[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.So I said "I know that that part of you does something very impor-tant and is very sneaky about how it does it.And even if you don'tappreciate it, I do.Now, I'd like to tell that part that if it were willingto inform your conscious mind about what it's doing for you, then62perhaps it could get some of the appreciation that it deserves." Then Ihad her go inside and ask that part what it does for her that is positive.It came right out and said "I was motivating you." When she told methat, she added "I think that's weird." So I said "Well, you know, Idon't think it would be possible for you, right now at this moment, tocome up here and work in front of this entire group." She immediatelystood up defiantly, walked up to the front of the room and sat down.Those of you who have studied strategies know that this was ademonstration of the phenomenon that we call a "polarity response."This part of her was simply a Neuro-Linguistic Programmer whounderstood utilization.It knew that if it said "Aw, you can go tocollege; you can do it," she'd respond "No, I can't do it." However, if itsaid to her "You're not going to be able to cut the grade," then shewould say "Oh, yeah?!" and she would go out and do it.I began to discover that no matter how you organize yourself, orwhat parts you build, if the model that you use to think of parts is tiedto how they behave, then 1) You don't do them justice, and 2) Youmight be right, which would be dangerous.If you really had a part thatdidn't have a positive function it was just critical or destructivethen what can you do? Exorcism?There is a guy in Santa Cruz who exorcises parts.The exorcism isterrible; it takes a long, long time, and has some unfortunate conse-quences.This man has "discovered" an epidemic of multiple personali-ties in this country that no one else has noticed! He doesn't even beginto suspect that he is creating them.I wouldn't recommend exorcism as an approach.I would rather tieparts to outcomes, whether or not they were tied together originally.Ifyou act as if they are, they will be.Once you have an outcome, you nolonger need to exorcise a part.You simply give it new behaviors.If someone doesn't have a part to do something, you can create one,but you need to be sure that the part is designed to achieve a specificoutcome.If you are not able to open doors, you can create a part thatopens doors.It sounds simple; it's actually somewhat complicated.However, it's something that you do all the time.All of you have partswhich you managed to make somehow or other.All the things we doexplicitly with parts and reframing are things that people do anyway.These are all naturally occurring processes.I think there's a tendency for human beings to organize themselvesin terms of outcomes that are contextual.A man behaves differentlywith his wife than with his colleagues at work; he has an entirely63different set of analogue behaviors in order to get different outcomes.That used to be called "role theory," and I think role theory was on theright track in some ways.However, therapists got stuck trying to provethat that's all there was.Many of B.F.Skinner's students have gotten stuck in the same way.They said that since Skinner didn't look in the "black box," therewasn't anything in there anyway.Skinner didn't say "There's nothingin the black box"; he said "I'm not going to open it." Those are two verydifferent statements.Skinner's students took the connotations of hisstatement to mean there was nothing in there anyway.That is not thecase, and I do not think, from reading his writing, that Skinnerintended that.However, we all know how some people are: if theydon't see something, it doesn't exist.In order to build a part to achieve a specific outcome, the firstconsideration is to identify a "need."Woman: Could you distinguish need from outcome? I don't under-stand what you mean by need in this context.Well, that's why I put it in quotes.What you're going to do is find anoutcome.What your client is going to tell you is that she has a "need."The tricky part about this is to build a part that won't interfere withthe rest of the person's outcomes.If there really is a part that stops herfrom doing something, and you build a part to do it, guess what's goingto happen? WAR.To prevent this, we have built into the model that allthe parts of the person that don't want you to build the new partbecome allies during the design process.The first thing you do is identify whatever "need" it is that you aregoing to build the part for.For example, a woman might come in andsay "Well, you know, I've been on lots and lots of diets and I never seemto lose weight.I'm just much too heavy, so I want you to put me in atrance and make food taste bad." If she really wants that, I wouldrecommend that you send her to one of those Schick clinics, where theywill put big cakes in front of her and shock her.If she smokes, they willput her in a room full of cigarette butts and make her drink ashes, andall kinds of wonderful things.That's a way of building a part that stops you from doing certainthings.However, it doesn't take into account the secondary gain theoutcome of the problem behavior.That makes it a very difficult way tostop behaviors.It is an experiential way of going about it, and it willWork insofar as it's reinforced.Sometimes after a period of time, whenthe part that you have developed discovers that you're not going to get64shocked any more, then it won't care if you smoke.So you might haveto go back at a later time and repeat the procedure or do somethingelse.That's a problem with building parts in that particular way.However, don't underestimate that approach, because it works.Itseems a little severe and it doesn't work with everybody, but it doeswork; that's an important consideration.It's important to understandwhat goes on when people change, and to make up a metaphor or a lieto describe it that enables us to be able to make changes more elegantly [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]