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

Now that you've all had some practice using other reframing models, we're going to return to the basic six–step reframing model in such a way that you learn to have more finesse with it. Lots of things happen when you reframe your clients, and we want you to have many behavioral choices for dealing with a wide range of responses. I want you all to pretend that you have me as a client, and I want you to reframe me. I'll role–play a truck driver named Ken.

Woman: What do you want?

Ken: I'm not sure what I want, but I can tell you I don't want Y. Y is a real mess, I'll tell you.

Man: What do you need so that you don't have to Y?

Ken: I wish I knew!

Woman: Who has it?

Ken: Y? I have it. I don't want it.

Woman: No, who has what you need?

Ken: I really don't know.

Man: Is Y ever useful to you? (Ken shakes his head «no.») Never ever?

Ken: Never. It's sure gotten me into an awful lot of trouble.

Woman: What is it that you would rather do? What would you like to do instead?

Ken: Well, I've tried to do a lot of other things, but every time I try to do anything else, Y still happens. It's like I don't even have control over my own behavior. I know that sounds silly.

Woman: If you had the choice, what would you like to do instead?

Ken: Well, I don't have the feeling that I've made myself clear to you. I'm here because of what I don't want to do.

Woman: OK. Pick something you'd rather do instead. Make it up.

Ken: OK. I'd rather do Z.

Woman: You think Z would be useful to you in those situations?

Ken: Yeah. It would sure be a hell of a lot better than Y.

Man: Have you ever Z'd?

Ken: No.

Man: Do you know somebody who can?

Ken: Don Juan, I guess. I really don't know that he does these things, but I read some books by Carlos Castenada. Man: What do you see Don Juan doing that makes you think he is able to Z?

Ken: I've never seen him. That's what I was saying. I read about him in a book, and he could apparently do anything he chose to do. I'm sure that if I had that kind of power—it's called personal power in the book—I'd be able to do anything. I'm not talking about my whole life, you know. I do pretty good. Don't get the wrong idea. I'm just talking about this one area.

Dick: So Don Juan does it? And how would you know if you were doing it? (Ken changes his posture, breathing, etc., as he accesses what it would be like if he had «personal power," so that he can answer the question.)

Let me step out of role for a moment. I hope you appreciate that Dick just accessed the desired state in me. That's the point at which you want to anchor my response so that you can use it later. What he is doing now—going for an access of the desired state—is definitely a useful thing to do. You could try anchoring in the state you've just elicited or having me use Don Juan as a model and taking me through the procedure for building a new part. However, you haven't yet gotten enough information to know if that would be appropriate.

Rather than going in one of those directions, I want you to assume a six–step reframing format. That means you don't even need to know what the desired state is. You know that I don't want Y, and that's all you need to know to begin. That's step one of six–step reframing. You've identified the behavior to be changed. I'm going to give you practice at dealing with some of the difficulties that could come up when doing six–step reframing. I'll do this from the position of the client, so that you can try out different ways of dealing with these difficulties. Now I'm going to step back into role again.

Woman: Will you ask yourself if Y is willing to communicate with you, the part that is responsible for Y?

Ken: «The part that is responsible for Y?» Look, I'm just a truck driver. I—you know—

George: What is it like when you are doing Y?

(Ken accesses Y behaviorally in order to answer the question.) Well, I don't … you know, I feel sort of like I'm out of control.

George: Where do you feel that in your body?

Ken: Uh … here. (Ken touches his belly.)

George: You feel something in your stomach? (Ken: Yeah.) Now I could anchor that, and use that as a specific access to the part responsible for Y.

Right. George just did one of the maneuvers you can use to get access. That's step two of the six–step reframing model: establishing communication with the part responsible for Y. Once he's got access, he would anchor it. As the therapist, I would simultaneously anchor it kinesthetically and also visually and auditorily, so that I could reaccess the part from a distance. This would enable me to reaccess that part whether or not the client is capable of reaccessing the appropriate state intentionally.

You could also get me to do self–anchoring by saying, «And as you feel that, touch the part of your body where you feel it.» I spontaneously touched my stomach a moment ago. Without explaining anything to me, you can notice how I touch myself, and then have me redo that movement later as an access. In addition, my body posture, breathing pattern, and facial expression are all self–anchors.

All those nonverbal analogues you just saw are the visual signs that will let you know exactly when I'm accessing the part responsible for Y. George asked me what it was like when I did Y. From this point on, you should know whether I'm actually getting access to that part of me or not.

That was one good maneuver. Now let's go back and do it again. Let's go back to the point where I said «Well, I'm just a truck driver. What do you mean 'Go inside and ask some part of me'?» How else could you get access? We want you to have lots of choices at every step.

Joe: Did you watch the football game last Sunday?

Ken: Yeah, that was a really exciting game!

Joe: I was watching, too, and there was no question that the losing team wanted to win that game. They had all the determination in the World, but they just didn't have the plays.

Ken: Yeah. It seemed like the winning team had a lot more things they could do.

Joe: Exactly.

Ken: Yeah. It was a good game. Do you watch football much? I used to play in school… .

OK. That maneuver didn't get me to access the part. Try something else.

Bill: You know, I've been interested in truck driving for a long time, and one thing that I don't know much about is how to shift gears.

Ken: Oh, hey! That's what distinguishes a pro from an amateur.

Bill: Would you tell me how? You have to «double shift» or something, don't you?

Ken: Yeah. Well, we have a special way of talking. And I don't think you'd understand, you know, «double–clutching» and all those—

Bill: Well, would you try telling me about that?

Ken: Well, no. But I could show you.

Bill: Good, good. Go ahead.

OK, now I show him. And at the end of my showing you, Bill, what do you do next? … I think that Bill is going for the same access that Joe was trying to get, but he didn't use what he got. The metaphor he used accessed experiences that I know could be used to answer the truck driver's question «What do you mean by a part of me?» Bill, how could you go on to use what you've gotten so far?

Bill: Well, the reason I'm asking is that sometimes I grind the gears when I drive my car, and I need to know—

Ken: Well, you've only got four or five gears at the most to deal with. If you were a truck driver, you'd know how to do thirteen–gear boxes and stuff. You don't need to know that. The thing I'd suggest when you shift gears is that you remember your timing. Your timing's got to be right. In fact, it will save you gas. When you get ready to shift down, you've got to make sure that you coordinate so that you hit that clutch and then the gas and let out the clutch, «double–clutch» it, and then you are ready to go.

Rose: I rode across the country with a truck driver once, and as we were driving along, I realized that he was listening to his tires, and to the sound of his load shifting, and to music on a tape, and he was talking to me—all at once.

Ken: Yeah, you get real automatic when you've driven a truck for a while. After a while you don't even have to think about it. …

Now I'm going to come out of quotes again. Rose is going for exactly the portion of this metaphor that I would go for in your position. Don't let this opportunity go by. Rose can now say to me, «I want you to notice that there are parts of you that do things automatically. When I say 'parts,' that's just a way of talking. Of course it doesn't mean anything. There are parts of you that know how to shift gears and listen for load shifts and listen for the tone of the engine, so you don't have to consciously think about those things. It's as if a part of you drives the truck automatically, leaving the rest of you free to do things like enjoying talking to your passenger or your partner. It's as if there are parts of you that can be assigned certain responsibilities, but now the part of you that makes you do Y is out of control. We've got to reestablish some contact, because it's doing things that you don't like.»

If you do that, you've relativized your model to the world of a truck driver, without spending twenty–four days teaching him to be an NLP practitioner. You've simply accessed an experience of his that is a counterpart to the notion of «parts.» I'm not saying that this maneuver is the one you «should» make next. It is one way for you to use what Rose did to overcome the difficulty that I presented.

Accessing an experience of doing something well and automatically is also useful in another way. You've accessed a state in which I am resourceful, and you can use that state later on. In addition, this particular auditory resource state involves a representational system shift from the kinesthetic way that I described the problem state Y.

Woman: So how do we anchor that?

At the point that I said «Yeah, it becomes automatic after a while," you say «Good» and slap your hands together lightly, or anchor in some other way.

Woman: What are you anchoring there?

You are anchoring my understanding that there are unconscious parts of me that are useful, and that I don't know much about.

Man: In this case would it be more elegant to anchor auditorily, since you were talking about auditory resources?

