Neo-Ericksonian Approaches

One of the characteristics of the unconscious mind (aka the subconscious or other-than-conscious) mind is its ability to allow for and be comfortable with a both/and awareness. It operates from a both/and logic base.

This separates it from the conscious mind in that the conscious tends to operate from an either/or logic base. To the conscious mind, things are either good or bad, right or wrong, up or down in or out, this OR that… an either/or logic base.

That reminds me of a story…

At the very end of his training as a warrior, Carlos Casteneda was taken by Don Juan to a pair of twin mesas in the Sonora dessert. It was an arduous journey just to get there and an even more strenuous climb to the top. These were tremendously high mesas. They were a easily a thousand feet high. Little did Carlos know that this was no ordinary day. This was his final exam to see if he could graduate from being a warrior to being a Sorcerer. His task was simple. He was to leap from one mesa to the other. The only problem with that was that they were a thousand feet up and the mesas were a good 12 feet apart (similar to but different from the ones pictured above). Now, he had jumped twelve feet on solid ground. He had also NOT jumped twelve feet on solid ground and when he missed he dusted himself off and tried again. There could be no second chances this time. If he missed, he’d fall to his death.

Herein lay the quandary. To not jump meant giving up every thing he’d worked for for years. Dismal failure. Emotionally equivalent to a long, slow death. To complete the jump meant achieving all he’d worked for but if he missed… certain, sudden death.

Carlos had to abandon himself to the moment; abandon himself to the the task. He had to let go of all fears and all doubts and give absolutely everything he had, no holds barred. But wait – he couldn’t abandon control. Remember, there was no margin for error. Twelve feet was his limit. If he planted his foot and took off even an inch back from the edge, he would not make it. He had to plant that foot PRECISELY on the edge. And it had to be his left foot since he was right footed. So he had to be totally controlled. Each foot step measured and planned out with enough steps so he’d reach maximum velocity right at the very moment of leaping

This was not a place or time when he could choose one OR the other. This was not about choosing between being contolled or abandoned. No. He had to have BOTH. He had to be totally controlled AND totally abandoned AT THE SAME TIME.

He carefully measured his steps several times, practicing the choreography of what he was about to do. His body was electric, his heart in his throat and yet his mind was clear and quiet. He knew this might be his last act on earth and he was doing it impeccably. He measured his steps one last time, stood at the place he’d chosen as his starting point, paused for a moment as time seemed suspended, and then, letting go of all hesitation, he went.

Now, I would wager he was in a pretty profound trance as he launched himself into the sky, wouldn’t you? I would also wager it was nothing like what many people think of when they think hypnosis. I’d bet his eyes were wide open. I’d bet his senses were on maximum alert.

(I’d also bet he made the jump since he wrote the book to tell about it.)

Ericksonian Hypnotic Language Patterns

Conversational Postulates are Yes/No questions that elicit responses rather than a literal answer. They are useful because you completely avoid resistance; since you’re only asking a question, you can’t fail. As an example, if you ask someone, “Do you know what time it is?,” the person could say “Yes” or “No,” but 99.99% of people will simply tell you the time.

My friend Greg loves to use this one when the check comes at a restaurant, “Did you bring your credit card?”

“Can you tell me how to get to airport?”

“Can you hand me that pen?”

“Do you know the way to San Jose?”

And, of course, for purposes useful to a hypnotherapist:

“Could you sit back and relax?”

“Can you close your eyes and go into trance?”

(These two examples have a little sneaky scope ambiguity too, don’t they? After all - a person might be able to sit back, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll relax. They may be able to close their eyes, but the linkage to going into trance is a presupposition, isn’t it?)

Neo-Ericksonian Philosophy

In the series of books by Carlos Castaneda regarding the teachings of Don Juan Matus, a Yaqui Indian Medicine Man, the author introduces us to the concept of using Death as an Advisor.

This teaching has been on my mind a lot recently because it seems death has been all around. From the unimaginably horrific fires that killed 200 people in Australia, to the crash of the commuter plane near Buffalo killing 50 people in an instant. There was also a news report of a female suicide bomber in Baghdad who killed 40 people, mostly women and children. How someone could carry out such a terrible act is beyond the ken.

I’ve felt a personal connection with two of these three events.
The Australian fires incinerated the conference center where we were scheduled to hold our “how deep the rabbit hole” seminar in May. I’ve been flying every week so far this year for seminars around the country and I’m originally from Buffalo.

But in all these cases, the people who died were just like you and me. They were simply going about their daily lives, when suddenly, death came.
So what does Don Juan teach?

