5 Reflexively Apply EB to Self or Listener 6 Reflexively Apply IS to Self or Listener

In the Meta-Model, we call the person or thing doing or receiving the action of the verb "the referential index." (Don't you love the terminology that Linguistics has bequeathed us?) So when we switch the referential index, we apply the statement (the action of the verb) from one object to another one.

Consider the statement, "The dog bit Tim." Here Tim received the action of the verb (bit). That makes Tim "the referential index." In saying, "the dog bit..." we refer to Tim. We switch the referential index dramatically when we say, "Tim bit the dog." Now the action of the verb (bit) has a new reference—the dog! This switch lets the dog get a taste of his own medicine. I wonder how well he will like it?

To prepare ourselves to make this conceptual /conversational move and deliver an entirely new mind-line, we need only to ask ourselves,

"What if as a listener I applied this back to the speaker?"

"What if as the speaker I apply it back to myself?"

"Who else could this statement or belief refer to?"

"To whom or what could I apply this?"

When we apply the action of the verb to another person or object, we invite the listener to check out his or her map, or belief, to see if it has more universal applications or not. This can interrupt double-standards in beliefs and ideas that we apply too generally and globally. And, typically, poor or limited beliefs involve just that—someone has made a specific incident or group of incidents too general.

(A) "Saying mean things makes you a bad person."

"Mercy! That's really a mean thing to say to me!"

(B) "Cancer causes death."

"That belief of yours has surely spread like cancer. I would find it interesting to see what would happen if the belief died out."

(C) "Your being late means you don't care about me."

"So I can also take it that any and every time you run late for an appointment with me it really means that you don't care about me?"

Pretty powerful mind-lines, huh? By applying a belief statement to the person saying it, or to the person listening to it, we essentially test the applicability of the belief to other contexts and references.

Frequently, in doing this we find that the person's statement won't hold up. Consequently, the formula of meaning that informed and drove the other person's reality breaks apart, de-frames, and fragments. Also notice, if you will, what submodality shifts occur as you shift the referential index. Contrast how you represent the first in comparison to how you represent the second.

In Switching the Referential Index, we apply the statement to someone else. I love this next one. It addresses the limiting belief that someone might think or say who wants to go on a diet (kind of), but who has a belief that makes doing so very unpleasant: "Losing weight means suffering." To that statement notice the effect of these replies:

"So you think losing weight as signifying suffering, but it didn't mean that to Dolly Parton."

"To you losing weight might mean suffering, but to Oprah it meant making a living and doing a new show."

Here we not only switch the referent, but we also provide a Counter-Example (#7). In these two examples, Dolly Parton and Oprah provide Counter-Examples to the belief paradigm presented. By the way, this again illustrates how we can multiply our influence when we nest or embed these "Sleight of Mouth" mind-line patterns one upon another. It gives us a lot more leverage in changing beliefs.

(D) "Stress causes me to eat chocolate."

"So stress causes you to eat chocolate? Does eating chocolate ever overload and stress you out? Have you ever eaten chocolate due to anything other than stress?"

(E) "I can't really make a difference because management doesn't walk their talk."

"So I too should feel helpless and impotent whenever I go about trying to make any difference with you if I notice an area wherein you don't walk your talk?"

"Have you ever not walked your talk and someone compassionately pointed it out to you and you listened, made some changes, and began living more congruently?"

(F) "I can't buy your product because it costs too much."

"Then I guess you also should feel that neither I nor others should or can buy your product or services if we evaluate it as costing too much?"

To elicit this pattern within conversations, explore the possibility of applying it to yourself, or to the other, or to yet even others, in some way:

"How would this belief system fit if I applied it back to this speaker or to myself as the listener?"

In applying an EB or an IS to oneself or to a listener, take the formula of the belief (or some criteria in the belief) and simply apply it back to whoever created that model (if the speaker said it or if someone said it to him or her). Switch the referential index and go meta to the statement to see if the other person wants or will receive their formula applied to them.

