I trained as an ericksonian hypnotherapist in the late 1990s and what I was taught then is the same as what I'm getting as "NLP" now.

What is the difference between ericksonian hypnosis and NLP? Can someone explain to me what is the difference?

I have had people say NLP is a model of what erickson himself did but that's exactly what ericksonian hypnotherapy is too.

*confused*

I've had some training in both (more NLP tho) and to be honest the key difference is how people react to you depending on the label you use. Some people will just bristle if you mention NLP

From my perspective there's quite a big difference.

NLP is essentially the study of how people think. The original developers developed models of how different people thought about and did many different things - and one of those models was of how Milton Erickson hypnotised (and generally communicated) with people.

There's always the temptation to get lost in the content, and over the years NLP has become known more and more for the content of its most commercially-useful models.

There's a model for how to become more confident, for example. So people write books that suggest NLP is a great way to become more confident.

There are models for how to negotiate better, so negotiators talk about NLP as being a good tool for business.

There's the Milton Model too. So other people say NLP is a great way to learn how Erickson hypnotised people.

And all these things are true, to a greater or lesser extent, and yet they're also only the tip of the iceberg. The presupposition of NLP is that if one person can do something, anyone can learn to do it too. And you can model anything.

For me, NLP is about how people think - how we construct our subjective experience - and by extension how we can change that (in ourselves and others).

Ericksonian Hypnosis is about delibrately using the process of trance and altered states to change someone's mind, using the same style that Milton Erickson used.

There's crossover, but they're different fields, with different purposes.

Sorry this is so long - I'm rushing out the door and don't have time to make it shorter!

chris_morris wrote:

From my perspective there's quite a big difference.

NLP is essentially the study of how people think. The original developers developed models of how different people thought about and did many different things - and one of those models was of how Milton Erickson hypnotised (and generally communicated) with people.

There's always the temptation to get lost in the content, and over the years NLP has become known more and more for the content of its most commercially-useful models.

There's a model for how to become more confident, for example. So people write books that suggest NLP is a great way to become more confident.

There are models for how to negotiate better, so negotiators talk about NLP as being a good tool for business.

There's the Milton Model too. So other people say NLP is a great way to learn how Erickson hypnotised people.

And all these things are true, to a greater or lesser extent, and yet they're also only the tip of the iceberg. The presupposition of NLP is that if one person can do something, anyone can learn to do it too. And you can model anything.

For me, NLP is about how people think - how we construct our subjective experience - and by extension how we can change that (in ourselves and others).

Ericksonian Hypnosis is about delibrately using the process of trance and altered states to change someone's mind, using the same style that Milton Erickson used.

There's crossover, but they're different fields, with different purposes.

Sorry this is so long - I'm rushing out the door and don't have time to make it shorter!

Mostly what I was thinking, with few questions.

- Doesn't all change occur in the unconcious first?
- Doesn't all change correspond to "alter"-ation in states?
- Isn't Ericksonian hypnosis the most effective way we know how to access the unconcious and alter states/thoughts/behaviors?
- Wasn't Ericksonian hypnosis used for improvement in different aspects of life before NLP came along?

With those questions, what are other aspects of NLP that stand it apart from Ericksonian hypnosis other than the name and the ideas of "modeling" and "possibilities of applying it to everything"?

Think of hypnosis as part of NLP and NLP as part of hypnosis.

"- Doesn't all change occur in the unconcious first?"

It seems to be most useful to consider this using the conscious/unconscious versus competence/incompetence grid.

In essence, all change happens uncionsciously, because consciousness is just a screen where the bran's narration takes place to give us a sense of ownership (sense of self), purpose (sense of free will) and sequence (sense of time).

First step: Consciousness or awareness is a great help in revealing unconscious incompetence (the lack of skill we are not aware of.) This is because consciousness is the screen that could be used to make a comparison between several patterns, beings that are not conscious seem to not be able to do such comparisons quickly and real-time.

Second step: Once incopetnce is brought to consciousness, the conscious display of new skill (competence) may trigger conscious competence once relevant strategy is given as well.

Step three: However, fast and efficient functioning (now consciously competent mode of operations) needs to percolate back to unconsciousness, so that competence operates outside of any need of conscious stimuation or control.

Step four: Once the habituation or installation at the unconscious level takes place, we say that change has actually occured. In this sense at least, it is popular to say that all change is unconscious.

