MODELING EXCELLENCE SERIES (by Michael Hall -- Neuro-Semantics)

The last 2 posts in one to let the dust settle... and to let them to take root.

The First one:

THE MODELING THAT DISCOVERED META-STATES

The enrichment of modeling with Meta-States began in 1994 during my very first modeling project— Resilience.  I started the project in 1991when I became really fascinated by the quality of staying with something when set-backs occur.  It did not begin with big set-backs, but actually with little ones.  And with the smallest of set-backs.  Until then I had not even really noticed the phenomenon.

Prior to that if someone quit or gave up on something, I dismissed it with a wave of the hand as, “Well they must not really be interested.”  Or, “It just must not be their thing.”  Or, “They’ve got something else that’s more interesting.”  Then one day during an NLP class I was interviewed someone about some very small thing that the person had started, then there was a set-back, and then the person gave up on.  Using the Meta-Model questions, I probed and probed to understand the mental map of the person.  When we had chased the person’s thinking-and-feeling about that one, he remembered another thing he had started, and a set-back, and a giving that up for something else.  That led to a third memory and, of course, “Do we have a pattern here?”

His pattern was to think of something that he wanted or wanted to achieve, make a visual image of it (V^construct), then amplify it so that it was really compelling (K⁺), and in amplifying it, he would compress the time frame for achieving it so the picture came closer and closer and then he would say things like, “It’s almost here; I’m going to have it” (A^language), and then if anything got in the way of it (a set-back) like a disappointing result from an action or the realization it would take longer, he would then create another picture of it but this one would either be far, far away or a degraded version of it (V^construct) and the more he thought of it, the more it would move over and replace the original picture.  At that point he would say, “Agghh.  I don’treally want it anyway; it’s not worth the effort.”  That would create a momentary sense of dislike and then he would be off to something else.

That got me hooked.  Suddenly, I realized that there could be, for some people, a pattern of non-resilience.  Set-backs of the smallest nature would put them off.  So I started doing the interviews with just about anyone who would let me.  As that continued, I discovered bigger and bigger set-backs— real knock-downs (divorces, bankruptcy, being fired, being mugged, rape, war, accidents, and all sorts of traumas).

Now what really amazed me in the interviews was that it was not the size, magnitude, power, number, or intensity of the set-back that determined the person’s response.  For some people, the smallest set-back would knock them off-course and for others, the largest, most devastating set-back would not.  They would get up, dust themselves off, and go for it again.  Even if multiple set-backs occur at the same time— they would do the same thing.  Get up, shake off the disorientation, examine what was left, figure out something to do, and bounce back!  I was impressed.  And, I wanted that!  I wanted it for myself and I wanted it for every client that I worked with and I wanted it for those who attended every NLP course that I conducted.

“Okay, so what is the strategy of resilience, of bouncing back after a set-back?  How do people think and map out the experience so that they take it as a matter of course, ‘I will be back.’?”  That was my question and it was 1991.  Many years prior to that I had read the book from Elizabeth Kobler-Ross on grief recovery and the stages that she proposed: shock, denial, bargaining, anger, and acceptance.  I had also already read Viktor Frank’s Logo-Therapy and is story of resilience in Man’s Search for Meaning.  So I began a search of the literature to see what else had been written.  In 1991 there was not the category of Resilience as there is today so there was not much.  But there was the study of the Children of Survival from the War in Lebanon.

While I was search out those things and now interview people who “had been to hell and back” I was reading through Korzbyski’s Science and Sanity and Bateson’s Steps to an Ecology of Mind.  I was writing and publishing about the language patterns in Korzybski that were not included in the Meta-Model and writing NLP articles about Bateson’s contributions to NLP.

Then in 1994 a call for papers for the NLP Conference in Denver came and I decided to propose a workshop on “Resilience: Going for it — Again!”  I worked out the stages: The set-back (or knock-down), the emotional roller-coaster stage of dealing with the emotional shock of a world falling apart, the accessing of stabilization states and skills to stop the fall, the coping stage of putting one’s world back together, and the mastering stage of recovering a new vision and intention so that one would finally “be back.”  The strategy was straight-forward and linear.  So I gathered my materials and headed to Denver with some friends.

