Richard Bandler - Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming Страница 12

When you use language with people, they assume that all the stuff they are accessing on the inside is the same as what you said. There's so much going on inside that they have no consciousness of the external form of your communication. You can utter sentences of syntax which have no meaning and people will respond to you as if what you said is completely meaningful. I'm surprised that anyone ever noticed that some schizophrenics speak "word salad." I have gone into places and spoken word salad and people have responded to me as if I had uttered perfect English. And of course you can embed crazy commands in word salad.

Once we were having a party at our house and we wanted to buy some champagne. We live in an area where there are no stores, so we went into a restaurant and said "Look, we want to buy a couple of bottles of champagne to take home." And the guy said "Oh, we can't do that. It's against the law." We said "Well, we're having a party and we come here and eat a lot and isn't there anything you can do something" He stopped for a moment, and he said "Wait a second. I think I can do something." So he took the bottles and gave them to himself, and then he went outside behind the restaurant and gave them to us and we tipped him. Our behavior was totally bizarre, but he had to respond, because the only thing that was evident in his consciousness was this odd sequence. It's really important to understand that most people are very chaotically organized on the inside.

Man: Does the intellectual level of the client make a difference, say retarded versus genius?

No. I don't know of any. Unconscious minds operate amazingly the same no matter what the educational level or intelligence level is. "IQ" is also a function of the kinds of structures we've been talking about.

Woman: When you ask the person to go through whatever the experience is that troubles them and you watch them, you become aware of what the process is that they go through?

Yes, in a special sense of the word "awareness. " There is nothing that I have done here at any point today that I am conscious of, in the normal sense of being reflexively conscious of what I am doing. The first time I know what I'm going to do or say is when I find myself doing it or hear myself saying it. This is an important point. I really believe that the face-to-face task of communicating with another human being, let alone a group of people, is far too complex to try to do consciously. You can't do it consciously. If you do, you break up the natural flow of communication.

Are there any of you who play music? How many people in here can play an instrument? OK. How many of you, when you play something well, play it consciously? ... Exactly. None of you. You are aware of the result, the sounds you are making, but not of the process of making them. And what happens when you become conscious of what you're doing in the middle of playing something? Boom! You mess it up. Yet in order to learn to play that very same piece of music, you went through some conscious steps.

As we are communicating to you here, I am aware in the sense that I respond directly. But I have no reflexive consciousness of what I am doing. If I did, I'd do a crummy job.

Let's say you go back into your office Monday morning and a new client walks in and says "I have a phobia of gum chewing." A little voice goes off inside your head and says "Ah! This is an unprecedented opportunity for me to try to do something new." And then you look up and ask the person "Well, when was the last time that you had a very intense phobic response?" Then they begin to go through certain eye movements and stuff. If you begin visualizing the blackboard up here, and the list of the accessing cues, and talking to yourself about the things you heard us say, and having feelings about whether you are going to be able to do this or not, you will have no sensory information on which to base what you do. That's the sense in which reflexive consciousness in face-to-face communication is not going to be useful. If you have to tell yourself things, and make pictures, and have feelings while you are doing therapy, probably you will end up doing therapy on yourself. I think that's what happens much of the time. Often therapists are not doing therapy with the other human being in the room. They are doing therapy with themselves. And many clients who change, change by metaphor.

Most people in the field of therapy go to school, but they don't learn anything about people that is relevant to therapy in any way. They learn about statistics: "Three and a half percent of clients are..." But you very rarely have a hundred people walk into your office so that you can work with three and a half of them. So you go to workshops to learn how to do therapy. There are a lot of people who are very good therapists who do workshops but who don't know how they do what they do. They will tell you what they think they are doing, thereby distracting you from paying attention to the client they are working with. If you are lucky you will pick up the kinds of cues we're talking about subliminally, and be able to respond out of yourself in some systematic way. However, that doesn't work with a large number of people. There are a large number of people doing therapy unsuccessfully. What you need to begin to do is to restructure your own behavior in terms of paying attention to your clients.

As professional communicators, it seems to me to make a lot of sense for you to spend some time consciously practicing specific kinds of communication patterns so that they become as unconscious and as systematic in your behavior as riding a bicycle or driving a car. You need to train yourselves to be systematic in your behavior, which requires some conscious intervening practice time. So that when you see visual accessing cues and hear visual predicates, you can automatically have the choice of responding by matching, or responding by mismatching, or any combination that you can think of.

In other words, you need a good unconscious systematic repertoire of patterns for each choice point that you have that's going to come up repetitively in your work: How do I establish rapport with this other human being? How do I respond in a situation in which they don't have information consciously and verbally to respond to my question? How do I respond to incongruity? Those are all choice points. Identify what choice points are repetitive in your experience of doing your work, and for each of those choice points, have a half a dozen different responses—at least three, each one of which is unconscious and systematic in your behavior. If you don't have three choices about how to respond to things that occur in the therapeutic situation, then I don't think you are operating out of a position of choice. If you only have one way, then you are a robot. If you have two, you'll be in a dilemma.

You need a solid foundation from which to generate choices. One way to get that solid foundation is to consider the structure of your behavior and your activity in therapy. Pick out points that are repetitive, make sure you have lots of responses to each of those points, then forget about the whole thing. And add one ingredient, a meta-rule which says "If what you are doing is not working, change it. Do anything else."

