Six

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "In dissociation the separated parts are 6 steps apart."

1. What is the first step?

2. What is the second?

3. The third?

4. Fourth?

5. Fifth?

6. Sixth?

What kind of steps are the steps that are between the separated parts?

Why six?

What kind of space is the space that is between the separated parts?

How far does it go?

What is it's shape?

What makes the part dissociated instead of apart?

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

First off while I agree there are 6+1 spaces between the disassociation and resolution. Its not as easy as it appears laid out here. You may have heard us go on about ‘Starting Conditions’, which are critical. If you’re not in the right space/time at the start then you would ‘metaphorically’ not be at the disassociation and so 1+6 questions would not take you to resolution.

It’s a bit like in NLP when a new practitioner jumps in and does change work on the presenting issue = mildly effective. Get to a ‘Well formed outcome’ or deeper work the presenting issue is hardly ever the real issue, as when I’m do ‘Emergent coaching the presenting goal is never where we end up. In Emergence work the client will hardly recognise where they started.

Then you can look at the 6+1 questions.

[Corrie van Wijk]

John: 'If you’re not in the right space/time at the start then you would ‘metaphorically’ not be at the disassociation"

"the presenting goal is never where we end up."

I think, by definition, clients (A) usually don't know that they are dissociated, let alone from what (C). So the starting point can never be the dissociation or what lies behind. The goal they present (B) may or may not have anything to do with that. But once you start to gather information, their perceptual system changes, hence another B comes out. We've seen that many times, more often than not. The dissociation is there for a reason, so what needs to happen to dissolve it, and why six, what six?

P.S. David said because he said so.

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

Exactly ‘the starting point can never be the dissociation or what lies behind’, so its being at the right ‘Starting conditions’ to begin 6+1. ‘Starting conditions’ are not ‘Starting point’. If you just blindly go into asking recursive questions the client will probably never get to the disassociation and then resolution.

In coaching and often in therapy I will go straight into 6+1 spaces, then give the client some feedback or information. In the first instance (starting point) they hold a starting view, as you say hardly ever the disassociation or the real goal. This initial space work gives them another (new) ‘Point of view’. With some understanding of what’s going to happen (cleanly of course), some of their fears allayed (OK this clean stuff is not your usual therapy) they leave their first load of baggage at the door. Then the session can start, again at the Start point (albeit another (new) one) and not necessarily the right ‘Starting conditions’.

But once ‘you’? start to gather information, their perceptual system changes, hence another B comes out. Isn’t it them gathering! Finding the ‘Starting conditions’ is what they do as they flow though the session, while you gentle (pressé) push.
If they stay in mental mode then they will come up with multiple ‘B’ and probably get pissed off, as it appears they are going in circles.

‘The system will protect itself’. Disassociation is normally protection when danger or trauma becomes overwhelming.

Why 6+1, why is there a physiological reaction (the wobble) at the 4th question? Each question has a raison d'ete, each has a label, Steve runs 7-day courses, inwhich the names of the days (Thor = Thursday) are a metaphor for the day and the question.


PPS: David said so, but he agreed with Steve, there was 6 questions and a pause = 6+1

All this and we haven’t answered your first question :rolleyes:

[Corrie van Wijk]

John: "You may have heard us go on about ‘Starting Conditions’, which are critical."

"so it's being at the right ‘Starting conditions’ to begin 6+1. ‘Starting conditions’ are not ‘Starting point’."

'Starting conditions' is about iteration, so it is a chaos term: again, what is the similarity between a chaotic system and an organic brain or a human thinking process?

I assume that the starting conditions are present at the starting point. But why begin 6+1?"

John: "In coaching and often in therapy I will go straight into 6+1 spaces".

Why 6+1? (six may probably be just as good as five or eight; the one returns to A [What do you know now?]; how clean is that kind of structure?)

John: "then give the client some feedback or information"

What kind of?

John: "Isn’t it them gathering!"

Who else?

John: "Finding the ‘Starting conditions’ is what they do as they flow through the session"

How do you know?

John: "Why 6+1, why is there a physiological reaction (the wobble) at the 4th question? Each question has a raison d'etre, each has a label"

Is that always the case, and why so, how do you know? (David said this was developed bottum-up from experience.)

What label, how do you know the question has a reason to be? Which?

What is the relation of the label to the days of the weeks?

And why six?

As I told David in July 2007, the working memory can contain about six pieces of information, like a telephone number. If it is more, you'll have to chunk to remember them all.

[phil]

The working memory can contain about six pieces of information, like a telephone number. If it is more, you'll have to chunk to remember them all.
I remember being told this when I did NLP (well, it was 7 + 2 I was told).

Does anyone know if it's actually true?

Phil

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

That’s what I heard as well 7 +-2, but I think it’s probably an urban myth. So much is lost in the mists of time and then resurrected to suit a particular speaker or idea.

I heard a great story from Tony Robbins (his experience) about a mechanic that was called in to fix the DHL parcel sorting equipment. The whole thing had shut down and 1,000’s of parcels sat idle. He spent an hour looking around poking things, and then replaced 2 wires. He sent a bill for $1000US and the manager went mad. ‘Why so much, all you did was reconnect a wire?’‘Well the bill for the wire is 0.99cents, for knowing which one to replaced was $999.01’Great story until I heard 2 other versions that date back decades, true maybe, but it’s grown to mythical proportions with various speakers.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "Does anyone know if it's actually true?"

Why would you ask anyone, don't you trust me on my word?

"It has been known for ages that we can only hold a few things in mind actively (in our working memory). George Miller, one of the pioneers in cognitive psychology, found out by means of psychological experiments, that the number comes down to about seven pieces of information. Some people can hold eight or nine, others only five, but on an average the temporary storage can manage about seven items. (It is probably no coincidence that telephonenumbers are usually no longer than seven figures.) But, Miller remarked, we can effectivily extend that capacity by gathering information in chunks or in a group (to 'chunk') -- it is just as easy to remember seven letters as seven words or ideas. There is no doubt about it that one of the reasons a human being has such a strong cognition, is because we have language in our brain, which increases the capacity to categorise information, to 'chunk', exponentially. A whole culture can be represented by a name." (my translation from Dutch back to English)
(Joseph LeDoux: 'Synaptic self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are', Penguin Putman, New York, 2002.)

P.S. I told David this in July 2007, but earlier in 2006 we already discussed (on our way to Bridgwater) the matter of entropy. Anyone who knows the mathematical concept faculty (written as: '!') can understand that the amount of interactions increases dramatically beyond six. (A combination A and B can have two sequences (2!): AB and BA (permutations). If there are three (3!): A, B and C, there are six possible combinations (ABC, ACB, BCA, CBA and CAB). If there are four (4!) different items the number of permutations grows to 24, etc.
I think six has to do with networking, not with iteration.

[phil]

Anyone includes you, Corrie. Relax, I'm neither trusting or distrusting your word. I've heard (and, I'm afraid, said) various of these kinds of generalisations or simplifications over the years. Such things are sometimes quoted because they support a particular set or presuppositions. These days, I am curious to know whether ithey are based on anything more than, as John says, 'urban myth'.

It seems from your quotation that seven is the average which is similar to six but one more or for those of a generous nature 'six-ish'.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Phil: "Relax, I'm neither trusting or distrusting your word."

You missed the wink in the title Phil!: trust me!

Phil: "I am curious to know whether they are based on anything more than, as John says, 'urban myth'."

What makes you think I would spread 'urban myth'? Am I not always accurate?

[phil]

Is there a relationship between David's 6 iterations and the 6-ish chunks of information that we can apparently entertain simultaneously? Anyone have an opinion on it?

Phil