RBIm 4.0 the SSG or Self Sustained Generalizations Open beta

A new way to understand problems and ones experience trough the looking mirror.

We want a practical way to take what we find as abstract in our head the way we think and what images, feelings [representations) and behaviors we experience trough our life and having an easier way to create choices to be able to choose and decide what we want to experience and behave in our life.

However there haven’t been any easy solutions to that abstraction.

RBIm 4.0 is a revised version from the RBIm 3.0 and adds the SSG as a way to map and adjust ones experience by creating a contextual framework [SSG] to map ones experience into and create the meaning one want to have with the SSG.

As humans we adapt to our environment and circumstances. [Rationalize] 
The Adaptation of the human mind is a trait from evolution once we have a contextual framea start and end of that contextual experience [SSG] we then have a working structure and form to operate from in our daily life to create choice.

Meaning is tied to the contextual frame and in RBIm 4.0 we call that an SSG or Self Sustained Generalization.

The good thing about the SSG is that it isn’t a genetic trait and can be adjusted, altered etc..at your own leisure and will.
However if we try to change the SSG itself as in a problem it wont work so well. What typically happens the solution is now perceived to be included into the SSG itself the brain includes it into the same reality and generalize this into the problem so the problem then cant be solved (Rationalizes). This is a trait of evolution we started to adapt to circumstances and trade and engage into social life with ease.

The core function of the SSG is context and the brain operates from contexts. Normally the SSG creates an adaptation to the core function meaning anything that happens is defended and feedback into the core function of the contextual framework the SSG. (Created meaning the reality the individual experience)

As an example: I met a girl as a client, she been in therapy for 17 years…. She told me that she had a problem being alone. I smiled and looked at her and said so over the years you seen every therapist in town and many of them told you to stop seeing them as you had no problem according to them? She said, YES!
I was now laughing at the absurdity of the situation as it took me less than 5 minutes to set this right for her.

The therapist isn’t trained and educated to handle this type of problems as the therapist becomes included into the problem due to the client include them into the problem and then rationalize it.

Her SSG?
She had a problem being alone so I asked her, do you have the problem here with me in the room? She said “NO”!
The therapist couldn’t help her due to them couldn’t understand they couldn’t work with her SSG due to it wasn’t active and didn’t exist there when someone else was in the room……………with her……17 years of that imagine the responses from the therapists over the years telling them about your problem and then be called crazy pretty much from those who should be able to help you.

Imagine that you pay someone and they cant do their jobs due to becoming part of the problem and not realizing it?

I asked her “so when do you feel alone?” and she said, “When I come home from work I stop and listen and its silent in my apartment.”

Solution? Told her to leave the radio on before work.

Reaction? She called me 3 days later and said I am cleaning, etc..doing a lot of things and I don’t know why really and I said, good continue do that.

Her problem for 17 years was now suddenly gone.

The SSG includes other people, suggestions and the will to rationalize.

If you believe in God and then wake up hitting your toe, then no hot water in the shower, no eggs for breakfast, car wont start then you wont think oh I am a bad planner, lacking skills etc..you go, “God is now testing my faith”. The brain takes the core function of the SSG and rationalize to the behaviors you experience during the day and adapt them into its meaning of the SSG itself.

Instead of changing your behaviors in the morning for future events
the SSG rationalize them and no choice is available.

RBIm 4.0 then have a different understanding what’s going on so we map the current SSG to a starting and ending context. Doing that allows the individual to take control over the generalization and its experience and meaning to be handle in a practical manner. 

Once the current SSG is mapped into a start and end point we don’t work with the old SSG.

We then create a new SSG that works the way we want it to work and add the meaning to the new SSG which we want to have. In RBIm 3.0 that is called the FutureNow. Its also suggested with the RBIm 3.0 to do a self elicited localized first as we then work with the FutureNow as it helps with the needed choice we want to have in choosing our own experiences or fixing problems.

RBIm 3.0 > Elicit self contextual mapping and futurenow.

The new revised RBIm 4.0 then looks like this

Elicit self > Map old SSG > Create new SSG > FutureNow

We are taking the core function of the SSG and then map the abstract thinking/feeling/behaving into a contextual frame with a start and end point [SSG] and then create a new SSG to replace it.

The SSG rationalize and adapt faster than you think. It’s the invisible elusive function of stuff like the meaning of life, reality and spirituality. The good thing about this is the brain have issues to create changes unless you define it down and using a SSG with its contextual frame allows you to create change and choice easier than before. Without it you risk having a to wide definition so the generalization itself adapts but if you map it into the contextual frame as an SSG then you have control.

Freud created the unconscious mind as he didn’t understand that phenomena of adaptation nor have any other technology and NLP which is a field I come from always talks about the “Process” which means they have no idea how NLP works and operates really. Its guesswork.

RBIm 4.0 with its technology of the SSG gives you choice and allows a whole new control of your life as suddenly you can create new SSGs and have a whole new future to experience without needing to change the past or memory or such but is now becoming a task much like anything else you choose between, what cloths to buy, what car, bike or food to order.

Now with the RBIm 4.0 and the SSG you can map them down add a new one and change your life the way you see fit!

Holy Batman!

Question how do we replace the old SSG?
Once the new one is created and you know which one you did create it happens more or less automatic. Its then a choice which one to run. There will depending on the situation take some time for the brain to re-organize into the new one.

SSG needs to be defined or else the adaptation takes over sooner or later. Its not like we choose what happens to us but we can choose how to deal with it and what we want to experience. Once you start defining start and end points to create the contextual frame, you take what was abstract and then can work it like any other decision you make.