This conversationalreframing pattern works, in part, because we humans desire congruency in our lives. As Leon Festinger (1957) discovered from his studies of cognitive dissonance, when beliefs and behaviors conflict, something has to give.

"Essentially, this theory says that the need for consistency will arouse a tension-like state of dissonance in an individual when there is a discrepancybetween two or more cognitions that are in a relevant relation to each other and of importance to him... When consistency does not exist naturally, it must be created by restructuring of the ill-fitting elements. Dissonant cognitions must be changed or consonant ones added." (Ruch and Zimbardo, 1971, p. 412).

So when we reflexively Apply to Self/Listener, this goes directly to the possible incongruencies of limiting beliefs that can then completely deframe a belief system.

Tad James once had a person complain, "You are not communicating." To this he said, "You know (pause)... that kind of statement seems to really cut off communication, doesn't it?" That response went meta to the communication exchange and communicated a meta-comment about their communication. As a communication itself, it first offered a counter-example and then it pointed out how the previous statement functions as a communication stopper.

(A) "Saying mean things makes you a bad person."

"Only a bad person could say a mean thing like that!"

(B) "Cancer causes death."

"That's a pretty deadly belief to hold onto. It can only lead to a dead end street."

(C) "Your being late means you don't care."

"It seems a little late to tell me, don't you think?"

Here we apply the criteria of lateness to the communication of lateness itself. This switches the referential index from us back to the speaker. To give more leverage we could include something about the IS side of the statement,

"Lately, I have been wondering if you cared?"

Now combine the two:

"It is a little late to tell me, isn't it? Lately, I have been wondering if you cared?"

Here we apply late to late and caring to caring. In both cases we have gone meta from being late and caring to the overall concept of lateness and caring. We have thereby switched the referential index from self back to the speaker. When we use Apply to Self/Listener, we take the criteria within the statement and loop it backontoitself (hence, reflexive). If we do this with a little spike in our attitude, we could respond to "Your being late means you don't care about our relationship," thus:

"What relationship? Better late than never, right? I mean, a really caring person would be able to overlook a little tardiness now and then. Don't you think?"

(D) "Stress causes me to eat chocolate."

"Holding on to that belief must create even more stress for you, doesn't it?" "Hand me some chocolate, these stressful ideas of yours make my mouth water for chocolate. I wish you'd stop doing this to me!"

(E) "I can't really make a difference because management doesn't walk their talk."

"So what? I can't make any difference in listening or responding to you because I can find places in your life where you don't precisely walk your talk!"

(F) "I can't buy your product because it costs too much."

"That sounds like a pretty expensive idea to buy. After all, since you can't purchase products that you desire that must feel impoverishing." To elicit this pattern, keep asking the application question: "What would happen if I applied the criteria or meaning to the source from which it came?"

"How can I change the reference to reality test the validity of this idea or belief?"

"Would the speaker like to have this same idea applied to him or her?"

Reverse Presuppositions

Connirae Andreas developed this twist on the Apply to Self/Listener pattern which she labeled Reversing Presuppositions. In doing this, she added some nice qualities to it. She noticed that as she used this pattern, it seemed to differ from the other "sleight of mouth patterns. So though this mind-line has some similarity to Counter-Exampling (#7), it yet differs. In Counter-Exampling, we look for one example where the limiting belief does not hold up. In Reversing Presuppositions we ask ourselves,

"How is the whole thing actually the opposite of what you thought it was?" Connirae gave the following example.

"I knewthis woman who had some illnesses and who really needed to rest, yet she wasnt resting . . . she had a very serious illness, potentially life threatening. And, she wasnt resting, but living as a work-a-holic. So she said, 'I need to rest, but if I rest I will be lazy.'You know, I should work hard, I shouldn't be lazy." In this model of the world, "rest equals laziness" (EB=IS). So to it Connirae responded,

'In what way is your resting actually harder work than if you were just to do what you have always done?'

