Because chance plays a significant role in the market process, the resulting market distribution cannot be ethically relevant. The three sources of all property are investment, inheritance and good luck, of which only the first can be called just, the second rather legal, and the third cannot be evaluated from the standpoint of justice and law at all. Therefore, the distribution resulting from these three sources cannot be called fair, but can only be "not unfair." It is impossible to conclude from the general theory which final distribution would be fair in this particular case, since no one has sufficient information to exhaustively analyze the actual, historically unique distribution. Only negative and formal criteria for fair distribution of income, minimum conditions for a fair distribution of opportunities provided by the state, can be set. Material final distributions and exemplary methods of appropriation of social wealth, implemented with the help of state power, are not amenable to theoretical substantiation.
It follows that although formal criteria are necessary and decisive conditions for the justice of the price system, the models of procedural justice that follow from the rules cannot be completely indifferent to us. Or, in the words of Hegel, "the principle: ignore the consequences of an action and another principle: judge actions by their results, which are the criterion of goodness and justice - both are manifestations of abstract reason." A theory of the market which considers prices and the resulting distribution of income according to the rules of the market and law is just as abstract as that which tries to bring about, in each period, a certain "just" end state.
The problem of the fairness of the price system is a bridge between "laissez-faire" and pure procedural rules, on the one hand, and the implementation of final states ("patterns"), on the other hand. The state must guarantee freedom of action in the market, as well as prevent such price ratios that deprive people of the right to participate and prevent the fulfillment of the material purpose of the economy. The state cannot understand justice only in terms of the process or only in terms of the end state. The activity of the state is aimed not at the distribution of what is subject to distribution, not at distributive justice, but at ensuring minimum participation rights and fulfilling the material purpose of the economy. It also means that politics cannot be determined only through rigid rules of government intervention or only through consensus.
The problem of justice must be solved in the spirit of appropriate exactingness. The political power element consists in the anticipation of a possible consensus of reasonable individuals regarding the solution of the problem of distribution, and not in the imposition of a de facto consensus, since the latter, if completely free from domination, will always be suboptimal from the point of view of justice. The example of the problem of justice shows the limits of the reduction of political and economic activity in relation to actions performed according to the rules. The distribution cannot follow one rule or one criterion, as this would cause all other criteria to be ignored. The political problem of justice cannot be reduced to the fulfillment of one rule, it consists in balancing individual claims on fair, appropriate grounds. The problem of justice is difficult to operationalize - hence its politically risky character.
The economic fairness of the distribution of market opportunities cannot be based on a rigidly defined idea of ​​a fair or optimal final distribution, because it does not take into account the conditions for the emergence of legitimate claims and the initial endowment of goods. In a theory that connects the ontology of a process with the recognition of patterns of behavior in that process, fairness must occupy an intermediate position between pure processes and end-state models. In the social process there are no final states at all - they form only preliminary stages of the transition to new processes. On the other hand, as already mentioned, pure processes - without forms and patterns - are completely unknowable. In pure process theory there are only atomistic constituents and their configurations. In it, strictly speaking, there are no repeating patterns, nor the emergence of completely new patterns. At the same time, law and justice are necessarily connected with the knowledge of stable patterns and "correct" laws.
In the market process and the price system, there are not final states that can be called fair or unfair, but patterns, price relationships that can be tested for compliance with the formal and material criteria of price justice. The theory of price justice is not a theory of final states, but a procedural theory of the fairness of the price system, which simultaneously sets the basic prerequisites for the market process and the criteria for its adjustment in well-defined situations. It supplements the mental representation of the pure process of the price system with the idea of ​​material and formal opportunities for participation in the market process and the prohibition to lose sight of the material purpose of the economy and the vital interests of people for the sake of subjective demand.

1. Justice in exchange with nature

One of the aspects of the obligation to ensure the vital interests of people is the problem of exchange with nature. This aspect of natural law is becoming increasingly important due to the growing threat to the natural environment. The exchange of man with nature is connected with the problem of justice in relation to nature. This problem does not belong to the problems of social justice and therefore is not touched upon in theories in which only people and their social relations can be the subject and object of justice. The justice of exchange with nature is not a theme of special, but of general, ontological justice. If, according to Plato, justice is something that binds and permeates all reality, then nature must also refer to what must be connected and "fair", and man must ensure justice in relations with her.
The question of justice in relations with nature, as well as in the field of the social, appears as a task of mediation between justified claims. But in this case, it is not the claims of the subjects of law that oppose each other, but the claims of mankind for economic expansion and the conditions for preserving nature. Fairness in relation to nature means taking it into account, including it in the discourse of the price system and taking into account the external effects that human management produces on nature (internalization). Justice in relation to nature requires the recognition of certain rights for nature, regardless of its "use" by man. A person should not see in nature only an economic good - raw materials or other possibilities of use, he should recognize in it the material value qualities inherent in nature itself.
The ethical demand for justice in exchange with nature assumes that there are not only human rights, but also the rights of nature, which man, as a representative of the interests of mute nature, must defend against himself and his desire for expansion. The dignity of wholeness and the "freedom" of nature must be protected. The freedom of nature is its right to "natural" behavior. It must be protected in the same way that economic freedom protects the human right to rational and purposeful behavior. Justice towards nature requires recognizing the "rights" of animals and plants to natural behavior and the "right" of the soil to treatment appropriate to nature as worthy of protection, or at least relevant to humans. These rights in the decision-making process (in the discourse of power or democracy) must be compared with the rights of people to use nature. One of the manifestations of the problem of fairness in exchange with nature, in which the rights of nature are always underestimated, is the choice between the preservation of the natural landscape or the establishment of natural parks, on the one hand, and the increase in agricultural land, especially with a rapid population growth, on the other hand.
It is worth asking whether the human-bound decision-making systems that characterize the market and democracy can guarantee the "rights" of nature in the discourses of the market and democracy, in which only speech-bearing beings have rights. In democratic discourse, in which rights alone are formed, the law of nature has no voice, especially if this non-discursive right is rejected by legal discourse.
The difficulties associated with the discursive justification of justice in relation to nature suggest that the ontological concept of justice in the Solonian-Platonic tradition has its advantages. This concept of justice makes it possible to holistically extend the issue of justice beyond society to interaction with nature and the ecological balancing of various rights. Since there is not only social, but also economic exchange, the fairness of the exchange must be observed both in the first and in the last case. According to Baudrillard's theory of libidinal economy, exchange represents a gain in time. By exchanging with others, we gain time because we do not have to do everything ourselves. The idea is applicable not only to commercial exchange, but also to the ecological exchange between man and nature. In exchange with animate and inanimate nature, we acquire life, since we could not do everything ourselves. Life takes place in exchange with nature as an entropy-conquering and energy-consuming process. The exchange of disorder for order allows you to buy time in order to protect life from decay and constant self-destruction due to increasing entropy, world disorder. Only through exchange with nature and the social environment can a living organism maintain itself at a higher level of order and at a level of lower entropy.
In this exchange with nature, in the economy of ecological exchange, the need for economic ethics, the ethics of dealing with the natural environment of management, is also revealed. This ethic must take into account considerations of justice in exchange with nature. Proceeding from this, it is necessary that individual economic entities and the system of national economic accounting consider the saving of the environment as real income, and the damage caused to it as real costs, and not as economic irrelevant quantities, as classical political economy did. The latter* interpreted nature only as a free and, therefore, unprotected good, or as a raw material to which the labor expended on its processing gives economic value. The economic change in ecology and the second law of thermodynamics - the law of increasing entropy - were realized only thanks to the work of Georgescu-Regen.
The need for fair treatment of nature is not imposed on us by objective economic logic. Here we are rather faced with the problem of recognizing one's own rights of nature external to man and internalizing the costs of natural resources and the destruction of established natural structures in such social discourses as the market and democracy. Recognition is always a phenomenon that belongs to the sphere of freedom, the sphere of ethics. Management, taking into account the need for careful handling of the environment, is also an economic and ethical phenomenon of free recognition. Recognizing nature's own rights means that we must consider the intended and unintended consequences of our actions on nature and be responsible for them, albeit to a lesser extent than their consequences for other people.

More on the topic Connecting process criteria and status criteria:

1. 1.1.5 The organization's financial health management loop (link)
2. 3.4 Innovation in the process of reproduction of fixed capital and increasing the competitiveness of enterprises
3. The state and needs of strengthening Russian statehood at the present stage
4. § 3. Features of tactics for the production of individual investigative actions at the initial stage of the investigation
5. § 1. Economic efficiency as an independent goal of legal norms, general requirements for its achievement
6. Delimitation of the competence of the courts of different states regarding the initiation of the main proceedings in case of cross-border insolvency: problems of efficiency
7. § 2. The impact on the economic security of Russia of integration processes in the customs sphere
8. § 2. Specific and direct objects of crimes directed against a child, as a criterion for their systematization
9. § 1. The category of "public control" in the science of information law and information legislation
10. State and prospects of using Internet technologies in legal education
11. § 4. The significance of domestic constitutionalism in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries for modern Russian statehood
12. 1.1. Legal nature and content of the constitutional category "state of health" of a person
13. § 2.1. Information and analytical support of prosecutorial supervision over the implementation of legislation on production and consumption waste

- Copyright - Advocacy - Administrative law - Administrative process - Antimonopoly and competition law - Arbitration (economic) process - Audit - Banking system - Banking law - Business - Accounting - Property law - State law and management - Civil law and procedure -

The performance appraisal system makes it possible to increase its efficiency. This applies to both a single organization and society as a whole. It largely depends on the behavior of the person carrying it out.

It can be both effective and inefficient, which affects the success of the work. For example, in trading activities, sales growth can be considered a positive result, and in management - well-coordinated and organized work of the entire team.

What is the criterion in evaluation?

But in order to assess the quality of any employee's activity, it is necessary to find out by what criteria the assessment will be made. criterion? In terms of terms, this is a characteristic of a particular activity, which, according to experts, constitutes a certain “standard”. To achieve the goals of both the individual and the entire organization, this standard must be achieved.

Classification of evaluation criteria

We found out what a criterion is, now we will try to figure out on what grounds they are grouped. Depending on the scope of activities, highly specialized and corporate criteria are distinguished. If all employees or members of society without exception must comply with the latter, then specialized ones are important only for a certain or specific workplace.

According to the subject of assessment, there are quantitative and qualitative criteria. What is a quantitative criterion? Its significance is very clear: according to the results achieved, it is possible to judge the timeliness and volume of the fulfillment of the tasks set. Qualitative criteria are somewhat more complicated. These include, first of all, the quality of the work done, which is often more important than the quantity. It can also include the individual characteristics of the employee, determined using special tests, scales, questionnaires. Sociability, initiative, emotional stability will be of great importance for the successful achievement of the set results.

Criteria of analysis: a view from the outside

You can often hear that the most reliable information is provided by objective evaluation criteria. They exist in almost any activity in the standards, averages. But sometimes achievements are evaluated subjectively. What is this kind of criterion? This is an assessment indicator based on an authoritative opinion "from the outside." For example, the correctness of an employee's behavior can be assessed using the subjective opinion of his colleagues or direct management.

Finally, the criteria are divided into simple and integral. Using the same subjective indicators mentioned above, one can obtain information about the quality of work of any employee, about his behavior in a team, the level of conflict or other characteristics. Such criteria are considered simple. If information about various aspects of activity is combined in one indicator, we can talk about an integral assessment. In other words, an integral criterion is a set of simple ones.

Main criteria

Etiology unknown

Etiology known

Eosinophilic pneumonia

Eosinophilic pneumonia is characterized by eosinophilic infiltrates in the lungs and peripheral blood eosinophilia. Since Leffler described a transient benign syndrome, consisting in the appearance of migrating infiltrates in the lungs and peripheral blood eosinophilia of unknown etiology, this group of diseases has included diseases of both known and unclear etiology (Table 203-2). They can be considered as allergic lung diseases, but should not be confused with allergic alveolitis, in which eosinophilia is not defined.

Table 203-2. Eosinophilic pneumonia

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis

drug reactions

Loeffler syndrome

Chronic eosinophilic pneumonia

Allergic granulomatosis Cherdzha-Stros

Hypereosinophilic syndrome

If eosinophilic pneumonia is associated with bronchial asthma, it is necessary to recognize nonspecific (allergic, atonic) asthma and put skin tests for hypersensitivity to fungi of the genus Aspergillus. With a positive test, other criteria are required to confirm allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (Table 203-3). Of the fungi of the genus Aspergillus, the most common allergen is Aspergillus fumigatus. Chest x-ray shows transient recurrent infiltrates or central bronchiectasis. Bronchial asthma in this case is probably due to IgE-mediated hypersensitivity, while bronchiectasis is associated with the formation and accumulation of immune complexes in the proximal airways. Adequate treatment is long-term use of corticosteroids.

Table 203-3. Diagnostic signs of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis

Bronchial asthma

Pulmonary infiltrates

Peripheral eosinophilia (more than 10 10 9 / l)

Allergic skin reaction of immediate type to Aspergillus fumigatus

Serum precipitins to A. fumigatus

Elevated serum IgE levels

Central bronchiectasis

Brown patches in sputum

Growth of A. fumigatus culture by sputum culture

Increased levels of IgE (and IgG) antibodies specific for A. fumigatus

Tropical eosinophilia is usually caused by filariae, but eosinophilic pneumonia can also be caused by other parasites, such as roundworms, hookworms, toxocaras, and intestinal nematodes. Tropical eosinophilia due to Wuchereria bancrofti or W. malay is more common in individuals living in South Asia, Africa, and South America and is treatable with diethylcarbamazine.

Drug-induced eosinophilic pneumonia is manifested by an acute reaction to nitrofurantoin 2 hours or more (up to 10 days) after the start of treatment and is accompanied by dry cough, chills, fever and shortness of breath; an eosinophilic pleural effusion with patchy or diffuse infiltrates may appear. Other drugs that cause eosinophilic pneumonia include sulfonamides, penicillin, chlorpropamide, thiazides, tricyclic antidepressants, hydralazine, mephenesine, mecamylamine, carbon nickel fumes, gold salts, isoniazid, para-aminosalicylic acid, etc. Treatment consists of drug withdrawal and, if necessary, the appointment of corticosteroids .