Then it happened.  While interview a man at the training, I asked, “How did you know to go from stage 2 to stage 3?  And he said something like, “Well, I had this larger vision, this higher state about where I was and I knew that it was just a matter of time and that I would get through this.”  Then either I reflected back to him or he said, “It’s like being in a state about my state, in a meta-state ...”  Regardless of who actually said the words, the phrase “meta-state” was an Eureka moment for me as it brought together the meta-levels, logical levels, and levels of abstracting that I had been immersed in for three years.  “Of course, at the same time that you are coping on the primary level you are also accessing your higher level thoughts-and-feelings and it is those meta-states of vision, intention, and determination that you will get through that’s infusing you with this complex state of resilience!"

The fact that we do not just operate at one level, but multiple levels simultaneously brings into focus that we cannot model most subjective experiences without tracking our self-reflexive consciousness as it creates multiple meta-states.  We are multi-layered beings.  We do not just think or feel— we are always and inevitably thinking-and-feeling (a state) about our thoughts-and-feelings and we are also experiencing states about those states.  This comprises the matrix of frames that we have about things: our beliefs, values, identities, memories, imaginations, decisions, models, intentions, and dozens and dozens of other meta-level understandings.  So to model in a full and complete way requires using the Meta-States Model for modeling out the self-reflexivity of the mind-body system.

L.  Michael Hall, Ph. D.

Neuro-Semantics homepage

The Second one:

HOW TO MODEL WITH META-STATES

In the last article I described the modeling that discovered Meta-States, now for an overview of how to model using the Meta-States Model.  This was actually the surprise that I experienced after discovering Meta-States.  While I was absolutely delighted to identify the meta-level structures of resilience(#6), I really had no ideal how extensive the Meta-States Model would apply.  And how extensive does it apply?

In any and every experience where a person’s self-reflexive consciousness is operative.

Now if you are new to Neuro-Semantics and to Neurons, self-reflexive consciousness is the kind of consciousness, the kind of mind that you have, that we humans have.  What does it mean?  It means that you never just think.  You never just feel.  As soon as you think–and–feel (create an emotional state), you think–and–feel about that first state.  You do not just get angry, you get afraid–of–your–anger or you get angry–at–your–anger, or you feel ashamed–of–your anger.  And that’s just the first level.  Then you think–and–feel something else about that first meta-state.  And so it goes.

This explains the complexity of your states.  This explains why it is often very difficult to answer the question, “What do you feel about X?”  When you think about that X, there is your first level thinking–and–feeling, then your second level, third level, and so on.  Up the levels it goes.  Nor do these “levels” stay separate.  It is their nature to combine and integrate.  We call it coalescing in Neuro-Semantics.

So if you meta-state your learning state with joy, fun, or delight and you create the meta-state of joyful learning, if you do that repeatedly, then after awhile the joy and the learning so coalesce that they operate as if they were a single primary state— joyful learning.  Then try as you will to pull the joy out of the learning and you will find it next to impossible.  Why?  Because your mind-body neurology is designed to make–actual (actualize) your thinking–and–feeling and so when you keep meta-stating learning with joy, you generate a new gestalt state so that a new emergent property arises— joyful learning.

For modeling, this is crucial.  It lies at the heart of every complex and dynamic “state” that we humans are able to generate and this goes far beyond the linear modeling of basic NLP.  And if you want to model the rich, robust, powerful, and complex states that characterizes experts— resilience, self-efficacy, seeing and seizing opportunities, entrepreneurship, leadership, etc., then you have to model out the meta-levels within the meta-states of the expert.  Ignore that and you only get the surface first level and you will never tap into the rich layered qualities that lie behind it.

