2nd order change

[Keith]

In the article The Sins* of the Fathers Carmen and John suggest that;

“... a second order change is required whenever any one or more of the following three markers are present

1. an addiction

2. a physiological symptom

3. a behaviour with significant secondary gain involved.”

My question is, with regard to #2. a physiological symptom, do we reframe the symptom or assume there is a behaviour that causes the symptom and so reframe the assumed behaviour?  Or do we first ask the unconscious if there is a behaviour causing the symptom or is the symptom the behaviour?

Keith

[John Grinder]

Keith

There are different ways that a client with a physiological symptom can be offered assistance, ranging from ole faithful - N Step Reframing to tasks, formats such as the Doctor Within.. to new code games.

The point of the distinction between 1st and 2nd order change is that (with notable exceptions) a first order change can be handled by any anchoring format without further flourish. A second order change (again with notable exceptions) uses the positive intention behind the original behavior to be changed (the condition that is producing the symptom as a device to generate a set of behaviors, all of which are equal to or more effective (then the original behavior - the symptom) in satisfying the original positive intention (or intentions)behind the conditon that is creating the symptom. The purpose of using the positive intention is two-fold to ensure that rhe process of change that occurs involves no ''resistance'' (something that is typical of attempts at unbounded change - changes that do not satify the original intent) and do not reverse themselves in the near future. This filtering of the set of all possible changes by the sieve of the original intent can be accomplished literally or metaphorically, with or without conscious knowledge of the ''content'' of the changes (the original intention, the new choices generated...)verbally or non-verbally...

I have slowly come to the perception in the last couple of years that the integration of high-performance states (states resulting, for example, from new code games) into an well-developed representation of the context(s) in which the symptom expresses itself is typically adequate. I have done this primarily by leaving out all aspects of the filtering by positive intention that I can identify.

A warning - it may well be that as in the case of Bandler and I coding the classic code patterning (the main point of the ''Sins'' article Carmen and I wrote) I am doing something implicit in my interactions with the client that I have yet to make explicit that is functionally equivalent to the use of the original positive intent as a filter on the case of all acceptable substitute behaviors.

Lots of choices, lots of toys!

If I somehow missed the point of your question, please insist.

John

[Keith]

Hi John,

Thank you.

You said;

''I have done this primarily by leaving out all aspects of the filtering by positive intention that I can identify.''

John, what does this mean?  If you could expand on this it would be greatly appreciated?

All the best,

Keith

[John Grinder]

Keith

In the testing a possiblity - in this case, the possibility that the integration of a high-performance state into the context in which the player desires that the change occur does NOT require the use of an identified (although not necessarily consciously) positive intention as a filter to constraint the selection of replacement behaviors as appropriate and ecological for the player - what I intended to express was that I review my own behavior and excise all behavior that I can identify that either literally and metaphoricly appeals to the positive intention of the behavior being replaced.

Hope this is clearer - what I suspect is happening is that in the re-code of the classic patterning into the new code, the shift to insisting that the unconscious be assigned the responsibility for the selection of new behavioirs but exclusively at the point when the player next (and each subsequent occasion) re-enters the selected context and the insistance that the changes work be limited to state manipulations and avoid all pre-selection of behaviors, when the player actually re-enters the selected context post-game, the unconscious simply takes into account both the implicit and unconscious intentions of the player and the specifics of the context presently encountered and applies something very much like the filtering done by the use of positive intention in other formats (e.g. N step Re-framing.

All the best,

John

[Robin]

John

In Response To
Keith you write
''In the testing a possiblity - in this case, the possibility that the integration of a high-performance state into the context in which the player desires that the change occur does NOT require the use of an identified (although not necessarily consciously) positive intention as a filter to constraint the selection of replacement behaviors as appropriate and ecological for the player''


John may I ask
Isn't your take here a re-format of old Erickson's nominalised format called utilzation but with a flavor/twist of a more specifiable pre HPS (bilateral equalization)thru your new code games?


But by the way I am not touching your second paragraph yet. Wow! Through the floor!

[Keith]

Hi John,

You said;

“... what I intended to express was that I review my own behaviour and excise all behaviour that I can identify that either literally and metaphoricly appeals to the positive intention of the behaviour being replaced.”

Are you here suggesting that you consciously/unconsciously avoid, in part or whole, all behaviour that you have done previously in the target context with the purpose of experimenting with behaviour (unconsciously determined) that you have not yet tried to determine how the new behaviour influences all involved?

You said;

“... but exclusively at the point when the player next (and each subsequent occasion) re-enters the selected context and the insistance that the changes work be limited to state manipulations and avoid all pre-selection of behaviors, when the player actually re-enters the selected context post-game, the unconscious simply takes into account both the implicit and unconscious intentions of the player and the specifics of the context presently encountered and applies something very much like the filtering done by the use of positive intention in other formats...”

