Power2
Michael Mallows
METAPROGRAMS   LOGICAL LEVELS   'DRIVERS'
Part 1



DRIVERS

Drivers are internal auditory anchors that compel practically all our
(dysfunctional) behaviours.

Drivers are powerful triggers for altered, and often unhelpful states of
mind that contribute to systems of thoughts, feelings and behaviours. These
patterns are communicated by countless verbal and non-verbal, conscious,
but mostly unconscious indicators.

These messages, which compel (drive) us, may stem either from an internal
Critic, or from the rebellious or compliant 'parts' of personality
('parts', in a psychological sense, is, of course, merely a useful
metaphor).

There are 6 basic Drivers: 

Try Hard. Be Perfect. Be Strong. Hurry Up. Please Me. Please You.

PACING AND LEADING

Just as we can Pace and Lead predicates, values, metaprograms or body
language, we can do so with Drivers.  E.g. by  half clenching your fist and
moving it emphatically up and down to mirror similar behaviour in another
person. You may thus convey your recognition of hir Trying  Hard to Be
Strong. If you then suddenly pointed or stood up, inviting hir into Visual
Construct, s/he might   see new possibilities and be more relaxed and
congruent with uncomfortable feelings.

If, in the middle of a team meeting, s/he leans forward with an earnest
look on hir face, s/he may be Trying Hard to Please You. You could try
mismatching by leaning back with a gentle, audible "Mmmmm" while moving
your hand gently down to hir right. This could shift hir state from
Internal Auditory to relaxed Kinaesthetic.

The idea / metaphor of Drivers comes from that other (than NLP) model of
'reality' known as (TA) Transactional Analysis.

Common sense, sensory acuity, and TA, tell us that we can observe, explain
and experience our own and other people's patterns of thought, feeling and
behaviour. These habits, stem from particular EGO STATES (which can be
likened to the Id, Ego and Superego. These Ego States are known as Parent,
Adult, Child, using Capital letters to differentiate  from the 'real'
thing.

The effects of a particular Ego State expression will be determined by many
variables. The environment in which we (trans)act. The desired and actual
effects of our own and other people's actions. Respective skills and
capabilities, the beliefs and values that underpin or undermine aspirations
and desired outcomes, our sense of self, and the nature of the
relationship.

As the Adult develops, our thinking, despite illusions of objectivity, is
contaminated by imposed versions of reality: sin, guilt, Santa Claus,
Heroes, unworthiness, politicians are here to help!




INJUNCTIONS  

Injunctions are (negative) beliefs about Self. They aid and abet the
Drivers on a level very much out of awareness. They prevent us feeling
'good' enough, or asking for our needs to be met.  They may preclude
internal permission to succeed or prevent expression of Selfhood with
integrity, openness and authenticity.  

These can be placed in 5 broad categories:

DON'T FEEL GOOD ENOUGH   
DON'T ASK FOR YOUR NEEDS TO BE MET		 
DON'T BE YOURSELF		 
DON'T SUCCEED			 
DON'T BELONG			 

The familiar feelings that accompany the injunctions 'fire' the internal
Drivers and linked  behaviours. These behaviours, are intended, usually
unconsciously, to influence (manipulate) other people's behaviours or to
alleviate or escape resultant feelings.

We may want to avoid harm (AWAY FROM punishment, rejection)  or to pursue
pleasure (TOWARD love, appreciation, acceptance), but we always have a(n
unconscious) positive intent.

RACKETS

In our fight or flight efforts, we experience repetitively uncomfortable
and unwanted feelings.   Rackety emotions, beliefs and actions are attempts
to assuage, escape from or to justify the Rackets. They are akin to what
Wolinsky, in THE DARK SIDE OF THE INNER CHILD, refers to as TRANCE STATES. 

It is fascinating, and can be empowering, to understand the STRATEGIES of
Rackets and the Driver states that accompany them, and I may include some
examples in part 2, next issue.

Here is a table of the Injunctions, their 'associated' Rackets and the main
or trigger Driver for each Racket.


INJUNCTIONS                   RACKET FEELINGS         DRIVER

DON'T FEEL GOOD ENOUGH		GUILT		   	BP 
DON'T BE YOURSELF               EMBARRASSMENT           PY
DON'T SUCCEED                   FEAR OF FAILURE         TH
DON'T BELONG                    PANIC                   HU
DON'T ASK FOR YOUR
NEEDS TO BE MET			UNAPPRECIATED 	   	BS	


MetaPrograms

Understanding the links and connections between Injunctions, EgoStates,
Rackets, Drivers and MetaPrograms helps make sense of much that may appear
chaotic or meaningless. E.g. when skilled and qualified NLPers  fail to
demonstrate Masterly application in practising what they teach. They may be
Racketeering (-Vc/-K/D), Driven to old patterns of distraction (Vr/Ai/-K)
at the expense of new skills    (+Vc/+K/+Ae), have an injunction
(-Ai/Vr/-K) blocking them).

