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

Right. George just did one of the maneuvers you can use to get access. That's step two of the six–step reframing model: establishing communication with the part responsible for Y. Once he's got access, he would anchor it. As the therapist, I would simultaneously anchor it kinesthetically and also visually and auditorily, so that I could reaccess the part from a distance. This would enable me to reaccess that part whether or not the client is capable of reaccessing the appropriate state intentionally.

You could also get me to do self–anchoring by saying, «And as you feel that, touch the part of your body where you feel it.» I spontaneously touched my stomach a moment ago. Without explaining anything to me, you can notice how I touch myself, and then have me redo that movement later as an access. In addition, my body posture, breathing pattern, and facial expression are all self–anchors.

All those nonverbal analogues you just saw are the visual signs that will let you know exactly when I'm accessing the part responsible for Y. George asked me what it was like when I did Y. From this point on, you should know whether I'm actually getting access to that part of me or not.

That was one good maneuver. Now let's go back and do it again. Let's go back to the point where I said «Well, I'm just a truck driver. What do you mean 'Go inside and ask some part of me'?» How else could you get access? We want you to have lots of choices at every step.

Joe: Did you watch the football game last Sunday?

Ken: Yeah, that was a really exciting game!

Joe: I was watching, too, and there was no question that the losing team wanted to win that game. They had all the determination in the World, but they just didn't have the plays.

Ken: Yeah. It seemed like the winning team had a lot more things they could do.

Joe: Exactly.

Ken: Yeah. It was a good game. Do you watch football much? I used to play in school… .

OK. That maneuver didn't get me to access the part. Try something else.

Bill: You know, I've been interested in truck driving for a long time, and one thing that I don't know much about is how to shift gears.

Ken: Oh, hey! That's what distinguishes a pro from an amateur.

Bill: Would you tell me how? You have to «double shift» or something, don't you?

Ken: Yeah. Well, we have a special way of talking. And I don't think you'd understand, you know, «double–clutching» and all those—

Bill: Well, would you try telling me about that?

Ken: Well, no. But I could show you.

Bill: Good, good. Go ahead.

OK, now I show him. And at the end of my showing you, Bill, what do you do next? … I think that Bill is going for the same access that Joe was trying to get, but he didn't use what he got. The metaphor he used accessed experiences that I know could be used to answer the truck driver's question «What do you mean by a part of me?» Bill, how could you go on to use what you've gotten so far?

Bill: Well, the reason I'm asking is that sometimes I grind the gears when I drive my car, and I need to know—

Ken: Well, you've only got four or five gears at the most to deal with. If you were a truck driver, you'd know how to do thirteen–gear boxes and stuff. You don't need to know that. The thing I'd suggest when you shift gears is that you remember your timing. Your timing's got to be right. In fact, it will save you gas. When you get ready to shift down, you've got to make sure that you coordinate so that you hit that clutch and then the gas and let out the clutch, «double–clutch» it, and then you are ready to go.

Rose: I rode across the country with a truck driver once, and as we were driving along, I realized that he was listening to his tires, and to the sound of his load shifting, and to music on a tape, and he was talking to me—all at once.

Ken: Yeah, you get real automatic when you've driven a truck for a while. After a while you don't even have to think about it. …

Now I'm going to come out of quotes again. Rose is going for exactly the portion of this metaphor that I would go for in your position. Don't let this opportunity go by. Rose can now say to me, «I want you to notice that there are parts of you that do things automatically. When I say 'parts,' that's just a way of talking. Of course it doesn't mean anything. There are parts of you that know how to shift gears and listen for load shifts and listen for the tone of the engine, so you don't have to consciously think about those things. It's as if a part of you drives the truck automatically, leaving the rest of you free to do things like enjoying talking to your passenger or your partner. It's as if there are parts of you that can be assigned certain responsibilities, but now the part of you that makes you do Y is out of control. We've got to reestablish some contact, because it's doing things that you don't like.»

If you do that, you've relativized your model to the world of a truck driver, without spending twenty–four days teaching him to be an NLP practitioner. You've simply accessed an experience of his that is a counterpart to the notion of «parts.» I'm not saying that this maneuver is the one you «should» make next. It is one way for you to use what Rose did to overcome the difficulty that I presented.

Accessing an experience of doing something well and automatically is also useful in another way. You've accessed a state in which I am resourceful, and you can use that state later on. In addition, this particular auditory resource state involves a representational system shift from the kinesthetic way that I described the problem state Y.

Woman: So how do we anchor that?

At the point that I said «Yeah, it becomes automatic after a while," you say «Good» and slap your hands together lightly, or anchor in some other way.

Woman: What are you anchoring there?

You are anchoring my understanding that there are unconscious parts of me that are useful, and that I don't know much about.

Man: In this case would it be more elegant to anchor auditorily, since you were talking about auditory resources?

I anchor in all systems. When we teach tactile anchoring, we claim we do so because tactile anchors are so obvious. Actually we teach it because if you anchor with a touch, you are likely to anchor simultaneously in all other systems as well. When I'm anchoring, I change my body posture so that I can touch the client. That's a visual anchor if his eyes are open. At the same time, I'm talking in a certain tone of voice; that becomes an auditory anchor. I recommend anchoring in all systems simultaneously, unless you want to be sure that your anchoring stays outside the person's awareness.

Another advantage of tactile anchoring is that it is irresistible. There are survival programs that will interrupt any other sensory input in favor of a tactile input. If you are inside talking to yourself and I use a tonal shift, you may not even register it, and you may not respond to it. If your pupils are dilated and I use a visual anchor, you may not be responsive. But if you are touched, you will respond.

Strictly speaking, you only need an anchor in one system. In general, anchoring in the system that is accessed will be more streamlined. In this case it's auditory. However, unless you have some special considerations, why not use all systems?

Now let's go back to what we just did with reframing: accessing an understanding of the notion of unconscious parts. If someone doesn't think he has «parts," there are lots of approaches you can take. I once worked with a woman who believed that she didn't have an unconscious mind. She came in with every hair meticulously in place, and she thought that everything she did was under conscious control. The idea of «parts» didn't make any sense to her. I first got rapport at the unconscious level by using mirroring, crossover mirroring, embedded commands, metaphors, and other maneuvers. She was puzzled by what I was doing, but I continued until I was getting really good unconscious responses from her.