you do realise paul mckenna, ask richard bandler for advce and admires him.
even in one of his programs i can change you life he was struggling to cure a person, so he phoned richard bandler and then after he knew what to do and it worked.

Michael DeBusk wrote:
"So you have a definition of 'failure' that is at odds with most people's. That's perfectly cool, and you're entitled to it, but I wish you'd have said so at the beginning of the thread.

Michael:
The quote below is what I said in my description (better than a definition) of what I consider a failure, right at the beginning of the thread. Furthermore, I provided the Bandler video so that anyone could view a sensory-based representation of what I described, so that all could view it and come to their own conclusion about whether my description was accurate. At this point I have also done the same with two examples of what I consider a success.

"the woman says, in a high-pitched strained voice (verbatim):
'I didn't put my seat back, though; I was too nervous. . . . I think I'm finally conquering the phobia I've had for over 22 years, and the biggest problem is that I have to do it all over again on the way back.' Although she did get on the plane, both her words and her nonverbals clearly indicate that it is certainly not what I would describe as a success."

Note that the woman says she was "too nervous" (not just "nervous" but "too nervous.") on the flight, and that the flight back would be a problem for her. (And "conquering" at best indicates that she is still in process, and has not yet conquered her fear.) Even without the nonverbals (which confirm what she says eloquently), she is clearly telling us that she is not cured of her fear of flying. This is not based on discrimination of subtle nonverbal cues! This is blatant and obvious feedback from the client--nonverbal backed up by verbal. If you don't accept this kind of feedback from your clients, God help them!

You write that I "have a definition of 'failure' that is at odds with most people's" I sincerely hope that you are not correct. Are you one of those people? And do you think that the Bandler video shows a success? If so, I would like to know your definition of, and evidence for, success. And I would also like to hear the same from any of the "others" you refer to.
Steve Andreas

steveandreas wrote:

The quote below is what I said in my description (better than a definition) of what I consider a failure, right at the beginning of the thread.

Your words were "not a success" rather than "failure". To you, is there a difference? There is, to me.

Note that the woman says she was "too nervous" (not just "nervous" but "too nervous.") on the flight, and that the flight back would be a problem for her.

Have you spoken to her to find out what comparative she deleted when saying "too nervous"? Perhaps it's idiomatic for her. I've met two or three people like that.

Have you spoken to her to find out if the return flight was a problem?

Have you considered the idea that, for someone who spent, what was it, 22 years practicing terror of planes, getting on a plane at all, let alone planning to do so in the future, is a victory?

(And "conquering" at best indicates that she is still in process, and has not yet conquered her fear.)

Which Richard covers during the video.

You write that I "have a definition of 'failure' that is at odds with most people's" I sincerely hope that you are not correct. Are you one of those people? And do you think that the Bandler video shows a success? If so, I would like to know your definition of, and evidence for, success. And I would also like to hear the same from any of the "others" you refer to.

She said she wanted to be able to fly so she could visit her grandchildren. She got what she said she wanted. That, to me, is success. To my way of thinking, her dancing in the aisle and joining the mile-high club would be bonuses rather than requisites.

The "others" are pretty easy to find in this instance due to the existence of dictionaries, which are just big catalogs of how most people define words. Looking up "fail" on onelook.com, I find most applicable definitions line up with the one I'm using here. One does line up with yours, and it's "to judge unacceptable", with the example being a teacher failing students. This can't be what you're doing. It's inconsistent with what I've seen of you.

Steve,

While I would not call it a complete success, and yes I've seen dozens of much better jobs by Richard, I wouldn't call it a failure either. Quoting Richard I think "it is a step in the right direction".

Not an excuse but contextual information, that clip was made when Richard was still recovering from the death of Paula and in my opinion was not doing as good a job as he did before she died or does now that he is healthier than he has been in over a decade.

Yet I can see/hear what you refer to as "blatant and obvious" and that is why I mentioned Andy on a previous post... I can only see/hear what is on the tapes (meaning I don't know what happened after with Andy) but based on that let me ask you, did you think of that therapeutic session as success?
I mean I thought of it as a step in the right direction and a much better job from what other people had accomplished with Andy, but also I considered it far from a complete success and yet it was sold and shown at workshops.

Anyway, since I do believe in failure and do not agree with reframing most failures as feedback, in many ways I think I am with you in being a bit more rigurous about what we consider success.

