Time lines and decision making

In 1993, with my wife Elisabeth, we had designed a 5 days seminar for alcoholics (a lot of alcoholics in France!) using NLP and our background in Gestalt as kinesthetic submodalities were almost absent of the NLP trainings we had.

We started using the parts model described in Reframing (Chapter 6). We used to follow the process described in this book :

1. Eliciting the 2 dissociated parts : the alcoholic part (AP) and the Sober part (SP).
2. Making them collapsing using anchoring or anything else that works
3. Reframing the New part (AP+SP) using 6 steps reframing.

Most of the time, we had good results. But a few month later, it seems that some patients get back to their habit. So getting them back for follow up session we discovered that the point was their decison making strategies. In other words "What do they do in their mind to make the decision of having a drink ?".

The strategy was quite simple :

1. Seeing a picture of themselves having a drink or being drunk
2. Associating themselves in the picture
3. Triggering a compulsion process.

Remarks

If we assume that addicted people got two very very dissociated parts (ie the addictive part (AP) and the sober part (SP)) we could say :

1. They are seeing a picture of their addictive part (AP)
2. When they are associating themselves in the picture, they are jumping into their AP.
3. The compulsion process is initiated into their AP.
4. The addiction in itself would be a way to stay as long as possible in this other part of themselves we call the addictive part. As alcoholics used to switch back and forth beetwin these two parts (depending what time it is or which day it is), heroin addicted people generally used to stay in their addictive part making their sober part to disappear.
5. Generally this decision strategy is not only used to decide to have a drink (or whatever they need) or not but it is also used in a wide range of decisions, involving different areas of their lives.

What we did

At a seminar, as we were eliciting decision strategies, we had the idea to train the participants in using different timelines configurations when they are making decision.

We chunked the decision process into three steps :

1. considering the decision,
2. evaluating the decision,
3. making it and acting out to get the outcome.

For each step we taught them to use a different timeline:

1. Being dissociated from time and looking at their full time line just in front of them and being able to see all the future consequences of their decision.
2. Being associated in their present and looking at their time line set as a V past on their left side and future on their right side, being able to see the consequences more precisely and being able to judge the value of their future comparing with similar past events.
3. Moving their timeline past behind future ahead and now being able to GO FOR IT !

This decision making installation has worked pretty well with several patients. Some of them got back to their habit for some time then stopped again as if they had the choice and are staying away from their habit until now.

Considering that that addicted people makes their decisions in a way that drive them back directly to their habit, Richard Bandler teaches now that we have to litteraly destroy their old way of making decisions and he taught us how to.

The neuronal metaphor

We could also consider this situation in other words: we could say that they have their neurons connected in such ways that all information contained in a particular stimulus is processed quickly and efficiently by a special set of neurons. This ef- ficient,experienced and powerful set of neurons is driving the person to respond to the stimulus - being addicted.

At this point, the fact is ,even if we are teaching the person to have different decision strategies, the old powerful stra- tegy is still here. In other words even if we are setting another whole bunch of neurons to process the new strategies the old set of neurons is still there ready to work, more powerful, more trained, faster (faster again because the old strategy is a short one). Therefore there is a big chance for this old strategy to come back especially in a certain critical situation when quick responses are needed.

The person had generally spent a whole life training his/her neurons to perform a very efficient compulsion. So "destroying" the old neuronal setting makes sense as being the only solution to avoid the person getting back to their habit, if something activates the old decision pattern. In fact the neuronal setting will not be destroyed: we'll ask the person to do something, so she/he will go away from the old pattern in spite of going to.

The addict's typical decision strategy

As Richard Bandler and Michael Breen taught us and as we had already noticed: addicts build their decision looking at a dissociated picture of themselves. Most of the time, this picture is a small still image (I don't want to say always but...). It is a good looking picture of themselves before or just when they start drinking or..so.

As said in the previous article, just after they jump into the picture and run the compulsion. They could say something in their head like "oh! Cool!..." or so on, then they jump into the picture.

The strategy is easy, fast, convenient, efficient and can deliver quick relief. Therefore we cannot rely only in setting a "better" decision strategy. The point would be to prevent the patient from getting back to the old decision strategy.

This picture doesn't have any content about any of the conse- quences of their habit. So the only solution is to force the client to make pictures of the consequences.

