By Darryl Howrie

Mind-lines: Dropping linguistic bombs…the fallout of flexibility & change in a single conversation

Have you ever heard a single line that changed your life? Has there ever been a time where the whole conversation seemed to be going one way and then all of a sudden went upside down?  Have you ever gently nudged a person on their journey to the land of speechless? Where hearing your comment throws them mid air with a look like ‘where’d the floor go?’ or ‘who pulled the carpet out from under my feet?’ Or perhaps the ‘smouldering’ look sitting there baking as blood rushes to their face integrating new pictures, sounds and feelings on the cinema of their mind. Wow that’s exciting! One line has and can change our neuro semantic reality can’t it. As humans we can have and continue to enjoy “once off learnings”.

Well if you have ever experienced ‘a one liner’ changing your own mind or even a short burst of lines you know Mindlines were the toys. These toys aren’t made by Lego™ but they can be constructive and they’re not cuddly but might be freeing, comforting and warming to the one with a negative state where a teddy should be. Mindlines are the updated, revised language model from the Sleight of mouth patterns by Robert Dilts.

Michael Hall and Bob Bodenhamer originally wrote Mindlines the book in 1997 the original patterns were included and organised in (spatial) “framing” categories. Hall and Bodenhamer stipulated seven directions to send the brain thus unifying the sleight of mouth model spatially.

The seven directions to send a brain:

1. Down: de-framing – Chunking and Reality strategy
2. Around specific: re-framing – Re-defining the I.S. (internal state) and Re-defining the E.B. (external behaviour)
3. Mirror: counter framing – Reflexively apply E.B. to self/listener, Reflexively apply I.S. to self/listener and counter-example
4. Left: pre-framing – Positive prior intent and positive prior cause
5. Right: post-framing – First outcome, Outcome of the outcome and Eternity framing
6. Up: out-framing – Model of the world framing, value framing, all-ness framing, necessity framing, identity framing, all other abstractions and ecology framing
7. Around global: analogous-framing: metaphor or story framing

What? A new en-counter

I remember an old story who did tell me I can’t quite recall yet it begins with a king learning that he has a desire for time distortion (my words in italics). He wanted to really enrich and slow down the happy times and make them last so a nice meal with friends seemed like a whole day. Yet he also wanted a sort of state awareness (again my words in italics) he wanted to easily realise that suffering and impoverished states don’t mean forever. He pondered how to escape state dependency in a way that would serve him and so approaching his wise men asked the question how do I do it? The wise men also pondered for 3 days and finally came with the answer engraved on a gold ring. The four simple words were “this too will pass”.

Within the counter framing mindline categories there are three namely reflexively apply E.B. to self/listener, reflexively apply I.S. to self/listener and the counter example itself. Through applying the mindline model to over 100 objections and limiting languaged statements I discovered a lot of distinctions, one that really stood out was within counter-exampling there seemed to be an incredible emphasis on time. A general weight on past tense “I wonder if you can recall a time when….” using memory state eliciting to induce recognition of a gap or counter experience to the perceived limit.

Can you think of a time when …?

A counter example may not have it’s beginnings but certainly enjoyed popularity in the 1980s by Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg of solution focused brief therapy. In the SFBT basic theory the ‘exceptions’ were the first point of call for creating a wedge inside a problem state.

Two simple ideas lie at the bottom of solution focused brief therapy. Nobody is perfect and this applies to our problems as well as everything else. If no-one can 'do' their problem perfectly there must always be times when they don't do them so well. These times de Shazer and Berg called exceptions. Whatever the person is doing differently at these 'exceptional' times will be the basis of a potential solution. Part of the solution focused brief therapist's task is therefore to discover whatever a person is already doing which might contribute to the resolution of the problem with which they have come. Retrieved 17^th July 2003 from http://www.brieftherapy.org.uk/solutionfoc.htm

So ‘… at these 'exceptional' times will be the basis of a potential solution…’ is actually at the heart of counter framing is it not? I mean showing someone to their face how the objection or toxic idea won’t stand up, ring true or even remain consistent with their behaviour or values can be like throwing an influential punch. One of the precious beliefs in mindlining is within each objection is the solution or the answer. This basic presupposition could also be said as people already tell us (perhaps unconsciously) how to solve their problems, expand their maps and reframe or outframe their limitations. There’s no work to it, people are willing to let us know what we need to help them and this healthy intra-psychic awareness is what’ll lend a us hand mindlining ourself.

