Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop 2

Proposed change to 'swish' description, by GregA

I thought I'd pick something reasonably non-controversial....

What portion of the article do you take issue with?

Swish: a basic "quick-fix" technique that involves swapping a representation of a simple habit for desired self-image in the future [65][66].

On what basis do you object to this portion?

Wiki objection: If we say "Quick-fix" we're being slightly judgemental. What do you think Mentors?
Link error: The first link doesn't work. Anyone know what it was supposed to link to?
Objection in terminology: "image" implies it's visual, since it's easy to fix, may as well.
(and "in the future" doesn't add anything)

What new wording do you suggest?

Swish: a process that involves swapping an internal representation (visual, auditory, or kinesthetic) of a simple habitual behavior for a desired representation

GregA 09:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or a simpler version + purpose: Swish: a process that involves swapping an internal representation of a habit for a desired representation, with the goal of removing the habit

In the interests of closing this suggestion and of potentially having a consensus - is my new single sentence for the swish description acceptable?

Swish: a process that involves swapping an internal representation of a habit for a desired representation, with the goal of removing the habit

Say if you disagree, and if so discuss below!?

Alternative version (Camridge)

I've moved this down to the multiple alternative format below. Thanks Camridge.

Suggested alternatives (Swish)

(discussion section separate, to allow a mentor to comment in the above section without distraction)

Oh something else to add: The swish is identical to Dianetics techniques in auditing. It should be mentioned. Cheers DaveRight 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against describing any NLP process in terms of other processes, particularly when it's a simple 1 line description. It's the same reason I wouldn't summarise "Metamodel" as "like CBT's Cognitive Distortion" - they may be similar, but they are different.

ps. I am interested in exactly what Dianetics teaches on that, do you have a link? GregA 02:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised alternative; "see below" --'c' 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all but impenetrable. Please remember that encyclopedia articles are for general interest, not for expert interest. If I tried to sit down and read the article in its current state, hoping to learn about neurolinguistic programming, I'd come away more confused than ever because the language is almost completely inaccessible to anyone but those already familiar with the subject. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kate. Specifically first - are you refering to my suggestion or Comaze's or both?

Current article: "Swish: a basic "quick-fix" technique that involves swapping a representation of a simple habit for desired self-image in the future" GregA 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GregA: "Swish: a process that involves swapping an internal representation (visual, auditory, or kinesthetic) of a simple habitual behavior for a desired representation

GregA: "Swish: a process that involves swapping an internal representation of a habit for a desired representation, with the goal of removing the habit" GregA 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze: Swish: an intervention purported to reduce unwanted habbits by bridging the cue image to a desired image of self when the habbit is no longer an issue"

This is all but impenetrable. Please remember that encyclopedia articles are for general interest, not for expert interest. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze: Swish: reduces unwanted habits by building a desirable image of self in place of the repeating behavior."
Comaze: Swish: the subject is lead to a desired image of self to replace the triggers of an unwanted habit. --'c' 00:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GregA: "Swish: to replace an unwanted habit, it's triggers are re-associated to a desired image of self, by manipulating internal representations.
Comaze: Swish: a shunt is created to shift the triggers of an unwanted habit towards a desired self image, by altering internal representations. [1][2] --'c' 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze - each time, if we can attempt to rewrite slightly (or say why we don't think it's okay)... we seem to be getting closer GregA 02:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GregA: "Swish: to replace an unwanted habit, a connection is created from its triggers to a desired self image, by altering internal representations GregA 02:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comaze: "Swish: By altering internal representations, the triggers of an unwanted behavior are shunted to a preferred image of self [3] --'c' 03:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting closer. I like the reordering, and "unwanted behaviour" instead of "unwanted habit". Still not sure on shunt - it's not a common word. Perhaps "reconnected" or "reassociated".. shunt is literally a "redirection" right?

Can I invite any other interested parties to chime in (whether to agree or disagree). Comaze, you and I seem to be the only people interested in this (it is a tiny change really). Lets look at what others say about this in comparison to the current text, their suggestions, and then finalise wording???? GregA 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One idea for making this more readable is to include a summary at the beginning of the Common techniques and practices section that describes that typically an NLP practitioner will guide a their client through one of the following processes.

Metta Bubble: Swish: having imagined the causes of an undesired habitual behaviour and also having imagined an ideal self-image, these representations are then flipped over (or swished) so that when the original causes arise again they trigger the ideal self-image instead of the undesired behaviour.

That's something a bit different that may help you in workshopping this. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Metta Bubble's description and suggestion about "the typical NLP practitioner...". I'll attempt to merge them...

Comaze: Swish: having imagined the tiggers to an undesired habitual behavior and also having imagined an ideal self-image, these representations are then flipped over (or swished) so that when the original tiggers arise the ideal self-image appears instead of the undesired behavior. --'c' 09:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say Metta Bubble has done a good job. He makes it look easy :). One of the issues was trying to fit this description into a single short line. I know the reasoning for removing our extended descriptions was "we're not trying to teach NLP here", but a better description is worthwhile. I'll take a look at the whole list of processes at work today (we have long periods of waiting!) and make a comment on this line then. GregA 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GregA: Swish: having imagined the triggers to an undesired habitual behavior and also having imagined an ideal self-image, these representations are then switched over (or "swished") so that when the original triggers arise the ideal self-image comes to mind (in place of the undesired behavior). GregA 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this version. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition we have now is perhaps as short as possible while still conveying a swish. What's missing is what the actual process of switching is like, what order of change might occur, how someone might determine the real triggers, what level of association/dissociation is required, what level and types of representation are used, etc. Given all that, I wouldn't call it lesson in NLP. More like a taste. I just hope it's a nice comprimise between broad brush strokes, yet also alluding to a deeper process. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 03:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (the following) description is clearer: (In the commonly taught example of trauma/resourcefulness) Camridge

Camridge "The swish pattern involves imagining a scene that is traumatic (causes lack of confidence), then imagining the scene differently so that it causes less trauma and more confidence. Then the process is repeated in quick succession." ATB Camridge 05:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this is a little unclear, as a blend of a phobia cure technique and a swish technique. Can you write the suggestion without the word trauma? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(see 'discussion' area for response. This is for brief comment and new suggestion GregA 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Camridge "Swish: A process that involves repetetively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery in order to treat traumas, and remove negative blocks or habits."

Seems to be a more comprehensive version. Camridge 10:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this version because it briefly and clearly includes the applications, rather than excluding any. It is also clearer with respect to the term 'imagery' as opposed to the NLP technical term 'representation'. Regards HeadleyDown 12:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The repetitive idea is a good one. It's not really "negative imagery", just a representation of a reaction you'd prefer not to have automatically happen (so yeah, it's something you _don't_ want). Trauma?-Unlikely (see discussion). (Headley, It's -possible- to use image, but it implies it's visual too). Camridge, you use the word swap instead of switch... that might be better too. How about:

GregA: Swish: having imagined the triggers to an undesired habitual behavior and also having imagined an ideal self-image, these representations are then swapped (or "swished") several times - so that when the original triggers arise the ideal self-image comes to mind (in place of the undesired behavior). GregA 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC

Guys - I don't think we're going to create a sentence we both think is great. Lets discuss what's acceptable (in discussion section) with options posted here. GregA 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the last two suggestions from the two camps are:

Camridge "Swish: A process that involves repetetively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery in order to treat traumas, and remove negative blocks or habits." Seems to be a more comprehensive version. Camridge 10:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

GregA: Swish: having imagined the triggers to an undesired habitual behavior and also having imagined an ideal self-image, these representations are then swapped (or "swished") several times - so that when the original triggers arise the ideal self-image comes to mind (in place of the undesired behavior). GregA 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC

Frankly, Camridge's description makes much more sense from a reader's perspective, it uses plainer language. I gather from watching the two sides jockey for position over how much every sentence is or isn't tied in to Scientology that Camridge's sentence becomes unacceptable for NLP advocates at "in order to treat traumas, and remove negative blocks or habits." My proposal, then, would be to simply truncate the sentence. I'm not sure it's necessary to describe what exactly it might treat -- it already says it's supposed to replace negative mental imagery for postive mental imagery. Or perhaps a more mutually amenable wording might be ... "which in turn affects a behavior change." · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. I believe your suggestion is suitable. Simply state that it is swapping negative with positive mental imagery as suggested. The swish is applied to many things, such as treating anger, removing demons, placing ghosts in the imagination of a recipient, and so on. The list could be quite large. In fact, most NLP tools seem to be largely interchangeable according to the claims. Regards HeadleyDown 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someway we can combine Katefan's suggests while making more sense from the reader's perspective (see Camridge's suggestion), and including GregA's and Metta Bubble distinctions? --'c' 23:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. I suggest we could use Camridge's definition as part of the introduction to the section (minus references to negative blocks, etc). The difficulty I have with this plainer language version is that it is so plain it could describe any number of NLP techniques, and hence is a somewhat blurry definition of Swish. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all I think we can censor the traumas fact, even though it is a common term in psychology. But the fact is the swish is used from neg to pos and pos to neg in communication (its a neutral ritual after all) So here's my suggestion:

DaveRight: Swish: A process that involves repetetively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery, or swapping positive mental imagery for negative mental imagery, in order bring about a change in behaviour."

I tried to keep the language plain. Cheers DaveRight 04:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. Yes I believe thats an improvement upon my suggestion. I do believe there is a problem with the behavior statement though. Firstly, there is no evidence that it brings about a change in behavior. Secondly, behavior is quite a few steps away in the assumed process. So I would make the adjustment:

Camridge second suggestion: Swish: A process that involves repetetively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery, or swapping positive mental imagery for negative mental imagery, in an attempt to control a point of view."

ATBCamridge 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to take all view into account with this one:

Comaze: Swish pattern: involves swapping a negative mental image for positive self concept, to effect a behavior change. This process may be repeated in quick succession --'c' 05:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better; To be more precise the it should actually be "the cues to an unwanted behavior are swapped for a positive self concept" -- Is this a necessary distinction? --'c' 05:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats interesting Comaze. Would you be able to include the views that the swish is unsupported by empirical study, controls a point of view rather than directly controling behavior, and also involves swapping positive for negative images? The stated view of NLP proponents, that it applies to the treatment of traumas, the removal of negative blocks, and the banishing of demons, has already been left out. ATB Camridge 05:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Katefan, any objection is something which is too specific, or could be used in a strawman later. I also prefer to be accurate. Headley, you're right that many times there are several options for processes to work with someone, and a process can usually be applied in multiple change contexts - that's one of the reasons I've avoided some of the suggestions as they confuse that issue. Dave - yes, it can be any 2 images, hence why I've avoided negative-to-positive as Camridge suggested (so how about "unwanted" & "desired"?). Camridge - without discussing whether there's proof - your replacement does nothing to make it more "proven" and introduces lots of other objections. How about the following:

GregA experiment Swish: A process that involves swapping an unwanted mental image of a behavior for a desired mental image, several times, with the goal of changing the behavior." GregA 05:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GregA. Unwanted to desired implies that everyone wants the outcome. However, the swish is used in persuasion also, and sometimes used in fear motivation. So the recipient sometimes does not desire the "preferred" image. So the more neutral way is - to + and + to - images. As mentioned previously, the goal varies. Also the steps are too distant in regards to behavior and there is no evidence that it works on behavior anyhow (behavior is strongly related to objectivist empirical science). So the swish is more reasonably likely to work directly on perception, albeit fleetingly. I was going to use the word "perception", but I went for the plainer term "point of view", as that is easier for the reader. As mentioned before, there are still no mentions of traumas, negative blocks, or demons, even though they are mentioned in the literature and on the web. ATB Camridge 06:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you don't try to explain the whole NLP article in one sentence. Every single process has the same issues - and the first paragraph of "Ethical concerns" describes the issue of using an NLP process against someone. Your description "Controlling a point of view" is wrong as the result is not controlled (just changed), and is rarely a point of view - but as a quick explore, can you give me one example where a point-of-view is changed and there is NOT a goal to change behaviour? GregA 09:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. Mmm, thats even more complicated and obscure. I believe it would be easier for the reader to simply to state, traumas, negative blocks, and unwanted habits. Well, to be practical here, I suppose the reader will be able to handle the neutral term "perception", so why not simply place "control or change a perception" instead? ATB Camridge 09:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue as above - there's no control. And (since I can't think of one) can you give an example where a new perception or point-of-view is changed and there is NOT a goal to change behaviour? GregA 09:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GregA. The user is controling their own reactive perceptions. Or someone is doing it for them. Its fairly clear. With respect, I believe you are thinking too much from your own NLP perspective. Try to think from the perspective of the reader. If you say flicking some images around will change behavior, your reader will likely not believe it. Controling perspective is more accurate, and more persuasive. ATB. Camridge 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is your only concern that the reader won't believe that an NLP process does that? Can you answer my question (asked twice above) - can you give an example where a new perception or point-of-view is changed and there is NOT a goal to change behaviour? GregA 10:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. I have many concerns regarding the readability of the article. I believe they can be dealt with. And yes, I'm sure NLP advocates claim that the swish can do many things without the goal to change behavior. For example, the swish is used to raise or lower self-esteem. This has no direct effect on behavior (and no evidence of efficacy or mechanism), and as a goal it is not intended to change specific behaviors. It only controls the point of view or perception of the individual. ATB. Camridge 11:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't distract or play with words. You said If you say (x), your reader will likely not believe it.. I asked if the believability was your concern (it seems unlikely given that you've said NLP doesn't work). Now you avoid that question and turn it into readability -which is an indistibutably good idea -it's just nothing to do with what you said.

