Something I read on another NLP forum:

Quote from: Threshold on Today at 08:50:31 AM

Steve Andreas has often mentioned the value of including a few counter-examples when constructing the “database” of the new, preferred belief. It's also why, when using Fast Phobia, the client is explicitly reminded, for example, that they'll still take appropriate safety measures in high places where the situation demands it or that they'll still treat dangerous animals with due caution.



which is interesting.

what are the presuppositions behind explicitly reminding the client to take appropriate safety measures in these situations, after the change work (ie: Fast Phobia Cure)?

should they or should they not be reminded is not the question.

Have fun

Bart

Is a pre supposition something that is pre - supposed to be true? I.e doesn't necessarily need to be true?

Maybe... telling someone that they will have to take appropriate safety measures in situations <--- Pre-supposes they have changed and that they will have to VAK differently... Stacking the deck imo...

Wayne

In my experience specifically reassuring the unconscious that safety meansures will be taken helps to prevent resistance to the process, and to reassure the person that have some nice new bahaviours to use moving forwards (which is also a future pace).

Folks with phobias often justify the phobia in terms of safety - "if I weren't afraid of spiders i might pick up a deadly one and it would bite me" (a quote from my brother) or "only being scared of heights stops me from jumping off" (me!) - they usually haven't had much expereince with being safely around the object/context of their fear, to have learned that the opposite of a phobia is not risky behaviour/delight/mania etc.

bart wrote:

Something I read on another NLP forum:

Quote from: Threshold on Today at 08:50:31 AM

Steve Andreas has often mentioned the value of including a few counter-examples when constructing the “database” of the new, preferred belief. It's also why, when using Fast Phobia, the client is explicitly reminded, for example, that they'll still take appropriate safety measures in high places where the situation demands it or that they'll still treat dangerous animals with due caution.



which is interesting.

what are the presuppositions behind explicitly reminding the client to take appropriate safety measures in these situations, after the change work (ie: Fast Phobia Cure)?

should they or should they not be reminded is not the question.

Have fun

Bart

1) By telling to take safety measures for dangerous situations, it implies that what caused them fear was not dangerous.
2) It implies that the therapist is a reasonable person who is aware of ecology.
3) It implies that the fast phobia cure is a powerful cure, b/c the therapists needs to tell the client not to "over-cure".

bart wrote:

what are the presuppositions behind explicitly reminding the client to take appropriate safety measures in these situations, after the change work (ie: Fast Phobia Cure)?

There's rational fear and there's irrational fear.

There's resourceful fear and there's debilitating fear.

In both cases, we want to remove the latter and ensure there's a former.

I don't know of any "real" NLP presuppositions that address this issue.

should they or should they not be reminded is not the question.

Sure. Most of the time, you can probably just work it into whatever future-pacing you do. Just ask things like, "What would you do if I brought a garter snake in here?" Assuming they know that garter snakes are harmless to humans, they should be okay with being in the same room as one. "Would you hold it?" This is a little grayer. I'd say that a well-adjusted person should be okay with handling a harmless snake as a proof of change, even if they think it's kinda gross. "How about a rattlesnake?" They should probably balk at this. They should be okay with looking at rattlesnakes in enclosures at the zoo, though.

EDIT: Oops, I just read the "not" in "is not the question." I don't know if it's spurious or not, but if it's not, pretend it was.

The presupposition is that their ability to make a reasoned judgement in real life situations as they occur has somehow been taken away along with the irrational behaviour.

John

How we spend our days is of course, how we spend our lives

I see the value of it in setting up the frame for the change work...

though

might it also presuppose that the client will not have access to a balanced response and their resources after the change ?

Depends on how you frame and future pace

The reason for this is just to stop the new behaviour being over generalised to innapropriate contexts. So I guess the presupposition is that it WILL be over generalised if you don't tell them not to.

Alistair wrote:
Is a pre supposition something that is pre - supposed to be true? I.e doesn't necessarily need to be true?

A presuppostion is something that has to be true for a statement/idea to make sense

That doesn't mean it is true, just that any discussion on a given topic would only make sense if you assume the pre supposition to be true