There's another lovely little book - Rediscover the Joy of learning by Dr Blackerby- very useful and heartwarming too!
I have really enjoyed this thread. Nice - helpful and intelligent discussion
Thank you everyone
Kate

Chris had asked about the value of nested loops over chaining states. I waited to respond to see if others would chime in first. Michael Perez did, but none others have yet. Now I'll offer some of my own views on the matter.

There are some key issues to consider -- including, (1) how covert or sneaky or difficult-to-track one wants to be, (2) whether or not you want to look /seem mystifying to audiences, (3) the chunking of information for later unpacking by audience members, (4) the sequencing of emotional states to match what audience members will likely go through later on when using your information or the skill you taught, (5) how much information/data is required knowledge/tasks within each of those emotional states they go through, & (6) minimizing the audience's ability to jump to early conclusions with insufficient information / knowledge / skill / experience.

My view of the matter is that the primary benefit of using nested loops when training information or skills (most of the time) is that of making it difficult for people to track process. In other words, to create some distance between you and students, and add a sense of magic to the process. I don't think this is true 100% of the time, but most of the time.

Another way of saying this is that most of the time, in terms of skills & information transferred to students, everything one could want to achieve using nested loops can be more easily achieved using state-chaining.

There are exceptions. And they have to do with minimizing early judgement. If you're just beginning a presentation to an audience full of skeptics, using nested loops is a GREAT way of completing a full presentation, in such a way that the skeptics have to delay making judgement until they've had a chance to consider all of what you're presenting. Even better, if you lead them through exercises that transfer new experiences to such skeptics, within the loops, then they're much less likely to filter what you're presenting through the skeptical "this is bullshit" filter that they might have brought with them through the door.

However, this doesn't describe most audiences after you've had a chance to work with them. Especially in NLP settings! After a short timeframe, a great trainer will have every student in the audience in an amazingly open state, not only by building both rapport & credibility, but also by shifting from using a lot of externally framed language patterns to internally framed language patterns early on (i.e., I'll begin by communicating with language that asks you and talks about what you must/might think, how you feel, and over the course of a few hours I'll transition over to language that shares more of what I think). Run that sequential process/shift enough times with enough different contexts, and essentially I'm pacing & leading you to having a more open mind to external opinions. And then, I'll want you in a very open/externally-oriented frame during the middle of the training ( to maximize transfer), and I'll transition you back to a more internal frame of reference towards the end. This is one of the reasons my students tend to be so functional with their skills so quickly after my courses. They can usually demonstrate their skills immediately, with confidence, without having to ask me if they got it right (because they've regained their internal frame of reference during the course, rather than afterwards).

Now, that said, once I'm done with the early work, I'm typically dealing with highly responsive, open-minded, externally-framed students. So as long as I couple that with framing the course duration as a process that doesn't end until the course is over, that I'm inviting them to take a complete journey with me for the duration of the course, I don't think I have to worry much about premature judgement once that's established. I'm not dealing with skeptics anymore, I'm dealing with... 'travelers on a group tour,' where everyone's on board together, committed to the full journey together, though certainly for their own individual reasons.

As for some of the other elements I raised at the top, I find state chaining is just as effective as nested loops is -- with chunking of information for later unpacking, with managing the sequence of state-transitions, and with how much information is required at each step.

Now as for how covert or how sneaky or how mystifying you want to seem, definitely nested loops is the way to go. But how valuable is that for the audience members? Seems like it would be a lot more valuable to the trainers than it would to the students, doesn't it?

So. I think from a student perspective, while watching a trainer work, nearly everything useful about a trainer using nested loops can be achieved by the trainer using state-chaining instead. Except primarily for circumstances when audience members are too judgemental, too soon. I've said above I think this is a real circumstance when I'd opt for nested loops every time.

From a trainer perspective, nearly everything achievable by nested loops is more easily achieved by chaining states, except if you want to mystify your audience members and make it seem like what you're doing is that much more difficult to achieve.

Let me tell you what I see, repeatedly, 'out there.' Combine someone being a 'newly-frocked' trainer who doesn't even know that their poor timing of loop transitions leads to zero positive/intended audience responses -- with their wanting to look mystifying at the same time -- and what you get out there are hordes of new trainers who can't tell the reason their audience is mystified isn't because of the quality of their loops, but because the audience isn't being led properly or effectively at all.

