The Concept - How it came about

The idea for Behavioural Crosswiring came whilst I was doing some research into the T.O.T.E model (Test, Operate, Test, Exit [George A. Miller, Eugene Galanter, and Karl H. Pribram - Plans and the Structure of Behavior 1960 - ISBN 978-0937431009]) and more specifically the idea of nested TOTEs.

Whilst I began thinking about the structure of the TOTE model and how it applies to human behaviour, I called upon my experience as a computer programmer and began thinking about the TOTE loop in the same way I’d think about other iterative processes when writing computer programs. At first I began thinking about how a result from one TOTE could also be the initial Test for a second TOTE and thus an overlapping of TOTEs would be achieved.

A basic example of overlapping TOTEs in a behavioural context could be opening a door and walking through.
TOTE 1 (opening the door) can be structured as follows:

[is the door shut?] - yes - [reach out][grab the handle][turn the handle][pull the door open] - [is the door shut?] - no - exit.

TOTE 2 can be structured as follows:

[is the door open?] - yes - [walk through] - [Did I succeed in walking through?] - yes - exit.

This is a very basic example of two large chunk TOTEs yet you can already see the correlation between opening the door and walking through. The overlapping of these two TOTEs comes when you realise that human beings don’t simply forget the results from one TOTE before moving onto the next, they somehow remember that the door was just opened and operate according to that knowledge.

This leads into the idea that the result from the first TOTE (or some result being returned other than the pure intention of the TOTE) can be stored in some universally accessible variable which can then be used in the second TOTE. This would looks as follows using our example above:

bool IsDoorOpen (create a Boolean (yes/no, on/off, true/false) variable to store the value of true/false as to whether the door is open)

TOTE 1 : [is the door shut] - yes - [reach out and open the door, set IsDoorOpen to true] - [Is the door closed?] - no - exit.

TOTE 2: [IsDoorOpen = true?] - yes - [walk through] - [I did succeed in walking through] - yes - exit.

Here you can see the overlap between the result of the first TOTE setting the variable IsDoorOpen to true, and the usage of that variable in the second TOTE as the initial Test. As I say, this is a very basic example and while other operations would also be running simultaneously, this gives us a clear way of identifying the possibility of TOTE overlap.

While I was thinking about this idea of using variables in order to overlap TOTEs, and as I was also thinking about the concept of nested TOTEs at the same time, I started to wonder whether some TOTEs also use variables in order to determine exit point. That is, setting some variable in the operation phase which is later used in the final Test to decide whether it’s time to exist the strategy or not.

This could work as follows:

bool isDoorOpen (create a Boolean variable to store the value of true/false as to whether the door is open)

TOTE 1: [is the door shut?] - yes - [reach out and open the door, set IsDoorOpen to true] - [isDoorOpen = false?] - no - exit.

The result here is that the second Test in the TOTE is dependant on the variable IsDoorOpen and the value that’s assigned too it. This means that the exiting of the strategy (or TOTE) is accomplished based on the result of some operation and the setting of the IsDoorOpen variable. What caught my interest here is the question “What’s setting the variable that’s later used to exit the strategy and can it be hacked by some other process”.

Cross Wiring TOTEs

The concept of cross wiring TOTEs came from the question above and the concept of nesting TOTEs. It struck me that if the final Test in the TOTE is dependant on some variable being set to some certain value (like true or false) then it must be possible to set that variable inside the operation phase by nesting in a new TOTE which also has access to the variable in question. A basic example of this can be see using the behavioural process of depression.


Basic TOTE for depression:

bool isFeelingAcheived (set a variable to determine whether the feeling(s) have been achieved)


TOTE: [isFeelingAcheived = false?] - yes - [while isFeelingAcheived = false; do something to create depression and set isFeelingAcheived to true] - [isFeelingAcheived = true?] - exit.

In order to crosswire this TOTE into something new we also need a new TOTE that achieves our desired result. As an example of this we can use something like joy (another nominalisation) to crosswire the original TOTE into exiting.


The basic idea is to nest the desired TOTE inside the operation phase of the original TOTE and have it short circuit the process by setting the variable used in the Test phase and thus exiting the strategy. Since the original TOTE is operating inside of a WHILE loop we should be able to exit the current loop and have the strategy re-check the WHILE condition which will now be set to a condition that allows the strategy to exit.

This would looks as follows:

TOTE: [isFeelingAcheived = false?] - yes - [while isFeelingAcheived = false; TOTE: ([isFeelingAcheived = false?] - yes - [while isFeelingAcheived = false; do something to create Joy, set isFeelingAcheived to true, end while]) if isFeelingAchieved = false do something to create depression and set isFeelingAcheived to true] - [isFeelingAcheived = true?] - exit.

