NLP: Choosing the Right Resource for Anchoring

There are many aspects to effective anchoring in NLP. These include eliciting the state, timing, the smoothness and naturalness of anchor installation, the skill with which the anchored state is integrated or linked to the target state, and more. In this article, we’ll focus on just one aspect of anchoring—choosing the right state to anchor.

Over the years, while studying the work of various trainers, we’ve often heard descriptions of anchor integration like: “Make sure the resource state is as intense as the problem state.” Or, “If the resource state isn’t at least as strong as the problem state, the problem state may overpower the resource.” Some even quantify intensity: “If the problem state is a minus 6, make sure the resource state is at least a plus 7.”

This way of thinking leads us to focus on numbers rather than the qualities of the state. We’ve jokingly called this the “mathematical theory of states.” Talking in these terms reveals some oversimplified and unhelpful presuppositions: that states battle each other during integration, and only the sheer intensity of a “positive” state can crush a “negative” one. We were often taught using such metaphors of “conflict” or “struggle,” and it took us time to realize there are much more useful ways to understand state integration. The metaphors we use shape our thinking (and can also limit it), so it’s important to periodically review and improve them.

A Striking Counterexample

Sometimes, a striking counterexample points to a more useful paradigm. In this case, the classic example is working with phobias. A phobia is one of the most intense states a person can experience. Yet, the resource used in phobia work—dissociation—is a very subdued state that most people wouldn’t describe as intense at all!

This shows that it’s not the intensity or quantitative measure of the resource state, but its specific qualities that make it useful for changing a problematic experience. For example, the resource state for focusing on math is internal and uses little kinesthetic feedback, while the resource state for skiing is very external and involves fine distinctions and feedback in the kinesthetic system. Neither is particularly “intense,” but each is a powerful resource for its respective skill. Conversely, each state is not a resource for the other task; it could even be a hindrance. A skier trying to do math in their skiing resource state will do as poorly as a mathematician trying to ski using their math resource state, and both may end up frustrated.

It’s Not About Using 100% of Your Brain

For years, people have said we use only 10% of our brains. We don’t know where this number came from, but the intention may be to encourage people to realize they’re capable of more. However, using 100% of your brain isn’t helpful—this is what happens during an epileptic seizure or electroshock therapy. The problem isn’t that we use only 10%, but that we sometimes use the wrong 10%. When we do something well, we may use much less than 1% of our brain—but it’s the right 1%. When we successfully anchor a resource, we’re finding the missing neurology needed for a specific outcome.

When someone is stuck in an unpleasant state, it’s because they’re missing a skill or ability that would let them handle an important situation. In other words, they don’t have instant access to the neurology needed for the task. The intensity of their response is related to the importance of the situation, not its difficulty. A minor challenge can trigger a very intense reaction, and often a simple resource can resolve the problem. A car’s ignition wire is a tiny part, but it can make the difference between the car running or not, and fixing it may take only a minute.

Choosing the Right State

The human brain has many abilities and skills, each carried out by a specific sequence of neurological events. Anchoring a state is easy. Choosing the right state to anchor is much more important.

It’s often appropriate to let the client choose, since the client (and their unconscious mind) knows more about the problem situation. You might ask:

• “What resource would make a powerful difference for you in this situation?”
• “Which of your many personal abilities and skills would be truly useful here and make this situation easy to handle?”
• “When in the past have you faced a similar situation and easily found a resource to handle it?”
• “What would it be like if you had the ability to handle this situation in a way that fully satisfied you?”

However, sometimes the client has no idea what state would be useful (or thinks they know, but chooses poorly!). Searching their personal history may not reveal a suitable situation, and the “as if” frame may come up empty. In this case, a skilled NLP practitioner can gather enough information about the process and content of the problem state to predict which state would be a powerful resource in that context. Detailed understanding of strategies, submodalities, etc., used in the problem state can provide high-quality information to predict the resource state with significant accuracy. However, the intensity of the problem state is the least useful information; it only tells you how important the issue is to the person.

Milton Erickson’s Skill

One of Milton Erickson’s greatest skills was identifying the exact resource state a client needed for change. He was especially adept at accessing “what the client knows but doesn’t know they know”—in other words, the unconscious mind. For example, with a woman in severe pain from late-stage cancer, he found a pain-free state that would arise if a hungry tiger entered the room. “And just how much pain would you feel if you saw a hungry tiger slowly walk through that door, licking its lips, and just staring at you?” With a woman paralyzed below the waist who couldn’t consciously control urination, he suggested she imagine sitting on the toilet and suddenly seeing a strange man’s face in the open doorway.

Ultimately, “you won’t know until you try.” The client’s nonverbal response after accessing and anchoring the chosen state in the problem context tells you if it’s the right resource for that situation. As an exercise, we’d like to offer a client description from twenty years ago and invite you to choose a specific resource state to solve his problem.

Case Study: The Unpleasant Breath

The client’s complaint: he doesn’t like kissing his wife because her breath smells bad. Both he and his wife want more hugging and kissing, but he finds her breath unpleasant and avoids close contact. This has been a problem since they met over a year ago; they married despite it. She tried mouthwash, pills, etc., but the effect was temporary, and neither liked the medicinal smell. Most aspects of their marriage were satisfactory, but this issue caused difficulties. We carefully explored for “secondary gains” and found none. Assume her breath cannot be changed (it may be biochemical; their daughter now has the same distinctive breath). What resource state would you choose and anchor to change his unpleasant reaction to his wife’s breath?