Personally, I would never choose Swish to raise (or lower) self-esteem as it is, from an NLP perspective, unecological (NLP's version of unethical IMO) to simply change a state without regard to other factors. Then again, I personally don't like the swish, I've never chosen to use it. So I'll wait for responses from others at this time. GregA 11:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA and Comaze. You both seem to be getting into obscurantisms again. It all sounds lovely and grand, but what does it mean to the reader? Your definitions are very odd. The ecology term seems very odd. I understand the term in the biological sense, but when you apply it to NLP you are not going to trigger the reader's mind. The Cambridge latest version is the clearest. Regards HeadleyDown 13:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology is important, see Master et al article.
In this example, ecology being used in its standard form, that is the (study of) interrelationships between an organism and its environment. In NLP an ecology check is the consideration of possible costs and consequences of any changes on the person's life and in the interrelationships with his/her environment. Perhaps this could be defined elsewhere in the article, but this is extremely important and a necessary distinction, opposed to being intentionally obscure --'c' 14:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a paraphrase of Masters et al (1991) description of the swish process ...

Comaze: Swish: "identify the context where the unwanted behaviour occurs, create a desired self-image, check for ecology, swish the images [switch the tiggers for the unwanted behavior for a desired self-image], and test."[4] --'c' 12:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without any explicit mention of context or ecology:

Comaze: Swish pattern: switch the tiggers for an unwanted behavior for a mental image of desired self, and test."[5] --'c' 14:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about I compromise this way: Swish pattern: switch the tiggers for an unwanted behavior for a mental image of desired self, and test." Applied to treating traumas, changing self esteem, removing habits, and removing negative blocks.

At least its more understandable with the applications. Regards HeadleyDown 15:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, we are both 'compromising' here. A few months back some editors got the idea that they'd done all the compromising, I wouldn't want to have any misunderstandings. Personally, I think we should not compromise on what NLP is (go multiple POV instead), though how it's worded, what's left out or put in, is necessary.

Now Headley - your suggestion. We already agree on habits, I would prefer "replace" habits as we put another behavioiur in its place (literally!). We've got some sources saying it can be applied to traumas, and others saying it's only for simple changes - potentially "simple traumas" - though to me that's a contradiction. Self esteem is an emotional state, if we must put emotional states in a swish then say "change an emotional response". Removing negative blocks is building a straw man for later, it's a real stretch (yes I'm sure someone has described it that way, just very uncommon). GregA 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. OK I don't agree with your above comments at all, but lets try this; I suggest you just put in any definition of the swish that you and Comaze like. If anyone finds it unclear or confusing, then I guess we'll just have to put up with it. Regards HeadleyDown 01:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Headley. Sure we need to trying someway. I am have a solution also. We try Comaze and Greg latest update;

HansAntel: Swish pattern: switch the tiggers for an unwanted behavior for a mental image of desired self, and test."

Then Headley and others else can do the real short example to clear it up for readers. HansAntel 04:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can put examples of how the swish and other patterns are used in the applications section. --'c' 06:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Comaze. That would not help clarify the definition. The definition requires clarifying using a brief example of the ritual. Regards HeadleyDown 07:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the context in which this change is being placed. Neuro-linguistic_programming#Common_techniques_and_practices. GregA 07:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(please assume the objections stated multiple times previously still hold)

Hello GregA. Of course. That section (common techniques and practices) requires a good deal more clarification. Regards HeadleyDown 08:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, that's excellent, I agree. Is it okay to make this minor change for now in a manner consistent with the existing section, acknowledging that a greater description is required? Then we can close off this change to the "one liner" descriptions to allow for a discussion of the whole section and how to improve it. GregA 11:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure GregA. I believe either your line or Comaze's and a brief e.g. will work well. But I think it would be more productive (less hassle) to focus on one point at a time. We seem to have made some progress this way, and I am hoping this will continue. Of course, we will need to wait a bit for more replies from others. Regards HeadleyDown 11:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very generous Headley, considering the sources. As long as we can put an example in to keep it clear, I don't see a problem though. Certainly doing piece by piece will be better than large chunks. Cheers DaveRight 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we can follow this stepwise process throughout. I believe setting up this as a habit will be a good practice. If we can do this small stepwise progressive clarification from now on, we will get a lot more done, and without the conflict and desperate multiple deletions etc. Camridge 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hans and Headley. Hans, I don't think we should use "triggers" unless we're describing the process correctly. Examples can be badly abused.

Taking into account what we're discussing, how about:

GregA: Swish: A process that involves swapping an unwanted mental image of a behavior for a desired mental image, several times, with the goal of changing the behavior and associated emotional response.

This covers behaviour, as well as trauma and self-esteem (both are emotional responses). (ps. If you find this acceptable, I still want some feedback from comaze and mettabubble of course!) GregA 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. Its not acceptable on its own considering the objections stated before. But, if you could make it as brief as Comaze's that'd be better. They are about as clear as each other, it doesn't matter as long as we can clarify it using a brief example. HeadleyDown 09:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the most common application/use of the swish pattern, and in what context? --'c' 09:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Comaze. I'd say the most common use is for overcoming mental blocks (limiting cycles that hold us back). Its certainly treated that way in the literature. Supposedly, whenever you want to do something, but a mental image of failing or insecurity, for example, gets in the way, it supposedly puts you in the wrong state for the job. But its claimed that replacing that image using the swish will remove the mental block. Whether it changes actual behaviour is something else. Certainly by psychology standards its a wild claim. Basing assumptions on untested assumptions is not recommended at all. Regards HeadleyDown 10:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0's suggestion

Excuse me. Can someone please tell me what they object to about my suggestion? Swish: A process that involves repetitively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery to affect a behavior change." Please don't demagogue or quote references at me. Just tell me whether or not you can live with it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder for everyone of what we're changing from:

Original: Swish: a basic "quick-fix" technique that involves swapping a representation of a simple habit for desired self-image in the future

I can live with it Katefan. Would much prefer to use the words "unwanted to desired" instead of "negative to positive". Would also be happy with original minus "quick-fix" (no-one has objected here to the removal of that). GregA 22:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katefan0. I don't mind either, as long as there's a brief clarifying example. There are so many ways of doing what you have described. The swish is only one way of doing that. Plus "quick fix" is something that NLP uses to describe the swish. There's nothing wrong with it. We've made a lot of progress with process here. I believe we are nearly there. Or do you want

us to start the process again? Regards HeadleyDown 23:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think no progress has been made, personally. I don't see the need for an example, since now that's what folks can't agree on. It's explained pretty clearly here, and this isn't intended to be a self-help manual, only an overview of NLP. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excep:Since "quick fix" is not required to understand swish, and no-one has objected to it's removal in the last 10 days, I do believe it's a furphy. GregA 00:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. This is probably the first time we have ever discussed something to depth while giving everyone a chance to say something and without snatch and grab deletes and reversions and tricky edits on side issues. The progress is great and we seem to be setting up healthy habits of compromise. NLP books are confusing. Their definitions are unhelpful. Your definition is fine when there is a brief single sentence description of the ritual. That is not a how to. There are many extra tweaks to add onto the process, and that would make it a how to. So far, we have come to the conclusion that any non concrete description of the swish will be inadequate, even when we remove objectionable words such as traumas, positive to negative, and so on. All the definitions of the swish are inadequate and could mean any visualisation technique from daydreaming to Aleister Crowley's magic. If you think we were being outrageous by suggesting such as the penis example, please take a brief search of the web [6]. The only reason it seems a little slow is because some editors want to sanitise a largely "unsanitary" subject. I also believe we are on the verge of agreement. All it takes is to agree upon an acceptable subject area for the single sentence description of what NLPers do when they do the swish. We are nearly there. Cheers DaveRight 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are not almost there. What is your opinion about the compromise I've proposed, minus an example? The only question is this: Is there anything wrong with the text I put forth? I don't want to hear whether it should have an example or not. Simply whether you can agree with this discrete text. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with katefan0 here. Yes, people are being more civil. But honestly, as a lay person who isn't heavily involved in the NLP community, I'm extremely confused in regards to all of this. We need to find a way to speak to people like me and not people like you. I think it's not a good sign when the mentors here are learned, intelligent people and yet in terms of NLP theory, I can safely say that we are lost. So. What katefan0 is proposing seems vague to you but to me, it's much clearer than what the text says now. We need to speak to Joe and Jane Q Public, not the Tony Robbins of the world. You all don't need to have NLP explained. 95% of the people reading this article do. And I don't think we can say that alot of progress has been made. Kate has tried twice now to get people on task and yet we keep veering off into TangentLand. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with Kate's suggestion. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 12:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've erased lots of commentary that doesn't answer my question. Focus on my question. I don't want to hear about whether you think the language needs an example (or that it's too "vague" without an example -- same thing). And we certainly are not discussing whether to rewrite the entire section. My question is: Is there anything wrong with this description as it stands? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. Now I am confused. You seem to have deleted the answer to your question. But perhaps I am wrong. Could you please define "wrong" in this case. Do you mean technically wrong in NLP terms, wrong in real psychology terms, wrong as in it doesn't work, or wrong as in incomplete? Also, you mentioned guilt by association; I'm not making this stuff up you know. Some certified NLP practitioners have stated that the VAKOG modalities of NLP are basically magick theory as taught by Aleister Crowley. I don't mean to cause offense by mentioning it, but people do seem to want to know whats going on here. Regards HeadleyDown 16:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. Perhaps I could answer. Firstly process is inaccurate. Its actually only a ritual. There is no theory or satisfactory explanation behind it beyond the normal placebo effect that occurs with any other ritual. The speed of the ritual isn't mentioned, it sometimes goes from positive to negative imagery, and it may have no direct influence on behaviour. So no, on its own I can't live with it. I believe we have a clear solution plus a way forward further down in the examples section. Cheers DaveRight 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0. I can't "live with" your revision either. The "mechanics" of your description of swish are true but only because it is a very generic description. The problem is the use of the word process. A process is a well-defined and finite series of steps within well-defined parameters. Baking a cake, manufacturing milk cartons, obtaining a passport, solving an equation are examples of processes. There are no well-defined parameters associated with swish: the images can be swapped using any "effect" you like, a "frame rate" is not specified, the number of swaps is not specified and there are no criteria to determine whether a particluar problem is suited to the swish. If the wish could be described as a process then "throw some eggs, water, sugar, cream of tartar, vanilla extract and almond extract together in a pan and bake it in an oven" counts as a recipe for baking Angel Food Cake. The swish is properly described as a ritual. Only rituals admit so much variation. flavius 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well :), I decided to look up "cake decorating processes" just to check if they were highly specific parameters - and they allow so much variety! Perhaps they should be described as "cake decorating rituals"!? They don't care about the shape of the cake, or its ingredients, they don't specify how fast to put the cream on, they even have options for using whipped cream frosting since it's apparently easier than many store bought frostings. And yet... there is a process :) There are certain things that define 'decorating a cake' and how it's done. Camridge has displayed a lack of understanding of a swish, perhaps you aren't aware of the key, non negotiable steps, and the manner in which they can vary, yourself? [7] Greg 05:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I thought you were being serious Flavius, both in your complaint at "process" and your problem with "swish" ... then I noticed you were complaining that a swish didn't specify the frame rate of the visualisation! - that cracks me up, sorry for not getting it :) So, in America they prefer to visualise at 24fps, in Europe it's 25fps... though we may upgrade that as people's expectations of TV increase with HD :) - perhaps one day we'll base it on actual subjective experience! Hope that helps! Greg 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg. I am being colourful -- in order to make a point -- but the substance of my concern is serious. Cake decorating is an artistic process and artistry is creative and necessarily variable. Cake decorating isn't intended to do anything other produce an aesthetically pleasing cake. The swish is intended to treat minor neurosis. Your analogy is false. The point of my apparently flippant examples is that any procedure that permits as wide variation as the Swish and that claims to produce a specific -- non-aesthetic result -- must be a ritual and fundamentally unrelated to the final result (real or apparent). The only "non-negotiable" components of Swish are the rapid swapping of a represention of some undesired behaviour with one that is desired. The structure of Swish is (i) representation of undesired behaviour/state; (ii) representation of desired behaviour/state; (iii) direction linkage of (i) with (ii) using scene transition devices borrowed from cinematopgraphic editing (eg. wipe, disolve, flip, slide, inset elnlargement etc.); and (iv) rapid and repeated iteration of (iii). I checked my understanding of Swish against The Sourcebook of Magic and The Insider's Guide to Submodalities. Swish isn't a process -- even in the loosest sense of the word -- it is a ritual. Any ritual has its distinguishing "non-negotiable" components that distinguish it from other rituals eg. all banishing rituals share common elements. There are several reasons why the swish is a ritual -- which I'll only go into if I have to -- but the important one is the absence of specificity in general and with regard to the fundamental elements. The reason why you can use your index finger instead of a dagger in the Lesser Banishing ritual is the same as why you can use whatever image transition device or speed of transition as you like -- there is nothing in the mechanics all that matters is belief and expectation, that is enough to produce a placebo effect. No-one experiences wipes, dissolves, flips and slides as part of their sponteanous subjective experinces. I've yet to read a phenomenological account of subjectivity (waking or dreaming) where someone describes a fade-in/fade-out, clock wipe, box wipe, circle wipe, push or dissolve. These are digital editing techniques not features of subjective experience. All of the accounts of PTSD, obsessive and disturbing images, stream of consciousness and dreaming that I am aware of (I welcome any contrary accounts) invlove abrupt change -- images simply flash through peoples minds, they just appear and disappear. That is "actual subjective experience". People don't natively experience box wipes -- the swish has nothing to do with "actual subjective experience". It is a ritual. flavius 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On topic: Umm, nothing really at this point, see my next on-topic below.

