Help with Negative Self–talk Volume I

Some people bounce out of bed in the morning, eager to start the day, while others keep hitting the snooze button on their alarm, and then struggle to slowly drag themselves out of bed. The way you start the day is likely to set the pace for the rest of your day. If you start out eager and animated, it will be much easier to maintain that state, despite any difficulties that may occur later. But if you start the day discouraged, or in some other unpleasant mood, then you will have to work yourself out of that state in order to feel better, which is usually much more difficult.

What often makes the difference is what you first say to yourself as you emerge from sleep. You may awaken in response to an alarm clock, or in response to light, or to the sounds of others in the house getting up. As you begin to waken and sense the world around you, what are the first words in your mind? What is the first thing that you said to yourself this morning? …

How about yesterday morning? …

Now check several other recent mornings. What did you say then, and how did it set a tone for the rest of the day? …

Now notice all the tonal qualities of that internal voice — the tone, volume, tempo, hesitations, etc… . ¹

If you said something like, "Ohmigod, I have to go to work today," in a discouraging tone, you probably had to work hard to get out of bed and get going, and that attitude is likely to persist during the rest of the day.

On the other hand, if you said something like, "Wow, which of my projects do I get to do first?" in an enthusiastic tone, then getting out of bed was probably very easy, and it would take a really unpleasant event to change your positive attitude.

If you would like to change how you talk to yourself in the morning, there are six simple steps:

1. Desired outcome First, think about how you would like to feel as you start out your day, …

2. Desired self–talk What could you say to yourself, and what tone and tempo of voice you could use to create that? …

3. Identify cues Next notice what you will see, hear, or feel as you first begin to wake up, and then say your sentence to yourself… .

4. Check for objections Notice any objections or feelings of concern that you might have about doing this… .

5. Satisfy objections If you have any objections, identify any problems with either the words that you chose, or the tonality and tempo that you chose. Then adjust what you say to yourself, or how you say it (or both) until any objections or concerns are satisfied. When all aspects of you are satisfied with it, it will be something that you are congruent about wanting, and it should occur spontaneously and dependably… .

6. Rehearse and test Imagine waking up in the future in order to test what you have done. Experience what it will be like tomorrow morning, when you first begin to realize that you are waking up, and notice what happens… .

If your morning sentence occurs automatically, you are done. If it doesn't, you may need to rehearse it several more times just as you begin to wake up to make it automatic, or you might have to back up a few steps and adjust what you say to yourself, or the tonality that you use.

Next, I want to offer you a somewhat more complex way to begin the day, one that can be used to change a wide variety of problems, as well as more positive outcomes.

Behaving ”As if”

Giorgio Nardone and Claudette Portelli, in their book, Knowing Through Changing (19) use the following instruction as part of their work with clients. It's a very interesting method that can be used to change any problem whatsoever, by installing an internal voice that initiates a daily pattern of thinking and behavior.

Those who would like to develop their ability to model useful communication patterns may wish to pause before reading further, and reread the instruction above, perhaps several times. Then think of a problem that you have, and vividly imagine actually carrying out this instruction every morning over a period of a week or two… .

Then review your experience, and notice how this instruction redirects your attention, and how you respond to that… .

Then use whatever understanding of NLP you have to recognize familiar elements, and think about how the different aspects of this instruction work to initiate and amplify change… .

This instruction is an example of "tasking" or "homework," in which someone is given specific instructions about what to do outside the therapy session, to support a desired change. Many of Milton Erickson's (10) interventions directed clients to do certain things that would change how they experienced their problems. Often these instructions were puzzling and mysterious, and often were delivered within a hypnotic trance in order to amplify their impact, and make sure that they were carried out.

Erickson often talked about making a small change that would begin a "snowball" effect, growing into a much larger and more lasting change. However, this certainly isn't true of all our attempts to change. People often make a small change and it doesn't "snowball" at all. Someone makes some effort, resolution, or decision, and then quickly backslides into their old behavior. What is the difference between a small change that will "snowball" in a useful way, from one that won't? There are many different elements in this instruction that support each other, and that result in a cascade of change.

First, the instruction is oriented toward the client voluntarily doing something different — both the actual small behaviors selected, and also the mental activities required in order to follow the directions — in contrast to passively hoping for some change to come from outside them.

The instruction repeatedly uses an "as if" categorization — that they have recovered from their problem — to create a "make believe" world in which anything can happen, free of the constraints and limitations of the real world. This neutralizes any objections based on judgments that someone might have about the instructions

being "impossible," "unrealistic," "silly," "stupid," etc. Within this "as if" categorization, the concrete behaviors that the person selects (not suggested or imposed from others) become linked with having recovered from the problem.

Since they are told to choose the smallest thing, they will have to think of all the things on their list in order to choose the smallest one. If they had been told to "just pick one thing that would be different," they would not have had to think of all of them. The instruction to choose the smallest thing seems to minimize the task, but it actually makes it more impactful, because it draws their attention to all the things that would be different.

Then when they actually do one of the concrete behaviors, that makes it real, taking it out of the "as if" categorization. Since this real behavior is linked with recovery, that implies that it is equally real that the problem has already been overcome. Usually this will occur entirely outside of their conscious awareness; they will only notice that their lives are going better, or that their depression has lightened somewhat, etc.

When they are asked to choose from "among all the things that come to your mind," that they would do if they had recovered, that presupposes that many things will come to their mind. That directs their attention to the category, "all the things that you would do if you had recovered," and that strengthens each individual thing by associating it with all the others.

Because of the linkage between the specific behaviors and recovery, each example that they think of will direct their attention to what it will be like to have recovered from the problem. That focuses their attention repeatedly on the solution, rather than the problem — and this will be true even if they don't actually do any of the things that they think of.

