Reframing. Neuro–Linguistic Programming™ and the Transformation of Meaning

The six–step model of reframing makes the assumption that there's a part of you making you do what you don't want to do, or a part stopping you from doing what you want to do. That's a big presupposition. However, that's one way of describing a difficulty, and usually you can organize your experience in that way. You can make any difficulty fit the six–step model. That description can always be taken as accurate, because something is producing the difficulty.

Sometimes it's more convenient to start out making completely different assumptions. You can act as if the difficulty is that two or more parts are in conflict. Each part has a valid function and a valid way of accomplishing its function, but they step on each other's toes. So it's not that one part is «making you do it»; it's that two parts are each doing something useful, but the ways that they are doing it conflict with each other.

For example, have any of you ever tried to work and not been able to? Is the following experience familiar? You sit down to write a term paper, fill out your insurance forms, or whatever work you have to do. Your work is in front of you, and you have congruently decided that you're going to do it during the next hour. You pick up the pen and you look at the paper. You begin to write and a little voice comes in and says «Hey, baby, want a beer?» «I wonder what's on television?» «Nice day outside; it's sunny.»

Now, the question is, do we describe this situation of not being able to accomplish something as a result of a part that stops you? Or do we describe it as a situation in which you have two parts: one that wants to go out and play, and one that wants to work?

Work and play are both valid functions, and most people also have valid ways to achieve those functions. But if both parts go about doing their jobs at the same time, neither of them can function well. Neither can do their job as well as they could if they had some way of jointly organizing their behavior to get the outcomes that they both want.

Describing it in this way can be much more useful than to assume that the problem is the result of a single part. Either description can lead you to the same outcome. It's a question of efficiency. Sometimes you can get good results more expediently and more quickly if you presuppose two parts.

One indication of there being two parts to reframe is if the inverse of the problem also occurs. How many of you have gone out to play for the day and suddenly a little voice inside said «Your taxes aren't done.» «The house isn't clean.» «You should have written that paper first.» This lets you know that each part interferes with the other.

Deciding which model to use is only a question of when you're going to tell which lie. I'm serious about that. If I look meaningfully at somebody in a session and say «Now, look, there's a part of you that finds this a little scary and I can understand that," that's a huge lie. «Part of what?» I don't know what that means. Or we can say «Now, you have a strategy, and your difficulty is a byproduct of this strategy.» These are all just ways of talking about things, and those words are not grounded in reality. These descriptions are just useful ways of organizing experience.

It's not that one way of talking approximates reality more closely than the other one. Whenever you start trying to decide that, you're gone. People who try to approximate reality fall into what we call «losing quotes.» For example, once I was reading a Tolkien book out loud to some kids. One of the characters in the book, Strider, said to Frodo «Close the door," and one of the kids I was reading to got up and shut the door. That's losing quotes.

The biggest losing quotes of all is what we call the «lost performative» in the Meta–Model. The most dangerous, and I think the most lethal, is losing quotes on yourself and believing that your thoughts are reality: believing that people really are «visual," «kinesthetic," or «auditory»; believing that people really are «placators," «super–reason–ables," or anything. Believing that you actually have a «parent," «child," and «adult» is psychotic! It's one thing to use those constructs to do good work—to organize someone's behavior. It's quite another thing to lose quotes and believe that that's reality. So when you say «Well, this lie approximates what's 'really' going on more than the other one» be very careful, because you are on dangerous terrain. You might become a guru if you do that.

Somebody like Werner Erhard is in a dangerous situation. If he loses quotes on his own ideas, then he's going to go into a very strange loop. If somebody who goes to EST loses quotes, typically they'll fall out of EST after a while, so the consequences aren't too bad. However, if the guy that runs EST loses quotes, then it's all over.

I don't know which model of reframing is more real. I would never admit it if I thought one was more real than the other. More important, it doesn't matter if one is more real.

Man: One is more real for me and yet neither of them is real.