Making pictures and assembling them in a movie

Now we have to ask such questions to the client they will drive him/her to make internal pictures of what would happen step by step if he/she will drink again. The NLPer must maintain the patient dissociated from these pictures. We must collect pictures until we'll get the last terrible one as going to jail, dying, divorcing, being at the mental hospital or so. This picture must be the ultimate one.

When we get the full set of pictures, we have to ask the client to assemble them in a movie, in the right order.

Associating the client within the movie

This is the last step. It has to be done thoroughly with a certain tempo. The client must be driven all the time without any blank.

You have to ask your patient to run the movie in front of her/him staying dissociated until the last picture. As soon as the movie stops on the last image you have to make your client jump into this last terrible image and maintaining her/him associated, just asking : - Do you actually want this ?

At this point you must have a very strong response from your client both verbally: "Oh! No! NO! NOT THAT!" and non verbally: just calibrate.

If you ask your client about his feelings he would say he feel really anxious and he can't stay that way, he would say he need something else. Richard says you have to litteraly SCARE your client.

So it's time to install something else, it's time to ask the patient what does he actually want in his life ? It's time to do the change work, it's time to install new strategies. At this point, I think that we can use everything, from hypnosis, to NLP or DHE, it will work, the changes will last, especially with "reluctant" people. Now they do really need something else. So you have to help them learn something else valuable otherwise they could learn to be addicted in something else (!!!).

Conclusion

In fact all this process could be boiled down to: How to install a phobic response against the "let's go to my habit decision". In other words we could say that the patient had become phobic against a special set of neurons. The client will no longer use the old way of making the addicted decision. Depending how wide is the decision area you will have to install immediately at least one new decision strategy. You could install the kind of strategy described in my previous article or you could design a specific taylored one.

We had tested all the process described in this posting and it works. We do think that every well trained therapist could use it sucessfully. This process is not dedicated to people having a very particular set of skills as Richard Bandler or Bandler's freaks.

We assume that the benefits of this process will last even if we don't have yet any long time followup.

Questions and answers

Apologies

As English is not our native language, we are sure there are a lot a syntax and spelling mistakes in this article.

Decision Strategies
Questions and answers.

Associating the client in the movie, you refer to a 'certain tempo' for running the movie... what is the suggested tempo? Is it just ensuring there are no blanks - do you limit the time of each movie sequence - do you prompt to find out where they are at each stage of the movie.

This 'certain tempo' results from different elements :

• the rapport you have with your client.
• the speed you need to run the movie to avoid your client associating himself in the movie before the last picture.
• your own internal feeling of the adequate rythm.

Let's say you're leading your client as if you are dancing the waltz, you're leading and you're together in rythm.

It is a combination of objective and subjective experience.

In additonal to the neural model, I was told that if an alcoholic person stops drinking at age 20 and then resumes at age 30 then their drinking will quickly go to the level they would have drank had they not stopped for those10yrs.

There is a biochemical theory about addictions describing how neuro-transmittors need the THP molecule (tetra-hydro-papaveroline) to do their work. And addicts (esp alcoholics and heroin addicts) are producing so much THP that the usual way of production stops. So when they stop taking their substance their brain can't work normally for a while until it resumes producing THP. That would be the explanation of the withdrawal syndrom.

This model would suggest abstinence (and an effective abstinence strategy as you suggest) as the only effective course of action for the alcoholic.

In fact, alcohol, heroin and others substances, in the THP theory, could be considered as anchors: as soon as the abstinent addict's brain will receive at least one molecule of alcohol or heroin, they will be recognized and all the production of THP will stop again inducing the need.

In France this is the official scientific explanation of addictions and the reason why an alcoholic can't have one drink for the rest of his life without getting back in his habit.

Nice theory isn't ? But the fact is: this theory is a theory and in an NLP point of view can be considered as a belief (!!). Do you think it is a useful belief ? I don't think so because this belief induces that you're not responsible of what happens : that's the chemestry !!!

If there is an on-going biochemical process occuring, is it possible to install a strategy within the compulsive network that effectively exits out into the away from decision strategy? (Thus allowing 'no drink' or 'moderate drinking')

In a few words my answer is no if you want to do something 'within the compulsive network'. Let the compulsive network away and create something else.

