Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja Training Manual

Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja
Training Manual
Welcome to our Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja!
I sometimes find myself, at the beginning of a journey like this one reflecting on an
experience I had many years ago – it was one of those “no… I can’t believe it. This is
not happening” kind of moments and yet… there I was.
I was visiting south-western Ireland, in the little corner of Eire west of Cork and
Kinsale, south of Bantry, that juts out into the Atlantic Ocean and catches the Gulf
Stream, creating extraordinary, elemental weather patterns and in all probability
could be the birthplace of the phrase “four seasons in one day”.
I was there during a particularly variable period of weather – drenched one moment,
baking the next, freezing in the following; when we took a turning in the country
lanes that seemed to lead us into the middle of the rolling hills of nowhere. Green, it
was. Crayon-green for as far as the eye could see, undulating and folding, divided
only by the brown thread of the road; embellished with a few decorative sheep here
and there. I would have said ‘pastoral’ if I hadn’t been so very lost and getting so very
hungry.
We were due in Ringsakiddy in less than an hour and we had no idea where we
were, much less how to get to Ringsakiddy. We pulled into a lay-by, to discuss our
options. Well, not so much discuss, as yell at one and other. From out of nowhere a
little man appeared. Age: indeterminate. He could have been a worn-out and folded
fifty or naturally-craggled eighty. I could see, though, that he was small – very small
for a man. I guessed no more than four feet and ten inches. He spoke thickly and it
was difficult to make out what he was saying. I nodded and made social noises as
best I could.
I said, “We seem to be a little lost. Can you tell me how to get Ringsakiddy?”
The little man replied (at least I think he said), “Ringsakiddy? No one goes to
Ringsakiddy!”
The light was rapidly fading, I didn’t have an electric torch and I needed this man’s
help. I took a deep breath and said, “Well, we’re due to meet friends there very
soon. Can you tell us how to get there?”
The little man looked to the left and muttered to himself. He then looked to his right
muttering again.
Then he looked to the sky, looking at the clouds. “Ringsakiddy. Are ye sure?” I
nodded. He said, “Well, if you’re insist’in on Ringsakiddy; I wouldn’t start from here.”
All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted. 1
Ninja Language use is an advanced topic in change work; requiring a good, practiced
grasp of the foundations, familiarity with the range of the toolset, and one must have
content/experience of one’s own to apply the material to. Which brings us to the
present matter. I wouldn’t start Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja from here.
There ARE foundational skills and there are basics that must be in place before any
of this material becomes practical, and then super-cool-magical. I will have to leave
the perfecting of your art to you. While I can’t say that anyone in particular will take
themselves and their work seriously enough to dedicate the effort required to be
become magical; to anyone considering making the journey, what I can say, from my
own experience, is that it is worth it.
A few things before we start:
1. The Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja Workshop is what

happens in the room. The workshop is not in these notes. I have made
sure that these papers may be useful as a reference for some of the work we
will be doing but there is nothing of the learning itself in it. As such, please
feel free to make notes as you wish or require.
2. “The Learnings” from this workshop are what you will make
on the basis of practice and application afterwards. Your
learnings will not be on the internet or in some book or other. It’s what you
actively do on the basis of our time together that counts.
3. The process for this workshop is intensive. We will be going beyond

your usual ways of thinking usual, even if it doesn’t seem like you’re doing
much, tired and worked out mentally will be the result. This means you need
to look after yourself. Good nutrition, rest and extreme moderation in all
other things with the exception of moderation are requisite.
For me, the material in the Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja Workshop has
been a key method in delivering results for my clients. It’s a big part of figuring out
what actually needs to happen with a client or client group to create superior
results. This material gives you something to stretch your other problem solving and
people helping skills across.
I hope you truly benefit from this time we spend together.
2 All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted.

The MBNLP Framing Tool
Cosmology
Model of the World
Values
Intent
Purpose/Function

The Meta Model Compass
Generalisations
Abstractions
Conclusions
Summaries
Outside Inside
Their Map Their Map
Sensory Specific
Concrete
“Video Description”

The Meta Model – Seeking…
Outside Their Map Inside Their Map
Lost Performative Mind Reading

Source of the evaluation Basis for claim
Modal Operator
Universal Quantifier Cause & Effect
Identify & challenge mood of
Identify and test scope of action Establish causal reasoning
the verb
Nominalisations
Complex Equivalence
Restore complex processes
Establish parities of reference
turned into objects Time & Space Predicates
Establish and challenge the
where’s & when’s
Comparative Deletion (Internal and External) Lack of Referential Index
Establish comparative basis for Resolve ambiguity relating
distinction to “whom” or “what”
Non-referring nouns Unspecified Verbs

Sensory Predicates Extend verb descriptions as
Resolve unspecified members of
Specify Sensory referents necesary
category

The Meta Model – “Challenges”
Outside Their Map Inside Their Map
Lost Performative Mind Reading

“According to whom? “How do you know?”
Modal Operator
Universal Quantifier
“What stops you?”
Validate Quantifier
“What would happen if you Cause & Effect
(eg. “All?”, “Every?”, “Never?”)
did?” “How does ‘X’ cause ‘Y’?”
or offer counter example
etc.
Nominalisations Complex Equivalence

Turn noun into its verb: “How does (repeat criteria)
Motivation > Motivate mean ‘X’?”
Time & Space Predicates
Repeat T or S predicate
Lack of Referential Index
Comparative Deletion
“Who specifically?” or “What
“Compared to what?”
specifically?”
Non-referring nouns
Sensory Predicates Unspecified Verbs
“Which ‘X’ are you referring to
“What specifically…?” “How specifically?”
specifically?”

Language for a Change
An edited transcript from a talk by Michael Breen
A client sits before you and tells you their story, about “This problem that I have.”
And either you sit there with your head bobbing up and down, talking to yourself,
saying things like: “Jeez, I wonder when they’re going to get to the point?” or “Hey, I
had exactly that thing happen to me one time.” And then question them on the basis
of what happened to you or… you do something radical.
When you listen to a client it is irrelevant whether you “understand” them, feel their
pain or “enquire” in order to collect as much information as you can so that you
might understand them later. All of these postures arise because we’ve been taught
to think that we are important in some way and so must “internalise” what the client
says in order to be helpful.
But the radical way (radical meaning to cut to the very essence) is to free your
attention so that it can placed as fully as possible on the client so that there is ½ a
chance that we may notice what needs to happen. The best way to do this is to
scrupulously focus on the effect of the client’s communication on themselves.
When you do this, you begin to notice that there is an order to things, a sequence
to the words, a hierarchy of importance and, most importantly, a strategy that the
client is using to both explain their situation but also how they hold the issue.
When people ask me questions like: “What’s the best/most effective/most powerful
suggestion to give?” I groan because, clearly, the person hasn’t got a clue about how
language influences the mind. I’ll say it one last time: “It isn’t a general form of words
that does the magic. It’s the specific choices you make on the basis of how someone
is communicating that creates the greatest impact.
We are looking to shift the Frame of Reference that a client is using and the best
way to do that is grasp the whole frame in one question or statement and then
either guide them to a new frame (step by step) or negate the current frame by
counter-example. In order to do that you must pay attention to how they bind that
Frame of Reference together. It’s in the rules structure, boundaries and causal
reasoning that we have the clues to construct the strategy we will use to shift their
frame.
Once you get this, the questions of generating conversational change, asking “killer
questions”, using Sleight of Mouth Patterns will just vanish.

