Here’s an example of an unspecified adjective:

 ”Feel that special feeling.”

“Special?” How specifically is it special? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Is it special because of it’s rarity? Are you saying “special” because it’s sinfully wonderful but you can’t say that? Especially with the unspecified noun that follows (a nominalization, actually), the speaker is leaving a LOT of room for interpretation.

Because it is unspecified, the speaker will not know exactly how the listener will interpret that sentence, but can be confident they will chose something special. In fact, if you’re doing a group induction everyone will feel something “special” and it might well be different for everyone, and yet they all feel as though you are talking directly to their experience.

Some other unspecified adjectives: (it is arguable that all adjectives are somewhat unspecific. Even if a person said “that was fantastic chile,” We wouldn’t really know exactly how good it was. Some adjectives are, however, more unspecified than others. Tonality will play a big role in the meaning communicated.)

fine (Melissa saw it in fine detail.)

memorable (They had a memorable evening.)

interesting (Helen had an interesting experience.)

challenging (Joel had a challenging teacher.)

fun (Annie sent a fun memo.)

You get the idea. Your being nonspecific does two things for you: 1. Your client will need to resolve the confusion that is engendered and 2. you will not be inadvertently speaking contrary to their experience.

Now go out there and practice with people. And have fun.

Modal Operators of Necessity/ Possibility
A “Modal Operator” is a word like “should.”  As in, “I should lose weight.” If a client uses them with us we might use the meta model to elicit more information. We could ask questions like, “What would happen if you did?” or “What’s been preventing you from losing weight?”

People use modal operators all the time and they have varying levels of emotional impact. As an example, notice the difference in yourself if you think of an activity you’d benefit from doing and say to yourself, “I should do that.” Then do that again but replace the modal operator “should” with “must.” “I must do that.” Notice the difference. We have shifted from a model operator of possibility to one of necessity.

Speaking hypnotically, we can purposely use modal operators with great effect.

“You don’t have to listen to every word that I say, you can just listen to the sound of my voice as you drift down deeply into trance.”

Some modal operators are: should / shouldn’t / must / mustn’t / can / can’t / have to / will / won’t

Here’s an example from Milton Erickson, after his client said he didn’t want to come back from a trance:

“No, you don’t want to come back from a trance, you don’t want a charming movie to end, you don’t want a flower to wilt, but you do like reality!“

Chaining Modal Operators

You can chain them together in fun and creative ways.

“I know you think you can’t do it on your own, but when you feel you can’t, you must try, and when you try you’ll find that you can find new possibilities opening up to you that you will be able to take advantage of.”

You could practice your language skills and have fun, or your might practice your language skills and feel confident that you’re improving rapidly. Either way, you must admit, practice makes perfecter, don’t it?

 Universal Quantifiers

One of the things we do to make sense of the world is generalize. It makes survival so much easier.  However, the process also is limiting to our experience. As an example, if a person meets an aggressive dog and generalizes “all dogs are mean,” they’d miss out on many sweet moments with our canine friends. It might keep them “safe,” but so would an ability to discern between aggressive dogs and tail wagging friendly dogs.

One of the chief functions of the meta model, then, is to question these generalizations and thus lead to a richer, more functional representation.

Examples: All, Every, Never.

“All women are empathetic and good listeners.”

“Everyone knows I am a wonderful dancer.”

“I never have any fun.”

Of course, if someone said something like that to us we’d immediately employ the Meta Model to challenge their generalization.

“All women are empathetic and good listeners.” – “Really? I had an aunt who was a real witch and never listened to a word anyone said.”

 ”I never have any fun.” - “Never? Remember last weekend when we went to six flags amusement park? You rode the monster coaster 11 times.”

Or we wouldn’t. Sometimes we’d hear the client’s generalizations and decide to leave them alone. Just because you have a tool doesn’t mean you have to use it. If the generalization works for them and is ecological, you might choose to leave it as it lays.

“Everyone knows I am a wonderful dancer.” – “Well, you worked hard and earned it.”

However, we’re talking more about how we can use these patterns for therapeutic purposes. We’re talking about REVERSING the meta model and PURPOSELY using generalizations with good intent.

“With every breath you’ll go deeper into trance.”
“All cigarettes taste the same… horrible.”
“You never need be concerned, using this process to go into trance.”

It’s the very nature of a post-hypnotic suggestion, is it not?

“Every time you see the color red you’ll know you are a non-smoker.”

If you practice and have fun, you’ll always get better and better.
So have fun practicing!

Reality - what a concept.

A long time ago a friend said “reality is just a crutch for people who can’t handle drugs.” But I think it is more than that.

