THE PTS STUDY GROUP
the Free Hypnosis Social Network
Parts Therapy... and the Judgmental mind
I was recently asked in the "fansofjohncleesattelsstopsmokingintervention" group for more about the techniques I use with when doing a managers meeting (parts therapy).
I remembered this old discussion and decided to revive it for that reason.
I have read about, and seen used, several different forms of the parts therapy technique. Since I have recently seen questions about it, I decided to provide the techniques I use, how I use them, and what I believe is actually happening. Hopefully, some will find this useful and choose to share their insights.
To me, parts therapy sets up a discussion with the Upper Management of the person. Let me explain.
I view an individual like a company. The reactive mind is production, reacts with SOPs (standard operating procedures). The analytical mind is engineering and R&D, and the judgmental mind is upper management.
There are managers for every behavior we have. They are the reason why we do things.
Upper management has but one goal, "The benefit of the Company". All other priorities are there only to support this one goal. Even punishment can be for the good of the company.
So when I do a parts therapy session, I am talking directly to the upper management of the person.
Realizing this, I act accordingly:
I only use a light trance state for parts therapy, simply to for ease of access to the imagination.
I have the client hold the meeting in a conference room and only invite the involved parties to the meeting.
Rules of the Road:
Changes to the SOPs have to be approved by upper management FIRST, or nothing changes.
You do not TELL upper management what it will do.
You present your case from the aspect of the benefit of the person.
I speak to the parts directly, acting as a consultant. I don't go through the hassle of each part generating names for themselves anymore, I found it just wasn't necessary. As well as the parts going off to work it out themselves and come up with a solution, I already know what they need to do, or stop doing.
I address the parts as "the part of Jenny that is preventing her from" etc. leaving no question as to who I am talking to and why. I have them answer the client, and give the client their purpose in what they are doing, and how it serves them to do it.
I then state my reason for the meeting, to explain that they are not acting for the benefit of the client anymore. Originally, that may have served the client well, but times have changed, conditions have changed, they have gotten older, are an adult now, etc. and that behavior is no longer providing the benefit it once was, (and is actually a punishment for them?) So, instead of continuing to do "that", I would like to ask if you would do "this" instead, so the client can live a happier, healthier, and longer life and your function will be a benefit again. Will you do that for them?
I also use parts therapy just to get answers to why the clients do what they do. Most of the time, the client themselves have no clue and find it a very interesting session.
I always end the parts therapy session by having the client thank all of the participating parts and now allow them to get back to their jobs, doing what they do best.
If you don't understand why the client does what they do, why guess? when you can find out for sure, straight from the horse's mouth.. so to speak.
Its a very useful tool.
John
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Nispel on -
If you don't mind me asking, but what methods do you use to get an analytical subject to go deep, and get around their overactive critical factor? It's been one of my biggest issues to date as a subject.
Roy Hunter said:I have to jump into this discussion, as the pioneer of parts therapy (Charles Tebbetts) trained me in 1983 and asked me to continue his work before his passing in 1992.
The metaphor of a company with managers as John mentioned is one that I use in my workshops to illustrate the metaphor of parts therapy being a process of MEDIATION.
Over the years many variations of parts therapy have evolved; and I have also updated my mentor’s work. However, I have organized parts therapy into a discipline that is very effective for most of the people most of the time. There are three phases: preparation, the 11-step process, and concluding the session. All steps of the three phases are explored IN DEPTH in my parts therapy book, HYPNOSIS FOR INNER CONFLICT RESOLUTION: INTRODUCING PARTS THERAPY (2005, Crown House Publishing).
During the preparation phase, I endeavor to guide clients into DEEP states of hypnosis (rather than only light states), because analytical clients (such as me) will NOT enjoy lasting results when only light states are used. This opinion has been validated by other professionals during my teaching parts therapy workshops dating back to 1990. Once the client is deep enough, I begin the 11-Step Process:
1. Identify the part.
2. Gain rapport (compliment the part).
3. Call out the part.
4. Thank it for emerging.
5. Discover its purpose.
6. Call out other parts as appropriate.
7. Negotiate and mediate.
8. Ask parts to come to terms of agreement.
9. Confirm and summarize terms of agreement.
10. Give direct suggestions as appropriate.
11. INTEGRATE the parts! (The formal parts therapy process is completed.)
I work as a MEDIATOR, remaining objective, and helping clients come up with their own answers.