Off topic: You're saying that any procedure that permits a wide variety of options and claims to produce a specific result -- must be a ritual and fundamentally unrelated to the final result? Seriously, making a cake is a process, it permits a wide variety of options and claims to produce a specific result. You are just trying to distract from the issue.

Making a cake is a variable process because there is more than one type of cake. There is more than one way to make a particular type of cake eg. a lamington or drizzle cake but each variaton in recipe yields a different sub-type and the recipe for each sub-type is very specific. You are being beguiled by the process of abstraction. The point is that you can't make any cake by simply throwing the essential ingredients together in any order, in any quantity and then bake it at any temperature for any length of time. There is absolutely no specificity in the swish even in the purportedly essential elements. Hence it is a ritual. flavius 10:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respond but it's off-topic and there's too much distraction. We can argue it another day. Greg 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides,

what's the difference between procedure and process? (seriously).

They are similar but they are not synonymous. In an informal everyday usage the terms are used synomously and their meaning is ambiguous. In an systemic context procedures are often components of processes, eg. a human resource acquisition process is comprised of numerous standardised procedures. The HR acquisition process is a systemic component. Outside of systems they can be used interchangeably without much loss of meaning. Nevertheless, specificity characterises both. flavius 11:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't complained about the word "process" since we began months ago, why the sudden change?

Many things bother be tha I am yet to raise. I've always conceived of NLP patterns as rituals. Whichever way to slice it a box wipe has no instrinsic meaning to any human brain. flavius 11:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your definitions of process and ritual seem to cross over all over the place.

They may seem to but they actually don't. A ritual is an arbitrary collection of actions that are a priori arbitrarily linked to an intention to achieve some change and are post hoc assigned a causal role to any apparent change. Rituals are examples of beguilement by language and semiotics -- they are a type of magical thinking. Video editing techniques are Western 20th century technology made popular through television and cinema. A block wipe -- the most common image transistion device used in the swish -- lacks universal meaning, it means nothing to someone that doesn't know what TV or cinema is. Even amongst people familiar with TV and cinema the block wipe is not a feature of their subjective experience. The only meaning that a block wipe -- or any other editing device has -- is that it marks a scence transition. When we see a wipe on TV we don't think "something desirable will follow". Furthermore, our minds simply jump from one image to another when we stimulate a series of associations. When I hear a dentists drill, smell disinfectant and see clean white linoleum floors my mind jumps from one image to another relating to dentistry I don't see wipes, fades or dissolves and neither does anyone else that I'm aware of. If anything we see a surreal sliedshow. Also, some of us don't even see images in our heads. A dagger has no semantic overlap with an index finger how then I can substitute one for the other in the Lesser Banishment Ritual? When making a cake I can't substitute salt for sugar can I? How then I can use any scene transition technqiue I like when I do the swish and expect to obtain the same result? Only rituals allow this kind of variability because they are entirely arbitrary. flavius 11:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just need to point out that we're looking for a easy to understand description. No it won't be "sexy" or "exciting" but we need a simple explanation. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Woohookitty. As you seem to imply, there's a really clear and simple solution to this. Instead of saying "the swish is a submodality trigger that utilizes psychosomatic parts negotiation through ecology checks based upon transderivational search in order to .........", we could simply say "the swish pattern is a ritual that involves swapping images; e.g. a manager feels anxious about talking to his boss .....etc". ATB. Camridge 08:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty. The use of the word ritual would produce a easy to understand non-technical and accurate description of the swish. Swish is a ritual that involves the rapid and repeated swapping of two mental images. It is claimed by NLP proponents that the swish can be used to eliminate undesirable habits, (minor) phobias, compulsive thoughts and to achieve deliberate mood and attitude change. I have used "mood and atitude" in preference to the NLP notion of "state" for the sake of accessibility. Is that not simple, accurate and accessible? flavius 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the word ritual, the rest seems admirably neutral, I could agree to something like that (without "ritual"). I'm not sure why the word "process" is suddenly an issue, it's never been debated before that I know of in the last 6 months, another furphy to distract things perhaps? Ritual is misleading - I'm happy to use the word pattern instead of process? Greg 05:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there GregA. I believe nobody worries about the ritual term being not in this definition. I noticed downstairs HeadleyDown and others agreeing that it doesn't matter in this case definition. So you could write easily; the swish involves swapping of mental images, eg, a manager.......... and the rest. The ritual issue is something can be discussed in other area. It is not about cakes, or Flavius' helpful explanation. It is matter of fact in NLP teaching, and psychology. But right now I think its un-important. Do we have agreement? HansAntel 06:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd accept Flavius' description if the word ritual is not used (nor replaced by process). ie Swish involves the rapid and repeated swapping of two mental images. It is claimed by NLP proponents that the swish can be used to eliminate undesirable habits, (minor) phobias, compulsive thoughts and to achieve deliberate mood and attitude change. I do think that spending 2/3 of the description talking about where it can be used may be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Greg 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't insist on the use of the term ritual so long as no evaluative term such as "process" is used in its place. The problem with the word "process" is that it is inaccurate -- it suggests the presence of something that isn't there i.e. precision. The word "pattern" is unsuitable for an encyclopedic entry intended for the layman -- it is NLP specific jargon (that is perhaps meaningless anyway). flavius 00:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On topic: Okay, nothing to discuss then at this juncture. Neither word is used in the above example. "Swish involves" solves it.

Off topic: The problem with the word ritual is it suggests the presence of something that isn't there i.e. religion. Your criticism of NLP not being precise can be placed elsewhere - it probably corresponds with the precision attempted in PRS research which was not found. The word process itself, as with the cake decorating process, does allow for flexibility within certain rigid guidelines. Greg

Thanks Hans. Yes thats very wise. There's no need to mention the term ritual in this line, and yes I do believe we have a good and brief enough example to go with the line you suggest. So:

The swish: The rapid swapping of mental images, e.g. a manager is anxious about talking to his boss; so using hand movements, he would 1; push the mental image of his boss away, 2; then pull forward a larger image of himself as a management star, 3; then do it quickly 5-10 times while saying "SWWISSHHH!" to try to reduce the anxiety.

Does everyone here find this example suitable enough to move forward? Regards HeadleyDown 12:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Greg 13:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. There are no signs of traumas, negative blocks, mind viruses, rituals, practitioners, gurus, or “incorrect” examples from NLP authors in the example. We have been doing our best to explain facts and accommodate your objections. So perhaps you would like to elaborate upon “No”. Regards HeadleyDown 15:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The example doesn't quite capture the Swish. I offer the following: "A person experiences feelings of anxiety and dread whenever she enters her gymnasium. Applying the swish, the person forms a mental image of entering the gymnasium and another image of enjoying the coming workout and feeling a sense of satisfaction. The person rapidly and repeatedly exchanges the two images at the same time making a s-w-i-i-i-s-s-s-h-h-h-ing sound." flavius 01:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On topic: I thought you were asking a simple question, my answer is no. You've shortened the description, and using an example that I disagree with. I've already responded to these issues.

Off topic: You describe the anxiety as happening when he talks with his boss (not when he sees his boss) so there is a different trigger. Being a star is not a well formed outcome as it's not within your control. 'talking clearly and concisely' is a well formed outcome as it's within your control.

Hello again GregA. I believe we need to stop treating you as an "NLP expert". Firstly you are being way too fussy and technical as this article is concerned with useful clarifications, and secondly your recommendation to describe what the manager should do, is wrong. According to the literature I checked, the second image should be one of containing qualities not actions. That way the ecology check is built in. The alternatives offered are varied, and people here are taking time to search literature and offer alternatives. I don't believe you have offered anything constructive beyond your "I'll say No! until they suit me perfectly" game. Lets keep it reasonable. Good day JPLogan 02:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPLogan :) I wasn't aware you had ever treated me as an "NLP expert". Ecology is about the consequences of the change, not the change itself, as simple as that. You can accuse me of anything you want, but see if you can be specific, I don't think you actually read what I write. Greg 03:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius example is reasonably good, though it wouldn't work without other NLP processes. I would add "after using other NLP techniques on the issues, the habitual dread may still exist and can be removed by applying the swish - the person forms a mental image... "... etc. Also saying swish is an option for a temporary anchor(reminder) to assist the practitioner when telling the subject to "change the images now", I can't see value in a subject saying it to themselves....

I guess this means that we have a few votes accepting Katefan's definition: (GregA and Mettabubble) (I think it works well enough, for a single line), a few saying it's unacceptable: (Headley, Dave, Flavius) and some abstainers who are interested and have posted comments after Kate's question but haven't answered it: (Camridge, Hans) (I assume it's an implicit "no"). Am I misrepresenting anyone here? Greg 01:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well without the term "process" Katefan0's definition is ok by me, and I prefer the simple and short management example because it includes all the body/mind factors, and it is not a "how to" which GregA seems to be pushing for. As a description, it is certainly good enough for the article. There is nothing misleading about it in Wikipedia terms, because it shows exactly "the kind" of things you do when you do the swish. Its short, accurate, and is not full of NLP excuses for why it doesn't work. So:

The swish pattern: This involves repetitively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery in an attempt to affect a behavior change; e.g. a manager is anxious thinking about talking to his boss; so using hand movements, he would 1; push the mental image of his boss away, 2; then pull forward a larger image of himself as a management star, 3; then do it quickly 5-10 times while saying "SWWISSHHH!" to try to reduce the anxiety.

