Social Anxiety Treatment
Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) is one of the biggest mental health issues in the world today, with 15 million sufferers in the United States alone, this number is growing. According to an article from the New York Times, 40 million adults are affected by anxiety disorders. Social Anxiety Disorder is also a problem that affects many millions of people throughout the rest of the world. It is sad that of all the social anxiety treatments there are very very few that actually work. In fact the Social Anxiety Centre reports that
“No SAD medications have been shown to improve quality of life.”
You can find a wealth of information on the internet, in bookstores, or even talking to people about just what social anxiety disorder is. In fact if you put the search term social anxiety treatment into google you will find around 10 millions pages dedicated to the topic. So why with so much dedicated to the topic is it still so hard to find a social anxiety treatment that actually works.
The answer is that near 100% of treatments are absolute crap. They do not work and are not worth investing any time in. They focus on tackling symptoms rather than the real problems, and they allow you to emotionally hide from what’s really going on. I’m going to examine a few of these and say why they are crap. I’m sure there will be those of you who don’t agree but I have to look at the results that these “therapies” give and from that draw my conclusions.
Affirmations. Affirmations do not work period. Affirmations are a way of trying to convince your brain that you are something you are not. They require a lot of energy input, and create no real change. Saying phrases over and over to yourself does nothing but create a very fragile environment that allows you to avoid the real problems in your life. Only problem is that sooner rather than later you will come across a situation that disproves this fragile fake reality, and BOOM, all the walls you put up to hide yourself suddenly come crashing down and now you have to handle a tough situation with little in the way of resources to help you out.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. I have no idea why anyone would think this is a good idea. From the offset you are looking at a “therapy” that tells you it will take months to work sometimes this can go on for years.
“A course may be from 6 weeks to 6 months.”
If I was trying to sell you a car which had 30 miles to the gallon and you were currently getting 5 off the one you had would that be something you’d like to buy? However if I told you you had to change the oil every 2 days for 2 years until you could get the 30 miles but even then you’d have to keep changing it every so often, would this be a car you’d like to buy? No I didn’t think so. So then why would your own mind be of so little value, your mind is the most valuable thing you have.
Hypnosis. Here is a therapy that has been taken to the sun and back with various methods (a few methods are mentioned here), you can find it in direct consultations, easy listening CDs, books, and in many other formats. Hypnosis works on the reflexive part of the brain, this is a part where all your patterns of behaviour are stored, the thinking is that if you install a new pattern of behaviour then that’s what you’ll do from there on. The problem here is that replacing 1 behaviour for another (no matter how good it is) is not a good idea. It’s not because it doesn’t free you up to make choices, you are still just repeating 1 pattern of behaviour over and over, and many times in many situations this pattern won’t work.
These are just a few of the more popular methods. None of which I believe in to create actual change that leads you to a better life. None of which opens up the resources in your brain to allow you to become fluid and adaptable in any situation.
I spent a good part of my life suffering with SAD, I made many mistakes when it came to the treatment of my social anxiety.
The biggest mistake I have found that people make is that they try to force themselves through a problem. Using force shuts people off from the creative adaptive area of their brains that allow them to figure out what’s really going on, what the problem really is. Instead they see where they are, and they see where they want to go. They set up no goals, no ways to get there, so even when the force begins to fail they have no way of telling. Eventually they will run out of energy and will not have gone anywhere in getting themselves a happier more fun life. Using methods that constantly fail will result in you tapping into the denial circuit in the brain.
The solution is to find a method that allows you to figure out the emotional blocks that stand in the way of your life being naturally the way you want it to be, whatever that is. Once you get rid of the self limiting beliefs and the emotions that create them your mind becomes fluid and adaptable. You will have the ability to go into any situation and figure it out for what it is.
My favourite method, and the ONLY social anxiety treatment I have even seen work is the 3D Mind. This technology allows you to work directly on the emotional constructs of any self limiting belief and remove it completely. Not only does this create actual change inside your mind but it also completely changes the reality that your mind filters for. Becoming the person you want to be then becomes something you do instead of something you try to do.
The treatment of social anxiety was not hard once I’d found the right method, even although I was very messed up at the time it took very little to actually get over it. One of the hardest parts is wading through all the crap that’s out there and finding a method that really works. I suggest the 3D Mind.
I think you are a bit off track with your comments about hypnosis. I’ve been practicing NLP and hypnosis for over 20 years, and I’ve had excellent success in helping clients eliminate social anxiety.
