fingers vs. voice

When comunicating with the subconscious, we use fingers for yes and for no answers but, why is that? why cant we just ask the subconscious mind to answer in words? For example, when using regresion...which is the best way? fingers or voice?

Favorite

0 members favorited this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Witherspoon on January 18, 2010 at 3:17pm

I was told that using the ideomotor response was preferable because you are tapped into the sub conscience and will get an unfiltered response where if you ask for a verbal response you may get an answer that has been filtered through the conscience mind. I can't prove this and perhaps someone with more experience has a better answer.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on January 18, 2010 at 6:26pm

Hello Gus, Hi Ian and Chris

I am not sure that the neuropathways and processes used to move a finger involve any less processing than the multi-processes used to verbalize a response, but it sounds reasonable.

The thing to remember is that the mind is a metaphor and either method does not eliminate lying...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on January 18, 2010 at 6:39pm

I have them use their voice, and let them give everyone else the finger.... LOL. It works well for me. But then again, I talk to the part of the mind that handles behavior, which I call the judgmental mind, and it is very conscious.

John

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on January 18, 2010 at 9:01pm

My understanding of a metaphor is that it is a "figure of speech" meant to give an example of something for clarity or increased understanding.
The amber light bloomed from the traffic signal like a sunflower at midday.
The traffic lights were changing like the buttons on a cheap suit. etc.

The traffic light went from yellow to red doesn't really do that. Metaphor fail.

My contribution for "disputation"? LOL
John

Ian Jay said:

The thing to remember is that the mind is a metaphor ...
Stephen Pinker in 'How the mind works' coined the phrase 'Metaphorical Mind'. And he wrote, '"The human mind, we see, is not equipped with an evolutionarily frivolous faculty for doing Western science, mathematics, chess, or other diversions." He refers to the evolving mind attempting to understand the physical world by using metaphors to explain abstract ideas. Today we call this 'Cognitive Linguistics'. And within Cognitive Linguistics it may be reasonable to refer to the mind as a metaphor, but in general terms it is not what Pinker implied. And I suggest unhelpful for explaining mind in the context of hypnosis. "Subconscious" and 'conscious' are helpful metaphors. A common explanation of a metaphor:
I went to the shop.
The light went from red to amber.
The first 'went' shows physical movement, the second is a metaphor.

Of course, all this is open to dispute. For without disputation, how do we move forward?

" ................and either method does not eliminate lying" or genuine misunderstanding - I agree 100%

Ian

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henxy on January 19, 2010 at 1:58am

One answer about why use ideomotor than speech can be that a client can be amazed by the apparent involuntary movement, as compared to words they say, which they can attribute to 'I was lying/going along with you'.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by janadra on January 19, 2010 at 6:57am

As a client, I have done both. I told my hypnotherapist that while in trance, I found it difficult to speak. It seemed to take way too much energy. He then introduced ideomotor responses which seemed much easier for me.

And Chris, during our session where I was to begin my new smoke-free life, I remember him asking if that was the day I was going to start my new life. I filtered my choices for response through my conscious mind (I guess) and narrowed them down to yes, no, maybe. (And then to please him, I consciously lied - but that's a different tale.)

I was told that using the ideomotor response was preferable because you are tapped into the sub conscience and will get an unfiltered response where if you ask for a verbal response you may get an answer that has been filtered through the conscience mind. Chris Witherspoon

jana

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Hazlerig on January 19, 2010 at 7:54am

I have to agree with Michael here--either voice or fingers can be made to lie. (Heck, I can make a pendulum lie, which is why I don't trust my own dowsing.)

Some clients will feel that their trance is disturbed if they speak. Others feel its disturbed if they have to move. With either method it's good to introduce it with a deepening suggestion: "In a moment, you'll be able to speak while remaining deeply in trance, and in fact the sound of your own voice will just take you deeper."