We strongly recommend you pause and think about what you would do in this situation. What resource state would you choose to anchor? Continue reading only after you’ve chosen one or more options, and you’ll learn something about your thinking and how you might benefit from adding more choices.

Some people choose a state where the smell is absent, like having a stuffy nose or being exposed to a chemical like ammonia. While this could work, it’s like prescribing amnesia for a rape victim’s memory of the assault—a mathematical approach. Amnesia, numbness, or lack of smell are all examples of subtracting experience, which has dangers. When experience is subtracted, the person has less information, fewer skills, less sensory sensitivity, and fewer resources. In short, they become less capable and more dependent on their environment. Amnesia for a traumatic memory removes all bad feelings, but also all useful information that could help protect the person in the future, making them more vulnerable to repeat events. Lack of smell would make someone more vulnerable to spoiled food or gas leaks.

In contrast, good NLP work is always additive. We always want to add information, skills, sensory sensitivity, and resources to make the client more complete and better able to perceive, choose, and respond. So, the task of choosing a state to anchor comes down to: “What experience can we add to change the situation?”

We observed one trainer who always anchors a sense of positive self-regard as a resource. While this isn’t a “cure-all” any more than any other state, you could make someone feel good about disliking their wife’s breath or wanting to marry her despite it, but her breath would still be unpleasant.

Another well-known trainer usually anchors a state of confidence. In this case, confidence is not the right state. What does confidence have to do with the smell of his wife’s breath? Confidence is useful for someone who is competent but hesitates to act. Since many people hesitate to do what they’re capable of, anchoring confidence can often help. But consider someone who hesitates and is also incompetent. If you anchor confidence, the person will keep trying to do what they simply can’t do. This leads to frustration, which isn’t helpful, and could even be dangerous if incompetence leads to physical risk.

Some people try to anchor a neutral state. Practically, it’s very hard to anchor a neutral response. At any moment, we’re neutral to many things around us, so anchoring a lack of response is a very vague experience. You can only anchor a specific neurological response. In contrast, a pleasant reaction to something is specific (and much more enjoyable!), so it’s much easier to access, anchor, and utilize the underlying neurology of a pleasant state.

The only real option is to anchor one or more experiences where the client responds positively to a smell. This is the right kind of resource and often works, especially if the smells that trigger pleasant and unpleasant reactions are similar in quality. Since we didn’t try this in this case, we can’t say for sure if it would have worked, but it’s certainly a good choice.

Anchoring the Transition Process

However, identifying the resource state to anchor is one thing; finding a path or easy transition to that state is another. There’s an old joke: neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them, and psychiatrists collect the rent. The task of NLP is to build ladders or bridges so people can easily reach their desired outcomes (without becoming psychotic or paying rent to psychiatrists!).

The desired state is for the client to have a pleasant reaction to his wife’s breath. What experience would provide a transition mechanism so the client could easily access the neurology needed to change his reaction from dislike to liking?

Almost everyone likes some smells that were once unpleasant to them (and may still be unpleasant to others). Usually, this happens because those smells became anchors for a pleasant experience at some point in the past. If you identify and anchor the moment when the reaction changed, you access the neurological changes that occurred during the transition, not just the desired state itself. This also convinces the conscious mind that the desired change is possible, since it’s already happened in the past.

Once you ask the right question, the answer is usually obvious. We asked the client to think of times when his reaction to a smell changed from unpleasant to pleasant, and he recalled two:

1. He never liked the smell of freshly cut hay, but one early, clear, sunny morning, driving past fields of cut grass, he enjoyed it.
2. He never liked the smell of carnations (they seemed “medicinal”) until one evening when he realized he was enjoying their scent.

We anchored these two experiences separately on his hand with different touches, then held both anchors while asking him to close his eyes and imagine leaning in to kiss his wife. As soon as he did, he reported seeing his wife’s face surrounded by hay, with a carnation between her lips. (When you get this kind of cooperation from the client’s unconscious, you know you’re on the right track!) The re-anchoring worked immediately, and twenty years later (with several children), the problem never returned.

People usually think of anchoring states. Anchoring the process of transitioning from one state to another is a very specific and powerful enhancement. To make your future work even more elegant, we suggest you identify the specific transition process your client needs, not just the target state. Even if the client has experienced that state only once, when you find it, they’ll have exactly what they need to reach the target state. Teaching clients how to identify and use these transition states gives them flexibility and choice that static states can’t provide.

Applying This to Yourself

But why should your clients get all the benefits of this approach?

• Can you think of a time when you were furious, then suddenly laughed?
• How about a time when you were tired and irritable, then suddenly felt energized and in a good mood for hours?
• Or a time when something you thought was ugly became beautiful to you?
• What about a time when you were “in your own world,” then expanded it to include someone else’s perspective?
• A time when you were bored or tired of NLP, but a client’s process suddenly excited you?
• How about a time when you were “down,” then became passionate?
• A time when you complained about life’s difficulties, then felt deep gratitude just for being alive?
• What other transitions would you like to be able to make in your own life now… and when would you like to be able to make them easily?

Practice.