Well, you can get by with that one. Whichever lie works, it's important that you understand that they are all lies. They are only ways of organizing your experience to go somewhere new. That's the only part that counts. We're going to assume that the other lie, the six–step model, is antiquated because it's been around too long. That is always a good policy. That model, presupposing that one part is responsible for negative behavior, has been around for several years now.

So we're going to take another lie for a while and assume that the problem is not inherently that some part generates behavior that you don't want. We're going to assume that the problem behavior is the result of the interaction of two or more parts, and the solution will come from negotiating between them.

So let's say somebody comes in and says «I can't study. I sit down and I try to study, and I can't concentrate. I think about going skiing.» With the old model we'd say «There is a part that interrupts your concentration.» Rather than doing that, with this model we say «Look you've got lots and lots of parts inside of you. You've got all kinds of parts running around doing different jobs. You have the ability to study. You have the ability to go out and play. When you sit down to study, some other part is active in trying to carry out its function.»

In order to negotiate a solution, I need to identify each part, get communication with each part, and get the positive intention of each Part. I might start by going for the part that interferes with studying. So I say «I'd like you to go inside and ask if the part of you that really wants to study knows which other part is annoying it so that it can't concentrate fully.» Then I have you go to this interfering part and ask What is your function?» That's a quick way to find out what the intention behind the behavior is. «What do you do for this person?»

«Well, I get him to go out and play.»

Then I want to find out if the interference goes both ways. I ask this part, «When you want to get the person to go out and play, do other parts get in your way? Does this work part ever come in and say 'Hey, you should be studying'?» If you get a positive answer, you've got it cinched, because then both parts want something from the other, and all you've got to do is make a trade.

Bill: I don't even understand how you get that part to say what its function is.

You don't? There's no way in the world that you could possibly do that.

Bill: Well, I want to keep listening to you.

Is that the only option you have? Do you ever have trouble listening at a lecture? Have you ever had trouble doing that? Bill: Sometimes.

Would you go inside and ask if the part of you that likes to listen to lectures knows which part interrupts it from time to time … ? Bill: Umhm. It knows one of the parts. OK. Did it give you a name?

Bill: Yeah. The part that worries about business and financial matters. The part that worries about things—the worry part.

The «worry part.» Listen to that name! Which of the two types of content reframing is really appropriate right now?… Meaning. This is very important. If you define a part as «The Old Worry Part» you'll have much more difficulty getting to its positive function.

So there's some part of you that has grave concerns about things, and gets labeled your «worry part.» I'm wondering if you could go inside and ask «Will the part of me that gets labeled the 'worry part' tell me what your function is for me? What is it that you do for me?' … OK, did it tell you?

Bill: Umhm.

Do you agree that this function is something positive?

Bill: Yes, it is positive under some circumstances. The worry part overdoes it, I think.

Well, if I was your worry part, I would, too. That's all I've got to say!

Bill: It keeps me behaving responsibly, and keeps me paying my bills; it keeps me out of jail.

OK. The point is that it interrupts you sometimes when you want to concentrate on something else. Now go back and address the part of you that concerns itself with your well–being, which you like to call your «worry part» — a little meaning reframe there! Ask that part the following: when it's trying to do what it does for you in terms of adequate planning and motivating you to take care of business and that sort of thing, is it ever interrupted by the part of you that would rather be just paying attention to a lecture, listening to a tape, or doing something else that part does? Go inside and ask it if it ever gets interrupted by that particular part.

Bill: I just scanned a whole lot of interruptions, and when I came back out, I noticed my head was bobbing up and down.

That «well–being» part has a tendency to be more visual, that's true. It makes sense.

Bill: Umhm. It's always on the lookout for possible dangers.

Now, ask that «well–being» part this: if it was not interrupted when it was spending time organizing your behavior in the activity that you call 'worry'—what I call 'preparation'—would it be willing to allow you to listen to lectures without interrupting? Ask if that's a trade it would be willing to make, if it had a way of being sure that the other part wouldn't interrupt it. … (Bill nods.)

