Mr Wang recently wrote on his blog about the power of thoughts and of ‘S’:
When you ask him why he thinks he’s “bad” and “evil”, he says that he has no friends, and therefore he must be “bad” or “evil”; either that, or everyone is “bad” and “evil” for not wanting to be friends with him. S also keeps saying that the world is a very bad place and we just don’t know it yet, but we will realise it sooner or later and be affected by it (I think he’s thinking about stuff like global warming, nuclear war etc).
The scary part is how deeply, how completely, S believes what he’s saying. It’s a very striking example of how thoughts affect reality. S is deeply entrenched in his own very negative thoughts, and that’s what his reality has become right now. We’re trying, but we can’t get him out. His existence, his reality, his entire world is indeed bad, evil, hopeless and grim - and he made it that way, for himself, through the sheer power of his own thoughts.
What’s Really Keeping S Trapped?
S sounds like he’s trapped in a ‘double-bind’ belief; he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. When someone is caught in a double bind, it can be very hard to change his beliefs because he’ll use everything, even evidence to the contrary, to reinforce his beliefs.
Richard Bandler, co-founder of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), likes to tell the story of a mental patient who kept insisting that he was a living corpse. Hitting upon a bright idea, a doctor asked him; ‘do corpses bleed then?’
The patient replied; ‘of course not!’ The doctor promptly pricked him, and when the patient saw blood dripping out of his wound he exclaimed; ‘well I’ll be damned - corpses do bleed!’
How Beliefs Turn into Thought Viruses
NLP developer Robert Dilts explains double binds in his ground-breaking book Sleight of Mouth: The Magic of Conversational Belief Change. In NLP we say that the map is not the territory - our beliefs about reality is not reality itself.
Healthy beliefs exist in an eco-system; they’re linked in a cycle to our internal states, values, experiences and expectations. And so they can change according to our inner states and outer environment.
Adapted from a diagram in Robert Dilts’ book Sleight of Mouth.
According to Dilts, beliefs become ‘thought viruses’ when they’re cut off from this cycle. A belief, disconnected to internal and external feedback, then feeds upon itself - and change becomes difficult because it refuses to ‘listen’ to anyone but itself.
Adapted from a diagram in Robert Dilts’ book Sleight of Mouth.
This leads to all sorts of problems because the belief becomes a circular argument and double-bind…like a Catch-22. In the classic novel ‘Catch-22’ (which is hilarious by the way), WW II airman Yossarian wants to escape the horrors of war by leaving the air force.
But he can’t, because of regulation ‘Catch-22’. Catch 22 says that if Yossarian can prove himself insane, he can be discharged. But only a sane man would ask to be discharged because no sane man would want to risk his life. So by requesting to be discharged on the grounds that he’s insane, Yossarian proves himself sane and can’t be discharged. It’s a circular argument that Yossarian can’t win.
Breaking Out of a Double Bind
Reading Mr Wang’s description of S, it’s obvious that S has caught himself in a double bind. He has no friends, therefore he’s bad and evil. Whomever doesn’t want to make friends with him is also bad and evil. Therefore, everyone is bad and evil.
So how can you help someone who is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t?
I’ll be honest with you; there aren’t any easy answers to this question. In essence, you’ll want to open up his double bind belief so it’s receptive again to feedback from his internal states, values, experiences and expectations - this makes the belief open to change.
In Dilts’ book Sleight of Mouth he reveals (more than) one way to break down limiting beliefs; applying the belief back onto itself.
For example, if I were working with S; to the belief that everyone is evil, I could say that ‘yes, the world is an evil place…because of evil beliefs like that‘.
There are even more methods, like speaking to his values, chunking his beliefs or conditioning new behaviors. But in a situation as advanced as S’s, change needs time and someone by his side who can get a more comprehensive view of his situation than the internet can give.
September 10th, 2007 at 2:58 am
A very clear and help post on thought viruses. The diagrams are excellent and made Dilt’s ideas come alive. Are they from a presentation or talk?
September 10th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the compliment! They’re actually adapted from Robert Dilts’ book Sleight of Mouth: The Magic of Conversational Belief Change and you just made me realize I need to make that clear in my post.