The lady went, "What? That doesn't make any sense? What are you saying?"

Connirae continued,

"Well, you know hew to work and to work really hard. That comes natural to you. You don't have to work at working, do you? But if you rested, how could that actually be harder work than working? Because at least you are familiar with working all the time. It describes your pattern. And therefore, in some ways, you find it a much easier thing to do. So conversely, to leam to rest would actually be more of a stretch for you, and harder work than if you were to do what you have always done."

Here she so completely reversed presuppositions that it turned the previous belief inside-out. Our normal paradigm goes, "EB causes IS." But when someone conversationally asks a question (a Mind-Line) which reverses the basic presuppositions in our model of the world, it thereby causes us to entirely shift our perspective as we seek to process their statement or question.

"In what way does (can, might, could, would, will) EB actually mean or cause the opposite of EB?"

What happens when we do this? What happens to our belief that we have built and all the conclusions that go along with that belief? it reverses everything.

Suppose that early in life nobody paid much attention to me. I didn't get much love or affection. So I drew some unenhancing and erroneous conclusions from that experience. "I am just not worthwhile." So, now I have this belief paradigm about myself, and one that I can find much support for in my history of experiences. It then becomes my frame of reference as I move through life. And as a mental frame, it searches for and finds more and more support for its assumptions. Everything seems to fit right into it.

In everyday life, this self-fulfillingprophecy nature of beliefs and paradigms means that we will find it much easier to maintain and keep ourbeliefs as our "reality" than to challenge or question them. The belief state protects itself (so to speak) by altering the way we perceive, think, feel, and relate. And because we can (and do ) constantly find evidence for our beliefs, they stay strong and vigorous. Toxic, but vigorously toxic!

Now suppose we start from an opposite presupposition. Suppose we take the opposite belief, and, as a mind-line, offer it as a suggestion to someone. We ask that person to just step into it for a moment, and look at the world in terms of that paradigm. Here we use an "as if'frame. Just suppose... "What fits for that model of the world?"

Suddenly we find that we can find lots of things (experiences) that fit that frame of reference. So let's go through life and check for things that might fit and give evidence of how "I am worthwhile." And true enough, when I use that paradigm as my frame-of-reference, I can find things in my personal history that "makes sense." Approaching the raw data of events using that frame (or almost any frame) enables us to see things in those terms. It functions in an almost magical way. We suddenly begin to find lots of things that fit into that pattern.

This Mind-Line pattern ingeniously demonstrates the NLP presupposition that we have within the resources we need to solve our problems. So if we create a resourceful and enhancing map of the territory and then "try it on" (the Pretend Frame) so that we begin to imagine what tomorrow will look like, sound like, and feel like with that perspective (the "Future Pacing" process), we actually begin to construct and experience a whole new world.

Imagine that! What does this mean? This means that the ability to succeed primarily depends on a good map. It means that we have enough plasticity in our neuro-linguistic nature that if we begin with a good resourceful map for navigating the world, then that map will not only orient us to our resources, but indeed begin to create those resources.

(C) "Your being late means you don't care about me."

"In what way does (can, might, could, would, will) my being late actually mean I care for you?

(D) "Stress causes me to eat chocolate."

"How could stress actually cause you not to eat chocolate?

(E) "I can't really make a difference because management doesn't walk their talk."

"How can their incongruence actually lead you to increase your effectiveness in making a tremendous difference there?"

(F) "I can't buy your product because it costs too much."

"How might the cost of not having this product actually cause you to choose to believe that you cannot afford not to buy it?"

"How could the expensiveness of this item actually get you to buy it?"

One more example for our mental play. Try on this toxic belief and then come up with a mind-line of reversing presuppositions. "The fact that I have personal flaws will always cause any relationship with a man to fail."

How about this?

"In what way, now that you think about it, will the fact that you have personal flaws, and you know it, actually support you in developing a better relationship than if you had no personal flaws at all?"

0 0

Post a comment