I'm currently reading a wonderful new NLP book called "The Rainbow Machine: Tales from a Neurolinguist's Journal" by Andrew Austin (available from www.realpeoplepress.com).
I first met Andy on an NLP course back in the late 90s, & again on various Frank Farrelly workshops (Frank is the creator of Provocative Therapy, & a huge influence on the field of NLP).
I was struck then by Andy's good humour, passion, irreverence & skill, all of which come across in his superb book. Recommended reading!
As it happens, videos, audios & articles from Andy are soon to be appearing on our new NLP site, www.myNLPresources.com - watch this space!
Jamie Smart
www.saladltd.co.uk
www.myNLPresources.com
Friday 30 November 2007
Wednesday 28 November 2007
The hidden link between NLP, lager & motivation
Someone asked me the question "How does the NLP idea of stating goals in the positive work with people who have an 'away from' motivation?"
Put simply, people who have "away from" motivation are motivated to avoid what they don't want (Eg. an accountant focusing on avoiding mistakes, or an insurance assessor focusing on avoiding paying out cash).
In contrast, people who have "towards" motivation are motivated to move towards what they want, or the benefits of getting it (Eg. an entrepreneur who is focusing on creating a certain lifestyle, or a teacher who is focusing on their students being able to demonstrate certain skills.)
The question above was raised in response to the NLP idea that a "well-formed" goal should be stated in the positive, ie. saying what you want rather than what you don't want.
Here's an analogy.
Two chaps walk into a pub, both wanting a pint.
Biff wants a pint because he’s had a rough day at work, & wants to stop feeling stressed (an “away from” motivation).
Skip wants a drink because he’s celebrating closing a big deal, & wants to lift his mood even higher (a “towards” motivation).
But when the barman asks what they want, they both say “A pint of lager”. They recognise intuitively that saying something like “To not have a dry mouth” will not get them what they want. They realise that in order to get what they want, they need to state their goal in the positive, telling the barman what they want rather than what they don't want.
The two men have different “motivation directions”, and that’s absolutely fine, but they still state their goal in the positive in order to get an effective result.
Let me be clear: Biff has not changed his motivation direction; it’s still “away from”. It’s his GOAL that’s stated in the positive.
(By the way, neither Biff nor Skip has received any NLP training. They are not aware of metaprograms, & haven't in fact given any of this any conscious thought. Their neurologies have automatically sorted all of this out without them even thinking about it consciously).
The distinction is between the goal, & where the person gets the motivation to achieve it.
Put simply, people who have "away from" motivation are motivated to avoid what they don't want (Eg. an accountant focusing on avoiding mistakes, or an insurance assessor focusing on avoiding paying out cash).
In contrast, people who have "towards" motivation are motivated to move towards what they want, or the benefits of getting it (Eg. an entrepreneur who is focusing on creating a certain lifestyle, or a teacher who is focusing on their students being able to demonstrate certain skills.)
The question above was raised in response to the NLP idea that a "well-formed" goal should be stated in the positive, ie. saying what you want rather than what you don't want.
Here's an analogy.
Two chaps walk into a pub, both wanting a pint.
Biff wants a pint because he’s had a rough day at work, & wants to stop feeling stressed (an “away from” motivation).
Skip wants a drink because he’s celebrating closing a big deal, & wants to lift his mood even higher (a “towards” motivation).
But when the barman asks what they want, they both say “A pint of lager”. They recognise intuitively that saying something like “To not have a dry mouth” will not get them what they want. They realise that in order to get what they want, they need to state their goal in the positive, telling the barman what they want rather than what they don't want.
The two men have different “motivation directions”, and that’s absolutely fine, but they still state their goal in the positive in order to get an effective result.
Let me be clear: Biff has not changed his motivation direction; it’s still “away from”. It’s his GOAL that’s stated in the positive.
(By the way, neither Biff nor Skip has received any NLP training. They are not aware of metaprograms, & haven't in fact given any of this any conscious thought. Their neurologies have automatically sorted all of this out without them even thinking about it consciously).
