“The Dominoes Effect” | Beliefs in Line | 5 beliefs that stop success dead

This video shows you how you can find the 5 Key Limiting beliefs in 5 minutes that prevent you from success.

The video is just over 10 minutes long and walks you through step by step in how to do this.

Download worksheet below.


The next video on Monday 28th will show you the precise simple method to change these.


Leave a comment and hit the LIKE button as usual 🙂

Download “The Dominoes Effect” Worksheet


  • Graham

    Reply Reply November 25, 2011

    Great info
    and I am impressed by your dedication and commitment to your techniques.
    I can see you have spent a lot of time ruminating over this technique and this issue is very important to me, as I am now half way through an NLP/hypnotherapy course and wondering whether I can keep it up alongside a 6 day a week self employed business (volunteers for practice are difficult to get).
    Hope your project works out well for you.

  • Rob Ballentine

    Reply Reply November 29, 2011

    Graham, You’re welcome and thank you for your comment.

    I highly recommend going through even just the Belief Matrix chart this might highlight some areas areas for you where you could potentially see where the conflict has arisen.

    Let me know how you get on.


  • Rob Ballentine

    Reply Reply December 7, 2011

    Below is a conversation I had with Jan re Beliefs and specifically the Beliefs Matrix and Beliefs in Line.

    Jan: My point is that it’s a long detour if you want to accomplish your outcome
    Rob: What I noticed, that’s explained in more detail on I believe the video The Royal Road, is that people come across this ‘perceived’ barrier, a kinaesthetic ‘stuck state’. Some people call it, un-motivated, fearful, unable to move, frustrated etc. in trying to achieve their outcomes.

    It’s a feeling where they’ve tried everything they can. Invariably this state is locked in at a belief level. Now I’m not suggesting this is the only course of action, there are still other tools, methods etc that will manoeuvre and change this state. What I’ve witnessed and modelled over the years is that people find it hard to extract the belief/s in what is really stopping them.

    I’ve shied away from the ‘belief’ finding techniques or in naming beliefs through language as this partitions and narrows what is happening at a kinaesthetic level. Language by default is a reduction of experience (hence one of the purposes of the meta model to bring a client back to experience or as John Grinder will say First Access)

    As we know, beliefs are part of state, internal strategies, processing etc etc that is, the totality of a person’s experience. Rather than necessarily changing a belief, we can use the belief ‘state’ to shift the stuck state by re-addressing the kinaesthetic freeze. Thus create movement and fluidity.

    Now I don’t consider this the only way, rather a way in which a person can begin to explore the least known part of them, their kinaesthetic.

    In the west we have an over-tendancy to value higher our other systems, like visual and hearing in how we change. In the east, this tends to be the flip. I also accept this as generalisation about culture and not an absolute. Therefore, we can learn how to use our kinaesthetic system to understand and create more flow and fluidity in what we do, thus creating a change in this ‘stuck’ zone.

    Jan: How you’re gonna change your belief by putting it in the future? Isn’t that what you do standing on your timeline?

    Rob: The belief isn’t actually put into the future, rather an outcome is a desire in the present for something to achieve at a ‘date’ in the future. Therefore, what we’re really doing is changing the way they represent a belief about a future outcome. Though you could put a belief that you wish to have on a future timeline, maybe because there are conditions that have to be fulfilled prior to the belief being realised.

    I’d like to make difference between what I call a belief and knowledge. Belief to me is something where there is not sufficient evidence for it to be true. Kind of like me saying , I know that I breath and can walk, I don’t have to believe it. But I believe in the goodwill of mankind. It is easier to find counter examples of a belief than it is of direct continuous experience. Does this make sense?

    Jan: And why are those beliefs the beliefs that keep you from accomplish outcomes? Isn’t that more personal and different for every individual?

    Rob: I believe ? Robert Dilts during his creation and modelling of belief systems, ordered belief systems into these 5 categories, So they are not beliefs, themselves rather categories of belief types, that he noticed/modelled that people who achieved X outcome, consistently had these belief types systems working. Whereas people who failed to achieve their outcomes would have beliefs in these categories that were limiting in 1 or more of the 5.

    So yes, the actual belief ‘how a person languages and defines their belief’ for each category type will be different as you say. Though the purpose of the Belief Matrix combined with the Certainty Principle is to shift a person away from languaging/defining their belief.

    Jan: Is this an effort to make accomplish outcomes for every individual the same process?

    Rob: Are you saying? I’m not sure if I’ve understood you’re question properly, but if it is this ‘Is this a method/process which anyone can use to accomplish outcomes?’ Yes it is

    Rob: FRP, so this sounds similar to a pseudo orientation in time, except the resource is found in the future as a symbol etc. Ok I get it, I’ll give that one a go ? sounds interesting.

    Jan: But then again: what is it you want to accomplish with this new model? That people are going to accomplish their goals, their outcomes?

    Rob: One always hopes that people will accomplish their outcomes/goals from a model or process you use? The purpose of the model, is to help people who do not have access to a trainer, coach or training course, be able to find the belief/states that stop them from achieving their outcomes and have a method of using it on themselves. And/or for trainers who train/teach belief change techniques to have a different model that works without having to get a person to define their belief using language, such that the new ‘belief’ state is more generative and encompassing rather than filtering, which is inherently a fault of language.

    Jan: But, Robe, if I find it puzzling, while I’ve studied NLP for a long time, how you think this will effect somebody else?

    Rob: I’ve found that in using these methods during MasterPrac training, that rather than a person ‘finding’ a new belief to have which is inherently open to partitioning experience as much as the old belief, that they begin to find experiences that allow a belief system to form from experience rather than trying to ‘make up’ a new belief. It’s easier than having to go through a ‘well formed’ belief process.

    Jan: What’s wrong with the interventions we already have and are succesful, even so that it made Robert a name in NLP?

    Rob: Language partitions experience by its nature, therefore part of the current belief change processes prevent a person from finding new experiences to learn from and explore and thus form this ‘knowledge’ rather than just a new belief. Really what I propose is that we are better off discovering how to learn how to do something and form systems of belief based upon experience rather than just saying ‘I now believe X’. So it becomes more of a journey of learning and change through doing.

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field