Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP)

[Aliana]

Saying that NLP is manipulative, or NLP is this or that is like saying that economics is manipulative or otherhand beneficial.
It is attribution fallacy to say that a thing can do something. People can. Man can. So NLP in hand of bad man is a weapon against You. NLP in hand of good man is something that benefits him/her and You.

When you put it that way, maybe the problem is that NLP techniques are pretty simple, and therefore can accord a lot of power to influence others to people who can have rather low levels of being. I have experiences with people who use it to help others, and those who use it too manipulate others for their own ends (and of course they lie to themselves about it and say they are helping others). It's a jungle out there, and knowledge protects!

There seems to be two camps in NLP - those who want to use the techniques for their own ends and those who generally want to help others. I took courses years ago from therapists and think it was helpful then to get me through a tough emotional time. However, a lot of therapists seem to think they can provide lasting changes, but in reality they can be just band-aids, and if not done in concert with real work on the self it, does not get to the core issues. That said, there are some really useful techniques that can help with phobias and anxiety - and at least get someone to the point of being able to work more deeply on the issues in a calmer state. It can make approaching highly emotional and difficult issues less threatening. But IMO it's just a way of beginning real work.

One thing that is useful is that knowing the techniques has given me an awareness - there have been times when I was confronted with uber-sales people, and because of the knowledge gained, I am immediately aware when I am being 'worked on' and often can stand back and watch with a bit of amusement because I am not prey to them. ;) So - yes knowledge does protect.

 

[Ollie]

...
There seems to be two camps in NLP - those who want to use the techniques for their own ends and those who generally want to help others. I took courses years ago from therapists and think it was helpful then to get me through a tough emotional time. However, a lot of therapists seem to think they can provide lasting changes, but in reality they can be just band-aids, and if not done in concert with real work on the self it, does not get to the core issues. That said, there are some really useful techniques that can help with phobias and anxiety - and at least get someone to the point of being able to work more deeply on the issues in a calmer state. It can make approaching highly emotional and difficult issues less threatening. But IMO it's just a way of beginning real work.
...

That has been my experience with NLP too, it was only when doing 'real' Work that any changes became permanent, the rest was merely transitory, peripheral to the core issues.

 

[luke wilson]

Had my first class in introductory NLP yesterday.

I thought it was interesting. It didn't really go into 'manipulating' others. It was more about how to overcome obstacles that we personally set ourselves. The instructor spoke about how we each experience reality differently mostly based on how we subjectively interpret the information coming from outside.

He also said something that I thought was profound. Don't make a goal a state e.g. don't make a goal to be happy or anything like that. A goal is something external, tangible, real e.g. to get a certain job. A state is something that you can induce in yourself (emotion) without a goal e.g. don't think I'll be happy when I buy that house etc. I thought it was an important distinction between the 2. At least it is making me think of things differently and why I want certain things. If not to be happy, then why?

He also said the past doesn't equal the future. That we are agents of our own future and even though the past can influence the future, it doesn't control it. E.g. you can be on a boat going forward, look back and you see the trail it leaves behind on the water, the places it passed, the path it made but it would be wrong to think that trail is controlling where the boat is going. Sometimes we look at the past and see where we've been, what we missed etc and think that is controlling where we are going... Profound is what I say!

I can see some overlap with the work but it doesn't go into the why's, the psychology etc. It's more how to get the changes one wants by changing how we communicate with ourselves internally and others externally. I thought it was interesting listening to this new perspective though I must say I was watching out for red flags the whole way through, nothing major came up for me thus far.

 

[luke wilson]

I've had a couple of lessons now and I think they have been quite useful. I'm not sure how much what I'm learning/experiencing aligns with NLP in general as others have experienced it.

So far we haven't gone into communicating with others but rather just concentrate all our time on ourselves. What I find most interesting is how things are framed and I can say I have genuinely learnt to see things from a different perspective. One thing the instructor mentioned is how much control we have over our emotions (states!). He challenged us to watch this in ourselves by observing our body and thoughts whilst we experience different emotions. What you notice is that each emotion has a certain way in which it leads you to express yourself and view the world through your mind. So he essentially posed the question, what comes first? Is it the emotion or the physiology/mind set?