Now years ago I wrote a whole book on Modeling with Meta-States, I gave it the title of NLP: Going Meta (1997) and wrote it after the formatting that Robert Dilts used in Creating NLP: The Study of the Structure of Subjective Experience, Volume I.   So I also titled it, NLP: Going Meta — Advanced Modeling Using Meta-Levels, Volume II.   

So just how do you model using Meta-States?  The answer lies in detecting and identifying the meta-levels that a person has reflexively brought to him or herself that now qualifies the experience and operates as a frame to the experience.  What this means is that as you and I access another thought–and–feeling about our first state, that second state operates dynamically to do several things—

∙           It brings another mind-body state to it and so adds qualities or qualifies the first.

∙           It sets the cognitive ideas within that state as the frame for the first.

∙           It puts the first as a member of a class, the “class” being the classification that the second one creates.

The second bullet point means that all of the so-called logical levels (beliefs, values, identity, mission, spirit, intention, permission, memory, imagination, meaning, etc.) are dynamically inside of the second state (the meta-state) and set the frame of meaning for the first.  Back to the example of “joyful learning.”  Is that a belief?  Do you believe you can joyfully learn?  Is that a value?  Do you value learning for the joy it gives you?  Is that an identity?  Are you a joyful learner?  Do you have memories of joyfully learning?  Do you imagine it in your future?  Do you anticipate, expect, desire, give yourself permission, etc. to learn joyfully?

So what is it?  It is all of those things at the same time.  It is we with our linear thinking who want to separate these things and make them different phenomenon.  Yet are they really?  Could they all be aspects of the same thing?  That’s our position in Neuro-Semantics.  We look at all of these “meta-level phenomena” and view them as facets of the “diamond of consciousness.”

What does this mean for modeling?  It means that when you discover a meta-level that’s qualifying an experience— there are beliefs in it, values in it, identities within it, intentions, permissions, prohibitions, and all of the other 100 logical levels.  Oh yes, there are one hundred logical levels (actually more).  I made a list of 104 of them in the book, Neuro-Semantics (2011).

There’s more to describe about this — especially the third bullet point on classes and categories as well as how to detect and call forth the meta-levels.  I’ll write about that next time.  To your effective modeling!

L.  Michael Hall, Ph. D.

Neuro-Semantics homepage

Everyone as best as he can...

Have Joy!
Giannicola 

Robert Dilts on Authentic Leadership

The quality of authentic leadership is often the 'difference that makes a difference' in our ability to positively influence, collaborate generatively and contribute to the growth and transformation of others.

Connecting to the source of your confidence and discovering the 'area of excellence' that is the foundation of your personal power will strengthen your effectiveness as a pro.

In the following 2 videos you'll learn a great lesson from Robert Dilts: how to bring out the best in yourself - your passion, determination, aliveness and grace - while connecting more deeply to people in both your personal and professional life

PART 1

PART 2


NLPU homepage


Anyone as best as he can!
Have Joy
Giannicola

A Practical Approach to Innovation (At the Whiteboard)

Once again with Edward G. Muzio and his whiteboard.
Today´s topic is real interesting because it is on innovation.
3 roles, 3 way of thinking, 3 different results...
Muzio´s approach is very practical and very easy to try. 
And if you don´t have a whiteboard next to you can use the A4 sheets one at a time...
the Dreamer is the state when you are highly creative. 
The Realist re-thinks this experience as if he were a realistic person. 
The Critic sees the idea or the project pointing to all the uncomfortable details.




All these come from a Robert Dilt´s work: 
Walt Disney - Planning Strategy

GROUP HARMONICS homepage

Everyone as best as he can!

Have Joy!

Giannicola

Scuse, Bilanci, Leadership e Valori: Maison Dior.

Le scuse.

Qualche post fa parlavo de LE SCUSE e oggi faccio un applauso ad un´organizzazione che oltre a vivere di lusso e creativitá, di vanitá e leggerezze, ha compiuto un atto rilevante e di coraggio senza accampare scuse.