Finally there is a tape of Dilts working with a lady to help her stop smoking and that lady is my close friend and never stoped smoking... my question is why is the tape being sold if the demo failed? And if they still choose to sell it why is it not said that the demo failed?
As you have expressed before, there is nothing wrong with failing...

Hi All,

Thanks for this thread. I think it's a great way to stimulate thought around people's definitions, ideas and descriptions of what they consider to be success, failure and or feedback.

To me the idea of success is the ability to achieve specified outcomes as determined by the agent who is achieving the outcomes. The defined outcomes of course being the key thing.

In these video evidence scenarios posted here we can see that there are key Agents who are each defining success as they see it. These are:

The change agent
This person will have coaching or therapeutic outcomes based on specific critera according to his interpretation of what the client has said they wanted as well as how they have expressed what they want. Paul's expectations were clearly exceeded as evidenced by his statement that he expected the techniques to work but he didn't expected it to work 'that well'.. said with big cheesy grin on his face. Richard's expectations had yet to be achieved as evidenced by his statement I quoted in my earlier post. Steve's expectations in the 3rd example had been met as evidenced by a follow up video from previous work he had done with that client.

The client
This person will have some desire or awareness of an outcome they want to be able to attain, but generally this will be from the perspective of struggle, fear and away from motivation. Let's face it, if they knew that success was going to be that easy and enjoyable, why would anybody resist getting the kind of help a good NLPer can offer? That aside, my point is that clients will each have a perception of what 'success' will look like after said session (but may be different to what it will be in reality) with said change worker/agent - and perhaps is a function of that person's ability to believe in the therapist or coach. Most won't know what success will actually look like in reality before the session with only hoping that something will be different at the end of it and some my not even believe it possible - NLP is often the last resort for many people who have been through the traditional routes of change and have built up a perception that 'nothing works' - so when they do experience success at any level they can react differently to it with either trepidation, as the women in Richard's vid, or with extreme excitement as the woman in Paul's vid and with a strong positive response as in the case of the man in Steve's vid. But all of them got what they had asked for at some point in the process whether the video showed all of that process or not.

The TV producers
This person will have outcomes defined by criteria whose message they percieve will appeal to the audiences they are targeting. We can see the different ways they present successful outcomes in how they comment, question and or edit the film.

In Richard's video they report on success as defined by the client in that she got to see her Grandaughter - the flight not being so important to her in terms of success outcomes, only that she managed to get on a plane 2 weeks later and one presumably without Richard there.. and actually saw her grandaughter.

In Paul's video, this clearly shows success as defined by the client and which was followed up with all manner of video evidence of her going on fairground rides and then some.... - Great viewing for all concerned especially from a producers point of view who are keen to give their audiences something interesting to watch.

Steve, being the producer of his own video is able to show us relevant evidence of long-term success backed up with technological expertise, which the other two producers, probably don't have and therefore appeals more to a specialised market as opposed to general public with the other two.

The audience
This person will have a criteria based on what they want to learn or discover what the main message of the video is.

As a viewer, I can speak from experience that at first I did not really know why these were posted and what the point of them was. After reading and watching I felt compelled to answer and share my perspective on what I was observing and what I knew from assisting Richard and acting as his scribe on numerous seminars. I was around at the time that Richard's wife Paula died and I can tell you it was not an easy time for any of us - we all felt it very powerfully (I still can't talk about it without getting emotional), so you can imagine the impact it had on Richard and he still managed to stay professional and keep on teaching seminars....that is not something I would be embarrased about, but something I see as as dedicated person who is a living testimonial of what he is teaching.

For those of you who are using these as teaching tools, be mindful of the context, expertise and agenda's of those that produce them and appreciate that 'Success' is in the eye of the beholder.

Best wishes
Nina

[QUOTE=redser;75108]Hi Peter,

The "15 minutes" is an exageration but I have heard RB in interview say (paraphrasing here), "I have developed a phobia cure that works in 15 minutes and am working to do it faster" (a very loose paraphrase)./QUOTE]

Well, you say that 15 minutes is an exaggeration, but the very first phobia cure I did outside of a controlled Practitioner Course environment was with a woman who had for forty years had a screaming fear of birds. She couldn't even sit in her own back garden, because she was so afraid.

It took 20 minutes to "fix" her. Her son, who had anxiety attacks because he was afraid of the dark, took 8 minutes. His was not a full-blown phobia, however. The fastest full-blown phobia was for a woman with a fear of buses. She took 12 minutes. The longest has been 2 days, solid.

