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

Woman: What are you going to do when you get home?

Ken: None of your business! As a matter of fact, are we about done? I'm ready to go.

Fred: There's just one quick thing before you go.

Ken: What's that?

Fred: Your wife's at home, and you have children, right?

Ken: Yeah, but they're at school right now.

Fred is checking for ecological considerations now.

Fred: When you walk in the door and see your wife, I want you to «put the hammer down and convoy.»

Exercise

Now I want you to write down three situations that you frequently encounter in six–step reframing that you want more choices about coping with. It might be that you are unable to get access to a signal system. It might be that you don't know what to do when the client gets confused in the middle of the reframing process and says «I don't know what I'm doing anymore.» It might be that the person says she can't access her creative part. Or perhaps the part says it won't take responsibility for implementing the new choices, because it's not certain whether they'll work. Here is an outline of six–step reframing to help you identify the points at which you would like to have more choices.

1) Identify the pattern (X) to be changed. «I want to stop X'ing but I can't," or «I want to Y, but something stops me.»

2) Establish communication with the part responsible for the pattern.

a) «Will the part of me that makes me X communicate with me in consciousness?» Pay attention to any feelings, images, or sounds that occur in response to asking that question internally.

b) Establish the «yes/no» meaning of the signal. Have it increase in brightness, volume, or intensity for «yes," and decrease for

«no.»

3) Separate the behavior, pattern X, from the positive intention of the part that is responsible for X. The unwanted behavior is only a way to achieve some positive function.

a) Ask the part that runs X «Would you be willing to let me know in consciousness what you are trying to do for me by Pattern X?»

b) If you get a «yes» response, ask the part to go ahead and communicate its intention. If you get a «no» response, proceed with unconscious reframing, presupposing positive intention.

c) Is that intention acceptable to consciousness? Do you want to have a part of you which fulfills that function?

d) Ask the part that runs X «If there were ways to accomplish your positive function that would work as well as, or better than X, would you be interested in trying them out?»

4) Access a creative part, and generate new behaviors to accomplish the positive function.

a) Access experiences of creativity and anchor them, or ask «Are you aware of a creative part of yourself?»

b) Have the part that runs X communicate its positive function to the creative part, allow the creative part to generate more choices to accomplish that function, and have the part that used to run X select three choices that are at least as good or better than X. Have it give a «yes» signal each time it selects such an alternative.

5) Ask the part «Are you willing to take responsibility for using the three new alternatives in the appropriate context?» This provides a future–pace. In addition you can ask the part at the unconscious level to identify the sensory cues that will trigger the new choices, and to experience fully what it's like to have those sensory cues effortlessly and automatically bring on one of the new choices.

6) Ecological Check. «Is there any part of me that objects to any of the three new alternatives?» If there is a «yes» response, recycle to step 2 above.

Whatever «obstacles» you have encountered in doing reframing, I want you to select three that you'd really like to have more choices in dealing with. Then I want you to do an exercise in groups of three. Person A is going to look at his or her list of «obstacles» and role–play one of them as a client. B will then role–play an NLP programmer and try out ways to cope with the situation. Person C will be a consultant to keep B from falling into content and to keep B oriented.

For instance, if you are A, you will say something like «You've established rapport with me and set up a signal system with the part that runs X. We're on step three: you just asked the part if it will communicate its positive intention to me consciously. The response I've gotten is that I don't experience the old signal at all, but I have two different signals.» So A will set the stage at exactly the point in reframing where A wants more choices.

B will then try out one method of responding to the situation that wight move A toward the next step of reframing. C will be an observer, or meta–person, and notice whether B's maneuver is effective or not. Then I want C to ask B to think of two other responses to make to that situation, and then try out each of them.

Let me give you an example of the way I'd like to have you do this exercise. Let's say Beth is going to play client, Scott is going to play programmer, and Irv, you are going to be the meta–person, the consultant. Part of your job, Irv, is to observe and listen to the relationship between Scott's behavior and Beth's. At any point in time, I should be able to walk up to you and say «Tell me something about the relationship between the programmer's tonality and the client's tonality» or «Where are they in the reframing format?» So your job is to know everything that's going on—which is impossible, so just do your best.

The second thing that Irv is responsible for as meta–person is more specific. Any time the programmer hesitates or begins to be confused, you interrupt and say «Hold on. Which step of reframing are you on?» «Step two.» «What specific outcome are you attempting to get? What's the next small chunk of outcome you are going to get?»

Scott should be able to respond specifically, for example: «I want to establish a robust involuntary unconscious signal system with the part responsible for the behavior.» Then Irv will say «How, specifically, are you going to do that?» Scott will respond «I'm going to access it behaviorally by pretending to do behavior X myself and thereby induce it in her. Or I can ask her to do behavior X. Or I could ask her to go inside and ask the part if it will communicate, and make sure that the signal system that comes back is involuntary.»

Every time the meta–person interrupts, I want him to get not just one choice, but three options for proceeding. First you'll find out what specific outcome the programmer is going for, and then you'll get three ways he can attain it. These ways won't necessarily all work, but building in at least three options at every choice point will make you much more effective in your work. If you've got only one choice, you are a robot. If you've got only two, you are in a dilemma. However, if you've got three, you begin to have behavioral flexibility.

This is what I was asking you to do earlier when I was role–playing a client. You got access to the part in one way, so I said «Now go back to the choice point and do it some other way.»

Meta–person, the third thing I want you to do is to interrupt if you don't understand what's going on. If Scott is the programmer, and under stress he goes back to some old program like «How do you feel about that?» then you can interrupt and ask the same three questions: 1) «What step are you on?» 2) «What is the specific outcome you are going for?» 3) «How is what you just did going to achieve that outcome?»

If, in fact, that behavior wouldn't get the outcome, then as meta–person you ask «How could you get that outcome?» When he gives you one way, ask «How else could you get it?» When the programmer has three ways, have him go ahead and pick one to try out.