It is certainly possible to use hypnosis and NLP to simply shift behaviors. However, there is a lot more to it than that. It is possible to change a person’s self image, eliminate fears completely through a variety of methods, or even start a new direction in life by shifting beliefs about one’s abilities, again using a variety of methods.
If you want to look into the possibilities of profound and pervasive change through hypnosis, you can look into the work of Milton Erickson, MD. He is one of the great geniuses of hypnosis, having developed a style that is quite different than what most people think of as “hypnosis”. There are some excellent nontechnical books available about Erickson’s work. I’ll go so far as to suggest “My Voice Will Go With You, the Teaching Tales of Milton Erickson, MD” Edited by Sid Rosen.
I’ll go out on a limb here, and say that the 3-D mind process uses hypnotic processes to affect change. Tom can give me grief about that idea if he wants to.
I have used 3-D mind as one of the tools in my box for some years, and I’ve noticed that a person using the technique goes into a light trance state. Technically, we could classify 3-D mind as an informal, authoritarian style of hypnosis.
I don’t think I’m off track at all. All my experience has pointed towards what I wrote in my post.
You mention that you’ve had success treating social anxiety. Let me ask you this: How many sessions does it take to completely remove the social anxiety? What’s the relapse rate? Also with regards to the comment on shifting beliefs about their abilities, exactly how does hypnosis or NLP achieve a shift in belief, what are the effects on the brain? Since both hypnosis and NLP operate at a different level than where problem beliefs exist in the brain and seeing as how I’ve yet to meet any NLP or hypnosis technique which doesn’t use a pattern of words rather than questioning to find out exactly where the problem is and how it’s emotionally constructed, I’m unwilling at this point to believe it works on your core beliefs.
Profound and pervasive change… tell me, exactly how many sessions did Erikson take to achieve change? From what I’ve heard it took him on average anywhere between 30 and 80 sessions to achieve the kind of change the client was looking for. I’ve read much of Erikson’s stuff, I have yet to understand any kind of link between story telling and belief change, though I can understand how it would produce localised behaviour change. I tried hypnosis for a few years and could only ever achieve localised behaviour change.
The 3D Mind is not hypnosis, the hypnotic processes you speak of existed long before hypnosis did. Hypnosis uses natural processes that are going on anyway but in a more directed way. A light trance state can also be found in someone who is day dreaming, so under your argument I could also say that the 3D Mind is a kind of day dream!
I typically need 2 or three sessions for helping someone with social anxiety.
NLP or hypnosis works the same way in the brain as 3-D mind, or any other change process. The brain does not have special responses for particular change techniques that people invent.
“Since both hypnosis and NLP operate at a different level than where problem beliefs exist in the brain”
How do you know this? Scientific research?
What are brain levels? That seems like a metaphorical description. What is the science on that?
“and seeing as how I’ve yet to meet any NLP or hypnosis technique which doesn’t use a pattern of words rather than questioning to find out exactly where the problem is and how it’s emotionally constructed,”
In other words, the NLP and hypnosis techniques that you are familiar with are not based on the same methods, and metaphors as 3-D mind?
I’d like to assert that NLP techniques, as useful as they may prove to be, do not constitute the highest level of personal change work available from utilizing the principles of NLP. I do a lot of conversational change work with clients that do not include any specific NLP techniques.
Do not 3-D mind practitioners use words to “find out exactly where the problem is and how it’s emotionally constructed”? And, “where a problem is” seems like a hypnotic metaphor to me. 3-D mind practitioners are not locating problems in particular areas of the brain, are they? No brain scans using multimillion dollar machines are involved, are they?
I’m unwilling at this point to believe it works on your core beliefs.”
There are people who are unwilling to believe that the world is round. I am happy for you to believe what ever you want. My first post and this reply are for the edification of our other readers.
“Profound and pervasive change… tell me, exactly how many sessions did Erikson take to achieve change?
This is not relevant to your argument. 3-D mind may indeed be faster and more efficient than some of Erickson’s work. That does not mean that he was ineffective.
“From what I’ve heard it took him on average anywhere between 30 and 80 sessions to achieve the kind of change the client was looking for.”
And, there are also instances in which one session was all that was needed to achieve the client’s goal.
If you want to assert that 3-D mind could achieve results more quickly that Erickson with at least some people, I’d go along with that.
“I’ve read much of Erikson’s stuff, I have yet to understand any kind of link between story telling and belief change, though I can understand how it would produce localised behaviour change. I tried hypnosis for a few years and could only ever achieve localised behaviour change.”