I anchor in all systems. When we teach tactile anchoring, we claim we do so because tactile anchors are so obvious. Actually we teach it because if you anchor with a touch, you are likely to anchor simultaneously in all other systems as well. When I'm anchoring, I change my body posture so that I can touch the client. That's a visual anchor if his eyes are open. At the same time, I'm talking in a certain tone of voice; that becomes an auditory anchor. I recommend anchoring in all systems simultaneously, unless you want to be sure that your anchoring stays outside the person's awareness.

Another advantage of tactile anchoring is that it is irresistible. There are survival programs that will interrupt any other sensory input in favor of a tactile input. If you are inside talking to yourself and I use a tonal shift, you may not even register it, and you may not respond to it. If your pupils are dilated and I use a visual anchor, you may not be responsive. But if you are touched, you will respond.

Strictly speaking, you only need an anchor in one system. In general, anchoring in the system that is accessed will be more streamlined. In this case it's auditory. However, unless you have some special considerations, why not use all systems?

Now let's go back to what we just did with reframing: accessing an understanding of the notion of unconscious parts. If someone doesn't think he has «parts," there are lots of approaches you can take. I once worked with a woman who believed that she didn't have an unconscious mind. She came in with every hair meticulously in place, and she thought that everything she did was under conscious control. The idea of «parts» didn't make any sense to her. I first got rapport at the unconscious level by using mirroring, crossover mirroring, embedded commands, metaphors, and other maneuvers. She was puzzled by what I was doing, but I continued until I was getting really good unconscious responses from her.

Then I said «Now I'm going to demonstrate that you are a fool.» That got her attention. «There are parts of you that are very powerful allies, and until you appreciate them, you are going to have lots of difficulties. I want to demonstrate their presence. You have congru–ently stated to me that you do not believe you have an unconscious mind. You think you are in control of your behavior. It's obvious to me that you are not in control of your problem behavior, but I assume that you run your own body. That is, I assume that you know what your body temperature is, and that you can control it to some degree.» She said «Of course.» She couldn't make any other answer, because she thought she didn't have an unconscious mind.

So I said «In a moment I'm going to reach over and touch your left arm from the shoulder to the elbow, and when I do, that arm will turn ice cold. And I request that you resist me with all the conscious force you have.» I waited until I got an unconscious signal «OK, I'm ready.» Then I reached over and touched her arm, and she got chills. Then I said «But notice how warm the other arm is.» The other arm instantly became warmer.

I demonstrated to her that I could actually change the temperature of her body, and that she could not resist. In fact, the more she attempted to resist, the more dramatic the changes were. At that point I had convinced her of the reality of at least one other part of herself.

Man: Why was it necessary to do anything with what she consciously thought was true?

It wasn't. The only value in throwing a bone to the conscious mind every once in a while is to keep the person from raising too many objections. It keeps her from saying «This isn't working. You don't understand what you are doing.»

Now let's go back to reframing. Assume that you've got access to the part of me that makes me do Y. Now continue.

Bill: You know, as you are driving along the highway, you've got a whole bunch of dials in front of you that tell you lots of things. The water gauge is kind of a way for the engine to tell you «Hey, I need water» when the water level is too low and the temperature is getting too high.

Ken: That's a funny way to talk about it!

Bill: Yeah, I know, but just imagine it. You have an oil pressure gauge that lets you know whether or not the engine needs oil. (Ken: Yeah.) And I know it's kind of silly to think about, but I'm wondering, if the part of you that runs Y were a part of an engine, what type of gauge would you need for that part to let you know what it wants? Would it be a visual gauge? Would it be a sound? Would it be some feeling?

Ken: Well, I can't see anything. I suppose it would have to be a feeling.

Bill: I'm sure that you can tell when your tires need air by feeling the way the truck rides. You know how you can tell whether the tires on your rig are full or not just by the sluggishness of the truck, right?

Ken: Yeah, you've got to be able to! Yeah, I know what you are talking about.

I hope you all understand what Bill is doing. He's using my perceptual reality to make all the points that he wants to make. If you have this kind of flexibility to shift your words and examples so as to make sense in my reality, then you can communicate artistically.

Bill: Do you think that after all the years you've been driving truck, you could tell the slightest difference in tire pressure?

Ken: Yeah, I'm good at it.

Bill: Are you good enough to tell a slight difference in this feeling (Bill gestures towards Ken's stomach.) that you get from the part that runs Y?

Ken: Oh, yeah! I know when that's happening. There's no doubt about it.

Bill: Well, I'd like you to tell me what type of difference you feel when it changes?

Ken: Well, when I'm doing Y … Do you want me to just go ahead and tell you about this, or do you want me to still use this Y and Z routine?

Bill: You're out front. You're a truck driver. You can just tell me.

Ken: Yeah. OK. When I get home from a trip, I'm really tired. (His shoulders sag.) I've been on the road for fourteen to sixteen hours sometimes. The first thing that happens when I walk in the door is that my wife comes up to me and goes «Hi, honey, tell me about your trip.» (He stiffens up.) But all I want to do right then is fall into bed and relax. And the more I try to just do what I need to do to fall into bed and relax, the more she wants to talk … you know … because she's interested, if you know what I mean… . You know what happened? She went back to school. I mean, education is important—

Bill: Let's hold it for a second. I would really like to find out all about what she's been doing, but—

Ken: Well, I'll tell you. I don't—

Bill: But I have one question before that.

Ken: Yeah? What's that?

Bill: When she comes up to you and says «Hi, honey …» what is she trying to do? What does she want from you? Do you think she wants your attention, your love?

Ken: Yeah, she wants my attention, my love. Yeah. I've been away sixteen hours, you know! (He leans back into a position of pride and self–satisfaction.)

Bill: Do you think you have the ability to show her your love before she even asks for it? Is that a challenge you are man enough to meet?

Ken: Hey! Of course! (He straightens up and his body shifts to a more «confident» posture.)

Good. That's content reframing. Bill didn't bother to go through the official six–step reframing model; he simply used my beliefs about myself to get leverage to induce a change. The thing that is very elegant about the sequence that just occurred is that Bill had the flexibility to find the things in my reality that he could use as leverage to get me to use some new behavior. I've given him several indications, both analogically and verbally, «Well, I've been away sixteen hours, you know, that I take pride in being a real «man.» So he says «Are you man enough to take control of the situation?» And that would work. Bill also had the finesse to be able to stop me from talking about my wife going back to school, which was irrelevant to what Bill wanted to accomplish.

Man: Isn't this hypothetical truck driver asking you to change his wife's behavior, though?

As a therapist, the perceptual frame you can use is «Of course you want her to be different, and the way that's going to happen is that you'll be different: your being different will make her different.» Of course you won't tell the client that. You are going to use leverage the way Bill just did, in order to force the truck driver into new behavior. That will have the effect of changing her behavior.

OK. Do you have any comments about the sequence that we just role–played here? Notice that this was not a standard six–step reframing. However, most of the steps were there; they were just externalized. After Bill made the content reframe, I became the part that was the new behavior. I didn't look the way I looked when I talked about Y. When I became the new behavior, I actually accessed the situation in all systems. I saw my wife, heard the sound of her voice, and had the kinesthetic sensations of being at home. That takes care of the future–pace, so Bill doesn't need to ask «Will that part take responsibility for the new behavior occurring in that same context?»

The ecological check hasn't come up yet, but I assume that he would go there next. Alternatively, he could use a second session with me as an ecological check. You don't have to do all of the steps in the same session, although it's much better if you do.

Woman: How about testing?

That's a good question. How would you test?

Woman: Are you going home after this, or are you going on a trip somewhere?

Ken: No, I'm going straight home after this. (Ken analogically accesses the new behavior.)

Woman: What are you going to do when you get home?

Ken: None of your business! As a matter of fact, are we about done? I'm ready to go.

Fred: There's just one quick thing before you go.

Ken: What's that?

Fred: Your wife's at home, and you have children, right?

Ken: Yeah, but they're at school right now.

Fred is checking for ecological considerations now.

Fred: When you walk in the door and see your wife, I want you to «put the hammer down and convoy.»

Exercise

Now I want you to write down three situations that you frequently encounter in six–step reframing that you want more choices about coping with. It might be that you are unable to get access to a signal system. It might be that you don't know what to do when the client gets confused in the middle of the reframing process and says «I don't know what I'm doing anymore.» It might be that the person says she can't access her creative part. Or perhaps the part says it won't take responsibility for implementing the new choices, because it's not certain whether they'll work. Here is an outline of six–step reframing to help you identify the points at which you would like to have more choices.