Idiopathic eosinophilic pneumonia includes diseases of varying severity. Loeffler's syndrome is a benign form of acute eosinophilic pneumonia with typical migratory pulmonary infiltrates and minimal clinical manifestations. Chronic eosinophilic pneumonia presents with severe systemic symptoms (tremor, chills, night sweats, cough, anorexia, and weight loss over several weeks or months). Chest x-rays often show peripheral infiltrates, which are described as opacities similar to pulmonary edema. Some patients suffer from bronchial asthma of a non-allergic type. Abrupt relief of symptoms and disappearance of changes on the radiograph often occur 48 hours after the start of treatment with corticosteroids.

Allergic vasculitis and Churg-Strauss granulomatosis is a systemic vascular disease involving the lungs, skin, kidneys, and nervous system (see Chapter 269). People of any age get sick, especially if there was a history of bronchial asthma. Asthma often progresses to fever and severe eosinophilia, and then its symptoms subside. The disease worsens and the prognosis worsens if corticosteroids and immunosuppressants are not treated.

CHAPTER 204. ENVIRONMENTAL DISEASES OF THE LUNG

Frank E. Speizer

This chapter is devoted to the perspectives of approaches to the assessment of pulmonary diseases caused by environmental factors. This assessment is very important, since the elimination of harmful factors from the environment can often be the only means of preventing further deterioration of the patient's condition. In addition, the identification of these diseases in one patient may lead to primary prevention of the disease in others who have not yet become ill. If the doctor does not take into account the specific effects of environmental factors, these diseases and their causes may go unnoticed.

The exact significance of the problem is not known, but it is certain that a large number of individuals are at risk of developing serious environmental lung disease. For example, even if, according to a conservative estimate, only 5% of workers exposed to asbestos, cotton dust, and silicon in the US workplace become ill, this would amount to approximately 100,000 people. Despite the demands of the authorities on industrial enterprises to spend a significant part of their investments on the prevention of diseases of workers, occupational diseases continue to occur. Their cause is often seen in the distant past, when the protection of the worker was not as important as it is at present. The society must pay compensation to the sick member, and the doctor must pay attention not only to the physical condition of the patient, but also to the extent to which the disease is due to certain professional factors or aggravated by their influence.

History and physical examination of the patient. History data are very important in assessing exposure to any occupational or environmental factor. Often a person is exposed to a strong effect of a complex of industrial or environmental factors that the doctor has almost never encountered before. In this regard, he should ask the patient to tell in detail about the conditions of his work and life. When clarifying the specifics of work, the patient should be asked about the pollutants with which he has to deal, about the availability and use of personal respiratory protection, the size and ventilation of the workplace, the number of other workers exposed to harmful factors, and whether other employees suffer from the same symptoms. In addition, the patient should be asked about alternative sources of severe toxic effects, including his hobbies and other factors associated with exposure to the environment in the home. Short-term exposure to toxic substances in the distant past should also be taken into account. This information is most easily obtained from a detailed analysis of the production history (starting with intermittent work while studying at school), the nature of production activities, the materials that the worker deals with, the chronology of production work.

Many people are concerned about the potential hazards of their jobs, which is why recent legislation in many states makes it mandatory for people to be hired. The worker needs to be provided with special training material, personal protective equipment, and be taught the rules of environmental control. If a danger occurs, the person remaining at his workplace can warn other employees about it. Protective clothing, lockers and showers should be part of the workplace equipment. However, even under these ideal conditions, the introduction of new processes, especially if they involve the use of new chemical compounds, can significantly change the situation, which is often known only to the worker of the conveyor or production site. For a doctor who regularly monitors patients at a particular enterprise, it is very important to visit and study the workplace directly.

Physical examination of a patient with environmental lung disease helps to determine the nature and severity of changes in the lungs. Unfortunately, the pulmonary response to most damaging substances is to develop a limited number of non-specific physical signs. They do not point to a specific damaging agent, so other types of information should be used to make an etiological diagnosis.

Pulmonary function tests and chest x-ray. Pulmonary function tests and chest x-ray help to determine the causative factor of the disease and the severity of the changes. Many types of mineral dust cause typical changes in the mechanics of respiration and lung volumes, which clearly indicate a restrictive process (see chapters 200 and 209). On the other hand, exposure to a large number of types of organic dust or chemicals that cause bronchial asthma as an occupational disease leads to a pronounced picture of an obstructive process in the lungs, which can be stopped. Standard approaches to measuring the mechanics of respiration and diffusion of gases through the alveolar membranes (see Chap. 200) have been proposed for screening when examining large groups of workers. Determination of changes in forced expiratory volume (FEV) before and after exercise helps to determine the acute bronchoconstriction reaction.

For many years, chest radiography has served as a method for determining the pulmonary reaction to mineral dusts and monitoring the dynamics of changes. To provide a standard way of recording data on the type and severity of anomalies, the International Labor Organization (ILO) has developed the International Classification of Radiography in Pneumoconiosis. The scheme recommended by the ILO includes the classification of chest radiographs according to the nature of the disease, the size of the occlusion of the lung fields and the degree of involvement of the lung parenchyma in the process. A detailed description of the ILO system is beyond the scope of this chapter, but some judgments based only on chest x-ray data may lead to either underestimation or overestimation of functional abnormalities in pneumoconiosis. If the dust causes the appearance in the lungs of the same rounded regular foci of darkening, as, for example, in pneumoconiosis in miners, the changes on the radiograph appear to be quite extensive, while lung function is reduced slightly. In contrast, in pneumoconiosis with linear, irregularly shaped foci of blackout, such as asbestosis, the patient's condition can be underestimated on the basis of x-ray data. With asbestosis, it is possible to obtain data on the impact of a damaging factor, on a moderately reduced functional capacity of the lungs (FEL), reduced diffusion of gases against the background of relatively favorable radiography data. Irregular or linear opacities are more difficult to distinguish from normal changes until the disease has entered a relatively late stage. When the foci of blackout become large (more than 1 cm in diameter), the condition is called complicated pneumoconiosis, or progressive extensive fibrosis.

Other diagnostic methods include the assessment of the effect of heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium in workers engaged in the production of batteries), bacteriological methods of research (tuberculosis in medical personnel, anthrax in wool sorters), detection of fungal invasions (coccidioidomycosis in farm workers in the South -western regions of the United States, histoplasmosis in pigeon and other bird breeders) or serological methods (psittacosis in zoological workers or owners of sick birds, Q fever in leather tanners or slaughterhouse workers). Finally, a biopsy of lung tissue may be required in order to make a morphological diagnosis and identify a specific etiological agent.

Measurement of the acting agent. If it is possible to obtain data from the analysis of environmental samples, these sources of information should be used to assess its impact on the patient. Since many chronic diseases are due to its influence over several years, current measurements should be combined with an analysis of history data to assess past exposures. However, the amount of any substance present in the environment depends on the complex interactions of chemical reactions both in the emission source and in the surrounding atmosphere and on physiological criteria, including the rate and depth of pulmonary ventilation, affecting the transport and accumulation of aerosols and gases in lung. Even in acute conditions, when observation of the patient is possible, very little is known about the amount of damaging substance that enters the lungs. Most researchers on the health effects of airborne particles (see below) rely on outdoor air analysis from fixed installations, often in areas far from where the subjects live. In addition, many individuals spend less than 20% of their free time outdoors. Attempts to determine the penetration rate of polluted ambient air into the home environment have suggested that it is highly specific. In this regard, the results of measuring the damaging agent in the external air can be taken into account with restrictions, they cannot be relied upon in assessing the actual amount of the pollutant.

In cases where human exposure to specific agents has been determined or workplace or ambient air contaminants are known, the damaging dose depends on the transport of these agents through the respiratory tract. The upper respiratory tract serves as an effective filter for particles and gases. For example, about 100% of sulfur dioxide (a highly soluble gas) is absorbed in the upper respiratory tract at concentrations up to 35% per million (ppm) during quiet breathing, and even during exercise it is unlikely to penetrate beyond the large bronchi. On the other hand, nitrogen dioxide (a less soluble gas) can reach the bronchioles and alveoli in sufficient quantities to cause an acute, life-threatening disease in farmers who are exposed to this gas (silo disease).

Particle size and chemical composition of air pollutants should also be considered. Particles larger than 10-15 microns due to the speed of their movement in the air do not get further than the upper respiratory tract. They are often referred to as "fugitive dust" and include pollen, other wind-blown dust, and industrial dust. All of these dusts play little or no role in chronic respiratory disease other than those possibly associated with neoplasms (see below).

Particles with a size of less than 10 microns are formed during the combustion of solid fuel or in production with a high temperature regime and the formation of condensation products of gases, fumes, and vapors. Based on the chemical characteristics, two fractions of these particles are distinguished. Particles with a size of approximately 2.5-10 microns (coarse fraction) contain elements such as quartz, aluminum and iron. They settle mainly high in the tracheobronchial tract. Particles smaller than 2.5 µm (fine or accumulative fraction) contain sulfates, nitrates and organic compounds. These particles often settle in the terminal bronchioles and alveoli. The smallest particles (less than 0.1 µm) remain in the air stream and settle in the lung only on a free basis when they contact the alveolar walls due to terminal forces and/or Brownian motion.

In addition to particle size and gas solubility, the true chemical composition, mechanical properties, and immunogenicity of inhaled substances determine the nature of the disease.

For some people, personal pleasure or entertainment is so important that they never achieve much. For others, success is so important that they never take the time to relax and enjoy life. Words like "pleasure" and "success" indicate criteria - standards for evaluation that can be applied in a variety of situations. Many various activities can give you "pleasure", and many more can bring you "success". Some activities can even give you both. The criteria is for what you are doing something. These are nominalizations - such as "learning", "usefulness", "beauty", etc. - that can be used to evaluate results in a variety of contexts. Criteria give us a useful way to organize our lives through generalizations.

It happens that the criterion is too or not important enough. Often, criteria like “being right,” “being liked by others,” or “power” take on such significance in a person’s life that he becomes unbalanced and experiences personal difficulties or constant dissatisfaction with others.

Criteria Shift is a powerful technique for changing the importance of a criterion. When you work with beliefs, quite often you change a limiting belief to its opposite. The person says "I guess I can't learn" and you switch it to "I guess I I can learn" - a discrete shift. However, when dealing with a person's criteria, you very rarely want to reverse them completely. The exact opposite is usually neither needed nor desirable. Instead, you regulate relative the importance of the criteria, making them more or less important. You make "being right" less important or "having fun" more important - analog shift. This allows you to fine-tune the basis of behavior as we all behave in a way that fulfills the criteria we deem important.

Yesterday someone said that people either work to meet their criteria or don't work at all. This is a strong statement, but it is true. If an activity doesn't meet any of your criteria, it won't be of interest to you. Think of all the things that others willingly do that you find trivial or obscure. These activities must somehow meet some of their criteria, but not yours.

Often problems arise in situations where two criteria come into conflict. For example, you are faced with a choice - to please others or to do what seems best to you. It is in such cases that the ability to refine the criteria can be very important.

Before you can adjust the criteria, you need to get an idea of ​​how the human brain knows which is important. How does the human brain encode criteria so that when a person thinks of "study" or "fun" they automatically know how important it is and their behavior is sequenced without conscious thought about it? To find out, the first step is to identify hierarchy of criteria: multiple criteria listed in order of importance. The second step is to study the submodal differences between these criteria, and the third is to use these encodings to adjust the problematic criterion. Since identifying criteria may be new to some of you, we will demonstrate it. Even if you have done this before, I suggest you pay close attention to it; some people do it differently, not in the way that we suggest you learn.

Revealing the hierarchy of criteria

Who would like their hierarchy of criteria to be revealed?

Thank you, Chris. I want you to think of something trivial that you could do but won't. For example: "I could stand on this chair, but I won't," or "I could throw a piece of chalk across the room, but I won't." Can you think of something relatively trivial like this?

Good. You could pick up a man, but you won't. But what's stopping you from picking it up?

Chris: A foreman who worked for me once picked up a man on the road who made him drive two hundred miles with a gun at gunpoint; And I don't want the same thing to happen to me.

Thus, the criterion that is involved here can be called "safety" or "survival". This is a much higher criterion than what I wanted to start with. Since we're already dealing with life and death, we're probably near the top of Chris' hierarchy. For the sake of demonstration, let's change the content. think of something much more trivial, like you could stand on a chair or pick your nose in front of people, but you won't.

Chris: I could drink coffee, but I won't.

So, won't that take us back to the top of your hierarchy? For some people, drinking coffee is like drinking arsenic; it violates the criterion that includes health, which is just at the top of their hierarchy - so they don't do it. Is coffee consumption really low enough for you?

Chris: Okay, I can think of something below that; I could wash the dishes today, but I won't.

Fine, that sounds low enough. "Washing dishes" is a specific behavior. The next step is to identify the value criteria that keeps him from taking this action. So, Chris, what's stopping you from doing the dishes?

Chris: Not enough dishes to wash.

OK, we still don't have a criterion, so I'll ask the question differently. Chris, what do you achieve by not washing the dishes?

Chris: Well, it builds up to a reasonable amount and then I wash it all at once.

And what do you achieve by washing all the dishes at once?

Chris: It saves time.

OK, so the significant criterion is "saving time." Note that he formulated the criterion positively - as what he will save or achieve, and not avoid. The same criterion could be formulated as "do not waste time". It is important that all criteria be formulated positively, without any negatives. We will discuss the reasons for this later.

Now let's move on to the next step. I want to find out what is more important to Chris than saving time. Chris, what would make you wash the dishes today anyway, even though doing so would be "wasting your time"?

Chris: If I was waiting for some stranger to visit.

And again he offers you a situation, an event, a circumstance: "Some stranger comes to visit." For Chris it's that extra context, which conditions that he will wash the dishes. Well, what would you achieve by washing dishes in this situation? What is important to you here?