Your limitations, or mine, do not define the limits of what can be achieved by metaphor and stories.
If you want an example from history of the kinds of global and pervasive changes that can be precipitated by stories, consider the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus. And, how about his parables? Would you like to assert that his parables only affected his listeners’ “localized behaviors”?
I’ve used stories many times to shift a client’s beliefs. Sometimes the only thing I needed to do for a client was tell them stories. Some of them referred me their friends and family members.
Since you were never able to use metaphor to effect profound changes, I find myself wondering about the depth and quality of your training in the use of metaphor.
“The 3D Mind is not hypnosis, the hypnotic processes you speak of existed long before hypnosis did. “Hypnosis” is simply a label for processes that occur naturally in human minds. Hypnosis uses natural processes that are going on anyway but in a more directed way. A light trance state can also be found in someone who is day dreaming, so under your argument I could also say that the 3D Mind is a kind of day dream!”
I think that it would be accurate if you referred to the mind state of someone undergoing a 3-D mind procedure to be a kind of day dream, although it does not seem like a metaphor that would be of much value.
The distinction that I would make about day dreams vs. “hypnosis” or 3-D mind, is that in hypnosis and 3-D mind the person in the light trance state is in rapport with the practitioner. And, because of that rapport the person is willing to follow the suggestions and commands of the practitioner.
If a day dreamer were to be given a suggestion by a random passerby, the chances of their dissecting a “state” or stopping smoking are pretty much zero. Most likely, they would shift into a more normal “relating to a stranger” state, which is a day dream of a different color.
“NLP or hypnosis works the same way in the brain as 3-D mind, or any other change process. The brain does not have special responses for particular change techniques that people invent.”
This one statement nullifies all your others, it shows a lack of understanding of what is actually going on in the brain. This argument is the same as saying junk food, fresh fruit and veg, and bodybuilding suppliments all give your body the same amount of nutrition because they all fall into the food category and therefore work the same way. I just don’t buy it.
I’ll rephrase my statement then. Any change process that effects a profound change on the order of those you attribute to 3-D mind will be the result of the same brain processes.
Is it your position that 3-D mind, and ONLY 3-D mind is capable of assisting someone to make the profound changes in people’s beliefs and behaviors recoded in history and in current times? That is my impression. Please correct me if I have mistaken your meaning.
I find it interesting that you are using metaphor to make your point, given your comments above.
I would like to make a quick response to Wes.
Frankly Wesley you statements show a lack of knowledge about brain function. When you say that the 3D mind is hypnosis it show a lack of experience in using the 3D mind. When you say that Steve might not know what he is talking about that shows a lack of knowing Steve.
Like many hypnotherapists you believe that everything is hypnosis. Even reading this is considered a hypnotic event. What you miss is the big picture outside of what you are looking for. Let me give you an example.
You state:
“The distinction that I would make about day dreams vs. “hypnosis” or 3-D mind, is that in hypnosis and 3-D mind the person in the light trance state is in rapport with the practitioner. And, because of that rapport the person is willing to follow the suggestions and commands of the practitioner.”
What you miss is this. In 99.9 cases using the 3D Mind…there is no practitioner. There is no rapport to be had. There are no commands.
The 3D mind is a very conscious process. It is fully aware and needs no one to lead them through it. My biggest challenge is getting those who are schooled in hypnosis to set aside their hypnotic indoctrination and look at this with an open mind.
What I find troubling about your post is this particular comment:
“Your limitations, or mine, do not define the limits of what can be achieved by metaphor and stories. ”
I am always bothered when someone tells of their personal experience only to be told that their lack of success is their personal limitation. I find it troublesome that you would invalidate someone’s personal experience because it is not the same as yours.
The final statement that bothers me in your post is this:
“If you want an example from history of the kinds of global and pervasive changes that can be precipitated by stories, consider the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus. And, how about his parables? Would you like to assert that his parables only affected his listeners’ “localized behaviors”?”
Look Wes, I have many religious friends with really screwed up lives. If what you say is true then none of them would have any problems. Just reading the bible would cure them. Also a religious belief system in embedded over time. Many years of exposure leads to changes in a belief system.
It also bothers me that instead of accepting Steve’s opinion you attack his training when referring to metaphors. I studied metaphors for years. I used to actually use them. The problem is twofold. One….they take so much time. I could do the 3D Mind 3 times by the time someone told one metaphor. Two….it is hard to know whether your metaphor has actually done anything. Three…YOU CAN’T TELL YOURSELF METAPHORS!