O.K.  I’d like to throw you my hallucination with the hope that you will tell me if I’m close.  Are you suggesting that instead of unconsciously predetermined behaviours, that are as good as if not better than the original behaviour, for those contexts where the original state of mind was not conducive to generating behaviours that could satisfy all of the positive intentions that the original state of mind failed to generate, that a content free HPS would naturally allow the player to have greater access to sensory input/feedback allowing the unconscious to generate, on the spot, behaviours appropriate to context?

It seems like the bleeding obvious now that I think about it.  Any new behaviours generated presuppose new/different states of mind... but the request for new/different behaviours may constrain the choice of state and so, possibly, be a filter that disallows the generation of new/different behaviour, in the moment, given that any new behaviours will influence those involved resulting in behaviours possibly not previously experienced, e.g., the system attempting to maintain a static stability by, perhaps, insisting the player resume their original identity (familiar and acceptable patterns of behaviour).

All the best,

Keith 

[Anthony]

Your story reminds me of the last time I got lost in King of Prussia , PA.

My conscious mind gave up so I decided to call home and have my wife look up new directions from Map Point. Oh the wonders of modern technology.

make things so much easier than they were!

thanks good doctor!

Anthony

[John Grinder]

Robin

Well. utilization in the sense that Bandler and I used it in the four phase (of the five stage  modeling model from Whispering) of modeling Erickson refers to all those processes for which Erickson was so well (and justly) known, and it contrasts with inductiion. In other words, at the highest logical level of description of Erickson's work, we selected induction of the altered state which is followed by utilization.

Now there is at least one profound difference between the two sets of processes (induction and utilization). While the inductions (ala Erickson) are ultimately successful (or not) based on the ability of the hypnotist to use his or her sensory acuity to detect and his or her flexibility to incorporate the client's responses during induction and thus can be usefully understood as an exercise in such utilization, the induction typically begins with some structure (linkage, metaphor...) while the Utilization phase is driven nearly entirely by the responses (typically the non-verbal unconscious physiological responses) of the client to the myriad suggestions, stories and in general the artful use of patterns developed so elegantly by Dr. Erickson and coded by Bandler and me.

So, in these operational-defined senses of the terms, induction and utilization, the closest I can come to what you are proposing is that the at the termination of a well-executed new code change format, the unconscious mind of the player is well-prepared such that subsequent re-entries into the selected context will elicit different behaviors, all of which flow from the automatically unconsciously re-activated high performance state and which most importantly are generated at the time of entry into whatever particular member of the set of selected contexts. In this sense the player's unconscious mind is utilizing the intersection of the high-performance state and the specific cues available in context to generate new and effective behavior.

Let me know if this makes sense to you.

John

[John Grinder]

Keith

You wrote,

''Are you here suggesting that you consciously/unconsciously avoid, in part or whole, all behaviour that you have done previously in the target context with the purpose of experimenting with behaviour (unconsciously determined) that you have not yet tried to determine how the new behaviour influences all involved?''

Not exactly - I was referring to processes higher in the logical levels. I was referring to a protocol for testing an idea - in this particular case, the idea being that the intersection of a high-performance state and a specific member of the set of selected target contexts will naturally yield an effective and ecological consequence - the interative generation of new and effective behaviors in the set of target contexts. Amd, in particular, I edit my own behavior to remove any behavior on my part that explicitly or implicitly suggests to the client involved that he or she might consider filtering selected behavior to ensure the same consequences as occurs when the positive intent is explicitly used in such a filtering function.

OK?

You also wrote,

'' I’d like to throw you my hallucination with the hope that you will tell me if I’m close.  Are you suggesting that instead of unconsciously predetermined behaviours, that are as good as if not better than the original behaviour, for those contexts where the original state of mind was not conducive to generating behaviours that could satisfy all of the positive intentions that the original state of mind failed to generate, that a content free HPS would naturally allow the player to have greater access to sensory input/feedback allowing the unconscious to generate, on the spot, behaviours appropriate to context?''

Yes, I recognize your formulation as a paraphrase of what I was attempting to communicate. I might adjust the language a bit - for example, you wrote,

''... instead of unconsciously predetermined behaviours, that are as good as if not better than the original behaviour''

where I would suggest ''..instead of consciously or unconsciously predetermined behaviors, that are as good as if not better than the original behavior with respect to satisfying the presupposed original positive intent.''

For me, the key issue is to avoid through any predetermination concerning the behaviors that will occur, rehearsals that actually become impediments to precise and creative behavior in the specific contexts selected. Note that the new code refuses to address inappropriate, ineffective or obselete behavior, it simply manipulates state and a context.

John

[Keith]

Hi John,

You wrote,

'' - in this particular case, the idea being that the intersection of a high-performance state and a specific member of the set of selected target contexts will naturally yield an effective and ecological consequence - ''

By ''ecological consequence'' are you referring to the person's ability to adapt to/utilise changes within the target context that have been influenced by the new and different behaviours?  Or does it mean that presupposed in the New Code format we have invited the unconscious to explore the potential consequences after the HPS has been associated to the target context - before actually entering the context?  Or...?

Keith