Robert Dilts - Sleight of Mouth - The Magic of Conversational Belief Change

248 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

From the NLP perspective, each of these processes in-
volves a different level of organization and mobilizes succes-
sively deeper mobilization and commitment of neurological
'circuitry*.

Interestingly, some of the stimulus for this model came
from teaching people Sleight of Mouth patterns. I began to
notice that certain types of slatements were typically more
difficult for people to handle than others, even though the
type of judgment being asserted was essentially the same.
For example, compare the following statements:

That object in your environment is dangerous.
Your actions in that particular context were dangerous.
Your inability to make effective judgments is dangerous.
What you believe and value as important is dangerous.
You're a dangerous person.

The judgment being made in each case is about something
being "dangerous." Intuitively, however, most people sense
that the "space" or "territory" implied by each statement
becomes progressively larger, and feel an increasing sense of
emotional affect with each statement.

For someone to tell you that some specific behavioral
response made was dangerous is quite different than telling
you that you are a "dangerous person." I noticed that if I held
a judgment constant and simply substituted a term for
environment, behavior, capabilities, beliefs and values, and
identity, people would feel progressively more offended or
complimented, depending on the positive or negative nature
of the judgment.

Try it for yourself. Imagine someone was saying each of
the following statements to you:

THOUGHT VIRUSES AND THE 249
META STRUCTURE OF BELIEFS

Your surroundings are (stupid/ugly/exceptionsl/beautiful).
The way you behaved in t h a t particular situation was

(stupid/ugly/exceptional/beautiful).
You really have the capability to be {stupid/ugly/excep-

tional/beautiful ).
What you believe and value is (stupid/ugly/exceptional/

beautiful).
You are (stupid/ugly/exceptional/beautiful).

Again, notice that the evaluations asserted by each state-
ment are the same. What changes is the particuloar aspect
of the person to which the statement is referring.

250 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

Changing Logical Levels

One of the most common and effective Sleight of Mouth
tactics involves recategorizing a characteristic or experience
from one logical level to another (e.g., separating a person's
identity from his or her capabilities or behavior). Negative
identity judgments are often the result of interpreting par-
ticular behaviors, or the lack of ability to produce certain
behavioral results, as statements about one's identity. Shift-
ing a negative identity judgment back to a statement about a
person's behavior or capabilities greatly reduces the impact it
has on the person mentally and emotionally.

As an example, a person might be depressed about having
cancer, and refer to himself or herself as a "cancer victim."
This could be 'refrained' with t h e response, "You are not a
cancer victim, you are a normal person who h a s not yet
developed the capability to take full advantage of the mind-
body connection" This can help t h e person to shift his or her
relationship to the illness, open up to other possibilities, and
to view himself or herself as a participant in his or her
healing process.

The same type of reframe could be done with a belief like,
"1 am a failure." One could point out, "It is not that you are a
failure', it is just that you have not yet mastered all of the
elements necessary for success." Again, this puts the limit-
ing identity level judgment back into a more proactive and
solvable framework.

These types of reframes can be designed using the follow-
ing steps:

THOUGHT V I R U S E S AND THE 251
META STRUCTURE OF BELIEFS

a) Identify the negative identity judgment:

I am (e.g., "I am a burden to
others.")

b) Identify a specific capability or behavior that is related
to either the present state or desired state implied by
the identity judgment:

Ability to (e.g., "Ability to
resolve problems on one's own").

c) Substitute the capability or behavior for the negative
identity judgment:

Perhaps it is not that you are a
(negative identity: e.g., "burden to others"), it is just
that you don't yet have the ability to

(specific capability or behavior:
e.g., "resolve problems on your own").

Of course, the process can also be reversed in order to
promote empowering beliefs. A behavior or capability may be
elevated to an identity level statement. For example, one
could say, "Your ability to be creative in that situation means
that you are a creative person." Other examples include:
surviving -> survivor; achieving health -> healthy person;
succeeding -> successful person; and so on. This type of
reformulation serves to deepen or strengthen a person's
sense of his or her resources.



Chapter 9

Applying the
Patterns as a

System

254 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

Definitions and Examples of
Sleight of Mouth Patterns

In the course of this book we have explored a number of
specific Sleight of Mouth patterns, and the principles and
methods which underlie the ability to generate and use
them. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize them as a
system of distinctions which can be used, in either conversa-
tion, consultation, or debate, to help people become more
'open to doubt' limiting beliefs, and more 'open to believe'
empowering and useful beliefs. There are fourteen distinct
Sleight of Mouth patterns which each help to shift attention,
or widen a person's map in different directions.