The "star" example is also given in the book NLP the New Technology of Achievement. I checked. So it is appropriate for this example. Good day. JPLogan 02:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course any example of any swish is an example of a swish. All I've asked is that if we can't give a generic description, the example be one that the various modalities of NLP would agree on. Greg 03:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To pre-empt the likely response that "rituals don't admit of variation" consider the first part of The Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram:

Take a steel dagger in the right hand (or use the index finger). Face EAST.

Steel dagger? What grade of steel? Cooking? Surgical? How bug should the dagger be? Dagger or index finger? Magnetic or Rotational East? Eaxctly East?

Perform the Cabbalistic Cross as follows:

Imagine, at the first word intoned, a brilliant white light descend from above.

How brilliant? How high from above?

Touch the forehead and vibrate ATEH (thou art)

Where on the forehead? How loud should I "vibrate ATEH"? How precisely (tempo, pitch, emphasis etc) do I make the utterance?

Imagine that same brilliant white light form a 6 inch diameter sphere just above the crown of your head.

Exactly 6 inches diameter? Do I have to imagine a ruler with projections next to it also to ensure I get exactly 6 inches?

Anyone performing this ritual must fill in many blanks and takes many liberties. So too anyone performing the Swish pattern. This isn't an attempt at "guilt by association". Amongst Magick practitioners that have studied NLP it is common to find the view that NLP is Western Magick. There are many well-known NLP proponents that are also Magick practitioners: Richard Bandler (co-founder), Kenrick Cleveland, Ross Jeffries, John La Valle (Bandler's business partner), Phil Farber, Robert Anton Wilson and Andrew T. Austin. Many of these people have also written on the relationship between NLP and Magick. Earlier I provided a list of links that relate NLP to Magick written by NLP practitioners. GregA and Comaze's response to this evidence is to claim "oh no, that's not NLP that's weird, it's not mainstream...". Bandler -- the co-founder of NLP -- teaches Magick in his NLP Master Prac. seminars[8]. Bandler is neither fringe or minority -- he heads the largest NLP "certifying" (read useless paper issueing) organisation ie. The Society of NLP. flavius 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi flavius. I did a search for "flavius:" and couldn't find your suggestion for this sentence we're workshopping. Did you make one? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mettabubble. We are discussing the term "process" in the line that Katefan0 suggested. Ritual is a more correct term and accurate according to the various meanings of ritual. However, I think that we already have a solution to this particular issue with reference to the clarifying management example. But people keep claiming "guilt by association" or "fringe view" in relation to psychological rituals, and this requires clearing up for future edits and civil discussion. We are working with a new age subject matter here according to independent researchers, and rituals are pertinent to that whole area, and NLP is central to that area. ATB. Camridge 07:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mettabubble. Rather than attempt to (illegitimately) censor my contribution on the basis of a spurious procedural violation it would be more constructive -- and indicative of good faith -- if you actually dealt with the substance of my contribution. It is not your place to police and enforce procedure that is what the mentors are here for. Further, I'm not obliged to provide you a tailor-made justification for every edit I make. The answer to your question is contained in the very edit that you aim to question. flavius 02:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple no would have sufficed. I meant no harm. It's 70,000 words long here you know! ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 05:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't read all 70,000 words everytime someone makes an edit do you? flavius 00:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have forgotten to read my response to your management example. GregA 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. You havn't responded to Cambridge's suggested alteration. Does this mean you are happy with it? Regards HeadleyDown 12:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the response, if I had I wouldn't have written the above. I'll look in the morning. Sorry for the distraction Katefan GregA 13:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, take your time. Regards HeadleyDown 13:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. The only criticism (in probably 500+ words of text since I last checked in) is a complaint that it's a ritual, not a process. How about this, then? Swish: A process or ritual that involves repetitively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery to affect a behavior change. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Katefan0, thats reasonable and fine by me. I'm not altogether sure we are dealing with reasonable people though, but I will do my best to assume it. JPLogan 02:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kate, the process vs ritual issue will be all throughout the article. I believe ritual has significant religious connotations which will mislead readers. Ritual is significant POV. Can you write "Swish: this involves repetitively swapping.....", or "Swish: a technique that involves repetitively swapping ...".

We are not arguing about NLP here - we agree that some steps of Swish can be very varied, within certain guidelines. This is an argument about what the word "process" means. We're debating whether it's a process or not. Implying it's simply a ritual basically negates the whole origin of NLP - which was finding out the key things that therapists did which really made a difference - not actions performed mainly for their symbolic value. I'm not here to debate the english language, but maybe that's where we're at. Surely there's a better way Greg 03:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting absurd. "Process" and "ritual" are used in this example to mean precisely the same thing. Can ritual mean something else? Yes. So can many things. Flavius suggested that "ritual" should be used because it allows for more flexibility than "process," but a simple survey of dictionary definitions does not bear out this reading of the meaning of "ritual." If anything, "ritual" conveys much less flexibility. So, throw that argument out the window. Now, I personally am not convinced that casual usage of the word "ritual" (as in, "an inflexible, stylized, and often repetitive sequence of actions" -- Merriam-Webster) conveys any different meaning than "process" (as in, "to deal with somebody or something according to an established procedure" -- Merriam-Webster). All right then, let's pick another synonym. How about "method?" · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan0. I don't think you understood my argument and the idea that referring to a dictionary can resolve this matter is naive. You'll need to actually read material on ritual or study rituals themselves. A distingusishing quality of ritual is arbitrariness. I don't recall describing rituals as "flexible" and the description you provide is more ceremony than ritual. I actually provided you with an actual ritual, namely the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram, yet you opted to look in Merriam-Webster. You haven't understood my argument so it's premature and presumptuous to dismiss it. Forget the Merriam-Webster or everyday use of the term ritual, what they describe is regimentation and ceremony not ritual proper. I didn't write that ritual is freestylin', I wrote that it's arbitrary, variable, non-specific and without well-defined parameters. With the Lesser Banishing ritual you can use your index finger or a dagger. With the swish you can use any sort of scene transition technqiue borrowed from video editing. This isn't flexibility it is arbitrariness and non-specificity. You can't do anything that you like, you have a choice out of a set of arbitrary and meaningless options. Furthermore, the options themeselves (or even when there aren't options) are non-specific and vague. These are the distinguishing features of ritual. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I think your approach to this article is inappropriate. It's a technical topic and can't be disposed of in the same manner as an article on The Simpson's. Nuances of meaning, precision and terminology are important in technical writing. I'm getting the impression that you don't have a technical background and have no appreciation of technical writing (and no, technical writing doesn't necessarily mean writing for a technical audience, it means writing about technical matters often for a lay audience). flavius 13:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. You are being both reasonable and flexible to accomodate all views. I do suggest we can do away with ritual, process, method or anything else for this small example. For the sake of progress, we can use "The swish involves.....". As usual GregA is denying that something exists in the literature (NLP involves rituals), when in fact, Grinder, one of NLP's originators, and many other NLP authors have stated that everything in NLP is a ritual. I am used to coping with these kind of tactics, but I can understand if you find this absurd. The best way is to just keep moving forward. Regards HeadleyDown 04:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan, agreed. "Method", or unnamed, is fine. Technique is also an option (NLP books seem to say process, pattern, or technique). Happy with any of those. Greg 09:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the original change-requester, I'm also fine with making no change at all. I believe the new description is one step forward and one step back, happy to withdraw my request all together if that helps. Greg 09:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kate. I'll support 'method' also. I don't support 'ritual', as it's too much like a slur. Actually I find it hard to fathom how ritual ever got tabled seriously on an NPOV wiki. I'd be happy enough with 'process', 'technique', 'way', 'means', 'pattern', 'procedure'. I think we need to stick with common usage definitions. If words are commonly used interchangeably that gets us close enough for a comprimise. Yet, ritual belongs on the cutting room floor right next to treatment, tool and trick. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 13:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. In order to move forward and keep the ball rolling, I suggest this:

The swish pattern: This involves repetitively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery to affect a behavior change; e.g. a manager is anxious thinking about talking to his boss; so using hand movements, he would 1; push the mental image of his boss away, 2; then pull forward a larger image of himself as a management star, 3; then do it quickly 5-10 times while saying "SWWISSHHH!" to try to reduce the anxiety.

This is the same as JP's and I believe it is the result of the most advanced point of our discussion, so its a constructive version to move forward with. Again this version removes the need for ritual, process, or method being repeated in every example in the section. If we use those terms, they can be placed with far less redundancy in the section heading. But thats another discussion. I do believe, as the descriptions of each ritual will be more clarifying for readers, fewer processes/rituals can be provided as examples in that common NLP processes/rituals section. Regards HeadleyDown 06:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Katefan's suggestion of one line. I don't think an example belongs in this part as it stands - but you keep implying that's what she's saying and I may have misunderstood her. If she wants an example, can we improve it as follows:

The swish pattern: This involves repetitively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery to affect a behavior change; e.g. a manager is anxious when he sees his boss; so using hand movements, he would 1; push the mental image of his boss away, 2; pull forward a larger image of himself handling the situation well, 3; repeat quickly 5-10 times, in order to change the anxiety to a new state.

This links the trigger (seeing his boss) to the swish, and puts a behavious (handling it well) which may be entirely ecological because we haven't (in the example) said exactly what that means. It also removes the word "swish" which is entirely unnecessary when doing on self (as the example implies) Greg 09:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now we have all the traumas, quick fixes, and other such “objectionably scientological” stuff out of the way, we have allowed you to leave the positive to negative out of it also, we have allowed you to imply that it works (removing the word try) and left you with a respectable manager in the picture. The Swish pattern is called so because of the SWISH anchor that is used in the trainings, in the audios, and in nearly all of the books. So it stays. It shows clearly what NLPers do in seminars and in books, and clearly demonstrates the mind/body VAK aspects of NLP. It is a part of clarifying the swish pattern. So here is another generous compromise:

The swish pattern: This involves repetitively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery to affect a behavior change; e.g. a manager is anxious when he sees his boss; so using hand movements, he would 1; push the mental image of his boss away, 2; pull forward a larger image of himself handling the situation well, 3; repeat quickly 5-10 times while saying “SWISH”, in order to change the anxiety to a new state.

Regards HeadleyDown 10:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If katefan wants an example, then yes I'm willing to use this as the next step in an example of swish. I still think a 3 or 4 line description + example doesn't fit in the current simple list - in which case I'd be willing to use this example as a basis for an expanded section when we get to that. Greg

Yes I can also live with this (Headley's) suggestion above. The current list in that section will need improving later, and some will probably be removed. Making the article into something readable and clear is the main point. JPLogan 02:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Headley's last one will do. This is the first step to civilly resolving disputes, and I trust it will become more efficient in future. ATB. Camridge 03:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup I'll go with Headley's latest also. Time for clarity. Cheers DaveRight 03:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! So accomodating! OK, in the interests of progress, I also agree. It'll do. Chiao AliceDeGrey 04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still say that if we keep the example all we're doing is making an obvious piece that doesn't fit with any of the other list of points. It won't look good, it will detract from readability of the article until the whole section/list is rewritten. I'll repeat - we should use this as a basis for an expanded section when we get to that. If katefan wants an example now - then this is the one to use and I'll follow what she recommends. However, I think at present it will look stupid in context, even if it's fine on its own... I'll have to work out a sample somehow to see if I'm right or misreading (hard to tell when it's just a single extracted line). Please look at the context. Greg 12:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've pasted a copy of the section which had the swish line in it, below. It's not as bad as I thought with an example - perhaps removing "1", "2" and making it flow naturally would help. Greg 13:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure GregA. Thats the idea. We can discuss the contents and title of the section sometime else, or now if that suits people. Lets keep it all clear. Regards HeadleyDown 13:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another note - if there was an option, instead of positive/negative would you prefer "repetitively swapping unwanted mental imagery for desired mental imagery"? this is more realistic to me, and may get around the negative/positive issue you mention. If the answer is no then lets stick with Katefan's.