This would then create a scenario that fulfils the criteria of the original TOTE loop however instead of the person completing the operation phase of the depression state, they’d instead complete the phase up-to the point of creating the joy state, fulfilling the criterion of the conditional WHILE loop and then exit the strategy.

The idea so far is still preliminary and much testing is still required. I have some ideas on the installation of this process both consciously and unconsciously and I’ll write those ideas up once more testing has been done.
I’d love to get your input and ideas on this so please leave a comment with ideas, experiences or simply just some ramblings

Source: Behavioural Crosswiring | Jamie Dixon

Hey Jamie - we are so on the same planet today!

I have just been thinking about TOTE loops in a similar way.

I have been considering how to explain (in my Ph.D) how I believe that using TOTE made my research and the results different from other researchers.

So thank you for your article (nobody around here wants to talk TOTE loops with me) it's added to my thoughts - got to go and see client now but will be thinking about it.

Hey Carol,

Thanks for the reply

The TOTE model is an interesting one and combining that type of itterative loop with an understanding of certain ways of doing unconscious installation can be really powerfull.

There's two main reasons I came back to looking at this model. Firstly, in 1989 Richard says on one of his videos that (and I paraphrase) "The meta model in and of it's self creates more of its self" and he also hints that many other things in his work have stemmed from the itterative and meta nature and application of the meta model.

I asked Richard about this in Mexico and he subtly sugested I should figure it out for myself if i can.

The article above stemed in part from a conversation I had with Gabe regarding unconscious installation and I asked what pre-requisits I should understand before coming along to the Unconscious Installation workshop. One of those things was Nested TOTEs. Nested inside of what was my first question before I set about coming up with a few different ideas, one of which is the above.

Part of the brilliance of the Meta Model is the users ability to continually apply the model back the the output (hence it's itterative nature) and to also set up some set of variables of flags as means of exiting. Doing it this way means you also get to package everything up in a neat kind of way because in the last phase of the loop, everything bubbles back up to the surface. In terms of a learning strategy this means that everything you've been learning, everything you've learned from what you've learned and each nested x becomes re-activated and re-enforced on exit.

In terms of problem solving we can even use the bubble up to do shifts in consciousness that were distored during the innitial itterations. From a topological perspective we can take a set of problems and as a strategy, distort the problems into being solvable. On the bubble up we can re-distort the problems back to their origional state and preserve the solution. It's not the way most people solve problems but for some things it works amazingly well.

The TOTE model is pretty cool but then there's a strategy (TOTE) for using the model too and that strategy should be a strong foundation for everything else you use the model for. The same goes for the Meta Model. The foundation for using the model is important if you want certain results and to be able to do certain things.

Thanks again for your reply Carol and I look forward to catching up soon.

Jamie

Hi Jamie

When I have been thinking about TOTE I was wondering, are the tests and operations always 'goal driven' (Dilts, R, see below)?

Example of my thinking - goal driven example

Test/ I want the door to be open so I can go through, can I open door?

Operate/ turn handle, it doesn't move, damm, why not, I want it to, look closely see hinges on same side as handle, eureka, push other side of door until it opens as I wanted.

Test/ can I walk through?

Exit/yes - keep on going


Example of my experience

The other researchers got very different results from me. ( I think they were 'stimulus driven' by changing health and safety legislation and need to do some academic research project to win academic points)

Test/ How will this stuff that we have to use work? (they followed the manufacturers instructions and screenprinted in their usual manner).
Exit/ Lets note what happened. It warped the paper, bit chalky looking, sticky and hard to work with, broke down all other systems.

There was no operation.
No second Test

Their selection was made from the test.

or did they?

B]Test/[/B] How will this stuff that we have to use work?

Operate/ They followed the manufacturers instructions and screenprinted in their usual manner.

Test/ Lets note what happened. It warped the paper, bit chalky looking, sticky and hard to work with, broke down all other systems.

Exit/

Test, exit

I did something different I think I used TOTE

Test / I wanted to use artists paints as they were better colours, more of them including interference pigments and they were safer (and everyone said you couldn't), can I make this work?

Operate/ when printing all existing systems quickly failed, so I experimented and ultimately changed all other systems, then paper warped so I worked out what might theoretically work, everybody said I couldn't use it, I did, it stopped warping, used it, it worked, heard somebody say that you couldn't do translucents, so found way to prove could, and so on there was a lot of gossip, made products, made lots of art that proved the murmours on the grapevine false, wrote book about how to make screenprints with artists materials.

Test/ Can artists make screenprints with artists materials?