Let’s look at the Rules Structure layer in the Meta Model:
Universal Modal Cause &

Quantifier Operator Effect
The brain creates experiences for us with the merest hints. Associate fully into a
fantasy and you start to develop feelings, review a bad experience enough and you
get good at it, say “I am…” and you start to believe it. The way that this works is by
ensuring that unless specific tags are present to say what the scope of a judgement
should be, when and where specifically it should operate and under what conditions;
the brain assumes that the time is “the eternal now”, the scope is universal and that
it is necessary to do/think/feel it this way and then finds the justification necessary
for “things to be this way”.
When someone says: “I can’t give talks in public” (a not uncommon complaint), their
brain is creating the appropriate representations and feelings as if the statement
were: Universally valid and therefore necessary and thus the brain is prepped to
search for the requisite evidence that this is the case.
You never “just” hear a “Cause & Effect” violation, a “Universal Quantifier” of
“Modal Operator” all by itself. You hear all three – but some one or two of them
may be implied. Thus, “I can’t give talks in public”, where the Modal Operator is
most noticeable, becomes:
Universal “I can’t give talks in public” Cause &

Quantifier Effect
Is transformed into:
‘I can’t [under any circumstance] give talks in public [because…]

M.O. U.Q. C.&E.
Now, this gives you tremendous latitude in constructing a question. One powerful
counter-example, where what the client says (or implies) cannot be true forces the
client to have to reformulate the entire representation. You could start from any of
the three place to create a challenging question. So:
“I can’t give talks in public”,
“So you have never given a talk in public?”

U.Q. – confirm the inferred Universal
“Well, no, I have given talks in public but I hate doing it. It never turns out
well.”

In one question the client has seemingly contradicted herself and said she can do the
thing she said she could not.
Here is a transcript from a session I observed. Speaker’s emphasis is italicised:
“I can’t give talks in public”
“Oh dear, do you have to give talks?”
“Yes, I have to give a talk next week and I am terrified!”
“Well, you don’t have to be terrified. Feeling terrified is not

something to look forward to.
“My stomach is churning already. I just don’t want to do it.”
“Do you have to do it? Is there any way you could get out of it or
postpone it?”
“No [tears start].”
“Well, there are a few things you could do to feel a little less
terrified. Let me show you. Do you have some 3x5 cards and a
pen? Good speakers write their topics… blah blah blah…”
Awful. Just appalling.
Let’s start from the Modal Operator and ask about what would happen if the
problem were no longer a problem:
“What would happen if you could give talks in public?”
“Well, gee… I’d be a lot happier. I wouldn’t feel so awful… I’d do better
at work.”
“Well, feeling happier and not feeling awful anymore sound like a
great beginning. Doing better at work is icing on the cake! Is that
what you want?
A different response again. See if you can pattern out how Cause & Effect was used
in this example:

“Most people who say that they can’t give talks in public actually mean that
they can give talks, that they have the basic human equipment that every one
has, but that either something has happened in the past (sometimes a few
times) or they are afraid of something happening in the future. I don’t know if
either of those possibilities describes you but one thing I do know is that you
have been wrong about some things before….
You thought that some things were really hard but they turned out to be
super easy (once you knew the secrets and tricks). I know you’ve changed
your mind at least a few times and so I also know that that means that, if you
want to, you could stop right now and just put fear to one side and say “I
would like to choose to give a talk in public (or not) as the case may be. “
“I’d like to be able to confidently speak for five minutes on a topic I like and
know well and really share my enthusiasm for the topic with others. I’d like
to discover just how easy and how much fun public speaking is. Most all, I
would just love to feel in control not just of myself… but of a whole huge
crowd of maybe ten or even fifteen people! “
Can you imagine! So I don’t know if any of that makes sense [she nods yes]
or if you’d like to learn some of the tips and tricks [she nods again], in which
case…
It’s not just Cause & Effect – it’s a sequence. How is the sequence constructed?
Where does it go? What are the sections? How does it work as a cause and effect
argument?
You use the presuppositions and other forms of suggestion to make a reasoned argument.
It’s just that the reasoning may be emotional or cover all ground or it may be
specific, touching on the critical point in someone’s worldview. However, it’s
constructed it must hit the Frame of Reference that the client offers and offer either
stepping-stones or a “Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore” moment.
You must learn to work with the layers within the Meta Model in order to be able
to understand what’s going on in someone’s head. It’s simple but requires effort. If
you make the effort you will discover a whole new world of possibilities that I
suggest you look into and seize. Thank you very much. It’s been a lovely evening and
I look forward to seeing you on one of my courses. Good night.

Presuppositions
All language operates through the process of presupposition. A presupposition is

what a listener must assume to be true or valid for that statement to make sense.
The way to determine what is presupposed in a statement is to negate the sentence
and find out what is still true.
For example, the simplest kind of presupposition is existence. In the sentence “The
cat sat on the mat” you must presuppose that “the cat“ and “mat“ exist. If you
negate the sentence and say: “No, the cat didn’t sit on the mat “, the fact that cat
and the mat exist is still not questioned.
What is presupposed in a statement in usually not up for debate. Beyond the simple
existence of cats and mats, there are other things that one can usefully presuppose.
For example:
“Although you have only just begun learning about the fuller set of presuppositions
in English, once you practice using them with care and consideration, you will find
that not only will you feel more confident about yourself but you will discover that
you just seem to be more persuasive. And that’s something that would be useful,
don’t you think?”
How many presuppositions can you identify in the example above?
For the fullest list of Presuppositional contexts in English, see “Patterns of the
Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, MD” by Bandler and Grinder. We are
not interested in the academic debates about categorising language or why things are
the way they are. The linguisticians and biologists and theorists have been busy
arguing the toss for over a hundred years and there is very little they contribute to
the practical matter of how to use language more effectively.
The patterns on the following pages are to awaken you to possibilities inherent in
language that you may not have noticed before. This will sharpen your “intuition”
and really help to refine your ‘way with words”.

Syntactic Environments for Identifying Natural
Language Presuppositions in English
1. Simple Presuppositions
Syntactic environments where the existence of some entity is necessary for the
sentence to make sense.
a. Proper Names
“Bob Robertson left a phone message.”
There exists someone named Bob Robertson
b. Pronouns (Him, Her, They, It)

“I saw her standing there.”
There exists some female
c. Definite Descriptions
“The woman in that large, green anorak looks sensational.”
There exists a woman with a large, green anorak
d. Generic (non-referring) Noun Phrases

Noun “arguments” standing for a whole class
“If Wombats have no trees to climb in, they are sad.” (Grinder)
1. There are wombats
2. There is a Grinder, who thinks about wombats
e. Some Quantifiers (all, every, some, many, few, etc.)

“If none of the morons show up; I’ll be very surprised.”
There are morons.
2. Complex Presuppositions
Statements that include more than the presupposition of simple existence.
a. Relative Clauses
A noun followed by “who”, “which” or “that”.
“Several of the problems that were bothering me have been eliminated.”
There are problems bothering me.
b. Subordinate Clauses of Time

Cue words: before, after, during, as, since, prior, when, while, etc.
“If your p.a. was in the office when I stopped by, he wasn’t in reception.”
I stopped by.

c. Cleft Sentences
Sentences beginning “It was (+ noun)” or “It is (+ noun)”
“It is your blasted obstinacy that keeps you from progressing.”
You are a pain in the arse.
d. Pseudo-Cleft Sentences
Identified by the form “What [sentence] is [sentence]”
‘What you really need to do is practice the language patterns in an
actual context.”
You need to do something.
e. Stressed Sentences
Emphasis on part of a sentence through the voice.
“If it was THE PRESS she talked to, we’re in trouble.”
She talked to someone.
f. Complex Adjectives
New, old, former, present, previous
“She introduced her present-model husband.”
She had a previous-model husband
g. Ordinal Numbers
first, second, third, fourth, etc.
“By the time you think of the second most important reason why you want
to
do this; you’ll be already off and running.”
There is a first most important reason.
h. Comparatives
-er, -est, more, less
“If you know of a better restaurant Edwina, speak up.”
There are other restaurants
i. Comparative ‘As’
As ‘X’ as…
“If your skill with the Meta Model is as strong as it can be; then you are
doing very well.”
You have some skill with the Meta Model
j. Repetitive Cue Words

too, also, either, again, back
“If he says that again, I’ll have to kiss him.”
He said something before.

