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.

Discussion

You have all been practicing the format called six–step reframing, with variations and with feedback from the observer. I want to be sure that you practice reframing with an understanding of our long–term goal. Our final outcome is for these formats to disappear from your behavior. Any format is a crutch, and is no substitute for 1) having full flexibility of behavior, 2) sensory experience, and 3) knowing what outcome you are going after. If you have those three characteristics of the professional communicator, that's all you need. All the patterning we've done on people such as Milton Erickson, Virginia Satir, or successful business people, have enabled us to develop specific teaching formats. Formats are crutches, or excuses, or tricks, to get you to notice what's going on at the sensory level and to vary your behavior in order to achieve a specific outcome.

At this point, I don't do reframing as a separate chunk except for demonstration purposes in seminars. It's integrated into everything else that I do; I don't do any work without reframing. Every piece of work I do has reframing as a component part. It's only in seminars that I sort what I do into categories.

You will know that you are a pro when you go through a session, and at the end of it you discover that there's no uncertainty: you know that you got the changes that you went after. However, you don't know how you did it until you stop and ask yourself what you did systematically. That will be a natural outcome of taking the time and effort to use these formats explicitly until they become so smooth and practiced that they will be as automatic as shaking hands or driving a car; they will have become reflex responses to appropriate contextual cues, so that your behavior will always be appropriate and lead effectively toward the outcomes you want.

Do you have any questions?

Man: Let's say you ask a client to go inside and ask if the part of her that runs behavior X will communicate with her in awareness. She goes inside and comes back saying «Nothing happened.» What do you do?

One possibility is to say «Describe what your feelings are right now—how you sense yourself kinesthetically.» After she offers a description, you can say «Now begin to do behavior X. She'll either get up and begin to do it or she'll begin to feel what she feels like when she does X. As soon as you see a change that you can detect, you say «Stop. Now describe your sensations again.» There will be differences between the two descriptions. Any one of those differences can be used as a signal system.

The reframing format differs radically from the usual techniques in psychotherapy, because in this format I am a consultant; the client is her own therapist and hypnotist. Under normal circumstances I am the therapist and hypnotist and I take responsibility for accessing and eliciting responses. In this case, the client takes responsibility for doing that. I operate as her conscious consultant. If she cannot detect any communication, I ask her to begin to become the part of herself that does X. The physiological differences between her usual state and her beginning to do X will involve exactly the physiological changes that she can use as a signal system. When people engage in behavior they don't like, they usually experience major changes in muscle tone, skin temperature, etc. Any one of those changes will serve you well as a signal system, and will be experienced when you ask the person to do X behavior.

Sometimes you simply have to teach the person how to make distinctions in her internal experience. You ask her to describe her present internal state. Then you ask her to jump up and down for two minutes and ask her to notice the details of how her internal experience changes.