All I really did was to put a literal meta–reframe around what was going on. It's a very small change in your strategy. You're still making constructed visual images. We're just separating the constructed images from the others with those black lines, and it's that separation that allowed you to have new feelings about what you were doing. When I said «OK, now make up a lie» you made up a lie. I asked «Are you crazy?» and you said «No.» I asked «Which one is the lie?» «Well, the one with black lines around it is a lie. Anybody can see that.»

The point is this: if you are going to lose weight and go back to a weight that is associated with being crazy, you also have to put a new frame around it. That has got to be a function of this new part. If you are going to go back to the weight you had when you were crazy, then of course there's the implication that you are going to be crazy again. However, since you are not the person who went crazy, you can't possibly go back.

That distinction has got to be built into the part that you are building now. It's very essential that it's capable of distinguishing all the differences between this Teri and the one that went nuts. This Teri is a different age, and has a lot more information about the world of experience. You know how to do a lot of things that the other one didn't know how to do before. That Teri didn't know anything about NLP. She didn't know how to anchor psychiatrists. There are lots of tools that you have explicitly now, that you didn't have then—not only the things you've learned here, but in TA, and lots and lots of things that have nothing to do with psychotherapy. So this new part has got to be able to point out, now and then, how you are different.

Are there any other questions about how you utilize objections to redesign the part you want to build? This is a very important part of this process. This is the crux of building parts that will be functional, so that you don't end up being an anorexic or something like that.

Bill: I want a part to allow me to write papers comfortably, without agonizing. There's a part that objects. When I ask «Well, what's your function?» it says «My function is to make you aware of all the possible objections to, or criticisms of, what you are writing.»

OK. The contradiction I'm hearing is that that part wants you to write. Its job is to help you with your writing. Is it objecting to your being comfortable?

Bill: I like to write; the problem is that I sweat blood doing it.

That's impossible. That's the same contradiction. You're saying «I love to write; it's so painful.»

Bill: A friend of mine once said «I don't like to write; I like to have written.»

Well, that's different. — Bill: What I'm aware of is that I sit down at the typewriter all fired up. «Gee, this is some great stuff I'm going to put out here.» And then I go «Ughhh!»

Yeah, I agree. And do you know what you need to do in order to satisfy this part? One simple solution might be to ask it to read your papers at the end of each page.

Bill: Well, I was considering asking it to save its objections until I have a finished first draft. There's this other part that says «When you sit down, you write the first draft.»

OK, but you don't need to deal with the specific objections. You want to find solutions that preserve the functions of the parts that object. The important thing is that it objects. It's saying «Look, if you write this stuff, you're not going to consider all the objections people would have.» What if you had made a fantasy where you sat down and wrote comfortably, and then at the end picked up your work and let this part go to work with a red pencil to revise it? Would it be satisfied then? This is what I do with other people's writing. I have a part that does that really well, especially if it's somebody else's work. They call that «editorial work.» That can be a very valuable part.

Lucy: I'm hung up on a part that doesn't want me to give up control—

Of … ?

Lucy: —which I've taken to the part that will— Wait a minute! These forms are very important. You have a part that objects, right? What is its function? Lucy: Its function is to keep me from feeling helpless. That is not a function; that is a behavior. Lucy: It protects me from hurt.

That is a behavior. That is not a function. What will happen if you feel helpless? What is it trying to do for you by keeping you from feeling helpless? So what if you feel helpless?

Lucy: It's a needless function.

No, it's not. It's just that you don't know what it is yet. What is it trying to do for you by protecting you from feeling helpless? That's the first part. The second part is how does having orgasms more frequently have anything to do with feeling helpless or not? I don't need a verbal response to that. The point is to get the function clear so that you can understand how you have to modify your fantasy so that that part can be satisfied as well.

Ray: I was very surprised that any part objected to my improvising on the piano. The first objection was that I may end up playing the piano more at gatherings and interacting with people less.

OK. I didn't ask you to ask that question. This is important. I said if there is a part that objects, do not ask it what its objection is. Ask it what its function is, so you know what that part is in charge of doing. Then if you don't understand how it would end up being concerned, ask it what it's concerned about.

Ray: And I asked it the other way around.

Right. It is very important that when you're in my group you ask it my way. When you go home you can build parts your own way. If you don't know what an objecting part's function is, it's very, very hard to Please it.

Bill: I asked the question «What do you think will happen if you get critical feedback?» And the answer that I got was «If I get that, then I'll feel lonely and inadequate.» So it's keeping me from feeling lonely, and inadequate.

Well, in one sense that's the same answer. It's just a rephrasing. «Well, you know, it's my job to keep you from feeling lonely and inadequate.» «Well, what would happen if I felt lonely and inadequate?» «Well, you would feel bad. My job is to keep you from feeling bad.» «Well, what would happen if I felt bad?» «Well, if you felt bad, then you would feel like people don't like you.» What it's doing is just redefining the same thing that it doesn't want: for you to feel bad. But the redefinition does give you some more information. One of the things that you can do is to build into the construction of the part either protection against people criticizing you, or a way of enjoying criticism. You could build in the understanding that when people are criticizing you, it offers you the unprecedented opportunity to do a lot of things. One is to demonstrate how loudly you can yell. Another is to utilize their behavior. When people are angry at you, it's an unprecedented opportunity to test your utilization skills. There are so many opportunities out there. So you don't have to feel lonely; you can make criticism the basis for a lasting relationship.

I'll tell you one of the odd things that I noticed growing up. Everybody that beat me up became my friend, and vice versa. Growing up as a teenager in a very rough place, I discovered that one of the best ways to make a permanent, lasting friendship was to beat the snot out of somebody. I became conscious of this sometime around the eighth grade. If there was somebody I wanted to hang out with, one of the fastest ways to become friends was to go beat the snot out of him. I don't know how that works, but it's an interesting phenomenon.

Man: Haven't you found some contexts where that behavior is not appropriate?