There are both detours and pitfalls that we need to be aware of, and they are covered in my book and in my workshops, which I am happy to facilitate upon request. (Email me privately if you wish to sponsor one.)
Also, I invite all of you who are interested to join my parts therapy group in Hypnothoughts.
Roy Hunter, M.S., FAPHP
www.royhunter.com
-
Permalink Reply by amber lee poole on -
Thanx!!!! I am going to get the book and see where this takes me :)
Amber
-
Permalink Reply by Roy Hunter on
-
While there are many ways to reach the same destination, let me comment specifically on two of your comments...
1. You said: "My approach is similar except I take the role of client advocate (lawyer if you will). To me, mediation means the parties will abide by the outcome. I have found that the decision rests with upper management, so I focus on getting them to decide in my favor. I have found that an agenda of pointing out erroneous behavior, providing supportive evidence, and providing a more desirable course of action, that will benefit the client, is very effective."
Your model is more like arbitration rather than mediation. Charles Tebbetts taught it this way and got great results (he was the pioneer). However, he was a debate champion. One of my former students LOST the debate when he acted in the manner you do, and broke rapport. The session was blown. (This was about 20 years ago.) After a long conversation between me and Tebbetts, we mutually agreed that I would update his work to act as a mediator rather than an arbitrator...and I've obtained excellent results for two decades by acting as a mediator rather than an arbitrator. In fact, unless someone is skilled in acting as an advocate as you apparently are, there is a risk of history repeating itself.
2. You use the metaphor of a conference room. I avoid any imagery unless supplied by the client, because of the risk of someone having a negative emotional reaction with conference room imagery because of having received bad news (termination or demotion) in a conference room. I know at least TWO people who would immediately jump right out of trance if conference room imagery was attempted.
Read my book and then you might come up with a blend of both my methods and your methods. However, if your methods get results, don't change a winning game; but please consider the risk of teaching your methods to people who are not skilled in arbitration.
Best wishes,
Roy Hunter, M.S., FAPHP
www.royhunter.com
-
Permalink Reply by Fable Goodman on -
Thanks Roy,
That is a very useful distinction.
I think I take more of a role of facilitator,
which is again slightly different than either an arbitator, or a mediator
I have have used various scenarios over the years,
including the conference room.
My favourite is the 'parts party'
but I do always check before hand by asking the client,
"Do you like going to a party?"
as some peole dread parties.
I often combine this with imagery,
getting the client to spontaneously asign an animal to each identified part,
and have the animals meet along the way to the party.
i encourage the client to identify in turn with each animal, and relate the story from that animals perspective,
and frequently jump from from one animal's body to another, as the story develops.
Often the integration of the parts takes place before ever reaching the party,
but sometimes it happens at the party.
The last time I used this,
there was eventually a huge hilarious food fight at the party,
and it was only after that, that the resolution and subsequent integration took place.
Each animal eventually becoming one with all the other animals.
Love and hugs
Fable
(P.S. No animals were hurt in the writing of this post)
-
Permalink Reply by Kelley Woods on -
Fable, I love your "animal party"! I imagine letting the client know they are on their way to a party sets up expectation and also distraction from the process actually happening en route...
Best wishes,
Kelley
Fable Goodman said:Thanks Roy,
That is a very useful distinction.
I think I take more of a role of facilitator,
which is again slightly different than either an arbitator, or a mediator
I have have used various scenarios over the years,
including the conference room.
My favourite is the 'parts party'
but I do always check before hand by asking the client,
"Do you like going to a party?"
as some peole dread parties.
I often combine this with imagery,
getting the client to spontaneously asign an animal to each identified part,
and have the animals meet along the way to the party.
i encourage the client to identify in turn with each animal, and relate the story from that animals perspective,
and frequently jump from from one animal's body to another, as the story develops.
Often the integration of the parts takes place before ever reaching the party,
but sometimes it happens at the party.
The last time I used this,
there was eventually a huge hilarious food fight at the party,
and it was only after that, that the resolution and subsequent integration took place.