Caution Radioactive: Un-mapping and gapping

The counter example works because it focuses on the gap within our maps.  Maps have gaps and that is a good thing as it relates to toxic frames, limiting beliefs and dragon states. Our meaning box holds the relationship constant E.B à/= I.S. External behaviour/experience leads to or equals with inner states and a counter example works well with the Meta model category generalisations. These bridge the map territory gap and an exception can easily un-bridge that mapping. We are typically asking for a person to find a referent when the problem doesn’t work. Imagine for a moment after trying for sometime you finally manage to force the claw of your hammer under the head of a large nail. In that moment you lean or apply pressure and outcomes the nail, the object becomes free.

To engage the counter-exampling strategy, we can identify current exceptions or we can track a person backward in time to the original experience out of which the learning arose. Behind counter-examples also lies the presupposition that people almost always demonstrate the very thing they claim they cannot do. Hall, L.M. PhD, Bodenhamer. B. D Min, (1997) Mindlines: Neuro Semantic Publications, CO Clifton

Cool language patterns, an great book and…. well have you ever felt like there might be more? Thinking that there’s something else… something elusive ….there might be more around the corner to what we now understand? When we consider the strength of a past experience as a way to break with the limiting belief mightn’t we also consider imagination as a way to defunct the limitation? One advantage the future holds is just that; it hasn’t happened so certainty hasn’t the same gradient in the future like the past. So a counter example to how a counter example works is using the future so as to establish an exception… more on this in a moment.

The built in self reflexive, self corrective, self improving nature of our brains is modelling…. when we go Meta we are modelling. We can not, not communicate to those primary levels from Meta and that is why the Meta model in NLP was the initial choice of personal editing or self authoring. So in the vein of, “MORE! YOU WANT SOME MORE?” the three Meta domains help us understand and improve the nature of neuro semantic reality and self modelling.

Meta stating … accessing higher resources to bring to bear upon primary levels only enhances those levels to the point where you enjoy “a highly resource-full primary state”. This is one of the robust themes among (above, about, beyond) the original NLP presuppositions namely “behind every negative behaviour there’s a positive intent”.  Unleashing that positive intent more fully into our neuro semantic reality becomes what is now known as the shibboleth of apply to self – “walk your talk”.

What happens when you apply to self counter exampling?

Well Mr. Counter example canst thou walk both sides of the river of time? Canst thou go over to the future? Can we counter example a counter example? Applying exception to imagination instead of memory…. using our possible experience to counter limiting language instead of actual experience thus using future instead of past so as to outframe modulate, coalesce and soak on down through objections and limits?

Well try half-life framing – setting a ‘used by’ date on the belief. This isn’t the consequential nature of post framing it’s about relevance if at all. Where one could say to the limiting belief:

‘I can’t buy your product because it costs too much’

Counter examples

• “Have you ever bought something that costed too much before?”  

Half-life framing: One can now say:

• “For how long? How long will it be… in your mind, before ‘costing too much’ stops and high quality starts seeming important, yes?” 

Now we might suggest the countering example in the future as “for how long”. How long will this belief, idea, paradigm, concept, thinking, identity last? It puts a used by date on the meaning box. Because the focus is directed through what might/might not be the belief or I.S. is challenged for longevity. The fact is that meanings get right on into our neurology so it’s possible that a negative or hurtful meaning may have left ‘mind’ but still be ‘embodied’. Perhaps the grieving metaphor is apt. “For how long” is grief a healthy response to an idea that has left the mind as a legitimate thought yet has an ongoing vestige that has outlasted their ‘time’ or has reached the ‘used by date’ and requires burial.

From Toxic to Atomic

Half-life actually means:

Half-life

n: the time required for something to fall to half its initial value (in particular, the time for half the atoms in a radioactive substance to disintegrate) Retrieved 25^th July 2003 WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University Online Dictionary  

If we directed the ‘for how long’ assertion at the E.B. it’ll generally have the deframing/chunking effect as it begins indexing e.g. ‘how long specifically can’t you buy my product?’ ‘How long’ aimed at the I.S. alone or the entire relationship (E.B. à/= I.S.) enables a freedom on a belief like a dimmer on a light switch the analogical “how long” implies scale and variableness.

