Deletion of experiencer noun argumements — the subject of active verbs as in / see — can be seen or the object of verbs wherein the object noun argument is the experiencer as in disturbs me — X is disturbing. Use of nouns without referential indices: it, one, people, etc. Use of nominalizations: frustration, stress, tension, etc.
Satir Category 4 — Distracter
This category, in our experience, is a rapid alternation of the first three; thus, the syntax which identifies it is a rapid alternation of the syntactic patterns of each of the three listed above. Also, the client displaying this category rarely uses pronouns in his responses which refer to parts of the therapist's sentences and questions.
(The Structure of Magic, II, John Grinder and Richard Bandler, p. 53; Science and Behavior Books, 1976)
One way to understand how these postures can be useful in your work is to realize that each of these patterns is useful in coping, given the appropriate context, but that no one of them is complete. Messages about self and context have, for example, been deleted by the placater. Understanding that each of these presents a choice, we, as people-helpers, are able to assist the people with whom we are working to have all of them as alternatives for response. Another way that we have found these Satir categories appropriate to use is that each of the postures represents a universal and frequently occurring pattern of incongruity.
As therapists committed to the profession of people-helping, we are daily faced with the task of responding to non-verbal languages. The problem with which we are faced, then, is how to understand the intricacies and complexities of the unspoken messages effectively enough to assist the person with whom we are working to change and grow. There are two ways which we have found most effective in coping with this difficulty: First, to simply ask what some particular, repetitive body movement, tonality, etc., is or what it looks like, or sounds like, or feels like to him. Secondly, we have found that very dramatic and effective therapy can be based solely on a judgment of match or mismatch, congruent or incongruent, with respect to the messages which we receive.[16]
Notice that neither of these choices requires the therapist to engage in Mind Reading. In the first case, he merely asks for a translation into words (the full Complex-Equivalence relationship), and, in the second case, he assigns no oral meaning to the non-verbal messages he is receiving, but simply decides whether or not the messages fit together. Following are several examples of these patterns, taken from the same transcript further on in the session.
Therapist: Yes, Marcie; and I'm wondering just how you would know when Dave is respecting you.
Marcie: Well, for one thing, he has to learn to pay attention to me; how can he respect me when he doesn't even pay attention to me? Like right now . . .
Therapist: Marcie, how do you know that Dave's not paying attention to you?
Marcie: See for yourself; this whole time, like always .. . I'm talking and he's looking at the floor.
Therapist: So, when you're talking and you see that Dave is not looking at you — then you know that he's not paying attention to you?
Marcie: Good; I see that you've got the picture.
Therapist: Well, I'm not so sure. I'd like you to ask Dave whether or not he was paying attention to you, OK?
Marcie: Yeah, OK. Dave, I would really like to know if you are paying attention to me. (As Marcie says this, she leans forward, with her left index finger extended in Dave's direction, her right hand on her hip, her tone of voice shrill and tight, her throat and neck muscles taut.)
Dave: Of course, Marcie, you know that. . .
Therapist: (interrupting Dave) Hold it a minute, Dave, (turning to Marcie) Marcie, I want to tell about some things I was just aware of when you asked Dave whether or not he was paying attention to you, OK? I had some difficulty understanding exactly what you were communicating. I heard the words which you used, but, somehow, the way that you moved your body, your left hand, and the tone of your voice that you used when you spoke didn't fit for me.
Marcie: Oh, yeah. Well, you're the one who wanted me to ask him. I already knew that he wasn't paying any attention.
Disregarding the patterns which we have already identified, you will notice that the therapist is using his senses — his input channels — to detect incongruity in Marcie's communication to Dave. Specifically, the words which he hears do not match her tone of voice nor her hand movements and positions. Without attempting to assign any meaning to these non-verbal cues, he simply presents them to Marcie and states that he had a difficult time understanding her communication. Consider what has happened here: The therapist detects Mind Reading and Complex Equivalence by Marcie:
not pay attention to me = not look at me when I'm talking
Next, he moves to break up this piece of calibrated communication by asking Marcie to check out her Mind Reading-Complex Equivalence with Dave. As she asks Dave about this, her voice tone, body posture and movements fail to match her words. The therapist again intervenes by making Marcie aware of the incongruities which he detected in her communication and tells her of his difficulty in understanding her incongruent communication. Marcie's response clearly indicates that she is completely calibrated with respect to Dave's communication; she is absolutely convinced that Dave is not paying attention to her when he is not looking at her. Since she is totally convinced, the task which the therapist has asked her to perform is not congruent with what she believes, and the result is an incongruent communication.
Marcie: Oh, yeah; well, you're the one who wanted me to ask him; I already know that he wasn't paying any attention.
Therapist: (turning to Dave) Dave, I'd like you to respond to Marcie's question.
Dave: Sure; well, I really was listening to what Marcie (the therapist gestures that Dave should speak directly to Marcie), to what you were saying, Marcie (looking at her). Oh, what's the use (looking down at the floor).
Therapist: Dave, what happened with you just then? You seemed to look at Marcie and then you looked
back at the floor.
Dave: Oh, I just saw that look again on Marcie's face. I know what that means: She's unhappy with me.
Therapist: Marcie, true or not true, what Dave said?
Marcie: No. Actually, I was watching Dave's face and thinking how much I'd like to believe him.
Therapist: Dave, tell us about how you end up looking at the floor instead of directly at Marcie.
Dave: What?
Therapist: I'd like you to describe what happened to you when you were talking to Marcie and looking at her, and then you ended up looking at the floor.
Dave: Oh, I'm used to that. I don't talk so good when I get tight — you know, like I was describing before.
And when Marcie looks at me that way, I sorta go blank, you know what I mean?
Therapist: And when you are trying to listen to Marcie and understand her, what happens that you end up
looking at the floor?
Dave: I really want to hear and understand what she is saying, and if I try to look at her and I see that look
on her face like before, I don't hear what she's saying. Marcie, I really do . . . really.
16
Congruency is perhaps the single most important dimension of communication which each of us, as agents of change, can develop — both in being congruent in our own communication and in our ability to detect congruency and incongruency in the communication of others. See Part II,