(Difference between revisions)

Current revision as of 15:51, 29 October 2007

Sleight of Mouth

Model of the World

• Purpose: to "loosen" beliefs. This pattern "drives a wedge" between what's real and our experience.
• When to use: Whenever someone states an un-useful belief or opinion.
• There are several specific categories or ways of using "Model of the World."
• Unreality Predicates: (seems, appears, looks like, etc.) "So it seems to you that..."
• Self/Other: "So for you..." The implication is that it may be different for others.
• Tonal Emphasis: Tends to elicit alternative representations for whatever is emphasized. "So you think that..."
• Time: Create a distinction between the situation now and some other time. "So now you know that..." "How long have you thought of this in this way?" "At this point in time you..."
• Awareness or Description predicates: "So the way you picture (describe, view, see, suppose, etc.) the situation..."
• Questioning tonal shift: Make a pacing statement, but with the rising tonal inflection at the end of the sentence typical of questions.

Prior Cause, Consequences, Intent

• Prior Cause
  • Key Question: "What happened earlier that caused this?"
  • Purpose: Bringing an earlier cause into the picture can broaden understanding and shift away from blame. It expands the frame.
• Consequences
  • Key Question: "What happens afterward, as a result?"
  • Purpose: This expands the frame in the other direction. Adding in future consequences can make something perceived as positive become negative, or vice versa. (Remember the story of the old farmer and his horse.) It can also add intensity to an already-perceived positive or negative perception.
• Intent
  • Key Question: "What was intended?"
  • Purpose: (usually positive intent) Shifting from negative behaviors to a positive intent creates agreement and appreciation
  • the basis for new, more positive behavior.

Counter-Example, Switch Referential Index

• Counter-Example
  • Key Question: "When is this not true?"
  • Purpose: Finding exceptions to limiting beliefs creates a doorway to a new more-useful belief. Be sure you gain use of all four kinds of counter-example.
  • The four kinds of counter-example:
    • Not A
    • Not B
    • A, but not B
    • Not A, yet B
• Switch Referential Index
  • Key Question: "For whom is this not true?"
  • Purpose: Another person is often a useful source of excellent counter-examples. Use also when you want to be more indirect (metaphorical), or when you want to invite a possibility but don't know if it fits your listener's set of experiences.

Redefine, Change Frame

• Redefine
  • Key Question: "What/What else can this mean?"
  • Purpose: Changing the meaning of an event or behavior changes our response to it.
• Change Frame
  • Key Question: "What do I want to pay attention to? What do I want to include/exclude?"
  • Purpose: The scope of what we experience impacts our response. Making it larger or smaller or moving it somewhere else creates a different experience.
• The frame can be changed to include/exclude different contexts, time, resources, numbers of people, or criteria.

Criteria Utilization

• This integrates several SOM patterns.
• A states: "I want to do x, but something stops me."
• B elicits the relevant criteria for both doing and not doing, and makes two lists.
  • a. "What's important or valuable about doing X?"
    • "What makes you want to do X?"
    • Listen for criteria. (Analog marking will help you identify them.)
  • b. Put the person in the context(s) where he could do X but doesn't, and listen for criteria.
    • "What's important or valuable about not doing X?"
    • "What stops you from doing X?"
• B elicits a higher criterion that supersedes all the major criteria elicited thus far, particularly one that is more important than 2b. above.
  • "What is more important to you than _______(safety, etc.)?"
  • "What will get you to give up _________(safety, etc.)?"
• B utilized criteria to assist A in congruently doing what he wants to do, by doing one or more of the following:
  • a. Redefine what he wants to do, so that it fits within the criteria that currently stop him (from step 2b), or
  • b. Make what he now does instead into counter-examples of his valued criteria (from steps 2b and 3) (use redefining and apply to self), or
  • c. Make what he wants to do an example of the higher-valued criterion (from step 3) even if it still violates lower-valued criteria (from step 2b). (Use redefining and hierarchy of criteria.)
• B uses verb forms to install new belief and behavior on timeline.
  • Example: So you want to be firm with your child, but you are stopped by wanting to be a nice person. More important than being a nice person is learning.
  • a. "Can you see how in the long run you will be a much nicer person, and more thoughtful of your child, by being firm?"
  • b. "It's really rather mean - not nice at all - to let your child get by with anything, because you're not preparing him to be able to get along with attractive and resourceful people later in life."
  • c. "So which is more important, being a nice person in a limited sort of way, or laying the foundation for your son to learn how to get along in life?"

Meta & Apply to Self

• Meta
  • Talk about the belief as a thing. Step outside the belief and talk about it.
  • Purpose: Help the person dissociate from their belief. Also, this is an important component of the following pattern, Apply to Self.
• Apply to Self
  • Key Question: "How can the criteria in the belief be used against the belief?"
  • Purpose: Utilize criteria within belief to blow it out.
• Three Components Generally Required:
  • Go Meta
  • Utilize Criterion
  • Blow Out Belief
• To utilize "away-from" criteria:
  • Restate belief as "I don't like x."
  • Say, "This belief is x."
  • Example: "I don't like absolutes." Response: "Is that an absolute?"
• To utilize "toward" criteria:
  • Restate belief as "I want x."
  • Say, "This belief stops you from having x."
  • Example: "I always have to please people." Response: "That doesn't please me."
• To utilize situations in which their having the belief contradicts the belief.
  • Say, "The fact that you have this belief proves it's not true."
  • Example: "I can't learn." Response: "You learned that really well, didn't you?"

Reversing Presuppositions

• Purpose: This category was modeled from Connirae's language patterns. It is a particularly useful SOM category since you can utilize it with most beliefs. The General Formula below gives you an "all-purpose" way to apply this method - even when you don't know the answer yourself.
  • Example 1: A woman complained that she couldn't have a relationship with a man, because she had personal flaws, and these flaws would always cause her relationship to fall apart anyway, so there was no hope. Her Belief was "The fact that I have personal flaws will always cause any relationship with a man to fail."
• Reverse Presupposition: "In what way, now that you think about it, will the fact that you have personal flaws and you know it, actually support your developing a better relationship (than if you had no personal flaws at all)?"
  • Example 2: Another client wasn't getting what she wanted sexually. She didn't tell her boyfriend what she wanted, because that would be limiting him, and taking away his choice. Connirae said, "Have you ever had the pleasure of giving someone a gift that you know they wanted to receive?" Client (Yes). "Did you realize that you've been taking that choice away from your boyfriend? You haven't told him clearly what you want, so you're limiting him from giving it to you, even if he wants to... If you tell him what you want, then at least he has the choice of giving it to you if he wants to."
• Sequence in this example:
  • a. Client's original belief: "Telling equals forcing or limiting."
  • Reversing Presupposition: "Not telling equals limiting." "Telling equals choice."
• General Formula for Reversing the Presupposition:
  • "How [does/will/can/might/could/would] A actually [cause/equal/mean] more [opposite of "B"]?"
  • or
  • "How [does/will/can/might/could/would] [opposite of "A"] actually [cause/equal/mean] more "b"?"
• Notes:
  • Reversing the Presupposition differs from Redefining in that it results in a new belief that is opposite to the old one. Essentially you are asking, "How is your belief the opposite of what's true?" "How is the opposite of what you thought, really true?" It differs from counter-example in that we're going for how the belief is untrue across the board, rather than just in certain contexts.
  • The question form in the General Formula above enables the client to generate the evidence for the new belief.
  • Sometimes it is useful to ask "What is the opposite of B for you?"