OK. Now, go to the part that likes to listen to lectures. Ask if that part thinks it's important for you to pay attention during lectures, and not to let your mind wander into things which are not important at that particular time… . (Bill nods.)

Now, ask if it thinks it's important enough to pay attention during lectures, that it would be willing not to interrupt the «well–being» part when it spends time preparing to do things. Even though the «listen to lectures» part may not enjoy the process of having to pay bills, ask if it thinks paying attention when you go to lectures is important enough that it would be willing not to interrupt the other part in exchange… .

Bill: Umhm.

Now, if we think about this in terms of the six–step reframing model, where are we?

Man: Just short of the ecological сheck.

How much short? Is it the next step? Have we done step four—giving the part three new ways? … Do we need to get three new ways? …

No. In negotiating we don't need to get three alternatives. Both parts already have appropriate behaviors. All we need is for them not to interfere with each other. That is the new choice, so step four is out of the way.

Have we gotten both of these parts to accept the responsibility for not interrupting each other? … Have they agreed to do it? …

No, they haven't agreed to do it. They said they would agree. Remember, this process is always broken into two parts: First, in step four, the part agrees that the new choices are better and more effective than the one it's using now. Second, in step five, you ask «Will it be responsible for actually using these new choices?» Many people leave that step out. As any of you who have children know, agreeing that a task is worth doing and agreeing to do it are very different things.

So now we want to say «Look, I want to get these two parts together and find out if they will make an agreement not to interfere with one another and to test this agreement for the next six weeks. The part of you that is in charge of worrying and taking care of business will not interrupt while you are listening to a lecture or doing the activities that this other part does. And that part will not interrupt the planner when it is taking care of business.» Get them both to agree that they'll try it out for six weeks and find out how it works. If either one becomes dissatisfied during this time, then they will notify you, so that you can negotiate further.

There may be other parts involved, and of course things change, so you always want to provide the person with a next step. The last time I went to Dallas, a therapist said to me «I was in your seminar a year ago and I did reframing with a woman about her weight. She went on a diet and she lost tons of weight and she's been thin for almost a year. Then about a month ago she started to gain weight, and I want to know what I did wrong.» What did the therapist do wrong? … She assumed that there was some relationship between eleven months ago and now! People change all the time. How many changes could that woman have gone through in eleven months that could have gotten in the way of keeping her weight down? The point is that nothing lasts forever. However, if something goes wrong, you can always go back and modify what you did, to take the new changes into account.

Now, what's left to do? What about step six, the ecological check? What do we need to do to have an ecological check in the negotiation model?

Man: Ask for any objections. «Is there some way in which this may not work?» Who's going to object? Man: The other parts.

The other parts haven't agreed to do anything, so what would they object to?

Bill: Other parts still might object to agreements that have been made that might interfere with them in some way.

How? Give me an example. Other parts haven't agreed not to interrupt.

Woman: What if there's another part that interrupts things?

Well, that part has not made any agreements yet.

Bill: If there's some part that uses the interruption as a signal to do its thing, then we're taking away its ability to take action. For example, in another seminar you talked about a woman who wanted to stop smoking. It turned out that another part used smoking as a cue that it was time to talk to her husband. Every evening she sat down to have a cigarette with her husband and they used that time to talk. The part that wanted her to talk to her husband had not agreed to anything, but the opportunity for it to perform its function had been taken away.

OK. In your case you are «worrying» and you have a part that comes in and says «Hey, let's go do something else.» That interrupts the part that «worries.» Do you think there's another part that could get something from that interruption? Is that what you're saying?

Bill: That's possible.

OK. Give me an example.

Bill: I haven't got one. I'd have to generate one.

Good, generate one.

Bill: I'm worrying, and a part interrupts to play. Some of my play also has a very definite physical health motivation. For example, I label jogging as play, but it also has to do with my physical health. So if I were worrying and my play part didn't interrupt my worry part for a long time, the part that watches out for my physical health would get left out.

Are you saying that part can't interrupt on its own?

Bill: No, it can interrupt on its own, and it probably would. So why don't we ask to see if it is going to interrupt, or if it has any objection to what has been agreed to here?