September 11th, 2007 at 12:56 am
The patient who thought he was a corpse taught a very valuable lesson. You can only change another person’s mind if that person is willing. The patient was convinced he was right.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Thanks for this timely post. I am trying to get my at-risk students to change their thinking. The term thought virus helps expain their thinking.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
A wonderful post about thought virus. It’s indeed hard to convince a person who strongly believes in what he thinks.
September 15th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Nice article.
It’s sad to know about that patient who thinks of himself as a corpse. His strong belief will most probably make it difficult for people to convince him that he is wrong.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Firstly, the story of “the ‘corpse’ that bled” is NOT an example of a double bind. It is an illustration of cognitive dissonence.
Secondly, Dilts’ definition of a “thought virus” makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
What would have to happen for his model to occur in the “real” world is that a network of neurons which stored a particular thought would have to become cut off (i.i. loose ALL synaptic connections) with the rest of the brain.
But if that really happened it would automatically cease to be a problem because it couldn’t affect anything else!
If, on the other hand, the network was NOT completely isolated then it would be influenceable by other networks and therefore cease to fit Dilts’ description.
Not surprisingly, Dilts’ explanation bears little or no resemblence to the original definition, by Richard Dawkins, which was an equally eccentric attempt to explain why the rest of the world doesn’t think the way Mr Dawkins thinks we ought to.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Hi,
I thought I would add an additonal perspective to the conversation.
Firstly Thank you Alvin for creating a space for people to discuss such topics and explore thinking and belief systems.
Andrew B, I am curious are you “talking” about Robert Dilt’s definition of “thought virus” based on your own research and investigation (i.e reading his books) or are you responding to Alvin expalination?
The reason why I ask? My understanding after seeing R.Dilts last year about “thought virus” had at least two distinct qualities which were over looked by Alvin’s explanation.
1) That the “thought viruses”are not usually based on your own experience, they are other peoples thoughts and beliefs that are adopted as our own belief. (so we are buying someone else’s map that is not the territory).
2) Also That the thought is disconnected from it’s positive intention.
It is the secound point which makes a thought virus potentially harmful the disconnected from the positive intention.
Robert used an example of 5 monkeys in a cage.
Scientists observing the behaviour of monkeys. They put 5 monkeys in the cage with a ladder with a bunch of banana’s at the top of the ladder.
Everytime a monkey started to climb the ladder, all the monkeys would get blasted with water. This continued until none of the monkeys tried to climb the ladder and would actually attack any monkey that would try to climb the ladder to prevent them from being soaked.
The scientists then switch off the water.
The scientist’s then replaced one of the monkey’s with a new one. The new unsuspecting monkey would try to climb the ladder and be attacked by the remaining “old” monkeys.
Eventually the new monkey stops trying to climb the ladder in fear of being attacked.
The scientist then replace another monkey with a new monkey. The same cycle happens and this time the “first” new monkey also attacks the newest monkey although it has never been touched by the water.
The cycle continues until all the old Monkeys are replaced with new ones and the new monkeys continue to attack any monkey that tries to climb the ladder. even though the water is still off and none of these monkey’s have been sprayed by the water.
Robert used this example on how the postive intention of not being soaked creates behavours or beilef systems disconnected from the reality of the situation, even when it is not based on one’s own experience.
Also a thought virus may not be necessarily be a double bind although it can be the case also.
Rascism is one area when thought virus can be found especially when the racist has very limited or no knowlege on the race they are prejudice against.
If they know very little or nothing about the race where did they get the belief from?
I had to write this quickly so sorry for any spelling mistake’s and the high level explantion.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 am
Hi Earl
Has Dilts been hijacking other people’s labels for his own ideas again?
To my knowledge the only genuine “thought viruses” (by that name) are the intellectual property of Richard Dawkins.
HOWEVER
Gregory Bateson came up with a remarkably similar idea way back in the mists of time, whicfh he described in his book “Steps to an Ecology of Mind.” I don’t remember, off-hand, when that was first published, and I don’t have my copy handy, but 1972 seems to ring a bell.
Which version was I referring to. Well, neither Bateson’s nor Dawkins’, but to the version described by Alvin - which has all the hallmarks of Dilts’ very poor understanding of human psychology/neuroscience.
What he, and you, appear to be describing looks (at least superficially) more like Rupert Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance” than genuine “thought viruses.”
Hope this answers your question?
April 4th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Hi Andy,
That does answer my question. I will check out Dawkin’s definition also.
Thanks very much