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

Man: You need to make it more versatile, so that it can do more than one thing.

OK, but what is it going to do? What is its job?

I don't want to get you off the track. If we build a part whose function is to have somebody weigh a hundred and five pounds, that will work. That's great. That's a well–formed outcome. Now I want to ask «What are other outcomes that will work equally well?» There are lots of right answers to this question. The important thing is that you learn how to conceptualize them. Ann was on the right track. She said «These are what we don't want; this is what we do want. This is one way of getting only what we want.» The key question you have to ask yourself is «Will this give us ONLY what we want?»

Man: You could put the part in charge of «health» or «attractiveness» or some superordinate structure that includes weight.

Woman: How about a «central eating control» that takes all those factors into account in the process of deciding how much she should weigh?

Woman: I think you have to take all those needs which that part intends to gratify, and satisfy those needs in different ways.

Well, that's all true. The question I'm asking is «What is the part going to do?» If we have a part whose job is to be in charge of overall health, and we include maintaining a certain weight in that, then will we do only that? The magic word is «only.» Sometimes it may be advisable to do a lot more than the client requested. But right now let's talk about limited therapeutic change. Your answer is an accurate answer, and may be a better answer in experience, when you are treating clients. However, each job that apart has makes it harder to install that part. I want you to keep that in mind. Every extra outcome that a part has makes it more complicated for that part to function. The more limited its outcome, the easier it is to install apart. Sometimes it is better to make the extra effort to install a more complicated part in order to get a better result in the end. A part that keeps someone at a certain weight is going to be a lot easier to install than the kind of central coordinator that you're talking about, because the coordinator will have to have a lot of knowledge about what it means to be healthy, etc. It will also have a lot more behaviors, so you're more apt to get objections from other parts.

Man: How about installing a semantic cue for eating, and a motivation strategy to get her to eat only then?

Well, you will always be doing that. Ann suggested that the semantic cue be a particular weight. However, I want you to talk about it differently today. Part of the game we play is how you can change how you talk about experience so that you can make changes in different ways. You're still playing the strategy game. There's no such thing as a strategy, and there's no such thing as a part. The question is «How can we talk about it differently and be able to do different things?» If you forget that, then I recommend that you build a part that reminds you. «The map is not the territory» and that's not true, either.

Man: How about changing the extra weight to happiness?

I beg your pardon? A part whose job it is to dissolve weight and turn it into happiness?

Man: As long as we're dreaming.

Sure. OK, but is that going to do only what the person wants? You see, there's a big danger in what you are suggesting: six months later this thirty–pound person is going to walk in the door smiling and saying «You're the best therapist I ever had!» Either that or she's going to come in with both arms gone, and she's still going to be fat. She'll say «I feel great … but I've got this small problem… .»

I want you to listen very carefully to your definition of a new part, because in experience, that's the kind of thing that will actually happen. I think that anorexics are made by well–intentioned people, although not necessarily by therapists. Parents often give a young woman lots and lots of messages that make food such a negative anchor that she throws up when she tries to eat. Through the positive intentions of parents, the daughter ends up becoming anorexic.

I'm recommending that as a therapist you be very cautious about specifying outcomes. The more carefully you specify exactly what a part is going to do, the less you'll get objections from other parts about having it exist, and the better it will actually be able to function. If a new part is poorly designed, the other parts will be more likely to wipe it out. If we build a part that is going to take weight and turn it into happiness, that part's going to get annihilated! All the other parts are going to do an exorcism. What about the part that likes to eat candy? It's going to pull out its samurai sword, sst—whacko, and that's it. I'm asking you to conceptualize definitions for the purpose of making installation easy, effective, and useful.

Man: How about a traffic control?

You'd better be more specific than that. This is not a metaphor seminar.

Man: A part that would sequentially direct other parts to do their thing to get the desired outcome. Most overweight people know how to gain weight and lose weight. Maintaining it is the difficulty.

So you would have a part that's in charge of maintenance, for example?

Man: It would provide directions for other parts, and say «Now you do this, and you do this, and then you do this, and now it's your turn.»

OK. That's certainly a possibility. What other outcome could you specify for a part that you could build to take care of this problem?

Bill: I'm thinking about a client of mine who eats mainly in the evening when she's alone and bored. I want to build in a part so that whenever she is alone and begins to feel bored she will immediately generate several interesting activities she can engage in, so that she'll do those instead of eating.

OK. That's a strong possibility, assuming that your information is accurate, namely, that eating at that time produces the unwanted weight. Then the first question you have to ask is «Does she already have a part whose job it is to entertain her when she gets bored?» She might have one already, and the way it does that is by stuffing candy down her mouth. Then all that part needs is three other ways to entertain her. The six–step model would be adequate to do that. That is one possibility. Or it may be that she doesn't have a part to entertain herself, and it would be appropriate to build one.

Bill: She has had a lobotomy, which raises some interesting problems.

It could. I don't think parts get cut out that way, though. I think they become subdued.

Bill: But it does raise some anchors in her mind about what she is incapable of doing or thinking.

Well, all you have to do is produce research which proves that it's possible to make the changes you want to make. I'm sure you can come up with lots of studies and dates.

Bill: I've just remembered a whole volume.

Yeah. It's known as «instant research.» For some clients it's very, very valuable.

Let me give you another problem. Let's say you are using the six–step reframing model. You ask «Do you have a part of yourself you consider your creative part?» And the person says «I don't know.» And you say «Well, go inside and ask if there is a part of you that can do things creatively.» She goes inside, and then she comes out and says «Nothing happened.» And from your outside observation, nothing happened. There are two choices at that point about how you create a creative part. One is to act as if you received messages from one that was there. If you congruently convince them of this, they'll build one on their own. The other choice is to officially build them a part because they don't yet have one that can perform that function.