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.

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.