There are several organizing assumptions that we use to put ourselves in a state which we find useful to operate in as we do therapeutic kinds of work. One is that it's better to have choice than no choice, and another is the notion of unconscious choice. Another is that people already have the resources they need in order to change, if they can be helped to have the appropriate resources in the appropriate context. A fourth one is that each and every single piece of behavior has a positive function in some context. It would be wanton and irresponsible of us simply to change people's behavior without taking into account a very important notion called "secondary gain." We assume that the pattern of behavior somebody is displaying is the most appropriate response they have in the context—no matter how bizarre or inappropriate it seems to be.

The context that your clients are responding to is usually composed of about nine parts of internal experience and about one part of external. So when a piece of behavior looks or sounds bizarre or inappropriate to you, that's a good signal that a large portion of the context that the person is responding to is something that is not available to you in your immediate sensory experience. They are responding to someone or something else internally represented: mother, father, historical events, etc. And often that internal representation is out of consciousness. Linda and Tammy can verify that the responses that they changed when they came and worked with us here, were responses to events that occurred sometime in the past.

That shouldn’t surprise any of you. I’m sure you all have been through experiences that support that statement. Our specific response to that understanding is to realize that all of us are complex and balanced organisms. One way to take that complexity into account when you go about assisting someone in making some change, is by using a pattern that we call reframing. Reframing is a specific way of contacting the portion or part—for lack of a better word—of the person that is causing a certain behavior to occur, or that is preventing a certain other behavior from occurring. We do this so that we can find out what the secondary gain of the behavior is, and take care of that as an integral part of the process of inducing a change in that area of behavior.

This is best illustrated by an example. A woman came to us referred by a psychiatrist. She wanted to lose 45 pounds. She had lost this weight in the past, but every time she lost it, she regained it. She could get it off, but she couldn't keep it off. We discovered through reframing that there was no part of her that had any objection to her losing weight. However, the part of her that caused her to overeat was doing that in order to protect her marriage. Can you make that connection? If you can't, let me explain a little further. In the opinion of this part of the woman who was overweight, if she were to lose the weight and weigh what she wanted to weigh, she would be physically attractive to men. If she were physically attractive to men, she would be approached and propositioned. In the opinion of this part she did not have adequate resources to make good decisions for herself in response to those propositions. She wasn't able to say "No." There was no part of her that wanted her to be overweight. There was, however, a part of her that used her being overweight to institutionalize the choice of not having to cope with a situation that it believed she couldn't cope with effectively, and that might lead to the end of her marriage. This is known as "secondary gain."

The heart of reframing is to make the distinction between the intention—in this case to protect her marriage, and the behavior—in this case overeating. Then you can find new, more acceptable, behaviors that satisfy the same intention.

One thing that people rarely understand is that people's symptoms work. As long as being fat worked and accomplished the intention, that part was going to keep her fat. When it had better ways of protecting her marriage, then it could allow her to lose the weight, which in fact she did without dieting.

Let's demonstrate now. Who wants to change?—secretly….

OK, Dick, we want you to keep any content to yourself, leaving the people here free simply to observe the process that we go through. Either Dick is doing something now which he doesn't have a choice about, a sort of compulsive behavior which he would rather replace with something else, or there is something he would rather do but he isn't able to do. Those are the two verbal ways of coding the world of possibility.

Dick: It's the first.

OK. If it's all right with you, let's give the code name X to the pattern of behavior you presently have which you would rather replace with something else more appropriate. And I assume that pattern X, in your conscious judgement, is not a good representation of you as a total adult organism. We've just identified the pattern, the thing the person wants to change. That is step one.

The next step is to establish communication with the part of Dick responsible for this pattern X that he wants to change.

Embedded in this context is a notion that I will state directly to him and that I want to point out to the rest of you as well. Dick, I have respect for the part of you that is responsible for pattern X occurring over and over again in your behavior. You got here. You're sitting here and you are successful in doing a lot of the things that you do in your life. I am convinced that the part of you that runs pattern X—even though you consciously don't appreciate it—is attempting to do something positive in your behalf. I will induce no changes until the part of you that is responsible for running X is satisfied that the changes are more appropriate for it, as well as for you as a total organism.

This only makes sense if you have a belief system that says "Look. If he had conscious control over this behavior, it would have changed already." So some part of him which is not conscious is running this pattern of behavior.

I can guarantee you that ninety-nine times out of a hundred when a person wants to make a change and they come to you for assistance, there's going to be a dissociation, a conflict, between their conscious desires and some unconscious set of programs. The unconscious is far more powerful. It knows far more about his needs than his conscious mind, and far more than I could ever possibly know from the outside. I ally myself immediately with the unconscious, and that's what I just finished doing. That's one way to accomplish that, verbally and explicitly: "Look, I'm not talking to your conscious mind. I'm talking to the part ofyou responsible for this pattern of behavior. It's going to run the show. I'm going to serve as its consultant."

Now how do you communicate with that part? If you had to go to the Federal Building in San Francisco and get someone to sign a paper, you'd be faced with a very complex task. Because out of the 450 people in that building, there's only one of them whom you need to get to. If you were to adopt the strategy of searching for the one person whose signature you need by stopping at the door and talking to the guard and asking if he'll sign it, and then moving down the hallway, office after office, searching for the person who is authorized to sign, you'd waste a great deal of time. It would be an inefficient strategy for you to use to get what you want in that bureaucratic setting. That's a really close metaphor for a lot of the work that therapists do.

Therapists have been trained to pay a great deal of attention to the conscious requests of their clients. Typically the conscious mind is the one that knows the least about what's going on in their behavior. The fact that a person would come into my office and say to me "I'm X-ing and I no longer want to do that; help me make a change," is a statement to me that he's already tried to make the change with all the resources that he can get to consciously and he's failed miserably. It seems as absurd as beginning with the guard and working your way through every office, for me to engage his conscious mind in a discussion of these possibilities. I want to go directly to the office where the person who can sign that paper is residing. I want to go directly to the part of Dick which is controlling his behavior at the unconscious level in this context.

I also make the assumption that the part of you that makes you X— even though you don't like that consciously—is doing something on your behalf, something that benefits you in some way. I don't know what that is, and from your response you consciously don't know what it is, because you want to stop it.

So let's establish contact with that part officially. This is step two. It's already happened, but let's do it officially. Dick, do you know how to use words to talk to yourself on the inside? OK. What I'd like you to do is to go inside in a moment and ask a question. I'll tell you what the question is. Your job, after you've asked this question, is simply to attend to any changes you sense in your body sensations, any kinesthetic changes, any images, or any sounds that occur in response to the question. You don't have to try to influence this in any way. The part of you responsible for this pattern will make its needs known through one of those sensory channels. You just have to be sensitive to detect the response.

The question I would like you to ask is "Will the part of me responsible for pattern X communicate with me in consciousness?" And then simply notice what happens—any change of feelings, images, or sounds.

Your job out there, while Dick is doing this, is to observe him and always get the answer to the question I have him ask before he gives it to us. And you already have it. That's really typical. We talked the other day about meta-commenting as a choice in communication. This is one context in which I strongly recommend that you do not meta-comment, unless you simply want to shake somebody up. If you can always get the answer before your client does, you have a really powerful direct channel of communication to their unconscious, outside of their awareness, that allows you to do really powerful congruency checks. If the answer that you observe is different from the answer they get in their awareness, that's an important thing to know.

Dick, what was your experience after you asked the question?

Dick: Confusion.

OK. "Confusion" is a nominalization. It's not experience; it's a conscious judgement about experience. It's irrelevant to talk about his conscious judgements because he's already done the best he can with his conscious resources, and it hasn't worked. We need to work with experience. What was your experience that you labeled "confusion"? How did you know you were confused?

Dick: Flushing.

So you felt a flushing, a change in blood pressure. Was there a temperature change that went along with it, or a sense of pressure? Was it localized in some part of your body?

Dick: Some of both, mostly in my stomach.

In your stomach. OK, now that's a really elegant non-verbal response. In doing reframing we strongly recommend that you stay with primary representational systems: feelings, pictures, or sounds. Don't bother with words, because they are too subject to conscious interference. The beauty of a non-verbal kinesthetic signal such as this, is that it's considered involuntary. And you can test to be sure that it's involuntary. Dick, can you make that feeling of flushing happen consciously?

Dick: Maybe

Try….

Dick: No.

That's also a really good way to subjectively convince someone that they are communicating with a part of them that normally is not available to them at the conscious level. And of course most hypnosis and biofeedback is based on the principle that you can alter consciousness and gain access to parts of your nervous system and physiology which you normally don't have access to. The question was a "yes-no" question; the response was a kinesthetic change, a feeling change. Now, so far all we have is a response; we don't know whether it means "yes" or "no" and neither does Dick, consciously.

One of the ways people really get into trouble is that they play psychiatrist with their own parts without being qualified. They interpret the messages they get from their own parts. So they begin to feel something and they name it "fear," when it may be some form of excitement, or some kind of aliveness, or anything. By naming it and then acting as if that is the case, they misinterpret their own internal communication as easily as they misinterpret communication externally. We don't want to run that risk, and there's an easy way to be sure what that signal means.

Dick, first I'd like you to go inside and thank the part for the communication it gave you, so that you validate that part for communicating with you. Next, say to it "I would like very much to understand your communication. So that I don't misunderstand what you mean, if you are saying 'Yes, you are willing to communicate with me in consciousness,' please intensify the same signal that you gave me before—the flushing in the stomach. If you are saying 'No, you're not willing to communicate with me in consciousness,' reverse it and diminish the response."

As Dick does this and you are watching to get the answer before he gives it to us, realize that if the signal had been a picture we would have simply varied the amplitude of the signal. We could make it brighter for "yes" and darker for "no." If it had been a sound we could have asked for an increase in volume for "yes" and a decrease for "no." In this way you avoid the risk of consciously misinterpreting the meaning of various internal kinesthetic, visual, or auditory signals. It gives you a very clean channel of communication with the part of Dick that is responsible for the pattern of behavior he wants to change. And of course that's just the part that knows how to make the change.

This process gives you an excellent opportunity to practice seeing what are traditionally called hypnotic responses. One of Milton Erickson's more useful definitions of deep trance is "a limited focus of attention inward." That's exactly what we asked Dick to do here—to limit his focus of attention to a signal which is internally generated. And the corresponding changes in the texture of his skin, breathing, skin color, lip size, etc., are all characteristic of what official hypnotists call trance phenomena.

Dick, rejoin us back here. What happened?

Dick: I had the feelings.

So the feelings intensified. You got a verification. We now have communication with the part; we have a "yes-no" signal. We can now ask that particular part any question and get an unambiguous "yes-no" answer. We have an internal channel of communication that Dick is running himself. We're not doing it. We're simply consulting with him about the next step. He now has established an internal channel of communication which allows him to communicate unambiguously with the part of him responsible for the pattern he wants to change. That's all you need. You can do anything at this point.

Step three is to distinguish between pattern X and the intention of the part that is responsible for the pattern. Dick, this part of you which is responding to you at the unconscious level has a certain intention it's trying to carry out for you. The way it's going about it is not acceptable to you at the conscious level. Now we're going to work with that part, through your channel of communication, to offer it better ways to accomplish what it's trying to do. When it has better ways than the way it goes about it now, you can have what you want consciously and this part can continue to take care of you in the way it wants to.

I want you to go inside again and ask a question. After the question, be sensitive to the signal system you have. Go inside and ask that part "Would you be willing to let me know in consciousness what you are trying to do for me by this pattern X?" Then you wait for a "yes-no" signal…. (Dick smiles broadly.)

I just said to ask "yes-no"; I didn't say "Give me the information." If you were attending, you noticed that something fairly dramatic happened. He asked for a "yes-no" answer. He got the "yes-no" signal and he also got information about the intention in consciousness.

Dick: Which pleased me.

Which pleased him and surprised him. Therapy is over at this point. There is now a conscious appreciation of what this part—that has been running pattern X—has been trying to do for him at the unconscious level. Dick, you didn't know what it was trying to do before, did you?

Dick: No, but I got a clue to it while you were talking, before l went down in. I got a feeling that it—

Part of our problem doing demonstrations is that after two days with you we have such good rapport with your unconscious there's a tendency for you to do it too fast.

So now he has a conscious understanding of the intention of this part of him that has been running X. Dick, is it true that you would like a part of you to have the responsibility of taking care of you in that way, even though the specific method it uses is not acceptable to you? You may not like the way that it goes about accomplishing pattern X, but do you agree that the intention is something you want to have a part do for you as a person?

Dick: Yes.

Now there is congruency between the intention of the unconscious part and the appreciation of the conscious.

That means it's time for step number four: to create some new alternatives to the pattern X that are more successful in accomplishing the intention, and that still allow consciousness to have exactly what it wants. What we're going to do is hold the intention—the outcome— constant, and vary the ways of achieving that outcome until we find some better ways of achieving it, ways that do not come into conflict with other parts of Dick.