Here’s half-life framing applied to the five limits in the book Mindlines:

·         You’re a bad person for saying that –

o        “Well… for how long will that belief about me being ‘bad’ last considering it’s just an expression, bad isn’t real its just a word?”

o        “So for how long does bad equal what I said?”

·         Your being late means you don’t care –

o        “I wonder for how long can you keep ‘late’ as meaning carelessness?”

·         Stress causes me to eat chocolate –

o        “Do you know how long you’ll keep it up? The chocolate thing?”   

·         I can’t really make a difference because management doesn’t walk their talk –

o        “How long will talking like this keep you from making a difference?”

·         I can’t buy your product because it costs too much –

o         “How long has cost been prohibitive of the things you want? Most people who get want they want from this world by going after those exact things. So “cost” is nothing more than a way to sabotage achievement. How long do you want to keep doing this?”

Oooohh! And don’t they have the slapping effect of a counter frame. However they don’t really pose any literal counter but an outframing of the belief with a ‘used by date’, as the brain searched for a ‘used by date’ or not a counter example is implied. So even though structurally half-life framing constitutes an outframe it can still feel like a counter attack.

Be ye careful, these can hurt so if you haven’t already please read Mindlines about getting permission to mindline, having the right state and calibrating the receiver for timing. If you hear a belief that makes life a party in a person and then half-life it they’ll feel opposite to the king with the inspiration that ideas have their season and will pass.

Where does half-life-ing fit into mindlines?

Firstly in deframing we mentioned it’ll seem similar as it’s relates to chunking down the E.B. e.g. “Stress causes me to eat chocolate” a simple for ‘how long’ might invite the listener to re-connect to an experience and evaluate the behaviour length. In the book Adventures with Time Lines (1998) Hall and Bodenhamer outline an important point in relation to half-life framing. The two codes of time have a very different experience in our neurology. Derived from the Greek; Chronos, being the type of time associated with punctuality, our clock and calendar time, would give us the deframing type of neurological response. The other Greek coding of time is Kairos the opportunity, ‘timing’ or the season type of temporal reckoning. This is our half-life framing, the idea ‘stress causes chocolate eating’ is old and must leave the body too; the “TIME” has come. This kind mindlining has the power to close the ‘knowing doing gap’ i.e. “I know eating too much chocolate is bad but when I get stressed I just eat”. Like an accelerated grief process… the ‘timing’ is right and the idea can be ‘half-lifed’ from the body with a “for how long will that old belief eat at you…”

We’ve discussed how the original counter example uses the past to cause a search for gaps or exceptions and half-life framing focuses on the beliefs ability to maintain it’s self embedded in the presupposition that that belief can fall below its stated value, it can fall out of our neurology. Half-life framing mainly comprises of model of the world outframing combined with an implied ecology frame. The challenging how long a belief will last tends to help the person go Meta to the belief statement and then imply reorganisation of that belief. This is where the Kairos “timing” can alter the pictures, sounds and feelings on the movie of mind.

So some of the main differences are in the presupposition-ing that a belief, I.S., identity, principle, paradigm, concept, thought, value has a ‘used by date’. Even after a thought has left our mind an embodiment might remain and can have a ‘used by date’. As a metaphor it’s a nice way to think about it and categorically the nature is that of out framing with exception on into the future so that’s how half-life fits in the mindline model.

Summary

• The annihilation of limiting beliefs can almost always be a response of mindlining and this model is growing after it’s unifying of the persuasive language patterns originated out of Sleight of Mouth.
• The half-life framing mindline is one way to send a brain upwards. As an out framing mindline it’ll help a person get Meta to their belief, imply an exception to that belief through time and test the lasting properties if any.

Author: For over 10 years Darryl has presented, trained and coached communicational skills. He is a Master trainer of NLP in Perth Australia and the Managing Director of NLP Training & Coaching. He has appeared on national TV and radio and is a sought after trainer for persuasion and influence strategies.

Email: darryl@nlptc.com

Web: www.nlptc.com