Chris: The perception of me as my guest will start on neutral ground.

Would it be correct to say something like, "I would make a certain impression?" (Chris frowns.) How could you rephrase that so it's accurate for you? You can see that he didn't like the way I put it. It doesn't fit for him.

Chris: No, I don't want to deliberately create any impression, positive or negative. Anyone who comes to my apartment must accept it for what it is. However, dirty dishes fall below my neutrality criterion of being neither too neat nor too sloppy.

Okay, let's call this criteria "start with a neutral impression." (Mmm-hmm.) It's a bit long; I like to use one or two words if possible - but I think it will get the point across. He didn't like the way I phrased it, and I definitely want to use something that makes sense to him. His first criterion is "saving time", the second is "starting with a neutral impression":

Now we need to identify an even higher criterion. By keeping the context unchanged, we again subject the behavior to denial. Note that the context is cumulative: there are still only a few dirty dishes, and further a stranger comes to visit. You can do something every time add context - but you are not allowed to change what has already been defined. Chris, given the context, what would make you not wash dishes, even if, without washing them, you would risk not starting on neutral ground?

Chris: Oh, if I were cooking.

And under this condition, what would you achieve by leaving the dishes unwashed?

Chris: Well, if someone comes and the food is being prepared, I don't try to wash all the dishes so that everything is sparkling clean, because I like to serve the weight hot.

Good. What is the importance of serving everything hot? We haven't received the criteria yet.

Chris: Cooking excellence: I'm a good cook.

Now we have a criterion. And I suspect that "perfection" in general is more important to you than "starting on neutral ground" with people - which in turn is more important than "saving time."

Now remember that we still have only a few dirty dishes, and some stranger is going to visit, and further you are cooking. In this context, what would make you want to wash the dishes, even though it would violate the criterion of "perfect cooking"?

Chris: If only there was something unhygienic about leaving dishes unwashed.

"Unhygienic" is a negative, so I want to change it to something positive, like "keep hygienic" - if this change of wording is acceptable to Chris. (Yes OK. Now, what would make you leave the dishes unwashed, even though it would be unhygienic?

Chris (long pause): If there was something emergency nearby, like a fire in the building where my apartment is located.

We are now approaching a criterion with a high value. Okay, what would you save or achieve by responding to such an incident?

Chris: Saving a life.

We have achieved "preservation of life". It usually ranks quite high on the list.

Chris: Saving a Life is actually a little high. It's more about "preserving safety", the safety of others.

Okay, you're "keep safe" by responding to an incident instead of washing dishes. The stakes on washing dishes or not washing dishes are clearly rising! Now, Chris, what would make you still wash dishes, even if for this you will not be able to protect the safety of others when there is an incident?

Chris: If the scale of the incident exceeded my ability to influence it.

Note that this answer does not lead to a more important criterion; it simply takes away the meaning of "preserve security" by changing the existing context. You have turned the incident into something that you have no control over. What more you will have to add to the context we already have at the moment - a small amount of dirty dishes, a stranger coming in, cooking and further incident - so that you neglect "preserving safety"?

Chris: I guess I wouldn't do the dishes if I could have some part in overcoming the crisis.

That's right, we've already installed it. What would make you wash dishes, even if you could somehow take part in overcoming the crisis?

Chris: If, miraculously, there were people more competent at managing a crisis than me, then I would start washing dishes.

Notice that Chris still doesn't move up to the higher level criterion. He continues to build his behavior in such a way that his criterion of "preservation of safety" is satisfied. We will know that he has moved to a higher level criterion when he thinks about something. more important for what he will donate"preservation of safety". I usually try to get the person to think about it first before suggesting an option, but right now we're close to the top anyway. Most people foam their own life is above the safety of other people. So Chris, let's say someone holds you at gunpoint and says, "If you get involved in this crisis, I'll blow your brains out!" Could it make you do the dishes?

Chris. Could.

Could?! (laughter) What if your family were in danger if you didn't do the dishes?

Chris: I don't have a family right now. I live alone. And someone is putting a gun to my head at their own risk, so I don't know if I'll wash the dishes even then.

Well, what if you got a phone call and said that the whole city of New York would be blown up if you didn't do the dishes? You must clean it up, ignoring the crisis, or New York will cease to exist.

Chris: Oh ok...

I won't go any further because we are very high now; whether we are on top its hierarchy or close to it, for our purposes we are high enough. My belief in this is based on his reaction. For some people, this will not be the top. For them, the safety of others is not really that important; but if it comes to their own lives, then they will be concerned. And even a person's life may not be as important as principles, such as "honor", "doing the right thing", or "morality". This is one of the factors that make self-sacrifice or war possible. Chris certainly has many other criteria that will fall in between the ones we've identified here. For our purposes, however, you don't need to work out each criterion in turn, because you only need three for the next step in the exercise: one that's completely unimportant, one in the middle, and one that's very important. After you identify them, we will show you how to shift the criterion.

An exercise

Divide into groups of three and identify your partner's criteria hierarchy, just as I did with Chris. Be sure to start with something really trivial. What is so insignificant that he could do but won't? His non-verbal reaction will give you an idea of ​​how trivial or important this behavior is to him. It's important that you don't impose your own criteria on what he does. Other people's hierarchies will sometimes be very different from yours - and you need to find out what it is exactly. this person. When your partner chooses some trivial behavior, keep changing the conditions under which he will or will not perform it in order to sequentially identify criteria for higher levels.

The key is to keep him going up the hierarchy. Find out what is important enough for him - what will make him sacrifice the last criterion identified. I asked Chris: "What would make you wash the dishes anyway, even though that by doing so you would be violating the criterion just identified? Then Chris added into the context of the new element. I then asked questions to find criteria that fit this new context: “What gave would you achieve this?" We then reversed the question:

"What would make you not wash the dishes, even if, by not washing them, you would have to violate this last criterion?

Chris' Criteria Hierarchy Diagram below shows how the context is cumulative. At every step we add context, but never subtract anything from what is already there. It's a way of finding out what's important enough to Chris that it would cause him to violate the previous criterion.

Behavior	Context	Criterion
I could wash it, but it won't	Few dirty dishes	Time saving
I would wash the dishes	Few dirty dishes and further visiting a stranger	Neutral Impression
Wouldn't wash the dishes	Few dirty dishes and further visiting a stranger and further cooking write	Perfection
I would wash the dishes	Few dirty dishes and further visiting a stranger and further cooking food and further unhygienic utensils	Maintaining hygiene
Wouldn't wash the dishes	Few dirty dishes and further visiting a stranger and further cooking food and further unhygienic utensils and further incident in the building	Safety of others

Man: Could you move on to the next criterion by asking, "Well, what's more important than that?"

Yes, but many people will say, “Oh, a lot!” (laughter) When you ask someone to think in such an abstract way, they have to guess, but without the right context, they can be wrong. When you offer a specific scenario, people are much faster at identifying the criteria that really influence their behavior - as opposed to the criteria they think that those should influence their behavior. A specific scenario is much better at activating unconscious resources and protecting against intellectualization.

Make sure the weight criteria are formulated positively. Ask your partner what the criterion preserves or provides, not what it avoids. A good way to figure this out is to ask what exactly gives it any particular behavior. “What will give it value?”, “ for what you do it?"

Sometimes people will give you their criteria a little out of order, because they are thinking about an experience that violates or satisfies only a small part of the criterion, not most of it, and this can affect the determination of its position relative to the rest of the criteria. A small amount of dirty dishes does not disturb the “cleanliness” to the same extent as a dismantled car engine in your living room. Once you have your hierarchy in place, choose for the next step the three criteria that you firmly believe are in the correct order. Pick one trivial, one average, and one major criterion, and look for verbal and non-verbal congruence. For Chris, I would take: "time saving", "perfection" and "safety keeping". I'm pretty sure these three criteria are in the right order so I can use them.

Next, note how these criteria are represented, and then identify the submodal differences that characterize them. If we were doing this with Chris, I would ask him to think about the "saving time" criterion. How does he represent "saving time"? How about "perfection" and "keep others safe"? What does he see/hear/feel when he thinks about each of these criteria? Then he can compare these three representations with each other, just as you compared the past, present and future, revealing your timeline. We want you to figure out which submodalities are used to order these three criteria into continuum. There may be discrete differences, but for the time being they do not interest us. We only need analog submodalities that change continuously. You may find two or three different submodalities, but often one key will be the most powerful.

Now it's just mark which analog submodalities seem to be the main way to encode the relative importance of these three criteria. Later, after Once your partner decides which criterion he wants to shift, you will test these submodalities. Shifting criteria is surprisingly easy, and we don't want you to do it by accident.

If any of you finish quickly, you can explore the submodal differences between the same criterion when it is stated positively and vice versa negatively.

Man: By positive, do you mean "save time" and not "don't waste time"?

Quite right. People move towards positively formulated criteria and away from negatively formulated ones. If you have a bit of both, it will confuse you. The submodal encodings referring to "moving to" and "moving from" are interesting, but they differ from how people hierarchize their criteria. When you eliminate the consequences of "moving towards" and "moving away" by formulating all criteria in the same way, you are much more likely to find only those submodalities that belong to the hierarchy itself.

Man: What about people who are more motivated by avoidance than attraction? What if a person is actually motivated to avoid certain things in life?

With some people, it may be easier to get a negative wording of all criteria. Do this only if you find it really difficult to reorient the person to the positive.

I would like to expand the box by asking the following question: if someone is really primarily motivated by avoidance, do you want to leave him with this orientation, or do you want to refocus his attention on where he wants to go? Every time you move away from something, you must also move. towards something else. If your attention is focused on what you are moving away from, then you will not notice what you are approaching. The phrase "out of the fire and into the fire" aptly expresses this problem - when you do not notice what you are moving towards. Focusing that person's attention on what they want can be much more generative and beneficial than changing their hierarchy of what to avoid.

There are things in life that are definitely worth avoiding. Sometimes it's very good to use "planning for the worst" and some people get in a lot of trouble when they don't. However, in general, well-formulated results in NLP are stated positively - because you are much more likely to get where you want to go if you focus on it. This is the number one fundamental rule in professional training. You can do "worst-case planning" only after how you framed a positive outcome to make sure you achieve that outcome in a sustainable way.

Sometimes it is difficult for people to decide whether something is really a criterion, or if it is part of the context. The main test is that the criterion is a nominalization that can be applied to many various contexts. One of the criteria for buying a car may be the desire to have a car with single seats. This is too specific to be transferred to another context; but "physical comfort" or "the approval of others" can apply to a car as well as to a wide range of other contexts. You also need to state the criterion as concisely as possible; often one or two words will suffice. One person had the criterion of "corresponding to other people." It's a little long, but it can clearly apply to a wide range of situations and to a wide range of behaviors. These indications are sufficient for now; you can start the exercise.

Discussion

Glad to see you again! What did you discover? Some of you are starting to notice amazing proportions. For example, some groups observed links between the criteria hierarchy and the timeline.

Neville: Yes, Tom's timeline and his criteria hierarchy matched exactly. What was least important to Tom was at the place in his timeline that Tom uses for the past, and the more important the criterion, the farther into the future he was. His criteria were placed along the timeline.

Right. Although we don't know the content, it shows that Tom is very future-oriented. I look like him. I tend to ignore the past, so my criteria hierarchy starts where I represent the present and continues straight into the future. You can expect a person to value the future if they use the same submodalities to encode the future tense and high-value criteria, as Tom and I do.

And vice versa, the one who encodes the past and highly valuable criteria with the same submodalities, apparently, remembers a lot and would like to go back to the “good old days”. “Now the nostalgia is not what it used to be.” (laugh)

Joe: It was difficult for us to identify a criterion for money, because money itself is perceived as a measure of value.

Money undoubtedly converts into many things. At the same time, money usually means something quite concrete for a person. You may ask: “What does money give you? What is the importance of having money? For some people, money means "security" and that's the value they endow it with. For other people, they mean "power" or "freedom." What is money for, what is important or useful in it? - this question will give you a criterion. Sometimes someone seeks money on their own, forgetting that they want money for something else. This is what miserly people do: they save money, but they never use it. Sometimes money itself turns out to be a key criterion for a person: “Just money; that's all I want." If so, it's a case of redirecting it to other targets.

Bill: Conniray, since your timeline and your value system are so closely correlated, is it possible to say that the criterion associated on the timeline with the present, in any way dominates the rest of your values?

No, not for me. Now my behavior is much more motivated by the future, and rather by the long-term than by the immediate future; I will put up with today's difficulties in order to get results in the future.

Many of you have found that your value hierarchy is spatially ordered. Your criteria are sorted in space - top to bottom, near to far, left to right, etc. Many of us talk about our criteria as "highly" valuable, and that's literally how we organize our hierarchies; some criteria are higher, others are lower.

However, some people do the opposite: the lower one is more important to them. These people are more likely to talk about "fundamental" or "underlying" values.

Rita used proximity: certain values ​​were more "foreground" than others, and she spoke of them as "close" values. Another person ranked their criteria by size. Everything was in one place, but what more was a picture, the more he appreciated it.

Carol: I seem to be the exception. My timeline runs from left to right, but all of my criteria are right in front of me.

Are they all at the same point or do they go off into the distance?

Carol: They are all at the same point.

Then how can you say that one is more important than the other?

Caral: My least important criterion is like a flat piece of paper. The one in the middle is the associated color film, and the important criterion is purely auditory - I don't have any pictures for it at all.

It sounds as if these three criteria had no common submodalities. To have hierarchy, you need to have submodalities in the form of a continuum. Some people have only two discrete categories: something or important, or No. People who think in terms of "black and white", "right or wrong" often structure their experience in discrete categories of "either-or". Others may have three or more categories. I met one woman who only had three levels of criteria. It was very easy for her to make decisions because all criteria at the same level were equally important, if she had a choice between alternatives that met two different criteria at the same level, she simply chose one of them at random.

