Trance Formations

Some thoughts on how Robert Dilts’ Logical Levels Model can be applied in hypnotherapy and NLP changework.

One of the least agreed upon, and often hotly debated, aspects of NLP is the concept of Logical Levels. Supposedly derived from the work of Gregory Bateson, and refined into the structure of an NLP model by Robert Dilts, the Logical Levels are neither strictly logical, nor do they form clear hierarchical levels (for a more detailed discussion of the arguements about Dilts’ Logical Levels, visit Honest Abe’s NLP FAQs and click on FAQ 7). If, however, we view them as categories of action and experience, they can provide an interesting and useful framework for understanding personal change of the sort we are engaged in with trance and hypnosis work.

The levels as described by Dilts are

1. The Environment: the “where” and the “when”
   The environment provides the context within which we act and experience. The environment is that which can be located in space and time.
2. Behaviour: the “what”
   Behaviour is what we do. In NLP terms this includes internal behaviours such as thought. Behaviour always takes place in a context, within a specific environment.
3. Capability: the “how”
   Capability is skill, and as such relates to the effectiveness of behaviour.
4. Beliefs and Values: the “why”
   Our beliefs and values determine choice, providing the reason for our actions.
5. Identity: the “who”
   Identity relates to that sense of self and includes our core beliefs and values, our knowledge of our capability and how we are likely to behave in specific circumstances. However, we are more than the sum of all these alone.
6. Beyond Identity: interconnectedness, the transpersonal
   At this level, we are connected via communities and, again, contribute to that which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Viewed like this, we can see the levels encompass each other as we progress through them. But a little further thought makes it clear that any one level impacts on all the others in a more complex fashion. We can have beliefs about identity, for example. However, from the point of view of changework, the superficial hierarchy is useful.

We can see how a single belief encompasses all the logical levels by examining how emphasis on different words alters the focus of attention between different levels. Take for example the limiting belief “I cannot stop getting stressed at work”.

“I cannot stop getting stressed at work” is a statement about identity – it identifies “who” the belief is about

“I cannot stop getting stressed at work” is a statement about belief – it creates the distinction between what I can and cannot do

“I cannot stop getting stressed at work” is a statement about capability – it identifies the goal, in this case cessation of a particular behaviour

“I cannot stop getting stressed at work” is a statement about behaviour – getting stressed is what I do

“I cannot stop getting stressed at work” is a statement about environment – defines the context within which the limiting belief applies

Conversely, the levels can be used to examine a belief in more detail and obtain more detail about the structure and implications of that belief. If some one was to say, “I am just a stressful person”, (a very generalised statement about identity), we could ask;

“When and where do you get stressed?” (environment)
“How do you get stressed?” (behaviour)
“What do you do that helps you reduce feeling stressed?” (capability)
“In what ways is being stressed helpful to you and in what ways is it not?” (belief)

Where the hierarchical structure of the logical levels can be useful is in deciding at what level one wishes to effect change. A change in environment is generally very limited in effect, since the change will only occur as long as the environment remains changed, as long as the new context is present.

More effective are changes in behaviour. Learning or realising new behaviours can carry across different environments. However, since behaviour is driven by belief, it doesn’t matter how many new behaviours one is introduced to, if the beliefs remain the same, so do the reasons for behaving as we always have.

The same problem applies to changes in capability. If the behaviour is not getting the result we want, will getting better at the behaviour achieve the desired result? This may be so in a limited number of cases. But since a significant aspect of our belief system relates to our capability, unless the belief about our ability changes, we will always under perform.

How about changing beliefs themselves? Removing limiting beliefs and enhancing empowering beliefs is indeed a powerful form of changework. However, beliefs form an ecological system. No belief is held in isolation. Our belief systems are evolved over years of experience and our beliefs are interdependent in complex ways. A simple demonstration of what I mean is that some people hold the belief that people cannot change. A single belief like that impacts on all other beliefs and would actually likely prevent such change. Similarly, someone who believes they are a bad person is likely to colour all other beliefs as a consequence. So we cannot alter a single belief without taking into account the effect of such change on the rest of the individuals belief system.

If we were to successfully change the two beliefs used as examples above, we would have effected a change at the identity level, the beliefs about “who” the person is.

We can understand how, the further up the neurological level that the change is made, the more profound and pervasive the effects of the change are going to be. The ultimate example is deep spiritual experience or religious conversion that profoundly alters belief about ones relationship with the rest of existence. Such a change alters every aspect of an individual’s life from their sense of identity down to how they behave in any given context.

However, from the point of view of a therapist working with live clients or in creating hypnosis cds, such a level of change may well be too extreme. Rarely do I have a client asking for deep religious conversion. The skill lies in using metaphor and suggestion to provide the context within which the client can effect the changes at a level that suits them. As a therapist I hold firmly to the value that my role is to enhance my client’s life, not to disrupt it. It is quite possible to effect religious conversion (a short study of some of the major cults around will quickly provide one with some of the cruder approaches). However, the profoundly damaging effects of such change are only too often seen in the individual’s life and the lives of those around them.

When creating a hypnosis cd, I start from the premise that many people will be coming to the trance session for many different reasons, and each will be best served by change occurring at different levels. The advantage of using metaphor, ambiguity and indirect suggestion is that the listener guides the changework. The power of metaphor in this way was understood by Jesus, who used parables that would open people’s hearts according to their readiness, and by the Sufi mystics who used complex metaphorical stories to achieve whatever level of transformation was appropriate to the listener.