Each animal eventually becoming one with all the other animals.
Love and hugs
Fable
(P.S. No animals were hurt in the writing of this post)
-
Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on -
There are no absolutes. No absolutely right, or absolutely wrong, and no one who is absolutely the same as someone else.
Roy Hunter said:
Your model is more like arbitration rather than mediation. Charles Tebbetts taught it this way and got great results (he was the pioneer). However, he was a debate champion. One of my former students LOST the debate when he acted in the manner you do, and broke rapport. The session was blown. (This was about 20 years ago.) After a long conversation between me and Tebbetts, we mutually agreed that I would update his work to act as a mediator rather than an arbitrator...and I've obtained excellent results for two decades by acting as a mediator rather than an arbitrator. In fact, unless someone is skilled in acting as an advocate as you apparently are, there is a risk of history repeating itself.
I do not use any kind of debate or argumentative format, I can see where that would lead to problems. You would not enter into a debate or argument with upper management, because you know what the outcome would be, and why. Which is another reason I use that metaphor when I teach it.
2. You use the metaphor of a conference room. I avoid any imagery unless supplied by the client, because of the risk of someone having a negative emotional reaction with conference room imagery because of having received bad news (termination or demotion) in a conference room. I know at least TWO people who would immediately jump right out of trance if conference room imagery was attempted.
If a client has an issue with a conference room setting, it should come out when I explain the sequence of events the client should expect. Its really not that tough to make it a meeting under a tree, (unless they broke their arm when they feel out of one...etc.)
Read my book and then you might come up with a blend of both my methods and your methods. However, if your methods get results, don't change a winning game; but please consider the risk of teaching your methods to people who are not skilled in arbitration.
My methods appear to get very good results, but that is only according to my clients, students, and others I have shared it with. Not to mention the diversity of uses it enables me to enjoy. I don't try to share things that haven't proven themselves to work well, or tout myself as any kind of ultimate authority, having the end all - be all corner on any techniques. I just try to share with others some techniques that will help them be successful. That's what this forum is about.
Best wishes,
Roy Hunter, M.S., FAPHP
www.royhunter.com
-
-
I will simply re-state the opinion expressed numerous times over the years: there are various ways to get from one destination to another. If your way helps clients arrive at the destination of a successful outcome, it has merit.
Since Charles Tebbetts pioneered parts therapy decades ago, it has evolved in a number of different directions. I learned it directly from him, yet I have changed parts therapy from the way he taught and practiced it; although I believe that my updates to his work have improved the technique.
And yes, I agree with you that this forum is about sharing ideas...which makes it an outstanding forum.
Roy Hunter, M.S., FAPHP
www.royhunter.com
John Cleesattel said:There are no absolutes. No absolutely right, or absolutely wrong, and no one who is absolutely the same as someone else.
Roy Hunter said:
Your model is more like arbitration rather than mediation. Charles Tebbetts taught it this way and got great results (he was the pioneer). However, he was a debate champion. One of my former students LOST the debate when he acted in the manner you do, and broke rapport. The session was blown. (This was about 20 years ago.) After a long conversation between me and Tebbetts, we mutually agreed that I would update his work to act as a mediator rather than an arbitrator...and I've obtained excellent results for two decades by acting as a mediator rather than an arbitrator. In fact, unless someone is skilled in acting as an advocate as you apparently are, there is a risk of history repeating itself.
I do not use any kind of debate or argumentative format, I can see where that would lead to problems. You would not enter into a debate or argument with upper management, because you know what the outcome would be, and why. Which is another reason I use that metaphor when I teach it.
2. You use the metaphor of a conference room. I avoid any imagery unless supplied by the client, because of the risk of someone having a negative emotional reaction with conference room imagery because of having received bad news (termination or demotion) in a conference room. I know at least TWO people who would immediately jump right out of trance if conference room imagery was attempted.
If a client has an issue with a conference room setting, it should come out when I explain the sequence of events the client should expect. Its really not that tough to make it a meeting under a tree, (unless they broke their arm when they feel out of one...etc.)
Read my book and then you might come up with a blend of both my methods and your methods. However, if your methods get results, don't change a winning game; but please consider the risk of teaching your methods to people who are not skilled in arbitration.