The distinction is between the goal, & where the person gets the motivation to achieve it.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood!
I was responding to a post on the www.myNLPresources.com forum recently where a fellow-NLPer was asking about a demonstration of a timeline technique he'd seen a video of me doing on the site. His question related to the "removal & replacement" of memories.
(Declaration of interest: www.myNLPresources.com is a new NLP site I've launched that includes videos, audios, articles & an online forum).
There's a classic NLP technique called "Change Personal History" developed by Bandler & Grinder. You know how if a person's feeling blue then they seem to remember sad memories etc, whereas when you're feeling happy, you remember the good times & have a generally sunny outlook?
That seems to be because feelings act almost like an indexing mechanism - when you type "Frank Zappa" into google, it brings back all the websites sorted by which ones reference Frankie. When a person accesses the feeling called "fear of public speaking", the brain seems to sort for all the memories that go along with it.
This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective - those memories may hold valuable information on how to deal with the situation.
The "Change Personal History" technique takes advantage of this, accessing a number of these related memories along a timeline, then goes back to an early reference experience. Once there, the goal is to change the MEANING of the experience. The memory data (ie what "really" happened) remains unchanged, but we look for ways for the explorer to alter / upgrade / resource the meaning of the data - to make new meaning of it.
This then has a domino effect as successive memories are revisited "from this new perspective & bringing all this info with it".
This is, in essence, the nature of ALL timeline work as far as I can tell - changing the meaning of the data. Memory is archival - write once, read many times. The original data remains unchanged, but the meaning we make of that data is forever negotiable.
Of course, the specific methods & representations used to influence that meaning can vary from the very direct ("So, with all the resources of the adult you, what new meaning can you make of that now, from this new perspective!") to the less direct ("So, as you look to your past experience, notice which memories are glowing, & which are dark, & sprinkle healing fairy dust on all of them!").
That latter one may sound as though I'm being tongue in cheek, but I'm not really (well, maybe a little then), but the reality is that they are both just ways of getting someone to influence their internal meaning-making mechanism. One will work better for one person, the other for someone else, & all points in between & beyond too!
(Declaration of interest: www.myNLPresources.com is a new NLP site I've launched that includes videos, audios, articles & an online forum).
There's a classic NLP technique called "Change Personal History" developed by Bandler & Grinder. You know how if a person's feeling blue then they seem to remember sad memories etc, whereas when you're feeling happy, you remember the good times & have a generally sunny outlook?
That seems to be because feelings act almost like an indexing mechanism - when you type "Frank Zappa" into google, it brings back all the websites sorted by which ones reference Frankie. When a person accesses the feeling called "fear of public speaking", the brain seems to sort for all the memories that go along with it.
This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective - those memories may hold valuable information on how to deal with the situation.
The "Change Personal History" technique takes advantage of this, accessing a number of these related memories along a timeline, then goes back to an early reference experience. Once there, the goal is to change the MEANING of the experience. The memory data (ie what "really" happened) remains unchanged, but we look for ways for the explorer to alter / upgrade / resource the meaning of the data - to make new meaning of it.
This then has a domino effect as successive memories are revisited "from this new perspective & bringing all this info with it".
This is, in essence, the nature of ALL timeline work as far as I can tell - changing the meaning of the data. Memory is archival - write once, read many times. The original data remains unchanged, but the meaning we make of that data is forever negotiable.
Of course, the specific methods & representations used to influence that meaning can vary from the very direct ("So, with all the resources of the adult you, what new meaning can you make of that now, from this new perspective!") to the less direct ("So, as you look to your past experience, notice which memories are glowing, & which are dark, & sprinkle healing fairy dust on all of them!").
That latter one may sound as though I'm being tongue in cheek, but I'm not really (well, maybe a little then), but the reality is that they are both just ways of getting someone to influence their internal meaning-making mechanism. One will work better for one person, the other for someone else, & all points in between & beyond too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