This has led me to constantly observe myself as I experience different emotions, try and alter my posture and images in the brain etc, noticing how certain emotions/situations are so in your face that you can't change how they make you feel. Then he goes into dissociation/association and how you can alter this in yourself. Constantly he is saying that emotions by themselves aren't bad, it's only bad when they aren't 'resourceful' i.e. when they stop you from doing what you need to do. So techniques you can use if caught in an unresourceful emotion is to immediately realize and break it (breaking states! i.e. snapping out of it), you can change your posture/how you frame images in your brain and dissociate (distance yourself from the situation) etc. He says, practise, practise, practise breaking states!

He says that the reason why we react how we do individually is because well, we have trained ourselves well in doing so, so that we think that it's the situation that is doing that to us, but in most cases, it's us doing it to ourselves. What we have to do is, realize HOW we do it and not WHY we do it. He says just exploring the WHY doesn't lead to change, but looking at the HOW enables us to acquire the tools necessary to change patterns. With the HOW, you have to observe and see how the cogs are turning inside to get you to that place, you have to realize that most of the mechanics is internal and rarely the external. This is not to say that the external is inconsequential, what he says is that for the most part, what we are doing, we are doing to ourselves through years/years of training that it has become automatic that it appears like it's the external world doing to us.

Recently he said that most things we experience are kind of compartmentalize in our minds e.g. fear, happiness, excitement etc and what happens is that in certain situations, we engage the circuitry necessary to engage those states, but with knowing how, we can engage those circuits at will, by engaging with how we process information. Easier said than done! What he pushes for is self observation, he says, watch yourself when lets say you are panicking, happy, calm etc and see how you are inside, how are you processing the information, how are you seeing the world, what's your posture etc. Then just practise , get into it and see if you can move in and out of states. He says, essentially, NLP is about watching how things happen and trying to replicate it, not about observing the why things happen.

Lastly, he says, live life based on what you want, not on what you don't want. He gave an example, when you go to google, you type in what you want, not what you don't want, google can't compute to give you what you want based on what you don't want! If you say, I don't want apples, well, chances are you are going to get apples! So he says it is important to know what you want in life, and what you want can not be a state e.g. happiness.. he says, this is a very important distinction! You shouldn't live life chasing feelings because you already have the power to get whatever feeling you want just by observing the how they arise and letting go of self importance. He says, you can't really control the world out there and that NLP is not about controlling the world but rather learning how we engage with ourselves, how we view the world so that we can engage with the world differently based on the realization that we have a big say on how it interacts back with us.

All in all, I think it's quite interesting. In practise, it's easier said than done but I think there is something to it, you can even see some connections with the 4th way.

The one thing that I was concerned about is that he is constantly trying to stop us from analysing stuff but someone mentioned that it might be because he wants us to disengage that 'critical' part of our brain for a second and engage that 'childlike, curious' part that always gets stifled by the ever present critic. I mean, it's not to stop us from thinking but rather to stop us from not acting by thinking to much. He says, you think too much then you won't act, you will fall into the same pattern and that same pattern is what has always got you the result you have always got, so nothing will change! Again, useful point I think, somewhat has some linkage with the loving our own suffering notion from the 4th way. All in all, I see it as something that pushes you to explore grounds you haven't explored before and that by itself is scary because it puts you on the drivers seat (responsible) rather than the passengers (irresponsible).

At least so far in my experience, taken with the 4th way and other stuff we learn about here, I think it adds rather than takes away!

 

[Mr. Premise]

Sounds like it's worthwhile, Luke. Glad it's not all about manipulating people.

 

[Ollie]

Hi luke wilson, I think that if you continue taking the approach that you are currently taking with learning NLP, you may benefit from your experience.

The following statements sum up the approach I took in using and practicing NLP, in the past (pre-Fourth Way knowledge):

• Everyone lives in his/her own unique model of the world, and the model (map) is not the territory
• Rapport is meeting people at their model of the world
• The meaning of communication is the response that it elicits
• A person cannot not communicate, people have two levels of communication: conscious and unconscious
• Mind and body are the part of the same system, what affects one, affects the other
• Memory and imagination use the same neurological circuits and potentially have the same impact
• There is a positive intent in every behaviour
• People are perfect, they are doing the best that they can with the resources currently available to them at the time
• There is no failure, only feedback
• If what you are doing isn’t working, do something else. In interactions between people, the person with the most flexibility and variation of behaviour can positively affect the outcome of the interaction
• Everyone has all the resources necessary to solve their problems
• If one person can do it, anybody can, modelling successful performance leads to excellence

This may help, or not.