Six–Step Reframing Outline

1) Identify the pattern (X) to be changed. «I want to stop X'ing but I can't," or «I want to Y, but something stops me.»

2) Establish communication with the part responsible for the pattern.

a) «Will the part of me that makes me X communicate with me in consciousness?» Pay attention to any feelings, images, or sounds that occur in response to asking that question internally.

b) Establish the «yes/no» meaning of the signal. Have it increase in brightness, volume, or intensity for «yes," and decrease for

«no.»

3) Separate the behavior, pattern X, from the positive intention of the part that is responsible for X. The unwanted behavior is only a way to achieve some positive function.

a) Ask the part that runs X «Would you be willing to let me know in consciousness what you are trying to do for me by Pattern X?»

b) If you get a «yes» response, ask the part to go ahead and communicate its intention. If you get a «no» response, proceed with unconscious reframing, presupposing positive intention.

c) Is that intention acceptable to consciousness? Do you want to have a part of you which fulfills that function?

d) Ask the part that runs X «If there were ways to accomplish your positive function that would work as well as, or better than X, would you be interested in trying them out?»

4) Access a creative part, and generate new behaviors to accomplish the positive function.

a) Access experiences of creativity and anchor them, or ask «Are you aware of a creative part of yourself?»

b) Have the part that runs X communicate its positive function to the creative part, allow the creative part to generate more choices to accomplish that function, and have the part that used to run X select three choices that are at least as good or better than X. Have it give a «yes» signal each time it selects such an alternative.

5) Ask the part «Are you willing to take responsibility for using the three new alternatives in the appropriate context?» This provides a future–pace. In addition you can ask the part at the unconscious level to identify the sensory cues that will trigger the new choices, and to experience fully what it's like to have those sensory cues effortlessly and automatically bring on one of the new choices.

6) Ecological Check. «Is there any part of me that objects to any of the three new alternatives?» If there is a «yes» response, recycle to step 2 above.

Whatever «obstacles» you have encountered in doing reframing, I want you to select three that you'd really like to have more choices in dealing with. Then I want you to do an exercise in groups of three. Person A is going to look at his or her list of «obstacles» and role–play one of them as a client. B will then role–play an NLP programmer and try out ways to cope with the situation. Person C will be a consultant to keep B from falling into content and to keep B oriented.

For instance, if you are A, you will say something like «You've established rapport with me and set up a signal system with the part that runs X. We're on step three: you just asked the part if it will communicate its positive intention to me consciously. The response I've gotten is that I don't experience the old signal at all, but I have two different signals.» So A will set the stage at exactly the point in reframing where A wants more choices.

B will then try out one method of responding to the situation that wight move A toward the next step of reframing. C will be an observer, or meta–person, and notice whether B's maneuver is effective or not. Then I want C to ask B to think of two other responses to make to that situation, and then try out each of them.

Let me give you an example of the way I'd like to have you do this exercise. Let's say Beth is going to play client, Scott is going to play programmer, and Irv, you are going to be the meta–person, the consultant. Part of your job, Irv, is to observe and listen to the relationship between Scott's behavior and Beth's. At any point in time, I should be able to walk up to you and say «Tell me something about the relationship between the programmer's tonality and the client's tonality» or «Where are they in the reframing format?» So your job is to know everything that's going on—which is impossible, so just do your best.

The second thing that Irv is responsible for as meta–person is more specific. Any time the programmer hesitates or begins to be confused, you interrupt and say «Hold on. Which step of reframing are you on?» «Step two.» «What specific outcome are you attempting to get? What's the next small chunk of outcome you are going to get?»

Scott should be able to respond specifically, for example: «I want to establish a robust involuntary unconscious signal system with the part responsible for the behavior.» Then Irv will say «How, specifically, are you going to do that?» Scott will respond «I'm going to access it behaviorally by pretending to do behavior X myself and thereby induce it in her. Or I can ask her to do behavior X. Or I could ask her to go inside and ask the part if it will communicate, and make sure that the signal system that comes back is involuntary.»

Every time the meta–person interrupts, I want him to get not just one choice, but three options for proceeding. First you'll find out what specific outcome the programmer is going for, and then you'll get three ways he can attain it. These ways won't necessarily all work, but building in at least three options at every choice point will make you much more effective in your work. If you've got only one choice, you are a robot. If you've got only two, you are in a dilemma. However, if you've got three, you begin to have behavioral flexibility.

This is what I was asking you to do earlier when I was role–playing a client. You got access to the part in one way, so I said «Now go back to the choice point and do it some other way.»

Meta–person, the third thing I want you to do is to interrupt if you don't understand what's going on. If Scott is the programmer, and under stress he goes back to some old program like «How do you feel about that?» then you can interrupt and ask the same three questions: 1) «What step are you on?» 2) «What is the specific outcome you are going for?» 3) «How is what you just did going to achieve that outcome?»

If, in fact, that behavior wouldn't get the outcome, then as meta–person you ask «How could you get that outcome?» When he gives you one way, ask «How else could you get it?» When the programmer has three ways, have him go ahead and pick one to try out.

If the programmer is incongruent in delivering the method, you interrupt again. This time give specific feedback about what the programmer could do to be more congruent. «Change your voice tone and tempo in this way," or «Change your body posture and gestures in this way.» You are all here to become more graceful communicators than you already are. If there is any incongruity in your behavior, I believe that you'll want to know about it, because being incongruent is self–defeating. When you are the programmer, your 7 ± 2 chunks of conscious attention will be involved in communicating with the client and getting responses. The meta–person will have more attention free to notice what's going on, so use the information that the meta–person communicates to you.

As a meta–person the finest thing that you can do to assist the programmer is to interrupt at any time that you don't understand what's going on, the programmer hesitates, or the programmer is incongruent in his behavior.

Rose: So when my meta–person interrupts, rather than treating him like a mosquito and swatting him, I'm to treat my meta–person as a generator of new behaviors especially built in for me?

He will be a generator of new behavior only in the sense that he will challenge you by asking you the questions. You need to come up with your own solutions. He is not there to provide you with solutions directly.

Woman: Earlier when we were doing an exercise, the meta–person kept jumping in and interrupting what the programmer was doing. It seemed like the programmer was ready to go along to the next step, but the meta–person would jump in before the programmer could move on. Should I ask the meta–person to slow down?

Negotiate with your meta–person about the interventions that are appropriate for you. Keep in mind that it's difficult to interrupt too much in an artificial situation like this one that is set up solely for the sake of learning to have more choices. However, you are a human being with your own needs. If there are so many interruptions that it disorients you, say «Hey! I need at least a minute and a half at a time before you jump in again, unless there's something really important.» So negotiate that with your meta–person. And you can also reframe yourself so that you think of every interruption in terms of what you may be able to learn from it.

When you are the role–player, I want you to role–play your most difficult clients. Don't get into your own personal change goals. You'll get changes anyway, by metaphor. You don't have to worry about that.

I'll role–play this exercise again, to make it really clear. Doris, you be the programmer. What I'm going to do is think to myself «Oh yeah. I have one client who is really tough for me to reframe. Every time I do reframing, it starts out really nicely, but by the time I get to step three or four, the signals start shifting all over the place and I don't know what's happening. I don't know what to do with that.» So I tell Doris «You've got good rapport with me. You've helped me identify a behavior to reframe and you've established communication with the part. The signal I'm getting is an increase in heat in my hand for 'yes' and a decrease for 'no.' Now you're on step three and you're about to have me ask the part if it will let me know in consciousness what it's doing for me that's positive. It's there that the difficulties come up, so let's start there.»

I don't want you to go through the whole reframing format and practice the pieces that you don't need any practice with. You're not doing complete pieces of therapy; you're just doing some small chunk that the person playing the client wants to have more choices about. That person will use you as a resource by having you respond to the difficulty.

OK. Doris, you're the programmer. Do you know where we are? Doris: The temperature in your hand increases for «yes»? Yes ma'am. It just did.

Doris: So let's try that again and ask it if it's really sure it's «yes.» Check again and see if that increases. Check again?

Do you want me to say something to myself, or what?

Doris: Yeah. Go inside. Ask that part if it is «yes.»

The part that makes X happen?

Doris: Yes.

OK. So what should I ask it now?