Back to swish, I myself make some noise, purely as an anchor, while indicating the change in the picture/sound etc to a subject (as your references indicate too). (note: I have only done this in a class environment, I don't like swish). I wouldn't think it necessary if working on myself (which I thought this example implies). Greg 22:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. Reasonable suggestion, but unwanted to desired will really make no difference. There are so many ways to swap imagery, and the definition on its own wll always leave the reader none the wiser. Using examples and concrete language is the way to go with this article. I believe the section we are on will manage with fewer examples, but more description, as they are going to be much clearer using brief examples. We need to avoid the laundry list of jargon in order to clear things for the reader. Regards HeadleyDown 01:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I think we're all making progress on this issue, I would agree with Katefan0 that an example is not necessary. Looking at the phrase in context, without example, I think it flows quite nicely. This article should not be a "how-to", but a summary of the practice and its history. Ral315 (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ral315. You’re absolutely right. I also believe its too much like a “how to”. So here’s a better alternative that will suit more people (especially the readers):

The swish pattern: This involves the NLP practitioner repetitively swapping mental imagery using hand movements and saying “SWWIIISSSSHHHH”, in an attempt to remove negative blocks or banish lesser traumas.

If anyone doesn’t like this version we can add the terms; quick fix, ritual, mind viruses, and so on.

Thanks for the pointer. Regards HeadleyDown 14:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Headley, this version is far more acceptable, considering the options that are presented in the literature. JPLogan 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! This version is far better, though we could also add the term "remove toxic thoughts". DaveRight 06:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go for it! AliceDeGrey 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thats a much more reasonable suggestion. ATB. Camridge 08:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ral that no example is needed, and bringing back "negative blocks ... lesser traumas" back into the mix when you know that others don't agree is not going to help advance discussions here. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kate. I also agree we don't need an example or how-to. The latest Headley version now uses good clear, scientific, and concrete language that is helpful to the reader. Traumas are described in psychological journals and books, and are abundantly present in NLP swish examples. Negative blocks are a common new age notion and easily understandable to readers, and the phrase is also present in NLP literature and adverts. AliceDeGrey 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. Well we have a different situation here. Both of those facts are in the literature, and now we have a different set of notions in the line. Previously we said that it doesn't matter what went in the first line as long as the example was ok. NLP advocate editors objected to both lines the extent that we hit rock bottom on the compromise scale. This new suggestion is a middle (and fairer) way. If some editors want to object to the psychological traumas fact again, then they should state why. They know now there are many other things we want to add, but have left out. So I am looking for reasonable compromise. Editors should not have to put up with removing so many verifiable facts. Regards HeadleyDown 02:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more time. Swish: Repetitively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery to affect a behavior change. Is there anything wrong with this language? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Katefan0. Its not specific to the swish (it could be the 10 minute phobia cure, or visualization in general), it doesn't say why its called the swish, it implies that it works on behavioural change when there's no evidence, it can go from positive to negative, and it doesn't take into account the mind/body aspects of the technique. The previous version can be adjusted. All it takes is a little compromise. Regards HeadleyDown 01:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kate. It also doesn't say what its used for. Removing negative blocks and lesser traumas covers just about everything more concretely, and penis enlargement, and psychic seduction etc have been left out to avoid conflict. ATB Camridge 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what we're working toward. Language all can agree on without conflict. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. Headley's suggestion is far clearer without being a how-to. Your definition there isn't even based on the literature. Every part of Headley's one refers to a broad selection of the literature, and uses accurate scientific knowledge. Affect in behavioural change is inaccurate. As a ritual, the swish only attempts to achieve a variety of things, and removing blocks and traumas covers a good range from a scientifically informed perspective. Looks like we have a lot of agreement for that version also. Cheers DaveRight 03:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan. Your line leaves too many unanswered questions for the reader. They will be asking: Why is it called the swish?, whats it used for?, what kind of change?, what's involved? and so on. I believe Headleys version covers all of those things very briefly. It also quite kindly leaves out details of the more unsavoury NLP applications. I can make a small improvement to Headley's though. Instead of "remove" negative blocks, I would say "overcome" negative blocks. That would be even more accurate. Bookmain 03:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias are for general knowledge. We aren't here to explain all questions an article might raise. If someone reads our article on NLP and has further questions, that's what external links and "Further reading" sections are for. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello chaps. Further to Bookmain's suggestion, I propose this:

The swish pattern: This typically involves the NLP practitioner repetitively swapping mental imagery using hand movements and saying “SWWISSSHHH”, in an attempt to overcome negative blocks or to banish lesser traumas.

The description is fine, though the addition of "typically" does show there is some variety as is common with such rituals. And overcoming negative blocks keeps the description easy to understand for the reader, while accurately showing that the new image is more of an overlay to overcome a previously limiting image. ATB.Camridge 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that looks even better Camridge. Chiao AliceDeGrey 05:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC) p.s looks good in context also. AliceDeGrey 05:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that much better. I think we can add "toxic thoughts". Objecters have given up, and its in the books anyway. HansAntel 10:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case the suggested line of Camridge is fine as it is. Toxic thoughts can be represented under mental blocks somewhere else on the article. Regards HeadleyDown 11:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I'll take this collection of non-responses to my simple yes or no question as a "no." Are there ways to improve the language? Certainly. However, what I'm striving for is language all can agree on as a base from which to build. If there's nothing wrong with my suggestion, then it will be used. Consider this section closed and resolved with the language I put forth. Improvements can always be made, but we have to manage to agree on something before we can move forward. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swish- in context

Meta model: questions to recover distortion, generalisation and deletion from a speaker ^[9][10]).
Representational systems: verbal and non-verbal cues such as eye movements, sensory predicates, breathing rate, and body posture are calibrated to identify the modality, type and sequence of internal Visual, Auditory or Kinesthetic representations ^[11]^p.9^[12].
Perceptual positions: a situation is considered from different points of view of those involved, typically self, other, and neutral observer ^pp.xix,197 ^[13].
Dilts' Neurological Levels of Learning: categorisation of information into a hierarchies consisting of environment, behavior, competency, belief/value, identity and purpose (or spirit) ^[14].
Swish pattern: This typically involves the NLP practitioner repetitively swapping mental imagery using hand movements and saying “SWWISSSHHH”, in an attempt to overcome negative blocks or to banish lesser traumas.
Visual / Kinesthetic dissociation: separates the see-feel synaesthesia that drives reponses to a stimulus. The NLP "phobia cure" uses two place dissociation ^[15]^[16]^[17][18]
Rapport: pacing and leading attention by matching, mirroring or cross pacing verbal and non-verbal behavior ^[19]^[20] such as breathing, sensory predicates ^[21], and gestures.
Submodality modification: deliberately altering the coding of internal sensory representations such as location, size and brightness of internal images^[22] (S & C Andreas 1987)

Discussion of references (Swish)

Can we attempt to use the formatting we were trying, everyone, please?. GregA 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion

Hello Mettabubble. Both examples, (10 Minute Phobia Cure and Swish) use the trauma example in many NLP books. This is a positive ritual for NLP. It shows NLP can make you go from trauma to confidence. This is clear. ATB Camridge 07:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more like an interpretation of the process (one of many), but not the swish process itself. Which books specifically are you referring to? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mettabubble. According to The User Manual for the Brain II, by Hall and Bodenhammer, the swish is for dealing with traumas page 154-155. Of course there are many other typical NLP books that do this, and more will be provided in time for inclusion into the article. ATB Camridge 08:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, according to volume one of the User Manual.... on Page 120, it says the swish is used for the clearing of traumas. Traumas are also mentioned in the Andreas' book; NLP; The New Technology of Achievement, and in Hubbard's Dianetics; The New Technology of Achievement. ATB Camridge 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Comaze. User Manual for the Brain was written in collaboration with Bandler and Dilts. On page 120 they say that both the swish pattern and the 10 minute phobia cure are used for treating traumas. Of course they are both very different from normal trauma treatments in clinical psychology, which can take months. ATB Camridge 09:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the specific trauma ritual that Dilts proposes in his dictionary is also interesting [23] in relation to the swish. It is very similar to the swish, especially in the recommendation to do it very fast, and also in its recommendation to run through it a few times at the end. Of course, as Devilly has mentioned, there is no empirical evidence for its ability to work or not. But the out of body experience may be worth a mention in relation to VK dissociation and the swish. This out of body ritual is also mentioned in Dianetics books. I am starting to see many more of these New Age connections between NLP and Scientology. Though ritual VK dissociation has also been implicated in cult mind control, as mentioned by Singer 1999. It can lead to bad side effects such as mental instability and delusion (Singer 1999). ATB Camridge 09:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is distracting from Swish - let's keep it focussed? GregA 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of references for the swish pattern, please add additional references for this... --'c' 09:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze

According to Dilts and Delozier (2000) who's description agrees with Bandler (Using your brain -- for a change) is that the swish pattern is most commonly used to "problematic responses" (simple compulsions, habbits, etc.). A description of its the swish patterns and its in Dilts & Delozier's online encyclopedia p.1361-1364.
Sue Knight (2002) states that the swish pattern "is not suitable for deeper, more significant issues" -- that is, the Swish is not suitable for dealing with simple phobias or traumas p.26 Sue Knight, NLP at Work.
See also, "First Session in Brief Therapy" by Budman, Simon H (p.29), who also says that Swish is suitable for dealing with simple habbits (like overeating, smoking and nail biting).
For an academic (Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal) description see, The NLP swish pattern: An innovative visualizing technique Masters, Betsy J. et al., Journal of Mental Health Counseling; (1991) Vol. 13(1) pp79-90

Camridge

The swish is about removing negative blocks and behaviours [24]
The swish is used for trauma clearing according to Dilts, Bandler, Bodenheimer, and Hall in The User Manual for the Brain page 120.
Other trauma treatments in NLP are similar to the swish (repeat the ritual quickly) [25]

Comments on references

http://www.mind4.co.uk/html/nlp_techniques.html is not acceptable
Can you provide a quote from Dilts, Bandler etc where they recommend the swish for dealing with trauma - typically the swish is not approprirate for trauma

--'c' 11:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, Metta bubble and I have been working together to come up with a description that is close to what is found in the NLP books and academic literature. We need to avoid using the word trauma; typically the swish is not use for dealing with trauma. "Clearing blocks" is not commonly used in the literature. Reducing unwanted Habbits, yes. We need to be careful not to write from our own memory or experience. I noticed that the reference you used to formulate your description of the swish were questionable in regards to reputability and reliability; "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources. This page is an attempt to provide guidance about how to identify these. The two policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.WP:RS --'c' 11:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The third of Camridge's reference doesn't mention the word swish at all, and the words Other trauma treatments do not appear in the article either. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 20:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Comaze. I just checked the ref, and indeed Dilts and Hall et al do recommend the swish for clearing traumas. As the swish is applied to a small variety of things, simply listing- negative blocks, habits, and removing traumas will be fine I believe. Regards HeadleyDown 12:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've already covered that we don't have an adequate reference for removing negative blocks. Are you putting forward a new one? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MettaBubble. Woohookitty was quite happy with the mental blocks description given for NLP overall. I believe it is cooperative to be clear and readable. Regards HeadleyDown 02:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he agreed that "removing blocks" was more accessible to readers than "removing impediments". And it is. It's just not NLP. "I believe it is cooperative to be clear and reable" :) it is, but lets also try to talk about NLP eh? GregA 03:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. Really, I must assure you that I have been talking precisely about NLP in relation to the swish. Here's just one source easily accessible by a few seconds searching the web:

http://www.hypnoticmp3.com/hypnosis_business.htm]

"Six-The Swish- a simple, yet powerful process to eliminate negativity, release old limiting beliefs and replace them with solid, powerful beliefs. You will use this process for many of your inner conflicts and emotional BLOCKS." There are many others. Regards HeadleyDown 05:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed the Dilts encyclopedia trauma therapy includes the swish at the end. The swish is used within NLP trauma clearing rituals aswel as a treatment in itself. Regards HeadleyDown 12:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - but several people appear to be responding to themselves... is there a reason?

