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

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!

“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

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

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.