Since consciousness is limited, respect that and don't go "Good, I'm going to do all those things that happened in this workshop." You can't. What you can do is for the first five minutes of every third interview every day begin by saying "Look, before we begin today there are a couple of things I need to know about your general cognitive functioning. Would you tell me which color is at the top of a stoplight?" Ask questions that access representational systems, and tune yourself for five minutes to that person's responses so that you will know what's happening later in the session under stress. Every Thursday you can try matching predicates with the first client that comes in, and mismatching with the second. That is a way of systematically discovering what the outcome of your behavior is. If you don't organize it that way, it will stay random. If you organize it and feel free to limit yourself to specific patterns and notice the outcome, and then change to new patterns, you will build up an incredible repertoire of responses at the unconscious level. This is the only way that we know of to learn to become more flexible systematically. There are probably other ways. This just happens to be the only one we know about now.

Man: It sounds to me as if you are telling us to experiment with our clients. I think I have a professional obligation to—

I disagree. I think you have an obligation to experiment with every client to make yourself more skilled, because in the long run you are going to be able to help more people more expediently. If, under the guise of professionalism, you don't try to expand your skills and experiment, basically I think you are missing the point and professionalism becomes just one way to limit yourself. Think about "professionalism." If professionalism is a name for a set of things that you can't do, then you are restricting your behavior.

In cybernetics there's a law called the Law of Requisite Variety. It says that in any system of human beings or machines, the element in that system with the widest range of variability will be the controlling element. And if you restrict your behavior, you lose on requisite variety.

The prime examples of that are mental hospitals. I don't know about your mental hospitals here, but in California we've got some real whackos in ours, and we have a lot of patients, too. It's easy to distinguish the staff, because the staff has a professional ethic. They have a group hallucination and this group hallucination is more dangerous to them than to anyone else, because they believe that they must restrict their behavior in certain ways. Those ways make them act consistently, and the patients don't have to play by those rules. The widest range of flexibility is going to allow you to elicit responses and control the situation. Who's going to be able to elicit the most responses—the psychiatrist who is acting "normal" or the patient who is acting weird? I'd like to give you my favorite example.

We're walking down a corridor in Napa State Mental Hospital in California with a group of resident psychiatrists. We approach a large day room and we are talking in normal tones. As we reach the door and open it and walk in, all of the psychiatrists begin to whisper. So of course we began to whisper too. Then finally we looked at each other and said "Why are we whispering?" And one of the psychiatrists turned to us and whispered "Oh, there's a catatonic in the room. We don't want to disturb him." Now when a catatonic can have requisite variety over a professional, then I join the catatonics.

When you go to California, most therapists have a different professional ethic. For example, in order to be a good communicator, you must dress like a farm worker. That's the first rule. The second rule is that you must hug everyone too hard. Those people are always laughing at the psychiatrists because they have to wear ties! To me, their behavior is just as restricted and one-dimensional and limited. The trouble with many professional ethical codes, whether they are humanistic, analytic or anything else, is that they limit your behavior. And whenever you accept any "I won't do it," there are people you are not going to be able to work with. We went into that same ward at Napa and I walked over and stomped on the catatonic's foot as hard as I could and got an immediate response. He came right out of "catatonia," jumped up, and said "Don't do that!"

Frank Farrelly, who wrote Provocative Therapy, is a really exquisite example of requisite variety. He is willing to do anything to get contact and rapport. Once he was doing a demonstration with a woman who had been catatonic for three or four years. He sits down and looks at her and warns her fairly: "I'm going to get you." She just sits there catatonically, of course. It's a hospital, and she's wearing a hospital gown. He reaches over and he pulls a hair out of her leg just above the ankle. And there's no response, right? So he moves up an inch and a half, and pulls out another hair. No response. He moves up another inch and a half, and pulls out another hair. "Get your hands off me!" Most people would not consider that "professional." But the interesting thing about some things that are not professional is that they work! Frank says that he's never yet had to go above the knee.

I gave a lecture at an analytic institute in Texas once. Before we began, for three hours, they read research to me demonstrating basically that crazy people couldn't be helped. And at the end I said "I'm beginning to get a picture here. Let me find out if I'm right. Is what you are trying to tell me that you don't believe that therapy, the way it's done presently, works?" And they said "No, what we're trying to tell you is that we don't believe that any form of therapy could overwork for schizophrenics." And I said "Good. You guys are really in the right profession; we should all be psychiatrists and believe that you can't help people." And they said "Well, let's talk about psychotics. People who live in psychotic realities and blah blah blah," and all this stuff about relapses. I said "Well, what kinds of things do you do with these people?" So they told me about their research and the kind of therapy they had done. They never did anything that elicited a response from these people.

Frank Farrelly had a young woman in a mental hospital who believed that she was Jesus' lover. You must admit that is a slightly unusual belief. People would come in and she would go "I'm Jesus' lover." And of course they would go "Unnhhh!" and say "Well, you're not. This is only a delusion you're having ... isn't it?" If you go into mental hospitals, most mental patients are very good at acting weird and eliciting responses from people. Frank trained a young social worker to behave consistently in a certain way and sent her in. The patient went "Well, I'm Jesus' lover," and the social worker looked back and said wryly "I know, he talks about you." Forty-five minutes later the patient is going "Look, I don't want to hear any more of this Jesus stuff!"

There's a man named John Rosen whom some of you have heard of. Rosen has two things he does consistently, and he does them very powerfully and gets a lot of good results. One of the things Rosen does really well, as described by Schefflin,is that he joins the schizophrenic's reality so well that he ruins it. That's the same thing that Frank taught his social worker to do.

The psychiatrists in Texas had never tried anything like that before. And when I suggested it to them, they all made faces because it was outside of their professional ethic. They had been trained in a belief system that said "Limit your behavior. Don't join your client's world; insist that they come to yours." It's much harder for somebody who's crazy to come to a professional model of the world, than it is for a professional communicator to go to theirs. At least it's less apt to happen.

Man: You guys are stereotyping a lot of people here!

Of course we are. Words do that; that's what words are for. Words generalize experience. But you only need to be offended if they apply to you directly.