I guess that is more than twofold
There is one undeniable fact here that seems to be getting overlooked. That is that Steve tried many things including hypnosis and NLP and they did not work for him. 3D Mind did. He has had many changes over the last few years using this simple process. He did it himself. He has a lifetime skill instead of a one time change.
I think another important point need to be made here. While many people would like someone like Steve to help them through the process, The 3D Mind itself take only a few hours to learn and use on yourself.
I highly recommend Steve for one on one work. He is a success story because he walks the walk as well as talking the talk.
Have fun,
Tom
Author: Tom Vizzini
Comment:
“Frankly Wesley you statements show a lack of knowledge about brain function.”
I do not remember you ever claiming that 3-D mind evokes a unique response from a brain undergoing a therapeutic change. It seems to me that the brain will respond the same way during any substantive change no matter what method is used to evoke that change. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
You may well know more about brain function than I do. How the brain functions is not crucial to most of the other points under discussion, as far as I can tell. After all, you created 3-D mind before you adopted your current model of brain functioning.
“When you say that the 3D mind is hypnosis it show a lack of experience in using the 3D mind. When you say that Steve might not know what he is talking about that shows a lack of knowing Steve.”
I can only go on what Steve has written, some of which seems to be in error to me. I suspect that some of what I wrote rankled, and I regret that.
“Like many hypnotherapists you believe that everything is hypnosis. Even reading this is considered a hypnotic event.”
It’s absolutely not true that “everything is hypnosis”. It can be a useful and fun model in some contexts, at least for me.
“What you miss is the big picture outside of what you are looking for. Let me give you an example.
You state:
“The distinction that I would make about day dreams vs. “hypnosis” or 3-D mind, is that in hypnosis and 3-D mind the person in the light trance state is in rapport with the practitioner. And, because of that rapport the person is willing to follow the suggestions and commands of the practitioner.”
What you miss is this. In 99.9 cases using the 3D Mind…there is no practitioner. There is no rapport to be had. There are no commands.”
The same could be said of certain techniques of self hypnosis: “There is no rapport to be had. There are no commands”
I was referring only to a case in which one person was guiding another through a 3-d mind process. It would have been more accurate if I had specified that.
I have watched your live demonstrations and guided others through 3-D mind processes in your seminars. I have apparently mistakenly identified the mind state of the demo subjects as being different than normal states of waking consciousness. Then SEEM to be internally focused on manipulating their past emotional states and beliefs while 3-D minding, rather than being aware of their external environment. If you want to call that “not hypnosis” I’m cool with that. But, I would not call their states “normal waking consciousness” either.
“The 3D mind is a very conscious process. It is fully aware and needs no one to lead them through it. My biggest challenge is getting those who are schooled in hypnosis to set aside their hypnotic indoctrination and look at this with an open mind.”
I think that much of NLP or what’s called waking hypnosis could fit equally as well into that definition of “very conscious process”. In my limited model of the world, if those techniques did not also engage the unconscious resources of the mind as well they would be ineffective.
As for the “ In 99.9 cases using the 3D Mind…(in which) there is no practitioner” it seems to me that the clients are the practitioners as well, since they are guiding themselves through the process. In my experience of consciously guiding myself through a process, there is a dissociation between the guide and the guided. So, we could talk about having rapport with ourselves. But, that may be getting way too complicated.
“What I find troubling about your post is this particular comment:
“Your limitations, or mine, do not define the limits of what can be achieved by metaphor and stories. ”
I am always bothered when someone tells of their personal experience only to be told that their lack of success is their personal limitation. I find it troublesome that you would invalidate someone’s personal experience because it is not the same as yours.”
Apparently, I was unclear. I was simply stating that none of our beliefs determine the impossible. It was not intended as a slight on Steve. It seemed to me that his argument was that because he was so far unable to successfully use metaphor in certain ways, that no one else could do so either.
An analogy would be if someone who unsuccessfully tried 3-D mind to clear up an issue then stating categorically that 3-D mind does not work. Ever. Period. And, that would be nonsense, of course.
“The final statement that bothers me in your post is this:
“If you want an example from history of the kinds of global and pervasive changes that can be precipitated by stories, consider the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus. And, how about his parables? Would you like to assert that his parables only affected his listeners’ “localized behaviors”?”