Typically, these are really interesting & terrific people, with the best of intentions, usually a lot of knowledge & skills that are insufficiently integrated, and not enough real-time sensory acuity (while delivering presentations) to know when things are or are not working optimally. Now that's unfortunate, and that's what I repeatedly aim to correct, with my HC courses.

- Jonathan Altfeld

Hey Jonathan,

You wrote:
I must admit you got me interested... haven't read the thread before that!

I may be wrong but you seem to understand eliciting and using states as a necessary part of nesting loops. Am I wrong in believing you believe that? Honest question I promise.

I believe we can or not use states (eliciting/using states is optional) when nesting [process] loops. In my mind nesting loops is about set theory and making skills, knowledge and concepts become part of a same set. Sure many times we use the states as part of it.

I also think nesting loops as part of the unconscious installation process, so I find it to be an important part to programming (writing unconscious behavioral programs).

I do think a lot of trainers talk about nesting loops more like a competition of who can be the most sneaky. But in my understanding that is only because thsoe trainers most likely do not use nesting loops for the purpose I mentioned earlier... now I may be mistaken in what I believe nesting loops to be and then I've been doing it wrong all along. If that is the case I am glad I've come up with a different process.

So going back to the whole value of one over the other. Two different processes with different pusposes in my mind. Each one very useful and powerful.

Have a great day
Gabe

If nesting loops is about some competition as to which trainer is able to be 'most sneaky' I am out of here. NLP is about freedom! The more people ( including audiences) that understand how their brains work the better.
I agree with you Gabe we have two processes.,nesting (process) loops and chaining states. Both valuable and useful - neither should be about getting one over on the audience. If we get back to how the brain works we have a number of processes to think about when we are teaching.
Learning is state related. So we may as well make sure that the (great) state is well and truly anchored to the learning.
Developing the necessary links between the concept, knowledge and skills hopefully means that the person can do something whilst understanding why its useful and having the underpinning knowledge to do something creative/appropriate/innovative.
So the purpose of chaining states is to create the best states for the learning - so when the person re-members the learning they feel good. The purpose of nesting loops is to keep the brain open and receptive until the point when the concept, knowledge,and skills are glued together so when the person re-members and utilises the skill all the necessary resources are available.
Or am I being too simplistic for you guys?

Oh boy. It just got even more interesting here! Unfortunately I'm heading out the door for a day or so. Gabe & Kate -- I promise to respond to both your terrific contributions as soon as I'm back! - Jonathan

Hey guys

Is there a good book on nested loops that you know of?

Cheers

Lenny

Hi Kate,I didn't react to the word 'sneaky' in the way you did because my experience of the way the work is used in reference to NLP style training/teaching is different from it's more usual usage, although I must say, that's just my perception of the implied meaning, based on my experience. Hopefully Jonathan will clarify when he gets back.

I took the word 'sneaky', in this context, to mean a specific piece of learning which, because it is nested in a loop set, is predisposed to be processed unconsciously rather than consciously. I find that demonstrating/teaching things out of consciousness is key to helping people to acquire new skill sets at the level of reflex.

In a similar way, chains can be used to create response sets which can then be ongoing resources. So, having the instinct to take frustration to action, for example, is something that can be useful in any number of situations.

So, I think it's less about 'getting one over on the audience' and more about getting the learning into the part of the mind that actually performs the actions or affects the decisions most profoundly and instinctively.

Personally, I agree with you that people understanding how their brains work and what specifically they are being taught is a valuable thing and an essential part of any good training, in my opinion. That's why I always provide conscious frames for everything that I teach, in addition to any unconscious teaching/installation. This provides for the best of both worlds, or so it seems to me.

I find that the conscious frames are essential for utilization as well as providing for a context for implementation (How to use what where). I just provide the conscious frame at a different moment in the training, usually after the unconscious work.

I don't think it's simplistic at all! And although there are other ways of using loops and chains in teaching, those are certainly some very effective ones, I think!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi Lenny,I'm sure it's covered in books, although none spring immediately to mind. I'm sure someone will chime in with some titles.