k. Repetitive Verbs and Adverbs
verbs or adverbs beginning with re- e.g. return, restore, repeated, etc.
“If the book is returned before I leave; there will be no further action.”
A book was taken.
l. Qualifiers
only, just, even, except
“Only Tarquin could mess up that much.”
Tarquin messed up, uniquely.
m. Change-Of-Place Verbs
come, go, leave, enter, etc.
“When you leave whining behind; intelligence creeps back in.”
You have been whining (at some point)
n. Change-of-State Verbs and Adverbs

begin, end, stop, start, continue, proceed, already, yet, still, anymore
“As soon as you start relaxing and stop holding your breath; the dizziness
will go.”
Starting ‘X’ and stopping ‘Y’ will change your state.
o. Change of State Verbs

change, transform, turn into, become, etc.
“If you don’t change for the better; I’ll be amazed.”
You are in one state. There is another state possible.
p. Factive Verbs and Adjectives

odd, aware, know, realise, regret
“Do you realise the importance of this?”
This is important.
q. Commentary Adjectives and Adverbs

Fortunately, happily, necessarily, (and many -ly words) far out, wild, etc.
“It’s so wicked that you can understand what your cat is saying. Fortunately,
your cat speaks English.”
You understand what your cat is saying.
r. Counterfactual Conditional Clauses

Verbs in the subjunctive tense
“If you had finished the assignment on time you would not be in this
mess.”
You didn’t finish the assignment on time.

s. Contrary-to-Expectation Should
should, should happen to
“If you should happen to be in the area, drop in.”
I don’t expect you to be in the area
t. Selectional Restriction
Logical category restrictions
“Watching her pet soar through the clouds is quite a sight”
Her pet is not a dog or goldfish (unless it was thrown from a catapult)
u. Questions
“Who defanged my snake?”
Someone defanged my snake.
“I want to know who defanged my snake?”

Someone defanged my snake.
v. Negative Questions
“Didn’t you ask for a chocolate-tunafish milkshake?”
I thought you asked for a chocolate-tunafish milkshake.
w. Rhetorical Questions
“Who cares whether David Cameron is prime minister or not?”
No one cares whether David Cameron is prime minister or not (except for
DC)
x. Spurious Not
“I wonder whether you are not being a bit unkind.”
I think that you are being unkind.

The Milton Model
Milton Erickson was, arguably, one of the greatest hypnotists of the 20th century. He
used language in a unique and systematic way. He achieved results that were
unimaginable by others of his time. Bandler and Grinder first described their work
on his way with words in their book ‘Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton
H. Erickson, M. D. Vol. I’.
While these patterns were derived from work in clinical hypnosis, they also show up
in many areas of life: From politics to sales, from parenting to its pre-requisite – any
time there is message being delivered, these patterns are there.
The Milton Model provides some suggested means of constructing communication in

such a way that the listener is drawn in to participate in creating the significance and
meaning of a communication, from within their own map or model of the world, in
such a way that they will “naturally” (or “unnaturally” as the case may be) be led to
new possibilities, beyond previous limitations.
The Milton Model was sometimes referred to as the “inverse Meta Model” in the
daze where NLPers and hypnotists thought everything was about what was being
said or not being said. In fact, both the Meta Model AND the Milton Model are
driven by the same functional mechanisms in the brain, and we use language to
directionalise how someone will understand what we are saying. The two “models”
are one. They use the same grammatical forms and share the presuppositonal
foundations but how we use them is different.
So in addition to all of the patterns from the Meta Model, here are some additional
“Milton Model” patterns that you will find useful in constructing more persuasive and
involving communication:
Causal Modelling or Linkage
The smaller chunk patterns within Cause & Effect (the “because” of an explanation)
allow you to exercise a very fine degree of control over how someone “connects
the dots”. Mastery of these patterns will make you a forceful (and even fearsome)
persuader… or a lot nicer (as the case may be).
Causal Linkage involves using words that imply a causal relationship between
something that is occurring and something the communicator wants to occur or
between an idea and an outcome.
a) The weakest linkage makes use of conjunctions to connect otherwise

unrelated phenomena.

“You’re reading these words and it’s a sign that you can really relax.“
b) The second kind of linkage implies a causal link, making use of words like, as,
when, during, and while to connect statements by establishing a connection in time.
“While the handouts are being passed around; you can take a moment to think
about why you have chosen to attend this workshop for personal change.”
c) The strongest linkage uses words stating a direct causal connection. Words
such as makes, causes, forces, and requires can be used here.
“Thinking this way will only make you feel better.”
d) And a sneaky way of causal modelling is stating it though Mind Reading:
“You’re being here means that you must be ready for some powerful
learnings.”
“I know you must wondering: When are we getting started on all the cool
techniques?”
Presuppositions
Presuppositions are the most powerful of language patterns, when used by a

communicator who presupposes what they don’t want to have questioned. The
principle is to give a listener many choices, and yet all of the choices presuppose our
desired response.
Indirect Elicitation Patterns
1. Embedded Suggestions
Rather than giving instructions directly, a person can embed suggestions into a larger
sentence.
“You’ll begin to enjoy the process when you notice how many lovely people
are here working with you.“
When you embed instructions within a larger sentence, you can deliver them more
smoothly and gracefully, and the listener will not consciously realise that directives
have been given.

2. Analogue Marking
Embedded suggestions are made more powerful through the use of analogue
marking. Analogue marking means setting the suggestion apart from the rest of the
statement with a nonverbal behaviour. You could do this by increasing the volume of
your voice while delivering the suggestion, by pausing before and after the voice
change, by changing your voice tone, by gesturing with a hand or by raising your
eyebrows. The other person does not need to notice your marking consciously; in
fact they will often respond more fully when your marking is perceived but not
consciously recognised.
3. Embedded Question
Questions, like commands, can be embedded within a larger sentence.
“I’m wondering how you would like to reach an agreement on this.“
People respond directly to the embedded question, usually without realising that the
question was not asked directly. This is a gentle and gracious way to gather data.
4. Conversational Postulates
Conversational postulates are yes/no questions that elicit a full response rather than
a literal answer. “Do you have the time?“ usually draws the response of the listener
actually telling you the time rather than answering literally “yes“ or “no.“
5. Ambiguity
Ambiguity is when one sentence, phrase, or word has more than one possible
meaning. Ambiguity makes it possible for the listener to internally process a message
in more than one way. This requires that the listener actively participates in
searching out and creating meaning from the message, which increases the
probability that the meaning will be appropriate.
a. Phonological Ambiguity
Words that sound alike but have different meaning. Such words include:
right/write/rite; I/eye; insecurity/in security; red/read; there/their/they’re;
weight/wait; knows/nose; here/hear.
The following words similarly have two meanings, although they both
sound alike and are spelled alike: left, duck, down, light.

Other phonological ambiguities can be found in words that can either be
used as an active verb “Lift your arm,“ or a nominalised verb “Give me a
lift.“ Other examples are: push, pull, point, touch, rest, nod, move, talk,
hand, feel.
b. Syntactic Ambiguity
Add “-ing“ to a transitive verb and place it before a noun. The verb + ing
then serves as either an adjective or a verb.
The classic example of syntactic ambiguity:
“Hypnotising hypnotists can be tricky.“
This means either that hypnotists practicing hypnosis can be tricky, or that
putting hypnotists in a trance can be tricky.
“They were auditing accountants.“
The pronoun “they“ could refer to a group of accountants who were

auditing (adjective), or to a group of people performing an audit (verb) of
accountants.
c. Scope Ambiguity
Scope ambiguity is when it is unclear how much of the sentence an

adjective, verb, or adverb applies to.
“We’ll go with the charming men and women.“
This could mean we’ll go with the charming men and the women (who
may or may not be charming), or we’ll go with the men who are charming
and the women who are charming.
“I don’t know if you are fully aware that the success of this project is critical
to our meeting budget this year, that we have only two days left to finish the
preliminary report, and that you need to be prepared to come to agreement
with me before we are joined by the rest of the team.”
Does the word “aware” apply to the entire sentence or only to what
precedes the word “and“? If “aware“ applies to the whole sentence,
everything following “aware“ is presupposed.

