That does answer my question. I will check out Dawkin’s definition also.

Thanks very much

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?

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.

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.