The nature of reality is a fascinating topic that has long captivated the human imagination and could easily take many more pages of writing than anyone would want to read. After all, the question of what is real vs. what is imagined seems simple at first.
“I’ll believe it when I see it.”
Or “Seeing is believing,” are two commonly used phrases that express this.

This is until you begin to recognize just how complex something as seemingly simple as vision really is.

We assume that when we open our eyes in the morning, the world is all out there in front of us and seeing is effortless and instantaneous. In fact, when you look at an object, you get a distorted, upside down image in your retina that excites the photoreceptors which sends the messages through the optic nerve to the brain where they are analyzed in THIRTY different visual areas in the back of your brain. And then finally, after analyzing all the individual features, you identify what you’re looking at. You piece it together and identify it in a place in your brain called the fusiform gyrus. That’s when your conscious mind pops in and says, “I know that face.”

More over, there are BILLIONS of bytes of sensory input happening at any given moment and the reason we aren’t just totally overloaded by it all is that our other-than-conscious mind distorts, deletes and generalizes all that information and we, consciously, focus on just a small sliver of all that. It’s a byte-sized bit we can handle.

And what we distort, delete, and generalize is based on our pre-conceived beliefs about what’s important to pay attention to.

So many times, our, “Seeing is Believing” idea is really, “I’ll see what I want to see and believe what I already pretty much do believe already.”

I actually think it’s kind of funny to think that we create our own reality.

Because, on one hand, we do… in the way I’ve described above… our perceived reality is based on our internal map of the world we’ve created in our minds.

But, on the other hand, there is also objective reality. As an example, tonight, before you go to bed, rearrange your furniture. Then in the middle of the night, when you get up to get a glass of water, your shins will remind you that the map in your mind did not put the coffee table back where it belongs. You do not create the objective reality; you do create your response to it and the map of how to interact within it.

This is where the Ericksonian concept of pacing and leading comes from. Erickson realized that this individual model of the world we live in is unique to each of us. There are many commonalities, of course, but the gestalt is unique to each individual. So he would attempt to enter into a person’s world (to pace their experience) and then gently lead them to an expanded way of looking at the world.

So while I think it is useful to visualize what you want and state it in the positive, don’t expect a genie to simply plop it in your lap. You might want to get out of bed and take some actions steps towards its creation.

At least, that’s the way I see it.

By the way, my friend and colleague Hali Chambers stimulated this discussion on a blog post she wrote last week. She’s added to the discussion on a more recent post. It’s excellent. Have a look. Here’s a link

Complex Equivalence

A complex equivalence is a statement of a belief. Famously, in some people’s model of the world, it is one of the two forms of a belief that is used in Sleight of Mouth. (Cause/effect is the other)

The simple structure of a complex equivalent is “X means Y.” This means that. They are equivalent.

“Your trance experience means you are changing.”
“Your listening to my voice means you will go into trance.”

Of course, if someone said that to us, we’d be all over statements like that. We’d whip out our knowledge of the Meta Model or Sleight of Mouth, and say “Really? What makes it that way?”
“You’re saying that simply hearing your voice makes me go into trance? How specifically does it mean I’ll go into trance?”

But as hypno-guides, that’s exactly what we are saying. We are purposely being vague and fuzzy with our language (purposely violating the meta model) in order to influence the client. And as the client hears our statements and accepts them, off they go into trance. Of course, it’s not the only thing we’ll be saying. One language pattern alone may not do anything particularly dramatic. But as one of many suggestions offered along the way, they have an effect.

In a similar fashion, Erickson has been quoted as once saying the following:
“You have a conscious mind and an unconscious mind. And I have a conscious mind and an unconscious mind. And we are both sitting in the same room together, so trance is inevitable.” (That’s more of a Pacing and Leading statement, really, but it is similar in effect. To fit the specific complex equivalence pattern it could be stated thusly, “…and our sitting in the same room together means trance is inevitable.”)

Here’s an example in sales, “Your desire to keep your family safe means you’ll buy this car.”

I’d like to put forth the notion that much of what we do in Neo-Ericksonian Hypnosis is alter beliefs. And, a complex equivalence is a statement of belief, so you’ll use this pattern a lot. Keep in mind that, as Erickson and Rossi point out in their book Hypnotherapy, “there are three basic phases (in hypnotherapy) that can be outlined and discussed for didactic purposes: Preparation, Therapeutic Trance, and Ratification of Therapeutic Change.” So it is critical that after the client has an unusual experience in Hypnosis, that you “ratify their therapeutic change” by directing them to make a meaning out of that experience that is positive and useful. You want them to come away with a belief like, “That odd experience means I will achieve my outcome.”