Doris: Tell it if it is «yes," to say «yes» in a stronger way, to let you know really, for sure. You mean to just go in and tell it that? …

You see, by acting confused I'm making Doris be very explicit in her verbal behavior. Being sloppy in your verbalizations is one of the best ways to mess up any of our techniques and get stuck. Doris said «Let's try that again," but didn't tell me exactly what to try. She told me to «check and see if that increases," when I have to feel the signal of hand warmth. She said «Ask that part if it is 'yes,'" without specifying what «it» is. If you use those kinds of sloppy verbalizations with your clients, either they will be confused, or they may go inside and do something very different than what you intend.

My questions require her to clean up her instructions. The finest thing you can do for your colleagues is to demand high–quality performance. If the programmer is sloppy in her verbalizations, be confused. Let her sort it out, with the help of her consultant. If Doris hesitates at that point, then her meta–person should ask «What step are you on, and what specifically are you trying to accomplish?» «I'm trying to validate how robust and strong the involuntary signal system is. Specifically I'm trying to validate that a rise in temperature of the right hand means 'yes.'" Then the meta–person says «How are you going to do it, Doris?» She says to me «OK. Go inside. Thank the part for the response. Tell it to heat up your hand again if in fact the warming of your hand is a 'yes' response.» So I close my eyes and do it. Then I come back and say «Yeah, it did the same thing again. That is really weird!»

OK. Doris, what do you do next?

Doris: Now you have a very strong «yes.» Isn't that nice to have something say «yes» to you? Probably when you were a little boy—

This is where the meta–person steps in again and says «Wait a minute! Hypnotic age–regression is an important tool, but it is inappropriate now.»

Doris: I think I need to check to see what the next step is.

Fine. This is training, so you can say «Hold on a minute!» Or you can turn to the meta–person and ask «What is the next step, anyway?» Then the meta–person says «To make a distinction between the behavior and the intention.»

OK. Here I am on step three. Anybody else can play the programmer.

Joe: Does that part of you know what the intent of X is? I don't know.

Joe: Ask it and see what happens to your hand.

See what happens to my hand? OK. I'll look at it. What exactly do you want me to ask it?

Joe: No, feel it.

(He reaches over and feels it with his other hand.) Again, if you insist upon clarity, your colleagues will be forced to make the best use of this situation. So the programmer says «Ask the part that runs X if it knows what its positive intent is. If the answer is 'yes,' it will warm your hand. If the answer is 'no,' the heat will decrease. So notice the feeling in your hand.» Now I'm going to go back to role–playing.

Uh, I think it heated up, but what was really strange was that when I asked the question there was a movement in my shoulder almost as if someone pushed me. I don't know what that's about! And also there was suddenly a loud buzzing in my ears. … I don't know about this stuff!

Joe: And did you feel a change in temperature in your hand? Yeah, there was a change.

Joe: What was the change?

It's warmer than it was before. But I don't understand these other things that are happening.

Joe: I would like you to ask the part that pushed your left shoulder if it would increase that feeling if it means «Yes, I have some input to this process.» (His left shoulder jerks again.) Thank you.

OK. Good. Remember, I'm the guy who wants choices to cope with multiple–signal responses. He's just given me one choice, namely to ask for a direct response from the part that gave one of the other signals. What other way could you deal with these other signals?

Al: There seems to be another part of you that wants to communicate.

Is that what's going on?

Al: That could be it. Wouldn't you like to find out? Let's ask it. It seems to me that you are reporting two other things in there. Is the part that pushes your shoulder willing to make the pushing of your shoulder a signal? If it is, would it push your shoulder again? (His shoulder jerks again.) Yes, thank you.

That's really weird.

Al: Yes. And there's a part of you that …

What?

Al: There may be another part of you that may be causing that buzzing sound you were hearing.

What?

Al: As the buzzing becomes quieter, you can—

OK. Now he's dealing with the other internal event. Does anybody know what you can do with these things once you've turned them into signals?

Jan: Go inside and ask those two parts if they would be willing to step aside for just a moment, knowing that I will get back to them later, and that we will not make any changes until they are consulted.

Excellent. One choice is to put them off until the ecological check.

Rick: How about forgetting about the hand warming and just using one of these new signals for the yes/no.

If you do that you would be running a risk. At this point, you don't know if the part responsible for the new signals is the same part that gave the hand–warming signal earlier. Your suggestion presupposes that they are one and the same. The part that buzzed and the part that jerked the shoulder might be some other parts that object to what you're doing. You don't know what parts are making the new signals, and you don't know what functions they have. What's another choice?

Sue: You could have the two parts that are objecting get a spokes–part to represent them for the time being.

OK. And I'm sitting here looking confused, because I don't know anything about anybody objecting. All I know is that my shoulder moved and that I heard a buzzing. Are you telling me those are objections?

Sue: I guess we don't know that.

That's absolutely right. You don't know that.

Rick: Could we establish a yes/no signal at the shoulder, and then ask the shoulder if it would be willing to allow the hand to continue as the yes/no signal?

That's very close to what Jan suggested a moment ago.

Let me play the meta–person for a moment and ask you what step this is, and what specific outcome you are trying to get.

Rick: I'm trying to find out whether these signals are all from the same part or not and what their purposes are.

Good. Notice, however, that if you use Jan's maneuver, you don't need to find that out until the ecological check, and you may not need to at all. If you get the buzzing and shoulder jerk to go «on hold» until the ecological check, you can find out at that point if they still have some objection. If those signals come up as objections at that point, you know they are different parts. If they don't, you know that either they are signals from the same part, or that the choices that satisfy the part that warms my hands also satisfy the other parts.

The uncertainty is «Are these simply other signals from the same part, or are these other parts that have to be taken into consideration?» You can find that out by saying «If the shoulder jerk is another signal from the same part that's making your hand warm up, would your shoulder again make that movement?» If you get the movement, you say «Good. Now if the buzzing is also a signal from the same part that's making your hand warm up, would the buzzing increase in volume?» If you get an increase, you say «Excellent. I would like you to thank this part of you that is so powerful that it can use multiple signals. For the purposes of your being calm and our understanding what is going on here, I would ask that it inhibit those signals in favor of continuing to use temperature change in your right hand.»

In that maneuver I turn the shoulder jerk and the buzzing into yes/no signals, and then ask if they are the same part or not. If I get a «no» response, I can go to the maneuver that Jan suggested.

Jan's suggestion is a good one in terms of efficiency. She suggested that you first have the person thank the shoulderjerk and the buzzing in order to validate the responses. That's always a good pacing maneuver. Then you reassure those parts that no behavioral change will occur until they have been consulted at the end of the procedure to make sure that they agree with what has occurred. If they have disagreements or additional needs at that point, they will be attended to with the same respect that's presently being paid to the part that's warming the hand.

Woman: If all the signals come from the same part, would it be appropriate for me to use the shoulder jerk as the signal system since it's easier for me to see than the hand–warming?

Certainly. If both signals are equally involuntary, but one is easier for you to read, ask for a shift. In general, you can make reframing an opportunity to meta–tune yourself to notice the many subtle changes that accompany the yes/no signals. If I don't see anything that goes along with my client's report of a signal, that's not an ecologically sound situation. I want to have an observable signal so that I have a check on the client's report. The client may lie to me, because he wants a change really badly.

One thing I will do is say «My apologies to your unconscious mind. Given the state of acuity that my eyes have at this moment, I was unable to notice the response. I would like to have direct access to a signal, in order to be absolutely sure that I am communicating with the appropriate unconscious part. I am going to ask you to return inside. I thank the part for having given you the signal, and that's all that is really required. But I ask, for my own behalf, so that I may be usefully instructed by your unconscious mind, that it show me something that is exaggerated enough that I can notice it. I would appreciate that very much.» I ally myself with the part, and then ask for a more observable signal.

Man: Could you ask the shoulder part «Would you be willing to work with the other part and make changes?»

The problem with that choice is that it presupposes that the shoulder movement is a signal from a different part, and you have no basis on which to make that presupposition. If you ask that, you may cause a total confusion state. If the signals were all manifestations of the same part, how could it respond to such a question? You've only set up yes/no signals, so the part has no way to indicate «presupposition failure," and you will get a state of confusion. There are times when you want to exclude possibilities by using presuppositions, but this is not one of those times.

Play around with this for about an hour, rotating positions after each role–play. Do as many situations as you have time for. Playing recalcitrant, difficult clients will provide you with live experience in coping with those kinds of situations.

This is an excellent format to gain finesse with any technique. Have someone role–play the most difficult client she can think of, and then try out different ways of getting the responses you want. If at any point you are unable to generate three choices for proceeding, and your meta–person can't provide you with additional choices, be sure to call one of us over.