d. Punctuation Ambiguity
This kind of ambiguity is created by joining two sentences together

where one ends and the other begins with the same word.
“I’m just making sure you can hear you are ready to participate fully.
These patterns are not used in isolation but within larger communication structures.
They should be in the background of your communication rather than the
foreground if you wish to enjoy the powerful benefits of their effect.
Patterns in Metaphor
There are many other patterns that are useful in the effective use of anecdote, story
and metaphor. The following two are generally thought of as part of the Milton-
Model.
1. Selectional Restriction Violations
This refers to the attribution of qualities to something or someone that by definition

could not possess those qualities.
“I don’t know if you’ve noticed the feelings of the chair beneath you.”
The listener needs to find some way of making sense out of statements like this. The
listener is likely to make sense out of my statements by applying them to himself.
“The chair can’t have feelings, it must be me.“ This process is not a conscious one,
but an automatic way of understanding what is said.
2. Quotes
This pattern involves reporting in quotes, in someone else’s mouth, what you want
to say.
Quotes can be used to deliver any message without taking responsibility for the
message. Since you are apparently talking about what someone else said at another
time, your listener will often respond to the message, but not consciously identify
what he is responding to, or who is responsible for the message.
So, for example:

“Richard Bandler once said to me: “putting something in quotes allows you to say
anything you want to say to someone without taking responsibility for the message.”
And I heard John Grinder say: “Quotes is one of the powerful patterns for
unconscious communication that we possess.” Now I don’t know why they said that
but it reminded me about Milton Erickson and his work with people. If you were
listening to Erickson he might conceal an important message in a story by saying: “I
have this old friend, whose name is Richard Johns, and one time he told me…”
“You can talk to someone about a client of Milton Erickson’s who wanted to really
learn about hypnosis. He listened to Erickson talk about hypnosis and thought that
he understood. Then Erickson turned to him and said emphatically: “You don’t really
know or understand something until you’ve practiced every piece of it thoroughly!”

Sleight of Mouth Patterns (Part One)
These applications of the Meta Model, originally from Richard Bandler, in full flow, in
action, were patterned by Robert Dilts. Essentially they are ways to shift someone’s
Frame of Reference so that a different view of a situation is possible.
Typically, when someone presents a statement of belief or limitation they suggest

that there is either a forced causal link between some External Event (EE) or
happening and some feeling, thought or Internal State (IS), often leading to Unwanted
Behaviour (UWB).
So the form is: EE –> IS –> UWB
An example would be: “The stress of my job forces me to eat chocolate.”
The stress of my job forces me to eat chocolate

EE C&E –> [IS] UWB
A Complex Equivalency between some EE and a judgement (IS), often accompanied

by Mind Reading (MR) is another possibility. e.g.:
“The Executive Committee never makes a decision. They must be complete idiots.”
The Executive Committee never makes a decision
(EE)
[IS]
They must be complete idiots.
(MR)
It’s those bracketed Internal States that allow us to work the magic of Sleight of
Mouth.
I am only going to ask you look at one overall pattern at first and combine it through
the Framing Tool to create Sleight of Mouth Patterns. We will use the examples
“The stress of my job forces me to eat chocolate” and “The Executive Committee
never makes a decision. They must be complete idiots.”
The pattern is: “It’s not about X; it’s…” in order to reframe the statements.

Here’s the Framing Tool (again):
Model of the World

Values
Intentions
Purposes
Precedents Further
Influences Outcomes:
Causes The Statement Consequences
Beliefs Benefits
Sensory Details
Elements
Components
“Evidence”
Chunk Down and create a new frame by either making a statement or asking a
question:
“The stress of my job forces me to eat chocolate”
Precisely how much stress do you need before you decide that it’s
“Chocolate Time?”

“How specifically do complete idiots behave (as opposed to garden

variety idiots)?”
Chunk Up to a more inclusive frame or exaggerate and create a new

frame by either making a statement or asking a question:
“So stress relief is a priority for you?”
“Is someone a complete idiot if they take time to make the right decision
rather than the expedient one?
Other Causes
How about if we go to the precedence or causes side of the Framing Tool? We are
looking for alternative causes or precedences to the suggestions made by the client.
“It’s not about X; it’s…”
“It’s not the stress of your job that forces you to eat chocolate; it’s that you
haven’t got a plan for dealing with all your stresses. Job stress is just a
symptom of poor stress relief planning.”
“It’s not that the Executive Committee never makes a decision. They just
have a lot more factors to consider than most people imagine and they don’t
make snap judgements to please idiots.”
Other Outcomes
How about if we go to the further outcomes and consequences side of the Framing
Tool? We are looking for outcomes or consequences to the suggestions made by
the client.

“It’s not about X; it’s…”
“It’s not a question of whether your job causes you stress; it’s actually a
question of how you turn stress into power.”
“It’s not about whether the Executive Committee are idiots. It’s a question of
what do they know that you don’t.”
Let’s Chunk up in a few different ways:
Find another Intention and create a new frame by either making a statement
or asking a question:
The stress of your job isn’t intended to make you eat chocolate but to
help make you stronger (ICCCCCKKKK!)
The Executive Committee isn’t there to make decisions but to insure that
when the company runs out of budget to give for pay rises; there’s
somewhere to promote the smart people to.
Go to a Model of the World that creates a new frame:
Some people learn to take their stress out on total strangers rather than
themselves.
Some successful people make a career of never making a decision.
Find a more highly valued criteria or value and create a new frame by
either making a statement or asking a question:

If you think your job is stressful, imagine the stress of being as big as a
house! (health or appearance as a higher criteria than stress relief through
chocolate)
“They are too busy trying fielding employee satisfaction surveys to make
quick decisions.”
What other patterns could you create by chunking up?
Rules Structures
The most vicious (truthful) forms of reframing come from applying a client’s rules
structure either to their own statement or to themselves. There is simply no escape
from the implications…
My all time favourite. A client came in saying: “I suffer from low self esteem.” My
reply was: “You’re not qualified to judge yourself so harshly!” and she dissolved into
a fit of giggles…
Apply to Self/Statement on either side of the Cause and Effect or

Complex Equivalence and create a new frame by either making a statement or
asking a question:
What an incredibly stressful way of thinking.
Well, I see that you have no trouble making hasty and ill-informed
judgements.
There are a number of other possibilities that you could come up for using the
Framing Tool to change the frame on a limiting Cause & Effect Statement or
Complex Equivalence.
Why not try a few…

Notes on Bill O’Hanlon’s “Pattern
Interventions”, Cataloguing Milton
Erickson’s Clinical Interventions
In the late 1980’s I spent 12 days with Bill O’Hanlon, Milton Erickson’s “last student”,
over a period of several years, learning the in’s and out’s of his new ideas about
Solution-Focused Therapy and his take on Milton Erickson’s work. There was much
talk of systems and suggestion, and of ‘cabbages and kings’. One of the most
interesting parts of the trainings related to O’Hanlon’s patterning of Erickson’s
clinical interventions. O’Hanlon delineated a series of pattern interventions for
breaking up old habits, in order to establish something new. These high-level
patterns sat well within my consultant’s training on systems (both soft and hard) and
so I use them, to this day, in thinking through interventions both small and large.
Here are some excerpts from my notes...
The Fundamental Meta Pattern Interventions:
1. De-patterning
Alter the current pattern(s) of action in and around the issue/problem/complaint.
2. Challenge the Frame of Reference.
Change (“Reframe”) the Frame of Reference.
3. Re-patterning
Provide or create new patterns and substitute them for the original issue/problem/
complaint.

