Eric Robbie Demonstrating SMEACs (old Video)

YouTube – Eric Robbie demonstrating SMEACs (old video)
Some observations on Robbie’s video:
First, notice that when someone suggests that the demonstration subject switch chairs so that they can see her face better, Robbie says, “It’s the same either way,” (0:24) and the subject corrects him, saying, “No, this hair’s (gesturing to her right side) different.” (0:28) So apparently Robbie did not notice that her hair on her right side made her face more visible—not an indication of superior sensory acuity!
When Robbie says, “Veronica Lake makes a comeback. Remember Veronica Lake?” this is a very nice rapport move, implicitly saying that the demonstration subject looks like a movie star (whose hair often hid part of her face) and the subject clearly enjoys this parallel, pushing her hair back from her forehead and smiling.
He asks, “So, is this (experience) fun?”—a question rather than a prediction, and a pretty easy call, since she is so expressive.
Given that she verifies this with a lovely big warm smile, it is obvious that she is associated into her experience, something Robbie does not mention.
Then he says it is about 10 feet away, which is a relatively easy thing to notice, based on her gaze and focus.
Then Robbie says, “It’s moving,” “colors,” and “quite in focus,” and she quickly confirms with an “Umhm,” a smile, and nod. Since she is associated, it is easy to predict that her image is moving, in color, and focused, because this is a “package” of experience; although these different submodalities can be changed independently, they predictably form a cluster with association, and in fact are the basis for feeling associated into the experience.
Then Robbie says that her image is straight in front of her. That is blatantly obvious from her direction of gaze, and she also indicated this clearly earlier with a large gesture with her left hand at 0:50, and even earlier with her right hand at 0:10 when she says, “I wasn’t looking at you, just defocusing.”
At this point she has quickly and congruently agreed to six things that Robbie has said, creating a “Yes” set, and a strong likelihood that she will continue to answer “Yes” to anything that he says next.
When he says “It’s got a frame around it,” she first hesitates for a second or two, in contrast to her immediate quick responses to Robbie’s earlier statements. Then she nods, and says, “Fuzzy.”
Robbie then says, “Fuzzy frame,” pacing her “fuzzy,” and leading with “frame.” She nods again, and then says, “But yeah, it has a frame around it.”
I think that her hesitation, and her use of the word “but,” both indicate that her image did not have a frame until Robbie mentioned it, and that she followed his suggestion. It is very unusual for an associated image to have a frame around it, because a frame usually creates a still image and dissociation. (Try this in your own experience: think of an associated, colorful, moving, 3-D experience. Then put a frame around it and find out what happens.) I think that the fuzziness of the frame is a compromise between her experience and his suggestion; if the frame was not fuzzy, it would have had changed her experience in other ways.
Here is where a double-blind experiment, in which she and Eric described her image independently, could be used to determine whether or not Robbie’s statement about the frame was accurate, or whether she was responding to his suggestion.
Then Robbie says “Inside the picture it is actually fairly 3-D, and there’s something moving in the foreground.” She smiles broadly, and Robbie says “Oh, you like that,” which is totally obvious from her facial expression.
Almost all associated images are moving and 3-D. If the image is 3-D, there will always be a foreground and a background, so the statement that there is something moving in the foreground is really a “no-brainer.”
All the “readings” above (except the one about the frame, which I think was induced hypnotically) are process submodalities that Richard Bandler discovered many years ago, and which Connirae and I taught routinely in the first day of our advanced submodalities trainings in the early 1980’s. All of these process variables are easily verifiable and learnable through experimenting. None of them involve content, as in Robbie’s previous video, in which Robbie described seeing “a black pit.”
Then Robbie says, “You start getting to where you can tell how many people are in the picture and what they are doing,” which would involve his “seeing” content. However cute this might be as a joke, it is a claim that Robbie does not demonstrate.
I am reminded of a line from Mark Twain’s novel, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s court. The Yankee has made some matches, which were unknown at that time, and when he strikes one and it bursts into flame, he says, “Look, a common twig; think what I could do to a tree!”
Steve Andreas

“Action speaks louder than words, but not nearly as often.”
–Mark Twain

Eric Robbie Demonstrating SMEACs (old Video)

Speak Your Mind