Well, is there any need to do that? …

There's another way to think about this, which is what I am leading up to. What happens if we ask «Does any part object to these two parts making the agreement?» If we get a «No» do we learn anything? …

No. We learn nothing. So it's a stupid question to ask.

Man: But if we get a «Yes» we have learned something.

Right. However, can we ask a question which will get the information we want; can we ask a question that will get any possible «Yes» answers, and something else?

Man: Do any of the other parts have any suggestions?

OK. «Are there any other parts involved in this?» «Are there any other parts that interrupt this part or utilize those interruptions?» «Are there any other parts that might interrupt either of the two of you?» That kind of question is going to get us the information we want.

Man: Also if we have been completely off base in identifying these two parts, that will get us back on the track of finding the parts that are involved in this problem.

Right. That kind of question also does something else that is very important: it can give you relevant information about how this person's parts are organized. In your example you have a «work» part and a «play» part. Some people's play part has within it a part that says «This is how we're going to stay healthy.» Some people's play part only plays poker and smokes cigars, while somebody else's goes out and jogs on the beach. It depends upon how you organize your parts.

Jogging is a great example of a reframe, by the way. Anybody who can jog six miles a day and call it «play» is already a master of reframing as far as I'm concerned. It's a good reframe to have. If you're going to do reframing, you might as well do it in places where it is useful. Some people even decide «It's cool to be a jogger.» You get to wear special shorts and shoes and other running gear. It's become fashionable. What a great reframe. I think that's marvelous. Let's all be healthy because it's groovy. If some people could reframe sugar to taste bad, think how much their lives would change. If you can redefine fun as being something that's healthy, I think that's really slick. When I was growing up, «fun» was beating each other up, and sitting around in drive–ins eating hamburgers and french fries and smoking cigarettes.

Kit: I'm suddenly having a lot of trouble taking notes. I just noticed that I wrote «jiggling» instead of «jogging.» Can I talk to you about that now, … or later?

You could! That's a pretty good presupposition you've got there. What you're talking about might fit this negotiation model. There certainly are at least two parts. As long as we are messing around with reframing, let's play a little. Go inside and ask if there's some part of you that is interrupting your usual process of note–taking. . , .

Kit: Yes.

OK. Ask it if it's willing to tell you what it's trying to do for you right now by messing up your note–taking, something which you normally do smoothly and evenly. That's a yes/no question, by the way. Is it willing to tell you? …

Kit: Umhm.

OK. If it is, tell it to go ahead and tell you… . Now, do you agree that that is something you want to have a part of you do?

Kit: At times. The behavior that I see it doing for me is good at times, but not in this particular situation.

OK. Ask what it is trying to do for you by doing it here. It might know something that we don't know… .

Kit: I just hear the words «Be here now.»

Oh, sensory experience.

Kit: The feeling that I have is that when I'm listening to you I'm experiencing you, and that's how I gather information. So I need to kind of dissociate from that dissociation, or, um—

OK. Well, go inside and ask if this part of you objects to your taking notes at this moment.

Kit: The only thing that I would need is to be able to be in two places at once.

Have you ever done that? … Ask if there is any part that knows how to be in two places at once… .

Kit: Umhm.

OK. Ask it if it would be willing to have you be in two places at once right now… . What was its response?

Kit: That this isn't a good setting to be in two places at once.

OK. There's obviously another part involved in this. There's a part that believes you should be taking notes: that this is somehow relevant and important to your education. Would you go inside and ask that part if it would be willing to tell you what it is doing for you by taking notes…

Kit: It's just an anchor.

It's an anchor for? …

Kit: A state of mind.

OK. Now, ask it if it can think of some other anchor you could use for the next two hours… . (She nods.) Good. Tell it to go ahead and use that.

Now, part of what I just did has to do with the negotiation model, and I mixed it up with some other things. Was one of the two kinds of content reframing incorporated into what I just did with her?

Woman: Oh, the context. «This is OK at one time or in one situation and not in another.»