Discussion

You have all been practicing the format called six–step reframing, with variations and with feedback from the observer. I want to be sure that you practice reframing with an understanding of our long–term goal. Our final outcome is for these formats to disappear from your behavior. Any format is a crutch, and is no substitute for 1) having full flexibility of behavior, 2) sensory experience, and 3) knowing what outcome you are going after. If you have those three characteristics of the professional communicator, that's all you need. All the patterning we've done on people such as Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, or successful business people, have enabled us to develop specific teaching formats. Formats are crutches, or excuses, or tricks, to get you to notice what's going on at the sensory level and to vary your behavior in order to achieve a specific outcome.

At this point, I don't do reframing as a separate chunk except for demonstration purposes in seminars. It's integrated into everything else that I do; I don't do any work without reframing. Every piece of work I do has reframing as a component part. It's only in seminars that I sort what I do into categories.

You will know that you are a pro when you go through a session, and at the end of it you discover that there's no uncertainty: you know that you got the changes that you went after. However, you don't know how you did it until you stop and ask yourself what you did systematically. That will be a natural outcome of taking the time and effort to use these formats explicitly until they become so smooth and practiced that they will be as automatic as shaking hands or driving a car; they will have become reflex responses to appropriate contextual cues, so that your behavior will always be appropriate and lead effectively toward the outcomes you want.

Do you have any questions?

Man: Let's say you ask a client to go inside and ask if the part of her that runs behavior X will communicate with her in awareness. She goes inside and comes back saying «Nothing happened.» What do you do?

One possibility is to say «Describe what your feelings are right now—how you sense yourself kinesthetically.» After she offers a description, you can say «Now begin to do behavior X. She'll either get up and begin to do it or she'll begin to feel what she feels like when she does X. As soon as you see a change that you can detect, you say «Stop. Now describe your sensations again.» There will be differences between the two descriptions. Any one of those differences can be used as a signal system.

The reframing format differs radically from the usual techniques in psychotherapy, because in this format I am a consultant; the client is her own therapist and hypnotist. Under normal circumstances I am the therapist and hypnotist and I take responsibility for accessing and eliciting responses. In this case, the client takes responsibility for doing that. I operate as her conscious consultant. If she cannot detect any communication, I ask her to begin to become the part of herself that does X. The physiological differences between her usual state and her beginning to do X will involve exactly the physiological changes that she can use as a signal system. When people engage in behavior they don't like, they usually experience major changes in muscle tone, skin temperature, etc. Any one of those changes will serve you well as a signal system, and will be experienced when you ask the person to do X behavior.

Sometimes you simply have to teach the person how to make distinctions in her internal experience. You ask her to describe her present internal state. Then you ask her to jump up and down for two minutes and ask her to notice the details of how her internal experience changes.

Sometimes a person is so self–anchored into a particular state that it's hard to get any changes. Jumping up and down, or doing any other behavior that is significantly different from her present state can loosen her up a bit.

Herb: When I first learned reframing in seminars, we would do each pattern in a half–hour or at most an hour. I have found in my practice that going through a pattern with a client sometimes takes several sessions.

Fine. That's not an unusual piece of feedback. I've heard that from others. Taking longer is a function of your familiarity and fluency with the sequencing, and also has a lot to do with your sensitivity to the needs of your clients. Sometimes reframing is such a major reorganization of the person that it appropriately takes three or four sessions to accomplish.

I claim that I can run through reframing with anybody in three minutes, but not if I involve her consciousness. So I assume that you asked the client's consciousness to detect the signals and offer reports. Without involving the person's consciousness, it takes me about one–tenth of the time to get the same changes. However, I do think that involving the client's consciousness is a desirable characteristic of this model, because it teaches your client to become autonomous after some period of time. She's been involved in a positive, participatory way at the conscious level in making these changes occur, so it will be easier for her to use the same process later on her own.

Reframing yourself is a fairly complex task. Reframing already involves a dissociation between the client's conscious mind and the part responsible for the problem behavior. If you reframe yourself, a third part of you has to be a programmer who keeps track of the process, which makes it a three–level task. If you successfully do reframing externally with others first, you can make the process of reframing automatic. Then reframing yourself is reduced to a two–level task, something that most people can cope with.

If you are a good hallucinator, you can also make it easier for yourself by seeing yourself over in the other chair. Then you ask yourself the questions and notice the responses that you get. That kind of explicit visual dissociation between the part of you that is client and the part of you that is acting as programmer can help you keep your behavior sorted.

Reframing yourself can also involve another problem. You will be using your own limitations to deal with those same limitations, which can lead to some blind alleys. As they say in Catch 22, «If you've got flies in your eyes, you can't see the flies in your eyes.» By reframing a number of other people who have different limitations than you do, you will gain flexibility in dealing with their limitations, and become better equipped to deal with your own.

In spite of the problems I've mentioned, I know a number of people who have reframed themselves and gotten very pervasive changes. If you do reframing successfully with other people for a month or so, you'll probably find yourself doing it for yourself anyway. If you are really eager for some personal changes, it will work for you.

Man: One of my clients is very verbal and conceptual, and he really wanted to follow the procedure, so I did it totally nonverbally and unconsciously with him.

Excellent. That is a really fine choice.

Man: Should the minimal cues that we get when we ask for a signal always be consistent throughout the whole procedure?

Yes. The only exception I can think of is when the signal you get at the beginning is very unpleasant. Then you want to adjust or change the signal right away, but keep the new signal consistent.

Jim: With one of my clients I didn't get anywhere with the first signal he detected—a kinesthetic feeling in his leg. I looked for another signal and got a very, very strong facial response.

My guess is that both signals were there to begin with, and that you could have used either one of them as a signal. You have to take into account your own degree of acuity, and also that your client may have idiosyncratic ways of approaching the process of reframing. Certain kinds of signals may seem more appropriate to a particular client, or to his parts.

Woman: Do you ever run into somebody who says «I can't come up with any new alternatives»?

Yes. In that case you can employ all of the «I don't know» techniques. «Well, good, if you did know, what would they be?» «Guess what they might be.» «Dream it tonight and let me know tomorrow.» «Think of someone who does behave effectively in that context. Now watch and listen to what she does.»

Most of you live under real time–space constraints; you only have an hour or so to see each client. If you get to the point where you are about to run out of time, and you are still at this step, then you can do several things. Send the client out in the world to find a real model. «Go find someone who knows how to behave effectively in this area. Watch and listen to what she does.» Milton Erickson used to do this a lot with his clients. If you know of a particular relevant book or movie that has an isomorphic situation, you can give her a homework assignment. Or you can have her ask some friend what she would do.

Programmed dreaming is another choice. «Go inside and ask the part of you that has been trying to come up with creative solutions if it will be responsible during dreaming tonight to develop alternative behaviors and display them in your dreams.» Get a «yes» response and then ask «Will the part of you that used to run pattern X take responsibility for selecting from those alternatives three or more ways that are better, and for employing them in the context where they belong?» Then the person goes off with programmed dreaming, has the dreams, and incorporates the behaviors. When she comes back in two weeks, she will be able to tell you what specific adjustments have occurred.

Jill: I've found that many people respond negatively to the word «responsibility» in step five. But if I say «Ask that part if it is willing to select from the alternatives?» then everything goes smoothly.

Excellent. Keep your outcome in mind, and use whatever words get you that outcome.

Skip: When you get to the ecological check and there is a signal, you check to find out if it's an objection. If it is truly an objection, I'm puzzled about why you don't just go back to step four instead of going all the way back to step two.

You can do that. Skip is proposing that if you get an ecological check objection, rather than giving the part that's objecting new ways to do what it is trying to do, you go back and find other alternatives for the first part which the second part won't object to. That's an excellent variation, and sometimes it will be better to do that—for instance, if the first part chooses alternatives such as suicide.

Man: A woman I was working with wanted to evaluate each of the three alternatives separately. It seemed OK to me, so she did that.

Fine. It's actually a bit more precise and explicit to do each alternative in turn, than it is to lump them together. Some people require a lot of precision when they process information. You've got to be very explicit with those people, and the chunks have to be smaller than the ones we typically use. In that case, the variation you used would be not only desirable, but perhaps necessary to accommodate that person's personal style.

Woman: I've always done the ecological check before the future–pace. Why do you have the future–pace first, when you may have changes or revisions in the new behaviors, and have to future–pace all over again?