Exit/ yes - go do some NLP

Dilts states (Article of the Month Page)

'The T.O.T.E. model maintains that behavior is goal driven (teleological) rather than stimulus driven (deterministic), as is proposed by the reflex arc. The distinctions of the T.O.T.E. define the basic elements of a goal oriented feedback loop unless certain conditions defined by the "Test" are met, the person will continue to "Operate" in order to attempt to fulfill those conditions. Thus, the "motivation" is the outcome or conditions to be achieved, not some external reinforcement. No additional "drive," "force," "external reinforcement," or other explanation is required. Natural, self-correction is an integral part of any healthy living, or self-organizing, system.'

What do you think - am I on track?

Could we make a bigger conclusion from what Carol has suggested, that creativity is often not goal-directed?

That applies both to many of the kinds of play that children do, and much of what happens in the arts. Hmm.

The goal, if goal there is, seems to be for the player/creator to experience a sense of wonder that surprises them. Which itself is problematic since you're talking about criteria which exist outside the frame of the individual's experience.

The above is different, much of the time, from the kind of creativity of science, where an answer is sought to a particular problem: there either is or is not a smarter mousetrap.

Sure, sometimes artistic play has a purpose; for instance the design of a logo, or a chorus which fits the other musical material generated for a song. But again, the notion of a test being successfully completed seems to rather miss the experience of what it's like to accomplish such a task. There are potentially dozens of solutions, and it may require the creator to come up with 3 or 4 to make a selection from.

Interesting that the solutions to such questions take us to the realms of aesthetics, which could be defined as the attempt to establish the success of the products of play for which there are no absolute criteria. If physics provides no definitive answer, then damnit a committee of experts will.

Hi Adrian

In this case I was saying that my research work was goal driven and the other researchers work was stimulus driven.


I find creative work is goal oriented (in this sense - not goals as in working towards an exhibition' more goals as in 'problem solving' or as I would define this activity as 'solution seeking' or 'making it sing' - the 'it' being the artwork). For example I was moving towards what I wanted and solution seeking as I went.

I think that's what happens when we make art - it's a complex puzzle and it's getting it to work thats the thing - it's solution seeking. The fantastic artists that I've worked with like Paolozzi and WBG are able to move between right brain and left brain with ease. They knew that they had to change state to solution seek effectively and used anchors to do that swiftly.

You're right about solution seeking. My issue is that to arrive at solutions, you have to get into phases/states where concepts emerge without them being judged, ie where there is -- at that stage -- no goal. That's one part of what goes on. Then a kind of winnowing happens and the most suited to the purpose are worked on further. That's very much what happens as I start with a raw concept for a story and develop it further, and as I do that more, I guess I set up filters upfront to ensure that the concepts I come up with have a high chance of being workable.

Hi Adrian

I think I know what you mean but in my experience the 'goal' is seeking the solution.

goal
noun
I never numbered wealth as one of my goals objective, aim, end, target, design, intention, intent, plan, purpose; (holy) grail; ambition, aspiration, wish, dream, brass ring, desire, hope.

When I set out to make a film or art object - my 'goal' is to make something that works, to make something that sings, that can trancemit, is alive in its own right separate now from me.

I know that it's a journey and like those amazing artists I have made art with (joined their 'states' and maybe even thy joined mine) nowadays I can almost see all the parts flying around in my head, and I can trust that I can play with them until the solution is solved and boom it will sings - the solution will be found - goal!

It's not that the goal gives me a greater kick than the kicks and trancey states I get from kicking the ball around or placing it on the line and kicking it to see how far it will go and where it might land. Some of those kicks and passes (when I'm collaborating) are special and get noted for the next project. Sometimes the goal makes me a little sad as that particular journey is over and its time to plan for another trip.

I'm wondering if there's a model that more accurately captures my experience of creativity and that can be more generally used in exploring strategies. Mathematically impoverished as I am, the best I can come up with is the notion that attractors, as in fractal theory, might do the job: ie they coalesce that-which-is-suitable around them. Is it possible to map that out such that when the resulting fractal reaches a given scale, it functions as a Test stage within a TOTE..?

I am working on something similar - hence my speed of replies!

I wonder that we associate a word like goal with a certain meaning but the word is broader really.

Can you describe your experinece in VAK - towards and away? Chunk down how you do creativity.

We worked on this at (Paul McKenna, Richard Bandler, John La Valle) Master Practitioner and I was really surprised how my creativity actually worked - it has an enormous collection of material, and uses structures and goals. I selected one invention which I had thought was a flash of inspiration. Since having it mapped it's changed my awareness of how I do things radically. A lot of the stress I used to experience in the studio has gone and the last exhibition I made - each piece was good enough to use and I was happy happy throughout the entire process.

After training with Eric and Gabe I have 'suddenly' got interested in mathematics - something I was told when I was nine that I couldn't do because I was too creative. Both WBG and Paolozzi were interested in patterns and structures found in maths, music and astronomy.