Changing with NLP: A Casebook of Neuro-Linguistic Programming in Medical Practice,

I think that when someone has had a longstanding chronic problem over many years, in virtually all areas of life there are huge numbers of contextual anchors (people, places, color schemes, sounds, voice tones, postures, gestures, etc.) that keep it alive… Chronic re-exposure to these myriad anchors after a session is one way in which the problem can recur over time to a varying degree…

I have experienced this anchor issue myself in making major life changes. It’s a big problem for a lot of people.

Contextual anchors as resources

The existing anchors for a longstanding problem state are powerful, widespread, and reliable. They recur in exactly those contexts where the problem was a problem.

The person making a change most needs their new resources in these contexts. Old “problem” anchors thus make ideal resources for anchoring the person’s new solution state.

This type of intervention seems potentially useful for virtually any longstanding or widely contextualized problem. I therefore added it to my change work toolbox in the form of hypnotic suggestions.

Repurposing existing anchors

I chose to use hypnosis because I want to repurpose all the old triggers, not just the ones the client knows about consciously and could include in an NLP process. The basic format I use is direct suggestions that “the more the problem, the more the solution.”

If a client doesn’t know what an anchor is, either explain or adjust your language. Suggest that:

1. What were anchors for the problem now anchor the client’s resource states and behaviors.
   

   “Each and every object, thought, and experience that used to trigger those old behaviors and beliefs, old attitudes and emotions… from now on instead triggers your new and empowering behaviors and beliefs, your new and empowering attitudes and emotions. Whatever used to reinforce your old self-concept as someone who had that problem, now reinforces your identity as someone who thinks and acts so you get the outcomes you want.”

   (Note: Make sure you include actions in your solution suggestions. Ensure that the client will do new behaviors that will create their desired outcomes, not simply feel different.)

2. The stronger the anchor was for the problem, the stronger an anchor it now is for the solution. (What used to be the strongest problem triggers are now going to be the most help in solving the problem. This changes the meaning of the anchors, making it less likely that the client will think about or respond to the anchors as they used to.)
3. The more strongly and more often each anchor gets triggered, the more strongly it triggers the client’s resource states and behaviors. (Immediately after the session, some clients may still have negative responses to their anchors. This suggestion will build the desired responses over time. The more the client gets triggered, and the more negatively, the faster they build more useful responses. And it turns negative responses from subjective “proof of failure” into marks of progress.)

I initially test most new patterns by running them on myself. A few days after giving myself the above suggestions, I visited a context that has a lot of old negative anchors. Instead of negative, my emotional responses were neutral. I no longer felt that I had to change aspects of the context in order to make it bearable. Instead, I looked around to see what I could maybe change in the future, while no longer feeling any need to change anything.

Want to experiment?

This is an NLP development blog, and you can participate by testing patterns. Try today’s intervention on yourself or a client, and report the results in the Comments section below. Thanks for participating!

• If they are in time, with their timeline running through their body (or they stand inside a “time tube”), they are probably good at being present in the moment. However, they may stay so in the moment that they have trouble keeping appointments or planning ahead.
• If they observe time, standing outside the “now” so they have perspective and can see the future from now, they can probably remember appointments and plan ahead. However, they might find it difficult to enjoy the moment because they always see, hear, and think about their future and/or past.

Each option has useful elements, and it would be nice to have them all, rather than having to pick one or the other. That’s why I developed the following technique.

Creating a both/and “now”

My frame for doing timeline tune-ups is that the client and I are going to provide their brain with a bunch of options for how to work their timeline. Their brain will then automatically choose those options that work best for them.

After eliciting their timeline and determining whether they are in time or observe time, I have them try the other version.

I then have them compare the two, pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Next I suggest that it would be useful to have both options. I have them double their timeline at “now.” The “in time” section goes through their body; the “observe time” section goes in front of them where they can see it. Visually, it’s rather like a river splitting to go around an island.

Once they have both options, I instruct them to vary how much of the timeline goes through each pathway. If they want to be present in the moment, they can have most of their timeline go through their body. I suggest they keep only enough observe time to remind them of upcoming events, and to make sure their current behavior supports their future plans and goals. If they want to plan ahead, they can have most of their timeline in observe time, with just enough in time that they can be present when that’s appropriate.

Now I talk them through practicing and future-pacing various examples. If they are relaxing on the beach or hanging out with their children, they might want 99% of their timeline to be in time. They can retain just enough observe time to remind them of an appointment later. If they need to do planning at work, they might want 95% of their timeline to be observe time. They can stay just enough in time to respond appropriately when a colleague or customer needs to connect with them. At a business dinner they might want to be 50% observe time, so they can plan ahead and notice the future implications of their current actions and decisions, and 50% in time so they can enjoy the food and conversation, and bond with their colleagues.

I have them pick several examples in the near future where each option might be useful. In each, I have them practice adjusting how much of their timeline is in time and observe time. Finally I suggest that from now on, their mind will automatically adjust their timeline to make it appropriate to what they’re doing.

So far, every person I have done this with chose to keep their adjustable in time/observe time “now.” Including me! It is delightful to be able to be thoroughly in the moment, knowing that at the appropriate time, I’ll remember other tasks and appointments. It’s also nice to go deep into abstract thinking mode, and still notice and appreciate delicious food, beautiful sunsets, and great people.

So much of NLP is about adding choices. Adding both/and options to what many people assume are digital either/or choices can do a lot to improve quality of life — for both you and your clients.

Want to experiment?

This is an NLP development blog, and you can participate by testing NLP patterns and suggestion improvements. Try today’s intervention on yourself or a client, and report the results in the Comments section below. Thanks for participating!