NLP Academy Forums

Hello everyone.

One of the properties of the New Code change format is striking when one puts it together with the insistence on addressing tasks to the unconscious mind, which is so prominent in the New Code. The context which is going to be affected by New Code game is within the classical New Code change format chosen consciously, though. That seems to speak a bit against the spirit of the New Code.
The question sounds: is the dominance of the conscious mind in choosing what to improve anyhow avoidable by any change in the change format itself? I think there is at least one possible solution to it.
The change format uses the contrast principle by allowing the client to experience the difference between associated position before and after playing the game. The position which is NOT affected by the game is the choosing meta-position. Why?
The “why” question above is not rhetorical. I am really curious what kind of advantage the exclusion of that position from influencing it by the New Code game might bring in comparison with the other option.
Let us theoretically consider what would happen if, instead of letting the client step into the position associated with previously chosen context, we directed her/him into the original choosing meta-position?
As a natural consequence it follows that we should ask the client to choose the context awaiting improvement again - that question is the anchor itself, reinforcing the spatial one (the same with asking about the place where s/he is going to put the created image). Only then we would ask the client to step into the associated position in the context, which could be either the same or new, in the same or new space.
What seems to be quite obvious is that the second choice would be made in the high performance state. We would influence the process of choosing what to improve, and of finding the representation for it, too. The question is: to which extent the high performance state would still do its job in the final step? Answering this question empirically is crucial: if it did, the client would be able to do several improvements in different context after the session, without the necessity of playing the game again.
So far my reasoning is purely theoretical. I would appreciate any feedback

dymitr

Interesting ideas.

I wonder what effect that would have.

One of the important aspects of the change format is that the context to be changed collides with the high performance/know nothing state, this is what collapses the old anchor. So it’s important to have the client re-associate into the context rapidly without hesitation once stopping the game…even the process of walking them over to the context will slightly change their state, but to a negligible degree.

However, taking them to 3rd position and then to the/another context without playing the game again, there would be a diminished high performance state with which to collapse an anchor so my guess is that it would produce a diminished result.

Paul

Hey dymitr,

I like your thinking here.

One of the key distinctions in the New Code as you said is the use of the unconscious to determine the resources and change required. There is one element in your proposition which could be left out to produce the result you are suggesting.

You said “The context which is going to be affected by New Code game is within the classical New Code change format chosen consciously, though.”

This doesn’t have to be the case. When I do the New Code Change format I never ask my client what it is they want to be different. I simply get them to associate to the context and see it from 3rd to get a second perspective and then move to a clean space and start the game. At no point do I even mention resources or what they would like to be different - they may have already done this in their head before hand but that doesn’t make a difference.

Once I have calibrated that they are in a know nothing state I pull them back into the context and watch the integration. What happens here is that the unconscious mind pulls the resources required for the change regardless if the conscious has labeled them previously or not. One of the short falls of the classic code was labeling almost always puts a limit on the resources utilised.

Usually the feedback I get from my clients after the process when they are explaining the differences they have noticed in the context is that they have different resources to what they had previously thought they would need.

One lady I worked with said something along these lines “I thought before hand that I would need to be more relaxed in *context* but now when it happens I actually feel confident and energetic which I wouldn’t have guessed at all.” This isn’t word for word what she said but you get the gist. She found that this new response from her served her very well in the context.

Stepping back one further step from your original question, why don’t we get our unconscious to choose what contexts we need change in in the first place?? Theres a thought provoker! HAHA

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Dave

Hi David,

I think the original question was the one you posed at the end of your post, “why not get the unconscious to choose the context?”

Dymitr was proposing that one way to do so would be to take the client straight into 3rd after playing a game instead of to the context and have them choose a context then whilst in the high performance state. The client may then choose the original context they decided on before or may choose something new, or more easily access an appropriate representation of the context.

I’m not sure this would necessarily mean that the choice of context would come from the unconscious but it may lead to a different conscious choice as a result of the state the client would be in?

Perhaps using an involuntary signal offering a number of contexts to the unconscious to choose from would be another way to do it.

Paul

dymitr - 21 September 2009 11:53 PM

One of the properties of the New Code change format is striking when one puts it together with the insistence on addressing tasks to the unconscious mind, which is so prominent in the New Code. The context which is going to be affected by New Code game is within the classical New Code change format chosen consciously, though. That seems to speak a bit against the spirit of the New Code.

I’m not sure that being consciously aware you desire change in some context is against the spirit of new code. My understanding is that the issue was with selecting resources consciously. The way I view the change format it makes no difference that the client selects the context consciously. I once asked John Grinder what impact the degree of specificity in context selection makes eg. the context of “communication” vs the context of “communicating with my neighbour about XYZ topic on friday afternoons when we know i’ts going to rain” except I didn’t quite ask like that and I don’t remember what he said .....

