Trance–formations. Neuro–Linguistic Programming™ and the Structure of Hypnosis

Next we'd like to spend some time teaching you what we call calibration exercises. Calibration refers to the process by which you tune yourselves to the nonverbal signals that indicate a particular state in a particular person. Throughout this workshop you have all been calibrating yourselves to recognize the signs of altered states in another person. Some of those signs will be fairly universal, while others will only be useful with a particular person.

In a way everything we're teaching you in this seminar can be summed up in three statements. To be an effective communicator you need to: I) know what outcome you want, 2) have the behavioral flexibility to vary what you are doing to get the outcome, and 3) have the sensory experience to know when you've got the response that you want.

Most of what we've taught you so far is designed to give you specific ways to vary your behavior in order to get the results you want. We suggest that you think of it in this way: The meaning of your communication is the response you get. If you use this as a guiding principle, you will know that when the response you get is not the one you want and expect, it's time to vary your behavior until you get it. We teach many specific ways to do this, and when those don't work, we suggest you try something else. If what you are doing is not working, then any other behavior has a better chance of getting the response you want.

If you don't have enough sensory experience to notice the response that you're getting, you won't have a way of knowing when you've succeeded or failed. You see, sometimes people ask me if I ever work with the deaf and the blind. I tell them "Yes, always."

We use calibration exercises to increase your sensory acuity. Your ability to notice minimal nonverbal responses will dramatically increase your ability to be an effective hypnotist in particular, and an effective communicator in general.

When Frank, a friend of mine, was about eighteen or nineteen years old, he was a very good Golden Gloves boxer. He was also supporting his family by working as a janitor at a state mental hospital. As he walked around on the wards, he would shadow box just to stay in shape for boxing.

On one ward there was a catatonic who had been in the same position for two or three years. Every day the personnel stood him up at the end of his bed and locked him onto it. He had catheter tubes and feeding tubes and everything. Nobody had been able to make contact with this man. Once as Frank walked by on an errand, shadow boxing as usual, he noticed that this guy responded to his boxing with little flinches in his head and neck. This was a major response for this guy. So Frank ran down to the nurses' station and pulled out the guy's file. Sure enough, he had been a professional prize fighter before he became catatonic.

How would you make contact with a prizefighter? Any professional has to make certain motor programs automatic, just as most of you have automated driving a car until it functions as an unconscious program. In the boxing ring there are so many things you have to do that you need to make most of what you do unconscious. Your conscious attention can then be used to notice what's going on in the situation. My friend went back and started shadow boxing with this guy, and he quickly came out of the catatonic altered state that he'd been in for some years.

Woman: Did he start boxing when Frank started shadow boxing?

Yes of course. He didn't have a choice, because those were programs that he had practiced for years and years.

The main point of this is that my friend was able to notice the responses that he was getting. That made it possible for him to use his behavior to amplify them. If you don't notice the responses you are getting, everything else we're teaching you will be worthless.

Exercise 8

We want to start with a fairly easy calibration exercise to increase your ability to make sensory discriminations. Pair up and ask your partner to think of someone he likes. As he does this, watch for small changes in his breathing, posture, muscle tonus, skin color, etc. Then ask your partner to think of someone he dislikes, again watching what changes occur. Have him go back and forth between thinking of the person he likes and the one he dislikes until you can clearly see the differences between his expressions.

Next, ask a series of comparative questions in order to test your calibration. Ask "Which one is taller?" I don't want him to tell you the answer. Your job is to watch his response and then tell him which one it is.

Any comparative question will work for this: "Which one have you seen most recently?" "Which one has darker hair?" "Which one is heavier?" "Which one lives nearer to you?" "Which one makes more money?"

When you ask a question, your partner will go inside to process the question and get an answer. He may first consider the person he likes, then consider the person he doesn't like, and finally think of the person who is the answer to the question. So you may initially see some back and forth responses, and then you will see the response that answers the question. The answer will be the response you see just before he comes back out and looks at you or nods his head to indicate that he has determined the answer internally.

