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

What you have to remember is that reality is contextual. Here we can talk about that and everyone nods meaningfully. You have all become a part of my psychotic reality. I have built a part in you so that I am no longer crazy.

If we had a psychotic, one of the things we could do is get the psychotic to have everybody else see his hallucination, and then we could call it «religion» or «politics.» The point is that realities are defined structures.

In some situations you need to build a part, and you can build a part in any situation. Who in here needs a part? Does anybody in here need a part? What do you want? What is the part going to do?

Teri: It would keep me at a certain weight.

You want a part to keep you at a certain weight. That certainly is a well–defined one. Who else?

Man: I want a part that enables me to see clearly with binocularity, without glasses.

It's a possibility.

Woman: I'd like a part that would be creative with metaphors.

I want you all to notice something. I'm now going to comment on group process. I asked people to define an outcome, and people were having lots of trouble. Just now I said «Who in here wants a part?» and listen to how well–defined the outcomes are! Remember that when you work with people.

Man: I want a part to remind me at regular and frequent intervals that I know what I'm doing most of the time.

All right. If you have to have one like that.

Jill: I want a part to let me know what I do know how to do.

What's the outcome of that? That's not an outcome. That's a process. This is the first slip–up we've had here. I want to know exactly what this part is supposed to do. You might get yourself a part to remind you of a catalog of your therapeutic skills, or to remind you to have variety in your behavior. That would be specific. What do you want?

Jill: I want a part that will move me on to something different after I'm convinced that I've already done one thing successfully.

OK. You could have a part that says «OK. You've done reframing; you know the standard model. You're hot at that and that would work here, but let's do it differently this time and have some fun.» Do you want that one? Or do you want a part that after you have successfully done reframing says «OK, it worked» so that you don't go ahead and use another model to cure the same problem that's already been cured?

Woman: I'll take both.

Man: I'd like a part that would allow me to relax when I'm sitting in a chair listening to a lecture, or when I'm talking.

Is that appropriate for this model? … It could be. The key question is «Are you relaxed at other times?»

Man: Yes.

So it's only when you come into a context like this that you get tense. Then the six–step model is more appropriate. If you built a new part to relax you, that would conflict with some other part that is making you tense.

Man: I'd like a part that permits me to retain the content of a lecture without taping the lecture.

Woman: I want an assertive part, but assertive only in certain contexts. Would I use this model, though, if I had an assertive part and the unassertive problem was contextually related? In other words, I have an assertive part… but it doesn't work all the time.

Well, I'm not willing to agree with that description. I would say what you are describing is that you have an assertive part, because you are capable of being assertive in some situations. This could be described in two ways. One is that you go into some specific situation and that Part goes «Not me!» The other possibility is that the assertive part says «Get 'em now!» and some other part goes «Shhhh!» The question is

«Which of those two possibilities occurs?» When you know that, then you can decide which kind of reframing to use—but either way, it's not building a part.

Harvey: I'd like a part to enable me to make lots of money.

OK. You want a greedy or clever part, depending upon how you think about it. Again, there are still lots of questions about your outcome. If the outcome is to get a lot of money, there have to be some well–formedness conditions about how you'll do this. Otherwise you might just take a gun and rob the first bank you see. This is the same thing I was talking about earlier. I want a specific description of what this part is going to do. Otherwise if I install this part, it may just go out and rob a bank.

Harvey: I want a part that will build referrals and find new markets for my skills.

OK, good. If you build the part that's going to generate referrals, then it knows how to go about getting money. That's a very specific kind of outcome.

Ray: I'd like a part that would enable me to improvise on the piano.

Woman: I'd like a part that allows me conscious access to visual images from the past.

You can't make eidetic images? How do you spell «greenwood»? … OK. You can make pictures; the emphasis is on the word «conscious.»

Woman: I'd like a part that would allow me to create hilarious humor whenever I wish. I want a part to just blow people apart into a humorous state.

Man: I want a part that will… allow me to … pause.

Do you want another one? You'd better be a little more specific, because you just demonstrated that you have a part that can allow you to pause. That's a mild incongruity in your communication, but my guess is that you have something more specific in mind.

Kit: I'd like a part to deal with «passive–aggressive» behaviors.

You will have to define that for me. «Passive–aggressive» is a double nominalization.

Kit: OK. I feel an incongruity in a set of behaviors that I experience with people and in myself—

We're going off into the «Land of Nominalization» here. We have to be careful. What is this part going to do?

Kit: Well, the part is going to serve a need—

All parts are going to serve a need. What is it going to do?

Kit: It will be like a periscope.

You can't specify outcome with that kind of metaphor. You've got to be very specific, or you'll go home at night and you'll lie down, and your body may come up like a periscope. If you say it's going to be a periscope, what exactly is it going to do for you? You've got to really tie it down to the world of experience.

Kit: I want balance between polarities.

Of?…

Man: You could build Kit a part to be more specific.

There you go. Beautiful. If you installed a part in her that was in charge of the Meta–Model, and then she Meta–Modeled her own internal dialogue, think what a gift that would be. Most of my students from the old days have a Meta–Model part.

Kit: I want a part to bring the stuff in me—

Wait a minute. Never mind. You need a part that knows the first four distinctions in the Meta–Model. In the exercise, someone is going to install a part in you that does that on the inside, so that before you speak, you can have the choice of using specific language or not.

Kit: I'd like a part that is … I feel that I… I've got a new statement to create it… since yesterday.

OK. Hold on for a few minutes. Go inside… .

Kit: I feel like I am.

Yes, that's right. This is called «pacing observable behavior.» Go inside and figure it out. I want you to make a visual image of what it is that would be occurring either in your mind or in the world of experience, that would allow me to know that this part that you want was operating. I don't want your image to be metaphorical. In other words, if you had a part that did this, what would I see that would be different? Take some time and do that on your own.

Lucy: I want a part to increase the frequency and intensity of orgasm with my husband. That would fit into this model.