![]()
IRC Chat Log, January 7, 1998
| Jonathan | People keep coming in from around the globe... Dilts is the primary resource we have on "Sleight of Mouth" -- He has a set of Videos on the subject which you may still be able to get through the Southern Institute.
| JoelP | Dan: Robert Dilts has a 4-video set on Sleight of Mouth that is really good... also, someone has just written a book called 'Mind Lines' that repackages and expands sleight of mouth patterns
| PhilAlex | Dave barron has a book on it...
| misjief | a great book- with exercises
| JoelP | Dan: Mind Lines is by Michael Hall, info is at http://www.neurosemantics.com.
| Jonathan | Dave Barron's exercise book is supposed to be good -- I haven't seen it yet -- but I've heard good things from multiple sources. Basically a concise rehash of whats out there, oriented towards real-life practice and use. Barron doesn't think of it as innovative material, though his presentation of it IS!
| Dan_25 | excellent, thank you (begin when ready, just making applicable small talk in the meant time)
| JoelP | where is Barron's book avaialable?
| Jonathan | dbarron@primenet.com
| JoelP | Stygian already posed the question, 'What is Sleight of Mouth'
| Stygian | What is "Sleight of hand"? I remember hearing it somewhere
| JoelP | sleight of hand comes from magic, close up magic & illusions with cards, coins, etc. Sleight of Mouth patterns are a coding of what Robert Dilts observed Richard Bandler doing naturally in conversation
| Jonathan | Magicians use Sleight of Hand to distract you from what they're really doing... Lets get it rockin in here... What I want to propose to everyone is that we keep our sights aimed low and go way higher! Lets not expect to gracefully get through every pattern... Lets choose just a few, and hash em out really well! So that everyone leaves with some really useful stuff about those particular patterns. Anyone can get Barron's book or the videos to get a full list. We don't need that here!
| Dan_25 | rather do several very well than all of them superficially. . .
| Jonathan | Cool! OK. {lots of yes answers omitted} The intent of Sleight of Mouth, basically, is to use concise language patterns and intelligence to adjust the thinking of other people. Right? Others? As you understand them? (granted I don't give all the answers out -- I want people jumping IN!!!)
| misjief | percision
| JoelP | to break up, reinforce, or reshuffle generalizations
| PlayR | to manipulate them to do my bidding...
| JoelP | that depends on your intent, PlayR
| misjief | I prefer entice rather the manipulate
| Dan_25 | agreed, use of language to adjust the structure of a thought process (often abruptly?)
| Jonathan | PlayR we need to have a talk ;) lol
| PlayR | ;) lol
| JoelP | the basic premise is that words set frames around our experience and shape reality... sleight of mouth redefines and reshapes those reali-tease
| Jonathan | What about.... to open up belief systems?
| misjief | Open up unforeseen possibilities
| Jonathan | What about... to have another method for identifying and adjusting another's deep structure... (another method than the Meta-Model, for example) Note that the Meta-Model is not for adjusting -- it's primarily for identifying
| Dan_25 | reality. . . hmmm. . how about world models? :)
| Jonathan | Like 12" globes that spin, Dan?
| Phoenix | I think its how to never lose an argument.
| Dan_25 | more than reality, why yes I do! lol
| Jonathan | Like, context reframing like the last comment?
| misjief | Phoenix- how about win - win! An even playing field
| Phoenix | that assumes alot. I am commenting on Why RB did, does, and will continue too
| misjief | RB?
| Jonathan | RB= Bandler
| Phoenix | I use them to keep my sanity which ever ones I find useful
| Jonathan | Phoenix, when you say that assumes a lot... can you clarify... point out what it assumed for the group ;)
| Phoenix | the win-win. Some people think that a win-win situation exists. I think that is a frame or reality that is percieved but doesnt exist. I'll type slower.
| Dan_25 | i think everything is a frame or reality that is perceived but doesn't exist. . .
| Jonathan | Its a nice ideal, isn't it? (Jonathan is playing now)
| Phoenix | I agree with dan
| misjief | Win-Win there is power and then there is percieved power
| Jonathan | ahhhhh now we're down to "everything I say is a lie"
| treflurks | willonly do w-in-win situations in bizness... i must be crazy...
| misjief | I can win and then step down a notch
| Dan_25 | OR :everything I say is truth"
| Jonathan | Which is a basic presup from which to begin to accept that we can't TOTALLY know another person's deep structure... or more to the point... we don't NEED to TOTALLY know another person's deep structure.
| Phoenix | I personally believe in a more generative than win-win, such as improve-improve
| Jonathan | COOOOL Phoenix!
| Dan_25 | I believe it's "everything thing I say is relative to my perceptions", at least that's relative to my perceptions :)
| Phoenix | win-win is results I feeel and think direction IE: processes and processes of improvemt. lopp-de-loop-de-loop
| Jonathan | ok...
| PhilAlex | Win win, or Improve Improve is good, but some people don't have a WIN unless you LOSE.
| Jonathan | ooooh, OK lets take an example of that Phil. Create a scenario of that, would you? As complete as you can from memory... PhilAlex
| Phoenix | is more inline with the processes vs diagnostics
| misjief | Dan- and perhaps more importantly - your listener's perceptions
| Dan_25 | ah, it's an either/or situation. . . either i win or i lose
| PlayR | is that necessarly true Dan?
| Dan_25 | agreed misjief
| Jonathan | Folks lets deal with an example that we can bring in some sleight of mouth to.
| Dan_25 | no, not at all, just continuing the thought posed by PhilAlex
| PlayR | oh, I see..
| Dan_25 | plenty of opportunity posed thus far, please continue Jonathan
| PhilAlex | Well, some people's model of dealing is that if you don't lose, or appear to, they can STILL cut a better deal...
| Jonathan | Right.
| misjief | I agree with that in the sense that you have to "talented" enough to always beat the bully...... Then you can win quickly and then step back in-line with him
| Jonathan | OK lets get specific. PlayR comes in to JoelP's car dealership to trade in his car.
| PlayR | kewl..
| Jonathan | PlayR sees the new car he wants and wants to pay as little as he can for it, while getting the most off his previous car. JoelP wants to sell the new car for as high as he can, and pay as little as he reasonably can for the old car.
| PlayR | Yea!
| JoelP, PlayR | *nods*
| Jonathan | OK. Big dilemma.
| PlayR | seemingly... wasn't it?
| Jonathan | We have a toward and an away-from motivation, from each person, for each of the 2 parts of the bargain. And ALL of them conflict. Do they not?
| PlayR | seemingly...
| Jonathan | Can anyone notice ways in which their goals do not conflict?
| PlayR | perhaps Joel wants a satisfied customer who will bring him more biz... so he can make EVEN more money! in the long run... or not.
| `Odin` | Larry Elison's (of Oracle) business strategy is "It's not good enough that I win, someone must lose"
| Jonathan | Thats why I don't usually recommend Oracle. Next ;) LOL Odin
| JoelP | *laughing*
| PlayR | that's a short term vision
| | |||