When you've guessed correctly four times in a row, switch roles with your partner. Take about five minutes each.

*****

As I went around the room, I noticed that most of you were doing very well. In fact, for some of you this was too easy. This will vary considerably from person to person, because some people are much more expressive than others. If you round your task too easy, there are several things you can do to make this something you can learn from.

One thing you can do is to artificially limit the information that you are receiving. If it's easy for you to discriminate differences on the basis of facial changes, use a notebook or something else to cover your partner's face. See if you can make the same discrimination by watching changes in his chest or his hands, or some other part of his body.

Another thing you can do is to ask about more neutral subjects.

"Think about a chair that you have in your home." "Mow think about a chair that you have in your office." This will also make the task a challenge again. Another way is to find someone who is generally less expressive. His responses will be less obvious.

On the other hand, if you didn't notice any differences in your partner when thinking about the two people, you can do something to make the task easier. Ask him to think of the most obnoxious, disgusting person he has ever met in his life. It helps if you do this with a congruent tone of voice. Then ask him to think of the person whom he loves most dearly in the whole world. This will exaggerate the differences between his responses, and make it easier for you to detect them. You could also find someone who is more expressive.

The point of this is to do whatever is necessary in order to make the task difficult enough so that it's just beyond what your capabilities were in the past. If you do that, you will learn the most, and increase your sensitivity most quickly.

Exercise 9

Next we want you to do another calibration exercise to determine the nonverbal signals that go with agreement and disagreement. Pair up again and ask mundane questions conversationally. "Your name is Bob?" "Were you born in California?" "Are you married?" "Do you have a car?" Ask uncontroversial yes/ no questions and pay attention to his nonverbal responses as he gives you a verbal "yes" or "no." You learn what constitutes a "yes" response nonverbally by noticing what distinguishes the nonverbal responses that accompany "yes" from the ones that accompany "no."

Some people will spontaneously and unconsciously tense their jaw muscles for "no" and relax them for "yes." Some people will turn whiter for "no," and redder for "yes." Others will tilt their head forward when they say "yes" and back when they say "no." There are lots of idiosyncratic responses that you can notice which are already paired with agreement or disagreement.

When you can distinguish "yes¹" from "no" nonverbally, ask your partner not to answer your questions. After each question, observe the nonverbal response and tell your partner whether the answer is "yes" or "no." When you have guessed correctly four times in a row, switch roles with your partner.

Some of you may recognise what you just did as a conversational way to do what you did earlier in this workshop when you set up yes/no signals in trance. Being able to do it conversationally allows you to use this information at board meetings, and in many other contexts where it's inappropriate to induce a formal trance, but you want feedback from other people.

If you are a salesperson and have calibrated for "yes" and "no," you can know immediately when the potential buyer agrees or disagrees with what you say, even if the person says nothing. This means you know what selling points to emphasize and build on. You also know what points to drop, or what objections you may need to satisfy before you can make a sale.

If you are making a proposal to a board of directors, calibrating to "yes" and "no" can let you know exactly when to have the proposal voted on. You say to the group "Now I don't know if this proposal already makes sense as a beneficial plan for this organization." Then you pause, and watch to find out if most of the members give you a "yes" response. If you get yeses, you bring the proposal to an immediate vote. If you get noes, you continue to discuss the proposal until you find ways to get the agreement of the entire group.

Exercise 10

I would like to give you another calibration exercise to do this evening. Carry on a normal conversation with someone who is not in this seminar. As you are talking, say something about him that you know is not true, and notice what his response is. A little later, say something about him that you know has to be true. It doesn't matter how mundane your comment is, just notice how he responds, and if this response is different from the first one. Go back and forth three or four times, until you can discern the difference between the way he responds to statements about himself that are true, and statements that are inaccurate.

