Whispering In The Wind
by Carmen Bostic St. Clair and John Grinder


Let's take as an example a man who has a drinking disorder
an alcoholicor to people who desire to lose weight. It can be usefully appliedto any addiction. In the typical case, an investigation of the client’s pastwould reveal that he has succeeded in stopping drinking for limited periods oftime but then returns to the bottle. If we were to make explicit what thepayoffssecondary benefits or secondary gainsof this behavior are, we would discover one or more of thefollowing: 

 He drinks to relax

 He drinks to escape thepressures of everyday life

 He drinks to achieve astate sociability


Suppose that we focus onthe positive intention of achieving access to a state of relaxation. Thispositive intention is the name of a setnamely, theset of all behaviors that offer the client access to a state of relaxation.This set will, by definition, always include the original behavior.

※図の省略(Way of Achieving a State of relaxation)

In other words, withinthe set of ways to achieve states of relaxation, we find a large number ofbehaviors, b1 (sports), b2 (reading), b3 (meditation),bi (drugs), bi1(yoga), bi+j (alcoholism), bn (breathing exercises), (communityservice) … Once we have specified (partially at least) what the members of the set are,the change task is greatly simplified: simply select three or more behaviorsfrom the set to replace the behavior in questioninthis case, alcoholism.


In a classic addictioncase, such as alcoholism, there is typically more than a single payoff orsecondary gain involved. The practitioner is cautioned then to divide thechange work into a series of sessions, one for each of the positive intentionsand their associated payoffs. Thus, the application of this step leads naturallyto the generation of a series of sets, each defined by each of the positive intentionsbehind the behavior to be chanfes.


It is interesting tonote that these two steps (#3 and # 4) need not involve conscious disclosure ofcontent. More specifically, with the aid of a robust, involuntary signalsystem, the skilled practitioner can remain entirely content free in herapproach. The more remarkable thing is that all this can be managed without theunconscious revealing the content involvedneither thepositive intention nor the new behaviors. Thus, If the client chooses not tohave a conscious disclosure of the content or the unconscious declines to revealthe information, the question presented by the client to his unconsciousthrough internal dialogue in step #3 is:

 Is there a positiveintention behind the behavior to be changed?


Or, equivalently:


 Can you, my unconscious,confirm that there is a positive intention
 behind the behavior to be changed?


In step #4, the requestdelivered by the client to his unconscious via eternal dialogue is:


Develop a range of behaviors,all of which satisfy the positive intention you have already confirmed liesbehind the behavior to be changed, and select three or more of these behaviorsfor implementation. When you have completed this task, please give me apositive signal.


This pattern guaranteesthat the client will not lose access to the payoffs the original behaviordelivered. It has been our experience over some 35 accumulated years, that themajor difficulty that confronts most therapeutic practitionersresistance - simply does not occur.


Resistance, then, wepropose, is a particularly important form of non-verbal feedback that carriesthe message that the change process being applied has not identified adequatelythe positive intentions behind the behavior to be changed or thealternative behaviors to satisfy those intentions are unsatisfactory. This isequivalent to saying that the behavior that the client says consciously hewishes to change has significant secondary payoffs that are not being respectedby the change process presently being implemented. This is another way ofsaying that the person is engaging in a behavior that represents the bestchoice available at present within the limits of her own mental maps, given herperception of the context in which she finds herself. In this pattern., More specifically,in steps #3 and #4, this principle is fully respected and resistance is obviated.


In step #5, the clientthen selects three or more behaviors from this set and asks that the unconscioustake responsibility for implementing these new behaviors in precisely thecontexts in which the original behavior being changed used to occur.


The final step (#6) is arequest to the unconscious to verify that the new behaviors selected to replacethe original behavior are congruent with the requirements of other parts of theperson. Should it prove that there are objections to one or more of the newbehaviors, the practitioner has two choices: either replace the behavior(s) towhich there are objections with other behaviors from the original setgenerated; or use the objection as the starting point for another reframe,beginning with step #3 in which there is a verification of Some positive intention behind the objection made. All this remarkably can be accomplished bya skilled practitioner without access to the content involveda distinctive advantage of this application of NLP change processes.

In summary, then, the four faults identified in the classic code are correctedby the reframing format that emerged in such a surprising way.


The preceding discussion,and especially the explicit introduction of the positive intention as themethod for defining the context in which the changes must occur, offers aprecise way to determine which set of behaviors could serve adequately assubstitutes for the behavior to be changed.

Six Step Reframing 原文(1)
Six Step Reframing 原文(2)
Six Step Reframing 原文(3)
Six Step Reframing 日本語訳(1)
Six Step Reframing 日本語訳(2)
Six Step Reframing 日本語訳(3)