Lou: That's really amazing. I've worked with people in AA, and they think that «Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.» Are you saying it's possible to cure alcoholics so that they can drink but not get drunk? They can go into a bar and have one drink and then walk away from it?
Definitely. When I work with an alcoholic, three months later I'll go out to some bar with him and have a drink. I watch and listen closely for any of the behavioral shifts that used to be associated with the alcoholic state. That will test whether I've done an integrated piece of work. I want to find out if he can have a drink and have the same response to it that I have; namely, that it's just a drink. I'm going to find out if he can perform the behavior that previously was automatic and compulsive without being compelled to go on and have more. Alcohol is an anchor, and using that old anchor is a good test of my work.
I don't mean to criticize AA, by the way. For decades AA was the only organization around that could assist alcoholics effectively. Historically it was a wonderful thing, and at this point we need to move on to something else. AA has a non–integrative approach, and people in AA are almost always bingers. They believe that «Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic," and for their people, that's true. If one of them sits down and has one drink, he won't be able to stop; he'll continue on a binge.
The claims I am making would be outrageous to anyone in AA, and also to the belief systems that most therapists have been taught. They are not incredible if you approach addiction from an NLP standpoint. From that standpoint, all you need to do is 1) collapse anchors on the dissociation, 2) get communication with the part that makes him drink, 3) find out what secondary gain—camaraderie, relaxation, or whatever—the alcohol gets for him, and 4) find alternative behaviors that get the secondary outcomes of alcohol but don't produce the damage that alcohol does. A person will always make the best choice available to him. If you offer him better choices than drinking to get all the positive secondary gains of alcohol, he will make good selections.
Lou: How would you deal with someone in AA then? They seem to believe that nothing will work except AA, and they won't listen to anything else.
Yes. AA is a «true believer» system. If you're working with someone who belongs to AA, you just accept that. You say «You're absolutely right.» Then you might add «Since you are so convinced that 'Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic' it won't be any threat to you if we try something different, because it will fail anyway.» When someone has a strong belief system, I accept it, and then find ways to work within it. Then I can always induce a covert trance and just program directly.
Your question about belief systems reminds me of something a medical doctor in England tried with heroin addicts. He had a clinic with a large methadone program to keep his clients from experiencing withdrawal. Once he had a new group of addicts coming in, so he did a controlled experiment in which he randomly divided the addicts into two groups. The control group just got methadone as usual. He trained all the subjects in the experimental group to be really good trance subjects. The two groups would come in at the same time for their methadone, but the experimental group would go to his office. There this doctor would put them all into a trance and have them hallucinate shooting up. At the end of six weeks, no one in either group had shown any withdrawal symptoms. At that point he told the experimental group what he had done, and all but two of them immediately went into withdrawal! That is an indication to me that the body is capable of handling the chemical imbalances if the person's belief system is consistent with doing so.
After I've tested for ecology, and to make sure the new choices work, I usually give the person something that he can actually get hold of to use as an anchor for his new choices. It might be a coin, or something else that he can put in his pocket and carry around with him. This will help take care of the old motor programs associated with drinking, smoking, or whatever. Part of the choice of drinking, for example, is actually going through the motions of holding onto a glass and moving it up to the mouth. Having some tangible physical anchor gives the person something else to do with his hands.
People sometimes consider AA members obnoxious because they don't want anyone else around them to drink either. Their reason for this, of course, is that seeing someone else drink stimulates that choice in them by identification. Since the old motor programs haven't been integrated into having new choices, this elicits the old drinking behavior in them. When you don't have this kind of sensitivity in an ex–drinker, that's another good indication that you've got full integration.
Woman: I have a question about the anchoring. Would you anchor the sober state first, when the client walks in, and then access the drunk state?
There are lots of ways you can do this. You don't even need to anchor the sober state in order to get integration. After your client has accessed the drunk state, you can say «Hey! Pay attention here. What do you think you are doing, acting like a drunk in my office?» Then you'll get the sober part back. Your client will say «Oh, I'm sorry! I thought that's what you wanted me to do. I was just trying to follow your instructions.» You continue with «What? Pull yourself together here.» You then hit the anchor for the alcoholic state at the same time that you are saying «Stay sober; pay attention here.»
Woman: Is the sober state a powerful enough anchor to be collapsed with the drunk state?
The sober state does need to be as intense as the drunk state. If you collapse anchors and don't get an integration, but rather something which looks like the drunk state, that indicates that you need to get the sober state anchored more intensely. I would stop doing the integration and say «Hey, wake up! Come on! Hey, wake up!» I would bring him back to a sober state completely. I'd stand him up, move him around, give him a cup of coffee, etc. When he's sober again, I'd ask
«Do you know where you are? Do you know what you are doing here? What's your purpose for being here?» I'd get the sober part back fully, and then I'd anchor it.
Man: Couldn't accessing the alcoholic state be dangerous if the client gets violent when he's drunk?
If that's the case you'll need to take extra precautions. You would use visual or auditory anchors instead of kinesthetic anchors. You might keep six feet and a chair between you and him, with the exit behind you. Or you may be well–trained in martial arts and have full confidence in your ability to protect yourself, as I do. You deserve to be sure that your physical and psychological integrity is always preserved. You are a psychotherapist; you are not being paid to put your body or your psyche on the line.
Woman: Would you be able to interrupt such a violent state if you'd anchored the sober state first? You could then use that anchor to bring the client back out of the alcoholic state.
Sure, but don't use a kinesthetic anchor for that. If you're close enough to touch someone who is acting violent, then he is close enough to hit you. An anchor that interrupts a rage state can be a good choice, as long as you can fire it from a distance. You can use auditory or visual anchors for that. A student of ours is teaching foster parents in halfway houses how to use non–tactile anchors to interrupt rage states. Depending upon the clientele you deal with, you may need that. You can anchor from a safe distance by a clap of your hands or some gesture. Another way to do it is to start talking to him using one voice tone, and as he goes into the alcoholic state, you change to another voice tone. Your voice tone then becomes an anchor. Then if he starts to go into a rage state, you say «Hold on a minute» in the tone of voice you used for his normal state.