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

Woman: Do you ever run into somebody who says «I can't come up with any new alternatives»?

Yes. In that case you can employ all of the «I don't know» techniques. «Well, good, if you did know, what would they be?» «Guess what they might be.» «Dream it tonight and let me know tomorrow.» «Think of someone who does behave effectively in that context. Now watch and listen to what she does.»

Most of you live under real time–space constraints; you only have an hour or so to see each client. If you get to the point where you are about to run out of time, and you are still at this step, then you can do several things. Send the client out in the world to find a real model. «Go find someone who knows how to behave effectively in this area. Watch and listen to what she does.» Milton Erickson used to do this a lot with his clients. If you know of a particular relevant book or movie that has an isomorphic situation, you can give her a homework assignment. Or you can have her ask some friend what she would do.

Programmed dreaming is another choice. «Go inside and ask the part of you that has been trying to come up with creative solutions if it will be responsible during dreaming tonight to develop alternative behaviors and display them in your dreams.» Get a «yes» response and then ask «Will the part of you that used to run pattern X take responsibility for selecting from those alternatives three or more ways that are better, and for employing them in the context where they belong?» Then the person goes off with programmed dreaming, has the dreams, and incorporates the behaviors. When she comes back in two weeks, she will be able to tell you what specific adjustments have occurred.

Jill: I've found that many people respond negatively to the word «responsibility» in step five. But if I say «Ask that part if it is willing to select from the alternatives?» then everything goes smoothly.

Excellent. Keep your outcome in mind, and use whatever words get you that outcome.

Skip: When you get to the ecological check and there is a signal, you check to find out if it's an objection. If it is truly an objection, I'm puzzled about why you don't just go back to step four instead of going all the way back to step two.

You can do that. Skip is proposing that if you get an ecological check objection, rather than giving the part that's objecting new ways to do what it is trying to do, you go back and find other alternatives for the first part which the second part won't object to. That's an excellent variation, and sometimes it will be better to do that—for instance, if the first part chooses alternatives such as suicide.

Man: A woman I was working with wanted to evaluate each of the three alternatives separately. It seemed OK to me, so she did that.

Fine. It's actually a bit more precise and explicit to do each alternative in turn, than it is to lump them together. Some people require a lot of precision when they process information. You've got to be very explicit with those people, and the chunks have to be smaller than the ones we typically use. In that case, the variation you used would be not only desirable, but perhaps necessary to accommodate that person's personal style.

Woman: I've always done the ecological check before the future–pace. Why do you have the future–pace first, when you may have changes or revisions in the new behaviors, and have to future–pace all over again?

You can do it that way, and often you can get by with it. But there is an important reason why we future–pace first. Future–pacing context–ualizes the behavior, testing it out in imagination. Parts may only realize that they have an objection when you future–pace and context–ualize the new behaviors. If you future–pace last, objections may emerge then, and you won't know that unless you're alert for signs of incongruence at that point.

Woman: What do you do if a client says, «No, that's not what I want» (She nods her head up and down.)?

How you deal with incongruence is a whole subject in itself. My typical response to that is «Yes, I really think it is» (He shakes his head side to side.) At that point, he will «short circuit» and go into an utter confusion state, and I can do pretty much anything I want.

Alternatively, I can simply utilize his response and feed it back. «I didn't think so» (nodding «yes»). «However, let's pretend that it is.» By doing this, I have validated both the conscious and unconscious communication, as if saying «I recognize both of you are there.»

Then I go on to install the behavior that the unconscious agrees to. The overall strategy I have when I receive conflicting messages like that is to always go with the ones outside of awareness, because I'll always win that way. It's his unconscious that's running the show, anyway. He's just not able to acknowledge it, and there's no need for him to.

This is a problem that the Simontons have run into in doing their work with cancer patients. They will only accept clients who are consciously willing to accept the belief that they are creating their own cancer. That eliminates a large percentage of the population who have cancer. In fact, most cancer patients have a belief system that precludes taking conscious responsibility for their disease. Most cancer patients believe that they should not overtly ask for help or attention or whatever secondary gain they derive from having cancer. That belief is what made the disease itself necessary.

Both insanity and disease in this culture are considered to be «involuntary responses," so you are not responsible for them. So one way to get help and attention is to have something happen that is involuntary and that you can't be held responsible for. Insanity and disease are both very powerful ways to get other people to respond to you without taking responsibility for it.

The Simontons insist that their clients take full conscious responsibility for creating their own cancers, which is a remarkable way to approach it. The one big disadvantage of that approach is that it makes their way of working with cancer patients available only to a very small percentage of the population.

Woman: But you could work with the population that consciously believes that they aren't responsible, and ask them to suspend their disbelief for a period of time.

Right. Ask them to pretend. You can even agree that they aren't responsible, but you've discovered that by going through certain «psychological» steps, people are often able to have a healing impact on problems that are clearly physical in their origin. Then you go ahead and do six–step reframing in the same way you would with someone who says «I believe I caused this.»

I don't even know who is «correct» in their belief system. I do know that reframing can have an impact on physical symptoms.

Man: Are you suggesting that one could use the Simontons' system—their whole approach—at the unconscious level?

Yes. All you would need to do is use six–step reframing entirely at the unconscious level. The positive intention and the new choices can all be left unconscious.

When the unconscious mind refuses to inform consciousness of the positive intention, I typically turn to the person and say «Are you willing to trust that your unconscious is well–intentioned, even though it won't tell you what it is trying to do for you by this pattern of behavior?» If I have rapport, they agree. «OK, I'm willing to try that out.» If I get a «no» response, I ask if they are willing to pretend. Or you can say «Look, do you really have a choice? You've already done the best that you know how to do, consciously, to change this behavior. When you made the assumption that this was a bad part, you failed utterly. Let's try the reverse assumption for a two–week period, and you tell me at the end of two weeks whether this is a more effective way to pretend.»