A part whose job it is to actually instigate behavior in contexts that are risky. We call that a «chutzpah part.» I can think of many people who need one of those.
Man: It seems like you're building parts into us all the time. For instance, you build parts in us to observe sensory experience and translate it, and to understand reframing.
Of course. Sure.
Woman: I'd like a part to hear pitch. The outcome would be to be able to sing on pitch.
Hear, hear. Give me some more examples of where you would use this model as opposed to the other reframing model.
Man: Build a part to learn how to do any physical activity, like roller skating or ice skating or any other sport.
Sure. It sounds like strategies, doesn't it? All right, let's go back to therapy now; we're drifting off into the land of generativity. I think it's nice that your tendency is to become generative; however, this seminar is about therapy. The question is «What problems do people bring you as therapists that this model is going to be appropriate for?» If you can't think of anything, there's no reason to teach it to you.
Woman: You could use it working with a child of a missionary who's never had a stable home environment and doesn't feel like he belongs anywhere.
What would that part do?
Woman: It would allow him to feel at home wherever he is.
Sure, OK.
Woman: How about building a part to stand up and be assertive?
Sure. What do you think assertiveness training is all about? «Now we're all going to build the same part here together.»
Man: A part to know when to get out of unproductive relationships.
Hear, hear!
Woman: A part to tell people what need their present operation enhances. And they would know why—
Wait a minute. «Operation» is an anchor for me for something other than what I think you are talking about. That was a «cutting» remark, so please rephrase it.
Woman: A part to tell someone why the activity he is involved in is satisfying to him.
A psychotherapist part? «You are happy now because …»
Woman: Then they would know why they are eating, what need the eating is satisfying, and then they could substitute a preferential activity.
Let me question you on this a little bit, because this is something that therapy has been trying to do for years, and I don't agree that it's a useful outcome. What's the outcome of installing a part that tells people about their ongoing behavior while they are doing it? There's one outcome of that that I think is absolutely disastrous: there are always two of you there at all times—one of you doing something, and one of you talking about it. That is called dissociation.
Above and beyond that, there's an even worse outcome of that kind of awareness, which is that you don't have very much external sensory experience. The outcome of having a part that constantly monitors your behavior is that you will always be on the inside, monitoring your behavior. You won't know how the world is responding to you. You will be there talking to yourself about why you are having this conversation and why you feel bad. But you'll never see the external behavior; you'll be too caught up internally. That kind of part has important limitations which should be considered.
You can build a part to do that, and in fact, many therapists already have one. They come to my groups and I say «Now, I'm going to put this person up here, and I'm going to touch him on the shoulder and his skin color is going to change.» The people with these parts go inside and say «Well, I'm feeling threatened by this. Why am I threatened right now?» Then I ask «What color did he change to?» They come back out and say «I didn't see anything.» The problem is you can't see or hear much externally if your attention is inside monitoring your behavior— whether you do it visually, auditorily, or kinesthetically.
When you're caught in a loop, you might want to have what we call a meta–part that temporarily dissociates and takes an observer position and says «Hey, what's going on here right now?» That part's function would be to get you out of loops. But the only time it would engage itself is when you are in a mess; it would not analyze at all times. If you put that constraint on it, then you begin to get a more useful outcome. The importance of thinking very carefully about outcomes is that you can succeed very well at installing parts that will completely drive people bananas in unuseful ways. So when you consider installing something, I want you to ask yourself «Well, what's the logical outcome of building this part? Is this really what I want to do, or is there something else that I have in mind? How can I be more specific about my description, so that when I build it, I get something that approximates what I want?'
Let me generalize the idea of a meta–part. A meta–part is only operational at certain times, and the contextual cue that triggers its functioning is usually based on how other parts are functioning. For example, it could be a part that comes into play only when you feel stuck, dissatisfied, or doubtful. Its functioning could also be cued to an external stimulus like a time of day, but if you do that, it may interfere with whatever else you happen to be doing at that time. So it's usually better to have it triggered off by an internal state—a feeling of being in conflict, indecision, or something like that. You can specify that whenever two parts get into a conflict, then the meta–part goes into action.
A meta–part is kind of like an amnesia state waiting in the wings to be fired off. Within the meta–part is a program, a formal set of procedures, that comes out linearly. It's like a computer sub–routine more than anything else. «If parts disagree, then do X.» The meta–part operates and modifies the disagreeing parts. It operates on the other parts, but is only functional in response to a cue. The procedure that it uses is usually formal: it could do six–step reframing, it could do content reframing, or it could just give you amnesia. There are lots and lots of possibilities for what a meta–part can do. It's a part that influences other parts to keep them from being in conflict with each other, or keep them from doing something that makes you get arrested, or whatever.
One way of thinking about a meta–part is that it is a mechanism to build a response. Another way to think about a well–functioning meta–part is that if you go into a calibrated internal loop that is not useful, that state becomes an anchor for a procedure that elicits a response that will get you out of the loop. That is closer to how I think about it than as a part. The notion of parts is a good pace for most people's experience, but for me there is a bit too much anthropomorphism in the notion of parts. You can think of a meta–part as a part that makes a distinction and then kicks into a procedure that can take you somewhere else.
With a couple, you can build a part in one of them that operates only when they argue. This part recognizes that the reason they argue is because they want things to be better. Rather than going in and negotiating with all the parts that feel right about things and argue, you can build a part that recognizes that they are now making themselves feel bad because they want to feel good. What they want is fine, but the way they are going about it stinks. Rather than reframing all the other parts yourself, you can build a meta–part that recognizes this and says «Hey, you are doing this because you love this guy. Do you remember the first time you fell in love with him? Do you recall what that was like? The way you are trying to get him to treat you well isn't working. Do you remember what you did then? What else could you do? What does Janie do with her husband that works?» The meta–part goes into some way of generating alternatives: it provides ways for them to get what they really want. At specific times it says «Go in and change your behavior and get out of this loop; you've been here before and it has never worked. Arguing is not going to get you what you hope it will, and in order for you to argue, it must be really important. It must be important enough to change what you are doing.»