Pattern Interventions
Change the...
Frequency or rate of the issue/problem/complaint, or the pattern(s) surrounding

the issue/problem/complaint.
Duration of the issue/problem/complaint or the pattern(s) surrounding the

issue/problem/complaint.
Time (hour/time of day, week, month or time of year) of the complaint, or the
pattern(s) surrounding the issue/ problem/complaint.
Intensity of the complaint or the pattern(s) surrounding the

Some other invariant quality of the complaint or the pattern(s) surrounding the
Sequence (order) of events involved in or the pattern(s) surrounding the

Interrupt or otherwise prevent the occurrence of the issue/problem/ complaint.
Add a new element to the issue/problem/complaint.
Break up any previously whole element of the issue/problem/complaint into

smaller elements.
Perform the issue/problem/complaint without the usual accompanying

pattern(s) surrounding it.
Perform the pattern around the issue/problem/complaint at a time when they

are not having the issue/problem/complaint.
Reverse the direction of striving in the performance of the issue/problem/

complaint [Paradox].
Link the occurrence of the issue/problem/complaint to another pattern that is a

burdensome activity [Ordeal].
Change the body behavior/performance of the issue/problem/complaint. While

these Patterns don’t tell you what to do; they offer you excellent pointers on where
and how to look in a situation for clues about intervening.
O’Hanlon, W. H. (1987) Taproots: Underlying Principles of Milton Erickson's Therapy and Hypnosis.
NY: W. W. Norton & Co. ; Original framework © Bill O’Hanlon. This presentation © 2009 MBNLP

The T.O.T.E – Fundamental Unit of Analysis
In NLP
In ‘Plans and the Structure of Behavior’ (1960) Miller, Galanter, and Pribram, created
a synthetic model of behaviour and an Information Processing Theory that had a
huge impact on many scientific disciplines. Information Processing Theory was so
successful that it has become the General Theory of Human Cognition and so
continues to influence thinking and research to this day.
The ‘Miller’ of the team was George A. Miller who gave the world the concept of
‘chunking’ – that short-term memory has only limited capacity to hold information,
beyond which information is rearranged in more inclusive “chunks”. The notion of
chunking is the foundation for all subsequent theories of memory. Chunking has
been validated as a phenomena at all levels of cognitive processing. So they were a
high-powered group with high-powered ideas.
Miller, Galanter and Pribram suggested that the T.O.T.E. (Test-Operate-Test-Exit)

model should replace stimulus-response as the basic unit or “chunk” of behaviour. In
a TOTE unit, a goal is tested to see if it has been achieved and if not an operation is
performed to achieve the goal, repeating the cycle as many times as necessary to
achieve the goal.
In ‘Plans and the Structure of Behavior’,

Miller, Galanter and Pribram used the
example of a plan for hammering a nail. The
Exit Test is: “Is the nail flush with the
surface?” If the nail is still sticking up; then
the hammer is tested to see if it is up. If yes;
then the hammer is allowed to drop and hit
the nail again. If the answer is no; then the
hammer is raised.
The TOTE Model elegantly describes how

human behaviour is arranged hierarchically in a series of “nested TOTE’s” or
“TOTES with sub-TOTES”.
In NLP it is the fundamental unit for analysis but also design. It would serve you well
to begin using your mind more systematically: When working with others, spend
some time practicing devising TOTES for your work.
Match the client’s process to the TOTE. Compare their current TOTE to what they
claim is the Desired State.

There may be mismatches or gaps in their TOTE. The client will always tell you how
they manage to either get what they want or get what they don’t want. In other
words, with the TOTE, deep down, it’s all on the surface.
“Devising and working to TOTES is one of those patterns of intervention and

learning I classify as “smallest intervention; greatest systemic impact.” Let the
wise take heed.”
–MB
TOTES and Strategies

If we take Miller, Galanter and Pribram’s word that TOTE’s can usefully describe all
aspects of human cognition and behaviour, then how we process information
internally – our strategies – and what they output in the form of external behaviour
are critical to our ability to successfully accomplish any task, they also will indicate
how we manage to avoid achieving or accomplishing the things we say we are setting
to achieve and also give clues as to how to modify behaviour (change the process –>
change the result).
But our cultural models do not explicitly encode how these strategies operate. Even
in our educational institutions, the emphasis is more often placed on what to learn
rather than how to learn. Most often we are encouraged as to what are appropriate
and desirable goals but given only minimal or negligible information on how
specifically the task should be attempted. Even then, the advice is often not suited to
the specifics of our situation. We are left to our own devices as to how we should
go about operationalising the cultural and familial imperatives which we have been
taught are appropriate.
Typically we end up in the “win a few; lose a few” situation – we have some
strategies that succeed magnificently in particular contexts (e.g. making money,
playing a musical instrument, planning some sort of programme) yet our strategies in
other contexts lead us to less than happy outcomes (personal relationships, work
satisfaction, etc.).
What, precisely, is it about strategies that generates successful outcomes in some

areas and disastrous outcomes in other instances? In NLP we have an explicit model
for capturing the essential and critical characteristics that accompany outcomes of
both categories. The model is called “strategies” and it incorporates the use of the
TOTE model, changes in the sequence of representational processing, language and a
set of “Well-Formedness Conditions” (a phrase borrowed from linguistics) which
are actually just “tips and hints” for optimising strategies.

The model of strategies allows you to explicitly capture how success happens,
discover the key features and critical components and then apply that learning to
yourself and others. As such it is one of the key elements when working with the
NLP model.
Basic Strategies Review

Sequences of Internal Representation Systems
All of our behaviour is controlled by internal processing strategies. Each of you has a
particular set of strategies for motivating yourself out of bed in the morning, for
delegating task responsibilities to employees, for learning and teaching, for
conducting business negotiations, and so on. Yet, our cultural models do not
explicitly teach us the specifics of the strategies that are required to achieve the
behavioural goals expressed or implied by each model. We may succeed
magnificently with particular strategies (making money, for example), yet fail
completely with others (personal relationships).
What, precisely, is it about strategies that generates successful outcomes in some

areas and disastrous outcomes in other instances? By applying the techniques and
procedures developed and described in NLP, individuals in many walks of life have
learned to modify existing strategies or to create new ones for themselves and their
associates to achieve exactly the outcomes they desire. The magic of success is a
matter of employing the most effective strategy. Most strategies can be easily learned
or modified to accomplish goals of our choosing.
Expanded T.O.T.E. Model of Strategies
Operation 1
Present Desired Decision Point

Trigger State State EXIT
Test
Operationn

The TOTE requires:
1. That the Trigger is adequately specified
2. That the Desired State is adequately specified
3. That the Present State is adequately specified
4. That the Test (“Is the Present State the Desired State?”) has adequate
criteria for evaluation (Decision Point)
5. That the Operation Strategy or Sequence is adequately specified.
6. The TOTE operation follows the process:
a. The Triggering phenomena occurs

b. The “First Test” (“Is the Present State the Desired State?”)
is performed
c. If the evaluation is No; then the first Operation is performed
d. At the conclusion of the First Operation, the “Second Test” is
performed.
e. If the evaluation is Yes; then the TOTE is Exited.
If the evaluation is NO; then either Operation is repeated or a new
Operation is performed.
This may seem excruciatingly obvious, yet some Master Practitioners experience
heartache and woe due to the fact that either some aspect of the TOTE was missing
from their interventions or that the client simply had an incomplete TOTE to begin
with. In other words: “D’OH!”