My observation is that it depends on the flexibility of the person you go to. Some people need a whole load of suggestion to get them to a position in which their unconscious is willing to make the shift. This I can do with story telling and analogue marked hypnotic command. It can take some time. But it's like Richard says: "if they're not ready to change, then it's your job to make them ready." The prep can take some time. I was fortunate with the bird phobic and her son, and the bus phobic that they didn't have an idee fixe about their problem. They hadn't had it all strengthened and justified with analysis, for example. A claustrophobic who came to me after having counselling took 8 hours to sort out because she simply wouldn't at first accept that what we were doing would make a change. She clung on to her phobia, and questioned what we were doing continuously. She did have further issues underneath the initial issue, which I had also to break. When I got her conscious mind to shut up, then she was a very simple case to set right.

What I am saying is that every person is different. Some will go in literally minutes. Others will take hours. But if you are talking to a traditional counsellor, as I did only a few weeks ago, they will tell you it can take years, and that maybe you shouldn't change it anyway...

So, in the video, Richard gets a toughie. But we've all had toughies. She has made the first step by flying again, and she has got what she needs to help her in the future. What often happens is that people, after years of doing a phobia, simply haven't yet caught up with the fact that the phobia has gone. To me, it's pretty clear that that's partially the case with this woman. The new reality hasn't yet sunk in. That's common. In time, the reality will sink in, and the redundant behaviour of anxiety about the possibility that she will be afraid (because, yes, that's what she's doing - she isn't doing a phobia, she is doing a fear of a phobia) will reduce. I've experienced exactly this myself. I used to expect to get afraid of spiders, after my phobia cure had worked. But when I saw them, they didn't frighten me. It's like my conscious brain hadn't yet caught up with the change in my unconscious.

The big question at the end of a treatment should be: has this client got what they need?

I'd say that being able to even get on a plane and visit her family is pretty much what she was after. A qualified success, which the video acknowledges.

Hi Matthew
I was interested in your use of terminology.
"fix" her." Presupposition that she is broken in some way?
"it's your job to make them ready." Really, according to whom. ( Richard of course in this answer) 'Make' presupposes there is no choice involved? I thought Richard supported "choice".

"has this client got what they need?"
How on earth can you ever know what a client NEEDS! To say that, you are telling us that your understanding of their map is greater than theirs. Really???

"I'd say that being able to even get on a plane and visit her family is pretty much what she was after. A qualified success, which the video acknowledges."
Maybe it was what she was consciously after? But that depends on how you look at it? Maybe getting on a plane and feeling different from the way she has been feeling might be what she was after?? Maybe being able to enjoy the flight was what she was after??? What I'm trying to get to here is your points all relate to first order symptom. What about state? Is it really all about getting on a plane? Or is it about how she processes the getting on a plane in a new way which allows her to create a new experience giving her ecological and congruent options which may generalise across any other areas of her life and outlook?

Speed is not the only consideration in change work, is it?
This type of attitude has brought a lot of condemnation to the field of NLP.
I'm all for a 'go get em' approach but new readers to this forum might wonder if this is all that is required to assist change in others as a priority.
Oh sorry I meant to say, make change, the client does not have any say in the proceedings, as NLPers we have the right and the power to fix and do as we see fit?????????????????


Food for thought.
Peter

p.s
I was also originally trained by Richard up to trainer level. I do not consider that Richard works in any way that could be considered unecological, however I think many people do not consider or recognise that he does not always make clear the importance behind what he is doing covertly and overtly because of his experience and genius. This is where people can get the wrong end of the stick in regards to what appears to be happening and what might actually be happening.

peter108 wrote:

Hi Matthew
I was interested in your use of terminology.
"fix" her." Presupposition that she is broken in some way?
"it's your job to make them ready." Really, according to whom. ( Richard of course in this answer) 'Make' presupposes there is no choice involved? I thought Richard supported "choice".

Make also presupposes that the magic happens in the practitioner rather than in the client. Reminds me of the sketch in the Monty Python film when a woman in labour asks the doctor what she should do and he replies "Nothing, dear, you're not qualified".

If there isn't some magic in the practitioner, how come some people get better results with clients than others?

adrian r wrote:

If there isn't some magic in the practitioner, how come some people get better results with clients than others?