Dick, do you have a part of yourself that you consider your creative part?

Dick: Humpf!

The creative part hops out! "Hi! Here I am. What do you want?" I hope you all appreciate the sense in which I said before that multiple personality is an evolutionary step. So you do have a part of yourself that you consider your creative part.

Dick: Oh, yes.

I want you to go inside and ask your creative part if it would be willing to undertake the following task. Let me explain it first before you do it. Ask it to go at the unconscious level to the part that runs pattern X, and find out what that part is trying to do for you. Then have it begin to create alternative ways by which this part of you can accomplish this intention. It will create 10,20, or 1000 ways to get that outcome, and it's to be quite irresponsible in this. It simply is to generate a lot of possible ways for you to get the outcome, without trying to evaluate which ones would really work. Now, out of that multitude of things that it will offer, the part of you that's running pattern X will evaluate which of those ways it believes are more effective than pattern X in getting what it's been trying to get for you. It is to select at least three ways that it believes will work at least as effectively as, and hopefully more effectively than, the pattern of behavior it's been using up to now to accomplish that intention. Does that make sense to you?

Dick: I think so.

OK. Go inside and ask your creative part if it would be willing to do that. When it says "yes," tell it to go ahead. And the way I would like the part of you to notify you that it has accepted each one of the new choices is by giving you that feeling, that "yes" signal. You may or may not be conscious of what the new alternatives are. That's irrelevant for our purposes here.

Dick: It sounds like a big assignment.

Yes, it is, but thousands of people have done it all over the world. It's humanly possible and you are a human. You have to go inside and explain it to your creative part and to the other part, and if they both agree, tell them to go ahead. What you're going to do now is to use your own creative resources to begin to reorganize your behavior…. (long pause)

Did you get your three signals, Dick? (No.) How many have you gotten? (None.) None, you've gotten none. Would you go inside and ask that same part—again "yes" or "no"—if it has been presented with choices by your creative part. Ask if your creative part has been presenting it choices…. (He nods.) OK. Then it has been receiving?

Dick: Apparently.

So checking at the creative level, we find creativity is generating lots of possibilities. OK, would you go inside and ask if any of those choices that were presented were acceptable choices? Were any of them more effective than pattern X to accomplish what it wants?

Some of you like to offer advice to your clients. Any time you offer advice, that's going to be less effective than if you can throw them back, with appropriate explicit instructions, on their own resources to develop their own alternative ways. You are a unique human being and so are your clients. And there may or may not be overlap, as you found the first day during that afternoon exercise when we asked you to hallucinate. Some of you could guess the content of your partner's experiences in a way that was almost unbelievable. With other people, it doesn't work at all. If you have that incredible overlap, then you can offer useful advice. There's nothing wrong with it, as long as you are sensitive to the response you are getting as you offer it. But even then it will be more effective to throw a person back on their own resources. (Dick shakes his head.)

OK. You got a "no" signal. None of the new choices are acceptable. The creative part generated a lot of possible ways, none of which were as effective as the present pattern. Now, would you ask that part that runs pattern X if it would go to your creative part and become an advisor to your creative part so that it can come up with better choices about how to accomplish that intention? Ask it to explain what, specifically, about the choices the creative part has been presenting prevents them from being more effective ways of accomplishing the intention. Do you understand that instruction consciously, Dick? OK, would you go inside and explain it to that part and then ask it—"yes" or "no"—if it would be willing to do that? And if it says "yes," tell it to go ahead.

This particular process differs significantly from normal therapeutic and hypnotic techniques. We simply serve as consultants for the person's conscious mind. He does all the work himself. He is his own therapist; he is his own hypnotist at the moment. We're not doing any of those things. We communicate directly only with his consciousness and instruct it how to proceed. It's his responsibility to establish and maintain effective communication with the unconscious portions of him that he needs to access in order to change. Of course, once he learns to do that—using this as an example—he can do it without us. That's another advantage. This process has autonomy for your client built into it.

Dick, did you get three signals?

Dick: I'm not sure.

OK, would you go inside and ask that part if it now has at least three choices—whether or not you are conscious of what they are is irrelevant—which it finds more powerful than the old pattern X in accomplishing what it's trying to do. Again, use the same signal. It's important to continually refer back to the same signal, and it's important to get three new choices. If you have at least three choices, you begin to exercise variability in your behavior.

Dick: That was "yes."

OK, so now he got a positive; it said "Yes, I have at least three ways more effective than the old pattern X," even though he consciously doesn't know what those are.

Step five is to make sure those new choices actually occur in his behavior. Using the same signal system, Dick, we would like you to ask this part "Since you have three ways more effective than the old pattern X, would you take responsibility for actually making those things occur in my behavior in the appropriate context?" And you know that the "yes" is the intensification, and the "no" is the diminishment. Is that true?

Dick: I'm not sure that it is.

OK. Ask for that part to give you a "yes" signal before you begin, so that you know which is "yes" and which is "no." If you get them backwards, it's going to mess things up a little bit.

Dick: Yeah, I … I... I lost track.

Yes. I know. That's why I'm asking you to do this. Just go inside and ask the part to give you a "yes" signal, so that you know which one is "yes."

Dick: The "yes" signal is relaxing.

OK, fine. Let's back up a bit. Go back inside and ask the part if it agrees that these choices will work more effectively than X.

Dick: That was "yes."

Fine. Now ask that part if it would be willing to accept the responsibility for generating the three new choices—instead of pattern X—for a period of, say, six weeks to try them out.

Dick: "Yes."

Step six, in my opinion, is what makes this model for change really elegant. The ecological check is our explicit recognition that Dick here, and each one of us, is a really complex and balanced organism. For us to simply make a change in pattern X and not take into account all the repercussions in other parts of his experience and behavior would be foolhardy. This is a way of building in a protection against that.

We would like you to thank this part for all the work it has done. It's got what it needs; it's already satisfied with that. Now we want to find out if any other parts have input to this process. Ask "Is there any other part of me that has any objection to the new choices that are going to occur?" Then be sensitive to any response in any system: feelings, pictures, or sounds….

OK, you've got a response. And?

Dick: They have no objections,

How do you know that? This is important. I asked you to attend to all systems. You came back and said "No. There's no objection." How do you know there's no objection?

Dick: I felt no tension anywhere.

You felt no tension. Were there any changes you could detect either in your kinesthetics or visually or auditorily?

Dick: Well, the relaxation.

A relaxation. OK, that was an overall body relaxation. Just to be sure, just to check for congruency, thank whatever part made your body relax. And then ask "If this means no objection, relax me even further. If there is any objection, make some tension occur." Again, all we are doing is varying the signal for "yes" or "no." It's arbitrary whether you go "Yes for positive increase, No for diminish," or the reverse. It doesn't matter.

Dick: I'm getting some objection.

OK. What exactly was your experience? Were there changes in muscle tension?

Dick: Yes, around my eyes.

OK. Whenever you get a response to a general inquiry, it's important to check and be absolutely sure what that response means. Thank that part for the response of tension in the muscles around your eyes. Ask for an increase for "yes" and a decrease for "no" to the question: "Do you object to the new alternatives?"...

Dick: There was a decrease.

It's slightly unusual to have the tension here. Typically at the ecological check almost everybody's heart speeds up. Most people associate a speeded-up heart rate with fear or anxiety. When I ask them to stop hallucinating and simply ask for an increase for "yes" and a decrease for "no," the heart rate usually slows down. My understanding of this is that it's simply a signal that some part of them is quite excited about what's going on.

Dick: I was also aware of a pulsating in my hands, but the eye tension seemed more dramatically different than the hand sensations, so that's why I mentioned the eye tension.

OK, let's check this, too. This time go in and thank the part that gave you the hand signals. Then ask the same question "Do you have any objections?" and ask for an increase for "yes" and a decrease for "no."

Dick: Decrease in sensation.

Decrease, so that part also doesn't have an objection. If there had been an objection at this point, you would simply recycle back to step three. You have a new "yes-no" signal—the pulsating in the hands. Now you make a distinction between this part's objection and its intention. You continue cycling through this process until you have integrated all objections.

We usually hold the first set of three choices constant and ask any part that objects to find alternative ways of doing what it needs to do without interfering with the first set of choices. But you could also ask both parts to form a committee and go to the creative part and select new alternatives that are acceptable to both.

The ecological check is very important. Many of you have done elegant work, and the client is congruent in your office. When he leaves, another part of him emerges which has concerns that are contextually bound. When he gets home, suddenly he doesn't have access to what he had in your office or in the group. There are other parts of him that know that if he goes home and simply changes in the way that he was going to change, he would lose the friendship of this person, or blow that relationship, or something like that. This is a way of checking to make sure that there are no parts whose positive contribution to him will be interfered with by the new pattern of behavior. Of course the only real check is in experience, but this is a way of doing the best you can to make sure that the new choices will work.

OK, now, Dick, what happens if six or seven weeks from now, you discover yourself doing the old pattern of behavior X? What are you supposed to do, then? ... You can accept that as a signal that the new choices that you came up with were not adequate to satisfy the intention. And you can go back to your creative part and give it instructions to come up with three more choices. The pattern of behavior is a barometer of how effective the new choices are. If the old behavior emerges after a test period, it's a statement that the new choices were not more effective than the old pattern. It's a signal for you to return to this process and create better choices.

Regression to previous behavior isn't a signal of failure, it's a signal of incompetency, and you need to go back and fix it. Reframing will work. I guarantee his behavior will change. If his behavior changes back, that's a signal that the new kinds of behavior were not as effective at getting something for him as the old pattern. Then he goes back through the process, finds out what other secondary gain is involved, and creates new ways to take care of that as well.

If you don't explicitly make the symptom a signal to negotiate, the person's conscious mind will call it a "failure" if the symptom comes back. When the symptom is identified as a signal, the client begins to pay attention to it as a message. It probably always was a message anyway, but they never thought about it that way. By doing this, they begin to have a feedback mechanism. They discover that they only get the signal at certain times.

For example, somebody comes in with migraine headaches and I reframe, and all parts are happy, and the client goes along for two weeks and everything's fine. Then they are in a particular context and suddenly they get a headache. That headache triggers off the instruction that the negotiations weren't adequate. The person can drop inside and ask "Who's unhappy? What does this mean?" If a part says "You're not standing up for yourself like you promised to," then they are faced with a simple choice of having a migraine headache or standing up for themselves.

I had a woman who got such severe migraine headaches that she was flat on her back. There was a part of her that wanted to be able to play every so often, and if it wasn't going to get to play, then the other parts weren't going to get to do anything! Whacko! It would give her a headache. So she made an arrangement that she would spend a defined amount of time in playing activities. After the session, when the weekend came and it was time to play, she decided to do her taxes instead! That part just laid her out. She called on the phone and said "Well, I didn't keep up my end of the bargain, and I got another migraine headache. What should I do?" I said "Don't ask me; ask the part. It's not my problem. My head doesn't hurt."

So she went in and found out what she was supposed to do. That part said "Go out, get in the car, and go somewhere and have fun or else!" As soon as she got in the car, the headache was gone. So her headache no longer became something that was a burden; it became an indicator that she had better respond. She learned that getting a headache was a signal to go out and have some fun.

OK. Any questions about the process we went through with Dick?

Woman: Am I understanding that Dick doesn't need to be aware of what those choices are?

We prefer that he not be. That could just get in his way.

Woman: Dick, you're not aware of your three alternatives specifically?

Dick: I'm not. In some ways I feel a failure because of it, you know, because I can't think it.

Woman: Well, how does he know he has them?

He got a signal from his unconscious, namely the kinesthetic feeling of relaxation. He doesn't consciously know what the new alternatives are.

Dick: But it feels OK down here.

His unconscious mind knows what they are, and that's all that counts. That's the one that runs the show in this area of behavior, anyway. Let's make a demonstration for your purposes here. Would you go inside, Dick, and ask this same part down here, using the same "yes-no" signal, if it would be willing to allow your conscious mind to know what one of those new choices is, just as a demonstration to you that it knows things that you don't.

This is called a convincer. It's wholly irrelevant for the process of change, but it can settle people's conscious minds a little bit.

Dick: He won't do it

And rightfully so. If I were Dick's unconscious mind, I wouldn't tell him either. He'd try to interfere. What did he do earlier? His unconscious part wouldn't release specific information, and he immediately had a feeling of failure! I wouldn't communicate with his conscious mind if it were going to behave like that either. It's just as convincing to have your unconscious say "No, I won't tell you what any of the new choices are," if it's an involuntary signal. Right?

Dick: Right.

Now let me mention in passing the paradoxical nature of the request that we made in step two. The question is "Would you be willing to communicate with me in consciousness?" Any signal that he detects has to be a response in consciousness. Even if the part says "No, I would not," that's still a communication in consciousness.

If he had gotten a "no" response, I would understand that in the following way: the intent of that part is not to not communicate with him in consciousness. It's a statement that it doesn't trust him. That is, it's not willing to release content information to his conscious mind. And I respect that. I really believe that unconscious minds should have the freedom, and in fact have the duty, to keep out of awareness material which would not be useful for the conscious mind to deal with.