Consider the belief* *7 have had this belief for such a long
time that it will be difficult to change." This is actually a
common belief that many people struggle with when at-
tempting to make changes in their lives. While it reflects a
valid perspective, it can be quite a limiting belief if taken at
face value and interpreted narrowly or rigidly. (It is also
particularly tricky, because it is a belief about other beliefs
and the process of changing beliefs. This 'self-referential'
quality increases the likelihood that it could become 'circular'
and a possible 'thought virus'.) Applying the various Sleight
of Mouth patterns can help to add new perspective and
"widen the map' associated with this belief.

Structure of a Limiting Belief Statement About Change

APPLYING THE PATTERNS AS A SYSTEM 255

The following are definitions and examples of how the
fourteen different Sleight of Mouth patterns can be applied
to this particular belief statement. Again, remember that the
purpose of Sleight of Mouth is not to attack the person or the
belief, but rather to reframe the belief and widen the person's
map of the world in such a way that the positive intention
behind the belief can be maintained through other choices.

1. Intention: Directing attention to the purpose or inten-
tion behind the belief. [See Chapter 2, pp. 41-49.}

e.g., "/ very much admire and support your desire to be
honest with yourself."
Positive intention = "honesty"

UH is so important to be realistic about changing one's
beliefs. Let's took realistically at this belief and at
what will be required to change it."
Positive intention = "being realistic"

256 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

2. Redefining: Substituting a new word for one of the
words used in the belief statement that means some-
thing similar but has different implications. [Sec Chap-
ter 2, pp. 49-53.1

e.g., "Yes, something that you've held onto so tenaciously
can be challenging to let go of."
"had a long time" => "held onto tenaciously"
"difficult to change" => "challenging to let go of

"I agree that it can initially feel strange to go beyond
familiar boundaries."
"belief => "familiar boundary"
"difficult to change" => "initially feel strange to go
beyond"

APPLYING THE PATTERNS AS A SYSTEM 257

3. C o n s e q u e n c e : Directing attention to an effect (positive
or negative) of the belief, or the generalization denned
by the belief, which changes (or reinforces) the belief.
[See Chapter 5, pp. 127-130.]

e.g., "Anticipating that something will be difficult often
makes it seem that much easier when you finally do

it."

"Genuinely acknowledging our concerns allows us to
be able to put them aside so that we can focus on what
we want."

258 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

4. Chunk Down: Breaking the elements of the belief into
smaller pieces such that it changes (or reinforces) the
generalization defined by the belief. [See Chapter 3, pp.
63-65.]

e.g., "Since having the belief only a short time would
make it much easier to change, perhaps you can
remember what it was like back at the time you had
just formed the belief and imagine having changed it
at that time."
"long time" => "short time"

"Perhaps if instead of trying to change the whole belief
at once, if you just altered it in small increments, it
would feel easy and even fun"
"changing a belief => "altering it in increments"

Chunk Down

APPLYING THE PATTERNS AS A SYSTEM 259

5. Chunk Up: Generalizing an element of the belief to a
larger classification that changes (or reinforces) the
relationship defined by the belief. [See Chapter 3, pp.
66-67.]

e.g., "The past does not always accurately predict the
future. Knowledge can evolve rapidly when it is recon-
nected with the processes which naturally update it."
"had for a long time" => "past" "belief => "a form of
knowledge"
"will be difficult => "future" "change" => "connected
with the processes which naturally update it"

"All processes ofcliange have a natural cycle that cannot
be rushed. The question is, what is the length of the
natural life cycle for the particular belief you fiave?"
"difficult to change" => "natural cycle that cannot be
rushed"
"had the belief a long time" => "length of the beliefs
life cycle"1

Chunk Up

260 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

6. Analogy: Finding a relationship analogous to that de-
fined by the belief which challenges (or reinforces) the
generalization defined by the belief. [See Chapter 3, pp.
68-72.]
e-g-> "A belief is like a law. Even very old laws can be
changed quickly if enough people vote for something
new."
"A belief is like a computer program. The issue is not
}iow old the program is, it is whether or not you know
the programming language ."
"The dinosaurs were probably surprised at how rap-
idly their world changed, even though they had been
around for a long time."

Analogy