NLP Academy Forums

I notice that this term has disappeared over the years, or become at lot less used in newer courses/literature.

Was this simply because it was so close to “concious / subconcious” that is was dropped as redundant ? If so, that makes sense- most people understand the (general) concept of concious/subconcious, but 1st/2nd attention was pretty much known only by those in NLP (way back - not sure when the term was dropped, so I suspect recent practicioners aren’t aware it even existed).

Or is it because it simply didn’t work as well ? (ie, it almost implies that information gets picked up by the concious mind 1st, which is incorrect….).

If anyone can enlighten me to this piece of NLP’s evolution, it would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance for any insights shared !

-Paul

Hi Paul

I’m not too sure who taught you what or what framing they had on it, because i’m not you

However from the perspectiive that we teach here at the Academy, we frame them as perceptual positions.

1st position: from your own filters, your in the experience.

2nd position: Stepping into someone else shoes, not literally of course, this is a great way to experience someone else’s filters or see their perspective on a particular event, very good in conflictr management, business meetings ect…

3rd position: looking into a event from a outsiders perspective, stepping back, this gives you a very clear analysis of a event, without your filters and emotion attached to it, this is applicable in all contexts.

I hope this makes things a little clearer.

Jack Carroll

Hi Jack - Thanks for the reply !

Perceptual positions - 1st, 2nd, 3rd- we covered that.

The 1st/2nd attention was used in place of conscious / unconscious minds back in the 90’s and early 2000’s, it’s also used in “Turtles all the way down”, but it seems to have disappeared from current training.

I’m beginning to think the term disappeared because it was misleading, but I’m hoping someone out there is actually aware of the specific “why” the term was changed (ie, what was the outcome of the change, or was the original intention of 1st/2nd attention term not being met, and was better met with conscious/unconscious mind).

Thanks for the reply though, Jack . Looks like I found a puzzle that might interest you also .

-Paul

Hi Paul

I always like a mystery

Jack C

Ok, I think I might have the puzzle a bit further figured out…. if anyone knows otherwise, feel free to correct

In older NLP New Code (mid-90’s to early possibly mid 2000’s):
Term:
“1st Attention” : Used in place of “concious mind”, definition was almost the same.
“2nd Attention” : Used in place of “unconcious mind”, definition was almost the same.

There was a presupposition (if I understood / remember correctly) that the 1st attention would act as a “gatekeeper” for the 2nd attention (unconcious mind). In the current models (2008 and later, definitely), this is misleading.

In the NLPedia, they don’t use “1st / 2nd attention” terminology, but concious / unconcious mind.

They also talk about FA (First Access), then the F1 and F2 filters (language representation, then the deletions/distortions/generalizations).

Information actually comes in through senses first, then gets processed by the unconcious, then delievered up to the concious (in context of previous experience). The concious mind actually gets it last - and although it’s role is to analyze it (and “Captain the Ship”, if you use Dr. Mike Mandel’s model that the concious mind acts as a captain and the unconcious acts as the navigator - and rest of the crew).

So “1st attention” terminology doesn’t fit the current model - not very well. It’s actually misleading, since in the current model information hits the senses and unconcious first.

There’s more, but I think that gets the point nicely. Next question is “what was the original intention behind making those terms in the first place” (think I’ll have to re-read “Turtles all the way down” first for answers there - not even sure if the answer has any real use, though, but sometimes things in the past can be useful again in the future if you just care to occasionally re-evaluate or clean them up a bit, you never know).

Jack, you’ve been following this - any insights to the above ? (I’m not speaking with authority on the subject - just observations of things I’ve noticed, and trying to fit them to a pattern that makes sense).

I’ve noticed a few other changes in NLP over the years, but still digging info out myself before I post more questions . Only have a small number of “free hours” per week to post these sort of things