We had a period when we did nothing but deep, deep trance hypnosis. A man came in once and said that there were all kinds of things standing in the way of his being happy. I said "Would you like to tell me what those things are?" And he said "No, I want to go into a trance and change it all, and that's why I came for hypnosis." So accepting all behavior, I did an induction, put him into a deep trance, sent his conscious mind away, and said "I want to speak privately with your unconscious mind." I have no idea what that means. However, when you tell them to, people do it. They talk to you and it's not the one you were talking to before, because it knows things the other one doesn't know. Whether I created that division or whether it was there already, I have no idea. I asked for it, and I got it.

In this particular case, his conscious mind was, to put it as nicely as I can, inane. His unconscious resources, however, were incredibly intelligent. So I said "What I want to know from you, since you know much more about him than I do, is what change is it that he needs to make in his behavior?"

The response I got was "He's a homosexual."

"What change does he need to make?"

"He needs to change it, because it's all based on a mistake."

"What mistake?"

The explanation that I got from his unconscious mind was the following: The first time he had ever asserted himself physically, in terms of trying to defend himself against violence, was when he was five years old in a hospital to have his tonsils out. Someone put the ether mask on his face, and he tried to push it away and fight back as he went under the anesthetic. Anesthesia became anchored to the feeling of being angry. After that, every time he began to feel angry or frightened and started to strike out, his body went limp. As a result of this, his conscious mind decided that he was a homosexual. He had lived as a homosexual for about twenty-five years.

His unconscious resources said "You must not let his conscious mind know about this mistake, because knowing that would destroy him." And I agreed with that. There was no need for him to know that he had goofed in all of his relationships for twenty-five years. The only important thing was that he make a change, because he wanted to get married. But he couldn't marry a woman because he knew that he was a homosexual. His unconscious mind would not allow him in any way to become conscious of the fact that he had made this mistake, because it would have made his whole life a mistake and that knowledge would have utterly destroyed him. It wanted him to have the illusion that he grew out of it and grew into new behavior.

So I arranged with his unconscious mind to have him blossom as a heterosexual person and to make the changes as a result of a spiritual experience. His unconscious mind agreed that that was the best way to go about it. He changed without any conscious representation of either the hypnotic session or where the changes came from. He believes it came as a result of a drug experience. He smoked marijuana and had a cosmic experience. He assumed that it was the quality of the grass, and not a post-hypnotic suggestion. That was adequate for him to make the changes that he wanted.

There are many parts of people that do that same kind of thing. A part doesn't want the conscious mind to know what's going on, because it believes the conscious mind can't handle it, and it may or may not be right. Sometimes I've worked with people and I've made a deal with a part to allow the conscious mind to slowly become aware of something a little at a time, to discover if in fact the conscious mind can handle it or not. And usually the part discovered that the conscious mind could accept the information. At other times I've gotten an emphatic "No, there's no way I will do that. I don't want the conscious mind to know. I will change all behaviors, but I will not inform the conscious mind of anything." And people do change. Most change takes place at the unconscious level anyway. It's only in recent Western European history that we've made the idea of change explicit.

If Dick's part had said that it was unwilling to inform his conscious mind what the intention was, we would have just gone ahead anyway because it isn't relevant. We would have just told that part to go directly to his creative part and get the new choices. In fact, informing his conscious mind is probably what made it take so long. I'm serious. Being conscious, as far as I can tell, is never important, unless you want to write books to model your behavior. In terms of face-to-face communication, either internally or with other people, you don't need consciousness. We essentially limit his conscious participation to receiving and reporting fluctuations in his signal system, and asking the questions which stimulate those responses.

It's quite possible—not only possible but quite positive—for him not to know what the intention of his unconscious part is, as well as for him not to know what the new choices are. The changes will still be as profound and as effective as if he knew all that. In fact, in some ways the changes will be more effective.

Man: What if you get no response at all at the beginning?

Well, if you get no response at all, your client is probably dead. But if he doesn't get a response that convinces him, I'd ally myself with his unconscious mind and say "Look, this part is unwilling to communicate with you and I agree with it, because I wouldn't want to communicate with you either. What you haven't realized yet is that this part has been doing something vitally important for you. It's been doing you a service and you've spent all this time fighting your own internal processes when they've been trying to do something positive for you. I want to salute them and compliment them. And I think you owe them an apology." I'll literally tell people to go inside and apologize for having fought with the part and having made it that much harder for that part to do what it's trying to do for them.

If that doesn't work, you can threaten them. "And if you don't start being better to your parts, I'm going to help them destroy you. I'm going to help them give you a terrible headache and make you gain twenty-five pounds." Then typically I begin to get really good unconscious communication. The person will be saying "Well, I don't think this is really accurate" at the same time that their head is nodding up and down in response to what I've said.

Woman: In step three you ask the part what it is trying to do— what its intention is by that pattern of behavior. Do you need to do that if it doesn't matter whether you know about it or not?

No. It's just that most people are interested. If the unconscious doesn't want to reveal the intention, we'd just say something like "Even though X is a pattern you consciously want to change, are you willing to believe that this is a well-intentioned unconscious part, and that what it's trying to get for you by making you do X is something in your behalf as a total person? If you're willing to accept that, let's keep all the content unconscious, saying 'OK, I trust that you're well-intentioned. I don't need to review and evaluate your intentions because I will make the assumption that you're operating in my best interests.'" Then we'd just go ahead with step four.

A few years ago we were doing a workshop and there was a woman there who had a phobia of driving on freeways. Rather than treating it as a phobia, which would have been much more elegant, I did a standard reframing to demonstrate that you can work with phobias with reframing, even though it's much faster to use the two-step visual/kinesthetic dissociation pattern. I said "Look, there's a part that's scaring the pants off you when you go near freeways. Go inside and tell this part that we know it's doing something of importance, and ask if it is willing to communicate with you." She got a very strong positive response. So I said "Now go inside and ask the part if it would be willing to tell you what it's trying to do for you by scaring the pants off you when you go near freeways." She went inside, and then said "Well, the part said 'No, I'm not willing to tell you.'"

Rather than go to unconscious reframing, I did something which may sound curious, but it's something I do from time to time when I have suspicions, or what other people call intuitions. I had her go inside and ask if the part knew what it was doing for her. She closed her eyes, and then she came back outside and said "Well, I... I don't... I don't believe what it said." "Well, go inside again, and ask if it's telling the truth." She went inside again, and then said "I don't want to believe what it said." "Well, what did it say?" "It said it forgot!"

Now, as amusing as that sounds, I always thought that was a great response. In some ways it makes sense. You are alive for a long time. If a part organizes its behavior to do something and you really resist it and fight against it, it can get so caught up in the fight that it forgets why it organized its behavior that way in the first place. How many of you have ever gotten into an argument and in the middle of it forgotten what it was that you were intending to do in the first place? Parts, like people, don't always remember about outcomes.

Rather than going through a lot of rigamarole, I said "Look, this is a very powerful part of you. Did you ever think about how powerful it is? Every single time you go near a freeway, this part is capable of scaring the pants off you. That's pretty amazing. How would you like to have a part like that on your side?" She went "Wow! I don't have any parts like that!" So I said "Go inside and ask that part if it would like to do something that it could be appreciated for, that would be worthwhile, and that would be worthy of its talents." And of course that part went "Oh, yeah!" So I said "Now go inside and ask that part if it would be willing to have you be comfortable, alert, breathing regularly and smoothly, being cautious and in sensory experience when you go onto a freeway on ramp. "The part went "Yeah, yeah. I'll do that." I then had her fantasize a couple of freeway situations. Earlier she was incapable of doing that; she would go into a terror state because even the fantasy of being near a freeway was too scary. When she went through it this time she did it adequately. She then got in a car, went out to the freeway, and did fine. She enjoyed it so much that she drove for four hours and ran out of gas on the freeway!

Man: At one point it looked like there was strain showing on Dick's forehead. I just wondered if he really was bothered or just concentrating.

If you were working with someone and you had a serious doubt about that, then you owe it to yourself to verify your suspicion or deny it. The easiest way, of course, is the same methodology. I would look at

Dick and say "I noticed a furrowed brow. That sometimes indicates tension, or sometimes simply concentration. I don't know which." It only takes an extra thirty seconds to have him go inside and ask the part of him that's wrinkling his brow to increase the tension there if it has some input to this process that it would like to make manifest, and decrease the tension there if not. That would give you an immediate verification, without any hallucination. You don't have to hallucinate, and he doesn't have to guess. You've got a system which allows you to get direct sensory signals in order to answer your questions.

I hope those of you who are hypnotists recognize a couple of patterns going on here. One is fractionation: alternating from turning inward and coming back to sensory experience—in and out of trance.

Whether you are hypnotists or not you've probably heard of finger signals or ideomotor signals. A hypnotist will often make arrangements with the person in a trance that s/he will lift the right index finger with honest unconscious movements for "yes" responses, and the left index finger for "no." What we did here is nothing more than a system of natural finger signals. Finger signals are a wholly arbitrary imposition by the hypnotist. Reframing leaves much more freedom on the part of the client to choose a response signal system which is most congruent with what they need at the time. It's a naturalistic technique that also makes possible signals that can't be duplicated by consciousness. However, it's the same formal pattern, the same principle, as finger signals. Using natural signals also allows different parts to use different channels instead of having them all use the same system.

Now, what if at some point he had gotten increased sweating in the palms, sensations in the front of the leg, visual images, a sound of a racing car—all these signals as responses? I would have said "I'm glad there are so many parts active in your behalf. In order to make this thing work, go inside and thank them all for the responses. Ask all those parts to be exquisitely attentive to what happens. First we'll take the perspiration in your hands; we'll work with that part. I guarantee all the other parts that no behavioral changes will occur until we do the ecological check and I have verified that they all accept the new behaviors.

Or you could ask all those parts to form a committee and ask them to choose one signal. Then have the committee make its collective needs known to the creative part, and so on.

Man: What if in step five the part doesn't agree to take the responsibility?

Well, then something went wrong earlier. If the part that says "No, I won't take responsibility" is the same part that selected three patterns of behavior which it believes are more effective than the original pattern, that doesn't make any sense at all. That's an indicator that your communication channels got crossed somewhere, so you go back and straighten them out.

Man: Backing up one step, what if it doesn't help you select? You ask "Will you select from all these possibilities?" and it says "No, I won't."

You can say "Stupid, I'm offering you ways which are more effective than your present pattern and you're saying 'No'! What kind of a jerk are you?" I'm serious. That works really well. You get a response then! However, that's only one possible maneuver. There are lots of other maneuvers. "Oh, then you are entirely satisfied with all the wasted energy that is going on inside?" Use whatever maneuvers you have in your behavior that are appropriate at that point to get the response you want.

Woman: What kind of reports do you get about what happens when your new behavior occurs?

Usually people behave differently for a week before they notice it. Conscious minds are really limited. That's the report we get a lot. I used reframing with a woman who had a phobic response to, curiously enough, going over bridges, but only if they had water under them. She lived in New Orleans where there are a lot of bridges with water under them. There's one bridge in New Orleans called the Slidell Bridge, and she would always say "Especially the SLIDEell Bridge," accented that way. After I had done reframing with her, I said "Are you going to cross any bridges on the way home?" And she said "Yes, I'm going over the SliDELL bridge." That difference was enough of an indication for me that I knew that the reframing was going to work.

She was in that workshop for three days and never said a word. At the end of the workshop, I asked her about the work we had done on Friday. "You've been driving over bridges this weekend, and I want to know if you had any of that phobic response." She said "Oh, I really hadn't thought about it." A few days earlier she had been working on it as a problem. Two days later she was saying "Oh, yeah, they are just expressways over water." That's very, very close to the response that Tammy offered us yesterday. When Tammy fantasized doing it, she went "Well, it was driving across a bridge." It no longer had that incredible impact, that overwhelming kinesthetic response. People have the tendency not even to think about it. They have a tendency to discover it afterwards, which to me is really much hipper anyway than if they are surprised and delighted with it.

That same woman in New Orleans also said "Well, it's a really amazing thing. Actually I wasn't phobic of bridges!"

"If you weren't phobic of bridges, how come you freaked out when you got on them?"

"Because they go over water. You see, the whole thing had to do with almost drowning when I was a little kid; I was underneath a bridge, drowning."

"Do you have a swimming pool?"

"Now that you mention it, no."

"Do you swim very often?"

"I don't swim at all. I can't swim."

"Do you like showers or baths?"

"Showers"

She made a generalization somewhere in her past that said "Don't go near water; you'll drown." When that part noticed that she was going over a bridge, it said "Bridges go over water, and water's a good place to drown, so now is the time to be terrified."

We always have follow-ups. People come back or telephone, so we make sure that the changes they want did occur. Typically we have to ask for a report—which seems to me really appropriate. Change is the only constant in my experience and most of it occurs at the unconscious level. It's only with the advent of official humanistic psychotherapies and psychiatry that people pay conscious attention to change.