It is a matter of logical level: a decision strategy or whatever else you are doing in your brain has its counterpart at the biochemical level. So any shift at the biochemical level has also its counterpart at the psychological level : did you notice the lack of any visual submodalities when dealing with people taking neuro-drugs?

I think the problem is : drinking strategies are very short, fast, efficient and whatever you'll install most of the time it can't be shorter, faster and more efficient. So you are risking the person will get back to the previous strategy when a quick and powerful response is needed.

So it is necessary to install a kind of a phobic response against the old decision strategy. Then you can install whatever you want or whatever the client needs as decision strategies. If you're familiar with deep trance work, you can install an automatic decision strategies generator... I think at this point, almost everything is possible, as the old mental structure of the patient is suddenly obsolete.

And doing all that I guess you are modifying the chemistry.

Also, is it possible to install a prior decision making process (drink/no drink) that has the same compulsive elements as the drinking decision making process?

As the previous question my answer is no. Too risky business. There is no objective reason for not recycling the compulsive elements in another pattern but considering them as a network they are linked together with short wide and 'well oiled' links so you get the risk information will suddenly follow the old pattern because it's easier.

To be more precise, let's dissociate the decison strategy from the compulsion. I do think that they are not related. Let me explain :

1. The drinking decison strategy occurs before the compulsion. We can say the addict is making the decision of jumping into his addictive personalty (Addictive Part).
2. Being associated in his addictive personalty, he can't stay there. To maintain himself associated he is running the compulsion process and he is drinking and drinking again. The compulsion is only a mean to stay associated in the addictive part.
3. Most of the time when they had found ways to integrate their 2 subpersonalties there is no need to do the 'Compulsion Blow up Process' because the compulsion is gone by itself : it isn't useful anymore.

So the major point is the need of a new decison strategy.

You described in earlier postings the strategy of building a powerful phobic response. Surely most alcoholics, however, are fully aware that they are on the path to ruin - having lost jobs, friends etc: anticipation of a dire outcome is not the same as a phobia (?).

We could say a phobia is a short strategy which get you away from something which had already driven you to a dire outcome.

Will they already have (sub)consciously accommodated in their ecology the future implications of the addiction, for the opportunity now for immediate gratification?

I do think they couldn't access to any information of the future implications of the addictions. These informations weren't available at the very moment when they made their drinking decision.

Would it be most effective perhaps to find out which phobias they now have: how they access the strategy and process the phobic state - and then we can use a similar strategy for alcohol? (Most people, I find have a phobia of something). Perhaps to associate the substance directly with the current phobic object/situation?

I don't think so because the 'phobic' strategy as most of Richard Bandler's patterns is working at several levels :

1. obviously to break down the drinking decision strategy.
2. to teach the individual how to build a movie from pictures'memories.
3. to teach the individual how to test the future implications of a present decision.

So I would say the 'phobic' strategy is much more generative, it doesn't only break down an inefficient decision strategy but also it builds the first layers of something else.

I question whether installing a phobia to eliminate addiction is just building fear upon fear(?) - that is, latterly, fear of current reality, that predicates the dissociated addictive self.

I would say that fear in itself can be a valuable behavior depending in which context it is activated.

If you are in a car driven by one of your relatives running at 130 mph just after your friend had drunk half a bottle of whisky, being scared is an adequate behavior and you must be scared enough to ask your driver to stop the car so you can get out of it and let him driving alone for the rest of the journey.

In the same way I think that being scared of the future consequences of drinking too much or of taking heroin is an adequate behavior. That's what prevents 'normal' people from doing it.

I cannot do the article justice without presenting it in full. For further information, contact the publisher 10031,3620@Compuserve.com (I have no vested interest). Much of this confirms your own strategies, Bernard - but the difference is (paraphrasing the author, if I may make so bold!) switching to a dissociated state involving all the other dependents (OK, love if you will) such as partners, children and others, which can result in a major reframe.

In theory I am ok with this. This is an ideal scenario. Most of the time you only have facing you the addict without the family. In most of the cases all the family has inadequate behaviors. The first step is to help the addict to recover and to give him enough ressources to be able to deal with the 'madness' of the rest of the family. The kind of 'madness' that will drive back the addict right to his habit....

The family is generally not aware at all of their own problems. For them the only problem is the addict's problem. That's true for the beginning but no longer after the addict had begun to deal with his addiction.