You can do it that way, and often you can get by with it. But there is an important reason why we future–pace first. Future–pacing context–ualizes the behavior, testing it out in imagination. Parts may only realize that they have an objection when you future–pace and context–ualize the new behaviors. If you future–pace last, objections may emerge then, and you won't know that unless you're alert for signs of incongruence at that point.

Woman: What do you do if a client says, «No, that's not what I want» (She nods her head up and down.)?

How you deal with incongruence is a whole subject in itself. My typical response to that is «Yes, I really think it is» (He shakes his head side to side.) At that point, he will «short circuit» and go into an utter confusion state, and I can do pretty much anything I want.

Alternatively, I can simply utilize his response and feed it back. «I didn't think so» (nodding «yes»). «However, let's pretend that it is.» By doing this, I have validated both the conscious and unconscious communication, as if saying «I recognize both of you are there.»

Then I go on to install the behavior that the unconscious agrees to. The overall strategy I have when I receive conflicting messages like that is to always go with the ones outside of awareness, because I'll always win that way. It's his unconscious that's running the show, anyway. He's just not able to acknowledge it, and there's no need for him to.

This is a problem that the Simontons have run into in doing their work with cancer patients. They will only accept clients who are consciously willing to accept the belief that they are creating their own cancer. That eliminates a large percentage of the population who have cancer. In fact, most cancer patients have a belief system that precludes taking conscious responsibility for their disease. Most cancer patients believe that they should not overtly ask for help or attention or whatever secondary gain they derive from having cancer. That belief is what made the disease itself necessary.

Both insanity and disease in this culture are considered to be «involuntary responses," so you are not responsible for them. So one way to get help and attention is to have something happen that is involuntary and that you can't be held responsible for. Insanity and disease are both very powerful ways to get other people to respond to you without taking responsibility for it.

The Simontons insist that their clients take full conscious responsibility for creating their own cancers, which is a remarkable way to approach it. The one big disadvantage of that approach is that it makes their way of working with cancer patients available only to a very small percentage of the population.

Woman: But you could work with the population that consciously believes that they aren't responsible, and ask them to suspend their disbelief for a period of time.

Right. Ask them to pretend. You can even agree that they aren't responsible, but you've discovered that by going through certain «psychological» steps, people are often able to have a healing impact on problems that are clearly physical in their origin. Then you go ahead and do six–step reframing in the same way you would with someone who says «I believe I caused this.»

I don't even know who is «correct» in their belief system. I do know that reframing can have an impact on physical symptoms.

Man: Are you suggesting that one could use the Simontons' system—their whole approach—at the unconscious level?

Yes. All you would need to do is use six–step reframing entirely at the unconscious level. The positive intention and the new choices can all be left unconscious.

When the unconscious mind refuses to inform consciousness of the positive intention, I typically turn to the person and say «Are you willing to trust that your unconscious is well–intentioned, even though it won't tell you what it is trying to do for you by this pattern of behavior?» If I have rapport, they agree. «OK, I'm willing to try that out.» If I get a «no» response, I ask if they are willing to pretend. Or you can say «Look, do you really have a choice? You've already done the best that you know how to do, consciously, to change this behavior. When you made the assumption that this was a bad part, you failed utterly. Let's try the reverse assumption for a two–week period, and you tell me at the end of two weeks whether this is a more effective way to pretend.»

Woman: At a conference recently I heard the Simontons mention how much they learned from you. They gave the example of adding representational system overlap to their visualization techniques.

Yes. They get good results just by having patients visualize the white blood cells eating up the cancer cells. If you overlap from that visualization into congruent sounds and feelings, it becomes much more powerful. Did they mention anything about the difference between conscious and unconscious belief systems?

Woman: They mentioned that they realize the difference, but they don't know how to deal with it.

That's exactly where we left off. I was with them long enough to feel that they had a good, clear, solid, resonant understanding of the notion of representational systems and overlap. They found it easy to do, and they were delighted by it.

They also recognized that reframing has advantages, just in terms of requisite variety, but they didn't have enough experience with it to incorporate it into their system. If they used unconscious six–step reframing, they would be able to work with the large numbers of cancer patients who are not willing to consciously adopt the belief that they are responsible for their disease.

Woman: Can you work simultaneously with more than two parts in reframing?

Yes. I have worked with as many as twelve or fifteen at the same time.

Woman: So you might have six objecting parts talking to each other, and to the part that is responsible for the behavior?

Yeah, I get them all together in a conference. But I never talk with more than one at any moment, unless I have first gotten them all together to elect a spokespart that will communicate for all of them.

I say «Now, all you other guys hold; we're going to go over here to part A and find out blah blah blah.» And then after that «Now, do any of the other five of you blah blah.» Time is never a real limitation because you can always say «All right, we're going to pause now. We'll meet here again at eight o'clock tomorrow.» The only real limitation is how many parts you the programmer can keep track of. I'm pretty good at keeping track of a large number of things going on at the same time; I've had a lot of practice doing that. You will have to find out how many you can remember. If you start going «Oh, yeah, it wasn't that one, … it was ah … the other one … ah … ah … " then you are probably going to confuse the person.

Man: I had a client who used to give names to the parts. She had the sex goddess, and she had the lady in white gloves who had a congenital malformation—her legs were permanently crossed—and several others that she could identify and talk about and have talk to me.

Yeah, some of them have names, and if they don't, you can always give them names. There are many things you can do to help keep track of them. But you also have to keep track of who said what, and who's talking now. With some people, all the parts have the same voice tonality, while other people's parts all have different voices. It's purely a matter of how many you can keep track of well.

Man: How can I use reframing for self–growth?

The first reframe I would make is to use any other predicate but «growth.» There are certain dangers in describing evolving as a person as «growth.» People in the human potential movement who are really into «growing» have a tendency to get warts and tumors and other things. As a hypnotist you can understand how that happens with organ language.

You can always just do conscious reframing with yourself. But one of the best ways to do it is to build an unconscious part, what we call a «meta–part," whose job it is each night to review the day just as you are dropping off to sleep, to select two important things to reframe out of your behavior, and to do the reframing each night just after you have dropped off to sleep. We used to do this with everybody in our early groups, and the kinds of changes that people made were fantastic.

Woman: You don't even program the two things? You leave that to the unconscious?

Yes. We put the person into a profound trance and taught her unconscious mind—or some unconscious part—the reframing model. We'd say «OK, unconscious, what we're going to do today is build this part and it's going to do reframing. I want you, the unconscious, to select something that you didn't particularly like about her conscious mind's behavior today. First identify it, and then… .» We'd go through all the six steps very systematically. We wouldn't just say «Do it»; we would go through each of the six steps carefully. The person's conscious mind is gone; she is just in a trance, responding. You can do it with finger signals or any other yes/no signal, or you can do it verbally if your client happens to be a good verbal unconscious communicator. I'd go through it once systematically, and then have her unconscious pick something else and try it, and notify me if it gets stuck. I'd literally educate her unconscious in the six–step model until it could do it a couple of times without any problem. Then I'd say «Look, each night just after she's dropped off to sleep, identify and reframe two things that you think are important, given the experiences of the day.»

A month later I went back and checked with everybody's unconscious to find out what kind of things they'd done. Those people were changing like crazy. One student's unconscious reported to me that every night he would see himself in front of a blackboard, and he would make a list of all the things that didn't occur the way he wanted them to that day, and then all his parts would describe the possibilities of each one, and they'd have a vote and select two, and then the unconscious would go ahead and reframe those two things. Then his parts would review past reframes, and read the minutes from the last meeting—he was a very organized guy.

It seemed to work very well for about three months with each person, and then each would need another shot of it. People changed so much that the process didn't fire off automatically after about three months.

Woman: Why did you have to teach the unconscious the six steps? If you've been reframing others, the unconscious knows it even more than the conscious, doesn't it?

The important thing is to make sure that the unconscious does it explicitly and methodically. Saying that «the unconscious knows it» is assuming more than I'm willing to assume. Some people's unconscious minds don't know it, and some people's unconscious minds do. But I'm not willing to take that chance. I want to build a part whose job is to jump out every night and say «It's reframing time!» You can always consciously reframe with yourself; however, it's much more convenient to have your unconscious do it after you go to sleep. Let your parts do it. It's hard to install this in yourself; it's better to have somebody else zone you into a trance and do it for you.

Bill: There is a question that keeps bugging me about what kind of signals to use when I'm reframing. Some say to use only signals with definite unconscious yes/no responses. Other people talk about just going inside and asking an open–ended question and seeing what comes up. Yesterday afternoon you were having me go through a negotiation reframe without taking time to set up specific signals—

Oh, I had yes/no signals, though. You were responding in ways that I could notice.