It is possible that Carol only has three discrete categories of how important something can be; but she doesn't look like that type of person, so I doubt it. Carol, here's something you can try on your own. Take these three criteria and make sure they are all in the same representational system. To find a submodality that changes along a continuum, you need all your criteria to be represented in the same system. You won't get a continuum if they jump from the auditory system to the visual system and so on. In fact, you may have one way of ordering criteria auditory and another visual, but in this exercise, do not confuse the two systems.

Bob: We started by trying to find visual submodalities for each criterion and got completely confused. We couldn't find anything, so we decided to leave that and move on to the auditory system. We also used vague hypnotic language such as "Apprehend this experience." He really got auditory differences, and demonstrated them to us with his voice and rhythm of speech. But whenever he wasn't focusing on the paintings, he also had a perfectly distinct continuum in the form of a downward gaze movement.

Fabulous. An interesting observation. So you ended up with a pretty hierarchy, even though he didn't realize it. Always keep your eyes and ears open.

Tom: We were struck by the congruence between the localization of criteria and the verbal and body language used to describe them.

Yes. You can use this information in two powerful ways: implicitly detecting how someone orders criteria, and using body language to help someone adjust their criteria more easily, which is the next step.

Choosing a criterion to change

Now that you have all identified the submodalities that allow your brain to know which criteria are more important or less important to you, the next step is to use the information you have received to fit the criterion that you feel is out of place.

With this technique, people did very worthwhile things; let me give you some examples. One clinical psychologist achieved an important shift in his relationship with his wife. He found himself constantly correcting her minor mistakes. She would say, "Well, last Wednesday when you went to the movies..." and he would say, "No, it was Thursday." While doing this, he immediately realized that he was obnoxious and unnecessarily annoyed his wife, but these corrections just popped out of his mouth! He was aware of the damage he was doing, but he couldn't change anything. Here is a conscious insight for you!

After examining his criteria, he found that he was responding to his highly valued criterion of "accuracy." He wanted his wife to be right. Of course, by correcting her, he made her wrong, but these things often work that way! His representation of wanting her to be right was a picture of a pointing finger, which he made less important by moving it down. As she moved down, she spontaneously turned white and transformed into a painting of dancing figures. At that moment, his entire posture softened, and tears welled up in his eyes. The representation of the criterion itself spontaneously transformed into a completely different content. He was amazed at how great feelings he now felt for his wife when he thought of her making a mistake.

I did a few shifts of the criterion on myself. For example, one day I was just about to go to Boston for a seminar when I felt the signs of an approaching cold or flu. I knew that I was getting sick, and I also knew that it was not right to get sick at this very moment. At first I tried to do a little reframing. I withdrew into myself and tried to promise my body: “Okay, I'll take a break as soon as I get back from there - I just need these four days to conduct a seminar. Leave me in peace, and then I'll rest!" (Laugh). This approach had worked before, but I felt it didn't work this time because I wasn't getting any response from my body.

When I checked the objections - what's keeping me from feeling good - the significance of my relationship with Steve surfaced. We had a lot of things to do; it was important for him to do them all, and I wanted to contribute. It was only my the perception that he wants me not to rest, but to work on all this. In fact, he probably would have advised me to take it easy and take care of my health. However, unconsciously I thought about it that my relationship with Steve was more important than physical health; so the promise to rest if my body remained healthy for the Boston seminar conflicted with my desire to work hard after my return and get things done. With this information, I delved into myself and shifted the importance of my physical health, making it more more important than my relationship with Steve. I got a different physical reaction and instantly knew that I would be healthy.

Man: Was this shift in criteria temporary, just until the end of your seminar?

No, it has become permanent. I thought it was a good idea that my physical health should always be more important. Being healthy actually improves my relationship with Steve in the long run. You cannot have a very good relationship with anyone if you are sick or if you work so hard that you die young. So this is another example of how criteria shifting can be useful.

Now let's consider the following situation. For one seminar participant, "being right" was a highly valued criterion, which got him into trouble. He found himself constantly trying to prove how resourceful he was and to demonstrate that he was right about everything. At the same time, he understood that this created problems for him; so he decided to adjust the importance of the "being right" criterion, making it less important.

When you make a criterion shift, you can either adjust one criterion, or, by making one criterion less significant, at the same time make the other more significant. This is especially important when a person perceives another criterion as a complementary opposition. For example, many people perceive the criterion of "pleasing others" as balancing "pleasing yourself." Since simply deleting something is often unsustainable, what do you think we might want to make more important if we made "being right" less important to that person?

Man: Help others.

This is an option. You could get the person to think about the importance of "being right" and get a representation of that. Then have him move that representation down or away from himself, or make it smaller - or anything else that makes it less important - while moving "help others" up. For some people this might work. What else might work?

Man: "Being right" sounds like he needs external approval for his behavior. What if he switched to the inside knowledge that he was right, without the need for feedback from others?

I think you are on the right track. One possible danger is that he may end up "knowing" that he is right and not being open to outside feedback when he is in fact wrong.

Woman: How about replacing "being right" with "having a balanced relationship"?

So instead of needing to be in control by always being right, it would be more important for him to cooperate with other people - to have a symmetrical relationship.

Man: How about "being loved" instead of "being right"?

This is an option, although “being loved” also emphasizes the need to get reactions from other people. This can keep the client in a very vulnerable position. What else could you do? Most of you are intuitively concerned with what you think of others. result which might be useful to him. One way to identify such an outcome is to ask him, "What does it get you to be right?" This may provide a criterion that can be used in place of "being right". Or we can ask him what is he wants to have as more important.

Woman: And if you replace "being right" with "being congenial"?

Yes, or maybe "perceive the reactions of others" or "make a graceful impression." Or else he can make a need prove that he is right, less important. When someone spends time proving that he is right, he is less likely to be right - because he spends so much time trying to prove it.

Man: “Being right” is perceived as a state, and “proving that you are right” is perceived as a process. So what about replacing it with another process?

That way, instead of proving himself right, he could focus on the importance of learning - or even learning with joy. Sometimes you can add criteria like "interest", "pleasure" and "surprise" to the main criteria you are adjusting.

There is a bunch of things that can take the place of "being right". When you help other people refine criteria, be careful not to impose what you consider it the most important thing in the world. Sometimes a person comes to you with some kind of result, and you think: “Well, this is not a very worthwhile thing!” When this happens, don't forget that the criteria shift is done to help people adjust them own criteria - to get more of what they want in life. They may want to be completely different from what you want to be. As long as the change does not violate your ethical principles and is congruent with their other goals and criteria, help them make it.

When I work with someone, I don't try to prescribe what he should substitute for a particular criterion. I make suggestions and comments to help him figure out what's sustainable for him, and I discuss environmental issues. For example, if he chooses to "be loved," I will say, "Well, do you really want to be so dominated by other people's behavior?" He can then look for something else. There is no single correct answer, as the correct answer will be determined by the person who wants to change. If you offer a lot of options, you can see what the person is responding to. The elements we've discussed give you some ways to help a client make a really good change.

Criteria shift demonstration

(The following transcript is taken from a training session given by Connirae in Dallas, Texas in January 1986. The transcript has been slightly edited for ease of reading.)

Would you like to watch me quickly demonstrate an example change? OK. Who has already sorted their hierarchy, firstly? And, secondly, you know something that you want to make either more or less important. Thinking about it, think about all the information that you personally have, and think what other people have said to you Is there anything that other people think you could make more or less important? obliged but this is the source of information. You can look at it and decide if you you is it a good idea or not.

David (quickly): OK. What do you need?

This person is effective when you need to get down to business! OK, what is your hierarchy? How do you code it in terms of submodalities?

David: As far as submodalities, I have a "pleasure" (gestures left hand far forward and slightly to the left). Then "personal cultivation" (pointing about 2 feet straight ahead), and then "family" (pointing with both hands near the chest), and I'm in it.

And what is more important?

David: Family.

Ok, I suspected that. So he has “close” criteria. I always talk about “high-value” criteria, and this is really the usual way to talk about them. Some people have “close” criteria, and others have “basic "values, OK, so his criteria are on a line that goes a little to the left with one criterion in the distance and more important criteria closer. Now, is there anything in your mind that you want to make more or less important?

David: Uh-huh.

Do you want to tell us about it or not? You don't have to. It does not matter.

David: Well, I have a problem here. When you recently spoke, it was connected with something that has been digesting in me for some time. I allow myself to get to the point where I get sick, working myself to death - and only then do I take care of personal needs. I need bring closer this (pointing with both hands towards the chest) in importance.

"Take care of personal needs." (That's right.) OK. Now you need to somehow understand where a person wants his criterion to end up; otherwise you can make it more important than life itself without having time to come to your senses: “Wait wait a minute, that's not so important". So, do you want it to be "as important as" or "more important than"?

David: More important than being worked to death.

A good choice. (Laughter) I can't say anything.

David: It's very hard for me to say "No" in a work environment. I can be so sick that it's time to go to bed, but I will continue without stopping.

Okay. Now we will do an environmental audit. In general, this sounds good. I want to make sure that the way in which he himself this interprets will be effective for him. So if you imagine that you will respond to personal needs as more important than work, finishing things, and the like ... Imagine how your life will change. And just check if there are any problems in such a life?

David: Hmm. It will be very differ. It's kind of like there's some part that asks "How is it will?»

"I'd like to know". Yes, that is, you may not know completely - and this may mean that later, after we make this change, you will want to adapt it a bit; you may need to add or subtract or move something.

David: Well, the general nature of efficiency comes up all the time. If I take better care of myself, I will definitely be more efficient in my work environment.

It's right. So those things don't really conflict with each other. (That's right.) And now that you're thinking about taking care of your personal needs, where do you see it now?

David: Over there. (He points with his right hand straight ahead and up.) Far in that direction (both hands).

Far in that direction, OK. That's the key. Is it on the same line with the rest of your criteria, or is it out of line?

David: Hmm, it's pretty central and taller and...

I ask if it lies on the line

David: - It's about the same distance as Allen (Allen is sitting at the end of the room), but higher, about the line of the ceiling.

I see what you mean by bringing it closer! (Allen raises both hands).

David: Thanks! (He waves to Allen and gives him the OK sign.)

Allen, could you please move forward when I signal you? (jokingly)

David: Put your hands out and bring it to me (laughter).

Okay. Well, where is the "response to work"?

David: Okay. Work. Something like down there. (He points straight ahead and down, slightly to the right.)

And how far from you?

David: Just this side of the TV. Right down there.

Down near the TV, OK, now let's do a little test. These two criteria are in a different place than the first three; it's not just a straight line. I want to check and find out if top or bottom matters. So take the criterion associated with work, (OK.)

If you lift it, we'll put it back in place, but if you lift it (David shakes his head) for a while, does it look more or less important?

David: (His arm moves left-right in the direction of the work-related criterion.) There's a lot - it works... (He laughs and waves his right hand away from him and up) he moves away when this one rises (gestures towards the criterion "personal needs"). Oh, it's just like there.

O! That is, he is on the same trajectory with that other criterion. OK. Give it back, (OK.) Now I would like you to take the one that is responsible for personal needs. (Allen raises his hands as David laughs and points at Allen) This is your signal. Allen! .. And now I want you to move this criterion closer. You do this technique slowly - you don't do it quickly - so that you can notice the effect as you move it closer. You can do something like an internal check. Usually people somehow feel when the criterion is in the right place. You also have an end goal. You know you wish it was more important than work. So let the picture come closer and you can see the impact it has as it becomes more important, and just catch the feeling when it's in the right place... (David makes an inquiring sound.) Wow. (He waves his left hand, showing uncertainty or uncertainty).

Move it back and forth a little if you're not quite sure. Check.

David: Oh, if I move it even closer, OK.

Good. And when you do that with people, there seems to be an interesting phenomenon that when the criterion hits the right place, it sort of pops. (David nods his head, "Yes," and gestures with both hands, "Of course") Especially if you're telling people it's going to happen (laughter). (David's hands move like they're putting something in place.) He's just sort of settling in there... hitting the right spot. Cotton technique, OK, and let me know when it seems to you that he has fallen into the right place.

David: Okay. Something like that. (Something like?) Well, you know, I'm not used to (He pulls back) for it to be this close. It's kind of like "Wow" .. .(hand touches chin in a "thinking" position) I also notice some other things related to this.

Do you notice anything that you might want to adjust? Here at the top you can see it more clearly. Perhaps you weren't sure what was in this painting when it was far away.

David: That's what I'm noticing now.

You might want to change the content a bit now that it's closer and you can see everything that's there...

David: Hmmm... Yes, it's extremely difficult.

Is that good or...

David: Amazing.

Okay. Difficult in what respect?

David: Well, when I thought about all these "personal needs", I thought about physical illness, but that seems to be just a small part of the whole. (The thumb and forefinger of his left hand make a small pointing gesture.) You know, this is... (His left hand draws a large circle in space around the previous gesture.)

Some part of your brain connected a bunch of different things there.

David: Yes, because the content, you know, like physical health (That's one part, OK) is just in this little one (both index fingers draw a small rectangle in the center of the circle.)

Now I want you to check out the rest of the parts you didn't know existed before and make sure you're quite happy with them in their proper place.

David: OK, when you said that, stuff started moving around.

Good. There may be parts of this picture that you want to move further away; or there may be parts you want to move even closer...

David (nodding): They moved in, OK. Everything is great now, OK.

Good. Now that you look at the configuration, does it feel like it will work for you? Or is there more clarification?

David: It feels like something isn't quite right - it's kind of really close, but not quite there.

Okay, so take the time to make it clearly visible. Just look through the whole thing.

David (laughs): Hey Allen! You're not quite there, but... I'll use your right shoulder as her corner... OK (closes eyes)

While you're at it, I'm going to tell the group some things you already know... Here's what I'd like to say: When you're doing this process, turning on the hypnotic language patterns makes things a lot easier for the person. You say something like. "You can allow approach this image, and notice when he finds the right position” (David nods) so you presuppose certain things you don’t want to question – that would make the procedure more difficult for the person than necessary. It's a lot easier than asking, "Is he in the right place?" because then they'll start to doubt...