I recommend that what you say about him not be derogatory. Say something complimentary that you know he doesn't think is true. That way he won't get mad at you, and you won't have to justify what you say. You can still provide yourself with the experience of making this calibration. You don't ever need to tell him what you're doing, and you don't ever have to do anything with this information. Just notice if there is a difference.

The more you do to increase your sensory experience, the more often

you will notice the nonverbal input you are getting from other people that can make a big difference in your communication.

Crystal Ball Gazing Exercise

Now I want half of you to go out of this room and have a coffee break or something. Stay fairly close by, because in a few minutes the people who stay here are going to get you and do something with you ….

For those of you remaining, I'm going to have you learn to become "psychic." I'm going to have you all do some crystal ball gazing, or if you prefer, palm–reading. The point of this exercise is that it's an excellent way to further develop your ability to perceive minimal nonverbal cues. Being able to do this makes all the difference when you're doing hypnosis, and you need systematic ways to develop such perceptual skills.

In a few moments you are going to find one of the people who is now taking a break, and do either crystal ball gazing or palm–reading. You will actually be using the kind of subtle visual or tactile feedback from the other person that you have been using in the last several calibration exercises. Using your newfound "psychic" abilities, you are going to tell him something about his own personal history that you have no way of knowing. You will surprise yourself as well as him.

Choose someone you don't know for a partner, so you won't be able to draw upon stories and unconscious information that you have about that person from the past. I want you to demonstrate to your own satisfaction that you can do this without prior knowledge. Your unconscious mind knows you can, but your conscious mind needs to be convinced of it.

When you first pair up with this person that you don't know, conversationally ask a few mundane questions to get acquainted. Use this time to calibrate to yes and no: agreement and disagreement.

As soon as you've done that, you can begin crystal ball gazing. If you can simply begin congruently, great. If that seems awkward to you, you can say "I think this is a ridiculous exercise, but John and Richard are asking me to do it. I've usually gained from following their instructions, so I'm going to try it. Would you be willing to cooperate?"

Then you say "OK., I'm going to read this crystal ball, and tell you something significant about your past experience." As you say this, you cup your hands in front of you and stare at your hands as if they contain something. Your partner will probably look at your hands too.

As with any exercise, the first thing you need to do is to get rapport.

An excellent way to get rapport is to move the crystal ball that's not there up and down slightly as your partner breathes in and out. At this point you've already done two things with the crystal ball. You've established rapport by pacing the breathing, and you've riveted your partner's conscious attention on something that's not there. That's always a good indication that someone is in an altered state.

Now you begin doing something like the following: "As I look into this cryssal ball … I see the mists swirling . . , and as they swirl, it looks like a figure is emerging … a very important fgure … from your past." Then you pause until you've got your partner's attention focused on the crystal ball, and he has had time to identify "someone important from the past." So far what you're doing is like a process instruction: you are giving no specifics.

Then you say "It looks like a man… ." Now you wait until you can see some indication from your partner that he agrees or disagrees. If you get some minimal cues that indicate "no" — that your partner consciously or unconsciously had already selected a woman—then you say "No, it's a woman! The mists are clearing now!"

Many people will actually shake their heads slightly and indicate very obviously to you whether or not you're following their experience. All you need to do is give your partner time to select a person or experience from his past, and then make statements about that person and watch the response to find out if you're correct or not. If you're not, you very congruently shift what you "report" as if that's what you actually see in the crystal ball.

If I play a game with you, and I place a pea under one of two shells and ask you to guess which one it's under, how many questions do you have to ask to know the answer?

Woman: One question.

Sure. You say "Is it this one?" If the answer is "yes," you know. If the answer is "no," you know it's under the other one.

If I have four shells and one pea, now how many questions do you have to ask to know the answer?

Man: Two.

Right. You only need two, because you can chunk the problem you are going to solve. "Is it under these two?" When you get the answer to that question, your second question is "Which shell out of the remaining two is it under?" If you have eight shells, you need three questions, and so on.