I talk about the RBIm 4.0 and SSG here.

19 Replies to “RBIm 4.0 the SSG or Self Sustained Generalizations Open beta”

  1. The whole model seems to come from the not-factor thing you where doing way back. You have added some important distinctions though. It’s easier to do when you got the start and end points of the context.

    1. Its now managable.
      What you can do with this are unprecedented in the history of change and such work trough the last few hundreds of years.

      Its that important if one asks me.

  2. Can you define what you mean by start and end of a context? Doesnt that statement imply referencing time which is an illusion since every context exists in itself and not in sequence of time?

    1. However time exist or not or are sequenced or not wont matter.
      Generalizations are patterns that predicts events not happen yet based upon previous information. That seems to me include a sequenced time patttern that you cant change using technology as NLP etc….

      The SSG puts it all into a manageable format.
      If you have a start of a context which normally are what the indvidual will be able to recall and that can be in any form due to your using their reference for their own context.
      so it can be, see spider get scared age 8, june second 14.32 in the afternoon or it can be got scared young age.
      any of them contains the same start.
      End?
      well when do you want it to end? tomorow? today? next week?

      1. If my problem started years ago or seconds ago, it is still a different problem to what it is in this moment right now. Am I not further perpetuating the Self Sustained Generalization by giving the problem a beginning? I can see how giving it an end puts it in a format that makes it more manageable, however I didn’t find it all that practical since it still feels like the problem goes on indefinitely.

        1. No.
          your using an analytic reasoning based on fear.
          This type of stuff has neural networks constructing reality so it means it has to construct the same structure every day.
          If you use analytic reasoning then it wont work to change anything.

          I can read a manual to construct a space ship and then build one but I wont send people up in the first few test runs.

          This is about doing not thinking about it.
          If you think nothing will change it.

          1. A bit rude to call another dude afraid, but I forgive you. I did try it before I posted and will continue testing it for a while but at some point I have to “analytically” reflect on whether this is working and its something I should continue doing. You brought up defining beginning and end of a context way back in some of your old posts such as this one here notnlp.com/?p=1482 – “The RBIm FutureNow process designing maps”. This is the same thing, just applied to SSGs, which technically is working with a problem and I thought working with problems is something we are trying to avoid.

            1. Once SSG is defined, you dont work with it.
              You build a new SSG seperate.
              Working with the old SSG we dont do.

              Note the difference?

              Mythoself btw while nice talk does work the same way except they have to use hypnosis and trancework to even get it going and then its still touch and go with that approach, no precision.

              1. As I (almost) wrote earlier it feels like the old not-factor. Notice the context that is “problematic” and then focus on the context you want. It’s just that noticing the start and end makes it easier to do it than in the not-factor thing.

  3. If you are able to elicit self, doesn’t that mean that all old SSGs get reset when you do that and then you can just do future now easily as per RBIM 3.0? Whats the point of adding in this extra step of mapping old SSG if eliciting self performs a clean reset in the first place? It seems like a step backwards compared to RBIM 3.0.

  4. To elicit the self, do I just think about where the self is located in the body? When I set the meaning for the new SSG, is it what I’d like to be feeling?

    1. Elicting self
      is done trough localized comparison questions
      Is it located outside or inside?
      down or up? Front or back, left or right?
      Once found as a location its then easier to run the definitions of an SSG.

      Added meaning is what you want it to be so yes.
      Its the end result of the generalization itself.

      In my own case as I have had a sweeth tooth for me it was about having a choice. So I could choose to buy or not or eat or not or save up or not. Once the choice was there as meaning for me, done.

    2. The thinking and thoughts can lead one there but its not the self.
      Self is more like the thinker behind the thoughts.

  5. The basic process that is going on is a natural function(?) and your early versions were totally capable of getting right there already. (?)
    Your findings about SSG’s and other models are defining the access to reality creation and using it. (?)
    Thats how it appears to me. The definitions you add are totaly logic and add on to the comparison mode logic in relation to the future now.
    The SSG definition is excellent and I can immediately identify a huge amount of SSG’s just scanning for some minutes.

  6. Reality defining.
    This revision feels like there is another tool to work with. I mean the first -not- protocol as explained on this page is still an integral part of my life cause its a working tool.
    4.0 is very elegant for the Person starting out.

    I tested some more with start and end point and the endpoint is enough for me to make it work. I dont see the need for the startpoint with old references.(?) Its like Im not that interested to indulge in that and want to go straight for the future now and keep it.
    Is the startpoint of the old SSG to make it easier to create a sound future Now SSG?

    This very inspiring and liberating. The very first moment I read a post on your webpage I got it working. Its too bad I cant remember what article or date it was. I just asked myself what would happen if Im happy and suddenly I was stupidly happy and got note of the theatre where that movie was played 😀 . It stayed the same through all revisions and all added for the benefit of getting there and working there.
    I got so many new SSG’s running since then its like Im kid and parent in one plotting what to learn next.

    1. One as you note have to keep in mind that a beginner vs someone well versed in the tech have different understandings which makes it difficult to say what one should do or not.
      I can do things people say dont exist from the start go but someone else might not even understand what they are suppose to do.

      Mapping the old SSG puts whats abstract into a managable format. So then choice can happen to create the new one.
      Instead of dealing with excuses/rationalizations and a never ending recursive debate you now have a tool to start make things work for you.

Comments are closed.