Certainly. So there was a piece of context reframing. I also included the basic element of the standard six–step reframing model, asking «What's the purpose?» and finding an alternative way. The purpose of the note–taking part is to provide an anchor. «Well, good. Can we use something else as an anchor?» So I included a piece of the six–step reframing model, and also a piece of switching the context. These different models are all closely interrelated, and if you know the six–step reframing model, you already have all the tools that you need for negotiation. If you know all the reframing models, you can then mix them together whenever that's appropriate.

The important thing with the negotiation model is to find out which parts are interrupting each other, and then to find out what their functions are—not why they are interrupting one another, but what their functions are. Is it a part that amuses you? Is it a part that takes care of responsibility? Is it a part that gets you to church on time? What part is it and what does it do? When you have this information, then you make a deal. Whatever deal you make is OK, as long as the deal provides the outcome that both parts want.

One of our students frequently finds himself feeling very sleepy when he's driving late at night. He uses this model to negotiate between the sleepy part and the part that wants him to get home in one piece. Sometimes he trades an extra hour of alertness for a promise to sleep later the next morning, and other times the sleepy part demands a half–hour at the side of the road first.

Where else is this negotiation model going to be most appropriate? For what kinds of experiences is this multiple–part reframing model going to be more appropriate than the six–step model?

Man: Critical and placating parts.

Give me an example in experience. If you try to study and you can't concentrate, that's a very concrete example. That is what I want.

Man: You are trying to go to sleep and your mind is off on some other matter.

Insomnia is a marvelous example. You can tell it's a good one, because the rest of the people in the room sigh when you say it. Give me some more like that.

Woman: Trying to save money and finding yourself spending it. That's a good one. Man: Being disorganized.

That can be. If you can fit it more into the form like she did, it'll be better. Woman: Constipation.

Constipation is an elegant example. The more you can find the problems that fit this form, the more you'll know when this model is appropriate as opposed to some other model.

Woman: Someone who has trouble getting himself to go to bed? Someone who never quite gets around to going to bed?

… Or someone who never quite gets around to getting up? Yes, this model is appropriate for people who have trouble changing from one context to another. If they are in a restaurant, they can never quite leave. Anyone who has been a waiter knows about those people.

Man: Spending time alone and being with groups.

You're saying «this versus that.» That's something else. I want you to identify things that have the same form as insomnia. Insomnia happens when you try to go to sleep and you wake up.

Man: It sounds like any behavior that's compulsive.

Yes, but I don't want you to generalize yet. I want you to give me some specific examples.

Man: Getting really nervous before you make a presentation.

Yeah, stage fright can be a great one. The more you try to relax, the more you get tense.

Man: What about procrastinating?

Procrastinating can be a great one.

Man: Impotence.

Impotence can be a classic example.

Man: Anything with the form of «The more you try to do one thing, the more you get the opposite.»

Yes. The more you try to stop yourself from preventing the fact that you're denying that it's time to pair up and go outside and try this model with each other, the more you will.

Now.

Negotiating Between Parts: Outline

1) Ask the part that is being interrupted (part X) the following questions:

a) What is your positive function?

b) Which part(s) is (are) interrupting you? (Part Y)

2) Ask the same questions of part Y:

a) What is your positive function?

b) Does X ever interfere with your carrying out your function?

3) If both parts interrupt each other at times, you are now ready to negotiate an agreement. (If not, this model is not appropriate, so switch to another reframing model. If Y interferes with X, but X doesn't interfere with Y, six–step reframing with Y may be most appropriate.)

a) Ask Y if its function is important enough that Y would be willing to not interrupt X so that it could receive the same treatment in return.

b) Ask X if it was not interrupted by Y, would it be willing to not interrupt Y?

4) Ask each part if it will actually agree to do the above for a specified amount of time. If either part becomes dissatisfied for any reason, it is to signal the person that there is a need to renegotiate.

5) Ecological check: «Are there any other parts involved in this?» «Are there any other parts that interrupt this part, or that utilize these interruptions?» If so, renegotiate.