think of but i'm pretty sure that you can consider yourself in good company.

Chris

Oh, I want to add also within this list of examples Grinder and Bostic St. Clair's New Code Distinctions have been criticized as being nothing but old code NLP.

So, there you have it. I don't know what that says in general but at least your in good company.

Chris

I am never quite sure what the purpose of these questions is. Here are a list of things that are common, here is another list of differences. So is it the same or is it different. If there is a point to this I would love to know what it is.

Of course Meta Programmes tell us it is both. There was a wonderful moment on my practitioner training when we were looking at his and the trainer held up two flip chart pens, one with a green cap and one red. As we went round the group describing them someone eventually said that they were the same thing with different caps. Someone then asked how could they be the same when they were obviously different, one was a red pen the other was green which was exactly what the trainer was expecting.

Such a simple point but an important moment for me. There is a similar argument in Physics about whether light is a wave or a particle. Of course the paradox cannot be resolved at this level, the argument just goes round in circles. However at the quantum level the answer is clear. Light is neither. What happens is that under certain circumstances light BEHAVES like a particle according to our perception and in others it behaves live a wave. Naturally the light itself couldn’t give a toss what it is and just keeps on providing illumination, or heat as the case maybe.

I think the point raised here is more to do with marketing. There are many different strategies used to market a product. IBM’s policy used to be (and maybe still is) that they would never discuss competitors or their products. A group of us would have fun (yes I know it is sad!) sometimes trying to get an IBM salesman to compare their offerings with the opposition. They were well trained though and avoided the questions.

Another approach would to state that you product is the same as the others only better. The new and improved version, 50% better with added ingredients. The amount of science they manage to throw into a commercial for washing powder or shampoo never ceases to amaze me.

A further method is to say the other products are rubbish and this is the only one that works which is a strategy that tends not to be used much these days.

If that is an approach you are going to adopt then it would be non-sensical to admit that your product was similar in anyway to the one that you are saying is no good. It seems to me that this is more the case here.

One thing that is said is that it is results that count. An NLP’er might argue that it is achieving the outcome that is important.

Is that the same thing on not? Hey ho round we go again.

John

It's not as sunny as it was last week but I suspect some of you could still do with some fresh air.

To any 3D minder,

I have never done any of the 3D mind stuff. I am interested to know how you, as the practitioner, know when you are done, that your work is complete, and how does the client know that the the session has been beneficial?

Vince

Hi Vince,

Not a 3-D Minder, but this is still the correct answer, the best of my knowledge.

They do the same thing that NLPers do or just about anyone else involved with change procedures. That is, they tests themselves or their clients.

The easiest way to tell if you're still afraid of elevators is to take a ride on an elevator. So on, so forth and ad infinitum. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi Michael,

Excellent reply. They test. Everyone tests (even though I find some clients initially don't like that idea)

What are they actually testing? They are testing to see if the old feeling towards a situation has changed. It is this change in emotional response that indicates a change in neurological activity. And it doesn't matter whether it comes from NLP, 3D mind or whatever. The process used has changed the emotional response.

If something works then who cares how. I say put it in the arsenal and use it to assist those who need it.

Imagine how our clients would respond if they heard all of this petty bickering.



Vince