Derren Brown: Archive
| Message ID: 03531 | [ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Up Thread ] |
From: killerb_0187
Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:07pm
Subject: Re: Hypnosis & The Legal Profession
Great explanation Terry.
Anchoring is the 'new form' of Classical Conditioning.
When a natural stimulus, e.g. a door closing, or someone doing up
their watch) + Unconditioned response = Conditioned Response.
Anchoring works in exactly the same way, the only major difference is
it doesn't take very long with anchoring, and the new forms of
communication and embedded command that you can use with it.
In a court room situation, everything would have to be done covertly.
When on the opposition talking about a defendant you could talk the
double binds as Terry pointed out, while gesturing with your left
hand.
So, bad comments = left hand
When putting your comments accross, you could gesture with your right
hand.
So, comments which you want enforced = Right hand
(i hope this isn't patronising, i'm trying to make it easy to
understand).
Then you can 'mismatch' with the gestures. So, when saying something
seemingly nice like "I'm sure he won't commit such and such again",
GESTURE WITH LEFT HAND. You'll be enforcing that you're diplomatic at
the conscious level to the juror's, but at the unconscious level all
the bad feelings you have elicited will become remisicent to them.
Hope this helps any would-be lawyers, and people who wanna just
communicate better.
--- In a previous message ganetauk wrote:
> Influence/hypnotis techniques are used by MANY. Even to the use of
> specific colours when using diagrams etc. Using closed questioning
> techniques, anchoring and psychological framing IS used...
>
> Psychological research indicates that human beings intuitively
> utilize a highly schematic approach to assimilate, comprehend,
store,
> and retrieve information—and that the "story" format is the most
> universally popular (and efficient) "schema" for these purposes. A
> good trial story and theme work hand-in-hand to lock the jurors
into
> a basic understanding of the primary case issues. The trial "story"
> incorporates the primary thematic message and neatly outlines all
of
> the case facts in a chronological, step-by-step fashion. Jurors
then
> subconsciously use the theme to look for evidence that "fits" the
> carefully constructed trial story, and to disregard evidence that
> does not.
>
> It is essential that the attorney employ an engaging and credible
> trial story that involves a clear beginning, middle, and end, along
> with a compelling trial theme, to persuade jurors regarding the
case.
>
> It is not surprising that two colorful Southerners with down-home,
> deep-fried, country styles—former Sen. Dale Bumpers—D-Arkansas and
> Rep. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina—got the biggest laughs during
> President Clinton's recent impeachment trial in the Senate. Mr.
> Bumpers broke up his former Senate colleagues when he said: "If
> someone tells you this is not about money, it's about money."
Equally
> funny was Rep. Graham when he commented on one of President
Clinton's
> late-night phone calls to Monica Lewinsky: "Back where I came from,
> when someone calls you at 2:00 A.M., they're up to no good."
>
> Colorful, even whimsical, language is almost always far more
> memorable and has a much stronger impact on jurors than run-of-the-
> mill, tired verbiage. Whenever you can, try to dress up your
> courtroom oratory with vivid and bright words and phrases to get
the
> jurors on your side.
>
> Use of Double–Binds
>
> Characterizing the opposition in "either–or" terms that are both
> negative is an effective way to minimize juror sympathy for the
> opposition—for example, "did the plaintiff injure himself because
he
> was inattentive, or because he was careless?"
>
> "Classically-conditioning" jurors
>
> An extremely effective NLP technique attorneys can use in the
> courtroom involves the "classic-conditioning" of jurors at a
> subconscious level during the trial. "Classically-conditioning"
> jurors is not to be confused with the often employed practice of
> trying to "condition" jurors during voir dire. This approach
involves
> employing voir dire questions to attempt to baldly maneuver jurors
so
> as to get them to pre-commit to a desired point of view— "If I am
> able to successfully prove ______________, you understand you will
> then be required to determine the case in favor of my client, don't
> you?"
>
> This wrongheaded "conditioning" approach is disliked by
jurors,
> who almost always see right through it. (Judges don't like it
> either.) Jurors resent being forced to agree to one-sided
conditions
> regarding how they must decide the case prior to actual courtroom
> presentations. Most will dig in their heels as a result. It is no
> surprise that such ham-handed juror "conditioning" seldom works.
>
> "Classic-conditioning" jurors is a far more subtle yet
> infinitely more effective approach. It involves conditioned
> (Pavlovian) responses. In Pavlov's celebrated experiments, a bell
> would ring at the same time that test subjects (dogs) were being
fed.
> It was not long before the ringing of the bell alone would cause
the
> dogs to salivate—the famous "conditioned" response. By using a
> similar "classic-conditioning" approach, jurors can also quickly be
> taught to unconsciously react as if on cue to an unspoken message
> that travels directly to their subconscious minds.
>
> The "classic-conditioning" of individuals in no way represents
a
> flaky or hocus-pocus ritual. Indeed, this proven process has been
> widely used for years by respected therapists, behavior
modification
> counselors, and similar professionals to persuade and influence
their
> clients. It is simple to implement yet guaranteed to positively
> impact jurors if handled correctly.
>
> Here's how it works
>
> The practitioner utilizes a highly specific and easily
> discernible action or gesture (termed a positive behavioral anchor)
> every time he or she references the case's most compelling and
> positive fact (pivotal point). Let's say the case's pivotal point
is
> that the defendant, a manufacturer, went to extra special lengths
to
> inform customers regarding the safe use of the company's product.
> Every time the attorney discusses this vital defense fact, he or
she
> makes sure to simultaneously employ the same specific and clearly
> perceived gesture or action.
>
> The gesture could be touching the lips, grabbing the hands
> together, grasping a chin, bowing the head, or knotting a tie. It
is
> essential that the gesture appear natural and unrehearsed, and it
> must be done clearly and unambiguously so it can be easily noticed
by
> the jurors within the full range of their peripheral vision.
>
> Thanks to regular repetition, the gesture or action will
quickly
> become strongly associated with the attorney's most telling point—
the
> manufacturer did everything but send the customers smoke signals
> regarding the safe use of the product. Soon the gesture-stimulus
> alone will automatically retrieve this highly positive defense
point
> in the consciousness of each and every juror. This means the
attorney
> can put the jurors instantaneously in touch with this compelling
> defense message at any point throughout the trial by simply
repeating
> the gesture-stimulus. The autonomic nervous system response among
> jurors will spontaneously take place like clockwork!
>
>
> you decide, but don't let me influence you....
>
> regards Terryerryrreterryrret
>
>
> --- In a previous message luise_f wrote:
> >
> > Is it reasonably common for barristers to aquaint themselves with
> > hypnotic technique? It would make sense, obviously, but ethically?
| Replies | Author | Yahoo ID | Date | Size |
| 3537: Re: Hypnosis & The Legal Profession | ganetauk | ganetauk | Thu 20/03/2003 | 11 KB |