But experience now tells me that when people set up their context for change it’s often a collection of more specific contexts that come together to represent a more general context for change - rather than one specific isolated context. When you look at the way John Grinder teaches the change format there’s a clear visual and auditory representation created prior to associating and getting a kinesthetic. All together there is plenty, in sensory terms, to trigger the high performance state and therefore to help the change generalise. I think this is why we can get very ‘seamless’ results with new code. So, selecting a context for change is not like some precise surgical procedure.

The other point is that the new code format is fully ecological because you aren’t forcing a change. I look at the effect of the high performance state as one of expanding choice of responses and assigning the selection from those choices unconsciously. But the new set of choices still contains the old set of behaviours so, even though you’ve consciously decided you want to change a behaviour in a given context, unconsciously the decision may be to stick with the old behaviour. Although I would expect this to be highly unlikely in reality.

If you did want to experiment with making choices from 3rd position then you could do that anyway there are the personal editing formats which use 3rd position to identify what to change. Done well this already has all the benefits of dropping your 1st position filters, would being in a high performance state make the selection process better ? I don’t think so, as I said before, whilst the perceived selection may be precise, I don’t believe the actual selection is. Maybe someone who knows more about state can explain.

Ahh my mistake, I was reading what I wanted to see. I see my unconscious picked up on it at the end at least.

My experiences are similar to Toby’s. Although the client chooses a context I can’t think of a case where it hasn’t generalised to other areas. I’m not sure if this is because of the initial amalgamation of contexts into one ‘working’ context or post change collision with other contexts where the state is subsequently generalised.

I think it could be quite interesting to test your theory though and see if there are any differences. Have you tried it yet?

Dave

Thank you all:)

No, I have not tried it yet…
I have to digest your answers for a while.
Please, if any of you tries out my modification, stay in touch

Dymitr

Hi Dymitr, I’ll be playing around with some new code this weekend with a friend who is visiting, we’ll try your suggestion out and I’ll let you know what happens, cheers, Toby

Thanks, Toby:)
Apart from unexpected effects I would be particularly interested in two issues: the tempo of generalisation and whether the procedure generates new contexts (as happens in the classical format with resources). Feel free to try out any format including making a context choice in a high performance state.
Thanks again
Dymitr

Hi Dymitr

so we’re on the same page, can you let me know what you mean by ‘the tempo of generalisation’ and the ‘procedure generates new contexts (as happens in the classical format with resources)’
cheers, Toby

Hi:)
You and Dave spoke about spreading the effects of the format, so to speak, in other areas than the person originally choses. In my case certain aspects of my life seem to remain unaffected after longer while already (went through it twice - alphabet and colours). Since choice is present in nearly every activity I thought the change might be more general from the beginning if precisely making choice triggered high performance state.
After having gone through the classical format people are often surprised with the resources they use in the situations in which they wanted to improve their performance. Would they be surprised with the choice of context if one lets them chose in the high performance state? Could that be a context not present in their life before, or at least not considered?
Yeah, I think that’s it.

dymitr - 24 September 2009 03:53 PM

Hi:)
You and Dave spoke about spreading the effects of the format, so to speak, in other areas than the person originally choses. In my case certain aspects of my life seem to remain unaffected after longer while already (went through it twice - alphabet and colours).
Since choice is present in nearly every activity I thought the change might be more general from the beginning if precisely making choice triggered high performance state.

I would expect that if I accessed a high performance state, whether through the alphabet game or other means, and then linked that state to a context - even a context in which my performance was already adequate and even well above adequate, that my performance in that context would improve. Unless I chose a context in which my state was already one in the set of high performance states.

It’s not as black and white as it sounds though because the questions is - improve with respect to what ? I am coaching an athlete who is a British Champion, so his competition state is important, and we were both surprised by the response his uncosncious chose after we’d used the alphabet game to link a high perormance state to certain aspects of his performance. In his next competition he performed a move, at the precise point in his performance the coaching had targetted, that effectively cost him a win. But, and this is the important bit, physically and mentally it felt perfectly right at the time even as he was doing it knowing the consequences, and afterwards he had no complaints. Seemingly a win in this minor contest was not the most important prize. So I wonder, when we make this conscious choice, what are we really choosing ?

With your own experience are you saying that you have applied new code change formats and not got changes ? or that they haven’t generalised beyond the specifics ?  I had feedback today from a trainee airline pilot I coached earlier this week that he passed a test today that he had previously failed around a fortnight ago. I basically worked on his state and gave him some pointers to consider for content (it was an aural communication test) . The feedback was that his state was fantastic during the assessment and that he still has areas, of content, to improve. So the new code put him in the best state available and he did the best he could with the skills he has available. The feedback is that he passed but needs to improve his skill. The new code will put him in an optimal state but it cannot give him skills he’s never trained in. Are the changes you are looking for governed entirely by state or are they largely skill dependant ?

dymitr - 24 September 2009 03:53 PM

After having gone through the classical format people are often surprised with the resources they use in the situations in which they wanted to improve their performance. Would they be surprised with the choice of context if one lets them chose in the high performance state? Could that be a context not present in their life before, or at least not considered?
Yeah, I think that’s it.

by classical format are you referring to the new code format or the old classic code formats ? I wonder (having promised to attempt to do this tomorrow )how the selection would be made whilst in a high performance state, which is essentially context free and free of content ? And would the intention of that task also be met by inviting your unconcious to make you aware of contexts in which you could perhaps do with more resources or alignment ?

