Ok lets go through it and clarify the crap from the reality:
"mstrhypno"
earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a342567d-5d8b-4614-8af9-e40af6b955b6@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> So, for openers:
>
> What actual research (not phenomological reporting, but solid
> statistical, peer-reviewed research and testing), if any, has been
> done on 3D Mind and where can it be found?
There was never a claim of research done on the 3D Mind. Over and over I
have claimed that the only research done was the research that we personally
did while developing the model and tat that Ken has done over the last 30
years in his brain research.
There was some research that was going to be done but it did not pan out.
Ken did not take the job at Johns Hopkins so we were not able to do the
research.
>
> Secondly, how was the method developed? I honestly have NO clue as to
> what its bases might be, what its inspiration came from and, to better
> understand a thing, one should probably understand its history.
>
> The reason I ask this should be apparent in the question itself - When
> one understands the roots of a thing, one better understands the
> thing, itself.
The 3D Mind was developed after years of frustration with NLP. While NLP and
hypnosis seemed focued on the computer model of the brain and installing new
behavior, we began studying the actual brain itself.
We focued on the structure of what was going on today rather than the
strategy of how problems are created. That means that the past is where the
problem was generated but the only place to find a solution is in what the
structure of the reality is today.
That structure is emotional in nature but generates an enviroment that
genrates certain beliefs that suport each other. Once you alter that
structure, that enviroment falls apart. The formula has changed to the
results cannot be the same.
At first the 3D Mind was just a part of a seminar that we taught. We
introduced it to take care of small problems. The result was actually
unextectedly powerful. Lifetimes of trauma were being helped in minutes not
months.
Then we met Ken. Ken has been studying the brain for 30 years. He came up
with a model of the brain that explained why what we were doing was working.
In it's simplest form the model is this. Problems accure from the way the
brain physically reacts to a stimulus without thought. The 2 parts of the
brain involved are the cortex, which is the part used to be creative and
adapt, and the limbic brain that reacts to the primal survival drives.
Problems occur when either one of those parts o the brain are operating in a
way that is to dominant. Creativity without movement is a problem. A
reaction without creativity is a problem.
This also blended nicely with the philosophy of Chinese medicine where the
concept of balance is so important. When these 2 parts of the brain are
working in a balanced fashion, there are very few problems.
This also matched my studies of Qi Gong were you would never use force to
overcome a block. You would clear the pathway to allow normal flow to
resume.
So we refined the 3D Mind so that it would have a specific set of physical
reactions from the brain. The question used to find the problem are designed
for the brain to access in a certain way. Examining the structure of the
problem is designed to access several parts of the brain at the same time.
Finding a resource stimulates an entirely different part of the brain that
is noramlly not accessed when having the problem.
I could write a book on that alone.
Learning about the structure of the brain also explained why things like
Anchor collapses rarely work. Why regressing to cause was a waste of time.
Why direct hypnotic command rarely holds for very long. Why 'installing' new
strategies seemed to fall apart after a short period of success.
>
> Thirdly, is there any area of therapy where 3D Mind WOULD and would
> NOT be applicable as a therapeutic technique? Specifically, is there
> any type of disorder, or other dysfunction that a person iught suffer
> from that 3D Mind might not address as well as, perhaps, another
> modality might?
>
> The reason I ask this question is simple - every tool, even
> therapeutic methodologies, including hypnosis, has limitations and
> strengths. By knowing where TO and where NOT to use something, one
> can save an enormous amount of time and effort in working with a
> client.
So far the only limitation I have found is with people who have a physical
brain injury where production of seratonin or dopamine is physically
altered. i have personal helped people with rape trauma, ptsd, drug
addiction, social anxiety, phobias, attempted suicide, stress, and many more
things.
I would not use it on those who are truly psychotic.
>
> A TRUE skeptic does not say "I don't believe it - prove it to me." A
> TRUE skeptic says: "What, if anything, do we have here and, IF there
> IS anything here, WHAT IS IT and HOW DO I DEMONSTRATE WHAT I HAVE
> FOUND, if anything?"
Here is the problem Lee. We are very short on true skeptics here. What we
have is an agenda driven debate. The only was a true skeptic can study
anything is to set their agenda aside and look at what is presented without
prejudice.
Someone who cannot do that is a cynic. You can't have any reasonable
discussion with a cynic. They already have made up their mind.
The only way to really demonstrate that you have found anything in this case
is to use it. I can give you a thousand testimonials from others but that is
not going to mean anything unless you have the experience.
If you are truly curious, I will answer any question you have. If you just
want to justify your agenda, I just don't have time.
Tom
--
Secrets of Unstoppable Rapport Seminar June 2008
http://essential-skills.com/site.php/spgs/read/URAtlanta2008
Real Skills for the Real World
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TomVizzini
www.essential-skills.com
Gold Members Area
3D Mind