 

[monotonic]

I think "breaking states" on its own could be a way of suppressing emotions. If you feel a certain way, it's important to acknowledge it and see WHY. That's your connection to yourself. If you keep shoving it under the rug, it will become habit for you to deny yourself. There is a reason you are in any state at any given time - if we ignore this we lose insight into ourselves.

I practiced something like this at a time when I could not at all process my emotions and they seemed like they were intruding dangerously in situations in my life. I ended up lying in bed, feeling completely drained and apathetic, wondering why I could only feel either intense incomprehensible emotions or nothing at all. I wondered whether I was dead.

It seems like a useful idea if it is applied as a tool in context of the Work, while remaining aware.

 

[Minas Tirith]

I got re-interested in NLP after re-reading this thread:

"How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations"
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,34096.msg476405.html#msg476405

and particularly the original NSA document it is based on: "The Art of Deception. Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations"
(can be found here in full length: _https://firstlook.org/theintercept/document/2014/02/24/art-deception-training-new-generation-online-covert-operations/)

Reading through this Powerpoint presentation, it becomes pretty clear that NLP-techniques are being used here, see, for example page 11: Mirroring, Mimicry; Social Penetration Theory; "Who am I? Motives and exploiting them...

So now I am interested!

Don't know yet, but this site looks interesting:
http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/01/16/nlp-10-ways-protect-mind-control/

After briefly explaining what NLP is and where it comes from (did you know that

Richard Bandler was on trial for the alleged murder of prostitute Corine Christensen in November 1986. The prosecution claimed that Bandler had shot Christensen, 34, point-blank in the face with a .357 Magnum in a drug deal gone bad. According to the press at the time, Bandler had discovered an even better way to get people to like him than NLP—cocaine—and become embroiled in a far darker game, even, than mind control.

?

the guy gives some advice (10 Ways to protect yourself). Even though it seems a little targeted towards the selling techniques and advertising, it gives nonetheless a good introduction. Each way is fully explained on the site:

1. Be extremely wary of people copying your body language.
2. Move your eyes in random and unpredictable patterns.
3. Do not let anybody touch you.
4. Be wary of vague language.
5. Be wary of permissive language.
6. Be wary of gibberish.
7. Read between the lines.
8. Watch your attention.
9. Don’t agree to anything.
10. Trust your intuition.

EDIT: Geez, the site is a kind of a Magick site, so huge disclaimer here. What he has to say about the techniques though is still interesting.

Fwiw, M.T.

 

[monotonic]

From the article:

Yet Bandler was also alleged to actually use a gun in NLP sessions in order to produce dramatic psychological changes in clients—a technique that was later mirrored by Hollywood in the movie Fight Club, in which Brad Pitt’s character pulls a gun on a gas station attendant and threatens to kill him if he doesn’t pursue his dreams in life. That was, many said, Bandler’s MO.

Every time I read about NLP I get the impression it's like a sociopathic way to hack the soul, or to muffle and bury it in programming. This method of Bandler's shows a lack of understanding of real personal growth I think.

NLP is taught in a pyramid structure, with the more advanced techniques reserved for multi-thousand-dollar seminars. To oversimplify an overcomplicated subject, it more or less works like this: first, the user (or “NLPer,” as NLP people often refer to themselves—and I should note here that the large majority of NLP people, especially those who are primarily therapists, are likely well-meaning) of NLP ...

Okay, so it's that sort of deal. We see this in many similar practices, no? NLP as practiced by well-meaning therapists is probably worlds apart from 'real' NLP. In effect, the therapists are probably using watered-down elements of NLP as part of their therapy, which is really a result of their training in other fields, the books they've read, or previous professions. It seems like this form of NLP is something Bandler never would have considered or even been able to understand.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

From the article:

Yet Bandler was also alleged to actually use a gun in NLP sessions in order to produce dramatic psychological changes in clients—a technique that was later mirrored by Hollywood in the movie Fight Club, in which Brad Pitt’s character pulls a gun on a gas station attendant and threatens to kill him if he doesn’t pursue his dreams in life. That was, many said, Bandler’s MO.

Every time I read about NLP I get the impression it's like a sociopathic way to hack the soul, or to muffle and bury it in programming. This method of Bandler's shows a lack of understanding of real personal growth I think.