Fundamental Presuppositions of Strategies
NB: The following eight pages are excerpted from the Society of NLP Practitioner Manual,
copyright Richard Bandler, used under license.
1. All behaviour is the result of neurological patterns
If a neurological pattern occurs, then behaviour occurs. If the neurological

pattern does not occur, then the behaviour does not occur.
2. Any particular neurological pattern is the result of two basic

processes:
a. Accessing Cues
b. Synaesthesia Patterns, which include phenomena like anchors,
associations, transderivational search and overlap.
Structural Conditions of Effective Strategies

1. A strategy must have an explicit representation of the
outcome (goal).
2. A strategy must have an operation to gather information and

feedback from which a representation of the desired outcome
can be built and/or modified.
3. A strategy must involve all 3 of the major representational

systems (Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic).
Each representational system has unique capabilities to detect and process

sensory inputs that are not available through the other senses.
4. A strategy cannot cycle back before the Decision Point.
a. No loops without an exit point:
A loop can occur when the Operation Phase is so minimal that a

significant change does not result when representations are tested
(compared/ contrasted). This can also occur due to an inadequate
test.
b. No two point loops:
A two point loop is occurring when a person cycles back and forth
between only two representational systems.

c. Some possibilities for redirecting a strategy that loops:
Use a Counter
A Time Limit could be predetermined e.g. checking with a clock. After

the loop has operated for “X” amount of time, a person must
proceed to a Decision Point and make some choice from among the
various possibilities that have been considered during the “X” amount
of time.
Also, an internal counter could be utilised at the conclusion of each

loop, so that a person can visually detect consecutive cycles. After
“X” number of cycles have been completed, the strategy is redirected
to the next alternative and resets the visual counter to 1.
5. A strategy should have an external check after “N” steps:
“N” depends upon the kind of task being performed. The check is necessary
to include feedback from appropriate external resources: e.g. different kinds
of external feedback are required when playing baseball than when painting
on a canvass with oil colours, or when a doctor is performing surgery.
Functional Well-formedness Conditions of

Strategies
1. A strategy needs an Operation Phase
A chain of representational system activities and motor activities for the

purpose of gathering, organising and modifying information in order to obtain
a well-defined outcome.
2. A strategy needs a Test in order to compare/contrast the

representation of the information that was gathered and
organised during the operation phase to the representation
of the outcome.
3. After the Test, a strategy needs a Decision Point that

determines the next step.
For example: Exit to a different strategy; loop back to repeat the operations;
reset the criteria, etc.

Strategy Elicitation Questions
The following example questions all surround the topic of eliciting a learning
strategy. You can, of course, adapt the questions to appropriately suit the context
and situation.
General Elicitation Questions
1. Think of a time when you were able to learn something rapidly.
2. Imagine some likely future situation and what you would do if you had to
learn something quickly?
3. What happens as you are learning something?
Elicitation of the OPERATIONS
1. What do you do as you are preparing to learn something?
2. What steps do you go through to learn something quickly?
3. What do you do when you are not sure that you have met your criteria, yet?
Elicitation of the TEST
1. What is a demonstration that you have successfully learned something

quickly?
2. How do you know when you have learned something quickly?
3. How do you test whether you have achieved your desired outcome?
Elicitation of the DECISION POINT
1. How do you know when you have been able to successfully learn something
easily and effectively?
2. What lets you know that you are not yet finished learning something?
3. What lets you know that you are ready to move on to something else?
4. When you are not sure that you have successfully been able to learn
something, what lets you know that?

Elicitation of the TRIGGER
1. How do you know when to begin the process of X? (Motivating yourself,

deciding, learning, etc.)
2. What lets you know you are ready to X?
Elicitation of the OPERATION
1. What is the first thing you do?
2. What happens as you begin?
3. What do you do when you are not sure you have reached your goal?
Elicitation of the TEST
1. What’s the comparison you’re making?
2. How do you know when you’ve satisfied your criteria?
Elicitation of the CHOICE POINT (DECISION POINT)
1. What lets you know you’re finished?
2. What lets you know you’re ready to move on to something else?
3. What lets you know you’re successful at X?

Questions for Determining the Completeness of Strategies
1. Do you know exactly what point the strategy begins? In other

words, what is the first Test that starts the strategy going?
2. Do you have all the steps that you think constitute the
Operation Phase?
3. Does the strategy make logical sense?
Would this operation work to accomplish this task?
Can you justify each step as a necessity?
If not, do you know where the extraneous ones are?
Do you know why they are necessary?
Can you surmise any that must be there that you have not so far detected?
4. Do you know what the second test is?
What is it for this strategy and how does it work to make the strategy
effective?
5. Can you map out this strategy so that you know, step by step,
how it gets from the beginning to the outcome?
Can you write out the sequence so that it’s understandable to you?
6. Do you know the important submodalities, especially the

critical ones at each step in this strategy?
7. Do you know what submodality changes cause the strategy to

go from one step to the next?
How each threshold works?
8. Can you go through this strategy and get it to work for you as
well as or better than your client? This is usually a good check
on your logic.
9. Based on the answers to the above do you need to ask your

client to demonstrate the strategy a few more times for you?

Setting Outcomes and Directions
Well-formedness Conditions for Desired States
1. Stated in Positives
Negatives do not compute behaviourally the way they do in the mind. By

specifying a goal in terms of what you don’t want, the brain can only get you
to move away from it – but where you end up may not be especially useful or
desirable. By stating the goal affirmatively the brain can more easily.
2. Initiated and Maintained by the Person Who Desires the Goal
We are in control of only ourselves, our own behaviour and our own
feelings, etc., We are not responsible for another’s behaviour, feelings, etc.
The desired state cannot be dependent on the actions of another person or
situation. The desired state must be within the person’s control who owns
the desired state as a goal or direction.
3. Defined And Evaluated According To Sensory Based Evidence
Establishing the desired state in at least the three (3) major representational
systems as specifically as possible begins to set the direction of the process
and also begins to process the goal, or result (desired state) in a language the
brain is designed to understand.
4. Made To Preserve The Positive By-products Of The Present

State
Behind every behaviour is a positive or adaptive intention held by the person

conducting the behaviour, these positive element(s) must be preserved.
5. Appropriately Contextualised To Fit The External “Ecology”
The desired state must serve the “eco-system” of the individual. For example,
how will their new behaviour affect their family, friends, job, etc.

Questions To Help Elicit Desired States
1. Stated in Positives
What do you want, specifically?

When, where, with whom do you want it?
2. Initiated and Maintained by the Person
Who Desires the Goal?

What resources do you have to accomplish this?
(Check to find if their resources are also within their control, etc.)
3. Defined And Evaluated According To Sensory Based Evidence
How will you know when you have it?

What will you see, hear, feel smell, taste?
What will you look like, sound like? etc.
(Have them demonstrate)
4. Made To Preserve The Positive By-Products Of The Present

State
What will happen if you get this result (desired state)?

What won’t happen if you get it?
What will happen if you don’t get it?
What won’t happen if you don’t get it?
What do you get to have or keep by having the problem? (Secondary gain).
How do you know it’s worth getting?
When, where, with whom does not having it work for you?
5. Appropriately Contextualised To Fit The External “Ecology”
How will this affect your life? family? business or job? friends?
What will be different as a result of having this?

Questions To Help Elicit Present States
1. What is the problem, specifically?
2. How do you know that it is a problem?
3. How do you know how to have it?
4. How do you know when to have it?
5. How do you know with whom to have it?
6. How do you know where to have it?
7. What stops you from changing the problem?
We suggest that you elicit and calibrate the submodalities for both the Present State
and Desired State.

Behavioural Success Factors To Patterning
1. The Development of the TOTE is your most important

activity.
No TOTE; no full specification
2. The TOTE always occurs within a larger context or

framework.
Situating the TOTE in an appropriate frame of reference often determines

success – regardless of quality, excellence or beauty of your application. Get
the larger framework…
3. Desired State: Qualify and quantify, upsides and downsides of

fulfilment/non-fulfilment – it is the key to both motivation
and specifying success criteria.
4. Present State: Always qualify point of view.
Someone’s problem is always another person’s gain. One man’s programme is

another’s pain in the arse. Make sure you correctly identify the relevant,
causal present state and matching consequences. Hint: “the real causes” are
sometimes waaaaayyyyy outside the client’s map (in the corporate
environment).
5. Present & Desired State includes information about available

resources (e.g. money, time, staff involvement, etc.) and
politics (in an organisational context).
6. When the Desired and Present States are fully described;

transform the Desired State into a series of nested
Behavioural Outputs.
Behavioural Outputs are most simply defined as the difference between what
people are able to do, think, feel when they have been through your process
compared to when they walk in the door.
Remember to start from the big chunks first (categories of activity), getting
them in the right order and then breaking the outputs down into smaller
chunks (tasks).