This kind of guessing strategy is very effective for what you are going to do. You can always divide the world into exclusive binary classes. "It's a man./It's a woman." "He's inside./He's outside." "He's older than you./He's younger than you." "He's close to you./He's not very close to you." "He wants to be close to you. / He doesn't want to be close to you." Language allows you to make these absolutely artificial distinctions that divide the world up into binary choices; it's either this or that.

Woman: Do you feed the person both options?

You start by feeding one possiblity. "It looks like a man." You then wait for the response, to find out if your partner accepts or rejects what you say. He might have already selected a man, in which case what you said is congruent with his experience. Alternatively, he may not have made a choice yet, either consciously or unconsciously. When you proposed a man, he may have considered it and accepted it. Or, he could have chosen a woman, but when you waited, he made a substitution and found it acceptable.

The other class of responses your partner might have is to find what you say not acceptable, in which case you simply change. "Oh no, the mists have cleared away now, and I can see that it's a woman."

The whole point of this exercise is for you to give yourself an opportunity to notice that you can use a person's unconscious nonverbal signals to guide you to a description of an experience in that person's life history that you don't know anything about. In his perception of the process, you will have somehow gotten information that you couldn't have gotten in normal ways, and it will seem "psychic."

As soon as you have calibrated to your partner, you can begin with the general category of "an important person." Everybody has an important person somewhere in their life, so that's a good way to get started. Then you can use binary categories. What are some additional binary categories you can use?

Woman: Short/tall.

Man: Happy/unhappy.

Sure. These are all pseudo–categories, but they are categories everybody operates with all the time, "Concerned about you./Not concerned about you." "It's night./It's daytime." I want you each to have a list of at least six binary choices such as these before you begin.

At the end of using these binary categories, you can practice using Ericksonian patterns by doing a process instruction. You could do the whole thing with just Ericksonian patterns. There are plenty of "psychics" who actually do just that. You could say "And that event from your past contains some information, some learning that you hadn't realized was there, … Because the meaning which that event has for you now may be different than the meaning you drew from it , . . at the time. … So that as your unconscious mind makes sense out of your past … in a new way … it doesn't matter if it allows your conscious mind to appreciate that understanding … a lot … or a little… . Your unconscious mind can apply that new understanding … in a meaningful … and surprisingly delightful way … to some experience … that will occur within the next forty–eight hours."

Or, once you've described the important person, you can say "And I don't know if you've realized that there is an important message which that person had never verbalized to you, but always wanted to relate … that could be useful to you now… . And as you watch and listen to them now … you can begin to hear what that message is… ."

When you use Ericksonian patterns, you can use this same yes/no feedback system to guide what you say. Make sure that you stay out of content.

After going through an experience like this with you, it will take a relatively sophisticated communicator to know what you actually said. His internal experience projected into the crystal ball will be so rich and detailed that he may mistakenly think that you specified the entire experience that he actually created internally. You mentioned some appropriate variable, and he filled in the specifics. Typically at the end of this, unless you've got someone really sophisticated, he will say "How did you know those things?" And of course the answer is, you didn't.

Woman: You are not getting verbal feedback from them at any time?

No. The point of this exercise is for you to learn to trust your ability to see nonverbal signals and to use those to guide what you say. Using the binary category approach, you will get more specific by following the yes/no signals down the binary tree. When using the Ericksonian approach, you will stay completely general, but still use the nonverbal feedback to know if and when the nerson is following you. If you notice particularly powerful involuntary responses as you go along, then you know to emphasize nominalizations in that general area. You still have no idea what his experience is, but as long as you have rapport, the person will be perfectly capable of filling in rich detail for himself and making it a very meaningful experience.

Crystal ball gazing is designed to refine your ability to make visual palm–reading instead. When you do palm–reading, you hold the other person's hand, and learn to feel the difference between your partner's "yes" and "no" responses when you are calibrating.