In Michigan, I worked on a phobia that a woman had. I didn't know what the content was at the time, but it turned out that she had a phobia of dogs. After we had done the work, she went to visit a friend who had a dog. What was really amusing to her as she walked in and saw the dog, was that the dog looked so much smaller. She said to her friend "My God! What happened to your dog? It's shrunk!"

Man: Dick's signal system gave a positive response that it received three new choices from his creative part. What if he got a negative?

It doesn't matter if you get a "yes" or "no." It only matters that you get one or the other. The "yes-no" signals are just to distract the conscious mind of the person you are working with. If you get a "no," then you offer it another way to go about it. "Then you go to your devious part and tell it to ally itself with your creative part and trick this part of you into having new choices." It doesn't matter how you do it.

I probably would have had him construct a creative part. I wouldn't have been satisfied that he had access to his creativity. I know there are lots of ways to accomplish the same thing. You can say "Do you know anyone else who is able to do this? I want you to review with vivid detail in picture and sound and feeling what they do, and then have this part of you consider those possibilities. "That's just a way of doing what we call "referential index shift."

What if you say to the person "Do you have a part of you that you consider your creative part?" And they say "No." What are you going to do? Or they hesitate; they say "Well, I don't know." There's a really easy way to create a creative part, using representation systems and anchoring. You say "Think of the five times in your life when you behaved in a very powerfully creative way and you didn't have the faintest idea how or what you did, but you knew it was a positive and creative thing that you did." As s/he thinks of those five in a row, you anchor them. You then have a direct anchor to the person's creativity. You've assembled one. You've organized their personal history. Or you can ask "Do you have a part of you that makes plans? Well, have it come up with three different ways you can plan new behavior." The word "creative" is only one choice out of a myriad ways of organizing your activities.

The only way you can get stuck in a process like this is if you try to run it rigidly. You say to a client "Well, do you have a part of you that you consider your creative part?" If they look you straight in the eye and say "No," then start making up other words. "Do you realize that you have a part of you that is responsible for all glunk activities? And the way you contact that is by touching your temple!" You can make up anything, as long as the result is that they generate new ways of accomplishing the intention. That is as limitless as your own creativity. And if you don't have a creative part, create one for yourself!

There are a lot of other ways that this could have not worked, too. Do you realize that that's what people in here are doing again? You all saw it work. And you're asking "What are all the ways it could have not worked?" I'm sure you could manufacture a hundred ways to make this not work. And in fact many of you will. The point is, when you do something that doesn't work, do something else. If you keep doing something else, something will work. We want you to make it work with each other so that you have a reference experience. Find someone you don't know to be your partner and try reframing. We'll be around if you get stuck.

(1) Identify the pattern (X) to be changed.

(2) Establish communication with the part responsible for the pattern.

(a) "Will the part of me that runs pattern X communicate with me in consciousness?"

(b) Establish the "yes-no" meaning of the signal.

(3) Distinguish between the behavior, pattern X, and the intention of the part that is responsible for the behavior.

(a) "Would you be willing to let me know in consciousness what you are trying to do for me by pattern X?"

(b) If you get a "yes" response, ask the part to go ahead and communicate its intention.

(c) Is that intention acceptable to consciousness?

(4) Create new alternative behaviors to satisfy the intention. At the unconscious level the part that runs pattern X communicates its intention to the creative part, and selects from the alternatives that the creative part generates. Each time it selects an alternative it gives the "yes" signal.

(5) Ask the part "Are you willing to take responsibility for generating the three new alternatives in the appropriate context?"

(6) Ecological check. "Is there any other part of me that objects to the three new alternatives?" If there is a "yes" response, recycle to step (2) above.

Once at a workshop for a TA institute, I said that I believed that every part of every person is a valuable resource. One woman said "That's the stupidest thing I ever heard!"

"I didn't say it was true. I said if you believe that as a therapist you'll get a lot further."

"Well, that's totally ridiculous."

"What leads you to believe that that's ridiculous?"

"I've got parts that are not worth a dime. They just get in my way. That's all they do." "Name one,"

"I have a part that no matter what I do, all the time I'm trying to do anything, it just totally tells me I can't do it, and that I'm going to fail. It makes everything twice as hard as it needs to be."

She said that she had been a high school dropout. When she decided to go back to high school, that part said "You'll never be able to do it; you're not good enough; you're too stupid. It'll be embarrassing. You won't be able to do it." But she did it. And even when she did that, when she decided to go on to college, that part said "You're not going to be able to do it."

So I said "Well, I'd like to speak to that part directly." That always gets TA people, by the way. They don't have that in their model. Then I look over their left shoulder while I talk to them and that really drives them nuts. But it's a very effective anchoring mechanism, because from that time on, every time you look over their left shoulder, only that part can hear.

"I know that that part of you is doing something very important for you, and it is very sneaky about how it does it. Even if you don't appreciate it, I do. I'd like to tell that part that if it were willing to tell her conscious mind what it's doing for her, then perhaps it could get some of the appreciation that it deserves."

Then I had her go inside and ask the part what it was doing for her that was positive. It came right out and said "I was motivating you." After she told me that, she said "Well, I think that's weird." I said "Well, you know, I don't think it would be possible for you to come up here right now and work in front of this entire group." She stood up defiantly and walked across the room and sat down. Those of you who have studied strategies and understand the phenomenon of polarity response will recognize that this part was simply a Neuro Linguistic Programmer that understood utilization. It knew that if it said "Aw, you can go to college, you can do it," she'd say "No, I can't do it." However, if it said to her "You're not going to be able to cut the grade," then she would say "Oh, yeah?" and she would go out and do it.

Now what would have happened to that woman if we had somehow gotten that part to stop doing that, but without changing anything else? ... She wouldn't have had any way to motivate herself! That's why we have the ecological check. The ecological check is a way of being sure that the new behavior fits with all the other parts of a person. Up to step six we have essentially created a communication system between the person's consciousness and their unconscious part that runs the pattern of behavior they are trying to change. And we have succeeded in finding more effective alternative behaviors in that area. I don't know, of course, when I've finished that, whether this is going to be beneficial for them as a total person.

Let me give you another example of this. I've seen mousy little people who went to assertiveness training and became aggressive—so aggressive that their husband or wife left them and none of their friends will talk to them anymore. They go around yelling at people and being extremely assertive, so abrasive that they no longer have friends. That's sort of a polarity flip, or a swing of the pendulum. One way to make sure that doesn't happen is to have some device like the ecological check.

When you have completed communication and created alternative new behaviors for the part that originally ran the problem behavior, you ask for all other parts to consider the repercussions of these new patterns of behavior. "Is there any other part of me that has any objection to the new choices in my behavior?" If another part objects, it will typically use a distinctive signal. It may be in the same system, but it will be distinctive as far as body part. If suddenly there's tension in the shoulders, you say "Good, I have a limited conscious mind. Would you increase the tension in my shoulders if it means 'Yes, there is an objection,' and decrease it if it means 'No.'" If there is an objection, that's a delightful outcome. That means there is another part, another resource, that's active in your behalf in making this change. You are at step two again, and you recycle.

One of the things that I think distinguishes a really exquisite communicator from one who is not, is to be precise about your use of language: use language in a way that gets you what you want. People who are sloppy with language get sloppy responses. Virginia Satir is precise about her use of langauge, and Milton Erickson is even more precise. If you are precise about the way you phrase questions, you will get precise kinds of information back. For example, somebody here said "Go inside and ask if the part of you responsible for this behavior is willing to change?" And they got a "No" response. It makes perfect sense! They didn't offer it any new choices. They didn't say "Are you willing to communicate?" They said "Are you willing to change?"

Another person said "Will you, the part of me that is responsible for this pattern of behavior, accept the choices generated by my creativity?" And the answer was "No." And properly so. Your creativity doesn't know a thing about your behavior in this area. The part that's got to make a selection is the part that is responsible for your behavior. It's the one that knows about that.

Man: What if the unconscious creative part refuses to give any choices?

It never happens if you are respectful of it. If you as a therapist are disrespectful of people's creativity and their unconscious, it will simply cease communicating with you.

Woman: My partner and I found that our conscious minds were most unaccepting of change.

I totally agree with that. That's very true of therapists, especially if the choices were left unconscious. It's not necessarily true of other groups in the population. And it figures, because therapists have very nosy conscious minds. Almost every modern humanistic psychotheo-logy I know implies that it is necessary to be conscious in order to make changes. That's absurd.

Woman: I'm confused about awareness and consciousness. Gestalt therapy talks about the importance of awareness, and—

When Fritz Perls said "Lose your mind and come to your senses," and to have awareness, I think he was talking about experience. I think he suspected that you could have sensory perception without intervening consciousness. He wrote about what he referred to as the "DMZ of experience," in which he said that talking to yourself was being as far removed from experience as you could be. He said that making visual images was a little bit closer to having experience. And he said having feelings was being as close as you could get to having experience, and that the "DMZ" is very different than behaving and acting in the real world.

I think what he was alluding to is that you can have experience without reflexive consciousness, and he called that "being in the here and now." We call it "uptime." It's the strategy we've used to organize our perceptions and responses in this workshop with you. In uptime, you don't talk to yourself, you don't have pictures and you don't have feelings. You simply access sensory experience and respond to it directly.

Gestalt therapy has an implicit rule that accessing cues are bad, because you must be avoiding. If you look away, you are avoiding. And when you are looking away you are in internal experience, which we call "downtime." Fritz wanted everybody to be in uptime. However, he was inside telling himself that it was better to be in uptime! He was a very creative person and I think that's what he meant, but it's really hard to know.

Woman: You said we'd see when reframing doesn't work.

I certainly did as I walked around the room! You will try it and it won't work. However that's not a comment on the method. That's a comment about not being creative enough in the application of it, and not having enough sensory experience to accept all the cues that are there. If you take its "not working"—instead of a comment about how dumb and stupid and inadequate you are—as a comment about what's there for you to learn and begin to explore, then therapy will become a real opportunity to expand yourself, instead of an opportunity for self-criticism.

This is one of the things I've discovered teaching hypnosis. I think it's one of the main reasons that hypnosis has not proliferated in this society. As a hypnotist you put somebody into a trance and present them with some kind of a challenge such as "You will be unable to open your eyes." Most people are unwilling to put themselves to that kind of test. People say this to me all the time in hypnosis training seminars: "What happens if I give them the suggestion and they don't carry it out?" And I say "You give them another one!" If they don't get exactly what they intended, they think they must have failed, instead of taking that as an opportunity for responding creatively.

There's a really huge trap there. If you decide before you begin a communication what will constitute a "valid" response, then the probability that you'll get it is reduced severely. If, however, you make a maneuver, some intervention, and then simply come to your senses and notice what response you get, you'll realize that all responses are utilizable. There's no particularly good or bad response. Any response is a good response when it's utilized, and it's the next step in the process of change. The only way you can fail is by quitting, and deciding you are not willing to spend any more time with it. Of course you can just continue to do the same thing over and over again, which means you'll have the same failure for a longer period of time!

There was a research project that I think you all are entitled to know about. Out of a group of people, one third of them went into therapy, one third of them were put on a waiting list, and one third of them were shown movies of therapy. The people on the waiting list had the same rate of improvement! That is a comment about that research project, and that's all it's a comment about. That finding was presented to me as if it were a statement about the world. When I made a comment that the only thing I could discern is that it was a statement about the incompetency of the people doing therapy in the project, it struck them as a novel idea that actually that might be a possibility.

I came to psychology from mathematics. The first thing that made sense to me as I entered the field of psychology is that what they were doing was not working, at least with the people who were still in the hospitals and still in the offices—the other people had gone home! So the only thing that made sense to me is that what they were doing with their clients was what I didn't want to do. The only things not worth learning were what they were already doing that wasn't working.

The first client that I saw was in somebody's private office. I went in and watched this therapist work with a young man for an hour. She was very warm, very empathetic, very sympathetic with this guy as he talked about what a terrible home life he had. He said "You know, my wife and I really haven't been able to get together, and it got so bad that I really felt I had strong needs and I went out and had this affair," and she said "I understand how you could do that." And they went on and on like this for a full hour.

At the end of the hour she turned to me and she said "Well, is there anything that you would like to add?" I stood up and looked at the guy and said "I want to tell you that I think you're the biggest punk I have ever met! Going out and screwing around behind your wife's back, and coming here and crying on this woman's shoulder. That's going to get you nothing, since you aren't going to change, and you're going to be as miserable as you are now for the rest of your life unless you grab yourself by the bootheels, give yourself a good kick in the butt, and go tell your wife how you want her to act with you. Tell her in explicit enough words so that she will know exactly what you want her to do. If you don't do that, you're going to be as miserable as you are now forever and no one will be able to help you." That was the exact opposite of what that therapist had done. He was devastated, just devastated. He left the office and went home and worked it all out with his wife. He did all of the things I'd told him to do, and then he called me up on the telephone and told me it was the most important experience of his life.