Right. And many of the "quick cures" of phobias etc.. that appear to be successful, may not work with everyone. Maybe just work with OP? change programs without great emotions or traumas in the depth.
From what I have read, I think Bandler has been something creative in finding interesting things: what they call "submodalities"; in addition to further develop the work with hypnosis of Milton Erickson and Virginia Satir's therapy. But yes, Bandler has shown an awful accentuation of its pathological side (is a defender of Israel and may have had many contacts with the Mossad and CIA agents throughout the years). And if he actually committed a murder (highly probable), his contacts managed to free him from the charges:
_http:/ /www.american-buddha.com/bandler.method.htm
_http:/ /www.voxfux.com/features/cia_murder.html

NLP is taught in a pyramid structure, with the more advanced techniques reserved for multi-thousand-dollar seminars. To oversimplify an overcomplicated subject, it more or less works like this: first, the user (or “NLPer,” as NLP people often refer to themselves—and I should note here that the large majority of NLP people, especially those who are primarily therapists, are likely well-meaning) of NLP ...

Okay, so it's that sort of deal. We see this in many similar practices, no? NLP as practiced by well-meaning therapists is probably worlds apart from 'real' NLP. In effect, the therapists are probably using watered-down elements of NLP as part of their therapy, which is really a result of their training in other fields, the books they've read, or previous professions. It seems like this form of NLP is something Bandler never would have considered or even been able to understand.

Yes, they might have polished everything that is psychopathic / harmful and used some things that may help. This would show an objection to the Platonic theory of the copy. The copy can be better than where it has been taken up. Everything depends on the level of consciousness. In this case would be a higher result, a improvement from the previous pathological stage.

Edit: spelling

 

[Michal]

From what I have read, I think Bandler has been something creative in finding interesting things: what they call "submodalities"; in addition to further develop the work with hypnosis of Milton Erickson and Virginia Satir's therapy. But yes, Bandler has shown an awful accentuation of its pathological side (is a defender of Israel and may have had many contacts with the Mossad and CIA agents throughout the years). And if he actually committed a murder (highly probable), his contacts managed to free him from the charges:
_http:/ /www.american-buddha.com/bandler.method.htm
_http:/ /www.voxfux.com/features/cia_murder.html

[...]

Yes, they might have polished everything that is psychopathic / harmful and used some things that may help. This would show an objection to the Platonic theory of the copy. The copy can be better than where it has been taken up. Everything depends on the level of consciousness. In this case would be a higher result, a improvement from the previous pathological stage.

Hi l apprenti de forgeron,

Is person really a creator of the idea?
Are You claiming that it changes our knowledge about discovery, knowledge about new area, subject, thing etc by personality of the discoverer?
Does it change anything in our knowledge about the world that Copernicus put first hypothesis about different solution for planetary system? And not somebody else?

You are talking about copy being better than original. Question is whether Bandler was creator, or as I suppose we all are, more discoverer. I like personally idea that our ideas come from information field, from somewhere and we are creators in that respect that we create the "space" in ourselves for new thoughts, new ideas for being "creative".

Bandler positioned himself as a head of NLP and he reserved this name/abbreviation as a trademark. Looks like he wanted to have this as his own for different reasons but for sure it helps to make more money.
It does not mean to me that his deeds or misdeeds change the meaning of something objective and external to his person like knowledge about submodalities (whatever You call them), body language, meta model (whatever You call that) etc.

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

Hi l apprenti de forgeron,

Is person really a creator of the idea?
Are You claiming that it changes our knowledge about discovery, knowledge about new area, subject, thing etc by personality of the discoverer?
Does it change anything in our knowledge about the world that Copernicus put first hypothesis about different solution for planetary system? And not somebody else?

You are talking about copy being better than original. Question is whether Bandler was creator, or as I suppose we all are, more discoverer. I like personally idea that our ideas come from information field, from somewhere and we are creators in that respect that we create the "space" in ourselves for new thoughts, new ideas for being "creative".