I bilanci.

Le voci e i metodi utilizzati per redigere un bilancio riescono ad evidenziare solo alcuni aspetti del patrimoni e non mettono in luce i capitali intangibili (legati alla componente umana, ai suoi Valori, alle sue Visioni, alle sue Competenze distintive, alle sue Capacità di innovazione, ecc...) che sono una parte importante, se non fondamentale, del valore totale di un'azienda.

In pratica...

Ora, dopo questa premessa, voglio agganciarmi a quella che é stata la "notizia" degli ultimi giorni: lo stilista John Galliano è stato travolto dallo scandalo e licenziato dalla Maison Dior, dopo dichiarazioni di matrice razzista e antisemita ("I love Hitler").

Di per sé questa notizia lascia il tempo che trova, ma ritengo che sia importante se calata nella cornice piú opportuna: quella della leadership etica.

Leadrership.

Nel libro "Coaching e Leadership", Robert Dilts (Parte III. Agire - Capitolo 7. Leadership 80:20) parla cosÍ: "Le organizzazioni allineate apprendono, e dietro ad ogni organizzazione che apprende ci sono leader-insegnanti. Il modo in cui scegliete di trascorrere il tempo trasmette forti messaggi riguardo alle vostre priorità".

Mi piace come ha gestito la faccenda la Maison Dior.

Valori non-negoziabili.
Ci sono valori non-negoziabili e la Maison Dior non ha scherzato per niente!

In un mondo abituato a vedere far carriera quelli che agiscono in maniera piú lontana dai principi e dai valori degli standard di quel mondo (il costruttore piú spregiudicato, quello che costruisce 2 piani in piú fuori dal progetto, non viene cacciato dall'ordine dei costruttori ma ne diventa il presidente...), un esempio di congruenza come quello di questo post non é da poco.

Ognuno come puó!

Abbi Gioia

Giannicola

Il Carisma secondo Robert Dilts

“Non esiste alcuna relazione tra Carisma e quoziente d'intelligenza, tra Carisma e posizione sociale, tra Carisma e corredo genetico. Il Carisma è una competenza che può essere appresa" - Robert Dilts

"Il Carisma di una persona costituisce spesso la differenza che fa la differenza nella capacità di avere un impatto, nella capacità di collaborare in modo creativo, nella capacità di contribuire alla crescita e alla trasformazione delle altre persone" - Robert Dilts

NLPU homepage

Ognuno come puó!

Abbi Gioia

Giannicola

About Presuppositions (Robert Dilts)

Presuppositions relate to unconscious beliefs or assumptions embedded in the structure of an utterance, action or another belief; and are required for the utterance, action or belief to make sense. According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, to presuppose means to "suppose beforehand" or "to require as an antecedent in logic or fact." The term "suppose" comes from Latin, and literally means "to put under" ­ from sub ("under") + ponere ("to put").

There are two types of presuppositions that are significant in NLP: linguistic presuppositions and epistemological presuppositions.

Linguistic Presuppositions

Linguistic Presuppositions occur when certain information or relationships must be accepted as true in order to make sense of a particular statement. For example, to understand the statement, "As soon as you stop trying to sabotage our therapeutic efforts, we'll be able to make more progress," one must assume that the person to whom the statement is directed already has been, in fact, trying to sabotage the therapeutic efforts. The statement also presupposes that there is some kind of therapeutic effort being attempted and that at least some progress has been made. Similarly the statement, "Since they leave us no alternative, we must resort to violence," presupposes that no alternative, in fact, exists and that "they" are the ones who determine whether there are alternatives or not.

Linguistic presuppositions are typically explored or challenged in NLP by asking, "How, specifically, do you know that?"

True linguistic presuppositions should be contrasted with assumptions and inferences. A linguistic presupposition is something that is stated in the body of the statement itself which must be 'supposed' or accepted in order for the sentence or utterance to make sense. In the question, "Have you stopped exercising regularly?" for example, the use of the word stop implies that the listener has already been exercising regularly. The question, "Do you exercise regularly?" has no such presupposition.

