If so cant we just collapse anchors on all issues? ( obviosly i know it isn't as if it was that simple everyone would just collapse their bad anchors, i just wondered why not?)

If not, what are all possible causes of issues?

And also, what if you cant remember any cause?

nlpfiend wrote:

If so cant we just collapse anchors on all issues? ( obviosly i know it isn't as if it was that simple everyone would just collapse their bad anchors, i just wondered why not?)

If not, what are all possible causes of issues?

And also, what if you cant remember any cause?

I would say that opening up to other choices is much more important then just trying to collaps some anchors

Is having a fantastic and satisfying life - simply a matter of never having any uncomfortable feelings?

If it was, then perhaps collapsing all negative anchors could solve everything...

A more direct approach might be to ask, "What satisfies you?" and "What is stopping you from achieving those things?"

What do you think?

The answer is "No" - because Human Beings are a lot more than just 'stimulus-response' machines.

All the very best

James

nlpfiend

If so cant we just collapse anchors on all issues? ( obviosly i know it isn't as if it was that simple everyone would just collapse their bad anchors, i just wondered why not?)

If not, what are all possible causes of issues?

And also, what if you cant remember any cause?

I see anchors as part of a larger context so each anchor becomes tangled to other anchors. If I collapse one, the configuration of the whole may change and I wonder where will the potential side-effect would manifest. Can we judge anchors as bad or good? It may depend on context, but I would prefer doing reframes and building new anchors than collapsing anchors. The client has to learn to treat the situation in new ways that may generate resourceful options. I prefer not to change the past of the person, but to make him realize of his present condition, of what he really wants and of how he will generate resources in the process.

jamesrolph wrote:

The answer is "No" - because Human Beings are a lot more than just 'stimulus-response' machines.

+1

nlpfiend wrote:

If so cant we just collapse anchors on all issues? ( obviosly i know it isn't as if it was that simple everyone would just collapse their bad anchors, i just wondered why not?)

The reason is because it would not be so easy to know specifically what to collapse with the bad anchors. Included with collapse are other ways of using anchors such as stacking and chaining.

nlpfiend wrote:

If not, what are all possible causes of issues?

Life in general or whatever that means at different times.

nlpfiend wrote:

And also, what if you cant remember any cause?

It is not necessary to remember any cause. Reality strategy would probably give you what you need to start to work with anchors or just the behaviour connected to the issue.

It might be plausible that all issues could be sovled by only working with anchors. The challenge with that is knowing what new anchors to introduce and where to introduce them. Remembering that a problem breaks down to a strategy, if the strategy doesn't work then the issue doesn't work in the same way or not at all. Within the strategy are the submodality distinctions which is where the changes are made within the same strategy or a new strategy/ies can replace the existing.

Whatever Nlp technique is being used, the strategy of the issue becomes a different thing and change happens.

To me this question oozes of the big pattern in the sky;

too many people come to NLP rigidly grasping onto their remedial approach towards "therapy" where they can think that this is wrong so I do x.y.z. because x.y.z. worked last time; or that because x is wrong, I use y technique to get z result. Instead of becoming curious to learn how the person successfully accomplishes the task the both of you deem as a problem because it will take one of you to view it as a perfectly working system and NOT a problem cause it may or may not be caused by something in the past or something in the environment but figuring that out still leaves you with the question; what next?

Whereas a generative approach would inquire how a person already does what they are doing. Once you find out how they do their problem you can change it so it doesn't work the same anymore. This eliminates the need to remember any cause you can work content free if you focus on how they do their problem instead of the why. The causes of problems are not in and of themselves "real" tangible artifacts of reality. Problems aren't tangible you can't hold onto them for the most part Problems are processes, peoples problems are learnings they continue to carry out most times because they haven't learned a more efficient way to use that learning.

Hi David

Just a few curious comments.

PuRe EnErGy wrote:

too many people come to NLP rigidly grasping onto their remedial approach towards "therapy" where they can think that this is wrong so I do x.y.z. because x.y.z. worked last time; or that because x is wrong, I use y technique to get z result.

I don't doubt you know what you are talking about. It's just I am wondering about the actual statistics for your claim (how many people) and the source of your evidence.

PuRe EnErGy wrote:

Instead of becoming curious to learn how the person successfully accomplishes the task the both of you deem as a problem because it will take one of you to view it as a perfectly working system and NOT a problem cause it may or may not be caused by something in the past or something in the environment but figuring that out still leaves you with the question; what next?

Someone learning Nlp might ask "what next". I think when a practictioner has enough experience with Nlp, the practitioner simply knows what's next, regardless of the cause.

PuRe EnErGy wrote:

Whereas a generative approach would inquire how a person already does what they are doing.

What generative approach are you referring to?
The six step reframe and its current 'evolutions' would not make any such inquiry.

PuRe EnErGy wrote:

Once you find out how they do their problem you can change it so it doesn't work the same anymore.

Were'nt you talking about a generative approach?

PuRe EnErGy wrote:

This eliminates the need to remember any cause you can work content free if you focus on how they do their problem instead of the why.

Are you also equating 'content' to 'cause' ?

PuRe EnErGy wrote:

The causes of problems are not in and of themselves "real" tangible artifacts of reality.

'Cause' = Why
'Content' = What

PuRe EnErGy wrote:

Problems aren't tangible you can't hold onto them for the most part.

Isn't that what some people do? Physiologically?

PuRe EnErGy wrote:

Problems are processes, peoples problems are learnings they continue to carry out most times because they haven't learned a more efficient way to use that learning.

Person 'x' has problem/process/learning 'y' to use that learning for 'z'.
Person 'x' learns to use 'y' to use that learning for 'c'.
How is person 'x' any better off when it comes to 'z' ?

How does all this relate to the topic of the thread?

Just some thoughts.
James