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

If the programmer is incongruent in delivering the method, you interrupt again. This time give specific feedback about what the programmer could do to be more congruent. «Change your voice tone and tempo in this way," or «Change your body posture and gestures in this way.» You are all here to become more graceful communicators than you already are. If there is any incongruity in your behavior, I believe that you'll want to know about it, because being incongruent is self–defeating. When you are the programmer, your 7 ± 2 chunks of conscious attention will be involved in communicating with the client and getting responses. The meta–person will have more attention free to notice what's going on, so use the information that the meta–person communicates to you.

As a meta–person the finest thing that you can do to assist the programmer is to interrupt at any time that you don't understand what's going on, the programmer hesitates, or the programmer is incongruent in his behavior.

Rose: So when my meta–person interrupts, rather than treating him like a mosquito and swatting him, I'm to treat my meta–person as a generator of new behaviors especially built in for me?

He will be a generator of new behavior only in the sense that he will challenge you by asking you the questions. You need to come up with your own solutions. He is not there to provide you with solutions directly.

Woman: Earlier when we were doing an exercise, the meta–person kept jumping in and interrupting what the programmer was doing. It seemed like the programmer was ready to go along to the next step, but the meta–person would jump in before the programmer could move on. Should I ask the meta–person to slow down?

Negotiate with your meta–person about the interventions that are appropriate for you. Keep in mind that it's difficult to interrupt too much in an artificial situation like this one that is set up solely for the sake of learning to have more choices. However, you are a human being with your own needs. If there are so many interruptions that it disorients you, say «Hey! I need at least a minute and a half at a time before you jump in again, unless there's something really important.» So negotiate that with your meta–person. And you can also reframe yourself so that you think of every interruption in terms of what you may be able to learn from it.

When you are the role–player, I want you to role–play your most difficult clients. Don't get into your own personal change goals. You'll get changes anyway, by metaphor. You don't have to worry about that.

I'll role–play this exercise again, to make it really clear. Doris, you be the programmer. What I'm going to do is think to myself «Oh yeah. I have one client who is really tough for me to reframe. Every time I do reframing, it starts out really nicely, but by the time I get to step three or four, the signals start shifting all over the place and I don't know what's happening. I don't know what to do with that.» So I tell Doris «You've got good rapport with me. You've helped me identify a behavior to reframe and you've established communication with the part. The signal I'm getting is an increase in heat in my hand for 'yes' and a decrease for 'no.' Now you're on step three and you're about to have me ask the part if it will let me know in consciousness what it's doing for me that's positive. It's there that the difficulties come up, so let's start there.»

I don't want you to go through the whole reframing format and practice the pieces that you don't need any practice with. You're not doing complete pieces of therapy; you're just doing some small chunk that the person playing the client wants to have more choices about. That person will use you as a resource by having you respond to the difficulty.

OK. Doris, you're the programmer. Do you know where we are? Doris: The temperature in your hand increases for «yes»? Yes ma'am. It just did.

Doris: So let's try that again and ask it if it's really sure it's «yes.» Check again and see if that increases. Check again?

Do you want me to say something to myself, or what?

Doris: Yeah. Go inside. Ask that part if it is «yes.»

The part that makes X happen?

Doris: Yes.

OK. So what should I ask it now?

Doris: Tell it if it is «yes," to say «yes» in a stronger way, to let you know really, for sure. You mean to just go in and tell it that? …

You see, by acting confused I'm making Doris be very explicit in her verbal behavior. Being sloppy in your verbalizations is one of the best ways to mess up any of our techniques and get stuck. Doris said «Let's try that again," but didn't tell me exactly what to try. She told me to «check and see if that increases," when I have to feel the signal of hand warmth. She said «Ask that part if it is 'yes,'" without specifying what «it» is. If you use those kinds of sloppy verbalizations with your clients, either they will be confused, or they may go inside and do something very different than what you intend.

My questions require her to clean up her instructions. The finest thing you can do for your colleagues is to demand high–quality performance. If the programmer is sloppy in her verbalizations, be confused. Let her sort it out, with the help of her consultant. If Doris hesitates at that point, then her meta–person should ask «What step are you on, and what specifically are you trying to accomplish?» «I'm trying to validate how robust and strong the involuntary signal system is. Specifically I'm trying to validate that a rise in temperature of the right hand means 'yes.'" Then the meta–person says «How are you going to do it, Doris?» She says to me «OK. Go inside. Thank the part for the response. Tell it to heat up your hand again if in fact the warming of your hand is a 'yes' response.» So I close my eyes and do it. Then I come back and say «Yeah, it did the same thing again. That is really weird!»

OK. Doris, what do you do next?

Doris: Now you have a very strong «yes.» Isn't that nice to have something say «yes» to you? Probably when you were a little boy—

This is where the meta–person steps in again and says «Wait a minute! Hypnotic age–regression is an important tool, but it is inappropriate now.»

Doris: I think I need to check to see what the next step is.

Fine. This is training, so you can say «Hold on a minute!» Or you can turn to the meta–person and ask «What is the next step, anyway?» Then the meta–person says «To make a distinction between the behavior and the intention.»

OK. Here I am on step three. Anybody else can play the programmer.

Joe: Does that part of you know what the intent of X is? I don't know.

Joe: Ask it and see what happens to your hand.

See what happens to my hand? OK. I'll look at it. What exactly do you want me to ask it?

Joe: No, feel it.

(He reaches over and feels it with his other hand.) Again, if you insist upon clarity, your colleagues will be forced to make the best use of this situation. So the programmer says «Ask the part that runs X if it knows what its positive intent is. If the answer is 'yes,' it will warm your hand. If the answer is 'no,' the heat will decrease. So notice the feeling in your hand.» Now I'm going to go back to role–playing.

Uh, I think it heated up, but what was really strange was that when I asked the question there was a movement in my shoulder almost as if someone pushed me. I don't know what that's about! And also there was suddenly a loud buzzing in my ears. … I don't know about this stuff!

Joe: And did you feel a change in temperature in your hand? Yeah, there was a change.

Joe: What was the change?

It's warmer than it was before. But I don't understand these other things that are happening.