My methods appear to get very good results, but that is only according to my clients, students, and others I have shared it with. Not to mention the diversity of uses it enables me to enjoy. I don't try to share things that haven't proven themselves to work well, or tout myself as any kind of ultimate authority, having the end all - be all corner on any techniques. I just try to share with others some techniques that will help them be successful. That's what this forum is about.
Best wishes,
Roy Hunter, M.S., FAPHP
www.royhunter.com
-
Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on
-
You'll forgive me if I disagree :)
John
Dr. Aleksonder Regal said:Another way to view Parts Therapy is with an abbreviated format:
1. Establish that Parts Therapy is needed for resolving presenting issue.
2. Identify Parts and how they function with respect to presenting issue.
3. Use therapeutic methods to gain rapport and direct the Parts to a harmonious outcome.
Depth of induction required for optimal results:
Participant is amnesic.
Dr. Aleksonder Regal
-
Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on
-
John Roberts,
I don't talk to the sub-conscious (Sc?) it has no intellect to speak of. However, the judgmental mind, the multifaceted management system of "who we are" has no problem "providing their purpose" to the individual.
Realize that the original Gestalt dialog used in psychotherapy was used with an entirely different premise and construct than what I do.
As far as benefit, there are very few things that will benefit the client more that to discover the reason they have the behavior they do, and to be able to successfully facilitate change in that behavior has yielded benefit beyond measure.
If you are getting the results that you indicated, you might consider changing what you do.
John
John Roberts said:John:
From my perspective, Gestalt dialogue (now called parts therapy) is an excellent way to introduce fragmentation into the psyche where non previously existed. Of course if you ask the Sc to create these separate entities, it will do as commanded, but this is of no benefit, and is potentially harmful to the client. John Roberts
-
Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on
-
Going to have to respond by item for clarity...see below:
John Roberts said:John:
You don't talk to the Sc? Well who in blue blazes are you talking to? There is only conscious mind (rational function) and the big controller and data bank the Sc.
Who am I talking to? Scroll back, read my reply again. I have found that there are at least 3 separate functioning partners that compose what we consider as our mind. Yes, the software if you will.
1. An analytical mind that analyzes input from the outside world, uses logic and rational to problem solve and determine what is real and true in the outside world. Is what is often referred to as the critical factor in other models of the mind.
This function goes dormant during somnambulistic trance. (partial evidence of what separates this part of this mind from the others)
2. A judgmental mind that makes decisions (this is emotionally based by the way), maintains yardstick of behavior standards, and experiences the feelings that are provided by the reactive mind. Functions as the management structure for our behavior. Monitors and controls acceptance of outside input for the reactive mind to limit automatic reaction (watchdog). Cannot affect reactions learned via perceived threat. (separates it from the reactive mind)
3. A purely reactive mind that automatically reacts with learned responses, without conscious thought. Teachable via repetition or perceived threat only. Not directly accessible by the other two minds. It is very used to automatically reacting to outside input... we refer to this state as a trance state... and we use it as the only means we have to be able to multitask.
So I am talking to the Judgmental part of the mind, the part that will affect behavior change.
That is it for the software. In terms of cause, what makes you think that cause can be found?
We have a reason for everything we do, either purposeful, or automatic reaction. What I call "the judgmental mind" maintains the lists of what we will do, and what we won't do, and uses this to guide our behavior. Ask it and it will tell you why it does what it does. The ultimate goal of the Jm is the benefit of the person, and it realizes that sometimes punishment can be beneficial. It will change what it does if there is sufficient reason to do so.
If you go looking for one, the mind is only too happy to plug in some memory, but this is no guarantee of cause. Even if cause can be found, so what! The Sc will still continue the inappropriate behavior in the here and now until it is given a different set of marching orders.
This is not correct. While the imagination will definitely provide input if asked, the Jm will only change what it does if "IT" decides it is the right thing to do. No amount of coersive influence outside of direct brainwashing techniques will cause change unless approved by upper management.
And finally, Gestalt dialogue by Fritz Perls (the splitting off of a part of the the mind then having a dialogue with it) is the forerunner and model of parts therapy whether you realize this or not.