Another way of describing this is that the client is told to repeatedly think about recovering from the problem every morning, and then to do a specific behavior that validates the implied recovery. Since every morning begins with the implication of having recovered from the problem, that makes it likely that they will also think of it, consciously or unconsciously, at other times throughout the day. This instruction would not be nearly as effective if it were assigned in the evening — unless perhaps there was an explicit suggestion to continue to do it in their dreams while sleeping.

The client is told to choose the "smallest, most minimal" thing to do, in order to make the task appear easy to do, avoiding any residual objection or resistance. However, it really doesn't matter how small the task is, it will still create the connection between the "small thing" done, and recovery. If a smile is an indication of happiness, it doesn't matter how small or brief it is.

Since the client does this over a period of weeks, and each morning they have to choose a different smallest thing that they would do if they had recovered, each

day they will have to choose a somewhat larger thing to do from those remaining ones that they have thought of.

If the client enlarges the list by including additional "smaller" things that would indicate recovery, that means that they will think of the solution even more often as they review this larger category of things in order to choose the "smallest" one. And if they are at all oppositional or rebellious, they may decide to do one of the "larger" things, giving them an opportunity to resist a small element, while still complying with the overall task. If they do a "larger" thing, that will be even better evidence for the implication that they have recovered.

Furthermore, since each morning the client does something different in the category "what I would do if I had recovered," soon there will be a group of things that they have already done that indicate that they have recovered. That group of experiences will become larger and more compelling each day, providing more and stronger evidence for having recovered as time goes by.

Thinking of the actions that indicate recovery and doing one of them each day will also sensitize them to when they do these actions spontaneously during the day. For instance, if smiling or laughing are two of the behaviors, and they find themselves smiling or laughing sometime during the day, they will tend to notice that they have spontaneously smiled or laughed, instead of ignoring it. A spontaneous response is even better evidence that they are recovering than a deliberate action.

And if they refuse to do the task, they will probably still think of it every morning, perhaps even more than if they did it. Even thinking of the task will sensitize them to all the behaviors that would indicate that they have recovered from their problem. This inner rehearsal will make it more likely that they will do one (or more) of the behaviors, and will also make it more likely that they will notice them when they occur spontaneously.

This instruction is a beautiful example of how to pack a host of implications and presuppositions into a task, most of which will be completely outside the client's awareness. This instruction will work just as well when you understand its structure, and you can also give the instructions to yourself, rather than being told by someone else.

The instructions can be made more generative by rewording them so that it is not about a problem, but about a positive outcome that would expand your resourcefulness, creativity, enjoyment, etc. Pick some positive outcome or change that you would like to make, and then ask yourself "What would I do differently today if I had my outcome?"

For instance, let's say your outcome is to have a better relationship with your partner. Each morning, think about all the things that you would do if that were already true? Would you speak in a softer tone of voice? Would you listen longer,

even when what they are saying isn't that interesting to you, or you have heard it many times before? Would you touch them gently when you ask for something? Would you think more often about their desires, or what they would find enjoyable? Pause now to pick a positive outcome, and a number of things that you would do if it were already achieved… .

Each day, choose the smallest of the things that you think of, and actually do it. Each day choose a different thing to do. You will soon find out what a useful and effective task it is.

Nardone and Portelli developed their intervention out of a theoretical and practical orientation that can generally be described as a "strategic approach," which is significantly different from NLP. Although they don't have NLP background, their instructions include a number of fundamental NLP principles, while missing some others.

The first and most obvious missing piece is the lack of an explicit process to develop a well–formed outcome, in order to make sure that the outcome will actually accomplish what you want. I will describe a detailed process for doing this in chapter 9, pp. 82–91.

The other major omission is the lack of any explicit congruence check to be sure that reaching the outcome will preserve the person's other desired outcomes, what is usually termed "ecology." Even a simple question like, "Does any part of you have any objection to doing any of these things?" would begin to explore how a proposed solution could have drawbacks or problems that would block or impede reaching it.

Nardone and Portelli have successfully used this pattern with a variety of eating disorders, obsessions and compulsions, and depression — all significant problems that are often quite difficult to treat. In all of those problems, the behaviors are pretty commonplace, so I think it is unlikely that someone would set an outcome that would cause serious problems.

However, if this intervention were to be applied to an outcome like flying an airplane, or gaining some other skill that could put the person or someone else in danger, ecology could become a serious issue; hopefully this would be taken care of in a careful outcome specification process that preceded giving the instruction.

This intervention is a very general one, with wide applicability ("any problem"), so of course there is a corresponding lack of precision. Some fundamental interventions like rapport, or a solution focus, are a useful part of resolving a wide variety of problems. More specific and detailed interventions will usually be much more effective with some problems or outcomes, and much less effective with others that have a different structure.

My favorite example of this is that a phobia has the exact opposite structure from grief. In a phobia someone fully steps into and re–experiences a very unpleasant memory, while in grief, someone steps out of a very pleasant memory. If someone were to try to use the phobia cure on grief (or the grief process on a phobia) it would make the problem worse, not better. That is why my preference is to use very specific and detailed interventions that are precisely designed to do exactly what the client wants — or needs, which is not always the same! As NLP develops more and more detailed specific patterns for specific problems or outcomes, this becomes even more true.

However, any process that works is worth learning, and the instruction above is a wonderful example. One of its great advantages is that the instruction is complete in itself, and does not require any special skills on the part of the person using it. The process can even be given in written form, as I have done here, so that someone can try it on their own.

In this chapter we have reviewed some additional ways to add a voice to your experience in order to make a useful change. Next I want to explore a number of very important aspects of the words that we use to describe our experience.