Conclusions such as "The speaker thinks exercise is important," or "The speaker is unfamiliar with the exercise habits of the listener," are not presupposed by the questions. They are assumptions and inferences we might make about the question, but are not presupposed within the question itself.
Consider the following two statements:

The authorities prevented the demonstrators from marching because they feared violence.

The authorities prevented the demonstrators from marching because they advocated violence.

The two statements have exactly structure, with the exception of the words "feared" and "advocated." Depending on which word is used, we assume that the term "they" refers to either the "authorities" or the "demonstrators." We are more likely to think that it is the authorities who fear violence, and the demonstrators who advocate violence; but this in not presupposed by the statement itself. It is assumed by us as listeners. Both sentences presuppose that there were demonstrators who were planning to march, but that is all.

An inference related to the two statements above would be that "the demonstrators and the authorities were not the same group of people." Inferences relate to logical conclusions which are made that are based upon the information provided by the statement. Presuppositions, assumptions and inferences all reflect beliefs and values, but in different ways.

In The Structure of Magic Volume I (1975) NLP founders Bandler and Grinder identify twenty-nine different forms of linguistic presuppositions.

Epistemological Presuppositions

Epistemological presuppositions are deep, and often unstated, beliefs that form the foundation of a particular system of knowledge. As the foundation of an epistemology, they must be "presupposed," and cannot be proven. In fact, they are the fundamental assumption upon which all of the other concepts and ideas within the epistemology are "proven." Euclid, for example, built his entire geometry upon the concept of the 'point'. A point is defined as 'an entity that has a position but no other properties'­it has no size, no mass, no color, no shape. It is of course impossible to prove that a point really has no size, mass, color, etc. However, if you accept this presupposition, along with a few others, you can build a whole system of geometry (i.e., "A line is the shortest distance between two points," "A 'rectangle' is four lines connected together at equal angles," etc.). The conclusions of this system can then be 'proved' with respect to their adherence to the fundamental but unproven concepts. It is important to realize that one does not have to accept Euclid's assumption about a point in order to create a geometry. There are other geometries based on different presuppositions. For instance, MIT mathematician Seymour Pappert (1980) built his fascinating 'Turtle geometry' for children substituting the notion of a 'Turtle' for a 'point'; a 'Turtle' being an entity that has a position and a direction.

The fundamental presuppositions of NLP form the basic epistemology upon which the methodology and technology of NLP is built. They are like the fundamental concepts of Euclidian geometry. And, similar to Euclid's notion of a "point," the basic presuppositions of NLP cannot be "proven" in any objective fashion. You cannot objectively 'prove', for instance, that there really is a "positive intention" behind a particular behavior; that is why it is considered a 'presupposition'. Similarly, one cannot 'prove' that the 'map is not the territory' and that 'there is no one right map of the world'. These are part of the basic 'epistemology' of NLP - they are the basic beliefs upon which the rest of the model is based.

Thus, accepting the presuppositions that 'the map is not the territory' or 'behind every behavior is positive intention' is ultimately an act of faith. If we accept these presuppositions, then we will find or create them in our experience, rather than waiting for the proof that they are "true."

Like many other aspects of NLP, the basic NLP Presuppositions have been synthesized from many different fields: general semantics, transformational grammar, systems theory, cybernetics, pragmatism, phenomenology, and logical positivism. The essential epistemological presuppositions of NLP can be summarized as follows:

1. Map is Not the Territory. As human beings, we can never know reality. We can only know our perceptions of reality. We experience and respond to the world around us primarily through our sensory representational systems. It is our 'neuro-linguistic' maps of reality that determine how we behave and that give those behaviors meaning, not reality itself. It is generally not reality that limits us or empowers us, but rather our map of reality.
   