Bill: OK, you had the yes/no signals. But in our own experience of reframing ourselves I thought the only thing we could use as a signal was an unconscious response that we were aware of. The response I got was in my favored representational system—that little old internal voice that I always get—which I have learned not to trust in myself or in my clients. How can we trust the signal we get from ourselves, or from our clients, when it is in the most favored representational system?

That's a contradiction. You asked «What signal can come in the most favored system which I can trust to be an unconscious signal?» The most favored representational system is the one that is in consciousness. It's best to have a signal that is not under conscious control. If your signal is internal dialogue and you don't trust it, then the only way to have a signal that you will trust is to have an involuntary kinesthetic or visual response that intensifies and diminishes. You get a yes/no involuntary signal which is not finger–lifting or anything you can consciously control.

Bill: I get the same confusion when we talk about finger signals. Everybody talks about hypnotizing people and using finger signals. Most people I work with can do those quite voluntarily. What is the use of having a person give you a signal which can be under conscious voluntary control?

They can consciously move their fingers, but they can't do it with unconscious movement. Can you distinguish between conscious movement and unconscious movement?

Bill: Yes. What bothers me is this: the person may be giving me all the signs of being deep in trance, and I'm seeing lots of involuntary changes. And then the finger signal looks like conscious movement. Do I necessarily interpret that as being a conscious movement?

No, not necessarily, but I always do. I would say «NOT THAT MIND!» Something subtle like that. I want verification. Personally, I usually do not use finger signals as signals. I use them to distract the client, and as a way of setting up some other signal system.

Bill: How, specifically, do you set up those other signals?

One thing I do is calibrate, I say «Your unconscious mind can lift this finger to answer 'yes.'" Then I watch and find out what else occurs naturally. «And it can use this finger to answer 'no.'" I notice the nonverbal differences between them. If I'm not sure, I do it ten times until I'm sure.

Another thing you can do is this: before the client goes into trance, sometimes you can set up great signals by saying «Look, you are going to go into a trance. What we are going to do is set up a 'yes' (shifts his head left) … 'no' (shifts his head right) system of communication.» Then when the person goes into trance, you'll often get these great signals—his head will shift left and right. Of course, you can use any movement to install a signal—a raised eyebrow, a flaring nostril, or any other signal that he can detect unconsciously. If he doesn't signal the way you established, then you can do other things. You can say «And when things aren't going the way I want them to, I lift an eyebrow in disdain," using embedded commands to make sure the eyebrow lifts. You can do really obvious things, and his conscious mind won't notice. Sometimes I'll set up the yes/no signals with a person's feet using one foot for «yes» and the other foot for «no.» I'll say «When you are really positively behind something, you put your best foot forward … and you know which foot is the right foot to do that with, don't you?» He'll demonstrate nonverbally. The important thing is that I always verify by asking innocuous questions. Rather than going immediately for the material I'm interested in, I start asking questions that I know the answer to, in order to make sure that I have the right signal in the right place. I'll say «Now, your name is Bill, and you know this is to be true, do you not?» If I get a «no» response, then I say «Aha! To whom am I speaking?» You can learn about this in detail in Trance–formations.

Woman: When you are working with yourself, and there's some part of you that you can't really identify, or there's a part that just refuses to actually come out and say what it is, and you can't really get to that part—

That's just like saying «Well, there's a member of a family I can't really talk to.» That's always a function of your communication. Sometimes a person will go inside and he'll say «Well, nothing happens.» There are a number of things that you can do. One thing that almost always works is to say «Well, I know that for years now you have not gotten along with this part. You've insulted it and fought with it, and I wouldn't talk to you either if you did that to me. So I recommend that you go inside and apologize and tell it that you misunderstood its intentions and now you would sincerely like to communicate with it.» After a person goes inside and apologizes, nine times out of ten he'll get a response.

Sometimes a person goes inside to reframe and says «All right, you cruddy stinking part.» And of course that part goes «If you want a response, take that! Pachchh! Do you want me to intensify that?» Your communication with your own parts has got to be as graceful or more graceful than what you do with other people.

Woman: Yesterday you mentioned finding a part that didn't seem to have a function. What do you do then?

In principle, what you do is really easy. Since the part doesn't have a function, you just give it a positive function that it will agree to. In practice, doing this can sometimes be a bit confusing.

About four years ago I worked with a woman who told me that when she was alone, she couldn't decide what to do. She became nervous and distraught and paced the floor. When her husband was home, she would sit down and read a magazine, or go outside. But when she was by herself, she couldn't sit down and read a magazine.

I said to her, «Well, it seems like you go to a lot of trouble to get nervous when people aren't around. How do you remember to do it every single time?»

She just stared into space because that was such a weird question. «I don't know. I never thought about that.»

«Well, obviously some part of you must be making you do it, and it seems silly to me that the part would do it for no reason at all. It must be trying to do something for you that's useful, and we need to find out what it is.»

So we went into six–step reframing. We went through a phase where the signals disappeared and then came back six or seven times. Finally, since I couldn't get to the next step, I had her go inside again. «Ask this part if it knows what it is trying to do for you that is useful.» She got no response. So I said «If it doesn't know if what it is doing is useful or not, have it answer yes–no–yes–no.» She went in and asked it, and it went «yes–no–yes–no," back and forth like that, repeatedly. She looked kind of confused, because on one level she was getting these nonverbal responses, and on the other, she didn't know what it was about.

Then I said to the part «Would you be willing to tell her the function so that she can tell me? As long as she has to tell me what the function is, and I promise you that I will be the one to decide if what you are doing is useful or not, and not her, would that be all right?» I got an instant and emphatic «yes» to that without her even going inside. Then suddenly she clapped her hands over her ears and got a weird look on her face.

«What did it tell you?»

«Well, I don't really want to say it.»

«Well, you have to. I promised, you know. And I keep my promises.» The logic in that statement is pretty twisted, but it got her to tell me.

This part said something very metaphoric. «You are always alone with other people, and in a crowd by yourself.» I thought about that for a minute, and it didn't make much sense to me, but it seemed like it was trying to get her to do something better with her time when she was with other people. So I asked some questions. «Is it that when she is with other people she doesn't really talk to them, she just sits around and feels secure? And when nobody's there, she spends all her time trying to figure out who she could be with and what she could do? So are you trying to get her to utilize resources when they are more available? Is that it?» Again I got an immediate and emphatic answer: «No.» So I had her go inside and ask if it was something else. It said «I don't want to answer that question. What you said just before sounds good. That sounds like something good to do. I get so annoyed when I don't know what to do.»

«How is it useful to get annoyed; what is the intention of that?»

«I don't know.»

«Well, then, what's the point in getting annoyed?' «Well, everyone else gets annoyed when I don't know what to do.» «So if there's no one else there, you get annoyed for them?» «I guess so. I don't know.» It still sounded unconvinced, but it sounded agreeable. «Would you rather do something else?»

«Yeah, that would give me something to do, so that I wouldn't have to be annoyed and anxious.»

So I just gave the part some ways of deciding what would be useful to do. That part didn't seem to know what its purpose was. The closest I could come to an understanding was that when she was with other people, they got annoyed if she didn't do something, so she was always doing something. When no one was around, then she got annoyed and anxious but didn't do anything. It was systematic, but there didn't seem to be any useful function that I could detect. It was like a piece of motivation that didn't lead anywhere.

Mary: I'm thinking about someone that about ten of us are working with—

Ten of you are working with someone? That's the first thing I would stop. That would make anybody crazy!

Mary: This woman has a lot of nausea, which doesn't have medical causes. I know a number of reasons why she is keeping her nausea—

Well, just think, if she gives up her nausea, she'll lose ten friends. That's the first thing that occurs to me!

Mary: If this woman didn't get nausea, she would have to have sex with her husband, and she gets a lot of other goodies by having the nausea. I tried reframing everything. She keeps coming back again every two months saying «Hey, I have it again» so I'm thinking—

Dealing with the nausea, as far as I'm concerned, is inappropriate. The only thing that makes it possible for her to have the nausea is that she doesn't have positive sexual relationships with her husband, and that she doesn't have all these other goodies. So I'm not even going to mess with the nausea. I'm going to go after all the other stuff that makes the nausea happen. If she had a good sexual relationship, and if she had whatever else is missing in her life now, then the nausea wouldn't happen. That's what reframing is all about: finding out what else needs to happen so that the client won't need the symptom anymore.

