If Rita says «I've never succeeded in the way that I'd like to," I ask for a model. «Who gets attention and caring from Joe? What does she do? Now you try it.»

I can even say «Well, make it up. Pretend as if you know how, and try it.» If I have an idea, I can coach her. «Why don't you try X, Y, and Z, in the following way?» These are all methods to get her to generate a new piece of behavior and then test it right here to make sure that it works: that the message intended equals the message received.

The one advantage to having Rita search in her own personal history as a way of generating new behaviors is that then you know it has worked in the past, and that it's congruent with her personal style. If you suggest something, it will be congruent with your personal style, but it may or may not match her style or his style.

Janet: When Rita thinks of a new behavior, do you anchor it?

I don't have to, but I usually «overkill» in seminars. Every chance I get to use another anchor, I do. Janet suggested that I could use one here, and she's absolutely right. As Rita searches and finds the example, I can anchor it and then say «OK, now let's try it.» I hold the anchor to stabilize the state from which she generates the behavior that worked before.

The other possibility is to use Joe as a creative resource to find alternative ways that Rita can use to satisfy her intention. In either case it is very important to first get a commitment from her that what she wants is important enough that she is willing to alter her behavior in order to get it.

«Rita, are you serious about really getting that message across? You do want his attention? That is important to you?» (Yeah.) It's very important to notice whether her voice tone and analogue behaviors are really congruent. In this case we have a really congruent commitment from her.

Rita, I know you're really serious about this. It's something that's really important to you as a woman. Now, Rita, is this important enough to you that you would be willing to change your behavior in order to get the response that you want? (Yes.)

Now I turn to Joe and say «And I take that as a compliment to you, Joe. She does want your attention. Now you know what she intends. She's saying 'Joe, I want your attention!' Do you understand that? That's not the message you got before, but now you can understand what she intends. The question is, can you instruct her in what, specifically, she can do so that you can recognize and respond to her intention? What can she do to get your attention in a positive way? Think of times in the past when she has done something that made you want to pay attention to her. What did she do then?»

Now I have him specify her behavior to match what he will be able to recognize and respond to. Rita is already committed to adjusting her behavior. She's committed to taking instructions from him about how to get his attention. Who knows better how to get his attention than he himself?

I want to point out that sequence is very important. I need to get her commitment first. If I don't do that, she will probably have a lot of objections to any change he suggests: «He's controlling me. He just wants to be in charge.» First I need to get her commitment that her wants are important—so important that she is willing to change her own behavior in order to satisfy them. This frames the changes in terms of her desires, so she'll be willing to go along with the changes. To him, I can frame it differently. I'll tell him that his responses are important to her—so important that she's willing to adjust her behavior so that it's easy for him to respond in the way she wants.

Woman: Can you say more about sequence? I think that's extremely important, and I want to know more about that.

We are syntacticians. If you were going to describe us as any kind of academician, that would be it. Syntax means «What goes where, and in what order.» The thing that makes the visual–kinesthetic dissociation such a good way of working with phobias is the order. One man we taught it to decided to use it «creatively," because he didn't want to be an android. So first he had people go all the way through the trauma, and then he had them dissociate. If you do it in that order, the person has to go through lots of pain, and that makes it very hard. If you do the dissociation first, and then go through the experience, your clients don't have to go through the discomfort. That makes it much easier and more elegant. The thing that makes NLP work go so quickly is that we make very practical decisions about what order we do things in, rather than saying «Oh, I could do X!» and rushing in and doing it.

Every book we've ever published says «Gather information!… Evolve system… . Solidify change.» That is the overall model. The emphasis is on «Gather information» because it's the part almost everybody leaves out. Most communicators go into their trance of doing whatever they do, and when somebody comes in, they just fire off the technique. Often the same technique would work if they did something else first.

Woman: That's why I asked the question. Let's say that you have the information. How do you decide what to do and in what sequence? What goes on in your head before you start doing something?

Well, I ask myself a question. I go inside and say «Hey, self. What outcome do I want, and how can I get that outcome?» I work backward from the outcome.

For example: I worked with a family in which the mother was a professional people–helper. She knew what was good for her daughter, because she was an expert. Her daughter was saying to the mother «Get off my case!» The mother was saying «Look, I'm the only person in this family who is qualified to know about these things. Even though my daughter won't listen and is freaking out, I know what's best for her.» Now, one way to make a change would be to attack her belief that she knows best. However, that would be the hard way to go about it. If you do it that way, you've got to fight with her.

My outcome was to get them communicating again. So I said to the mother «Do you really believe this? I mean this seriously, not sarcastically at all. Do you really believe that you have good information that will be helpful to your daughter?» And the mother said «Absolutely!»

«I want to believe this, because if you are serious about this, and you're not just saying it, I know there is something really useful that we can do here. Are you really serious?»

«Absolutely. I mean it literally. I'm a very honest person.»

«OK. Now if I can find a way that you can communicate this information to her without her freaking out, then she'll have the information. Would you be willing to use a different way of communicating, even though it might not be your natural way of doing it? Is the information you have to give her important enough that you would be willing to do something like that?»

«Absolutely.»

At that point I had her, because she couldn't back down. The realities that I had built were congruent with the mother's belief system.

Then I turned to the daughter and asked «How does your mother have to talk to you in order to get you to really listen and consider what she says? You may not want to do what your mother wants, but at least you'll be able to hear what she says.» The daughter had this Cheshire cat grin on her face, and she said «Well, she'd have to treat me like a person.»

«How has she been treating you—like a pencil?» That's one way of getting her to specify what «being treated like a person» means. If you give an answer that you know is totally wrong, she will have to correct it.

«Well, she wouldn't be yelling, she wouldn't be — "

«No, no. I don't want to know what she wouldn't be doing. What would she be doing? What would she look like; what would she sound like?»