[From: Bruce Nevin (Fri 92109 09:30:09)]
(Greg Williams (921008 - 2) ) --
. . . how someone's (to Bill) "insignificant" variables can be
influenced by that person's environment (both living and non-living parts).
Maybe Clark McPhail could help begin to answer this question. Or maybe victims
of con artists could help. Or maybe welfare mothers. Or TV watchers. Or drug
addicts. Or parents. Or children. Or teachers. Or students. Or counselors. Or
prisoners. Or most anyone engaged in and/or studying social interactions.
I have only delved a bit into the Collected Writings of Milton Erikson,
but enough to suggest to me that you will find a lot of grist for this
mill there.
One anecdote about Erikson: He's giving a lecture. At a certain point
two people, from opposite sides of the auditorium rise, walk up on the
stage, and sit down in chairs near the podium. When asked why they did
so, they are somewhat puzzled, and say it just seemed like the right
thing to do. He then explains that he communicated with them
individually during the course of the lecture delivered to the whole
audience. Catching the eye of this one while saying a word or phrase
that had a general meaning for the audience, but a specific one for the
person. Gesturing in a way that had general meaning for the audience
but that indicated what was desired to the individual on that side.
Embedding suggestions covertly within the flow of communications that had
different overt purposes. In this he was making use of what he called
"everyday trance," a state that is not limited to people listening to
lectures. This demonstration then having its purpose to exemplify
points made in the lecture, he thanked his still somewhat bemused
assistants for their help, in a way that they felt pleased and not
exploited, and concluded the lecture.
The collected papers are in four volumes, edited by a student of his
named Rossi.
I will not defend Erikson or his work. He speaks quite well for
himself. But you do have to read the material. Many of his approaches
seem to me to rest on creative use of ambiguity, rather than on drawing
attention to lower levels of perception (e.g. the stereotype Bill
mentioned of the voice droning on about heavy eyelids), but that may
have the same effect (e.g. his handshake technique).
Bruce
bn@bbn.com