The diagram of a very very simple nested loop structure looks like this:

Start:Story 1(Response Chain)/Story 2(Response Chain)/Story 3(Response Chain)
/Payload/
End:Story 3(Chain Outcome)/Story 2(Chain Outcome)/Story 1(Chain Outcome)

And as simple as that diagram is (I could explain it in a few paragraphs), understanding the structure is not sufficient to deliver an effective nested loop structure effectively, in my experience.

It's like learning kung fu or how to kiss. You can read about it in a book, but learning to do these things effectively is best done by first-hand experience and guided practice, preferably with someone who is an excellent exemplar of the skill-set in question...

Hope that's helpful, Lenny!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hey Michael,

Just for my knowledge or confirmation perhaps...

Would you agree that nesting loops is one process... chaining states another... and yet unconscious installation another (larger) process?

1) I believe we can do chaining states without it being an unconscious installation or part of a nested loops structure.
2) I believe we can nest loops without it being part of an unconscious installation or without chaining states.
3) And I believe when we do unconscious installation we usually use both nested loops and chaining states but it can be done without either one.

Again I hope my message is getting across as I intend it to get across. I believe things and have operated under those beliefs. I may be wrong (on other people's perceptions) and yet it has worked. But I am truly curious to find out what other people think those things are.

My perception so far has been that since at Richard's TT both chaining states and nesting loops is taught as part of the same exercise many people think of them as the same process. Which btw it is when using those two processes as part of a larger one we refer to as unconscious installation.

Anyway, really curious to read your reply as much as Jonathan's.

BTW, Lenny, I do not know any books on nested loops... and the few I have read that make reference to it I don't agree much with.
I think you learn more about that studying Richard's tapes although it leaves the learning dependant of your own perception skills, pattern detection skills and staying awake (not going into a trance) skills. People's background usually plays a factor in what they notice and how they notice it. One of the reasons I am curious to read Jonathan's reply since I believe his background helps.

Anyway, too bad starting next weekend I have so many fucking workshops that I won't be reading or posting as often in the next 10 weeks.

Have a great exploration
Gabe

Note for the reader: I used the word fuck because some people have question me about that. Some people just can't believe I am close to Richard and not use the wod fuck very often. So there... I used it... fucking happy? :-)

Yep, I'd agree. The example of a nested loop I put forward had a state chain as part of it, but that was just an example. And there are many ways to do unconscious installation outside of those two methods.

Finally, you can use loops and state chains as part of a conscious learning process, although well-executed loops tend to predispose listeners to amnesia for specific bits of the material, so you have to be aware of that part of the structure and use it correctly, I think.

And I agree with the rest of your post as well. Nicely put.

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Thanks michael most helpful

And i agree with about not being able to effectively learn nested loops from books and also i think that applies to NLP as a whole.......it's about doing

Maybe I'll get to opporunity to learn from an exampler when I do master prac...

Even so...i would like to learn a bit more and I get alot of opportunity to practice and experiment as my 9-5 job is spent talking in front of class rooms full of people.

Hi Lenny
There is a Richard Bandler DVD called 'Nesting loops' He makes explicit what he is doing on it ( as far as Richard ever does!)
Kate

Hi Lenny,You may well, although, as Jonathan intimated earlier, not every NLP trainer uses them all that often and, in my experience, not all of the ones who do use them a lot are good exemplars, at least not for how to do them effectively...

I'd also agree with Jonathan that state chains are probably preferable for a presenter to become skilful at performing first. They're easier both to design and do, and they're easier to sort out if they're mis-executed.

Then I'd recommend listening to material being delivered using that technique by a skilled practitioner.

Richard Bandler uses them quite often and to great effect and is a joy to watch and learn from, elegance in action. However, Richard is usually layering in about, oh, 30 things at any one time, so he's a bit hard to track... So, as Gabe indicated, if you listen to him with a mind towards specifically tracking story structures and staying in uptime whilst doing it, I hallucinate you might just start noticing some of the loop structures he uses and how he uses them.

And if people are interested in the use of loops in changework, I'd recommend listening to the hours of recorded material left behind by Milton Erickson. It's a real treasure trove filled with example after example of conscious and unconscious learning structures, performed with remarkable ease by a deeply gifted man.

One other thing from my experience of effective nested loops.

If one is using nested loops to deliver a payload, that is to say a learning at the centre of the structure which is outside of and therefore distinct from the surrounding story structure, then a sense of proportion might be useful in determining how big the payload is.

