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

OK, now I want another example of a function.

Pat: The function of my new part is to let me know when I know something. The concern is that it will defeat my motivation to learn more.

OK, so if you had a part that let you know when you know something, then you would be less motivated to learn. So now you have to build a desire to know what's over the next horizon into the new part that you are going to build. That's got to be an integral part of having a sense of what you know. «I really know reframing; I wonder what else there is to learn?» That's got to be built into the new fantasy part.

For each objection, you're going to have to modify the fantasy until it satisfies each of those conditions.

Bill: I've got one, the function of which is to keep me honest.

That is not a function. That is a behavior. That is an example of what we do not want. What is it trying to do by keeping you honest?

Bill: Protect me from being accused of lying … or to be honored if a person tells me I'm honest.

Well, make sure which it wants. There's a real difference between being honored and—

Bill: It feels more aversive than it does—

All right, but be persnickety. Go in, set up a yes/no signal, and find out which it is. Check it out and be thorough.

Teri: I came up with the main thing behind all this. The only time that I've ever been thin, I was crazy. There is a part that's not willing to let me become thin, because I don't want to be crazy.

Well, I certainly think that you could build strict controls on your mental health into a part that was going to put you on a weight maintenance program. Think about it this way, Teri. Poundage and sanity have no relationship to one another, other than anchoring. Whatever weight you weighed when you were whatever you are calling «crazy» had nothing intrinsically to do with being crazy. That time it was a coincidence. There's no causal relationship between losing weight and your being crazy again.

It's the same as when we did the lying exercise last week. I said «OK, it's time to lie.» Everybody else said «Yay, we're going to lie!» but you said «If I lie, I'll be crazy. I lied before and I was crazy, so if I lie now and I can't tell the difference, I'll be crazy, because that's how I was crazy before. If you want to make them crazy, that's all right, but I'm going outside!» … And the rest of the people were muttering «Well, we have to stay in here and be crazy.»

When I came outside I said to you «Look, lying, and not knowing whether you were lying or not, was an anchor for being crazy for you. The rest of the people in the room haven't done that—as far as they know. When you do it this time, we're going to give you a new anchor. We're going to make some black lines around your pictures when you lie, and they are really important black lines. Now you can lie, and know you are lying, so you won't be crazy this time.»

All I really did was to put a literal meta–reframe around what was going on. It's a very small change in your strategy. You're still making constructed visual images. We're just separating the constructed images from the others with those black lines, and it's that separation that allowed you to have new feelings about what you were doing. When I said «OK, now make up a lie» you made up a lie. I asked «Are you crazy?» and you said «No.» I asked «Which one is the lie?» «Well, the one with black lines around it is a lie. Anybody can see that.»

The point is this: if you are going to lose weight and go back to a weight that is associated with being crazy, you also have to put a new frame around it. That has got to be a function of this new part. If you are going to go back to the weight you had when you were crazy, then of course there's the implication that you are going to be crazy again. However, since you are not the person who went crazy, you can't possibly go back.

That distinction has got to be built into the part that you are building now. It's very essential that it's capable of distinguishing all the differences between this Teri and the one that went nuts. This Teri is a different age, and has a lot more information about the world of experience. You know how to do a lot of things that the other one didn't know how to do before. That Teri didn't know anything about NLP. She didn't know how to anchor psychiatrists. There are lots of tools that you have explicitly now, that you didn't have then—not only the things you've learned here, but in TA, and lots and lots of things that have nothing to do with psychotherapy. So this new part has got to be able to point out, now and then, how you are different.

Are there any other questions about how you utilize objections to redesign the part you want to build? This is a very important part of this process. This is the crux of building parts that will be functional, so that you don't end up being an anorexic or something like that.

Bill: I want a part to allow me to write papers comfortably, without agonizing. There's a part that objects. When I ask «Well, what's your function?» it says «My function is to make you aware of all the possible objections to, or criticisms of, what you are writing.»

OK. The contradiction I'm hearing is that that part wants you to write. Its job is to help you with your writing. Is it objecting to your being comfortable?

Bill: I like to write; the problem is that I sweat blood doing it.

That's impossible. That's the same contradiction. You're saying «I love to write; it's so painful.»

Bill: A friend of mine once said «I don't like to write; I like to have written.»

Well, that's different. — Bill: What I'm aware of is that I sit down at the typewriter all fired up. «Gee, this is some great stuff I'm going to put out here.» And then I go «Ughhh!»

Yeah, I agree. And do you know what you need to do in order to satisfy this part? One simple solution might be to ask it to read your papers at the end of each page.

Bill: Well, I was considering asking it to save its objections until I have a finished first draft. There's this other part that says «When you sit down, you write the first draft.»

OK, but you don't need to deal with the specific objections. You want to find solutions that preserve the functions of the parts that object. The important thing is that it objects. It's saying «Look, if you write this stuff, you're not going to consider all the objections people would have.» What if you had made a fantasy where you sat down and wrote comfortably, and then at the end picked up your work and let this part go to work with a red pencil to revise it? Would it be satisfied then? This is what I do with other people's writing. I have a part that does that really well, especially if it's somebody else's work. They call that «editorial work.» That can be a very valuable part.

Lucy: I'm hung up on a part that doesn't want me to give up control—

Of … ?

Lucy: —which I've taken to the part that will— Wait a minute! These forms are very important. You have a part that objects, right? What is its function? Lucy: Its function is to keep me from feeling helpless. That is not a function; that is a behavior. Lucy: It protects me from hurt.

That is a behavior. That is not a function. What will happen if you feel helpless? What is it trying to do for you by keeping you from feeling helpless? So what if you feel helpless?

Lucy: It's a needless function.

No, it's not. It's just that you don't know what it is yet. What is it trying to do for you by protecting you from feeling helpless? That's the first part. The second part is how does having orgasms more frequently have anything to do with feeling helpless or not? I don't need a verbal response to that. The point is to get the function clear so that you can understand how you have to modify your fantasy so that that part can be satisfied as well.