P. 1


|Views: 195|Likes:
Published by api-26365187

More info:

Published by: api-26365187 on Dec 03, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Sleight of Mouth Patterns

Changing Beliefs Conversationally Robert Dilts
© 1987 Southern Institute

The ABC's of NLP
Logical Levels of Change
I. Logical Levels Gregory Bateson pointed out that in the processes of learning, change and communication there were natural hierarchies of classification. The function of each level was to organize the information on the level below it and the rules for changing something on one level were different from those for changing a lower level. Changing something on a lower level could1 but would not necessarily, effect the upper levels; but changing something In the upper levels would necessarily change things on the lower levels in order to support the higher level change. Bateson noted that it was the confusion of logical levels that often created problems. II. Logical Levels In NLP In working with NLP the following logical levels seem to be the most basic and the most important to consider: A.Who I Am -Identity B. My belief System - Causes, Categories and Comparisons C. My capabilities - States, Strategies, Meta Programs D.What I do or have done - Specific Behaviours E. My Environment - External Context

See 2 strategies for SOM attachment in jpg.

1. Redefine: Substituting a new word for one of the words used in the belief statement that means something similar but has different implications. 2. Consequence: Directing attention to an effect (positive or negative) of the belief or the relationship defined by the belief. 3. Intention: Directing attention to the purpose or intention of the belief (positive or negative). 4. Chunk Down: Breaking the elements of the belief into small enough pieces that it changes the relationship defined by the belief. 5. Chunk Up: Generalizing an element of the belief to a larger classification that changes the relationship defined by the belief. 6. Counter-Example: Finding and example that does not fit the relationship defined by the belief. 7. Another Outcome: Challenging the relevancy of the belief and switching to another issue altogether. 8. Analogy: Finding a relationship analogous to that defined by the belief, but which has different implications. 9. Apply to Self: Evaluating the belief statement itself according to the relationship or criteria defined by the belief.

10. Hierarchy of Criteria: Re-evaluating the belief according to a criterion that is more important than any addressed by the belief. 11. Change Frame Size: Re-evaluating the implication of the belief in the context of a longer (or shorter) time frame1 a larger number of people (or from an individual point of view) or a bigger or smaller perspective. 12. Meta Frame: Evaluating the belief from the frame of an ongoing, personally oriented context - establishing a belief about the belief. 13. Model of the World: Re-evaluating the belief from the framework of a different model of the world. 14. Reality Strategy: Re-evaluating the belief accounting for the fact that people operate from cognitive perceptions of the world to build beliefs.
See attachments: 4 Ex selling; 5.Ex relationship; 6 Ex health; 7 Ex relationship; 8 Ex can't do; 9 SOM scheme

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->