David: OK. When I let it work, the screen over there expanded (he draws a large rectangle in front of him with both hands) into a large rectangle divided into parts. (He makes sharp vertical movements with his hand, moving it from left to right) ... So it's like - (His right hand makes a sweeping motion from left to right in front of him as he whistles softly).

That is, it has expanded.

David: Yes. It's pretty cool.

Did it fit?..

David: Yes, after I let it… (spreads arms wide)…

Increase. (Uh-huh.) And it makes sense, because you can really look at it completely and find out what's in there.

David (nodding): Uh-huh. And I'm getting all sorts of weird kinesthetics now, (Both arms spinning in alternating circles around my stomach.) kind of like, "Wow!" (His head and chest are pulled back.)

And the only thing to check is if "weird kinesthetics" is strange in the sense that "It's different, I've never had it before." (David nods, "Uh-huh") Because if it's kinesthetic saying, "Something's wrong," then you're going to want to elaborate further. And David responds congruently to the message: "It's just something unfamiliar." Okay. This is the part on change.

Now we want to test. (OK.) This particular change is a little harder to test than others. If you can immediately come up with something real, check it this way. For example, one person lowered the importance of the opinions of others and increased the importance of doing what he himself considered right Immediately afterwards, someone in his group told him to do something: "Do this with your submodalities" and his immediate reaction was: "No, I don't think that's right. I need to do something." something else." It was an unplanned move, but then they realized that it turned out to be a great test. So this is one of the ways that you can sometimes check. With this particular change, we cannot do that, but we can always check in imagination "Imagine yourself in a situation where this difference could come in. (He closes his eyes.) That's the most general test you can make. Have them find the context in which this new configuration will cause a change...

David (nods and smiles, very relaxed): OK, there is.

What do you think? I think it looks good.

David: "No" came out really easy. It was a typical “I need you now” phone call and a really quick “No, you can call so-and-so” check. (He snaps his fingers.)

Fabulous. Yes, and that's the type of automatic shift you get when a person's criteria are placed in a new order. You don't need force act differently, it's just how you really are. OK, try a different context - I want to do a thorough check. (He closes his eyes, "OK, different context") Another context in which the presence of this new configuration will lead to a change ... (OK)

How about here?

David: Amazing (laughter)

Is it amazing and amazing or...?

David: Yes. I took the alternative where someone gave me the opportunity to go and do something for myself. Usually I refuse and say, "No, I don't have time." And here I was doing this and thinking: “What am I doing?” (Turns head and looks around) "This is not normal." So it's pretty nice.

Okay, fine. And if you can think of a third context as well... Three is the magic number in NLP...

David (raises his head and tilts it to the right): Well, it's something I haven't seen in a long time, (laughter) I mean, I haven't seen it in person, my last vacation was seven years ago.

You are even worse than us!

David: It's great. He just entered my calendar.

Okay, I like this, and the number three satisfies my criteria for good validation. So thanks.

David. Thank you.

Now, another thing I would take care of doing this kind of maneuver is make sure he doesn't go too far in the direction of "Now he's going to be on vacation 300 days a year and work 65" (laughter). I didn't get any indication from him that he would go that far. He decided: "I write down the days of vacation in my calendar, because I haven't had a vacation for seven years." It's not like, "I'm going to be out of work for five years." Then I would begin to think: “What have I done here?” So when you do a shift with someone, you can check the boundaries a little to make sure they haven't gone too far. If he stops working and the money stops coming in, then he will have difficulty taking a vacation.

Criteria shift exercise

Let's briefly repeat all the steps of shifting the criterion, and then you can do it.

1. First, take the submodal encodings you have already identified and determine how they create a continuum. For David, the most important submodality was distance: the more important the criterion, the closer he was to it.

2. Help your partner identify a criterion that he wants to make more or less important, and find out where it is in his hierarchy of criteria. Don't forget to check the environment.

3. Having determined the criterion that your partner is going to move, determine where he would like to stop. Does he want to make it more important just as important or less important than some other criterion? Find out where in the hierarchy this second criterion is located.

4. Then slowly change the criteria accordingly (proximity, size, brightness, color, etc.). Adjust the submodalities so that the criterion is coded to the degree of importance the person wants to have. For example, if moving up makes something more important and your partner wants to make something more important, have him take the criterion representation and let it slowly rise until it is in the right position. If he sorts by size, he can let the picture grow slowly until it is exactly the right size, which will let him know that this criterion is as important as he would like. If he sorts by auditory loudness, he can let the sound get louder until it reaches the right level.

Even if a person has not determined what he wants to make the new criterion more or less important in comparison with, when you ask him to move the criterion to the "right place" - usually he intuitively feels well where this place is. People also reported that if they move a new criterion too quickly, they immediately know that things are going too far and move it back to where they feel more comfortable. They can feel when he is out of place, and this feeling is usually a signal of environmental concern.

Remember that this change must be done slowly. You can use hand gestures to help the client, but don't go further or faster than he does. If he raises the criterion, don't let the criterion take off quickly - lest it become more important than life itself. If you do it too fast, then "being neat" may end up being more important than "staying alive"! (laughter) It's not sustainable!

When you ask a person to "approach a criterion", then that criterion approximates relative to other elements on its criteria hierarchy. This makes the method work. Sometimes I add to my preliminary instructions, “OK, now you may have the feeling that all your other criteria are there too and are part of a continuum.” You will learn more about how it all works when you do this exercise.

Testing

You have several possible ways to check your work. The first is to take a break and do something else for a while. Then ask the client to think about the criteria they shifted. How does he feel about it now? Is his position natural? Is it high enough, or is it close enough, or is it sufficient for whatever reason the client changed it for?

The second way of testing is especially important because it is also a synchronization with the future. Ask the client to think about the situation that the new criterion would change for him, and then place him in that context and find out what his experience is. Is this what he wants? This is the testing method I did with David. In any kind of testing, you are, of course, looking for non-verbal confirmation that the intervention resulted in a change. If you have any doubts, or if you want to be very thorough, check in multiple contexts.

The third possibility is to organize a behavioral test. Create a situation where you expect a change caused by a criterion shift and notice what happens.

Okay, start working. We will discuss everything at the end.

General exercise plan

1. Define a major submodality that will create a continuum for the criteria hierarchy.

2. Determine the criterion you are going to regulate and its current position on the continuum.

3. Determine the overall desired position of the criterion on the continuum.

4. Slowly adjust the criterion in the direction of the desired position until you feel it is the right position.

Discussion

Congratulations! I noticed that many of you have done very nice things with it. Let's listen to some acceptance speeches (laughter). As David told me, he realized that his brain kept making new permutations and refinements in order to line up the change we had made in a more expedient, conscious way.

David: I'm still checking. Things change here and there. And this change continues to be congruent to my timeline in both directions. I have a time belt that goes into the past (points to the left) and into the future (points to the right). And then my day goes from top to bottom, and everything falls into place on a continuum.

Good. It's nice to see this kind of shift going on. When making this shift with yourself or with someone else, in any case, take the time to further clarify - do not immediately move on to another activity that would be incongruent - or make preparations that will allow them to occur on an unconscious level, as David does. . Make sure the conscious mind can be turned on and ready for whatever you are about to undertake.

Lea: Having defined the continuum for each member of the group, we all decided which criterion we want to change and in what direction. Then each gave instructions to his unconscious mind to make the appropriate changes. Later we checked and it worked great.

This is a great adaptation.

Ben: My least important criterion was close and in front of me, and the most important was far away! I reacted to what was close, even if it was trivial, and did not react to what was really important to me, but was far away! When I realized this, I said to myself:

“What nonsense,” and turned everything 180 degrees.

And it really changed his state. I visited Ben's group. Do you all understand what he did? Instead of just changing the position of a criterion among a bunch of others, he turned the whole bunch around an axis - so that it was congruent with what he wants his brain to recognize as important. What is important is now close, and trivial criteria are at a greater distance. This is great!

Ben: I also think I know how things came to be this way. Many years ago, I had an experience that didn't work for me, and it made me turn all my criteria around.

When Ben told me this earlier, I asked him to check the environment before shifting his criteria. I wanted him to check if there was anything in his previous organization that spawned this is an unpleasant experience, since in this case it would not be environmentally friendly to return to this organization again.

Ben: But it's not like that at all. What we have now will be very good.

Let me give you one interesting example. Chris made the "need to be right" less important - and, without any prior planning, "humor" popped up and took its place. I thought it was very good. Humor is great, and many of us could make a beneficial difference by making it more important in our lives.

Fred: I shifted the importance of "flexibility". As I began to make it more important, "flexibility" began to spread throughout the system all the way down to the bottom of my hierarchy. All of a sudden I got flexibility in all these various areas.

So you've built flexibility into many different criteria. Very well. It's similar to what that group over there did with "fun". This is an interesting variation: not just to change the criterion, but to allow it to pass through and affect the entire hierarchy.

David: In our group we used correlation between criteria and timeline. If Tim wanted something to be more important, he would move it here to the future and it would automatically fit into the slot. If he wanted something to be less important, he moved it to the past.

Bill: By doing this, I made eating carrots more important - and I got a "must". I felt that I "should" eat carrots and that it was really important - but I didn't like it.

Eating carrots is behavior, not a criterion. What is important to you about eating carrots? Is it something like health or fitness? (Yes.) So you might be thinking about making your overall health more important. This is the criterion. When you check this, I don't think you'll get a "should".

I've noticed that some of us have tried to make a particular behavior more important, instead of defining a general criterion that it satisfies and doing his more important. Behavior is concrete and woven into context, such as eating carrots or doing more housework. The value of defining and changing a criterion is that you get a shift that will affect the person in different contexts, and you have more freedom to choose which particular behavior meets that criterion.

You can think about what level of generalization you want to work on. If you only want to change a specific behavior, saving the environment is relatively easy. Criteria, however, are at the next higher level of generalization. As they pass through contexts, making a change at the criterion level will have a stronger and more sustainable impact. As a result, you need to be more careful

Criteria importance shift

For some people, personal pleasure or entertainment is so important that they never achieve much. For others, success is so important that they never take the time to relax and enjoy life. Words like "pleasure" and "success" indicate criteria - standards for evaluation that can be applied in a variety of situations. Many various activities can give you "pleasure", and many more can bring you "success". Some activities can even give you both. The criteria is for what you are doing something. These are nominalizations - such as "learning", "usefulness", "beauty", etc. - that can be used to evaluate results in a variety of contexts. Criteria give us a useful way to organize our lives through generalizations.

It happens that the criterion is too or not important enough. Often, criteria like “being right,” “being liked by others,” or “power” take on such significance in a person’s life that he becomes unbalanced and experiences personal difficulties or constant dissatisfaction with others.

Criteria Shift is a powerful technique for changing the importance of a criterion. When you work with beliefs, quite often you change a limiting belief to its opposite. The person says "I guess I can't learn" and you switch it to "I guess I I can learn" - a discrete shift. However, when dealing with a person's criteria, you very rarely want to reverse them completely. The exact opposite is usually neither needed nor desirable. Instead, you regulate relative the importance of the criteria, making them more or less important. You make "being right" less important or "having fun" more important - analog shift. This allows you to fine-tune the basis of behavior as we all behave in a way that fulfills the criteria we deem important.

Yesterday someone said that people either work to meet their criteria or don't work at all. This is a strong statement, but it is true. If an activity doesn't meet any of your criteria, it won't be of interest to you. Think of all the things others do willingly that you find trivial or obscure. These activities must somehow meet some of their criteria, but not yours.

Often problems arise in situations where two criteria come into conflict. For example, you are faced with a choice - to please others or to do what seems best to you. It is in such cases that the ability to refine the criteria can be very important.

Before you can adjust the criteria, you need to get an idea of ​​how the human brain knows which is important. How does the human brain encode criteria so that when a person thinks of "study" or "fun" they automatically know how important it is and their behavior is sequenced without conscious thought about it? To find out, the first step is to identify hierarchy of criteria: multiple criteria listed in order of importance. The second step is to study the submodal differences between these criteria, and the third is to use these encodings to adjust the problematic criterion. Since identifying criteria may be new to some of you, we will demonstrate it. Even if you have done this before, I suggest you pay close attention to it; some people do it differently, not in the way that we suggest you learn.

Revealing the hierarchy of criteria

Who would like their hierarchy of criteria to be revealed?

Chris: I.

Thank you, Chris. I want you to think of something trivial that you could do but won't. For example: "I could stand on this chair, but I won't," or "I could throw a piece of chalk across the room, but I won't." Can you think of something relatively trivial like this?

Chris: Pick up the person who votes on the road.

Good. You could pick up a man, but you won't. But what's stopping you from picking it up?

Chris: A foreman who worked for me once picked up a man on the road who made him carry him two hundred miles, holding a pistol at gunpoint; And I don't want the same thing to happen to me.

Thus, the criterion that is involved here can be called "safety" or "survival". This is a much higher criterion than what I wanted to start with. Since we're already dealing with life and death, we're probably near the top of Chris' hierarchy. For the sake of demonstration, let's change the content. think of something much more trivial, like you could stand on a chair or pick your nose in front of people, but you won't.

Chris: I could drink coffee, but I won't.

So, won't that take us back to the top of your hierarchy? For some people, drinking coffee is like drinking arsenic; it violates the criterion that includes health, which is just at the top of their hierarchy - so they don't do it. Is coffee consumption really low enough for you?

Chris: Okay, I can think of something below that; I could wash the dishes today, but I won't.

Fine, that sounds low enough. "Washing dishes" is a specific behavior. The next step is to identify the value criteria that keeps him from taking this action. So, Chris, what's stopping you from doing the dishes?

Chris: There are not enough dishes to wash.

OK, we still don't have a criterion, so I'll ask the question differently. Chris, what do you achieve by not washing the dishes?

Chris: Well, it builds up to a reasonable amount, and then I wash it all at once.

And by washing all the dishes at once, what do you achieve?

Chris: This saves time.

