Woman: I remember something about a time element. I think you said something about testing it out for six weeks, and then if any part is dissatisfied, to renegotiate.

Well, that always happens anyway. That's just to pace.

Woman: Then why do you need to say anything about it, if it automatically happens?

Because if you don't, then when it doesn't work, the person's conscious mind doesn't know that it can renegotiate, and calls it «failure.» I look at the client and say «Look, I want your parts to try this for six weeks, and if it works out, then fine, you're on your way. If any one of your parts discovers that it doesn't work, it is to inform you by having you do the behavior you didn't want to do. That's an indication that it's time to sit down and negotiate further.» That means that there is no way in the world that the client can fail. I think clients are entitled to that. By the way, that is both a reframe and a future–pace.

One of the disservices that therapists do for their clients is to fail to use that particular reframe in some fashion. I always make the symptom the barometer of change. Then if the symptom recurs, the client doesn't think «Oh, well, another shot of therapy and nothing has happened.» Instead, he thinks «Ah, that means I have to reframe again.» The stigma of the symptom dissolves over time, because he begins to pay attention to the symptom as being a message. It probably always was anyway, but he never thought about it that way. He begins to have a feedback mechanism; even if the reframing doesn't work, he discovers that he only gets the signal at certain times.

For example, somebody comes in with migraine headaches and I reframe and all the parts are happy. The client goes along for two weeks and everything's groovy, and then he suddenly gets a headache in a particular context. That headache triggers off the instruction that the negotiations weren't adequate. So he drops inside and asks «Who's unhappy? What does this mean?» The part says, «You're not standing up for yourself like you promised to.» Then he is faced with the choice of having a migraine headache or standing up for himself.

Man: With that man, then, you installed a part that gave him something else to do instead of having a migraine.

Exactly. All the reframing models do the same thing: they all change an internal response. Another way of talking about it is that I installed a part whose function is to remind him to have a new response. It doesn't matter how you talk about it.

Man: I have a question about reframing and phobias, and the parts that function in phobias. Let's say I'm working with a phobia and do the visual–kinesthetic dissociation technique. How do I know that I'm not interfering with some part that would work in other contexts in the person's life?

You don't. I'm a very practical kind of person. If somebody has a really severe phobia, I figure it's better to go ahead and take a chance on messing her up somewhere else in her life and fix that up later on. I realize that that is not as elegant as I would like to be, but most of the time that's what I'm going to do.

Let me give you an example of what you have to be careful about. We once cured a woman of a phobia of heights. To test it we sent her up to the balcony of the hotel. She came back down with a big smile, and people asked «Well, how did you feel when you went up there?» She said «I felt like I wanted to get up on the railing and dance.»

Now, the most significant thing about that comment is that she didn't actually dance on the railing! However, that tells you something about how she got overgeneralized in the first place. It's important to understand that a phobia strategy is an example of a strategy which is working to protect the person from something, but it's overgeneral–ized. When you change the response to the phobic stimulus, make sure that the new response is one that's useful, so the person doesn't go out and dance on the railing or do something else dangerous.

I cured a lady of a phobia of birds—in Chicago, which is the land of pigeons! When I was done, I tested her. I said «Well how would you feel about holding an eagle on your arm right now?» She said «Well, I don't think I'd like that," and I said «Good.» The visual–kinesthetic dissociation wipes out the overgeneralization. You want to make sure it doesn't wipe out all caution.

Reframing is incorporated into the phobia technique at the beginning when we say something like «I know that the part of you that has been scaring you has been protecting you in important ways.» There is always something important gained by having a phobia: what psychiatrists call «secondary gain» or what we call an outcome. That's why you say «You are going to learn something of importance» when you do the visual–kinesthetic dissociation. Hopefully clients will get it on their own. If not, you'll find out about it, especially if you quiz them a little

bit.

At the end, I always suggest that some of the energy that has been liberated during the phobia process be used to safeguard them as they explore the new behaviors that are now available to them. Somebody who has been phobic of heights has no experience of what is appropriate and safe behavior in that context. Someone who hasn't involved herself sexually because she was raped or sexually abused as a child has no idea what appropriate sexual behavior is. When you use these change techniques, suddenly all the barriers are lifted, and you have to be sure your clients are protected.

There's a really nice example from Erickson's work with a young woman who wanted to get married. Because of her religious and family background, she had no understanding of sexual behavior. She was very much attracted to her fiance, but she knew that because of her strict and limited background, there would be sexual problems if she got married. Erickson essentially reframed her, and removed all her barriers to full sexual responsiveness and assertiveness. Then he told her that she could only see the young man in the presence of her brother or family until the marriage. Right after she got married she called Erickson and thanked him. She was smart enough to recognize, as she said then, that she was ready to run out of the office and grab the guy and tear his clothes off and get right to it. Given her longer–term relationship with the man and her own appreciation for herself, it was more appropriate that she proceed in a more cautious and respectful manner toward the actual sexual activity.

NLP is a powerful set of tools. Even the simple anchoring techniques are very powerful. Given that power, it's important to frame what you do in such a way that you proceed with caution and respect for yourself and the other individuals involved. If you do this, you won't have wild fluctuations in behavior which are not ecologically sound. This often happens in assertiveness training when «Andy Ant» turns into «Jerry Jerk.» Any wild fluctuations like that are indications of failure to contextualize or frame the new behavior.

Man: So essentially when you do the visual–kinesthetic dissociation you are reframing the useful protective intention and keeping that intact.

No matter what you do, you are always reframing, in the sense that you're always changing a response. It's just that when you use the standard reframing model on a phobia, it's very hard to get it to work: when a person contacts the part that gives her the phobia, usually she gets the phobic response as a signal. And when a person has overwhelming unpleasant feelings, she just doesn't function well.

Reframing is a nice model and it works for many problems. However, there are other things that have to be taken into account: overwhelming feelings is one, and another is multiple parts, or sequential incongruities. When you work with a multiple personality, you may cure Susie of a phobia, but Martha over there can still have it. We're going to teach you about that tomorrow afternoon.