I'd need a lot more information about "Some" and "Others" and "Better" and "Results" before I reply.

Also "Cop" and "Out".

adrian r wrote:

Also "Cop" and "Out".

If left in a room on your own would you mismatch with yourself?

I love this!
NLPers trapped in paradygms!!

Peter I have always liked you and I hope you know that but I do have to comment on:

"it's your job to make them ready." Really, according to whom. ( Richard of course in this answer) 'Make' presupposes there is no choice involved? I thought Richard supported "choice".

Comedy sketch between NLPers:
NLPers 1 says: We must NEVER take away choice
NLPer 2 thinks (without choice since he/she has been conditioned): MM violation a universal cuantifier appeared
so NLPer 2 asks: NEVER?
NLPer 1 replies: Never! We NLPers (as in EVERY NLPer) support (as in ALWAYS) choice.
NLPer 2 thinks (the conditioning was strong): MM violations - universal cuantifiers + unspecified nouns + unspecified verbs
so NLPer 2 asks: How specifically do NLPers support choice? Who specifically does that? Do NLPers always do that with everyone?
To be continued...

I've heard some NLPers claim NLP has to be "content free".
It must always be content free? I thought we suppoerted choice!!! ;-)
Some claim the map is not the territory... Never? Isn't there the optionof some map being the territory? Can we choose not to believe the map is not the territory?

Oh wait there are more.... some say the client always has the resources needed.... Always? Every client? All the resources? For every situation? According to whom?
Or the ones who say People are not broken.... No one? How specifically are they not broken? BTW both phrases presuppose having met every person in the world and since that is not possible...

Using the MM can be fun and a useful way to question even what we think is true. I use it all the time to question what I was conditioned to believe in NLP and other fields BUT is it helping communication at this point? Is it allowing agreements and growth in a thread?
Oh yes we have the choice of not looking for agreements and the choice of uisng our NLP skills to annoy others.

BTW it is fun to examine communication between NLPers from a pragmatics point of view, examining all the conversational implicatures AND how much the principle of cooperation in communication is not applied so often.

I am not in this to defend any of the positions (perhaps my own) but I think NLPers become much better NLPers when they (read) listen to themselves and notice the comedy in the paradoxes and contrdictions.

Back to my non-NLP work now.

gabe wrote:

Some claim the map is not the territory... Never? Isn't there the optionof some map being the territory? Can we choose not to believe the map is not the territory?

Can someone please give me an example of when the map is the territory so I can turn this back into a presupposition and stop believing it.

Thanks

John

Why is the third hand on the watch called the second hand?

John "the map is not the territory" is used as a sentenial metaphor (the label in pragmatics). It is not about real maps and real territories.
It is meant to be used as If I think X my thought is a map from reality and not reality. But sometimes what you think/perceive is what is going on... sadly I saw my granma died and as she was dying I thought "she is dying" and guess what my map was the territory!

In my map of the world, the map is not the territory. In many other people's map, their map is the territory. So it all depends who you think is right, who you want to understand, and who you want to influence.

"Does it matter, and if it does matter, does it matter that it matters?"
--Douglas Adams

"There is no wisdom in technique. Wisdom is only found in people"
-- Judith DeLozier

Bandler has sometimes confused some people by saying, "The map IS the territory," partly I'm sure to frustrate the parrots among us.
But there is a sense in which this is absolutely true. In order to help someone change, we have to realize that their map IS the territory in which we have to work. By adding to their map, and sometimes by rearranging it a bit, it can become a map that is more useful and satisfying to them.
Steve Andreas

Gabe,
I love your posts, but you are confused here. The map is not the territory is from General Semantics. The idea is that our concepts about the world are not the world. A map of Mexico is not the same as the territory it represents. This is not the same as saying that the map is not true or accurate. It points to the fact that our representations of reality, what ever reality may mean or different than reality. For example if you are thirsty, the word water will not quench your thirst. Now, since I am talking about maps, then maps in this instance are the territory as I am making maps of maps if that makes sense.

steveandreas wrote:

Bandler has sometimes confused some people by saying, "The map IS the territory," partly I'm sure to frustrate the parrots among us.

"This is an ex-parrot..." {etc}

After some thought, I love both versions: "the map is not the territory" is a wonderful 'reality-check' on a personal level, while "the map is the territory" is a very respectful way to initially approach another person's world-view.

Cool.