Hi Mikel,
As to whether there are creators of ideas, it is a complex issue from where we are, in the 3D sts physical realm. Maybe all thoughts are shared in higher densities, but we do not experience this that way, or we have limited access to the information field. It is a very complex issue. First, if you say "I" had this idea, may be false, because it may have been stolen, mutated, reconfigured (unconsciously) from anywhere, not created by us even if we think we do (a label a la Bandler, although not evil conscious, but unconscious). Then you can have ideas that seems had not occurred to anyone before. But that would make those "our" thoughts? may actually be the soul, who is the dreamer and energizes personality, who has actually conceived the idea. And if the personality is defective, these ideas will be mutilated. And I do not want to defend "copyright" (that benefit thieves over collective ideas for personal gain, how Bandler and music and film industry), but if someone comes up with something very creative, if that person brings through the brain into this physical world a wonderful idea, have a right to call it "own". For an issue that has to do with many reasons, the ideas appear in some individuals and not in others. And obviously can be shared explicitly and by other ways relate to spiritual or non-physical issues.

All these philosophical and scientific theories about the conception of ideas will always seem babbling in the dark while we do not experience first hand the things Gurdjieff says about the work outcomes: Escape from mechanicalness, have genuine individuality, a true I and true free will. A real existence. Or I think so.

Bandler positioned himself as a head of NLP and he reserved this name/abbreviation as a trademark. Looks like he wanted to have this as his own for different reasons but for sure it helps to make more money.
It does not mean to me that his deeds or misdeeds change the meaning of something objective and external to his person like knowledge about submodalities (whatever You call them), body language, meta model (whatever You call that) etc.

I agree with you. Bandler has labeled as NLP many techniques that worked pretty well from different sources. In some cases, you can find out the source of the information from which he took up (in general, he began to imitate his admired psychologists. You can read the first link I posted above). So I think that NLP can be very useful for some people, except for the type new age techniques.

On the issue of copy, I meant that Bandler may have been the pathological stage, or how a downward spiral of these techniques, that there have not been created by him. He would be a platonic confirmation that the copy is worse. But now it could be use in a better way, with more awareness and knowledge of psychopathy, for example. Would be a enhanced from the fall of the stage / copy previous. These techniques were configured by individuals or groups (such as Gestalt therapy), who seems that really wanted to help others and not only do business.

 

[luke wilson]

I think "breaking states" on its own could be a way of suppressing emotions. If you feel a certain way, it's important to acknowledge it and see WHY. That's your connection to yourself. If you keep shoving it under the rug, it will become habit for you to deny yourself. There is a reason you are in any state at any given time - if we ignore this we lose insight into ourselves.

I asked him this very question recently and someone else in the class did as well. What he did, is he said that well it's all down to emotional intelligence in that, beyond a certain level, we must look at what we are feeling and determine if it's useful or not. Emotions can act as a signal to let us know what sort of environment we are in but also emotion can be something that arises in us, due to how we see the world and process the information therein that stifles our ability to grow and be useful - ways of feeling that have been programmed into us in times of trauma.

In terms of feeling these 'states', he said that if a certain state is persistent then it is probably bringing our attention towards a certain situation and in that moment we can then make a judgement, do we change the situation or do we change ourself? Remember, some emotions arise due to years of programming e.g. lets say at your work you are told you have to do a presentation and this makes you feel really anxious, worried, scared etc and no matter what you do, you can't shake the feeling. You can then use your judgement and see what is the right action. Do you remove yourself or do you determine that this is not a useful state to be in and work to break it and figure 'HOW' it is that it arises rather than 'WHY'. You can ponder on the why for millenia, it won't change anything but when you start looking at the 'HOW' then you stand a better chance to do something about it.

I have personally been pondering on the 'why' for so long regarding some deep seated issues and no matter how hard I try, I can't change them! Usually I think it's because I'm lacking the right 'why' the right 'insight' but looking back at my life and those few situations where I have moved beyond deep seated issues where emotions were acting as barriers, it's the how that changed, somehow, how I processed the information changed and so in those same situations, how I was acting was different, the circuitry being engaged were different. It wasn't because I had reached a light bulb moment of why, it was more because somehow I was engaging a different wiring mechanism. How I switched from one to the other is something I am yet to figure out but yeah, looking back, I can see some validity to this focussing on the 'how' business.

On the other hand you could experience emotions that are uncomfortable and unwanted because you are in a hostile situation and in that case, you should remove yourself from that place.

Basically, from what I understand it is not about suppression, it is about using the tools available to you (mind, body, emotions) to determine what is working for you and what isn't and if you want to do something about it.

I really can't emphasise enough what I've learnt, to concentrate more on the 'How' rather than the 'Why'. The 'why' just feeds it and he says keeps psychologists in business and people coming back for repeat business, rarely solves anything. When people figure out the 'How' of it all, then they have tools that just opens up possibilities.