Look Wes, I have many religious friends with really screwed up lives. If what you say is true then none of them would have any problems. Just reading the bible would cure them. Also a religious belief system in embedded over time. Many years of exposure leads to changes in a belief system.”
The point that I apparently failed to make was that historically, stories have caused huge changes in people’s beliefs and behaviors. I’d certainly agree with much of what you say about the negatives of organized religion, but that was not my point at all. Perhaps I should have gone with the stories of Gandhi or MLK, Jr. that have inspired the successful use of nonviolent force for political change.
“It also bothers me that instead of accepting Steve’s opinion you attack his training when referring to metaphors.”
Would you “accept someones opinion” if it contradicted your experience?
Steve wrote that after he had trained and practiced for however long, he was not able to get the kind or results with metaphors that were under discussion, therefore those results are NOT achievable. Since I have done what Steve said was impossible, as have many others including yourself, I thought that perhaps his training, NOT his capacity was lacking. That was a slam against Steve’s teachers, not Steve. I still think he could learn to use metaphor in ways that would transcend his previous experience, if he so chooses. Don’t you?
“I studied metaphors for years. I used to actually use them. The problem is twofold. One….they take so much time. I could do the 3D Mind 3 times by the time someone told one metaphor. Two….it is hard to know whether your metaphor has actually done anything. Three…YOU CAN’T TELL YOURSELF METAPHORS!
Well, I suspect you still tell a lot of stories at your seminars as a part of how you teach. That is a different context than a personal change session, of course.
Telling metaphors can be time consuming, however lack of efficiency is not the same as lack of effectiveness. You imply above that metaphors can work as well as your method when you wrote that 3-D mind is faster. This puts you in disagreement with Steve on that particular point along with me.
People tell themselves stories that profoundly affect themselves. After all the structure of jealousy is to create stories about a loved one sharing intimacy with another person, and them act as if it were true. Those stories may not be set up the way I would tell them to a client during a session, but they can function in similar ways.
“I guess that is more than twofold
There is one undeniable fact here that seems to be getting overlooked. That is that Steve tried many things including hypnosis and NLP and they did not work for him. 3D Mind did. He has had many changes over the last few years using this simple process. He did it himself. He has a lifetime skill instead of a one time change.”
Did Steve go for sessions with the best of the best NLPers or hypnotists on the planet? That would be the only way to properly test the effectiveness of those approaches for Steve.
“NLP and Hypnosis” are not fully enough defined in the context of this discussion for my liking. Does Steve mean by “NLP” the techniques that have spun off from the field like 6 step reframing, or the more subtle use of language combined with reframing, and the auditory, and visual anchoring that is used by a therapist with a great depth of practice and training? We don’t know from what he’s written.
I will happily accept that Steve used 3-D mind successfully when other methods failed. But, that it does not negate the potential value or effectiveness of those other methods for other people. That is the core of my disagreement to what he wrote.
I’ll go out my limb a little further, and assert that like all other methods, the skill of the practitioner has something to do with the effectiveness of the technique.
I’m sure that you, Tom, would be successful with some people that Steve or other 3-D minders would not. I know from experience that you use your language with a great deal of precision and elegance. I assume that when you take someone through a 3-D mind session for a first time that you use your anchoring skills as required as well. Shucks, you might event throw in a story or several to help make a point more understandable.
“I think another important point need to be made here. While many people would like someone like Steve to help them through the process, The 3D Mind itself take only a few hours to learn and use on yourself.”
That is one of the great things about 3-D mind.
For the record, I think what you have created with 3-D mind is incredible. I hope that it becomes as common a household tool as a screwdriver or hammer. The world will be a better place if it does.
“I highly recommend Steve for one on one work. He is a success story because he walks the walk as well as talking the talk.
Have fun,
Tom”
Thanks Tom!
Fun in progress. Say, “High” to Kim
Wow! First off, I admire the honesty in your post. Some people would be overly-compliant with just anything; but if this is genuinely based on what you have experienced, then this is a subjective review of the methods in treating SAD.
I believe that all methods available are effective; it just depends on what will perfectly suit your needs and requirements.
If this particular method suits you, then go ahead…
I admire and support you in your endeavors.
Keep it up!
I agree with the comment above. It’s good to see honesty with regards to reporting what has worked for you in the past.
I also believe that what works will depend on the individual and their needs and requirements.
Good luck in your efforts and thanks for sharing what has worked for you in the hope that it will help others.
Terri Davis
Conversational Hypnosis