However, during the time he did that, that therapist utterly convinced me that what I had done was wrong! She explained to me all these concepts about therapy and about how this wouldn't be helpful, and convinced me that what I had done was the wrong thing.

Man: But she didn't stop you from doing it.

She couldn't! She was paralyzed! But she was right. It wouldn't have worked with her. However, it was perfect for him. If nothing else, it was just the opposite of what she had been doing all that time. It wasn't that what I did was more powerful than what she did, it was just more appropriate for him, given that all those other things hadn't worked. That therapist didn't have that flexibility in her behavior. She did the only thing that she could do. She couldn't do gestalt therapy because she couldn't yell at anybody. It wasn't a choice for her. She was so nice. I'm sure there were some people who had never had anybody be nice to them, and that hanging around her was such a new experience that it had some influence on them. However, that would still not help them make the specific changes that they came to therapy for.

Woman: What we did was to ask the conscious mind of the partner "Will you agree not to sabotage, not to try to—"

Oh, there's a presupposition there that the conscious mind can sabotage! You can ignore the conscious mind. It can't sabotage the unconscious. It couldn't sabotage the original choice that it didn't want, and it's not going to be able to sabotage the new ones either.

What you're doing with reframing is giving requisite variety to the unconscious. The unconscious previously had only one choice about how to get what it wants. Now it's got at leas four choices—three new ones and the old one. The conscious mind still hasn't got any new choices. So given the law of requisite variety, which is going to be in control? The same one that was in control before you got here, and that is not your conscious mind.

It's important for some people to have the illusion that their conscious mind controls their behavior. It's a particularly virulent form of insanity among college professors, psychiatrists, and lawyers. They believe that consciousness is the way they run their lives. If you believe that, there is an experiment you can try. The next time somebody extends their hand to shake hands with you, I want you to consciously not lift your hand, and find out whether your hand goes up or not. My guess is that your conscious mind won't even discover that it is time to interrupt the behavior until your hand is at least half-way up. And that's just a comment about who's in control.

Man: How about the use of this method in groups?

I hope you notice how we have used it here! While you are doing reframing, you spend about seventy to eighty percent of the time alone, waiting for the person to get a response. While you are doing that you can start with someone else. Each of us used to do ten or fifteen people at a time. The only limitation on how many people you can do at one time is how much sensory experience you are able to respond to. You set your limitations by the refinement of your sensory apparatus.

I know a man who does it with groups, and he takes them all together through each step. "Everybody identify something. Everybody go inside. What did you get?" "I got a feeling. ""Intensify for 'yes.'" "What did you get?" "I got sounds." "Have them get louder." "What did you get?" "I got a picture." "Have it brighten." He makes everybody else wait instead. That's another approach. It's easier if you have a homogeneous group of people.

Man: I'm kind of curious. Did you ever do this with somebody who had cancer—have them go inside and talk to the part that is causing the cancer?

Yes. I worked as a consultant for the Simontons in Fort Worth. I had six people who were terminal cancer patients, so I did them as a group, and that worked fine. I had enough sensory experience, and there was enough homogeneity in them as a group, that I could do it that way. The Simontons get good responses just using visualization. When you add the sophistication of all representational systems and the kind of communication system we develop with reframing, I don't know what the limits are. I would like to know what they are. And the way to find out is to assume that I can do anything and go out and do it.

We had a student who got a complete remission from a cancer patient. And he did something which I think is even more impressive: He got an ovarian cyst the size of an orange to shrink away in two weeks. According to medical science, that wasn't even possible. That client reports that she has the X-rays to prove it.

Those of you who went through medical school were done something of a disservice; let me talk about that for a moment. The medical model is based on a scientific model. The scientific model does the following: it says "In a complex situation, one way to find out something about it scientifically is to restrict everything in the situation except one variable. Then you change the value of that variable and notice any changes in the system." I think that's an excellent way to figure out cause-effect relationships in the world of experience. I do not think it is a useful model in face-to-face communication with another human being who is trying to get a change. Rather than restrict all behavior in a face-to-face communication, you want to vary your behavior wildly, to do whatever you need to do in order to elicit the response that you want.

Medical people for a long time have been willing to admit that people can psychologically "make themselves sick." They know that psychological cognitive mechanisms can create disease, and that things like the placebo effect can cure it. But that knowledge is not exploited in this culture in a useful way. Reframing is one way to begin to do that.

Reframing is the treatment of choice for any psychosomatic symptom. You can assume that any physiological symptom is psychosomatic, and then proceed with reframing—making sure that the person has already made use of all medical resources. We assume that all disease is psychosomatic. We don't really believe that's true. However, if we act as if that's true, then we have ways of responding appropriately and powerfully to people who have difficulties that are not recognized as psychosomatic by medical people. Whether it's aphasics that we've worked with, or people with paralysis that had an organic base, that wasn't hysterical according to the medical reports, we still often get behavioral changes. You can talk about it as if the people were pretending to be changed, but as long as they pretend effectively for the rest of their life, I'm satisfied. That's real enough for me.

The question for us is not what's "true," but what is a useful belief system to operate out of as a communicator. If you are a medical doctor and somebody comes in with a broken arm, then I think the logical thing for you to do is to set the broken bone, and not play philosophical games. If you're a communicator and you take the medical model as a metaphor for psychological change, then you've made a grave error. It's just not a useful way of thinking about it.

I think that ultimately the cures for schizophrenia and neurosis probably will be pharmacological, but I don't think that they have to be. I think they probably will be, because the training structures in this country have produced a massive amount of incompetence in the field of psychotherapy. Therapists just aren't producing results. Some people are, but what they are doing isn't being proliferated at a high enough rate. That's one of the functions that I understand us to have: to put information into a form that allows it to be easily learned and widely disseminated.

We also treat alcoholism as a psychosomatic process—like allergies or headaches or phantom-limb pain. The alcohol is an anchor, just as any other drug is. What an alcoholic is saying to you by being an alcoholic is essentially "The only way I can get to certain kinds of experiences which are important and positive for me as a human being—camaraderie, escape from certain kinds of conscious process, or whatever it is—is this anchor called alcohol." Until the secondary gain is taken care of by some other behavior, they will continue to go back to that as an anchor. So there are two steps in the treatment of alcoholism. One is making sure the secondary gain gets picked up by some other activity: they can have camaraderie but they don't have to get drunk in order to get it. You have to find out what their specific need is, because it's different for everyone.

Once you have taught them effective ways to get that secondary gain for themselves without the necessity of alcohol, then you anchor something else to take the place of the alcohol stimulus so they don't have to go through the alcohol state to get to the experiences that they want and need. We've done single sessions with alcoholics that stick really well, as long as we make sure that those two steps are always involved.

Man: Do you make the basic assumption that an individual is consciously able to tell you what the secondary gain is?

Never! We make the assumption that they can't.

Reframing in the six-step format we did here has certain advantages that we talked about. For example, this format builds in a program which the person can use by themselves later to make change in any area of their life.

You can also do this behaviorally. In fact, this is a strategy and outline for behavioral therapy as well as what we've been doing here. In the more usual therapeutic relationship, the therapist takes responsibility for using all his verbal and non-verbal behavior to elicit responses, to get access to resources in parts of the person directly, and to communicate with those parts. The client in the normal therapeutic process will, in turn, become those parts. S/he will cry, become angry, delighted, ecstatic, etc. S/he will display with all output channels that s/he has altered consciousness and has become the part that I want to communicate with.

In reframing we take a step back in that process and ask that s/he create a part that will have the responsibility for maintaining an efficient, effective internal communication system between parts. However, the same six-step format can be used as an organizing principle for doing more usual kinds of therapeutic work. Step one, identifying the pattern, is equivalent in a normal therapeutic context to saying "What specific change would you like today?" and getting a congruent response.

In usual therapeutic work there are a lot of ways of establishing communication with a part, as long as you are flexible. There's playing polarity, for instance. Suppose that I'm with someone who is really depressed. One way for me to contact the part in him that is really depressed is to talk directly to him. If I want to contact the part that doesn't want him to be depressed, I can say "Boy, you are depressing! You are one of the most depressing—I'll bet you've been depressed your whole life. You've never had any experience other than being depressed, never at all."

"Well, not my whole life, but for the past—"

"Oh no, I'll bet it's been your whole life."

"No, not my whole life, last week I felt pretty good for about an hour...."

In other words, by exaggerating the position that is offered to you, you get a polarity response if you do it congruently. And as soon as the person accesses the polarity, you can anchor it.

Woman: I have a client who will say "This is ridiculous! I don't want to do it."

Fine. So what?

Woman: Do you laugh at that point? Or do you, you know ...

No. Well, first of all, I've never had anybody tell me that. And I think that's because I do a lot of "set-ups" before I get into this. I do a lot of pacing, matching, mirroring. So you might take this as a comment that you didn't set up this person sufficiently well.

Or you might take it as a signal that you just accessed the part that you need to communicate with. Their behavior gives one set of messages and the verbalization gives another. If you recognize that the part which is now active and just told you that this is ridiculous is the part you need to communicate with anyway, then you don't do it in the six-step format. You immediately move into the usual therapeutic format. You've already established communication with the part. Reach over and anchor it in the same way we were talking about earlier. That will always give you access to that part whenever you need it. That response is a successful response in the usual therapeutic format.

Whether you do it in the six-step format or in the format of more normal therapeutic encounters, such as I just talked about, you now have established a communication channel. The important thing here is to accept only reports—not interpretations from the person's conscious mind. If you accept interpretations, you're going to fall into the same difficulties that they are already in: the communication between their conscious understanding and the unconscious intent is at variance. If you take sides you are going to lose—unless you take sides with the unconscious, because the unconscious always wins anyway.

If your client refuses to have anything to do with exploring unconscious parts, you can say "Look, let me guarantee that the part of you that you are attacking consciously, the part of you that keeps you doing X, is doing something useful for you. I'm going to side with it against your conscious mind until I am satisfied that this unconscious part of you has found patterns of behavior that are more effective than what you are presently doing." Now, with that it's very hard to get any resistance. That's been my experience.

Step three of reframing is the major component of what most people do when they do family therapy. Let's say that you have a father who loses his temper a lot. Virginia Satir waits until he has expressed quite a bit of anger. Then she says "I want to tell you that in my years of doing family therapy I have seen a lot of people who are angry, and a lot of people could express it. I think it's important for every human being to be able to express what they feel in their guts, whether its happiness, or anger like you just felt. I want to compliment you, and I hope all the other members of this family have that choice." Now, that's pacing: "accept, accept, accept." And then she gets in real close to the father and says "And would you be willing to tell me about those feelings of loneliness and hurt underneath that anger?"

Another form of behavioral reframing is to say "Do you yell at everyone like that? You don't yell at the paper boy? You don't yell at your mechanic? Well, are you trying to tell her that you care about what she does? Is that what this anger is about? I mean, I notice you don't do it with people you don't care about. This must be a caring message. Did you know that this was his way of expressing that he cares what you do?"

"Well, how do you feel about knowing that now?" How many of you have heard Virginia Satir say that? That's a weird sentence; it doesn't actually have any meaning. But it works! That's another example of behavioral reframing. It's the same principle, but it involves content. That's the only difference.

Carl Whittaker has one nice reframing pattern that is apparently uniquely his. The husband complains "And for the last ten years nobody has ever taken care of me. I've had to do everything for myself and I've had to develop this ability to take care of myself. Nobody ever is solicitous toward me." Carl Whittaker says "Thank God you learned to stand on your own feet. I really appreciate a man who can do that. Aren't you glad you've done that?" That's a behavioral reframe. If a client says "Well, you know, I guess I'm just not the perfect husband," he says "Thank God! I'm so relieved! I've had three perfect husbands already this week and they are so dull." What he does is to reverse the presupposition of the communication he's receiving.

We originally developed reframing by observing Virginia Satir in the context of family therapy. We have developed several other systematic models of reframing that will appear in a book titled Reframing: NLP and the Transformation of Meaning. In that book we also apply reframing to alcoholism, family therapy, corporate decision-making, and other specific contexts.

One aspect of reframing was introduced years ago in the process called "brainstorming," a situation in which people simply free-associate and explicitly suspend their usual judgemental responses. When brainstorming is conducted in an effective way, people generate a lot more ideas than they do in other modes of working together.

The primary way in which that works is that a really fine distinction is made between outcomes—what we are going to use this material for—and the process of generating ideas with other human beings. Reframing is the same principle applied more generally.

What I've noticed over and over again in corporate work, in arbitration, or in family therapy, is that there will be a goal toward which a number of members in the system want to move. They begin to discuss some of the characteristics or dimensions, or advantages or disadvantages, of this future desired state. As they do this, other members involved in that negotiation behave as if they feel compelled to point out that there are certain constraints that presently exist in the organization which make it impossible to do that.