2. Life and 'Mind' are Systemic Processes. The processes that take place within a human being and between human beings and their environment are systemic. Our bodies, our societies, and our universe form an ecology of complex systems and sub-systems all of which interact with and mutually influence each other. It is not possible to completely isolate any part of the system from the rest of the system. Such systems are based on certain 'self-organizing' principles and naturally seek optimal states of balance or homeostasis.
   
3. At some level, all behavior is "positively intended". That is, it is or was perceived as appropriate given the context in which it was established, from the point of view of the person whose behavior it is. People make the best choices available to them given the possibilities and capabilities that they perceive to be accessible within their model of the world. Any behavior no matter how evil, crazy or bizarre it seems is the best choice available to that person at that point in time.
   
4. The Law of Requisite Variety. In systems theory there is a principle called the Law of Requisite Variety, which states in order to successfully adapt and survive, a member of a system needs a certain minimum amount of flexibility. That amount of flexibility has to be proportional to the variety in the rest of the system. One of the implications of the Law of Requisite Variety is that if you want to get to a particular goal state you have to increase the number of operations which could possibly get you there in proportion with the degree variability in the system. It is important to explore variations in operations used to accomplish goals, rather than simply repeat the same one _ even if it produced creative results in the past. Because the environments and contexts in which we operate change, the same procedure will not always produce the same result. If you want to consistently achieve your goal, you must vary the operations you are using to get to it. When you always use the same procedure, you will produce a varying result. So, as a system becomes more complex, more flexibility is required. Another implication of the Law of Requisite Variety is that the part of the system with the most flexibility will be the catalytic element within that system - like the queen in a game of chess.

All of the models and techniques of NLP are based on the combination of these four principles. They form the basic framework upon which NLP is built. According to these presuppositions, wisdom, ethics and ecology do not derive from having the one 'right' or 'correct' map of the world, because human beings are not be capable of making one. Rather, the goal is to create the richest map possible that respects the systemic nature and ecology of ourselves and the world in which we live.

To explore the impact of different epistemological presuppositions, try out the following exercise:

1. Find references experiences in your own life is which you acted congruently from each of these presuppositions.
2. Fully associate into the state connected with the experience of each presupposition. Notice the posture and physiology of your body, and where your attention is focused. What perception of reality arises from this state?
3. Break state, and then think of the opposites of each of these presuppositions:
   

   There is one single correct map which is the territory.
   We are not part of the same system. You are separate from the system you are in. Reality occurs linearly and mechanically.
   You can't trust anyone because people are basically negatively intended, or act randomly with no intention at all.
   There is only one right way to do things. If something works once, it will always work.
   You don't have the capabilities you need. You are what you do.

4. Act "as if" these 'counter-NLP' presuppositions are true. Notice the posture and physiology of your body, and where your attention is focused. What state and perception of the world arises from these presuppositions?
5. Go to an observer position and contrast the two states and realities. Which do you find the most "natural" for you, and easiest to sustain? Which seem most "foreign" and difficult to maintain? How do you experience the difference? What do you learn about yourself, your culture and your congruence with NLP presuppositions?
6. Consider the following beliefs:
   
   1. You can't control the system but it is predictable and you can prepare yourself for what is going to happen.
   2. You can get what you want in this system but you must do the right thing.
   3. You can't get what you want in this system no matter what you do.
   4. Everyone in this system is out for themselves so you must protect your own interests.
   5. If you don't get what you want right away it will be too late.
   Take each belief and act 'as if' it were true. What epistemological presuppositions could be at the basis of each belief?

Summary of Key NLP Presuppositions

The fundamental Presuppositions of NLP form the basic epistemology upon which all the rest of its methodology and technology are built. NLP presuppositions are like the core concepts of Euclidian geometry. They are the primary ideas and assumptions from which everything else in the field is derived. They form the philosophy behind all of the NLP models, distinctions and techniques.