OK, so the significant criterion is "saving time." Note that he formulated the criterion positively - as what he will save or achieve, and not avoid. The same criterion could be formulated as "do not waste time". It is important that all criteria be formulated positively, without any negatives. We will discuss the reasons for this later.

Now let's move on to the next step. I want to find out what is more important to Chris than saving time. Chris, what would make you wash the dishes today anyway, even though doing so would be "wasting your time"?

Chris: If I was waiting for some stranger to visit.

And again he offers you a situation, an event, a circumstance: "Some stranger comes to visit." For Chris it's that extra context, which conditions that he will wash the dishes. Well, what would you achieve by washing dishes in this situation? What is important to you here?

Chris: The perception of me as my guest will begin on neutral ground.

Would it be correct to say something like, “I would make a certain impression?” (Chris frowns.) How could you rephrase that so it's accurate for you? You can see that he didn't like the way I put it. It doesn't fit for him.

Chris: No, I don't want to deliberately create any impression, positive or negative. Anyone who comes to my apartment should accept it for what it is. However, dirty dishes fall below my neutrality criterion of being neither too neat nor too sloppy.

Okay, let's call this criteria "start with a neutral impression." (Mmm-hmm.) It's a bit long; I like to use one or two words if possible - but I think it will get the point across. He didn't like the way I phrased it, and I definitely want to use something that makes sense to him. His first criterion is "saving time", the second is "starting with a neutral impression":

Now we need to identify an even higher criterion. By keeping the context unchanged, we again subject the behavior to denial. Note that the context is cumulative: there are still only a few dirty dishes, and further a stranger comes to visit. You can do something every time add context - but you are not allowed to change what has already been defined. Chris, given the context, what would make you not wash the dishes, even if, without washing them, you would risk not starting on neutral ground?

Chris: Oh, if only I were cooking.

And under this condition, what would you achieve by leaving the dishes unwashed?

Chris: Well, if someone comes and the food is being prepared, I don't try to wash all the dishes so that everything is sparkling clean, because I like to serve the weight hot.

Good. Why is it important to serve everything hot? We haven't received the criteria yet.

Chris: In the perfection of cooking: I am a good cook.

Now we have a criterion. And I suspect that "perfection" in general is more important to you than "starting on neutral ground" with people - which in turn is more important than "saving time."

Now remember that we still have only a few dirty dishes, and some stranger is going to visit, and further you are cooking. In this context, what would make you still wash the dishes, even though it would violate the criterion of "cooking perfection"?

Chris: If only there was something unhygienic about leaving dishes unwashed.

"Unhygienic" is a negative, so I want to change it to something positive, like "keep hygienic" - if this change of wording is acceptable to Chris. (Yes OK. Now, what would make you leave the dishes unwashed, even though it would be unhygienic?

Chris(long pause): If something emergency happened nearby, like a fire in the building where my apartment is located.

We are now approaching a criterion with a high value. Okay, what would you save or achieve by responding to such an incident?

Chris: Life saving.

We have achieved "preservation of life". It usually ranks quite high on the list.

Chris:"Saving life" is actually a little high. It's more about "preserving safety", the safety of others.

Okay, you're "keep safe" by reacting to an incident instead of washing dishes. The stakes on washing dishes or not washing dishes are clearly rising! Now, Chris, what would make you still wash dishes, even if - for this you will not be able to protect the safety of others when there is an incident?

Chris: If the scale of the incident exceeded my ability to influence it.

Note that this answer does not lead to a more important criterion; it simply takes away the meaning of "preserve security" by changing the existing context. You have turned the incident into something that you have no control over. What more you will have to add to the context we already have at the moment - a small amount of dirty dishes, a stranger coming in, cooking and further incident - so that you neglect "preserving safety"?

Chris: I suppose I wouldn't do the dishes if I could have some part in overcoming the crisis.

That's right, we've already installed it. What would make you wash dishes, even if you could somehow take part in overcoming the crisis?

Chris: If, miraculously, there were people more competent at handling the crisis than I am, then I would start washing the dishes.

Notice that Chris still doesn't move up to the higher level criterion. He continues to build his behavior in such a way that his criterion of "preservation of safety" is satisfied. We will know that he has moved to a higher level criterion when he thinks about something. more important for what he will donate"preservation of safety". I usually try to get the person to think about it first before suggesting an option, but right now we're close to the top anyway. Most people foam their own life is above the safety of other people. So Chris, let's say someone holds you at gunpoint and says, "If you get involved in this crisis, I'll blow your brains out!" Could it make you do the dishes?

Chris: Could.

Could?! (laughter) What if your family were in danger if you didn't do the dishes?

Chris: I don't have a family now. I live alone. And someone is putting a gun to my head at their own risk, so I don't know if I'll wash the dishes even then.

Well, what if you got a phone call and said that the whole city of New York would be blown up if you didn't do the dishes? You must clean it up, ignoring the crisis, or New York will cease to exist.

Chris: OK...

I won't go any further because we are very high now; whether we are on top its hierarchy or close to it, for our purposes we are high enough. My belief in this is based on his reaction. For some people, this will not be the top. For them, the safety of others is not really that important; but if it comes to their own lives, then they will be concerned. And even a person's life may not be as important as principles, such as "honor", "doing the right thing", or "morality". This is one of the factors that make self-sacrifice or war possible. Chris certainly has many other criteria that will fall in between the ones we've identified here. For our purposes, however, you don't need to work out each criterion in turn, because you only need three for the next step in the exercise: one that's completely unimportant, one in the middle, and one that's very important. After you identify them, we will show you how to shift the criterion.

An exercise

Divide into groups of three and identify your partner's criteria hierarchy just like I did with Chris. Be sure to start with something really trivial. What is so insignificant that he could do but won't? His non-verbal reaction will give you an idea of ​​how trivial or important this behavior is to him. It's important that you don't impose your own criteria on what he does. Other people's hierarchies will sometimes be very different from yours - and you need to find out what it is exactly. this person. When your partner chooses some trivial behavior, keep changing the conditions under which he will or will not perform it in order to consistently bring out the criteria for higher levels.

The key is to keep him going up the hierarchy. Find out what is important enough for him - what will make him sacrifice the last criterion identified. I asked Chris: "What would make you wash the dishes anyway, even though that by doing so you would be violating the criterion just identified? Then Chris added into the context of the new element. I then asked questions to find criteria that fit this new context: “What gave would you achieve this?" We then reversed the question:

"What would make you not wash the dishes, even if, by not washing them, you would have to violate this last criterion?

Chris' Criteria Hierarchy Diagram below shows how the context is cumulative. At every step we add context, but never subtract anything from what is already there. It's a way of finding out what's important enough to Chris that it would cause him to violate the previous criterion.

The male: Could you move on to the next criterion by asking, "Well, what's more important than that?"

Yes, but many people will say, “Oh, a lot!” (laughter) When you ask someone to think in such an abstract way, they have to guess, but without the right context, they can be wrong. When you offer a specific scenario, people are much faster at identifying the criteria that really influence their behavior - as opposed to the criteria they think that those should influence their behavior. A specific scenario is much better at activating unconscious resources and protecting against intellectualization.

Make sure the weight criteria are formulated positively. Ask your partner what exactly the criterion preserves or ensures, not what it avoids. A good way to figure this out is to ask what exactly gives it a particular behavior. “What will give it value?”, “ for what you do it?"

Sometimes people will give you their criteria a little out of order, because they are thinking about an experience that violates or satisfies only a small part of the criterion, not most of it, and this can affect the determination of its position relative to the rest of the criteria. A small amount of dirty dishes does not disturb the “cleanliness” to the same extent as a dismantled car engine in your living room. Once you have your hierarchy in place, choose for the next step the three criteria that you firmly believe are in the correct order. Pick one trivial, one average, and one major criterion, and look for verbal and non-verbal congruence. For Chris, I would take: "time saving", "perfection" and "safety keeping". I'm pretty sure these three criteria are in the right order so I can use them.

Next, note how these criteria are represented, and then identify the submodal differences that characterize them. If we were doing this with Chris, I would ask him to think about the "saving time" criterion. How does he represent "saving time"? How about "perfection" and "keep others safe"? What does he see/hear/feel when he thinks about each of these criteria? Then he can compare these three representations with each other, just as you compared the past, present and future, revealing your timeline. We want you to figure out which submodalities are used to order these three criteria into continuum. There may be discrete differences, but for the time being they do not interest us. We only need analog submodalities that change continuously. You may find two or three different submodalities, but often one key will be the most powerful.

Now it's just mark which analog submodalities seem to be the main way to encode the relative importance of these three criteria. Later, after Once your partner decides which criterion he wants to shift, you will test these submodalities. Shifting criteria is surprisingly easy, and we don't want you to do it by accident.

If any of you finish quickly, you can explore the submodal differences between the same criterion when it is stated positively and vice versa negatively.

The male: By positive wording, do you mean "save time" and not "do not waste time"?

Quite right. People move towards positively formulated criteria and away from negatively formulated ones. If you have a bit of both, it will confuse you. The submodal encodings referring to "moving to" and "moving from" are interesting, but they differ from how people hierarchize their criteria. When you eliminate the consequences of "moving towards" and "moving away" by formulating all criteria in the same way, you are much more likely to find only those submodalities that belong to the hierarchy itself.

The male: What about people who are more motivated by avoidance than attraction? What if a person is actually motivated to avoid certain things in life?

With some people, it may be easier to get a negative wording of all criteria. Do this only if you find it really difficult to reorient the person to the positive.

I would like to expand the box by asking the following question: if someone is really primarily motivated by avoidance, do you want to leave him with this orientation, or do you want to refocus his attention on where he wants to go? Every time you move away from something, you must also move. towards something else. If your attention is focused on what you are moving away from, then you will not notice what you are approaching. The phrase "out of the fire and into the fire" aptly expresses this problem - when you do not notice what you are moving towards. Focusing that person's attention on what they want can be much more generative and beneficial than changing their hierarchy of what to avoid.

There are things in life that are definitely worth avoiding. Sometimes it's very good to use "planning for the worst" and some people get in a lot of trouble when they don't. However, in general, well-formulated results in NLP are stated positively - because you are much more likely to get where you want to go if you focus on it. This is the number one fundamental rule in professional training. You can do "worst-case planning" only after how you framed a positive outcome to make sure you achieve that outcome in a sustainable way.

Sometimes it is difficult for people to decide whether something is really a criterion, or if it is part of the context. The main test is that the criterion is a nominalization that can be applied to many various contexts. One of the criteria for buying a car may be the desire to have a car with single seats. This is too specific to be transferred to another context; but "physical comfort" or "the approval of others" can apply to a car as well as to a wide range of other contexts. You also need to state the criterion as concisely as possible; often one or two words will suffice. One person had the criterion of "corresponding to other people." It's a little long, but it can clearly apply to a wide range of situations and to a wide range of behaviors. These indications are sufficient for now; you can start the exercise.

Discussion

Glad to see you again! What did you discover? Some of you are starting to notice amazing proportions. For example, some groups observed links between the criteria hierarchy and the timeline.

Neville: Yes, Tom's timeline and his criteria hierarchy matched exactly. What was least important to Tom was at the place in his timeline that Tom uses for the past, and the more important the criterion, the farther into the future he was. His criteria were placed along the timeline.

Right. Although we don't know the content, it shows that Tom is very future-oriented. I look like him. I tend to ignore the past, so my criteria hierarchy starts where I represent the present and continues straight into the future. You can expect a person to value the future if they use the same submodalities to encode the future tense and high-value criteria, as Tom and I do.

And vice versa, the one who encodes the past and highly valuable criteria with the same submodalities, apparently, remembers a lot and would like to go back to the “good old days”. “Now the nostalgia is not what it used to be.” (laugh)

Joe: It was difficult for us to identify a criterion for money, because money itself is perceived as a measure of value.

Money undoubtedly converts into many things. At the same time, money usually means something quite concrete for a person. You may ask: “What does money give you? What is the importance of having money? For some people, money means "security" and that's the value they endow it with. For other people, they mean "power" or "freedom." What is money for, what is important or useful in it? - this question will give you a criterion. Sometimes someone seeks money on their own, forgetting that they want money for something else. This is what miserly people do: they save money, but they never use it. Sometimes money itself turns out to be a key criterion for a person: “Just money; that's all I want." If so, it's a case of redirecting it to other targets.

Bill: Connirae, since your timeline and your value system are so closely correlated, is it possible to say that the criterion associated on the timeline with the present is in any way superior to the rest of your values?

No, not for me. Now my behavior is much more motivated by the future, and rather by the long-term than by the immediate future; I will put up with today's difficulties in order to get results in the future.

Many of you have found that your value hierarchy is spatially ordered. Your criteria are sorted in space - from top to bottom, from near to far, from left to right, etc. Many of us talk about our criteria as "high" - valuable, and this is literally how we organize our hierarchies; some criteria are higher, others are lower.

However, some people do the opposite: the lower one is more important to them. These people are more likely to talk about "fundamental" or "underlying" values.

Rita used proximity: certain values ​​were more "foreground" than others, and she spoke of them as "close" values. Another person ranked their criteria by size. Everything was in one place, but what more there was a picture, the more he appreciated it.

Carol: I seem to be the exception. My timeline runs from left to right, but all of my criteria are right in front of me.

Are they all at the same point or do they go off into the distance?

Carol: They are all in one place.

Then how can you say that one is more important than the other?

Charles: My least important criterion is like a flat piece of paper. The one in the middle is the associated color film, and the important criterion is purely auditory - I don't have any pictures for it at all.

It sounds as if these three criteria had no common submodalities. To have hierarchy, you need to have submodalities in the form of a continuum. Some people have only two discrete categories: something or important, or No. People who think in terms of "black and white", "right or wrong" often structure their experience in discrete categories of "either-or". Others may have three or more categories. I met one woman who only had three levels of criteria. It was very easy for her to make decisions because all criteria at the same level were equally important, if she had a choice between alternatives that met two different criteria at the same level, she simply chose one of them at random.