Now, what is missing is the time quantifier. Indeed they are correct. There are constraints on the organization or the family which make it impossible, concretely speaking, to engage in that proposed behavior now. If you work as a consultant for an organization or a family, you can teach people to distinguish between responses they are making that are congruent with the description of the future state, and responses that are a characterization of the present state. Once that is done, you avoid about ninety-five percent of the bickering that goes on in planning sessions. You convince the people in the organization that it is useful for them to feel free to restrict themselves to discussing the future state, the desired state, propositions entirely distinct from present state constraints. This is an example of sorting out certain dimensions of experience, dealing with them in some useful way, and then later re-integrating them back into the system.

You also need a monitor. All of you have had the following experience. You're in an organizational meeting or a family system. And no matter what anyone says, there's one person who takes issue with it. No matter what the proposal is, there is someone who behaves as if it were their function in that system to challenge the formulation that has just been offered. It's a useful thing to be able to do, but it can also be very disruptive. What techniques do you have to utilize what's going on at that point? Does anybody have a way of dealing with that effectively?

Woman: You can escalate it; ask them to do it more. So you would use the gestalt thing of exaggerating. What's the outcome you typically get?

Woman: Ah, they stop.

They stop doing it. That's a nice transfer from therapy. She's using one of the three patterns which are characteristic of Brief Therapy therapists, the pattern of prescribing the symptom. For instance, when somebody comes to Milton Erickson and asks for assistance in losing weight, typically he demands that s/he gain exactly eleven pounds in the next two weeks. That might seem to be irrational behavior on his part. However, it's quite effective, because one of two things will happen. Either the person will lose weight—a polarity response— which is the outcome he is working toward anyway, or they will gain eleven pounds. Typically they don't gain ten or twelve, they gain eleven. Since they were able to accomplish that, the behavioral presupposition is that they can control what they weigh. In either case it unstabilizes the situation. I've never heard of people stabilizing. Something always happens. It's the same kind of maneuver that Salvador Minuchin makes when he allies himself with a member of the family to throw the system out of kilter. This is a really nice example of a transfer of a therapeutic technique to the organizational context.

Let me offer you another utilization. As soon as you notice that the challenging behavior is disruptive, you can interrupt the process, and say "Look, one of the things I've discovered is that it's useful to assign people specific functions in a group. In my experience of consulting and working with organizations, I have found that this is a useful way of organizing meetings. One group member keeps track of the ideas, and so on." Then you can assign this person the function of being the challenger. When a well-formed proposition is brought before the group by anyone, or by a sequence of suggestions, his job is to challenge that formulation at some point. You explain that by challenging the formulation, he will force the people making the proposal to make finer and finer distinctions and to hone their proposal into a form that will be effective and realistic. You've prescribed the symptom, but you have also institutionalized it. I've had the experience of simply prescribing the symptom, and at the next meeting the same thing happens, and I have to do it again. One way to make sure that you don't have to make that intervention over and over again is to institutionalize it by assigning the function of challenger to that person.

You've essentially taken over the behavior. Now you can control when the challenges will be made. This is an example of utilization. You don't try to stop the problem behavior, you utilize it. The primary metaphor for utilization is the situation where I never fight against the energy offered me by anyone, or any part of them. I take it and use it. Utilization is the psychological counterpart of the oriental martial arts, such as Aikido or Judo. This is a parallel strategy for psychological martial arts. You always accept and utilize the response, you don't fight or challenge the response—with one exception, of course. If the person's presenting problem involves their running over people then you clobber them, because the presenting problem involves the very pattern that they are using: namely, they get their way. But, of course, that's a paradox, because if they were really getting their way, they wouldn't be in your office.

So let's say that Jim here makes a proposal and Tony is the guy I have assigned to be the challenger. When Tony begins to interrupt, I say "Excellent! Good work, Tony! Now, listen, Tony, what I think you ought to be sensitive to is that we haven't yet given Jim enough rope to hang himself. So let him make a more complete proposal and get responses from other people, and then I'll cue you and you jump right on it. OK?" So I've essentially delivered the message "Yes, but not yet."

Woman: That works if you are the outside consultant coming in, but what if you are already in the system?

If you are an inside consultant or you are a member of the system at the same level of functioning, there may be people who would resent or resist if you state it as your proposal. So you have to frame it appropriately. It's not a proposal coming from you. It's a proposal you are offering that comes from outside, which you think might be useful for you and the rest of the members of the group. You can do it metaphorically. You can say "I spent a fascinating evening the other night with a corporate consultant in Chicago. I went to a conference and the leader told us the following:" Then you present all the information that I just presented to you. If you do that congruently, it will be an acceptable proposal. You can always suggest an experiential test to find out whether it's worth doing. You can ask people to try it for two hours. If it works, people will continue it. If it doesn't, you haven't lost much, and you don't want to continue it anyway.

I would like to point out that discussions where antagonistic positions are being presented are the life blood of any organization if they are done in a particular context. That context is that you establish a frame around the whole process of argument, so that the disputes, the discussions of antagonistic proposals, are simply different ways of achieving the same outcome that all members agree upon.

Let me give a content example. George and Harry are co-owners of a corporation; each owns fifty percent of the stock. I've been brought in as a corporate consultant. Harry says the following: "We've got to expand. You grow or you die. And specifically we've got to open offices in Atlanta, Chattanooga, and Miami this year." And George over here says "Look, you know as well as I do, Harry, that last year when we opened the Chicago and Milwaukee offices, we opened them on a shoestring. And as a matter of fact, they still are not yet self-sufficient. They are still not stabilized to the point that they are turning over the amount of business that gives me the confidence to know that we can go ahead and expand into these other offices. Now how many times do we have to go through this?"

So there's a content difference between these two human beings about the next thing they should do as a corporate entity. One strategy that always works effectively in this situation is to reframe the two responses that they are offering as alternative ways of getting an outcome that they both agree is desirable. So first you have to find the common goal—establish a frame. Then you instruct them in how to dispute each other's proposals effectively, because now both proposals are examples of how to achieve the same outcome that they both have agreed upon.

So I would do something like the following: "Look, let me interrupt you for a moment. I just want to make sure that I understand you both. Harry, you want to expand because you want the corporation to grow and realize more income, right?" I then turn to George and say "My understanding is that your objection to the expansion at the moment, and your focusing on the fact that the Milwaukee and Chicago offices are not quite self-sufficient yet, is your way of being sure that the quality of the services that you offer as a corporation are of a certain level. You are offering a quality product and you want to maintain that quality, because otherwise the whole thing won't work anyway." And he'll say "Of course. Why do you ask these things?" And then I say "OK, I think I understand now. Both of you agree that what you want to do is expand at a rate congruent with maintaining the high quality of services your corporation offers." And they'll both say "Of course." You've now achieved the agreement that you need; you've now got the frame. You say "Good. Since we agree on the outcome that we're all working toward, let's find the most effective, efficient way to get that outcome. Now you, George, make a specific, detailed proposal about how you will know when the Chicago and Milwaukee offices are stabilized at a quality of operation that allows you to feel comfortable about turning resources elsewhere to continue expanding. Harry, I want you to come up with the specific evidence that you can use to know when it is appropriate to open new branches. What will you see or hear that's going to allow you to know that it is now appropriate to open a new office in Chattanooga, and still maintain the quality of the services you're going to offer?"

First I use language that generalizes, to establish the frame. Then I make sure it is anchored in. "Since we all agree about the outcome,... Then I challenge them to take the proposals they've been fighting over—now embedded in a context of agreement—back to the level of sensory experience. I demand that each of them give specific evidence to support that their proposal is more effective in achieving the outcome that they have both agreed upon. Now they will have useful disputes. And I will monitor their language to be sure that they are being specific enough to make a good decision. You can always figure out what would constitute evidence that one proposal is more effective than another.

Let me give you a specific strategy for doing this. You listen to both complaint A and complaint B. Then you ask yourself "What are A and B both examples of? What is the class or category that they are both examples of? What is the outcome that both of these two people will share? What common intention lies behind or underneath both these two particular proposals?" Once you discover that, then you interrupt and state the obvious in some way. You get an agreement between these two people, so that they can then begin to usefully disagree within the context of agreement.

Now that has the same formal properties of what I did with Dick in the six-step reframing. We found a point where his conscious mind and his unconscious mind could agree about a certain outcome that was useful for him as an individual.

Harry and George now agree that whatever they end up doing— either one of their proposals, both, or some alternative to those—the outcome they are working toward is to benefit the corporate entity as a unit. So I ignore the specific behaviors, and I go after an outcome that the two parts of the corporation—or the two parts of the human being—can agree upon. Now, having achieved the frame of agreement, it becomes trivial to vary behavior in order to find a behavior that achieves the outcome that both partners can agree to.

If you have more than two people involved—which is usually the case—you can simplify the situation by organizing the discussion. Just say "Look, I'm getting very confused by the way we're discussing things. Let me organize it a little bit in the following way: I want the rest of you to be exquisitively attentive. You have the job of watching and listening to exactly what these two people are going to propose, and assisting me in the process of finding what's common about what they want to do. You can reorganize it into pairs, and then work with one pair at a time. And as you do that, of course you are teaching the pattern to the observers at the same time.

People have strange ideas about change. Change is the only constant in my thirty-some years of experience. One of the weird things that's happened—and this is a really good example of natural anchoring—is that change and pain are associated. Those ideas have been anchored together in western civilization. That's ridiculous! There's no necessary relationship between pain and change. Is there Linda? Tammy? Dick?

There is one class of human beings in which you may have to create pain in order to assist them in changing, and that's therapists. Most therapists intrinsically believe—at the unconscious level as well as the conscious level—that change has to be slow and painful. How many of you at some point during the demonstrations have said to yourself "That's too easy; it's too fast." If you examine the underlying presuppositions that cause you to respond that way, you'll discover that they are associated with pain and time and money and stuff— some of which are really powerful and valid economic considerations. Others are just junk that have been associated—like change and pain. So you might examine your own belief structure, because what you believe will come out. It will be in your tone of voice, in your body movement, in the hesitation as you lean forward to do this work with someone.

All the tools that we offer you are very powerful and elegant. They are the minimum that I think you need to operate, no matter what psychotheology you were previously trained in.

If you decide that you want to fail with this material, it's possible to. There are two ways to fail. I think you ought to be aware of what those are, so that you can make a choice about how you are going to fail if you decide to.

One way is to be extremely rigid. You can go through exactly the steps that you saw and heard us go through here, without any sensory experience, without any feedback from your clients. That will guarantee that you will fail. That's the way most people fail.

The second way you can fail is by being really incongruent. If there's a part of you that really doesn't believe that phobias can be done in three minutes, but you decide to try it anyway, that incongruency will show up in your non-verbal communication, and that will blow the whole thing.

Every psychotherapy that I know of has an acute mental illness within it. Each one thinks that their theory, their map, is the territory. They don't think that you can make up something totally arbitrary and install it in someone and change them. They don't realize that what they believe is also made up and totally arbitrary. Yes, their method does elicit a response from people, and sometimes it works for the problem you're working on. But there are a thousand other ways to go about it, and a thousand other responses.

For example, TA has a thing called "reparenting" in which they regress a person and give him a new set of parents. And if it's done appropriately, it will work. The TA belief is that the person is messed up because when they were a kid they didn't get certain kinds of experiences, so you have to go back and give them those experiences in order for them to be different. That's the TA theology, and accepting that belief system constitutes the mental illness of TA. TA people don't realize that you can get the same result a thousand other ways, and that some of them are a lot quicker than reparenting.

Any belief system is both a set of resources for doing a particular thing, and a set of severe limitations for doing anything else. The one value in belief is that it makes you congruent. That part is very useful; it will make other people believe you. But it also establishes a huge set of limitations. And my belief system is that you will find those limitations in yourself as a person as well as in your therapy. Your clients are going to end up being a metaphor for your personal life because you are making the ultimate tragic mistake. You believe that your perceptions are a description of what reality actually is.

There is a way out of that. The way out of that is to not believe what you're doing. That way you can do things that don't fit with "yourself," "your world," etc. I recently decided that I want to write a book titled, When you discover your real self, then buy this book and become someone else.

If you simply change your belief system, you will have a new set of resources and a new set of limitations. Having the choice of being able to operate out of different therapeutic models is very valuable in comparison to only being able to operate out of one model. If you believe any of them, you will remain limited in the same way those models are limited.

One way to get out of that is to learn to go into altered states in which you make up models. Once you realize that the world in which you're living right now is completely made up, you can make up new worlds.

Now if we're going to talk about altered states of consciousness, we first have to talk about states of consciousness. You are at this moment in time conscious, true or not true?

Woman: I think so.

OK. How do you know that you're conscious at this moment? What are the elements of your experience that would lead you to believe that you are in your normal state of consciousness? I want to know what it is about this state of consciousness that allows you to know that you are here.

Woman: Ah, I can hear your voice.

You can hear my voice, so you have auditory external. Is anyone talking on the inside at this moment?

Woman: I may have some internal voices.

Do you? While you're listening to me talk, is anyone else speaking? That's what I want to know. And I'm going to continue to talk so that you can find out.