I've been pondering in my mind the 'How' of it all for weeks now and if anything it's just an interesting way to look at things. Imagine yourself, there in a situation where you find yourself in a completely useless emotion for that moment and you catch yourself, instead of asking why am I feeling this and why is it stopping me from doing what I need to do, ask, how is it I am feeling this right now. Another thing he says to always keep in mind, is what you want to do, not what you don't want to do. For example, imagine you're walking on the street and you see someone lying down and are unsure if they are ok or not but everyone is just walking by ignoring the whole thing. You could have some feelings come up saying basically, 'keep walking' and you can examine the 'how - unuseful state, taking on a negative outlook, change in breathing rhythm, tensing of the body etc' and check the 'what you want - to help, to check'. Combine both (break the state take the action) and you are more likely to take positive action as compared to the 'why - maybe because once at school you put up your hand and everyone laughed at you for asking a stupid question? there could be many reasons' and 'what I don't want e.g. to take on someone else's problems and be inconvenienced' both of which will most probably lead you to keep on walking.

1. Be extremely wary of people copying your body language.
2. Move your eyes in random and unpredictable patterns.
3. Do not let anybody touch you.
4. Be wary of vague language.
5. Be wary of permissive language.
6. Be wary of gibberish.
7. Read between the lines.
8. Watch your attention.
9. Don’t agree to anything.
10. Trust your intuition.

Recently he started to talk about communication with others and immediately as you guessed it, a HUGE part of it is in observing the other person and paying attention to them. To me this just seems like good manners! Anyways, this observing helps you to understand where the other person is coming from.

He says in a communication type scenario with another person, there is 3 ways you can see it. From your lense, i.e. how you personally are filtering and using the information, from the other persons POV i.e. watching the other person and trying to understand how they are seeing things through their eyes/mind and from an external POV which is neither of the 2 parties involved i.e. how an onlooker would see the exchange. He says it's just a matter of changing perspective though as of yet I am to learn how all this is done but essentially he says this leads to better communication and better outcomes.

Surprise suprise, he gave an example. Imagine you are in an argument and this person is really throwing all sorts of words at you. From your POV, this isn't a good situation to be in, you're all constricted up in a situation you don't want to be in. Now zoom away from that and into the other person's POV and experience the rush of animation, anger and whatever it is, the hand movements etc. Immediately I think it changes how you are feeling, all of a sudden the constriction will start to clear up as you become disassociated from yourself. You can also look from an external bystander viewpoint. By changing perspectives, you are able to influence the situation more to a favourable outcome as compared to being locked into your own perspective. That's how I took it.

In this regard I think the whole thing is just about being a better communicator in general and being aware of other people's point of view and emotional states. That by itself isn't bad, it's how someone uses this that may be bad.

Personally I am yet to see any particular red flags, I think it can be useful. Any red flags so far in my experience would be like saying don't learn to drive because then you can run people over with your car! Learning to drive by itself isn't bad, it's how you choose to utilize the vehicle once you get behind the wheel that may be a problem if you are so inclined!!

 

[monotonic]

Well now that there is greater context, it makes more sense to me. Without context a person could bend the idea so that it is just more ammunition to suppress their emotions.

The question I have is why the "state-breaking" as an element of NLP was presented first, seemingly out of order and with some parts missing, so that you had to ask questions to get the whole picture. It's like the cart coming before the horse.

 

[whitecoast]

I have personally been pondering on the 'why' for so long regarding some deep seated issues and no matter how hard I try, I can't change them! Usually I think it's because I'm lacking the right 'why' the right 'insight' but looking back at my life and those few situations where I have moved beyond deep seated issues where emotions were acting as barriers, it's the how that changed, somehow, how I processed the information changed and so in those same situations, how I was acting was different, the circuitry being engaged were different. It wasn't because I had reached a light bulb moment of why, it was more because somehow I was engaging a different wiring mechanism. How I switched from one to the other is something I am yet to figure out but yeah, looking back, I can see some validity to this focussing on the 'how' business.

I think Timothy Wilson has concluded something similar in Strangers To Ourselves: how the reasons for feeling the things we do elude us due to adaptive unconscious not being built for introspection. It's much more useful to simple overwrite the outdated narratives about ourselves (based on feedback from others and self-observation), and the subconscious shifts in response to that. Does that make sense?