Steve Andreas - Help with Negative Self–talk Volume I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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