Like many other aspects of NLP, the basic NLP Presuppositions have been synthesized from a number of different fields, including: general semantics (Alfred Korzybski), transformational grammar (Noam Chomsky), systems theory (Gregory Bateson), cybernetics (W. Ross Ashby), pragmatism (William James), phenomenology (Edmund Husserl), and logical positivism (Bertrand Russel and Alfred North Whitehead).

The following is a summary of the basic presuppositions of NLP, and their corollaries.

The Map is not the Territory.

1. People respond to their own perceptions of reality.
2. Every person has their own individual map of the world. No individual map of the world is any more "real" or "true" than any other.
3. The meaning of a communication to another person is the response it elicits in that person, regardless of the intent of the communicator.
4. The 'wisest' and most 'compassionate' maps are those which make available the widest and richest number of choices, as opposed to being the most "real" or "accurate".
5. People already have (or potentially have) all of the resources they need to act effectively.
6. People make the best choices available to them given possibilities and the capabilities that they perceive available to them from their model of the world. Any behavior no matter how evil, crazy or bizarre it seems is the best choice available to the person at that point in time - if given a more appropriate choice (within the context of their model of the world) the person will be more likely to take it.
7. Change comes from releasing the appropriate resource, or activating the potential resource, for a particular context by enriching a person's map of the world.

Life And 'Mind' Are Systemic Processes.

1. The processes that take place within a person, and between people and their environment, are systemic. Our bodies, our societies and our universe form an ecology of systems and sub-systems all of which interact with and mutually influence each other.
2. It is not possible to completely isolate any part of a system from the rest of the system. People cannot not influence each other. Interactions between people form feedback loops - such that a person will be effected by the results that their own actions make on other people.
3. Systems are 'self organizing' and naturally seek states of balance and stability. There are no failures, only feedback.
4. No response, experience or behavior is meaningful outside of the context in which it was established or the response it elicits next. Any behavior, experience or response may serve as a resource or limitation depending on how it fits in with the rest of the system.
5. Not all interactions in a system are on the same level. What is positive on one level may be negative on another level. It is useful to separate behavior from "self" - to separate the positive intent, function, belief, etc. that generates the behavior from the behavior itself.
6. At some level all behavior is (or at one time was) "positively intended". It is or was perceived as appropriate given the context in which it was established, from the point of view of the person whose behavior it is. It is easier and more productive to respond to the intention rather than the expression of a problematic behavior.
7. Environments and contexts change. The same action will not always produce the same result. In order to successfully adapt and survive, a member of a system needs a certain minimum amount of flexibility. That amount of flexibility has to be proportional to the variation in the rest of the system. As a system becomes more complex, more flexibility is required.
8. If what you are doing is not getting the response you want then keep varying your behavior until you do elicit the response. 

Robert Dilts

References

Applications of NLP; Dilts, R., 1983.
Strategies of Genius; Dilts, R., 1994-1995.
Tools of the Spirit; Dilts, R. and McDonald, R., 1997.
Modeling With NLP; Dilts, R., 1998.
Mindstorms; Papert, S., 1980.

L'integrazione di parti in conflitto (Robert Dilts)

Si ha un conflitto interiore quando due o più "parti" di una persona producono comportamenti contraddittori. 

Il conflitto più problematico si ha quando le parti in opposizione si giudicano tra loro negativamente.

La risoluzione del conflitto viene dall'identificazione di un'intenzione positiva comune.

Quella che segue è una rassegna generale delle tecniche di base di PNL per integrare "parti" in conflitto:

1. Identificare il conflitto che ha diviso fisicamente le "parti"
2. Creare una "meta-posizione" dissociata dalle parti in questione
3. Chiedete ad ogni parte di esprimere la percezione dell'altra
4. Trovate ed identificate l'intenzione positiva di ognuna di esse
5. Assicurarsi che ogni parte riconosca ed accetti l'intenzione positiva dell'altra
6. Dalla "meta-posizione" identificare quale sia l'intenzione comune ad un livello superiore condivisa da entrambe
7. Identificare le risorse e le capacità di ogni parte utili all'altra per il conseguimento dell'intenzione positiva e dell'obiettivo comune
8. Sintetizzate ed integrate fisicamente le ex parti in conflitto in una nuova rappresentazione da inglobare all'interno del vostro corpo
9. Immaginare di andare nel passato e nel futuro, portando questa integrazione con voi e sperimentare quanto positivamente influenzi gli eventi della vostra vita.