Yes GregA, I was just responding to Comaze again. I wanted it to be known that I was making two seperate comments. Regards HeadleyDown 14:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your reference for this Headley? I've read the online encyclopedia and the entry on [Trauma doesn't mentioned swish at all. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MettaBubble. Yes the encyclopedia there gives a clear description of the swish at the end of the trauma process. Repetitively and rapidly going through the images. It doesn't say the term swish pattern. But now I see we must be a great deal clearer after all. As suggested, we can place Comaze's version in, but only if you compromise on non-advocates placing an example in. Regards HeadleyDown 02:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I now see the confusion. You're not saying the swish is for trauma reduction, rather just that it can be used as a cleanup, at the end. Unfortunately any NLP process can be used as an adjunct to others, Swish is clearly not used for trauma reduction so it shouldn't be wrongly stated. GregA 03:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. No, believe I am very clear on this. Practitioners say that the swish is used for the treatment of traumas

(that link's an ad, it looks very low quality, they spelt trauma wrong! uggh GregA 05:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes Headley, there are far better examples than that on the web. Just take a further look. JPLogan 06:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "The swish is a submodality technique with a wide range of applications. It has been used successfully to resolve compulsive behaviours such as nail biting (Wilhelm, 1991) or explosive violence (Masters et alia, 1991), as well as to deal with anxiety conditions (Andreas and Andreas, 1992).":

And from Bolstad: [26]
Use NLP submodality processes to dissociate from traumatic memories, and associate into enjoyable experiences, sorting their ongoing experiences for happiness.
The swish is a submodality process. (not Bolstad, but true- GregA)

So in combination with the stated view of Hall and Bodenhammer, and all the others, the swish is clearly used and promoted for the treatment of traumas. Why should we deny it? Regards HeadleyDown 04:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful of your logic. A car has wheels. A bike has wheels. So in combination, a car is a bike. (The swish uses submodality changes. Trauma reduction can use submodality changes.)

Listen headley, I know that Swish can be used for trauma reduction, it's just not what it's generally used for. I take it your Wilhelm quote is because you believe explosive violence is trauma related (or nail biting?). Andreas quote is relevant because anxiety = trauma? Listen - if we say "to change emotional states" or something similar, it covers what you want to say. GregA 05:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listening, GregA. I (and Hans) have already suggested that we can allow you to leave both traumas and mental blocks out of the definition, and that Comaze's definition be clarified using a clear example. I believe that is a reasonable enough solution here. Regards HeadleyDown 05:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is my definition of Swish also acceptable? (in last 30 minutes) GregA 05:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To what you said Headley - we're trying to make a simple description here - "removing unwanted habitual behaviours" is very generic, and can apply to almost anything - though it does imply simpler things. Naturally there are certain types of behaviours and certain contexts where this is applied but how much detail do you really want? It IS possible to apply swish to many things, so having a quote that swish can be applied to X doesn't in anyway imply that's where it's mostly used. Your comment that Dilts does this at the end is interesting - he may be using the swish to clean up any residual habitual response after the issue itself has been dealt with with another process. Again - how much detail do you really want here?

Lastly - disappointing that we discuss for 5 days, get pretty well there, and then a few people decide to speak at the last moment with significant disagreements. We asked for input several times, lets do this better in future if we want to get anywhere. This is a REALLY simple, single line change. GregA 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. I am quite happy with progress and look forward to the same in future. We have presented a lot more information about NLP in the last day or so, and discovered its various applications according to the literature. We've revealed quite a lot. Regards HeadleyDown 14:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't really been any information presented on swish here at all. We have seven blindingly simple points above (courtesy of Comaze and Camridge). The term literature is meaningless in your post. We have a small list of references that applies to this discussion. If there's anything specific you believe is relevant please place it there (in the list above). I am unhappy with the progress we've made on this mindbogglingly simple topic. I'm unsure under what criteria you can find yourself happy with the progress. How discussion of Swish can generate this much disagreement and vague references to vague opinions is completely beyond credulity. I sincerely hope the mediators are taking a long hard look at the process here. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 20:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mettabubble. It can easily be clarified with a good example. Comaze can supply the definition, and I believe there was a good example given above involving seduction. Once it is refined, it will be very clarifying for the reader. You may want to keep in mind that NLP books ammount to very little indeed. Their texts are generally designed full of flim flam and meaningless psychobabble (according to independent researchers). So either clear language, or examples will be far better than NLP practitioner jargon. Regards HeadleyDown 02:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples can deliberately mislead. I don't want to mislead, it may make people think they know what it means and be way, way off. Who wants that? GregA 03:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GregA. You certainly would want to show a reader your version of the ritual. Especially as bias is something Wikipedia recognized. We need to clarify this for the sake of the article. You havn't seen the finished and refined version of the example. Any seduction example will hold a certain amount of glamour and attraction also. It may even turn out to suit you. Regards HeadleyDown 05:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about your specific example. Any example will mislead, particularly if it's an example that will react with a readers personal values. It's a pity you've made such a big thing about 1 single line - now we need multiple lines plus examples? Can we assume that you are pushing for every description to have a far more detailed description?

Otherwise, is my most recent suggestion acceptable for now? GregA 05:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GregA. I understand that clarity is the main purpose here. The article needs to be clearer. NLP is extremely confounding in its texts. They take you round in circles with complicated and odd terms, and the result leaves you wondering if anything has been done at all. Examples will certainly help. Good day JPLogan 06:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I skim read Bandler and MacDonald's An Insider's Guide To Submodalities and there are examples of using Swish and its numerous variations to treat phobia and trauma. See pages 57-63. At the beginning of the ritual Bandler checks that the problem is not an "overwhelming phobia" (p. 59, italics added) -- suggesting that the ritual is not suited for such cases. However, the Swish is discussed in the context of "an unpleasant experience in a dark alley" (p. 63)and in the treatment of a fear of public speaking (pp. 112-3). This is an authoritative source. So the Swish is used for phobia and trauma but apparenly only where the sufferer can at least recall the incident without experiencing acute anxiety. Thus it's used for "milder" trauma and phobia as well as compulsive behaviour and obsessive thoughts. flavius 12:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Flavius. Thats the kind of thing it is for, especially when applied to clearing mental blocks, "mind viruses", or "toxic thoughts" to enable healing or spiritual development. I think we could include an example of banishing lesser traumas using the swish. Or alternatively we could stick with a brief seduction example. Regards HeadleyDown 13:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a reference to "blocks" and "clearing" in Insider's: "Restructuring an entire event in this manner sometimes provides people with information that was blocked from consciousness." (p.53, italics added) flavius 13:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The follwoing isn't directly relevant to swish -- feel free to move it elsewhere more appropriate -- but it's so irresponsible and questionable that it should be referenced in the article. MacDonald claims that using submodality manipulation he and his daughter can consume alcohol without experiencing inebriation, when inebriated can return to sobriety within 15 minutes and can wake the next day without a hangover.

I began playing with the possibilities inherent in this and go myself quite happily drunk on one glass of wine...Later it occurred to me to question what would happen if the process was reversed. In other words, find the movement of the sensastions that accompany alchohol consumption and simply reverse the movement...I drank more than half a fifth of Wild Turkey over a four-hour period and remained coherent, coordinated and precise in my diction. At 101 proof, that is enough alcohol to have left me fairly incoherent under ordinary circumstances. I have no idea what my blood-alcohol level would have been, but there was no unpleasant hangover the following morning. I mentioned it to the now grown-up Jessica who said, "Yeah, me and my girlfriend used to do that at partied. When the room would start to spin, we'd get it spinning the other way and be sober in fifteen minutes." (pp. 101-2, An Insider's Guide To Sub-Modalities).

flavius 13:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Flavius. In Time for a Change, Bandler talks of schizophrenia being a skill. From a realistic psychology perspective this is quite unfortunate, because skills such as riding a bike tend to be retained throughout the lifespan. Regards HeadleyDown 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please attempt to stay on track. There's lots of interesting discussion possible from that comment but to stay on TRACK - you've all said my or comaze's line is acceptable, but that you believe it needs clarification from an example. So

our line is acceptable. That's great, at least we've got that much.
are you going to provide an example?

I suggest you pick a non-controversial application - eg therapy or self-help. GregA 02:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No GregA. Here's the situation: Your line is tolerable, but only if we provide a clarifying example. Self-help, and therapy are ok, but communication and seduction are part of self help, and they can also be clarifying for the article. Regards HeadleyDown 03:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh :) Here's the situation: Please suggest a clarifying example. Perhaps we'll think it's great. GregA 05:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swish example

Hi all, well here's my suggestion (with GregA's latest definition).

Swish: A process that involves swapping an unwanted mental image of a behavior for a desired mental image, several times, with the goal of changing the behavior and associated emotional response.

E.g. Using hand movements, an NLP practitioner would 1; identify a past lesser trauma (e.g. a dissatisfied client) and quickly push the mental image away, 2; then rapidly pull forward and enlarge a larger positive image (e.g. a more susceptible client), 3; then do it repetitively until the trauma is banished.

Notice I have kept it positive and in line with the body/mind/spirit side of NLP. ATB. Camridge 06:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, okay, gave me a laugh. :) I look forward to the serious one too. GregA 12:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, GregA. It would be better if you could try to dispense with the sarcasm. We need to move forward here. If you have any specific objections to the example presented, please say exactly what part you don't want. Regards HeadleyDown 13:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really have no idea Headley? I believe you guys are smart - that left me wondering if this suggestion was a joke or a deliberate attempt to antagonise - I chose joke.

So, to give you an idea - you've provided (Camridge) an example where the NLP practitioner is has anxpracticing on themselves because they're traumatised by having had a dissatisfied client. The example is insulting, misleading, and contradicts NLP presuppositions of using past experience as feedback. If you wish to clarify what you don't understand I'll see whether I can explain differently, but I must say that if anyone is unable to see how that 'example' looks, if they're incapable of "writing for the enemy", then I would doubt any value in them being here. GregA 13:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. Well, you are not being particularly specific, but here is another version. And if you don't like it, please point out exactly which parts you don't like.

Adjusted version

Swish: A process that involves swapping an unwanted mental image of a behavior for a desired mental image, several times, with the goal of changing the behavior and associated emotional response.

E.g. Using hand movements, an NLP practitioner would 1; identify a limiting insecurity (e.g. a small penis) and quickly push the mental image away, 2; then rapidly pull a larger positive image towards them (e.g. a big penis), 3; then do it again repetitively until gratified.

As you can see, I have even removed the trauma example. HeadleyDown 14:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much time ATM. Another unfortunate example - I will explain later. For now, would another one of your group suggest a more acceptable alternative to us all? GregA 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

E.g. Using hand movements, an NLP practitioner would 1; identify a past lesser trauma (e.g. losing a debate regarding the efficacy of NLP) and quickly push the mental image away, 2; then rapidly pull forward and enlarge a larger positive image (e.g. winning a debate regarding the efficacy of NLP), 3; then do it repeatedly until the trauma is banished.

or

E.g. Using hand movements, an NLP practitioner would 1; identify a past regret (e.g. wasted time and money on NLP seminars) and quickly push the mental image away, 2; then rapidly pull a larger positive image towards them (eg. rewards flowing from the time and money spent on NLP seminars), 3; then do it again repetitively until the regret is banished.

They'd all work as real-life applications of the Swish. The nail-biting example in many books is hackneyed but that would also work:

E.g. Using hand movements, an NLP practitioner would 1; identify an undesirable habit (e.g. nail biting) and quickly push the mental image away, 2; then rapidly pull a larger positive image towards them (e.g. unchewed nails), 3; then do it again repetitively until the compulsion is eliminated. flavius

Good suggestions. Perhaps we could leave practitioners out of it altogether though. After all, its not going to remove any of their problems. Getting a bad habit (censoring wikipedia) removed by replacing it with an image of surfing porn instead, or unplugging the computer will be as ineffective as any other pattern. So here's a fairly common application (removing negative blocks to performing sexual harrasment).