Hey Toby,

I am curious, when you were talking about the British Champion was this in some kind of martial art/fighting or something different? The reason I ask is that I have had the New Code format used on various parts of my rock climbing and found them very useful overall and the moves that I make are in relation to ‘mostly’ static objects which can’t respond intelligently to my moves. I am curious if this was a sport with other people involved directly?

I agree that the high performance stats can’t give someone the skill they haven’t learned yet but for my friend they have almost certainly accelerated the process. I tracked a friend of mines improvement while he was climbing for a few weeks until it seemed he had developed the strength in the various areas of his body for the task. One week I played around with NASA immediately before he climbed (albeit with some funny looks lol), he did surprisingly well for the next two climbs in that evening until his state wore off or he became tired or both. The next time we climbed not only did he spring straight back into state but he also started using some more complex grips and movements I had never seen him do before. We discussed it afterwards and he was unaware of his development and maintains that he wasn’t practicing behind my back LOL. The only feedback he gave me was that he just “seemed to flow easier.”

Any other comments on New Code applied to sports would be very interesting….for me at least!

Dave

Hi Dave

the guy I was referrng to is a martial artist but the competition was a demonstration of forms not combat so there was no one else involved. I have no doubt that what he did was entirely congruent with some bigger aspect of his progress beyond that one competition, he may just not know what it is. I used to climb up until about three years ago when I moved to the sticks, I can see how working with state would have multiple benefits in climbing. Having said this nearly every sport I’ve watched recently involves massive aspects of state management. Since I’ve coached a british champion and am about to start coaching a world champion I’ve decided to focus a little on sports (rather than just business). I think new code is perfect for athletes. There was an item on the news a little earlier about how norwegian scientists have calcuated that penalty shoot outs are about state (they used a different description) not technique. I’m sure the average England fan could have pointed that out. Every major sports competition I’ve seen in the last 6 months has had competitors losing state big time and then under performing. The exception was the Roddick Federer Wimbledon final where they both held state and eventually Roddick out of exhaustion lost his serve. Shame. The Womens semi final by comparison was all about state management, the final probably too. Jensen Button has to hold state if he’s to have any chance of winning the F1 Title, hard to believe that you can be in anything but a HPS when driving at those speeds, but it will probably be the deciding factor. I think it was Kenny Perry (?) who would have won the Masters title earlier this year, ended up in a play off, didn’t hold his state and buggered it up (probably lost state pitching onto the green on the 18th).

As for accelerating learning, again I agree, as learning is state dependant. In rock climbing, certainly initially, a lot of the states we experience are probably mostly counter productive in terms of learning - frustration, fear, rapid muscle fatigue leading to exhaustion etc.  So being in a HPS no doubt does have a profound effect on learning. Also if you’re climbing in doors there are usually lots of excellent climbers to model whether consciously or not.

Toby, I am sorry. I was in hurry and at my poorest English while replying to your previous message - hence maybe misunderstandings.
Answering you questions chronologically:

1. “With your own experience are you saying that you have applied new code change formats and not got changes ? or that they haven’t generalised beyond the specifics ?”

None of the above. Both have occurred but the generalization you mention had certain limits. In two previous post I was asking you for an evaluation whether my version of format would cause more frequent triggering of high performance state (i.e. in a wider variety of events after the same amount of time) than the classical New Code change format or not.

2. “Are the changes you are looking for governed entirely by state or are they largely skill dependant ?”

I am not sure whether I am looking for changes now. I am rather just curious what comes out of your experiment:)

3. “by classical format are you referring to the new code format or the old classic code formats ?”

The first is correct: I was referring to the unmodified New Code change format.

4. “how the selection would be made whilst in a high performance state, which is essentially context free and free of content ?”

That’s precisely the question:). In the version I proposed in my initial post the player enters the choosing position twice. Put in another words our question might sound: what is going to happen when the player reenters the choosing position in know-nothing state? Any variants of format clearly defining this meta-context very welcome.

5. “And would the intention of that task also be met by inviting your unconcious to make you aware of contexts in which you could perhaps do with more resources or alignment ?”

I don’t know. Not necessarily. More interesting would be to find out whether some of the players would make entirely new choices, start new activities, create new contexts after having gone through the modified format.

I wish you some fun while experimenting and hope to hear from you soon

Dymitr

Toby,

I suspect you might be right in that he sacrificed the win for a larger goal. Hiran has just been doing some work with a golfer and has come to some similar conclusions. I’ll tell him to get in touch.

In fact Hiran and I came to a conclusion this morning that it’s most likely my friend was modeling me or someone else in the hall. The thing he did immediately after he climbed first time was belay me which involves his full concentration on me. A perfect time for him to be in a know nothing state and able to assimilate my skills.

Dave