Of course there may be changes that were triggered directly via unconscious.... effective advertisemetns work this way, but in a sense proposed in the context of this thread, it seems that we are thinking of the change in the first sense.

Of course change is best wired in during the REM state, and hypnotic transe faciliates this condition perfectly.

It seems to me that the major differentiator while discussing this subject is recognition that the unconscious is what we are, that which shows up in consciousness is highly fabricated story, which is rather closer to the reflection in the mirror than the real thing. If this metaphor fits, you would appreciate that you make changes by changing the real thing and not the image in the mirror... a beard drawn on the surface of the mirror would not actually stick... it needs to grow on the real thing.... In conclusion. it is unconscious who is the bearer and ground not only of the stability but also any change that lasts. Cheers and regards.

simpcore wrote:

Mostly what I was thinking, with few questions.

- Doesn't all change occur in the unconcious first?
- Doesn't all change correspond to "alter"-ation in states?
- Isn't Ericksonian hypnosis the most effective way we know how to access the unconcious and alter states/thoughts/behaviors?
- Wasn't Ericksonian hypnosis used for improvement in different aspects of life before NLP came along?

With those questions, what are other aspects of NLP that stand it apart from Ericksonian hypnosis other than the name and the ideas of "modeling" and "possibilities of applying it to everything"?

I was thinking about this, and now to me the idea of modeling success might be a big deal. I haven't connected how modeling and application relate until now. I think I used to see it as if NLP is a tool to model how people succeed in their fields and learning to be good in that field.

But now I see that NLP is the study of universal patterns of success itself, i.e. mindsets, states, behaviors, etc... And that NLP itself can be applied to different areas.

Steve - we connected, unconsciously.., are you aware?

JurkMalecki wrote:

"- Doesn't all change occur in the unconcious first?"

It seems to be most useful to consider this using the conscious/unconscious versus competence/incompetence grid.

In essence, all change happens uncionsciously, because consciousness is just a screen where the bran's narration takes place to give us a sense of ownership (sense of self), purpose (sense of free will) and sequence (sense of time).

First step: Consciousness or awareness is a great help in revealing unconscious incompetence (the lack of skill we are not aware of.) This is because consciousness is the screen that could be used to make a comparison between several patterns, beings that are not conscious seem to not be able to do such comparisons quickly and real-time.

Second step: Once incopetnce is brought to consciousness, the conscious display of new skill (competence) may trigger conscious competence once relevant strategy is given as well.

Step three: However, fast and efficient functioning (now consciously competent mode of operations) needs to percolate back to unconsciousness, so that competence operates outside of any need of conscious stimuation or control.

Step four: Once the habituation or installation at the unconscious level takes place, we say that change has actually occured. In this sense at least, it is popular to say that all change is unconscious.

Of course there may be changes that were triggered directly via unconscious.... effective advertisemetns work this way, but in a sense proposed in the context of this thread, it seems that we are thinking of the change in the first sense.

Of course change is best wired in during the REM state, and hypnotic transe faciliates this condition perfectly.

It seems to me that the major differentiator while discussing this subject is recognition that the unconscious is what we are, that which shows up in consciousness is highly fabricated story, which is rather closer to the reflection in the mirror than the real thing. If this metaphor fits, you would appreciate that you make changes by changing the real thing and not the image in the mirror... a beard drawn on the surface of the mirror would not actually stick... it needs to grow on the real thing.... In conclusion. it is unconscious who is the bearer and ground not only of the stability but also any change that lasts. Cheers and regards.

I think that's a great metaphor.

"NLP is an attitude and a methodology that leaves behind a trail of techniques", as the man himself said. Break down attitude and methodology into skills such as acuity, matching/mirroring, voice tone, clear and unclear language etc etc and you find Erickson even more than you find Satir or Perls.

How can you break down attitude into skills?

adrian r wrote:

How can you break down attitude into skills?

Model it and you'll find the skills

Model whose attitude? Attitude does not exist in and of itself.

adrian r wrote:

Model whose attitude? Attitude does not exist in and of itself.

Who said it did? I don't know about you but my modelling projects have always consisted of modelling more than one exemplar of the facet of human capability that I wanted to learn. If Bandler is right and NLP is at least part attitude then find as many exemplars of what you consider to be good NLP practice and model them.