It is possible that Carol only has three discrete categories of how important something can be; but she doesn't look like that type of person, so I doubt it. Carol, here's something you can try on your own. Take these three criteria and make sure they are all in the same representational system. To find a submodality that changes along a continuum, you need all your criteria to be represented in the same system. You won't get a continuum if they jump from the auditory system to the visual system and so on. In fact, you may have one way of ordering criteria auditory and another visual, but in this exercise, do not confuse the two systems.

Bean: We started by trying to find visual submodalities for each criterion and got completely confused. We couldn't find anything, so we decided to leave that and move on to the auditory system. We also used vague hypnotic language such as "Apprehend this experience." He really got auditory differences, and demonstrated them to us with his voice and rhythm of speech. But whenever he wasn't focusing on the paintings, he also had a perfectly distinct continuum in the form of a downward gaze movement.

Fabulous. An interesting observation. So you ended up with a pretty hierarchy, even though he didn't realize it. Always keep your eyes and ears open.

Volume: We were struck by the congruence between the localization of criteria and the verbal and body language used to describe them.

Yes. You can use this information in two powerful ways: implicitly detecting how someone orders criteria, and using body language to help someone adjust their criteria more easily, which is the next step.

Choosing a criterion to change

Now that you have all identified the submodalities that allow your brain to know which criteria are more important or less important to you, the next step is to use the information you have received to fit the criterion that you feel is out of place.

With this technique, people did very worthwhile things; let me give you some examples. One clinical psychologist achieved an important shift in his relationship with his wife. He found himself constantly correcting her minor mistakes. She would say, "Well, last Wednesday when you went to the movies..." and he would say, "No, it was Thursday." While doing this, he immediately realized that he was obnoxious and unnecessarily annoyed his wife, but these corrections just popped out of his mouth! He was aware of the damage he was doing, but he couldn't change anything. Here is a conscious insight for you!

After examining his criteria, he found that he was responding to his highly valued criterion of "accuracy." He wanted his wife to be right. Of course, by correcting it, he made it wrong, but these things often work that way! His representation of wanting her to be right was a picture of a pointing finger, which he made less important by moving it down. As she moved down, she spontaneously turned white and transformed into a painting of dancing figures. At that moment, his entire posture softened, and tears welled up in his eyes. The representation of the criterion itself spontaneously transformed into a completely different content. He was amazed at how great feelings he now felt for his wife when he thought of her making a mistake.

I did a few shifts of the criterion on myself. For example, one day I was just about to go to Boston for a seminar when I felt the signs of an approaching cold or flu. I knew that I was getting sick, and I also knew that it was not right to get sick at this very moment. At first I tried to do a little reframing. I withdrew into myself and tried to promise my body: “Okay, I'll take a break as soon as I get back from there - I just need these four days to conduct a seminar. Leave me in peace, and then I'll rest!" (Laugh). This approach had worked before, but I felt it didn't work this time because I wasn't getting any response from my body.

When I checked the objections - what's keeping me from feeling good - the significance of my relationship with Steve surfaced. We had a lot of things to do; it was important for him to do them all, and I wanted to contribute. It was only my the perception that he wants me not to rest, but to work on all this. In fact, he probably would have advised me to take it easy and take care of my health. However, unconsciously I thought about it that my relationship with Steve was more important than physical health; so the promise to rest if my body remained healthy for the Boston seminar conflicted with my desire to work hard after my return and get things done. With this information, I delved into myself and shifted the importance of my physical health, making it more more important than my relationship with Steve. I got a different physical reaction and instantly knew that I would be healthy.

The male: Was this shift in criteria temporary, just until the end of your workshop?

No, it has become permanent. I thought it was a good idea that my physical health should always be more important. Being healthy actually improves my relationship with Steve in the long run. You cannot have a very good relationship with anyone if you are sick or if you work so hard that you will die young. So this is another example of how criteria shifting can be useful.

Now let's consider the following situation. For one seminar participant, "being right" was a highly valued criterion, which got him into trouble. He found himself constantly trying to prove how resourceful he was and to demonstrate that he was right about everything. At the same time, he understood that this created problems for him; so he decided to adjust the importance of the "being right" criterion, making it less important.

When you make a criterion shift, you can either adjust one criterion, or, by making one criterion less significant, at the same time make the other more significant. This is especially important when a person perceives another criterion as a complementary opposition. For example, many people perceive the criterion of "pleasing others" as balancing "pleasing yourself." Since simply deleting something is often unsustainable, what do you think we might want to make more important if we made "being right" less important to that person?

The male:"Help others."

This is an option. You could get the person to think about the importance of "being right" and get a representation of that. Then have him move that representation down or further away from himself, or make it smaller - or anything else that makes it less important - while moving "help others" up. For some people this might work. What else could work?

The male:"Being right" sounds like he needs external approval for his behavior. What if he switched to the inside knowledge that he was right, without the need for feedback from others?

I think you are on the right track. One possible danger is that he may end up "knowing" that he is right and not being open to outside feedback when he is in fact wrong.

Female: How about replacing "being right" with "having a balanced relationship"?

So instead of needing to be in control by always being right, it would be more important for him to cooperate with other people - to have a symmetrical relationship.

The male: How about "be loved" instead of "be right"?

This is an option, although “being loved” also emphasizes the need to get reactions from other people. This can keep the client in a very vulnerable position. What else could you do? Most of you are intuitively concerned with what you think of others. result which might be useful to him. One way to identify such an outcome is to ask him, "What does it get you to be right?" This may provide a criterion that can be used in place of "being right". Or we can ask him what is he wants to have as more important.

Female: What if we replace “being right” with “being congenial”?

Yes, or maybe "perceive the reactions of others" or "make a graceful impression." Or else he can make a need prove that he is right, less important. When someone spends time proving that he is right, he is less likely to be right - because he spends so much time trying to prove it.

The male:“Being right” is perceived as a state, and “proving that you are right” is perceived as a process. So what about replacing it with another process?

That way, instead of proving himself right, he could focus on the importance of learning - or even learning with joy. Sometimes you can add criteria like "interest", "pleasure" and "surprise" to the main criteria you are adjusting.

There is a bunch of things that can take the place of "being right". When you help other people refine criteria, be careful not to impose what you consider it the most important thing in the world. Sometimes a person comes to you with some kind of result, and you think: “Well, this is not a very worthwhile thing!” When this happens, don't forget that the criteria shift is done to help people adjust them own criteria - to get more of what they want in life. They may want to be completely different from what you want to be. As long as the change does not violate your ethical principles and is congruent with their other goals and criteria, help them make it.

When I work with someone, I don't try to prescribe what he should substitute for a particular criterion. I make suggestions and comments to help him figure out what's sustainable for him, and I discuss environmental issues. For example, if he chooses to "be loved," I will say, "Well, do you really want to be so dominated by other people's behavior?" He can then look for something else. There is no single correct answer, as the correct answer will be determined by the person who wants to change. If you offer a lot of options, you can see what the person is responding to. The elements we've discussed give you some ways to help a client make a really good change.

Criteria shift demonstration

(The following transcript is taken from a training session given by Connirae in Dallas, Texas in January 1986. The transcript has been slightly edited for ease of reading.)

Would you like to watch me quickly demonstrate an example change? OK. Who has already sorted their hierarchy, firstly? And, secondly, you know something that you want to make either more or less important. Thinking about it, think about all the information that you personally have, and think what other people have said to you Is there anything that other people think you could make more or less important? obliged but this is the source of information. You can look at it and decide if you you is it a good idea or not.

David(quickly): OK. What do you need?

This person is effective when you need to get down to business! OK, what is your hierarchy? How do you code it in terms of submodalities?

David: As for submodalities, I have a "pleasure" (makes a gesture with his left hand far forward and slightly to the left). Then "personal cultivation" (pointing about 2 feet straight ahead), and then "family" (pointing with both hands near the chest), and I'm in it.

And what is more important?

David: Family.

Ok, I suspected that. So he has “close” criteria. I always talk about “high-value” criteria, and this is really the usual way to talk about them. Some people have “close” criteria, and others have “basic "values, OK, so his criteria are on a line that goes a little to the left with one criterion in the distance and more important criteria closer. Now, is there anything in your mind that you want to make more or less important?

David: Yes.

Do you want to tell us about it or not? You don't have to. It does not matter.

David: Well, I have a problem here. When you recently spoke, it was connected with something that has been digesting in me for some time. I allow myself to get to the point where I get sick, working myself to death - and only then do I take care of personal needs. I need bring closer this (pointing with both hands towards the chest) in importance.

"Take care of personal needs." (That's right.) OK. Now you need to somehow understand where a person wants his criterion to end up; otherwise you can make it more important than life itself without having time to come to your senses: “Wait wait a minute, that's not so important". So, do you want it to be "as important as" or "more important than"?

David: More important than working yourself to death.

A good choice. (Laughter) I can't say anything.

David: I find it very difficult to say “No” in a work environment. I can be so sick that it's time to go to bed, but I will continue without stopping.

Okay. Now we will do an environmental audit. In general, this sounds good. I want to make sure that the way in which he himself this interprets will be effective for him. So if you imagine that you will respond to personal needs as more important than work, finishing things, and the like ... Imagine how your life will change. And just check if there are any problems in such a life?

David: hmm. It will be very differ. It's kind of like there's some part that asks "How is it will?»

"I'd like to know". Yes, that is, you may not know completely - and this may mean that later, after we make this change, you will want to adapt it a bit; you may need to add or subtract or move something.

David: Well, the thought of the general nature of efficiency constantly comes to mind. If I take better care of myself, I will definitely be more efficient in my work environment.

It's right. So those things don't really conflict with each other. (That's right.) And now that you're thinking about taking care of your personal needs, where do you see it now?

David: There. (He points with his right hand straight ahead and up.) Far in that direction (both hands).

Far in that direction, OK. That's the key. Is it on the same line with the rest of your criteria, or is it out of line?

David: Hmm, that's pretty central, and taller, and...

I ask if it lies on the line

David:- It's about the same distance as Allen (Allen is sitting at the end of the room), but higher, about the line of the ceiling.

I see what you mean by bringing it closer! (Allen raises both hands).

David: Thank you! (He waves to Allen and gives him the OK sign.)

Allen, could you please move forward when I signal you? (jokingly)

David: Stretch out your hands and bring it to me (laughter).

Okay. Well, where is the "response to work"?

David: Okay. Work. Something like down there. (He points straight ahead and down, slightly to the right.)

And how far from you?

David: Just this side of the TV. Right down there.

Down near the TV, OK, now let's do a little test. These two criteria are in a different place than the first three; it's not just a straight line. I want to check and find out if top or bottom matters. So take the criterion associated with work, (OK.)

If you lift it, we'll put it back in place, but if you lift it (David shakes his head) for a while, does it look more or less important?

David:(His hand moves left-right in the direction of the work-related criterion.) There is very - it works ... (He laughs and waves his right hand away from him and up) he moves away when this one rises (gestures towards the criterion "personal needs"). Oh, it's just like there.

O! That is, he is on the same trajectory with that other criterion. OK. Give it back, (OK.) Now I would like you to take the one that is responsible for personal needs. (Allen raises his hands as David laughs and points at Allen) This is your signal. Allen! .. And now I want you to move this criterion closer. You do this technique slowly - you don't do it quickly - so that you can notice the effect as you move it closer. You can do something like an internal check. Usually people somehow feel when the criterion is in the right place. You also have an end goal. You know you wish it was more important than work. So let the picture come closer and you can see the impact it has as it becomes more important, and just catch the feeling when it's in the right place... (David makes an inquiring sound.) Wow. (He waves his left hand, showing uncertainty or uncertainty).

Move it back and forth a little if you're not quite sure. Check.

David: Oh, if I move it even closer, OK.

Good. And when you do that with people, there seems to be an interesting phenomenon that when the criterion hits the right place, it sort of pops. (David nods his head, "Yes," and gestures with both hands, "Of course") Especially if you're telling people it's going to happen (laughter). (David's hands move like they're putting something in place.) He's just sort of settling in there... hitting the right spot. Cotton technique, OK, and let me know when it seems to you that he has fallen into the right place.

David: Okay. Something like that. (Something like?) Well, you know, I'm not used to (He pulls back) for it to be so close. It's kind of like "Uh" ... ( the hand touches the chin in the “thinking” position) I also notice some other things related to this.

Do you notice anything that you might want to adjust? Here at the top you can see it more clearly. Perhaps you weren't sure what was in this painting when it was far away.

David: This is exactly what I'm noticing now.

You might want to change the content a bit now that it's closer and you're able to see everything that's there...

David: Hmmm... Yes, it is extremely difficult.

Is that good or...

David: Marvelous.

Okay. Difficult in what respect?

David: Well, when I thought about all these "personal needs", I thought about physical illness, but that seems to be only a small part of the whole. (The thumb and forefinger of his left hand make a small pointing gesture.) You know, this is... (His left hand draws a large circle in space around the previous gesture.)

Some part of your brain connected a bunch of different things there.

David: Yes, because the content, you know, is physical health type (That's one part, OK) just in this little one (both index fingers draw a small rectangle in the center of the circle.)

Now I want you to check out the rest of the parts you didn't know existed before and make sure you're quite happy with them in their proper place.

David: Okay, when you said that, the stuff started moving around.

Good. There may be parts of this picture that you want to move further away; or there may be parts you want to move even closer...

David(nodding): They moved in, OK. Everything is great now, OK.

Good. Now that you look at the configuration, does it feel like it will work for you? Or is there more clarification?

David: It seems that something is not quite right - it seems to be really close, but not quite there.

Okay, so take the time to make it clearly visible. Just look through the whole thing.

David(laughs): Hey Allen! You're not quite there, but... I'll use your right shoulder as her corner... OK (closes eyes)

While you're at it, I'm going to tell the group some things you already know... Here's what I'd like to say: When you're doing this process, turning on the hypnotic language patterns makes things a lot easier for the person. You say something like. "You can allow approach this image, and notice when he finds the right position,” (David nods), so you presuppose certain things that you don’t want to question—that would make the procedure more difficult for the person than necessary. It's a lot easier than asking, "Is he in the right place?" because then they'll start to doubt...