7. Break tasks down into behavioural components. Things to
consider:
• Assumptions about the task (yours, theirs, banana…)
• Structural Implications
Some activities and tasks either relate to one and other chronologically, in a
sequence, or are contingent or contingencies for other activities
• Criteria
How will you, they, another, banana, know that the activity is performed
successfully?
• Naturally Do?
Some tasks are part of someone’s ordinary repertoire but perhaps in some
other area or domain.
• Similarity or Difference to other tasks
8. Pattern according to what is required to generate the

Behavioural Outputs.
9. Consider the possible differences between the application of

the pattern and the process for learning the pattern.
10. Consider the states which would naturally lead to the pattern
or support it.

Pattern Scales and Directions
• Chunking – above all and in the details.
Top –> down | Bottom –> Up
Big –> Small | Small –> Big
Front to back | Back to front
Analogue Spectrum | Digital Discontinuity
Outside –> Inside | Inside –> Outside
(and the consequences thereof…)
• Sequences
States
Strategies
Discrete
Sub-divided
Thresholds
Looping
• Content
Heuristics
Chronology
Cause & Effect
Feedback
Immediate
Delayed

• Expectations, Frames of Reference, Beliefs, Values, Previous
Experiences
Yours and Theirs
Enabling and disabling
Self-fulfilling Prophecies
• References
Universal human experiences

(matching/compliance & state-utility)
traffic lights (Stop/Go/Wait)

shopping (desire to possession)
meeting a standard (e.g. filling in a form)
Learning contexts
changing one’s mind
Contextually shared or relevant experiences

Zeitgeist (television, media, movies, current events)
Their examples and experience
Your examples and experience
• Arrangements
Defining instances or objects, their classes or families and the

rules of relationship
Comparisons
Narratives, anecdotes, analogies or metaphors for process

Some of My Favourite Heuristics
The Three P’s Purpose, Process, Pay-offs

A variation in the training world is Berniece McCarthy’s “The 4-Mat System”, which
adds a specious layer of Metaprogramming and pseudo-sophisticated hobnozzle
defognostication to the simple:
What, How and Why of it…
Chronology How it started | What it is now | Where it’s going
The Hourglass Big Principle | History | Specific Examples | More History to

date | Restatement of Big Principles
P.M.I. Plus, Minus, Interesting (Edward De Bono)
Points of Vision
Reference Strategy
(select) Factors
Creativity
Novelty
Pragmatics/Logistics
Structures
Questions
Warning Signs/Dangers
Components
Pessimistically
Optimistically
etc.
What are your favourites?

Resolving Issues At Ground Level
Inevitably, helping conversations involve a search for resolution in relation to goals
or outcomes. For our purposes, an issue is anything that your client presents as a
problem or obstacle to successful achievement of their goals or outcomes.
The types of issues you may be called upon to coach can be broadly categorised in
three ways: Issues of Knowledge, Desire or Opportunity.
Knowledge Issues
What to do?
How to do?
When to do?
Can I?
I can’t…
Desire/Fear Issues
Don’t want to…

Love to but…
Must I?
Need to…
Afraid to…
Opportunity Issues
How can I when… ?

If/when…?
If/only…?
May I?
Frequently, resolving an issue starts with resolving the client’s emotional or mental
reactions to a perceived situation. The path to action begins in finding a suitable frame
of reference for the issue that allows it be resolved.
For example, your client feels rejected and angry because “no one takes me
seriously” and he wants everyone else to change their attitudes towards him. This is
a rather hefty demand requiring perhaps dozens of people to change their behaviour,
if not have a change of heart. The search for a more suitable (and achievable) frame
of reference might involve exploring: What would have to happen for other people
to change their behaviour? What would he have to change in his behaviour in order
for that to happen?

What could he do to make it easy for others to change their perceptions? The result
of the process is your client is now thinking and planning change in regard to his own
actions, over which he more control.
The key to resolving issues is helping your client generate options and locate the
requisite resources they need both within and outside of themselves.
Helping conversations can develop in many different directions. Occasionally, your

role will be merely to get your client into ‘flow state’ and keep them exploring the
possibilities – with you essentially acting as a witness and sounding board for their
ideas and process.
More often than not you will be called upon to help the client resolve issues where
either:
1. They don’t know how to proceed

They have gone as far as they can go with a particular way of thinking about,
feeling about or behaving. (edge or boundary of their model of the world)
2. They are not motivated to proceed

They are being obstructed or feel that they are being obstructed by
overwhelming outside forces, the payoffs aren’t big enough, or the threats
aren’t imminent enough. (typically arrangements inside their model of the
world)
3. They believe the past = the future.
4. Some or all of the above
People sometimes refer to these conditions as being “stuck” … and actually that
conclusion is “stuckness” the stuckness.
The “stuckness” is usually quite simple, yet quite subtle. It is one of those
phenomena called “the elusive obvious”. What is stuck is their way of thinking,
perceiving or feeling about what is happening.
We are not suggesting that “it’s all in their head” or that there are no insoluble
problems but when a goal or objective seems to be problematic; it is quite frequently
the case that the formulation of the goal – its terms and conditions, the data set
being considered, the timeframes or scope of the goal – that is leading to difficulties.
A case in point from a remedial coaching point of view – a thirty-five year old middle
manager was experiencing a “drop in performance”. His team was becoming
fractious, he was feeling depressed and overwhelmed.

He had been given a “performance assessment” (a dressing down) by his manager
and was offered a performance coach to assist him. He accepted the offer of help
and during the second session, he wanted to address what he called “a lifelong
pattern of failure.”
The coach’s question was not “What do you mean by a lifelong pattern of failure?”,
which would generate a list of examples of failure, or “How do you feel about that?”,
which would obviously be an invitation to wailing and gnashing of teeth but instead
he asked:
“How do you know that you have a life long pattern of failure?”
There is a subtle but powerful difference in this question to the previous questions.
“How do you know...” (in other words, “what are you paying attention to?”) asks for
how the client is holding their awareness on certain features of a situation and using
that as the logical foundation for the vast generalisation “...a life long pattern of
failure.”
And there is funny thing about how people talk about their problems: Very often
they will tell you what needs to be done to solve the problem while they are talking
about the problem itself.
The first words out this client’s mouth in answer to the question:
“How do you know that you have a lifelong pattern of failure?”
were:
“I’ve always set big goals for myself and I have mostly failed
to meet them...”
Was the problem that he failed to achieve the goals or that the goals he set were
too big for him to achieve given his choice of means, timeframes, resources, etc.?
The coach and client were quickly, and in a relatively pain free way, able to figure out
the real question:
What did this man have to do to learn how to set and pursue
realistic and achievable goals that would aggregate into
grander successes over time?
He had misunderstood the nature of goals and the practice of goal setting, his
expectations were too high in relation to his methods of achievement, and he had
misinterpreted the consequences of these as a reflection on his character and sense
of self, rather than about his choice of methods.

The remaining two sessions were devoted to practicing effective goal setting in
relation to his specific performance improvement and developing a longer term plan
that was appropriately broken down into achievable, meaningfully rewarding
segments. A six-month “check-in” with both the client and his manager revealed that
the client had achieved a “vast improvement” in performance and the problem was
“ancient history”.
No magic, no funny linguistic tricks, no complicated theories or painful “hair shirts”

were required to help the client get “unstuck” – just full attention, careful
questioning and more care-full listening and ‘invisible’ coaching.
In helping someone to get unstuck it’s important to have a variety of ways and means
at your disposal but it’s more important to understand how you want your
intervention to affect your client’s thinking.
The tools and ideas that follow are to prompt your thinking rather than to be used
as instruments of torture for your clients.
There are thousands of methods for doing so.
Here a few ideas:
1. Normalising
People who are having trouble or encountering difficulties sometimes feel that they
are the only one who has ever had the problem. They sometimes feel shame,
freakish or incompetent because of their inability to handle the situation effectively.
While there is no gender restriction to this issue, it can be fairly common among
men who are used to keeping a “No Problem!” face on things.
When a client expresses feeling isolated, alone with a problem or embarrassed by

having a problem, you ask yourself whether you have had a similar problem or know
someone else who has or possess some data regarding the occurrence of the
problem. You then self-disclose to your client using a brief (very brief – one short
sentence) anecdote or piece of information that implies or suggests they are not
alone.
For example:
“So you feel ‘completely alone’ with this. That can be a tough place to be but,
you know, there was an article recently in Harvard Business Review called
‘It’s Lonely At The Top’ that speaks about the difficulties senior executives
have with… you may be feeling alone in this but that feeling seems to be fairly
common… ”
or

“You say that you feel ‘exposed and isolated’. Although I’m not in your
situation, I can appreciate feeling that way. I’ve spoken with a few people who
used similar words to describe their situation. It may feel like you’re the only
one; but this issue is somewhat common.”
2. Like, Intend, Must (LIM)
Useful for any plan or when someone reaches an obstacle the questions are:
What would you like to have happen?