SO the Milton model works with the unconscious or subliminal mind in which it's a good slave and perceive not a the Master which is the conscious. You'd be in deep timbuktu if it was the other way around.

NLP and it's meta model is just a way to RANT, touche too.

Mikee wrote:

SO the Milton model works with the unconscious or subliminal mind in which it's a good slave and perceive not a the Master which is the conscious. You'd be in deep shit if it was the other way around.

NLP and it's meta model is just a way to RANT, touche.

There's way more to Erickson than the Milton Model.

I AGREE!

I'm sure they're related.

Hi Kate,

If you learned inductions as part of NLP training then whoever was doing the training perhaps was misguided in their understanding of what they thought they were teaching.

I've attended NLP practitioner and Graduate Certificate in NLP trainings ASWELL as recently attended a 7 day Ericksonian Training...

and the commonly taught aspects that overlapped were:

* Rapport (matching and mirroring and acting as if interested)
* Sensory Predicates (listing many sense words and using them with a small group)
* Milton Model (usually by practising with the Zebu Deck)
* Metaphor (some NLP trainings did not include this)
* Pain Control (manipulating submodalities &/or metaphors of pain)

Those NLP trainings did not teach me post-hypnotic suggestions, inducing amnesia, speaking privately with the unconscious mind, which I would not expect to learn at an NLP training as, to me, those processes belong to the Ericksonian Hypnosis cetegory (an NLP model / application but NOT NLP).

The NLP trainings (Terrence McClendon www.nlpaustralia.com.au & Chris & Jules Collingwood www.inspiritive.com.au) DID NOT teach hypnotic inductions as part of their fabulous NLP workshops.

Terry's Ericksonian Hypnosis workshop taught a series of induction techniques, 4-3-2-1, non-verbal, stacking realities, my friend John, previously existing trance states, etc. Other similarities included the six-step reframing technique and eliciting trance states.

One difference that is almost certain: the hypnotic state is more like sleep than the states which clients' enter when being NLP'd by an NLPer... so to me a hypnosis workshop should look more like a relaxation class with floating arms than an NLP training.

Cheers,

kateharvey wrote:

I trained as an ericksonian hypnotherapist in the late 1990s and what I was taught then is the same as what I'm getting as "NLP" now.

What is the difference between ericksonian hypnosis and NLP? Can someone explain to me what is the difference?

I have had people say NLP is a model of what erickson himself did but that's exactly what ericksonian hypnotherapy is too.

*confused*

Kate,

This is just my take on your question......

NLP is a meta system.... a system about systems.... at its root NLP presents a model of how to model the excellence of other peoples internal processes and also presents a systematic way to teach these internal processes to others. The fast phobia cure is just a model of internal mental processes. It is effective in as much as it works for a variety of people...... but it is still just a model of an internal mental process.


Hypnosis is a phenomena that is common to all human beings. Bandler and Grinder modelled and set out the framework of what they thought Erickson did to elicit hypnotic phenomena in others. They used their developing theories (NLP) to set this system out.

One of the outputs of their modelling of Erickson was the linguistic model of what Bandler and Grinder thought Erickson was doing (The Milton Model).

simpcore wrote:

Mostly what I was thinking, with few questions.

- Doesn't all change occur in the unconcious first?

I don't go along with the idea that people have an unconscious. Some things occur outside of our conscious awareness, and changes can and do occur before we're consciously aware of them having occurred, but I'm not into the idea that there's an unconscious and hypnotists chat to it.

simpcore wrote:

- Doesn't all change correspond to "alter"-ation in states?

I think we're constantly changing state and constantly changing other things too, and there are many ways to do both that aren't within the scope or Ericksonian Hypnosis.

simpcore wrote:

- Isn't Ericksonian hypnosis the most effective way we know how to access the unconcious and alter states/thoughts/behaviors?

It might be the most effective way you know.

simpcore wrote:

- Wasn't Ericksonian hypnosis used for improvement in different aspects of life before NLP came along?

Yup.

simpcore wrote:

With those questions, what are other aspects of NLP that stand it apart from Ericksonian hypnosis other than the name and the ideas of "modeling" and "possibilities of applying it to everything"?

They stand apart because they're different things.

People in Britain used to eat berries before anyone imported bananas, and they're both fruit, and they can both be eaten, so is there a difference between a strawberry and a banana?

(I don't know the answer, but I know my strawberry and banana smoothie tastes good.)