David: OK. When I let that work, the screen over there expanded (he draws a large rectangle in front of him with both hands) into a large rectangle divided into parts. (He makes sharp vertical movements with his hand, moving it from left to right) ... So it's like - (His right hand makes a sweeping motion from left to right in front of him as he whistles softly).

That is, it has expanded.

David: Yes. It's pretty cool.

Did it fit?..

David: Yes, after I let it… (spreads arms wide)…

Increase. (Uh-huh.) And it makes sense, because you can really look at it completely and find out what's in there.

David(nodding): Wow. And I'm getting all sorts of weird kinesthetics now, (Both arms spinning in alternating circles around my stomach.) kind of like, "Wow!" (His head and chest are pulled back.)

And the only thing to check is if "weird kinesthetics" is strange in the sense that "It's different, I've never had it before." (David nods, "Uh-huh") Because if it's kinesthetic saying, "Something's wrong," then you're going to want to elaborate further. And David responds congruently to the message: "It's just something unfamiliar." Okay. This is the part on change.

Now we want to test. (OK.) This particular change is a little harder to test than others. If you can immediately come up with something real, check it this way. For example, one person lowered the importance of the opinions of others and increased the importance of doing what he himself considered right Immediately afterwards, someone in his group told him to do something: "Do this with your submodalities" and his immediate reaction was: "No, I don't think that's right. I need to do something." something else." It was an unplanned move, but then they realized that it turned out to be a great test. So this is one of the ways that you can sometimes check. With this particular change, we cannot do that, but we can always check in imagination "Imagine yourself in a situation where this difference could come in. (He closes his eyes.) That's the most general test you can make. Have them find the context in which this new configuration will cause a change...

David (nods and smiles, very relaxed): OK, there is.

What do you think? I think it looks good.

David:"No" popped up really easily. It was a typical “I need you now” phone call and a really quick “No, you can call so-and-so” check. (He snaps his fingers.)

Fabulous. Yes, and that's the type of automatic shift you get when a person's criteria are placed in a new order. You don't need force act differently, it's just how you really are. OK, try a different context - I want to do a thorough check. (He closes his eyes, "OK, different context") Another context in which the presence of this new configuration will lead to a change ... (OK)

How about here?

David: Amazing (laughter)

Is it amazing and amazing or...?

David: Yes. I took the alternative where someone gave me the opportunity to go and do something for myself. Usually I refuse and say, "No, I don't have time." And here I was doing this and thinking: “What am I doing?” (Turns head and looks around) "This is not normal." So it's pretty nice.

Okay, fine. And if you can think of a third context as well... Three is the magic number in NLP...

David(raises her head and tilts it to the right): Well, it's something I haven't seen in a long time, (laughter) I mean, I haven't seen it in person, my last vacation was seven years ago.

You are even worse than us!

David: This is great. He just entered my calendar.

Okay, I like this, and the number three satisfies my criteria for good validation. So thanks.

David: Thank you.

Now, another thing I would take care of doing this kind of maneuver is make sure he doesn't go too far in the direction of "Now he's going to be on vacation 300 days a year and work 65" (laughter). I didn't get any indication from him that he would go that far. He decided: "I write down the days of vacation in my calendar, because I haven't had a vacation for seven years." It's not like, "I'm going to be out of work for five years." Then I would begin to think: “What have I done here?” So when you do a shift with someone, you can check the boundaries a little to make sure they haven't gone too far. If he stops working and the money stops coming in, then he will have difficulty taking a vacation.

Criteria shift exercise

Let's briefly repeat all the steps of shifting the criterion, and then you can do it.

1. First, take the submodal encodings you have already identified and determine how they create a continuum. For David, the most important submodality was distance: the more important the criterion, the closer he was to it.

2. Help your partner identify a criterion that he wants to make more or less important, and find out where it is in his hierarchy of criteria. Don't forget to check the environment.

3. Having determined the criterion that your partner is going to move, determine where he would like to stop. Does he want to make it more important just as important or less important than some other criterion? Find out where in the hierarchy this second criterion is located.

4. Then slowly change the criteria accordingly (proximity, size, brightness, color, etc.). Adjust the submodalities so that the criterion is coded to the degree of importance the person wants to have. For example, if moving up makes something more important and your partner wants to make something more important, have him take the criterion representation and let it slowly rise until it is in the right position. If he sorts by size, he can let the picture grow slowly until it is exactly the right size, which will let him know that this criterion is as important as he would like. If he sorts by auditory loudness, he can let the sound get louder until it reaches the right level.

Even if a person has not determined what he wants to make the new criterion more or less important in comparison with, when you ask him to move the criterion to the "right place" - usually he intuitively feels well where this place is. People also reported that if they move a new criterion too quickly, they immediately know that things are going too far and move it back to where they feel more comfortable. They can feel when he is out of place, and this feeling is usually a signal of environmental concern.

Remember that this change must be done slowly. You can use hand gestures to help the client, but don't go further or faster than he does. If he raises the criterion, don't let the criterion take off quickly - lest it become more important than life itself. If you do it too fast, then "being neat" may end up being more important than "staying alive"! (laughter) It's not sustainable!

When you ask a person to "approach a criterion", then that criterion approximates relative to other elements on its criteria hierarchy. This makes the method work. Sometimes I add to my preliminary instructions, “OK, now you may have the feeling that all your other criteria are also there and are part of a continuum.” You will learn more about how it all works when you do this exercise.

Testing

You have several possible ways to check your work. The first is to take a break and do something else for a while. Then ask the client to think about the criteria they shifted. How does he feel about it now? Is his position natural? Is it high enough, or is it close enough, or is it sufficient for whatever reason the client changed it for?

The second way of testing is especially important because it is also a synchronization with the future. Ask the client to think about the situation that the new criterion would change for him, and then place him in that context and find out what his experience is. Is this what he wants? This is the testing method I did with David. In any kind of testing, you are, of course, looking for non-verbal confirmation that the intervention resulted in a change. If you have any doubts, or if you want to be very thorough, check in multiple contexts.

The third possibility is to organize a behavioral test. Create a situation where you expect a change caused by a criterion shift and notice what happens.

Okay, start working. We will discuss everything at the end.

General exercise plan

1. Define a major submodality that will create a continuum for the criteria hierarchy.

2. Determine the criterion you are going to regulate and its current position on the continuum.

3. Determine the overall desired position of the criterion on the continuum.

4. Slowly adjust the criterion in the direction of the desired position until you feel it is the right position.

Discussion

Congratulations! I noticed that many of you have done very nice things with it. Let's listen to some acceptance speeches (laughter). As David told me, he realized that his brain kept making new permutations and refinements in order to line up the change we had made in a more expedient, conscious way.

David: I still keep checking. Things change here and there. And this change continues to be congruent to my timeline in both directions. I have a time belt that goes into the past (points to the left) and into the future (points to the right). And then my day goes from top to bottom, and everything falls into place on a continuum.

Good. It's nice to see this kind of shift going on. When making this shift with yourself or with someone else, in any case, make time for further clarification - do not immediately move on to another activity that would be incongruent - or make preparations that will allow them to occur on an unconscious level, as David does. . Make sure the conscious mind can be turned on and ready for whatever you are about to undertake.

Lea: Having determined the continuum for each member of the group, we all decided which criterion we want to change and in what direction. Then each gave instructions to his unconscious mind to make the appropriate changes. Later we checked and it worked great.

This is a great adaptation.

Ben: My least important criterion was close and in front of me, and the most important was far away! I reacted to what was close, even if it was trivial, and did not react to what was really important to me, but was far away! When I realized this, I said to myself:

“What nonsense,” and turned everything 180 degrees.

And it really changed his state. I visited Ben's group. Do you all understand what he did? Instead of just changing the position of a criterion among a bunch of others, he turned the whole bunch around an axis - so that it was congruent with what he wants his brain to recognize as important. What is important is now close, and trivial criteria are at a greater distance. This is great!

Ben: I also think I know how it all turned out this way. Many years ago, I had an experience that didn't work for me, and it made me turn all my criteria around.

When Ben told me this earlier, I asked him to check the environment before shifting his criteria. I wanted him to check if there was anything in his previous organization that spawned this is an unpleasant experience, since in this case it would not be environmentally friendly to return to this organization again.

Ben: But that's not the case at all. What we have now will be very good.

Let me give you one interesting example. Chris made the "need to be right" less important - and without any prior planning, "humor" jumped in and took its place. I thought it was very good. Humor is great, and many of us could make a beneficial difference by making it more important in our lives.

Fred: I shifted the importance of "flexibility". As I began to make it more important, "flexibility" began to spread throughout the system down to the bottom of my hierarchy. All of a sudden I got flexibility in all these various areas.

So you've built flexibility into many different criteria. Very well. It's similar to what that group over there did with "fun". This is an interesting variation: not just to change the criterion, but to allow it to pass through and affect the entire hierarchy.

David: In our group, we used the correlation between the criteria and the time line. If Tim wanted something to be more important, he would move it here to the future and it would automatically fit into the slot. If he wanted something to be less important, he moved it to the past.

Bill: By doing this, I made eating carrots more important - and I got a "must". I felt that I "should" eat carrots and that it was really important - but I didn't like it.

Eating carrots is behavior, not a criterion. What is important to you about eating carrots? Is it something like health or fitness? (Yes.) So you might be thinking about making your overall health more important. This is the criterion. When you check this, I don't think you'll get a "should".

I've noticed that some of us have tried to make a particular behavior more important, instead of defining a general criterion that it satisfies and doing his more important. Behavior is concrete and woven into context, such as eating carrots or doing more housework. The value of defining and changing a criterion is that you get a shift that will affect the person in different contexts, and you have more freedom to choose which particular behavior meets that criterion.

You can think about what level of generalization you want to work on. If you only want to change a specific behavior, saving the environment is relatively easy. Criteria, however, are at the next higher level of generalization. As they pass through contexts, making a change at the criterion level will have a stronger and more sustainable impact. As a consequence, you need to check the environmental friendliness of the criterion shift more carefully.

You can also bring in a criterion shift only in certain contexts of the future. If I, for example, want to shift a criterion only when I am working with clients, then I can imagine that I am in this context and perform a criterion shift against its background. Then, to make sure the criteria shift hasn't been overgeneralized, I can imagine I'm in a different context and check my criteria to make sure they're in the order I want them to be there. You generalize the new criterion just like any other change: imagine using the new criterion in all the different contexts where it would be useful - but not in others.

Mary: How do I know when to use this method?

More sensitivity is required on your part to determine when to shift the criterion. When entering with a complaint, the client usually does not say: "I have this criterion that I need to make less important." He usually complains about feeling bad in some way. As you gather information, you may notice a particular theme. You may notice that in many ways he does not take his health seriously enough, or that it is too important for him to be right, or to remain in control. If you see the same stereotype in different contexts, then this is an indicator that changing the criteria can be beneficial.

One way to approach this is to gather information and ask yourself, "What are the relevant criteria here?" "What would happen if some of them were more important or less important?" Would it be helpful for this person in relation to their problem?

We are very picky about the details in all the exercises in this training, encouraging you to get accurate information about the many submodalities, check them carefully, and so on. We believe this is a valuable background experience because it allows you to have a complete mental representation of how these techniques work. Once you've gained some experience in collecting in-depth information, you often won't need to get the same level of detail with your clients to help them change.

An easier (but less reliable) way to do this with a client is to ask, “What is trivial? What is of medium importance? What is of great importance to you?” Then get the criteria and find out how he represents these criteria.

Often I just ask the person to think about something very important, and when he gets access to it, I observe his non-verbal signs. Then I ask him to think of something trivial and observe again. A person will almost always look at two different places - and that's all I need. Since most people sort a hierarchy of criteria in space, I can quickly check this and not spend half an hour collecting detailed information.

You can do all these quick-and-dirty techniques in the real world after you become intimately familiar with them. When faced with a difficulty, you can always go back and collect more detailed information. However, if you start learning these techniques in a "quick and dirty" way, you'll end up with sloppy and inefficient work instead of being accurate and fast. Going through the technique very slowly, at least a few times, is an extremely valuable experience that will keep your work clean and systematic.

Positive versus negative criteria

Have any of you taken the time to explore the difference between what a person goes towards and what he moves away from? Let's quickly play with this as a group. Think of some of your positive criteria, things you're drawn to, like "knowledge," "happiness," "personal security," or "saving life." Notice the submodalities of these representations... Now compare this with representations of the same criteria formulated negatively as something to be avoided: "ignorance", "suffering", "danger", "death". What are the submodal differences between these two series of paintings? Which is more fun to watch. For the first set, right?

Joe: The things I'm drawn to are brighter, more colorful, three-dimensional. And these are more films, not slides.

Is this usually the case with everyone else? Many of you nod. All of these hallmarks tend to go hand in hand with representations of what you're trying to get close to. Positive - color, three-dimensional and more mobile. On the other hand, criteria formulated negatively - what you avoid or move away from - tend to be hazy, still, less colourful, etc. Often these are purely black and white pictures, without any analog gradations. When threatened, people resort to rigid, literally "black and white" ways of thinking, and lose the ability to think about anything in terms of a continuum. Much of their thinking resources - such as considering other alternatives, or paying attention to variations on a continuum - are simply not available to them until they feel more secure.

When you're really in mortal danger and need to act fast, it's helpful to have your brain give you very simple black and white choices. However, when you are out of danger, this way of thinking is severely limiting.

This is one of the reasons why it makes sense to formulate well-formulated goals in a positive way. Consider how profoundly you are changing a person's inner experience by doing nothing else but using a result frame that focuses their attention on what they want and strive for, and not on what they are moving away from and what they don't want. .

We were interested in discovering these relationships between positively and negatively formulated criteria and the submodal differences between them. We hope that as you apply Criteria Shift in your own and others' lives, you will discover other useful differences, and thus appreciate this useful technique even better.

Notes:

Discrete - discontinuous, with a clear boundary

See other books on NLP