Woman: I... yes.

Is it a he or a she or an it? Woman: A she.

All right. So you have some external and internal auditory experience. All TA people have that. They have a "critical parent," saying "Am I doing this right?" No one else does, though—until they go to a TA therapist, and then they have a critical parent. That's what TA does for you. OK, what else have you got? Are you visualizing while I'm speaking to you?

Woman: No, I'm seeing you on the outside.

OK, so you have some visual external experience. Are you having any kinesthetic experience?

Woman: Not until you mentioned it.

OK. What was it?

Woman: Ahhhhmmmm ... I can feel a tightness in my jaw.

Another way to get this would be to say "What are you aware of?" And you would tell me about your state of consciousness at that moment in time. So we have specified auditory, visual, and kinesthetic. You weren't perceiving any smells or taste, were you?

Woman: No.

OK, I didn't think you were. Now, my definition of altering your state of consciousness is to change it from this to any other possible combination of these things. For example, if you were to only hear my voice and not your internal dialogue, that would constitute an altered state for you because you don't usually do that. Most of the time you talk to yourself while other people are talking. If, instead of seeing externally, you were to make clear, rich, vivid, focused images of anything inside, that would be an altered state. For example, if you were to see the letters and numbers of the alphabet, an orange, yourself sitting on the couch with your hand on your ear in an auditory accessing position, the nodding of your head….

Another thing is that your kinesthetics are proprioceptive. Tightness in the jaw is a lot different than the feeling of the couch, the warmth where your hand touches your face, the feeling of your other hand... against your thigh,... the beating of your own heart,... the rise and fall of your chest... as you breathe deeply. The intonation patterns of my voice,... the changing tonality,... the need to focus your eyes... and the changing focus of your pupils, ... the repeating blinking movements, ... and the sense of weight…. Now, can you feel your state of consciousness alter?

That to me constitutes an altered state of consciousness. The way to do it is to first find out what's there, and then do something that makes something else come into consciousness. Once you are directing an altered state of consciousness, you can begin to make maneuvers that add options, add choices.

Woman: I think at that point I was aware of what was happening and I could stop it if I had wanted to, so—

But you didn't.

Woman: That's right, but I don't know about this argument of whether you can make somebody go into an altered state or not. I'm still not—

Well, it's a stupid argument to begin with, because the only people who are going to resist you are people who know that you are doing it. And then I can get somebody to resist me right into a trance, because all I have to do is to instruct them to do one thing and they'll do the opposite. They'll enter an altered state immediately. An example of that is a thing that mothers often say to children: "Don't laugh."They induce altered states in their children by playing polarity. Kids don't have a choice about that until they have requisite variety.

Who can make whom do what, is a function of requisite variety. If you have more flexibility in your behavior than your hypnotist, then you can go into a trance or you can stay out of a trance, depending upon what you want to do. Henry Hilgard made up one hypnotic induction and administered it to ten thousand people. Sure enough, he found out that only a certain percentage of them went into a trance. The percentage that went into a trance were the ones that were either pre-adapted or flexible enough to adapt to that hypnotic induction. The rest of the people who were not flexible enough to adapt to that particular hypnotic induction could not go into a trance.

Going into an altered state is nothing weird. You all do it all the time. The question is whether you use the altered state to produce change, and if so, how are you going to use it? Inducing it is not that difficult. All you have to do is talk about parameters of experience that the person isn't aware of. The question is "How will you do it with whom?" If you have a person who's very visual, you're going to do something that's very different than with someone like this woman here who talks to herself a lot and pays attention to the tightness in her jaw. For her, entering a state of consciousness where she makes rich, focused images would be altered. But for a visual person that would be the normal state. In an altered state a person has more and different choices than she does in her normal conscious waking state. Many people think that going into a trance means losing control. That's where this question "Can you make somebody go into a trance?" comes from. What you're making them do is to go into a state where they have more choices. There's a huge paradox there. In an altered state of consciousness you do not have your usual model of the world. So what you have is an infinite number of possibilities.

Since I can represent states in terms of representational systems, I can use this as a calculus to compute what else must be possible. I can compute altered states that have never existed and achieve them. I didn't find that possibility available to me when I was a gestalt therapist or when I did other forms of therapy. Those models didn't offer these alternatives. If you want to learn in detail how to induce and utilize altered states, read our book Trance-formations: NLP and the Structure of Hypnosis.

I have a student now who I think is pretty good. One of the things that I appreciate about him is that instead of "working on himself," he takes the time to enter altered states and give himself new realities. I think most of the time when therapists work on themselves, all they do is confuse themselves utterly and completely. Once a woman hired me to do a workshop. She called me up three weeks before the workshop and said that she had changed her mind. So I called my attorney and sued her. She had months and months and months to plan the workshop and do what she had said she would do. She had spent all that time "working on" whether she was ready to do this or not. Her therapist called me up to try to persuade me to not sue her. He said "Well, it's not like she hasn't spent time on it. She's been working on this for months about whether she was ready to do this workshop."

It seems to me that there was one obvious thing she could have done: she could have called me up months and months earlier and told me that she was unsure. But instead of doing that, she tried to work out external experience internally and consciously. And I think that's a paradox, as we've said over and over again. When people come for therapy, if they had the resources consciously available they would have changed already. The fact that they haven't is what brings them there. When you, as a therapist, consciously try to change yourself, you're setting yourself up for confusion, and you're likely to go into all kinds of interesting, but not very useful, loops.

One student of mine came to me first as a client. He was a junior in college at the time, and he said "I have a terrible problem. I meet a girl, things go really fine, and then she comes and sleeps with me and everything is great. But the next morning as soon as I wake up, I think 'Well, either I have to marry her or kick her out of bed and never see her again.'"

At that moment in time I was sort of amazed that a human being had actually said that to me! I will never cease to be amazed about how people can limit their world of experience. In his world there were only those two choices!

I was working with John at the time, and John looked at him and said "Has it ever occurred to you to just say 'Good morning'?" and the student went "Uhhhhhhhhh!" I think that stunk as a therapeutic maneuver, because now what's he going to do? He's going to say "Good morning," and then either put his foot in the center of her back and kick her out of bed, or propose marriage. There are more possibilities than that. But as he entered that state of confusion and went "Uhhhhhhhhh!" I reached over and said "Close your eyes." And John said "And begin to dream a dream in which you learn just how many other possibilities there are, and your eyes will be unable to open until you find them." He sat there for 5 and a half hours. We went out in the other room. Six and a half hours he was there coming up with possibilities. He couldn't leave because his eyes wouldn't open. He tried standing and walking, but he couldn't find the door. All of the possibilities that he thought of in that six and a half hour period had been available to him all along, but he had never done anything to access his own creativity.

Reframing is a way of getting people to say "Hey, how else can I do this?" In a way it's the ultimate criticism of a human being, saying "Stop and think about your behavior, and think about it in the following way: Do something new; what you're doing doesn't work! Tell yourself a story, and then come up with three other ways of telling the story, and suddenly you have differences in your behavior.

There's an amazing thing about people: when they find something that doesn't work, they do it harder. For example, go to a junior high school and watch kids on the playground. One kid comes up to another one and pushes him. So the other kid sticks his chest out. The next time the kid pushes him he can push him even better because he has a firm chest to put his hand against.

One thing that really hasn't been understood is what's possible if instead of approaching a problem directly, you approach it indirectly. Milton Erickson did what I think was one of the shortest cures that I've ever heard about. The story that I heard was that he was at the VA hospital in Palo Alto in 1957, and psychiatrists were waiting in line with patients out in the hall. They were coming in one at a time, and Milton was doing a little magic, doing this and doing that. Then they went back out in the hall and talked about how Milton wasn't really doing these things and he was a charlatan.

A young PhD psychologist, who was about as straight as you could get, brought in a seventeen-year-old adolescent who had been knifing people and doing anything he could possibly conceive of that was damaging. The kid had been waiting in line for hours and people had been coming out in somnambulistic trances; the kid was going " Ahhhhhhhh ... What are they going to do to me?" He didn't know if he was going to get electric shock or what. They brought him in and there was this man with two canes standing there behind the table, and an audience in the room. They walked up in front of the table. Milton said "Why have you brought this boy here?" And the psychologist explained the situation, gave the case history as best he could. Milton looked at the psychologist and said "Go sit down." Then he looked at the young boy and said "How surprised will you be when all your behavior changes completely next week?" The boy looked at him and said "I'll be very surprised!" And Milton said "Get out. Take these people away."

The psychologist assumed that Milton had decided not to work with the boy. Like most psychologists, he missed the whole thing. Next week, the boy's behavior changed completely, from top to bottom and from bottom to top. The psychologist said that he could never figure out what it was that Milton did. As I understand it, Milton only did one thing. He gave that boy the opportunity to access his own unconscious resources. He said "You will change, and your conscious mind won't have anything to do with it. "Never underestimate the usefulness of just saying that to people. "I know that you have a vast array of resources available to you that your conscious mind doesn't even suspect. You have the ability to surprise yourself, each and every one of you. "If you really congruently act as if people have the resources and are going to change, you begin to induce impetus in the unconscious.

One of the things that I noticed about Milton when I first went to see him, was the incredible respect that he has for unconscious processes. He is always trying to get demonstrations back and forth between conscious and unconscious activity.

In linguistics there is something called "the tip of the tongue" phenomenon. Do you all know what that is? That's when you know a word and you even know that you know the word, but you can't say what it is. Your conscious mind even knows that your unconscious mind knows what the word is. I remind people of that as evidence that their conscious mind is less than the tip of the iceberg.

I once hypnotized a linguistics professor and sent his conscious mind away into a memory. I asked if his unconscious mind knew what the "tip of the tongue" phenomenon was—because he had demonstrated it in many of his classes. His unconscious mind said to me "Yes, I know what it is." I said "Why is it that if you know a word, you don't present it to his conscious mind?" And he said to me "His conscious mind is too damn cocky."

In our last workshop we were doing some things with strategies, and we programmed a woman to forget what her name was. A man there said "There's no way that I could possibly forget my name." I said "What is your name?" And he said "I don't know! I said "Congratulate your unconscious mind, even though you don't have one."

It is amazing to me that hypnosis has been so systematically ignored. I think it's been ignored mostly because the conscious minds who practice it don't trust it. But every form of therapy I've studied has trance experiences available in it. Gestalt is founded on positive hallucination. TA is founded on dissociation. They all have great verbal inductions.

At the last workshop we did there was a guy who was skeptical through most of the day. As I walked by, during an exercise, he was saying to his partner "Can you allow yourself to make this picture?" That's a hypnotic command. He had asked me downstairs if I believed in hypnosis! What I believe is that it's an unfortunate word. It's a name given to lots and lots of different experiences, lots of different states.

We used to do hypnotic inductions before we did reframing. Then we discovered that we could do reframing without having to put people into trance. That's how we got into Neuro Linguistic Programming. We thought "Well, if that's true, then we should be able to reframe people into doing every deep trance phenomenon that we know about." So we took a group of twenty people and in one evening we programmed all the people in that group to do every deep trance phenomenon we could remember having read about anywhere. We found that we could get any "deep trance phenomenon" without doing any ritualized induction. We got amnesia, positive hallucination, tone-deafness, color blindness—everything. One woman negatively hallucinated Leslie for the entire evening. Leslie would walk over and pick up the woman's hand; her hand would float up and she had no idea why. It was like those cartoons about ghosts and stuff. That's as good as any negative hallucination we ever got doing hypnosis.

In the phobia technique where you see yourself standing there, and then float out of your body and see yourself there watching the younger you—that's a deep trance phenomenon. It requires positive hallucination, and getting out of your own body. That's fairly amazing. Yet all you have to do is give somebody the explicit instructions, and out of a hundred people, ninety-five can do it quickly and easily as long as you don't act as if it's hard. You always act as if you're leading up to something else that's going to be difficult, so they go ahead and do all the deep-trance phenomena and alter their state.

Neuro Linguistic Programming is a logical step higher than anything that has been done previously in hypnosis or therapy only in the sense that it allows you to do things formally and methodically. NLP allows you to determine exactly what alterations in subjective experience are necessary to accomplish a given outcome. Most hypnosis is a fairly random process: If I give someone a suggestion, that person has to come up with a method of carrying it out. As a Neuro Linguistic Programmer, even if I use hypnosis, I would describe exactly what I want that person to do in order to carry out the suggestion. That's the only important difference between what we're doing here and what people have been doing with hypnosis for centuries. It's a very important difference, because it allows you to predict outcomes precisely and avoid side-effects.

Using reframing and strategies and anchoring—all the tools of Neuro Linguistic Programming—you can get any response you can get through hypnosis. But then that's only one way to go about it. Doing it through official hypnosis is also interesting. And combining NLP and hypnosis is even more interesting.

