Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics
Posted by: Todd
Date/Time: 18/10/2003 16:42:58

I'm continuing our discussion as I too am finding it very productive.

I submit the following, not in an attempt to change your beliefs but for something to consider. It infills some of my previous post to give some background and additional information that I did not include.

Put another way...
Here are some responses to your comments and additional beliefs I hold regarding the issue of ethics.

re: "The proposition/belief/frame that goes something like, "the individual has the inner resources they need" is a content in and of itself."
This is true. However, it is a content of the therapist and as a therapist I can select the content and act "as if" it is true in the context of therapy or elsewhere or not. My point is that it is MY content and can hold it in my neurology while working with clients. That doesn't mean THEY have to believe it or that I have to introduce it as content in their model of the world.

re: I think for most NLPers believe there is, as you say, a 'tacit agreement that (the therapist) will help them access and utilize their resources', but clearly this is an opinion that many people seeking help do not share; it's not in there map.

I am not sure what most NLP'ers believe on this one, but I agree with you that most clients probably don't believe this. In fact, most clients, in my experience of about 10 years of facilitating changework, probably come into the relationship believing that the resource is in the therapist!

Sooooo here's the situation upon beginning this relationship...

1. You immediately have what has been described as a "power imbalance" in the relationship. i.e. "I have something going on in my life that I can't change and I think you can"
2. You probably have a therapist, especially if there are competent in NLP, who can help them in contexts where they can not currently achieve the results that they want
3. If therapist is competent in NLP, they will also be aware of mucho communication from the client of which the client is totally unaware!

So how do I manage this type relationship as the individual in the relationship who has more information?

My answer comes right from Erickson, as tested by my experience: I treat all communications that come from the client and are outside of their awareness as priviliedged. Hey, if there unconscious wanted them to know consciously, they already would!

Lastly, as per my point above, I would not introduce this content (that my role is to help them access their own resources) to the client, I would simply hold it in my own neurology.

re:Over the years I have come across many many people who are dependent on Bandler and Grinder.  They express this dependency by talking about the time they got to be a demonstration subject and much they wish they could work with them again so as to get help.  I agree that six-step reframing is almost content free, but you can get just as dependent on it as  you can cigarettes.

Please note an important distinction that you have muddled. You leap from being dependent on B&G; to being dependent on 6-step reframing. These are distinctly different dependencies (internal/external locus of control, relationship /process, for example)
I would say the same for cigarettes and 6-step reframing. They are just not at the same level. For example a part of my neurology is utilized for learning...

Does this mean that I am dependent on learning?
If so, I'll take it.
Smoking a cigarette can produce positive changes in my state. Do I want more. No thanks, I'd rather have more choice about how to change my state. I think dependence on cigarettes, in it's common usage, is about having less or no choice.

In fact, if you go to a higher logical level of learning and not only become 'dependent' on 6-step reframing, but were to actually (t)ask your unconscious to seek out contexts where you can apply the pattern and then do so unsciously daily. Wow! How dependent on 6-step reframing you could become! And what a glorious dependence it would be.
It would also be your own neurology that you'd be 'dependent' on. A far cry from dependence on cigarettes.

Lastly, the issue of not fostering dependence on other which I first thought of as being in service to the client, is also purely selfish. And wonderfully so. Why would I want to go around creating dependent relationships? There is an answer to that one. Some people indlulge and it can be quite seductive, but in my experience the downside far outweighs the upside.
That's what I meant when I said, "Been there, done that, next."

Again, I've really enjoyed our dialog and hope that reading this provides some additional food for thought that you can use.

Now, "I've got to go out and have a 6-step reframe"



Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
ethics17/10/2003 16:41:45Matt Ross
     Re:ethics17/10/2003 16:56:56Michael Carroll
          Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 01:10:09Matt
               Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 04:12:58Todd Sloane
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 13:10:13Matt
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 16:42:58Todd
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 22:49:40matt
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics19/10/2003 03:56:33Todd
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics20/10/2003 23:42:57matt
     Re:ethics17/10/2003 18:26:11nj
          Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 13:14:00Matt
               Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 17:01:52Todd
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 20:41:21matt
               Re:Re:Re:ethics20/10/2003 22:38:54nj
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics20/10/2003 23:41:42matt
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics20/10/2003 23:53:04nj
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics21/10/2003 15:59:14matt
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics21/10/2003 19:51:25nj
          Re:Re:ethics18/10/2003 13:26:11matt
               Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 00:30:08John Grinder
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 04:26:57matt
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 13:33:34Tim Bray
                    Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 14:44:38Eric Bollinger
                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 16:09:03Lewis Walker
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics22/10/2003 16:59:15Jon Edwards
                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 03:13:46Todd
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 03:56:16carrie
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 22:07:33nj
                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 13:56:46Jon Edwards
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 16:35:58carrie
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)23/10/2003 17:35:48John Grinder
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 00:21:58carrie
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 08:27:37John Grinder
                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)29/10/2003 02:23:16matt ross
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)29/10/2003 21:33:46Dan
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 03:33:31Todd
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 13:47:49carrie
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 03:47:34Todd
                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)24/10/2003 14:32:05Jon Edwards
                                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 04:33:59Todd
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 04:47:06nj
                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 12:07:31Jon Edwards
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 13:26:19Oscar Logieas
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)25/10/2003 18:38:44nj
                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)26/10/2003 01:09:05Todd
                                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)27/10/2003 08:11:18nj
                                                                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)06/11/2003 06:12:16Todd
                                                                                Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:ethics (metaphor)06/11/2003 12:07:36Pete West

Forum Home