If I'm directing a visualization and all I need is an indication that the client has completed a set of directions, I use breath: "Experience the event from beginning to end, and when you're finished, take a nice deep breath and let it out so I can know you're done." It works well for simple communication.

James

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on January 19, 2010 at 9:35am

Ah, I see what you mean now. Busted on a technicality. It's a bit of a reach when addressing what a metaphor is, but under those conditions I have to concede it is indeed a very weak metaphor for change that has no real value metaphorically yet falls within the boundaries of the definition.

There was a young man from Kent...

John

Adrian Tannock said:

John Cleesattel said:
The traffic light went from yellow to red doesn't really do that. Metaphor fail. My contribution for "disputation"? LOL

Sadly, it's a disputation fail! ;-)

Our responses to words are ideosyncratic, but lets consider the source of derivation when drawing the line between true meaning vs. metaphorical meaning. If we are strict, then this:

"The traffic light went from yellow to red". The definitive meaning of 'went' is temporal / spacial, and eventually can be traced to the old English 'windan' which is implied in words related to movement & turning). As in I went from Place A to Place B. This is the original meaning of the word, and yet the traffic lights don't move (...in space; and although they move in time, technically speaking, it is not this movement which is being referred to).

Instead, here the word went is used to denote a change in state (from a yellow state to red state). This usage (of the word went) is removed from its definitive meaning (spatial-temporal movement), and is therefore derivational - a meaning that is different from its original meaning and technically metaphorical when considered in a historical context, rather than a commonly-accepted idiosyncratic one.

This is important because the evolution of our psychology is dependent on the evolution of our language. In fact - scratch that - our psychology is language. Even the script-kiddie PUA (pick-up artists, NLP-ish trickery) types understand this, which is why they know so many stories / activities which serve as a metaphor for friction... (!!)

Cheers,

Adrian

PS: not sure what this has to do with fingers vs. voice, but my 2p anyhow.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on January 19, 2010 at 12:53pm

You are quite right -- Ian.

I was thinking the classic bio-computer metaphor for our minds and brains was a model and in my haste - I typed the mind is a metaphor instead of model. But, as you indicated in our off-discussion communication: thinking of the mind as a "construct" is even more helpful.

Thanks.

Michael E.

Ian Jay said:

Adrian is correct, and to continue this - a metaphor must be supported. For example, its not helpful saying, "The mind is a metaphor". A metaphor for what? (Think about it).
However, I don't mind if you don't :-)
Ian

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh Cole on January 19, 2010 at 1:09pm

Thinking of the mind as a construct ,,, is a construct ,,, What merry modelers we humans be ,, for models make it there to see ,,, what is ... but could not actually be.

Hugh Cole
Texas Tranceman

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fable Goodman on January 19, 2010 at 2:38pm

refering to the original question,

I don't do much in the way of regression as such,
but do often use techniques (such as interactive imagery)
where I want feedback from the client as to what is going on.

I nearly always start with an IMR Finger signal.
Like Adrian, I only use one finger for a yes signal,
and a lack of a yes, I take as a no response.
and frame the next question for clarification of that.

Having made a good start with the finger signal.
At a certain point I will probably want to move on to verbal feedback,
to gain much more detailed information about what is going on within the clients inner experience.

And here (Like James), I will suggest that
remaining every bit as deep as they are now,
they can speak, and in a curious way...
the very act of speaking would actually
help them to respond better and better.

At first many people find the first few words in hypnosis, a little hard to form,
it takes a little practice.
so initially I only request short answers, to specific questions.
but once they get into the flow,
and maintain the hypnosis, then it moves towards much more of a running commentary.

I think part of the secret is gradually training the client
to become fluent in whatever medium is useful
for the work you need to do,
whether it be finger signals,
hypno-pictography
automatic writing,
speaking...
whatever.

Hope this is helpful

Love and hugs

Fable

P.S. John Cleesattel...
I like the young man from kent.