Istruzioni specifiche per l'integrazione di parti conflittuali in un'altra persona

1. 1. Identificate le parti in conflitto dell'altro. Esempi tipici di conflitto sono la logica e l'emozionalità, l'intuito e la razionalità, credenze da bambini e convinzioni da adulto, passato e futuro ecc.
2. Calibrate la fisiologia dei ognuna delle parti in conflitto (prestate particolare attenzione alle asimmetrie dei movimenti e dei gesti)
3. Rappresentate le parti in ogni sistema sensoriale. Ad esempio, potreste dire :"Metti la parte che crede X in una mano (scegliete la mano che il partner usa quando esprime quella convinzione). Quale immagine, suono e sensazione associ a questa parte di te?". Se manca uno di questi elementi, aggiungeteli. Mettete l'altra parte nell'altra mano e fate altrettanto
4. Fate associare il vostro partner alla posizione percettiva di ogni parte e chiedete ad ognuna di esse di descrivere cosa vede. A questo punto le diverse parti non si piaceranno e non si fideranno l'una dell'altra
5. Trovate l'intenzione ed il proposito positivo di ogni parte. Assicuratevi che ognuna di esse riconosca ed accetti l'intenzione positiva dell'altra.
   
   a. Assicuratevi che ogni parte realizzi che il conflitto interferisce direttamente con il raggiungimento dei propri obiettivi
6. Fate associare il partner con ogni parte e fate osservare l'altra, questa volta descrivendo le risorse che l'altra ha e che sarebbero utili alla sua propria intenzione positiva.
   
   a. Stabilite un accordo congruente affinché le parti combinino le risorse per meglio conseguire i propri obbiettivi. Spesso il motivo alla base della mancanza di fiducia è da identificarsi nella mancanza di risorse di una parte rispetto all'altra, cosa che causa una sensazione di estraneità e mancanza di controllo in essa.
7. Chiedete al vostro partner di unire le mani nello steso momento in cui crea una nuova rappresentazione di se stesso in un sistema percettivo che integri le risorse di entrambe le parti. (calibrate un'integrazione/simmetria delle due fisiologie delle due parti separate)
   
   a. Ricordate al vostro partner che un'integrazione non è un contratto o un accordo vincolante. Se avrà successo, non esisteranno più due parti separate ma una singola persona
   
   b. La tecnica dello "squash visivo" appena descritta non costituisce l'unico metodo di integrazione, anche se è il più comune e si è dimostrato molto efficace. A volte, per esempio, il cliente potrà espandere una nuova immagine dalla "meta-posizione" per incorporare le parti in conflitto
   
   c. A volte un conflitto coinvolge più di due parti. In quei casi potreste espandere questa tecnica per includerle tutte o integrarle due a due.
8. L'integrazione delle parti in conflitto è una combinazione delle tecniche di ristrutturazione e "squash visivo". Si basa, concettualmente, sul lavoro di Fritz Perls e Virginia Satir.

Robert Dilts   Bibliografia   People Making, Satir, V., 1972. Teoria e Pratica della Terapia della Gestalt, Perls, F., 1973.
Bibliografia di PNL La Struttura della Magia, Grinder & Bandler, 1976. La Metamorfosi terapeutica, Bandler & Grinder, 1979. Programmazione Neurolinguistica, Dilts, Grinder, Bandler, DeLozier, 1980. Changing Belief Systems with NLP, Dilts, 1990. Strategies of Genius Volumes II & III, R. Dilts, 1995.
Letture specifiche Convinzioni, Dilts, Hallbom, T. & Smith, S., 1990.