E.g. Using hand movements, an NLP seducer would 1; identify a limiting insecurity (e.g. talking to women) and quickly push the mental image away, 2; then rapidly pull a larger positive image to their face (e.g. talking to an H.B. (helpless babe)), 3; then do it again saying "SWWWWWIIIISSSSSHHHHH!" repetitively until satisfied.

This includes the V,K, and A aspects of NLP into the ritual. And of course, the stated SWWWWWIIISSSSHHHHH anchor is the reason they call it the swish. Interestingly, the hand movements are all part of Perl's enactment prescriptions (that he learned from Dianetics). Cheers DaveRight 03:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not sexual harassment! Is it? Anyway, I think we could stick with the seduction example as it also relates to the "communication excellence" of NLP. I think the swish example will be extremely useful for clarifying other parts of the article also. ATB. Camridge 04:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes! We did say we would keep traumas out of it, and leaving the "practitioner" label out for now will keep it less personal. So I'd vote for Dave's version. But I'd like to hear what you others think also. Regards HeadleyDown 13:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's come up with a neutral description of how the swish is applied -- this can probably be inserted into the NLP applications section. Published case studies are higher quality sources, than NLP texts, personal experience or memory. --'c' 13:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze. What is your objection to Dave's suggestion? As far as I can see, its exactly the kind of swish used in NLP seduction. Regards HeadleyDown 14:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to Dave's is:

"NLP Seduction" is not NLP. It is an application of NLP - to seduction.
NLP used for seduction is a minority application of NLP
NLP used for seduction is something we agreed belonged in "Dubious uses" or "Ethical concerns". Swish can be used on many many things, and since we are teaching swish we should present an example that teaches Swish without invoking any ethical concerns in any readers (but we should still present those concerns clearly in the ethics section).
Really the whole description seems designed to leave a thoroughly bad impression (helpless babe" etc).
It doesn't say what "satisfied" means.

On a personal, moral level, I find nothing wrong at all with helping someone gain confidence to give a speech, go abseiling, or talk with people (though I wouldn't use swish). I consider it highly unethical to attempt to manipulate a girl into wanting to have sex with a guy. GregA 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to Flavius is:

Swish would never be used in that way. Why would anyone make themselves believe they didn't chew their nails, rather than actually working on stopping the habit?

Really, all these changes simply have no ecology to them and aren't examples that anyone would use.

GregA. Swish is recommended by Bandler (amongst others) as a means of eliminating compulsive behaviour. The nail-biting example is not unusual. Swish isn't supposed to only change beliefs it's supposed to direct the mind. I can recall Carmine Baffa's animated demonstration of Swish where he said, "Swish tells your brain this, not this; this, not this; this, not this...". This is the explanation given in Insider's Guide also. The idea being that when you think about chewing nails you immediately become redirected to not chewing nails or some other more desirable behaviour. I'll provide you a referenced authoritative example where swish is used to eliminate bad habits. Never is a strong word and I'm quite confident that you are demonstrably wrong on this. I'm not by my NLP books at this moment but here's a scattering of links that corroborate my take on the Swish:

http://www.newhabit.net/pages/1/index.htm <-- Never say never

http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/nlp_swish.htm

http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/swish.php3

http://www.hypnosense.com/swish_technique.htm

http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Shelton2.html

http://www.nlpu.com/Patterns/patt25.htm

http://www.positivehealth.com/Permit/Articles/NLP/nlp13.htm

http://www.ciauk.com/nlp/toolswh.htm#

http://www.altfeld.com/mastery/misc/irc-05-24.html

http://www.nlpschedule.com/glossary.html#S <-- Authoritative

http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/articles/NLP/swish13.htm <-- Authoritative (Bandler using Swish for nail-biting habit)

http://www.stuarttan.com/articles/anger.pdf

http://www.nlpschedule.com/smoking.html <-- Authoritative (Swish and smoking)

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~lady/archive/thought-stopping-2.html <-- Lee Lady on "thought stopping" and Swish

http://www.xanatos.com/fsc/swish.html <-- With animation

http://www.attracting-prosperity.com/love-swish.html <-- Swishing for love and wealth, swish as manifestation ritual

http://www.nfnlp.com/swishpatternsmoking_humpton_html.htm <-- Swish and smoking

There are more. flavius 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read my line correctly Flavius. I didn't say NLP wasn't used to stop habits - in fact that's the main thing I've been saying the whole time I've been here thank you. I said swish was not used in that way - you don't make someone believe they're not doing something that they ARE doing, and you don't use an image of the problem as your starting state, you use an image of the triggers. You also don't have a final image focussed on the fingers as it will re-create the behaviour (like thinking "don't focus on fingers, don't focus on fingers" etc). If we're going to use an example, we should get it right. Everything else you said is just repeating that same mistake you made regarding my comment. I should have clarified it more for those who have no knowledge of swish. GregA 05:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GregA. I wrote "E.g. Using hand movements, an NLP practitioner would 1; identify an undesirable habit (e.g. nail biting) and quickly push the mental image away, 2; then rapidly pull a larger positive image towards them (e.g. unchewed nails), 3; then do it again repetitively until the compulsion is eliminated." I didn't write anything about belief, I wrote "compulsion is eliminated". It would be more constructive if you dropped the self-serving pretence that you have a monopoly on knowledge regarding NLP in this discussion. I've probably read more NLP books and listened to more seminars than you yet I don't talk about "those that have no knowledge of swish". You're plainly wrong about Swish and its applications. Swish is used for lesser phobias, habits and belief change. I provided you numerous authoritative references that substantiate my claim. flavius 05:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to Headley:

"pulling an image of a large penis until gratified".
"we'll keep the practitioner out of it FOR NOW"?? Are you planning something later?

Headley - as I said above - when I read your suggestion I could see ONLY 3 ways of interpreting it - that you were joking, stupid, or deliberately side tracking (basically sabotaging discussion). I decided to interpret it as a joke (as I said, I don't think you're stupid) - though you insisted you are not joking. Please clarify if there's a 4th option I've missed since you seem to think that pulling an image of a large penis until gratified is appropriate here.

I am giving up on objecting to these examples because there is no attempt at consensus, no attempt to write something we might agree on - and I believe that you are entirely aware of that.

GregA. You're not assuming good faith. As colourful as the examples are they are not mere inventions of ours. The seduction example IIRC was popularised by Ross Jeffries. I provided a link above that relates to multiple orgasms. Bandler's "therapuetic interventions" performed on tape are oriented towards "feeling good". His phrase was "feeling good for no reason" IIRC. I can recall at least one Bandler seminar where he advocates using submodality manipulation on something that bothers you -- there was attempt to understand the problem. In one seminar Bandler uses his "drug of choice" pattern. In another he simply tells the person in trance that he's happy. I threw out all of my Bandler tapes -- I couldn't even bring myself to sell them on eBay -- so I'm going on memory. This quick-fix approach of plastering over unpleasant feeling and thoughts shouldn't come as a shock to you. Bandler was after all addicted to cocaine and alcohol prior to his murder trial. I don't think it's legitimate to argue that Bandler is not representative of NLP practice -- he is a co-founder and has probably taught more students than any other NLP proponent. Bandler continue to enjoy a "hardcore" of loyal followers. You could argue that there are other NLP approaches to treating compulsions and unpleasant memories but it is not true that swish is never used in the way I have described. I am striving towards consensus but you would like to present an idealised form of NLP that isn't actually representative of the NLP "out there". This would amount to promotion and PR which Camridge, Headley, Dave, JPLogan et will not tolerate (and shouldn't have to). flavius 04:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you got that wrong Flavius. Things are easily misunderstood here, and when there's 2 ways of reading it I'm picking the best choice, I'm assuming good faith. I've asked for clarification on a better interpretation. And yes your examples are real examples, please read my objections again since you haven't actually answered them. GregA 05:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion your actions in discussion vandalise the NLP page through preventing reasonable changes. Strategies include distraction by wild claims (sometimes backed up by very minor sources!), avoiding answering specific questions, confusing NLP with what it's used on, posting unrelated comments in a section, building straw men, continual repeating of what "you'll add real soon", and misquoting references. Also, when the site was editable, lots of reversions. This has a directly detrimental effect on the page and on any reasonable NPOV portrayal of all the good and bad that is NLP and is associated with NLP. I call it vandalism, it may better be defined as deliberately preventing constructive work. GregA 23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also believe these comments were intended to provoke a response. And (as you can see) it got one from me. Personal insults are not allowed and I think these "examples" to some degree substitute for that. Anyway - my posting above probably contains personal insults - it is probably impossible to say that someone is vandalising the page without making it personal, and without judging their actions. As such I've done my best to describe exactly what I've objected to, and to interpret their examples in the best light that I can. Their examples are ones that have NO HOPE of consensus, and attack NLP practitioners - I call it vandalism and I hope that is valid. GregA 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super, at last we have some specific objections! OK, Greg. What we have here is a set of examples, so which would you suggest is the most appropriate area? We have given you plenty of options; Anxiety, nail biting (common on the web and in books), seduction (common), or anything else? There has been a lot of compromise so far, and you may expect more. The one thing that we need here is clarity. ATB. Camridge 01:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets work through your objections, GregA. As you have said, NLP is form and not content, so the seduction example will be as good as any. Its not necessarily an ethical concern exclusively (I don't mind being seduced by the right seducer), and the seduction thing is a major application of NLP, especially as it relates to persuasion. H.B. is a common term used in NLP seduction. I looked it up. Its a fact, and the baby metaphor changes the image in the mind of the seducer. I know some may object to it, but Wikipedia accepts objectionable subjects. There was no mention of manipulation, and satisfied can be altered very easily.

Considering Flavius. He's right! The nail chewing thing has been done to death already in the books an the web. Ecology is another subject really, and the example I provided will certainly reduce the need for it.

Considering Headley. Well, the penis enlargement thing is pretty common also, and it is relevant in relation to remote (ESP) influence. The theory is that human potential is so great we can do that kind of thing. Well, you keep mentioning NLP practitioners. Some would say you are using misleading terms or trying to hype NLPism. We could say NLPist, or NLP-er, or neurolinguistic programmer. We have compromised and kept practitioners out of it.

Considering your comments. I completely understand! Its a long process, and one may get tired of it. But we need persistence here, as there are some bad habits to break, and some good habits to adopt. Nobody was told off or blocked for attacking or incivility for the past few months, and that habit has now been broken. There have been no attacks or incivility recently. The same should go with hasty editing and undiscussed changes. The progress we have made includes: Clearer writing, more inclusion of editors into discussion, better discussion, more civility, more tolerance, and an acceptance for the need for brief descriptions for the sake of readability and clarity. Lets keep up the good work. ATB.Camridge 04:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no progress. People have been told off for incivility recently. There has been nothing rewritten at all since we began, in the meantime leaving a misleading and biased page for casual visitors to see. The arbcom complaint was directed at my above complaints originally, and they are happening again. GregA 05:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GregA. Well, I know the civility habit has only recently been adopted, but I believe a few weeks more of civility will validate my point. I personaly don't mind that nothing has been placed in the article. But plenty has been suggested, and constructively so. It did previously vex me that the article is biased (the sociology view is not properly represented, and so on), but I accept that this workshop is a constructive move. We had a bit of a false start with the rush to delete, but now we can do things more civilly. But what about my suggestion below? I have kept it associated-dissociated, and nice and sanitised (management example) with all the mind-body connection still briefly represented. ATBCamridge 05:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. How about this version:

Swish: A process that involves repetitively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery to affect a behavior change.

E.g. A manager is anxious talking to his boss; using hand movements, he would 1; push the mental image away, 2; then pull forward an image of his boss giving him praise, 3; then do it quickly 5-10 times while saying "SWWWISSSSHHHHHH!" until the anxiety is reduced.

Now I know there's no ecology tweak there, but I'm sure most people would not have an ecology problem in this situation, and ecology will be dealt in the same way as this somewhere else on the article. ATB. Camridge 02:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about this version with your suggestion GregA.

Swish: A process that involves swapping an unwanted mental image of a behavior for a desired mental image, several times, with the goal of changing the behavior and associated emotional response.