Umm... Gestalt therapy, as developed in the 1940's and 50's by not only Fritz Perls, but Laura Perls, and Paul Goodman, focuses on the individual's experience in the present moment, the therapist-client relationship, the environmental and social contexts in which these things take place, and the self-regulating adjustments people make as a result of the overall situation. It emphasizes personal responsibility....if you realize this or not. It's where Parts therapy got its start...for sure...but is it the same now? Not even close. Its now much more effective.
I hope I said this in an understandable manner.
John
John Roberts
John Cleesattel said:John Roberts,
I don't talk to the sub-conscious (Sc?) it has no intellect to speak of. However, the judgmental mind, the multifaceted management system of "who we are" has no problem "providing their purpose" to the individual.
Realize that the original Gestalt dialog used in psychotherapy was used with an entirely different premise and construct than what I do. As far as benefit, there are very few things that will benefit the client more that to discover the reason they have the behavior they do, and to be able to successfully facilitate change in that behavior has yielded benefit beyond measure. If you are getting the results that you indicated, you might consider changing what you do.
John
John Roberts said:John:
From my perspective, Gestalt dialogue (now called parts therapy) is an excellent way to introduce fragmentation into the psyche where non previously existed. Of course if you ask the Sc to create these separate entities, it will do as commanded, but this is of no benefit, and is potentially harmful to the client. John Roberts
-
Permalink Reply by Kelley Woods on
-
John, thank you for this model. I have not had it presented in this manner before and find it enticing...
John Cleesatel said:
1. An analytical mind that analyzes input from the outside world, uses logic and rational to problem solve and determine what is real and true in the outside world. Is what is often referred to as the critical factor in other models of the mind.
This function goes dormant during somnambulistic trance. (partial evidence of what separates this part of this mind from the others)
2. A judgmental mind that makes decisions (this is emotionally based by the way), maintains yardstick of behavior standards, and experiences the feelings that are provided by the reactive mind. Functions as the management structure for our behavior. Monitors and controls acceptance of outside input for the reactive mind to limit automatic reaction (watchdog). Cannot affect reactions learned via perceived threat. (separates it from the reactive mind)
3. A purely reactive mind that automatically reacts with learned responses, without conscious thought. Teachable via repetition or perceived threat only. Not directly accessible by the other two minds. It is very used to automatically reacting to outside input... we refer to this state as a trance state... and we use it as the only means we have to be able to multitask.
-
Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on
-
You cannot use an outboard motor to move the boat, you must use oars. I have never heard of an outboard motor, and I didn't come up with it, so to say it will move the boat must be patently false. ROFLMAO!!! (That is: Rolling On the Floor and Laughing My Ass Off!!!)
Okay...deductive reasoning to make decisions (chuckle).. have you ever known what the right thing to do was... and then did something else? Oops...Just a thought.
Also: If the deductive reasoning goes away during somnambulistic trance (and it does...count your fingers and miss number 6) does that mean we aren't conscious and aren't aware of our surroundings?
John
John Roberts said:John:
The conscious mind uses deductive reasoning to make judgments, and not some other part of the mind called '"judgmental mind." To say otherwise is patently false. Where did you get this model that your using? It makes no sense. Furthermore, no Fritz Perls no Gestalt dialogue, no Gestalt dialogue, no parts therapy. John Roberts
Featured Advertising
Latest Activity
Spellbinde, Kevin Cole-NLPTrainingQuest.com and 2 other members joined Michael Ellner's group
Spellbinde, Suggestive Celine -"The Queen of and 3 other members joined Leshem Yosef's group
Roger Moore replied to Dan Kern's discussion 'HypnoBand Vs Bariatric operations' in the group ICBCH: Hypnosis, NLP & Coaching
Don commented on Don's blog post 'Spontaneous Orgasms and Hypnosis (Revised)'
Discussion posted by Brian Sanders, Maryland Hypnosis
Don replied to Lorrie Hale-Ozbey's discussion 'NLP and Human Performance Technology'
Seth-Deborah Roth replied to Steve G. Jones's discussion 'Hypnotherapy Regulation'
Roy Hunter replied to Richard Nongard - NLPBoard.com's discussion 'Informed Consent'
© 2012 Created by Scott Sandland.
About Us
Contact Us
Subscribe To RSS