Ann: I do psychic readings for people and get information outside of the sensory channels. Are you saying that being psychic is really doing this?

I have no objections to notions of ESP and other psychic phenomena. At the moment the word "psychic" in the psychological realm has about the same meaning that the word "viable" has in the medical world. It's a term for things that are powerful somehow but we don't yet understand what they are or how they work. Some psychics certainly do their readings in the way I've described this exercise.

My hope is that there are hundreds of information–passing channels between human beings which lie outside of our recognized five senses and which I don't yet know anything about. I don't know. I do know that I now see and hear and tactilely feel things that I would have considered in the realm of psychic phenomena a few years ago.

I would be delighted if I could discover extra channels. One of my programs for discovering whether there are other such channels is first to refine my sensory channels as much as I can, and then model people who can do "psychic" phenomena. If I am getting the maximum amount of information I believe I can get out of the normally recognized channels, and I am getting other information as well, then I've got some evidence that there might be other channels.

Go find someone outside to try this exercise with, and find out how accurate you can be using just nonverbal feedback. Take about ten minutes.

*****

How did you do?

Woman: I made a mistake at the beginning. My partner got right into it. His head was starting to go down toward the crystal ball. I said the person was a woman, and his head jerked back up and he said "I see a man."

How did you respond to that?

Woman: I said "Oh, yes. I see now it is a man out there." OK, good. Calling something a "mistake" instead of an "outcome" or a "response" is an unnecessary judgement on the part of your how good you want to be in doing these kinds of things in order to motivate yourself to become increasingly more adept, I respect that. Do recognize, however, that what may seem like a "mistake" to you, may be totally unrecognizeable as such to the other person. You know what steps you are planning to go through. If for some reason you don't carry out that plan, that may or may not be apparent to other people. I recommend confidently utilizing whatever extra pieces of information they give you as you go along. "Of course you see a man, and examine carefully the expression on his face."

Woman: Your partner may be testing you to find out "Is this person going to be flexible and allow me to do what I want to do?" So it could be an opportunity to establish rapport.

Exactly. Erickson talks a lot about idiosyncratic needs that particular people have when going into altered states. It's possible that no matter what you propose, they have a polarity response to the first thing you say. Whatever their response is, you utilize it to go where you want to go.

Ann: I found it difficult to do this. When I started thinking about it and first took off, I started to go into the state that I go into to get psychic information.

Right. I thought that might happen.

Ann: Telling the other person I'm going to do crystal ball gazing immediately puts me into that state. When I do psychic readings, I close my eyes and get images on the inside, so I kept my eyes open to make this different. Even with my eyes open, it was difficult to stay out of the state where I receive that information, and just stay with the binary choices.

Right. Let me say several things in response to that. You have the ability to go to a special state in which you either have access to channels of communication I don't know about yet, or you have a really fine sensitivity to minimal cues so that you don't have to use the binary method. Whichever it is, is not important for me at this moment. You already have a well–developed strategy which you can use in order to get the same kinds of information that you can get using this step–by–step model of binary choices.

The question is "Is it worthwhile for you to add to your repertoire another way of doing it, independently of the special state you've learned to use effectively for yourself?" Ifyou are interested in that, then before you engage in activities like crystal ball gazing, palmistry, or anything else we do that's associated with the special skill you've already developed, you can reframe internally to make sure that your special state and all the skills connected with it are kept specially protected, separated from your learning a whole new way of getting information. If you do this, then you won't have the interference of constantly sliding into that special state.

It may turn out that the programs for reading a person may be the same in both states. I don't know. The point is, in order to protect the special skill you've already developed and to add a new way of approaching the same subject matter to your repertoire, I think it would be useful for you to dissociate one from the other initially. Spend some time and energy, if you are interested, in developing another way of doing something you already do well. You will then have two ways to proceed and you can exercise more choice.