A Systematic Approach to Working with Beliefs
Within the NLP community, there is little doubt today that working with beliefs is one of the key and most fascinating areas in the development of NLP. John Grinder and Richard Bandler only briefly touched on the topic of working with beliefs and values. The authors themselves do not specify which logical level their techniques for working with beliefs, meaning reframing, and context reframing belong to, as they generally prefer not to use the logical levels paradigm at all. As a result, they do not define beliefs, values, and value criteria as a distinct level of work. However, any descriptive system that aims for accuracy and coherence must define the terms and concepts it uses.
Robert Dilts has done significant work in this direction. His pyramid of logical levels made it possible to create a more hierarchical and precise system for describing experience. This allows us to approach the assessment of situations and the selection of intervention methods at each logical level in a more differentiated way. It also enables the development of specific areas of work in a more structured and high-quality manner. For example, Dilts identifies an entire field of working with beliefs as a standalone direction. Separate works on working with values have also emerged, including the major work “The Mission of NLP,” and so on.
However, one rather strange issue remains: no one has clearly defined what beliefs, values, value criteria, or mission actually are. Of course, definitions exist, but they often differ even within the works of a single author. This creates significant confusion in both terminology and methods. This may seem debatable, but try picking up any book by Robert Dilts and answering the following questions: What is the precise difference between beliefs and convictions? Between values and value criteria? Between value criteria and criteria? Or do you think these questions can be answered intuitively? If so, then perhaps the Meta Model is unnecessary—after all, we “just know” what is meant by certain words.
A precise, criteria-based language is one of NLP’s core advantages over other descriptive systems. Every concept introduced into the system is justified with clear criteria. But with beliefs, things have been different. Even Dilts’ most developed approach has certain difficulties—different definitions lead to obvious inaccuracies in practice. He proposed 14 ways to work with beliefs. On the surface, these methods look impressive, but they lack a clear structure for how these methods are formed. It’s hard to explain why there are 14 methods, not 16 or 25. The “unpacking” of beliefs does not include a principle for forming the structure itself. Without precise definitions for concepts, criteria, and beliefs, we are forced to memorize these methods and apply them to “limiting” beliefs. But from whose perspective are they limiting? This is a favorite question in NLP. Many definitions are more like “artistic whistling”—they lack criteria-based descriptions. Most modern specialists try to look at Dilts’ patterns from a different angle, hoping to discover something new. The vast majority of authors use dictionary definitions such as: “A belief is faith in something,” “Faith is a strong belief,” or they don’t define what they’re working with at all.
Our Approach: Clear Definitions
We define exactly and specifically what a belief is. We clearly and understandably describe what criteria are, what a conviction is, and how a conviction differs from a belief. We offer a definition of belief not as an absolute truth, but as a tool for effective work.
This approach allowed us to create a methodology for working with beliefs—not just a list of techniques, but a systematic approach. We used a systems approach and the almost forgotten principle of fractal organization in the NLP space. Now, let’s present our definitions and consider the following coordinate system:
Each of these concepts can be defined by clear criteria. In particular: a belief is a verifiable connection between two elements of experience, established by an observer.
Any belief consists of three elements: X, Y, and the observer. The observer is able to establish a connection between element X and Y. We can introduce not only cause-and-effect relationships, but also other types of relationships that form beliefs: inclusion, comparison, and so on. Unlike Dilts, we start from the NLP presupposition that all relationships are useful—the only question is how they function within the system that includes the observer. This is how we define the basic “molecule” of a belief.
Part of our approach, specifically the presence of the observer, was probably implied by Dilts, but he did not make it a necessary element. However, the necessity of this element follows directly from systems theory. The structure itself shows that a belief establishes relationships and boundaries not only between X and Y, but also defines the relationship of each element to the observer and/or the observer’s relationship to the elements of the belief.
The belief molecule is never alone. Any belief we recognize is always part of a larger belief. The space of beliefs is organized fractally. If we designate the entire belief molecule (including the observer) as element X1, we get element Y1, between which there is some relationship and an observer who is aware of—and, from a systems theory perspective, creates—this relationship. Without the observer, there can be no relationship between elements. Only for the observer do the preceding and subsequent elements of a belief exist. This gives us very clear models for working with beliefs, including an easy way to define meta-beliefs.
Applications and Implications
The S.C.O.R.E. model can also be seen as a consequence of this understanding. Why are changes possible using S.C.O.R.E.? Because the elements are interconnected. Who determines how these elements are connected? Can we establish other relationships within this model, and how would it work? If we understand how a belief is structured, it becomes easy to answer such questions. For example, Peter Wrycza organizes the S.C.O.R.E. model differently, arranging the elements and considering their interactions.
We can achieve remarkable results by changing the organization of the observer’s attention to the formed belief, which is exactly what the “Sleight of Mouth” model proposes. When Dilts claims that only one element should have criteria, that’s not entirely accurate. It’s possible to have two descriptions of the same order of uncertainty. Gregory Bateson wrote about cause-and-effect relationships established by people: “The pyramids of Cheops are large because they were built by aliens.” If we introduce the observer, there is no rigid link between cause and effect. It exists only in the observer’s mind. This leads, for example, to one of the elements of provocative therapy, where we offer a large number of possible causes and say, “Pick any!” We can even suggest absurd or ridiculous causes and claim that’s the reason. The same can be done with consequences.
We can assert that both elements must contain criteria by which we recognize these elements, or propose alternatives. From the perspective of the New Code, for example, it would be beneficial to always introduce more elements, demonstrating the conditionality of creating connections and encouraging the construction of deeper links.
Or we can simply ask: “What must a person believe in order to assert this belief?” This easily leads us to a meta-belief, which we can then work with. We can work with element X and the relationship to it. We can zoom in or out on any element of a belief or meta-belief.
The context of a belief can be the belief itself. We can use the values of each element. Reframing is simply renaming element X.
Of course, much of what we propose can also be found in Dilts’ work, but our focus is not on what works and what doesn’t, but on a holistic, criteria-based approach.
Our principles for working with beliefs are aimed at studying how connections are created, at the human habit of constantly and continuously establishing relationships between elements and experiencing emotions about them. This ongoing process in the brain can be activated by introducing new connections, which is exactly what “Sleight of Mouth” patterns are designed to do.
It may be even more interesting to interrupt the pattern itself. However, this article does not yet describe those approaches. We will present them later.