Download Robert Dilts - Sleight of Mouth Patterns Changing Beliefs Conversationally Id489412870 Size399 PDF

TitleRobert Dilts - Sleight of Mouth Patterns Changing Beliefs Conversationally Id489412870 Size399
TagsNeuropsychological Assessment Psychology & Cognitive Science Cognition Cognitive Science Psychological Concepts
File Size389.6 KB
Total Pages10
Document Text Contents
Page 2

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

Page 4

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.

Similer Documents