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

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

Bill: Umhm.

Do you agree that this function is something positive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill: Umhm.

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

Man: Just short of the ecological сheck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that part has not made any agreements yet.

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

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

Bill: That's possible.

OK. Give me an example.

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

Good, generate one.

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

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

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

Well, is there any need to do that? …

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