What do you intend to do?
What must happen?
3. Other’s points of view
Sometimes called ‘stakeholder analysis’ in the realms of strategy, it can be useful to

explore how the other people who are involved in the situation might think or feel
about what is going on. It can help to open up the client to the possibility that others
may be thinking the same things or that there is some systemic relationship between
their issues and what is happening with other people.
Questions could be:
“What do you think x thinks about this?”
“How do you think x sees this situation?”
“What do think x is hoping will happen?”
4. Leaping over a problem with language
People often get so focused on apparent obstacles and their inability to deal with
them that they can get into profoundly unhelpful states that are of no use in finding
solutions and ways of working with the apparent obstacles.
Have you ever heard the expression: “You’ll look back on this and laugh!”? Why
wait? You can look back on a problem from the perspective of what it will be like
after you have solved it – and use the sense of relief or any ideas that might occur to
you as a way to work on the issue now.”

At its simplest this might be expressed:
“What will it be like, when you’ve already overcome this

obstacle/problem/x?”
“From that perspective, now, with the benefit of hindsight, what advice would
you give to yourself that will help you in going forward?”
As you may imagine, this works by asking light heartedly, playfully and sincerely.
There are a huge range of possibilities for you might use this type of approach.
Sensitivity to context is all important. Someone who has suffered a great loss or
trauma does not need some Hypno-Clown™ trying to jolly them along…
5. Help them to search for the resources they need
Resources are defined as anything your client will need in order to accomplish their
objective. They start with internal resources – the attitudes, beliefs, emotional states,
similar experiences they have had, role models, etc. from which a human being builds
their capabilities.
The question is where or when has the client already demonstrated the internal
resources that they will need?
Go and find them… the first, and arguably most important, resource to check is
their desire.
Have they thought through their objectives thoroughly enough that the pay-offs are
clear, unambiguous and motivating? What else will they need?
Ask them, and then have them search their experience.
The other set of resources you need to check are the external supports – this can
be time, money, colleagues, family, space and anything else that relates to outside
world. The first external check you make is for opportunities. Where has your client
been squandering their opportunities for productive progress? Get excited about the
possibility of underused resources just lying around waiting for your client to
discover them. Go find them…
6. Handling indecision
Sometimes apparent indecision stems from having inadequately explored the benefits
and consequences of each possibility or option.

You can offer some or all of the following questions to prompt your client to expand
and explore their situation:
1. In what ways do you benefit if you do this? (Carrot)
2. What consequences will you avoid if you do this? (Stick)
3. What benefits do you get by not doing this? (Stay the same)
4. What consequences will you incur by not doing this? (Lose)
A deep, dark secret of performance management
When you hear protestations regarding acceptance of, possession of, or compliance
with a goal or outcome but where action is lacking – check for other goals or
outcomes that are competing for your client’s attention. Sometimes a precious goal
or value is being defended through non-compliance with a stated objective.
Essentially, crossed-motivations from trying to pursue two different and conflicting
goals simultaneously leads to strange behaviours and events.
For example, a client had been “trying” to lose weight for 18 months.
Although attending Weight Watchers meetings religiously and protesting that they
were sticking tightly to the plan; the client managed to gain 7 pounds during the time
period.
In testing exactly what the client had been doing, it became apparent that they had
not been weighing, measuring and otherwise effectively managing portion control of
their food, as specified in the program they said they were following – they were
estimating “by eye” and “around” – which happened to lead to huge portions and
foods that were not in the programme.
Despite the absence of results AND the revelation of non-compliance; the client
presented that they were mystified as they were “sure” that they were following the
program… “in their own way” (as almost a throw-away comment).
Following discussion, it emerged that in their life, across situations and domains and
circumstances, they have “always” actively resisted being told what they were going
to do. They placed a very high value on deciding for themselves what they would or
wouldn’t do (“I always do it MY way”).
So, in this particular circumstance, pursuing the intention to do it their way, led them
to literally ignore the explicit strategy that works for 1000s of others and that they
had been paying for, over a period of 18 months, …

in preference for their own approximation of a few of the features of the strategy
(attending meetings, etc.) – leading to a net gain of weight, at a cost of hundreds of
dollars.
Crossed motivations were resolved very simply – the client was encouraged to
choose for themselves to perform the strategy precisely – performing all required
stipulations in detail not because they were “being told what to do by someone else”
but because “their way” was to use the system. Twelve weeks after the intervention;
the client had lost 17 pounds easily and without struggle.
Get the ground level sorted… and then apply your special secret ninja methods…

"If you can't find the truth right in front of you, where do you expect to find it?"
- Dogen

Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja Training Manual

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja Training Manual

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja

Welcome to our Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja!

A few things before we start:

1. The Using Hypnotic Language Like A Ninja Workshop is what

3. The process for this workshop is intensive. We will be going beyond

I hope you truly benefit from this time we spend together.

2 All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted.

All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted. 3

4 All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted.

Outside Their Map Inside Their Map

Lost Performative Mind Reading

Non-referring nouns Unspecified Verbs

All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted. 5

Outside Their Map Inside Their Map

Lost Performative Mind Reading

Nominalisations Complex Equivalence

6 All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted.

All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted. 7

Universal Modal Cause &

Universal “I can’t give talks in public” Cause &

‘I can’t [under any circumstance] give talks in public [because…]

“I can’t give talks in public”,

“So you have never given a talk in public?”

8 All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted.

Here is a transcript from a session I observed. Speaker’s emphasis is italicised:

“I can’t give talks in public”

“Oh dear, do you have to give talks?”

“Yes, I have to give a talk next week and I am terrified!”

“Well, you don’t have to be terrified. Feeling terrified is not

“My stomach is churning already. I just don’t want to do it.”

“No [tears start].”

Awful. Just appalling.

“I can’t give talks in public”

“What would happen if you could give talks in public?”

“I can’t give talks in public”

All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted. 9

10 All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted.

All language operates through the process of presupposition. A presupposition is

How many presuppositions can you identify in the example above?

All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted. 11

b. Pronouns (Him, Her, They, It)

d. Generic (non-referring) Noun Phrases

e. Some Quantifiers (all, every, some, many, few, etc.)

b. Subordinate Clauses of Time

12 All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted.

j. Repetitive Cue Words

All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted. 13

n. Change-of-State Verbs and Adverbs

o. Change of State Verbs

p. Factive Verbs and Adjectives

q. Commentary Adjectives and Adverbs

r. Counterfactual Conditional Clauses

14 All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted.

“I want to know who defanged my snake?”

All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted. 15

The Milton Model provides some suggested means of constructing communication in

Causal Modelling or Linkage

a) The weakest linkage makes use of conjunctions to connect otherwise

16 All materials © NLPTIMES.COM 2017, unless otherwise noted.

“Thinking this way will only make you feel better.”

d) And a sneaky way of causal modelling is stating it though Mind Reading:

Presuppositions are the most powerful of language patterns, when used by a

Indirect Elicitation Patterns