Natural Anchors and Covert Anchors

Natural anchors basically suggest that not all anchors have the same strength or effectiveness (Dilts & DeLozier, 2000). Most people can attest to the fact that different anchors elicit varying strengths of responses. For example, rats readily differentiate water that is safe or not based on the color of the water. However, they seem to have more difficulty in distinguishing two types of water in two differently-shaped containers. In this sense, the color of the water becomes a more effective anchor for rats than shape.

The same thing happens with humans. The concept revolves around the idea that natural anchors are strongly linked to the neurological and/or perceptual capacities of the recipients (Dilts & DeLozier, 2000). For example in humans, there are body parts which are more accommodating to becoming anchors or in receiving them.

A person’s hand is a much more sensitive part of the body than his forearm due to the number of nerve endings present. Thus, the hands are more readily usable to receive external cues or to become anchors themselves. It is, therefore, necessary for users of the teaching -with-anchors process to have sufficient knowledge, understanding, and even intuition in selecting elements to become anchors (Dilts & DeLozier). The user should understand natural tendencies to various external elements or media so that he or she can more efficiently use anchors in his or her teaching process.

Covert Anchors

Dilts and DeLozier (2000) suggest that there are instances when the strongest anchors are beyond the receiver’s conscious awareness. These are the covert anchors. They are extremely strong because of the fact that they operate in a manner that bypasses the filtering system of the mind.

It enables these anchors to directly embed themselves in the mind of recipients. Covert anchors are best for situations wherein the receiver cannot link a response to the given stimulus. This is because his mind’s conscious filter keeps him from making the connection.