Here are  examples of the above used to analyse two particular cases. Each
is 'real' but I've reduced each to the bare bones relevant to this article.

CASE STUDY: PETER 

Peter's main injunction  was "Don't be yourself" with an accompanying
racket of embarrassment.  He often felt misunderstood at meetings and he
dealt with this by being a bad tempered and non co-operative individual.

As a boy, unable to please (Driver) or to challenge his father, he had
become self conscious, anticipating criticism, chastisement, being
ridiculed. Now, he felt misunderstood as an adult. His bombastic,
belligerent behaviour was the anxious Child's way, albeit archaic, of
adapting to the reality of a bullying father (with Try Hard/Please Me
Drivers). 

Of course, because he never said, no-one knew that he was vulnerable,
scared, lonely. (And those who guessed had neither inclination, courage nor
permission to say)

Square bracketed words are [logical levels].

Embarrassment was an unconscious AWAY FROM decision  [capabilities]  to
avoid his father's criticisms. Embarrassment was a distorted TOWARD in that
we often (unconsciously) seek approval by being 'childlike', dependent,
shameful [values].

Adapting to a DON'T BE YOURSELF injunction [identity] is EXTERNAL
AUTHORITY,  rude and anti social [behaviour] was INTERNAL AUTHORITY. His
external behaviours were OTHER (visual) - look at me, notice me
[relationship] ; his INTERNAL feelings and behaviours were SELF (I'm
hurting and they don't understand).

His RULE STRUCTURE  created yet further internal conflicts:

Father's rules for me on the LOGICAL LEVEL of IDENTITY   (I mustn't be
myself); My rules for me on the level of  BELIEF / VALUE (I have a right to
be heard!)

My rules for you (when he was rude)

His STRESS RESPONSE was very much FEELING, with little or no empathy, no
rapport building skills, bad listening style, and virtually no ability to
take second position.

CASE STUDY: JANE

DON'T BELONG     PANIC     HU

Jane is a successful business woman in her late 30s. She has an excellent
mind, is married to a successful man, whom she loves and she adores her
children. She is   involved in a number of projects, and has an enviable
life style.  Yet she often feels as if she doesn't belong, or as if it will
all be 'taken away' and she won't be able to stop it. She wants to build on
her career (TOWARD), and yet, for much of the time she feels apathetic (k),
can't see the point (V) and decides it's too much bother (INTERNAL). Her
CONVINCER Mode is CONSISTENT - she needs to be reassured (EXTERNAL) every
day (at least) that she is in a safe place / relationship (TOWARD). She
thinks it would be utterly inappropriate to ask at work - as indeed it
might! She often feels very frightened, for no obvious reason, and can feel
hassled and harried. She literally feels immobilised at times, and that
exacerbates the panic feelings. She can be very demanding of her husband
and possessive of her children and yet rushes around every minute trying
to make their lives more comfortable (TOWARD). She says that noise and face
to face interaction gives her some fleeting sense of security, but then she
starts to panic again.

Jane's ATTENTION OF DIRECTION is OTHER, she is constantly trying to PLEASE
YOU so that people will stay (TOWARD). Her REASON is PROCEDURES, she needs
familiar patterns (SIMILARITY) because change is threatening - which is in
conflict with her professional aspirations. Her style, inevitably, is
PROXIMITY, that is she wants to be in control with others around her.



One way to counter the Drivers, or at least to reduce their negative impact
is to create new Permissions. This requires making  a decision, as a grown
up, to live by different rules, to be proactive and express an appropriate
degree of autonomy.

The VALUES that underpin, and can counter the Drivers, are listed below,
and I will expand on this in part 2 of this article.


I shall develop this theme in a following article, for now I'll just give
you the specific Permissions opposite the Drivers.


DRIVERS					PERMISSIONS
BE PERFECT				ORGANISATION
BE STRONG				RELIABILITY/RESILIENCE
HURRY-UP                                EFFICIENCY
TRY HARD                                PERSISTENCE
PLEASE					FLEXIBILITY

THE POWER TO USE NLP 
by MICHAEL MALLOWS
will be ready just after New Year.
This is a collection of NLP related articles previously published in
various magazines and journals - mostly in RAPPORT.
To order a copy send L10 (P&P free) to
Power2 publications
37 Layfield Road
Hendon
London
NW4 3UHnlp/drivnet