There is a story from the books when he is training Carlos in the ways of the Warrior - a first step in becoming a Sorcerer. One day he was guiding Carlos on a hike through the desert. Their route required them to walk through the dry bottom of a steep canyon. The Mesa walls were immensely high on both sides. Halfway through the canyon Carlos had to stop to tie his shoe. In the minute that it took him to tie his shoe a huge boulder crashed down to earth right were they likely would have been if the had continued walking un-interrupted.

Carlos was shocked and pointed out that, if they had kept walking at their same pace, they’d be dead now. He said it was a miracle he’d stopped and that must mean it was fate or God or something that made this happen.

Don Juan said, “We don’t know that. After all, if we’d left the cabin one minute earlier we’d have stopped right where the boulder fell and we’d have been killed BECAUSE you stopped to tie your shoe.”

He continued, “You never know what action might be your last action on earth. All a warrior can do is - WHEN you stop to tie you shoe - tie your shoe IMPECCABLY.”

Ericksonian Hypnotic Language Patterns

The Cause-Effect pattern is another marvelously simple-yet-effective pattern. Those of you who have studied Sleight of Mouth with me will know what I mean when I say that a cause-effect is part of a normalized belief structure. So what we’re doing is suggesting a new belief to the client.

These are very much like implication and implied directives from a recent post. The difference is in the wording.

This pattern also falls into the category of “Single Binds” in that you are linking one cause to one effect as the only possibility.

The Basic Form:  “(X) causes (Y).”

“Listening to my voice causes you to go into trance.”

“Reading this sentence causes rapid learning.”

Here are some variations:

A. The more you (X), the more you (Y).

“The more you listen to my voice, the deeper you’ll go into trance.”

“The more you practice, the more you gain skill.”

C. The less you (X), the less you’ll (Y).

“The less you listen, the less you’ll learn.”

“The less you run the less you’ll be fit.”

D. The more you (X) the less you’ll (Y).

“The more you talk, the less you’ll hear.”

“The more you practice, the less you’ll forget.”

E. The less you (X) the more you’ll (Y).

“The less you talk, the more you’ll learn.”

“The less you stress about it, the more you’ll enjoy it.”

And you can chain them…

“The more you review these patterns, the more they make sense to you. If they make sense to you, then you’ll be more effective as a communicator. Being a more effective communicator causes you to become wealthier as a person.”

AND the more you write out your own examples, the more deeply you integrate your ability to use them in real life.

Dave Dobson was one of my main influences in the field of hypnosis. His  methods, termed “Other-than-Conscious Communication,” were similar to Milton Erickson’s in a variety of ways but also differed in one notable way, Dave’s purposeful use of humor.

Now, don’t get me wrong, Erickson had a famous sense of humor as well and was known to employ it strategically. I remember a story of a therapist attending a seminar Erickson was teaching. Although old and wheel-chair bound, Milton leaned over from his chair and, with great effort, lifted up a large rock from the ground. He held it for a moment, catching his breath, and then suddenly threw it at the man. The man was shocked when it hit him and bounced off harmlessly. It was a piece of foam rubber painted to look like a stone. Erickson looked at him with a twinkle in his eye and said, “Things are not always as they seem.”

However, as often as Milton used humor, he just as often did not. As an example, although he might have been chuckling on the inside, you can watch virtually any of the videos of Milton working with clients and find very few examples of Milton cracking a joke.

Dave frequently cracked jokes and he did so strategically. In a fashion perhaps more evocative of the Provocative Therapy of Frank Farrelly than of Ericksonian Hypnosis, Dave taught that humor had a very important place in therapy.

One of the core tenets of Dave’s approach to therapy was that people are patterned animals. Virtually everything we do is done other-than-consciously, i.e., without our direct conscious involvement. And, in the same way that strategies in NLP are made up of consistent Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic steps, these other-than-conscious actions are patterned; we’ll do the same thing every time.

Now, there’s no real problem with that if your patterns are working well for you and produce good results. The only problem is if these patterns produce undesired or unpleasant results. In this case, you need to interrupt the patterns.

Patterns can be interrupted in a variety of ways and, frankly, it doesn’t really matter how they are interrupted, as long as when you’re done it’s very difficult to ever run them again. But Dave’s point is, while you’re at it why not add some positive resources? Humor is an ideal choice.

If you can make it so that your client now laughs at situations that used to make them feel bad, you’ve done them a huge service, haven’t you? 

Of course, there is an art to how specifically to do this. Timing is paramount and rapport is essential. Sometimes I’ll do a session with no formal hypnosis at all and people will walk out very confused as to what that was all about but feeling oddly relieved of their complaint. Almost even forgetting what they had come for. Often I’ll do a Hypnotic induction towards the end of the session if only to satisfy the client that some “therapy” was being done. Just like, for a placebo to work the patient needs to know they got the pill.