E.g. A manager is anxious talking to his boss; using hand movements, he would 1; push the mental image away, 2; then pull forward an image of his boss giving him praise, 3; then do it quickly 5-10 times while saying "SWWWISSSSHHHHHH!" until the anxiety is reduced.

ATB. Camridge 07:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look sanitised to me. I'd say anxiety and management are pretty generic examples. You could say NLP shaman and it'd still be acceptable to me (at least I quite like the sound of it). But I guess we still need to see how others like it first. Bookmain 07:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well its ok (the management one). I prefer the seduction example, and would like to follow it throughout the article with the other examples, but I guess thats going to be contested. Also, I think Katefan0's definition is better than GregA's (mostly because its clearer and shorter). Regards HeadleyDown 11:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camridge, thank you for presenting a management style example. I say that because NLP is a subject with multiple POVs on it, and it's a field with multiple applications. There are some different POVs on applications and, true to NPOV, we should present those clearly. We need a section on ethical use, in which we discuss the POVs and contentious issues - but to pick one of the ethical issues under contention and use it as an example technically means we need to spell out the multiple POVs each and every time it comes up. This will distract from what we are describing - far easier to pick a non-contentious issue.

We aren't going to teach NLP processes, it'll be a much much more general description. But we should avoid being incorrect or going against NLP teachings (ie - the general description should be correct).

There are 2 problems with your example. The main problem is that you're getting the manager to imagine something he has no control of. You would be creating a behaviour that might work perfectly if the boss praised him, but which probably won't be useful in a regular interaction. NLP teaches that as a bad goal (a badly formed outcome - since it's not within his control), so it wouldn't be used in a swish and shouldn't be used in any example.

The 2nd problem is not crucial to this example - but the ecology of this example is really bad, and when you say "most people wouldn't have a problem" I think you may misunderstand ecology. Ecology isn't about whether most people would agree - it's about the consequences of any change on yourself and others. Again - we don't have to teach it, especially in a single line on "swish"!, but we shouldn't be inconsistent with a basic NLP process.

In these talk pages, it is also not my intention to teach you or others NLP - though it may be necessary sometimes if you don't understand what you've misrepresented. Better still, to avoid distractions, trust those who know how a process is done to represent it fairly, and help us to present it clearly. For now, lets expand your example to a real session and how it'd be done (still using visual cues here, so this is a "visual swish").

Okay, a boss is anxious when talking to his boss.

he identifies whether the anxiety is appropriate and what consequences not being anxious would have (this is one ecology check) - removing anxiety might have some bad consequences like telling his boss what he thinks of him, or turning up late to meetings, or many other things.
he works out what the very first cues (triggers) are, that normally lead to being anxious talking to his boss. That might be hearing his bosses voice (auditory cues, just before he gets anxious), or walking towards his bosses office (visual cues), etc.
he works out a more appropriate way of acting with his boss, and creates an image in his mind, of himself acting that way. He then checks this behaviour is appropriate, especially any consequences (more ecology).
he then imagines the first cues/triggers for the old behaviour, and as soon as he experiences the triggers he imagines that picture "swishing" into the background as the new way of acting swishes up in front of him. If a practitioner is doing this with a client, they'll probably indicate the picture movements with their hands, and may say swish if it helps
He repeats #4, 5-10 times. He tests this - when he now thinks of the original triggers how does he respond?.

Note that we have intentions (purposes) for our behaviours. Anxiety can be really valuable - when it's appropriate. It's always worth exploring what we want with our existing behaviour, so that the new behaviour can help us get that thing that we want in a different way (ie still "fulfill the positive intention")

An example needs to be short and not contradict those basics. Yes, it will be misunderstood by some people. GregA 12:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. Well its not my example. Its taken from Hopp i Livett Med NLP by R. Johansson, a certified NLP expert. No mention of ecology. Never mind! Here's an alternative:

Swish: A process that involves repetitively swapping negative mental imagery for positive mental imagery to affect a behavior change.

E.g. A manager is anxious about talking to his boss; so using hand movements, he would 1; push the mental image of his boss away, 2; then pull forward a large image of himself as a management guru, 3; then do it quickly 5-10 times while saying "SWWISSSHHHH!" until the anxiety is reduced.

ATB. Camridge 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my concern is not with putting ecology into the example as it would distract from the example. My concern was that the example should not be one with different POVs unrelated to Swish. I was also concerned that you seemed to think you knew what ecology meant (and above, you've replaced one example which wasn't ecological and was a badly formed goal, with another (slightly better though!). On top of this, there are both good and bad NLP trainers which makes this more difficult too.

Personally, I think this simple one line change should be a simple one line change. The fact that absurd examples have been made (NOT this one Camridge, this is discussable), and accusations that swish isn't a process but is a ritual..... well certainly the lack of communication says something! GregA 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. If you don't like the word "guru" I guess you could change it to star. As far as typicality goes, it fits exactly with descriptions in "NLP the New Technology of Achievement", and with other similar management style NLP books. Plus, Camridge's latest version focuses on qualities in the final image, so ecology is built in already according to Andreas and Andreas "Change your Mind and Keep the Change' p39. I have no particular preference over the definition you want to place before the description. Regards HeadleyDown 02:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are disagreements to the exact nature of Swish, will people accept my last sugggestion or something like it? GregA 21:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept. The references we have show swish and trauma reduction are only related in a secondary way. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve generally

copied from above

Please remember that encyclopedia articles are for general interest, not for expert interest. If I tried to sit down and read the article in its current state, hoping to learn about neurolinguistic programming, I'd come away more confused than ever because the language is almost completely inaccessible to anyone but those already familiar with the subject. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katefan - Generally - how do you suggest we make it more readable? I do believe that part of the problem is a lack of agreement in what NLP is, what we are attempting to say, etc - it leads to inconsistencies the whole way through the article. GregA 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not sure. I do appreciate though that you're all trying, and there's probably enough in here to work with somehow. The problem, as I see it, is that you're all so immersed in the subject in a scholarly sense that you can't fit your mind around a plain language description. And then some of the problem is that it doesn't easily lend itself to a plain language description. =) How would you explain this to your grandmother? Use conversational language. Maybe some ideas will emerge from a more conversational approach that can be applied here. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. You've hit the nail on the head! Its hard to understand. This has been a common complaint in the scientific journals and books that investigated NLP. Those journals and scientifically supported books do make a good job of clarifying things though.

One such comment was from Singer 1999, "In this maze of unintelligible words and concepts, a suspicious person might wonder if the purpose of all this gobbledygook is to lead the average person to believe that something really profound is being said." And then she lists the jargon:metaprograms, submodalities, pragmagraphics, meta-model, advanced calibration, and so on.

BTW, I don't believe you are a suspicious person. These terms are more commonly referred to as psychobabble, and technically known as obscurantisms (scientifically sounding words, developed within cults that use pseudoscience to persuade their devotees). Take a look at the back glossary of any NLP or Dianetics/Scientology book. The words are similar, and the basic notions are the same. Regards HeadleyDown 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know me very well, then. I'm a reporter. I'm paid to be suspicious, I'm cynical by nature and more than my fair share of jaded. But that doesn't mean that I don't adhere to NPOV. I may personally think NLP is a load of crap. But that doesn't mean those who disagree don't get a fair shake here. Your answer here is disingenuous. I would appreciate it if you would not take quite so much opportunity to use guilt by assocition and instead stick to the topic at hand. This quote does nothing to clarify the language in question, and if I wasn't responding to it to chide you I'd just erase your whole response. Next time, I'll do just that. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kate. I'm sure Hea was just trying to be helpful. Well, you put him right! I will do my best to follow your advice. So here is a suggestion for the description of the swish: The swish user simply imagines an image, and substitutes it for another more preferable one. For example, a male NLP seducer wishes to feel more confident when approaching a sexual prospect, so they imagine the person to seduce, then imagine them being more welcoming and "in love". This ritual, when repeated rapidly is supposed to change the internal "map" or perception of the seducer to feel more confident and lead to seduction excellence. Cheers DaveRight 04:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Katefan0. I agree with you and Dave. Even if Headley was being civil and helpful, it is best to focus on the issue at hand more closely. Here is my adjustment to the line Dave suggested.

For example, a male NLP seducer wishes to feel more confident when approaching a sexual prospect, so they imagine the person to seduce, then imagine them being more welcoming and "in love". This is then repeated rapidly. It is assumed it will change the internal internal perception of the seducer, which is claimed to make them feel more confident and then lead to communication excellence and "magical" seduction. This is also used as a part of occult psychic seduction methods.

Do you think this version is clearer? ATB Camridge 05:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were going to avoid sarcasm? :)

Hello GregA. Oh I see. Well I was not trying to be sarcastic. This is a description that I found on a Ross Jeffries Seduction site, and decided it to make it appropriate for the NLP article. ATB Camridge 05:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What people do with an NLP process can be profound, simple, good, bad. You don't judge a hammer based on the fact that someone attacked someone with a hammer once. Lets stick to what NLP is. GregA 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. I see nothing wrong with using methods to help seduction. It is a good and clear example that is accessible to all readers. ATB Camridge 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! We will all have different judgements about right or wrong and I certainly am not commenting on your or my values. What I am saying is that if you're trying to describe a hammer in one sentence - "Hammer: tool for building tree-houses" might be very accessible (to _some_ readers) but really misses the general purpose nature of a hammer!

Katefan, if I may make a general comment about something that will become more important as the discussion continues?

NLP is highly focussed on picking the "patterns" of behaviours. There are specifics involved in a pattern, but unless it's something which repeats for the given situation, it's not a pattern (it's "content").

Examples are often forms of content. Anything can fit in them. Let's take Camridge's interesting remark.

"a male NLP seducer wishes to feel more confident when approaching a sexual prospect" -- this is equivalent to

"a 10 year old wishes to focus better in class"

the pattern is: "a person wishes to have a different state in a given context"

"so they imagine the person to seduce, then imagine them being more welcoming and "in love" -- this is equivalent to

"so she imagines the classroom, then remembers the times she's been really focussed"

the pattern is: "so they create an image of the context, then imagine a new state"

(this is not swish by the way, and there are far better ways of helping someone than this!)

The reason I'm bringing this up, is that anything can be placed in the pattern. If a person wants to have a different state, they can follow the pattern. NLP modeled some interesting patterns of influence used by some therapists and these patterns can be used well or used badly GregA 13:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GregA. I have a suggestion. We need more clarity, and less about odd and confusing words such as patterns. I believe the seduction example was given due to its very much interesting nature for the article and its accessibility/common links on the web. Any search for NLP and seduction, comes up with some very attractive links for many people. Regards HeadleyDown 14:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you advocating misleading people because they're incapable of understanding something? Would you be willing to help explain 'patterns' so people can understand? GregA 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell GregA. I am advocating clarity and readability. With your use of pattern above, the reader may not be clear on the subject matter. Instead of writing "pattern", you could write "similar structure". Or perhaps you have confused me also? Regards HeadleyDown 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In NLP, a pattern is another word for form, template or model. In most cases it can be used interchangeably with the term model ie. a pattern is "a model considered worthwhile imitating"[[27]] this is also the general usage in research papers on NLP and also consistent with general usage on wikipedia "A pattern is a form, template, or model (or, more abstractly, a set of rules) which can be used to make or to generate things or parts of a thing, especially if the things that are generated have enough in common for the underlying pattern to be inferred or discerned, in which case the things are said to exhibit the pattern." --'c' 03:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Comaze,c,sc. Could we please focus on the swish pattern. I believe in this description we don't need to know what a pattern is, merely what the swish pattern is like in practice. EG. "The swish pattern involves imagining a scene that is traumatic (causes lack of confidence), then imagining the scene differently so that it causes confidence/resourcefulness. Then the process is repeated in quick succession." This is short, clear and precise, and does not need NLP's confusing definition for pattern. ATB Camridge 05:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please place your suggestion in the swish discussion section, where Metta Bubble just posted. Look at the format above and give a reason for what you want to say, and put it in. Without any disagreements given in the appropriate place we've all but finished. THIS general section (improving the NLP article generally) came about as Katefan made a general statement about the NLP article, so I separated her question off - allowing swish to remain in the right place. GregA 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]