What reframing does is to say «Look, this external thing occurs and it elicits this response in you, so you assume that you know what the meaning is. But if you thought about it this other way, then you would have a different response. Being able to think about things in a variety of ways builds a spectrum of understanding. None of these ways are «really» true, though. They are simply statements about a person's understanding.
Negotiating Between Parts
The six–step model of reframing makes the assumption that there's a part of you making you do what you don't want to do, or a part stopping you from doing what you want to do. That's a big presupposition. However, that's one way of describing a difficulty, and usually you can organize your experience in that way. You can make any difficulty fit the six–step model. That description can always be taken as accurate, because something is producing the difficulty.
Sometimes it's more convenient to start out making completely different assumptions. You can act as if the difficulty is that two or more parts are in conflict. Each part has a valid function and a valid way of accomplishing its function, but they step on each other's toes. So it's not that one part is «making you do it»; it's that two parts are each doing something useful, but the ways that they are doing it conflict with each other.
For example, have any of you ever tried to work and not been able to? Is the following experience familiar? You sit down to write a term paper, fill out your insurance forms, or whatever work you have to do. Your work is in front of you, and you have congruently decided that you're going to do it during the next hour. You pick up the pen and you look at the paper. You begin to write and a little voice comes in and says «Hey, baby, want a beer?» «I wonder what's on television?» «Nice day outside; it's sunny.»
Now, the question is, do we describe this situation of not being able to accomplish something as a result of a part that stops you? Or do we describe it as a situation in which you have two parts: one that wants to go out and play, and one that wants to work?
Work and play are both valid functions, and most people also have valid ways to achieve those functions. But if both parts go about doing their jobs at the same time, neither of them can function well. Neither can do their job as well as they could if they had some way of jointly organizing their behavior to get the outcomes that they both want.
Describing it in this way can be much more useful than to assume that the problem is the result of a single part. Either description can lead you to the same outcome. It's a question of efficiency. Sometimes you can get good results more expediently and more quickly if you presuppose two parts.
One indication of there being two parts to reframe is if the inverse of the problem also occurs. How many of you have gone out to play for the day and suddenly a little voice inside said «Your taxes aren't done.» «The house isn't clean.» «You should have written that paper first.» This lets you know that each part interferes with the other.
Deciding which model to use is only a question of when you're going to tell which lie. I'm serious about that. If I look meaningfully at somebody in a session and say «Now, look, there's a part of you that finds this a little scary and I can understand that," that's a huge lie. «Part of what?» I don't know what that means. Or we can say «Now, you have a strategy, and your difficulty is a byproduct of this strategy.» These are all just ways of talking about things, and those words are not grounded in reality. These descriptions are just useful ways of organizing experience.
It's not that one way of talking approximates reality more closely than the other one. Whenever you start trying to decide that, you're gone. People who try to approximate reality fall into what we call «losing quotes.» For example, once I was reading a Tolkien book out loud to some kids. One of the characters in the book, Strider, said to Frodo «Close the door," and one of the kids I was reading to got up and shut the door. That's losing quotes.
The biggest losing quotes of all is what we call the «lost performative» in the Meta–Model. The most dangerous, and I think the most lethal, is losing quotes on yourself and believing that your thoughts are reality: believing that people really are «visual," «kinesthetic," or «auditory»; believing that people really are «placators," «super–reason–ables," or anything. Believing that you actually have a «parent," «child," and «adult» is psychotic! It's one thing to use those constructs to do good work—to organize someone's behavior. It's quite another thing to lose quotes and believe that that's reality. So when you say «Well, this lie approximates what's 'really' going on more than the other one» be very careful, because you are on dangerous terrain. You might become a guru if you do that.
Somebody like Werner Erhard is in a dangerous situation. If he loses quotes on his own ideas, then he's going to go into a very strange loop. If somebody who goes to EST loses quotes, typically they'll fall out of EST after a while, so the consequences aren't too bad. However, if the guy that runs EST loses quotes, then it's all over.
I don't know which model of reframing is more real. I would never admit it if I thought one was more real than the other. More important, it doesn't matter if one is more real.
Man: One is more real for me and yet neither of them is real.
Well, you can get by with that one. Whichever lie works, it's important that you understand that they are all lies. They are only ways of organizing your experience to go somewhere new. That's the only part that counts. We're going to assume that the other lie, the six–step model, is antiquated because it's been around too long. That is always a good policy. That model, presupposing that one part is responsible for negative behavior, has been around for several years now.
So we're going to take another lie for a while and assume that the problem is not inherently that some part generates behavior that you don't want. We're going to assume that the problem behavior is the result of the interaction of two or more parts, and the solution will come from negotiating between them.
So let's say somebody comes in and says «I can't study. I sit down and I try to study, and I can't concentrate. I think about going skiing.» With the old model we'd say «There is a part that interrupts your concentration.» Rather than doing that, with this model we say «Look you've got lots and lots of parts inside of you. You've got all kinds of parts running around doing different jobs. You have the ability to study. You have the ability to go out and play. When you sit down to study, some other part is active in trying to carry out its function.»
In order to negotiate a solution, I need to identify each part, get communication with each part, and get the positive intention of each Part. I might start by going for the part that interferes with studying. So I say «I'd like you to go inside and ask if the part of you that really wants to study knows which other part is annoying it so that it can't concentrate fully.» Then I have you go to this interfering part and ask What is your function?» That's a quick way to find out what the intention behind the behavior is. «What do you do for this person?»
«Well, I get him to go out and play.»
Then I want to find out if the interference goes both ways. I ask this part, «When you want to get the person to go out and play, do other parts get in your way? Does this work part ever come in and say 'Hey, you should be studying'?» If you get a positive answer, you've got it cinched, because then both parts want something from the other, and all you've got to do is make a trade.