David put this man in a trance and explained how you could grow new pathways, and also use different pathways to recreate a function that has been blocked by injury. He told about studies which indicate that about 90% of the brain is not used. These are total lies, as far as I can tell, but he told them well. And since science documents that these lies are actually true, David referred to various journal articles while this guy was sitting there in a trance.
Besides direct explanations of central nervous system plasticity, he told more general metaphors about finding new streets to drive on when you're driving across a city and you come across an area where the streets are all torn up for construction. Then he gave this man's unconscious rather direct instructions to rewire: "Discover exactly where the damage has occurred, and check adjacent nerve pathways which are either uncommitted to other functions, or which may be recommitted safely without interfering with other functions, until you have restored the functions of the damaged area."
Whether that man actually grew new pathways or no., I don't know. But he got up and walked out normally after the session. Given the human being was to make whatever changes were necessary to be able to walk normally. Whatever that scientific metaphor was a metaphor for, the appropriate response was to get up and walk out. That's the way I think about designing everything that I do. We've also been successful in using this method with other clients who have standard medical evidence of neurological insult and trauma. Man: Is that what faith healing is all about?
I don't know. Is that what neurology is all about? You are asking me a question about verification of reality. It's probably all wrong. I don't know. Faith healers present a context in which the logical response is to change, and they do a much better job of it than most therapists do! They do a much better job than most of our students, because they have convinced themselves, so they are more congruent.
I did a faith healing one time. I walked into a religious meeting and looked holy. All the people stared at me; finally I communicated to them that I had this thing with God. I told them I'd had a moving experience where God had made me a healer with these hands. I convinced the people in this group, and healed some of them. I don't know how they .actually healed themselves. All I did was provide a context in which they could respond appropriately, and since I didn't point at them afterwards and laugh at them, they stayed healed and their lives were changed.
These stories are designed to show you that there is some mechanism within people that is capable of doing these things, but it needs to be convinced, it needs to be motivated, it needs to be communicated with, and provided with a context in which to respond.
Otherwise it won't respond, because it doesn't care. Whatever that part is, it doesn't limp, it doesn't itch with poison oak. If it did, it would go ahead and take care of the limping or the itching. But if you provide a context in which it can respond appropriately, it will.
This is what we accomplish with all our NLP tools. Reframing is just a context for people to respond to by changing themselves. That's all anything is, as far as I know.
Specific Utilization Techniques
New Behavior Generator
Today we want to teach you other specific ways to utilize trance states. First we want to give you a very useful procedure that you can use for a wide variety of behaviors: the new behavior generator. You can use this for any situation in which the person makes some response they're dissatisfied with. That description could fit the major complaint of most of your clients. I'm going to assume that you've already put the person In a trance and established some kind of ideomotor yes/no signal system, either overtly or covertly.
The first thing you do is have him select some behavior that he is dissatisfied with. Then you. have him watch and listen to himself behave in that situation. You want him to see himself doing it out in front of himself as if he were watching a movie. This is an instruction for dissociation; this makes it possible for him to watch and listen with comfort to something that could be unpleasant if he were actually in the situation. You say "Give me that 'yes' signal as soon as you have completed watching and listening, with comfort and security, to this piece of behaviour that you want to change."
When you get the "yes" response, you ask "Do you know what new behavior or response you would prefer to make in this situation?" It's important to phrase everything in terms of yes/no questions so that you always have clear feedback from the person.
If the answer to that question is "yes" the person does know what response he would prefer to make, you say "Good. Now watch and listen to yourself as you make that new response in the situation that used to be a problem for you. Give me a 'yes' response when you're done."
Then you ask "Having observed yourself making a new response to that situation, was that completely satisfactory to you?" If you get a "no" response, you have him go back and select a more appropriate behavior.
If you get a "yes" response, you go ahead to install the new behavior by asking him to re–associate with the dissociated experience. "This time I want you to run the same movie, but from the point of view of being yourself doing the behavior. Put yourself inside the movie and experience what it is like to actually carry out those behaviors in the situation."
When he has done that, ask "Was that still satisfactory?" and be sure that you get a congruent "yes" response. Sometimes a behavior looks great from the outside, but doesn't feel good once you get inside. If you get a "no" to this question, you need to back up and make modifications in the behavior until he is satisfied when he experiences it from the inside.
Now that you've got the change in his behavior, you need to do something to be absolutely sure that the change transfers automatically to the appropriate situations in his life. We call this future–pacing, or bridging. You can ask "Will you, his unconscious mind, take responsibility for having this new behavior actually occur in the context where the old behavior used to occur?" If you want, you can be even more explicit. You can add "Now raise your 'yes' finger as soon as you, his unconscious mind, have discovered what specifically you'll see, hear, or feel, that will indicate that this is a context where you are going to make this new behavior occur." You are finding a contextual cue that will automatically trigger the new behavior. Automaticity is one of the characteristics of changes made by a refined hypnotist. When you make this kind of change, the conscious mind doesn't have to remember to do anything. If the conscious mind has to remember the new behavior, you haven't wired it in appropriately. Why tax the conscious mind? It's the most limited and undependable part of the person.
With some people, explicit future–pacing isn't necessary. They have a good future–pacing strategy and they will do it themselves. Other people will not be able to do that bridging on their own, and you need to do it explicitly if you want to be thorough and systematic in your work.
If the person doesn't know what new response he would like to have in the problem situation, then you begin a step–by–step selection process. First you say "Go back in your personal history. Have you made a response in some other situation that you think would be an excellent response to make in this situation?" If the answer is "yes" then have him relive that situation and incorporate that response, going through all the steps that I just outlined.