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

Joe: I would like you to ask the part that pushed your left shoulder if it would increase that feeling if it means «Yes, I have some input to this process.» (His left shoulder jerks again.) Thank you.

OK. Good. Remember, I'm the guy who wants choices to cope with multiple–signal responses. He's just given me one choice, namely to ask for a direct response from the part that gave one of the other signals. What other way could you deal with these other signals?

Al: There seems to be another part of you that wants to communicate.

Is that what's going on?

Al: That could be it. Wouldn't you like to find out? Let's ask it. It seems to me that you are reporting two other things in there. Is the part that pushes your shoulder willing to make the pushing of your shoulder a signal? If it is, would it push your shoulder again? (His shoulder jerks again.) Yes, thank you.

That's really weird.

Al: Yes. And there's a part of you that …

What?

Al: There may be another part of you that may be causing that buzzing sound you were hearing.

What?

Al: As the buzzing becomes quieter, you can—

OK. Now he's dealing with the other internal event. Does anybody know what you can do with these things once you've turned them into signals?

Jan: Go inside and ask those two parts if they would be willing to step aside for just a moment, knowing that I will get back to them later, and that we will not make any changes until they are consulted.

Excellent. One choice is to put them off until the ecological check.

Rick: How about forgetting about the hand warming and just using one of these new signals for the yes/no.

If you do that you would be running a risk. At this point, you don't know if the part responsible for the new signals is the same part that gave the hand–warming signal earlier. Your suggestion presupposes that they are one and the same. The part that buzzed and the part that jerked the shoulder might be some other parts that object to what you're doing. You don't know what parts are making the new signals, and you don't know what functions they have. What's another choice?

Sue: You could have the two parts that are objecting get a spokes–part to represent them for the time being.

OK. And I'm sitting here looking confused, because I don't know anything about anybody objecting. All I know is that my shoulder moved and that I heard a buzzing. Are you telling me those are objections?

Sue: I guess we don't know that.

That's absolutely right. You don't know that.

Rick: Could we establish a yes/no signal at the shoulder, and then ask the shoulder if it would be willing to allow the hand to continue as the yes/no signal?

That's very close to what Jan suggested a moment ago.

Let me play the meta–person for a moment and ask you what step this is, and what specific outcome you are trying to get.

Rick: I'm trying to find out whether these signals are all from the same part or not and what their purposes are.

Good. Notice, however, that if you use Jan's maneuver, you don't need to find that out until the ecological check, and you may not need to at all. If you get the buzzing and shoulder jerk to go «on hold» until the ecological check, you can find out at that point if they still have some objection. If those signals come up as objections at that point, you know they are different parts. If they don't, you know that either they are signals from the same part, or that the choices that satisfy the part that warms my hands also satisfy the other parts.

The uncertainty is «Are these simply other signals from the same part, or are these other parts that have to be taken into consideration?» You can find that out by saying «If the shoulder jerk is another signal from the same part that's making your hand warm up, would your shoulder again make that movement?» If you get the movement, you say «Good. Now if the buzzing is also a signal from the same part that's making your hand warm up, would the buzzing increase in volume?» If you get an increase, you say «Excellent. I would like you to thank this part of you that is so powerful that it can use multiple signals. For the purposes of your being calm and our understanding what is going on here, I would ask that it inhibit those signals in favor of continuing to use temperature change in your right hand.»

In that maneuver I turn the shoulder jerk and the buzzing into yes/no signals, and then ask if they are the same part or not. If I get a «no» response, I can go to the maneuver that Jan suggested.

Jan's suggestion is a good one in terms of efficiency. She suggested that you first have the person thank the shoulderjerk and the buzzing in order to validate the responses. That's always a good pacing maneuver. Then you reassure those parts that no behavioral change will occur until they have been consulted at the end of the procedure to make sure that they agree with what has occurred. If they have disagreements or additional needs at that point, they will be attended to with the same respect that's presently being paid to the part that's warming the hand.

Woman: If all the signals come from the same part, would it be appropriate for me to use the shoulder jerk as the signal system since it's easier for me to see than the hand–warming?

Certainly. If both signals are equally involuntary, but one is easier for you to read, ask for a shift. In general, you can make reframing an opportunity to meta–tune yourself to notice the many subtle changes that accompany the yes/no signals. If I don't see anything that goes along with my client's report of a signal, that's not an ecologically sound situation. I want to have an observable signal so that I have a check on the client's report. The client may lie to me, because he wants a change really badly.

One thing I will do is say «My apologies to your unconscious mind. Given the state of acuity that my eyes have at this moment, I was unable to notice the response. I would like to have direct access to a signal, in order to be absolutely sure that I am communicating with the appropriate unconscious part. I am going to ask you to return inside. I thank the part for having given you the signal, and that's all that is really required. But I ask, for my own behalf, so that I may be usefully instructed by your unconscious mind, that it show me something that is exaggerated enough that I can notice it. I would appreciate that very much.» I ally myself with the part, and then ask for a more observable signal.

Man: Could you ask the shoulder part «Would you be willing to work with the other part and make changes?»

The problem with that choice is that it presupposes that the shoulder movement is a signal from a different part, and you have no basis on which to make that presupposition. If you ask that, you may cause a total confusion state. If the signals were all manifestations of the same part, how could it respond to such a question? You've only set up yes/no signals, so the part has no way to indicate «presupposition failure," and you will get a state of confusion. There are times when you want to exclude possibilities by using presuppositions, but this is not one of those times.

Play around with this for about an hour, rotating positions after each role–play. Do as many situations as you have time for. Playing recalcitrant, difficult clients will provide you with live experience in coping with those kinds of situations.

This is an excellent format to gain finesse with any technique. Have someone role–play the most difficult client she can think of, and then try out different ways of getting the responses you want. If at any point you are unable to generate three choices for proceeding, and your meta–person can't provide you with additional choices, be sure to call one of us over.