For instance there is the "dreaming arm" technique that works great with children—and adults, too. First you ask "Did you know you have a dreaming arm?" When you have their interest, you ask "What is your favorite TV show?" As they access visually, you notice which side their eyes go to. As they do that, you lift up their arm on the same side, and say "I'm going to lift your arm, and your arm will go down only as fast as you watch that whole TV show, and you can begin right now. So the kid watches his favorite TV show. You can even reach out and stop their arm for a moment and say "It's time for a commercial" and install messages.

I'll tell you the extremes you can take this to. I had a client who had a severe hallucination that was always with him. I could never discern quite what it was. He had a name for it which was a word I'd never heard. It was a geometric figure which was alive and that followed him everywhere. It was his own sort of personal demon, but he didn't call it a demon. He could point to it in the room, and he interacted with it. When I asked him questions, he would turn around and ask "What do you think?" Before he came to me he had been convinced by a therapist that this was a part of him. Whether it was or not, I don't know, but he was convinced that this was a part of him that he had alienated. I reached over and said "I'm going to lift up your arm, and I want you to put it down only as fast as you begin to integrate this."Then I pulled his arm down quickly, and that was it. The integration occurred— whammo, slappo—because I had tied the two together with words.

I once asked a TA therapist which part had total control over his conscious ongoing behavior. Because it didn't seem that people had a choice about being their "parent," or their "child." So he named some part; TA has names for everything. I said "Would you go inside and ask that part if it would knock your conscious mind out for a while?" And he went "Ah, well... "I said "Just go in and ask, and find out what happens." So he went inside and asked the question... and his head fell over to one side and he was gone! It is amazing how powerful it is to use language. I don't think people understand the impact of verbal and non-verbal language at all.

At the beginning of therapy sessions very often I'll say to people "If anything begins to occur to your conscious mind which is too painful in any way, I want to say to your unconscious mind that I think it has the right and the duty to keep from your conscious mind anything that is unpleasant. Your unconscious resources can do that and they should do it—protect you from thinking about things which are unnecessary in that way, and make your conscious experience more pleasant. So if anything unpleasant begins to arise in your conscious experience, your unconscious mind can slowly allow your eyes to flutter closed, one of your hands to rise up, and your conscious mind can drift away into a pleasant memory, allowing me to speak privately with your unconscious mind. Because I don't know what the worst thing that ever happened to you was...."

I'm saying when X occurs, respond this way, and then I'm providing X. I'm not saying "Think about the worst thing that ever happened." I'm saying "I don't know ..." This is the same pattern that's in Changing with Families, the pattern of embedded questions. Virginia never says "What do you want?" She says "Gee, I ask myself why a family would travel six thousand miles to see me. And I don't know, and I'm curious." When I say "I don't know exactly what the most painful and tragic experience of your whole life was," it'll be right there in consciousness.

People do not process language consciously. They process language at the unconscious level. They can only become conscious of a very small amount of it. A lot of what is called hypnosis is using language in very specific ways.

It's one thing to alter someone's state of consciousness and to give them new programs, new learnings, new choices. Getting them to know that they've been in an altered state is something else entirely. Different people have different strategies by which they convince themselves of things. What constitutes somebody's belief system about what hypnosis is, is very different from being able to use hypnosis as a tool. It's much easier to use trance as a therapeutic tool with people who don't know that they've been in a trance, because you can communicate so much more eloquently with their unconscious processes. As long as you can establish unconscious feedback loops with that person, you'll be able to alter their state of consciousness and they are more apt to have amnesia.

My favorite case of this was a guy named Hal. He came to a seminar that a student of mine had set up and at the last minute she decided that she was an inadequate human being and left the State. The people all showed up at the seminar and someone called me and said "All these people are here, what should I do?" It was nearby, so I went over and I said "Well, I'll spend the evening with you. I don't want to teach a seminar, but I would like to know what you all hoped to get." Hal said "I have been to every hypnotist I've ever found; I have gone to every seminar I could ever find on hypnosis, and I have volunteered myself every time, and I have not gone into a trance."

I thought that was dedication for somebody who had failed over and over again. And so I thought "Well, wow! This is really interesting. Maybe this guy really is an 'impossible,' and maybe there's something interesting here." So I thought I'd try it. I did a hypnotic induction and the guy went right through the floor! He went into deep trance and he demonstrated all the most difficult hypnotic phenomena. Then I aroused him and said "Did you go into a trance?" And he said "No." I said "What happened?" And he said "Well, you were talking to me and I sat here and listened to you talk, and I closed my eyes, and I opened my eyes." I said "And did you X?" and I named one of the trance phenomena he had just demonstrated. And he said "No." So I thought, "Ah! well, it's just a function of his amnesia."

I hypnotized him again and gave him implicit hypnotic commands to remember doing all the things he did. He still had no memory whatsoever. All the people in the room, of course, were going crazy because they've seen him do all these things. I tried things like saying "Tell Hal what you saw" and they all told him. And he said "That's not going to work on me. I didn't do that. I would know if I did that." The interesting thing about Hal was there was more than one of him, and they had no connection with one another, no means of communicating with one another. So I thought well, I'm going to have to mix it up a little bit. I said "While you remain in the conscious state, I'd like to ask your unconscious mind to demonstrate to you that it can do things by lifting your hand so that only your right arm is in trance." His arm began to involuntarily float up. I thought "Now this is going to convince this guy," because only his arm was in trance. And he looked me straight in the eye and said "Well, my arm is in trance, but the rest of me can't go in."

By the way, I have a rule which says I have to succeed. So I tried videotaping him and showing him the videotape. He couldn't see it! We'd turn on the videotape, and he'd just go into a trance and that was it. He could not watch the videotape. I told him that if he had not been in a trance, he would be able to watch the videotape. So he sat there with the videotape machine, and he would turn it on and drop out. We'd turn it off and he'd come back. He'd turn it on again and drop out again. He sat there for the rest of the evening trying to watch himself go into a trance. He couldn't do it. So he became convinced that he had been in a trance, but he didn't understand it.

This taught me a lesson. I stopped worrying about whether people knew they were in trance or not and only noticed the results that I could get, utilizing it as phenomenon of change. Hypnotists do a terrible thing to themselves. Hypnotists are always worried about convincing people that they have been in trance, and it isn't important. It is not essential to their changing; it is not essential for anything. Whether they know that they've gone into trance or not, they will notice that they have the changes.

The same is true of anchoring and reframing. As long as you use sensory experience to check your work, it's irrelevant whether your clients believe that they have changed. They will find out in experience—if they bother to notice at all.

The information and patterns that we have been presenting to you are formal patterns of communication that are content-free. They can be used in any context of human communication and behavior.

We haven't even begun to figure out what the possibilities are of how to use this material. And we are very, very, serious about that. What we are doing now is nothing more than the investigation of how to use this information. We have been unable to exhaust the variety of ways to put this stuff together and put it to use, and we don't know of any limitations on the ways that you can use this information. During this seminar we have mentioned and demonstrated several dozen ways that it can be used. It's the structure of experience. Period. When used systematically, it constitutes a full strategy for getting any behavioral gain.

We are very slowly tapering off teaching and doing therapy because there's a presupposition common in the field of clinical psychology which we personally disagree with: that change is a remedial phenomenon. You find something that is wrong and you fix it. If you ask a hundred people "What would you like for yourself," ninety-nine will say "I want to stop doing X."

There is an entirely different way to look at change, which we call the generative or enrichment approach. Instead of looking for what's wrong and fixing it, it's possible simply to think of ways that your life could be enriched: "What would be fun to do, or interesting to be able to do?" "What new capacities or abilities could I invent for myself?" "How can I make things really groovy?"

When I was first doing therapy a man came in and said "I want to have better relationships with people." I said "Oh, so you have trouble relating to people?" He said "No, I get along fine with people. I enjoy my relationships a lot. I'd like to be able to do it even better." I looked into my therapy bag to see what to do for him, and there wasn't anything there!

Very rarely do people come in and say "Well, I'm confident but, boy, you know, if I were twice as confident things would be really wonderful." They come in and say "I'm never confident." I say "Are you sure of that?" and they say Absolutely

The idea of generative change is really hard to sell to psychologists. Business people are much more interested, and they're more willing and able to pay to learn how to do it. Often we do groups in which about half of them are business people, and half of them are therapists. I say "Now, what I want you to do is to go inside and think of three really different situations." The business people go inside and sell a car, win a lawsuit, and meet somebody they really enjoy. The therapists go inside and get beaten up as a child, have a divorce, and have the worst professional failure and humiliation of their life!

We are currently investigating what we call generative personality. We are finding people who are geniuses at things, finding out the sequence of unconscious programming that they use, and installing those sequences in other people to find out if having that unconscious program allows them to be able to do the task. The "cloning" thing we did for the ad agency is an example of doing that at the corporate level.

When we do that, things which were problems, and would have been meat for therapy, disappear. We completely bypass the whole phenomenon of working with problems, because when the structure is changed, everything changes. And problems are only a function of structure.

Man: Can that present new problems?

Yes, but they are interesting, evolutionary ones. Everything presents problems, but the new ones are much more interesting. "What are you going to evolve yourself to become today?" is a very different way of approaching change than "Where is it wrong?" or "How are you inadequate?" I remember once I was in a group with a gestalt therapist and he said "Who wants to work today?" Nobody raised their hand. And he said "There's really no one in here that has a pressing problem?" People looked at each other, shook their heads, and said "No." He looked at the people and said "What's wrong with you? You are not in touch with what's really going on if there's no pain here." He really made that statement; I was flabbergasted. Suddenly all these people went into pain. They all said "You're right! If I have no pain, I'm not real." Boom, they all went into pain, so then he had something to do therapy with.

That model of change does not produce really generative, creative human beings. I want to make structures that are conducive to creating experiences which will result in people who are interesting. People come out of therapy being lots of things, but rarely interesting. I don't think that it's anybody's fault. I think it's a result of the whole system and the presuppositions that underlie the system of psychotherapy and counseling. Most people are totally unconscious of what those presuppositions are.

As I walked around watching and listening to you practicing reframing, I saw a lot of you reverting to other patterns that I'm sure are characteristic of your habitual behavior in therapy, rather than trying something new. And that reminded me of a story:

Some fifteen or so years ago when the Denver zoo was going through a major renovation, there was a polar bear there, which had arrived at the zoo before a naturalistic environment was ready for it. Polar bears, by the way, are one of my favorite animals. They are very playful; they are big and graceful and do lots of nice things. The cage that it was put in temporarily was just big enough that the polar bear could take three nice, swinging steps in one direction, whirl up and around and come down and take three steps in the other direction, back and forth. The polar bear spent many, many months in that particular cage with those bars that restricted its behavior in that way. Eventually a naturalistic environment in which they could release the polar bear was built around this cage, on-site. When it was finally completed, the cage was removed from around the polar bear. Guess what happened? ...

And guess how many of those students at that university are still going down the maze, still trying to find the five-dollar bill? They sneak in at night and run down the maze to look and see if it just might be there this time.

We have been deluging you with information for three days now, totally overloading your conscious resources. And we'd like to offer you a couple of allies in this process which we have discovered are helpful to some people. Do people read Carlos Castaneda here? He's a whacko multiple personality with an Indian friend. There's a section in book two or three in which Don Juan gives a piece of advice to Carlos. We would not give this piece of advice to any of you, but we will repeat it for whatever it's worth.

You see, what Juan wanted to do to Carlos—which we wouldn't, of course, want to do to you—was to find some way of motivating him to be congruent and expressive in his behavior at all times, as creative as he could be as a human being. He wanted to mobilize his resources so that each act that Carlos performed would be a full representation of all the potential that was available to him—all the personal power that he had that was available to him at any moment in time.

Specifically what Juan told Carlos was "At any moment that you find yourself hesitating, or if at any moment you find yourself putting off until tomorrow trying some new piece of behavior that you could do today, or doing something you've done before, then all you need to do is glance over your left shoulder and there will be a fleeting shadow. That shadow represents your death, and at any moment it might step forward, place its hand on your shoulder and take you. So that the act that you are presently engaged in might be your very last act and therefore fully representative of you as your last act on this planet."

One of the ways you can use this constructively is to understand that it is indulgent to hesitate.

When you hesitate, you are acting as though you are immortal. And you, ladies and gentlemen, are not.

You don't even know the place and the hour of your death.

And so one thing you can do... to remind yourself that not to bother to hesitate is not to act unprofessional... is to just suddenly glance over your left shoulder and remember that death is standing there, and make death your advisor. He or she will always tell you to do something representative of your full potential as a person. You can afford no less.

Now, that's a little bit heavy. That's why we wouldn't tell that to you. We noticed that Juan told Carlos. We offer you an alternative.

If at any point you discover yourself hesitating, or being incongruent, or putting off until tomorrow something you could try now, or just needing some new choices, or being bored, glance over your right shoulder and there will be two madmen there, sitting on stools, insulting you.

And as soon as we finish the insults, you may ask us any question.

And that's just one way that your unconscious can present to you all the material that it has learned and represented during these three days.

Now, there's only one other thing that we like to do at the end of a workshop. And that is to say….

Goodbye!