Mary: She was resistant to all the things we did. We had the husband in with her, and all the time she was resisting. She's not going to leave him—although she hates him—because he provides security.

Clients don't resist, Mary. It is very important that you understand that. Clients demonstrate that you don't understand.

Mary: The parts resist, I think—

No, parts don't resist. No part of a human being resists a therapist. All they ever do is demonstrate that you are on the wrong track. That's the only thing they do. I have never seen a client who resists. What clients do is say «Hey! Not there! Over here!»

You said «I reframed with her.» It's impossible for you to reframe with somebody and not deal with the basis for what you are calling resistance. The reframing model has built into it that you don't go after the change, you go after the parts that object. All the reframing models do that.

Man: I have a fourteen–year–old son who gets migraine headaches. Can I use reframing on that problem?

Migraines are quite easy. Those of you who have clinical experience in dealing with migraines, tell me what representational system migraine clients typically specialize in. I want you to think of specific clients who have actually come to you with a complaint about migraines. What representational system do they use primarily? …

Migraine sufferers are very visually–oriented. Check your own clinical experience. As with any other physiological symptom, I presuppose that a migraine is a way that a part uses to get a person's attention. The symptom is a way of trying to get him to do something different, to get him to take care of something that is needed.

Think of pain. We all have neurological circuitry in our bodies that allows us to know when there is an injury. If we didn't have that, we could cut ourselves and bleed to death before visually noticing what had happened. Pain is nothing more than a healthy neurological response that says «Hey, pay attention! Something needs to be done here; something needs to be attended to.» You can interpret symptoms like migraines as signals, and then use reframing to discover what the migraine is a response to, so that you can offer that part of the person another way of responding. In every case of migraine I've treated, the person has a very highly specialized visual state of consciousness. The only way his body can get information to him that there is something that needs to be attended to is by giving him splitting headaches. Migraines yield quite quickly and easily to reframing.

Woman: I remember something about a time element. I think you said something about testing it out for six weeks, and then if any part is dissatisfied, to renegotiate.

Well, that always happens anyway. That's just to pace.

Woman: Then why do you need to say anything about it, if it automatically happens?

Because if you don't, then when it doesn't work, the person's conscious mind doesn't know that it can renegotiate, and calls it «failure.» I look at the client and say «Look, I want your parts to try this for six weeks, and if it works out, then fine, you're on your way. If any one of your parts discovers that it doesn't work, it is to inform you by having you do the behavior you didn't want to do. That's an indication that it's time to sit down and negotiate further.» That means that there is no way in the world that the client can fail. I think clients are entitled to that. By the way, that is both a reframe and a future–pace.

One of the disservices that therapists do for their clients is to fail to use that particular reframe in some fashion. I always make the symptom the barometer of change. Then if the symptom recurs, the client doesn't think «Oh, well, another shot of therapy and nothing has happened.» Instead, he thinks «Ah, that means I have to reframe again.» The stigma of the symptom dissolves over time, because he begins to pay attention to the symptom as being a message. It probably always was anyway, but he never thought about it that way. He begins to have a feedback mechanism; even if the reframing doesn't work, he discovers that he only gets the signal at certain times.

For example, somebody comes in with migraine headaches and I reframe and all the parts are happy. The client goes along for two weeks and everything's groovy, and then he suddenly gets a headache in a particular context. That headache triggers off the instruction that the negotiations weren't adequate. So he drops inside and asks «Who's unhappy? What does this mean?» The part says, «You're not standing up for yourself like you promised to.» Then he is faced with the choice of having a migraine headache or standing up for himself.

Man: With that man, then, you installed a part that gave him something else to do instead of having a migraine.

Exactly. All the reframing models do the same thing: they all change an internal response. Another way of talking about it is that I installed a part whose function is to remind him to have a new response. It doesn't matter how you talk about it.

Man: I have a question about reframing and phobias, and the parts that function in phobias. Let's say I'm working with a phobia and do the visual–kinesthetic dissociation technique. How do I know that I'm not interfering with some part that would work in other contexts in the person's life?

You don't. I'm a very practical kind of person. If somebody has a really severe phobia, I figure it's better to go ahead and take a chance on messing her up somewhere else in her life and fix that up later on. I realize that that is not as elegant as I would like to be, but most of the time that's what I'm going to do.

Let me give you an example of what you have to be careful about. We once cured a woman of a phobia of heights. To test it we sent her up to the balcony of the hotel. She came back down with a big smile, and people asked «Well, how did you feel when you went up there?» She said «I felt like I wanted to get up on the railing and dance.»

Now, the most significant thing about that comment is that she didn't actually dance on the railing! However, that tells you something about how she got overgeneralized in the first place. It's important to understand that a phobia strategy is an example of a strategy which is working to protect the person from something, but it's overgeneral–ized. When you change the response to the phobic stimulus, make sure that the new response is one that's useful, so the person doesn't go out and dance on the railing or do something else dangerous.

I cured a lady of a phobia of birds—in Chicago, which is the land of pigeons! When I was done, I tested her. I said «Well how would you feel about holding an eagle on your arm right now?» She said «Well, I don't think I'd like that," and I said «Good.» The visual–kinesthetic dissociation wipes out the overgeneralization. You want to make sure it doesn't wipe out all caution.

Reframing is incorporated into the phobia technique at the beginning when we say something like «I know that the part of you that has been scaring you has been protecting you in important ways.» There is always something important gained by having a phobia: what psychiatrists call «secondary gain» or what we call an outcome. That's why you say «You are going to learn something of importance» when you do the visual–kinesthetic dissociation. Hopefully clients will get it on their own. If not, you'll find out about it, especially if you quiz them a little

bit.

At the end, I always suggest that some of the energy that has been liberated during the phobia process be used to safeguard them as they explore the new behaviors that are now available to them. Somebody who has been phobic of heights has no experience of what is appropriate and safe behavior in that context. Someone who hasn't involved herself sexually because she was raped or sexually abused as a child has no idea what appropriate sexual behavior is. When you use these change techniques, suddenly all the barriers are lifted, and you have to be sure your clients are protected.

There's a really nice example from Erickson's work with a young woman who wanted to get married. Because of her religious and family background, she had no understanding of sexual behavior. She was very much attracted to her fiance, but she knew that because of her strict and limited background, there would be sexual problems if she got married. Erickson essentially reframed her, and removed all her barriers to full sexual responsiveness and assertiveness. Then he told her that she could only see the young man in the presence of her brother or family until the marriage. Right after she got married she called Erickson and thanked him. She was smart enough to recognize, as she said then, that she was ready to run out of the office and grab the guy and tear his clothes off and get right to it. Given her longer–term relationship with the man and her own appreciation for herself, it was more appropriate that she proceed in a more cautious and respectful manner toward the actual sexual activity.

NLP is a powerful set of tools. Even the simple anchoring techniques are very powerful. Given that power, it's important to frame what you do in such a way that you proceed with caution and respect for yourself and the other individuals involved. If you do this, you won't have wild fluctuations in behavior which are not ecologically sound. This often happens in assertiveness training when «Andy Ant» turns into «Jerry Jerk.» Any wild fluctuations like that are indications of failure to contextualize or frame the new behavior.

Man: So essentially when you do the visual–kinesthetic dissociation you are reframing the useful protective intention and keeping that intact.

No matter what you do, you are always reframing, in the sense that you're always changing a response. It's just that when you use the standard reframing model on a phobia, it's very hard to get it to work: when a person contacts the part that gives her the phobia, usually she gets the phobic response as a signal. And when a person has overwhelming unpleasant feelings, she just doesn't function well.

Reframing is a nice model and it works for many problems. However, there are other things that have to be taken into account: overwhelming feelings is one, and another is multiple parts, or sequential incongruities. When you work with a multiple personality, you may cure Susie of a phobia, but Martha over there can still have it. We're going to teach you about that tomorrow afternoon.

In therapy there are certain elements which will always be present. Other things can be involved, but they are not necessary. Secondary gain will always be evident in every therapeutic change somewhere along the line. Manipulation of parts will also be evident in every therapeutic change. You are either going to change a part's behavior, or create one, or negotiate between them. And there will also always be some kind of alteration in the process of generalization. A generalization will either be made or broken, or a pair of them will be combined, or one of them will be split into two. Those three processes—secondary gain, manipulation of parts, and an alteration in generalization—will always be at work in every change.