In this way, this sort of nested loop is like a ravioli. Raviolis have a tiny bit of filling in the middle, just enough to allow the taste to stand out from the supporting structure, but not too much, or it would be overwhelming.

In fact, too much filling breaks down the structure of the ravioli itself and it will tend to fall apart whilst being boiled and will turn into boiled meatballs with square noodles, a significantly less-palatable meal...

Let's just say I've attended a fair number of meals where the chef tried to cram a meatloaf between two squares of pasta and put the results on the menu as ravioli...

Just a thought to keep in mind the next time or even the first time you play with loops.

Which, come to think of it, reminds me of a story...

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Thanks Michael....I have a few bandler DVDs that I've transferred to my Ipod so I watch the stuff that I have got repeatedly.....everytime I watch I pick up something I'd didn't see before.

Kate I love to get my hands on the nested loops DVD however, RB's DVD's are little pricey for me at the min.

Wow
There's so much great stuff here - thanks everyone - and Chris, thanks for writing - I've been busy and I've just got back

I'd like to say that in my opinion there are 5 differences from being a school teacher and a NLP trainer (apart from one being someone who thinks buildings can learn and the other being a smart shoe)
1. Subject matter - its easier sending someone into trance if that's what your teaching etc.
2. Previous Anchors - school children will often have a wide set of negative anchors about the subject, the classroom and school in general - even when starting school parents, siblings and TV create expectations - For NLP courses expectations are different.
3. Time - There's a lot more different days to teach to the same people for school teachers than NLP trainers.
4. Disruption - "And as you feel the jabbing finger of the person behind you and listen to their attempts to distract you will realise you picked the right NLP trainer!"
5. Results - Let's face it - You expect to learn a lot more in a week of NLP training than you would in a month of school.

Now you may or not agree with these 5 points, but I think it shows that there's an art to using NLP in both contexts. Now I think that art has been far more developed within NLP training than teaching. For example how do you use nested loops in a classroom enviroment day in and day out to make it worth learning the technique?

Maybe the question for teachers should be - In what order should I practice and internalise the techniques of NLP that are of most benefit in the classroom?

As I considered this question myself it seems that there is a difference between using NLP techniques to control and using NLP to inspire oneself so that when you enter the classroom you are the one who is uplifted and enthused with the possibilities of helping people learn, and that no matter how the "buggers" behave you don't see "buggers" but learners that can transform their lives for the better, and that maybe the first place to use Anchors in the Classroom is on oneself

Hi steve
You make some really valuable points here and I am porbably not going to do them justice as I am dashing to run a 3 day seminar!
Two things I really wanted to add to ;- Yes of course it is in some ways easier to utilise trance when the subject is trance. On saying that I teachNLP and I also teach other things and teach teachers to use NLP to teach their subjects. ( lots of teach teach in there - sorry)
for example I have taught hairdressers to use 'guided journeys' to learn the colour coding for hair tints. I have taught primary teachers to use 'day dreaming with their pupils to develop creativity for story writing. I could give you literally hundreds of examples of trance in the classroom -so its really very easy to do.
I asked Richard Bandler once how come we use NLP to teach NLP and not to teach other things - thats how I got my job! I would like to discuss applications more fully at a later date.
Secondly you make an interesting point regarding the difference in controlling behaviour and inspiring learning. For me the NLP process and technique is the same however the motivation and outcome are different.
And finally for now - yes in NLP you go first so your state, anchors attitude and beleifs are the place to start - and keep going with - my experience is that the students will follow your lead so it may as well be a brilliant one - which I am sure it is with you and your students.
sorry this is so brief - I will come back to the thread again in a few days
Best wishes
Kate

Hi there,
I’ve just joined NLP Connections and, while browsing the site, found this topic.
Hope you don’t mind me butting in!
I’ve just finished my Master Prac. course in London – absolutely fantastic!
I did my first NLP training about 4 years ago and realised that I’ve been using anchoring in all sorts of situations in school for many years. It’s what really good teachers do all the time without realising it, not just in the classroom, but in the hall, the corridor and, sometimes most importantly, in the staff room.
Of course I understand now what I’ve been doing all these years and, as the headteacher of a special school, find it particularly useful in assemblies, presentations to groups of parents and ….…….....Sh! ....... my LEA (but don’t let on)!!!!!!!
Good to “meet” you all.
Carole Clift

Nice font