3. How are they linked to, or related to, each other? (I have found two major ways, one inherent, and one that is optional.)

Inherent linkage. Choice and necessity both presuppose possibility, but desire does not. It is ridiculous to say that a person can choose or must do something that is impossible.

This inherent linkage can be quite useful. For instance, sometimes a person is tortured by thinking that they should do or choose something which is actually not possible for them--at least at the moment--but they don't realize the logical contradiction.

To work with this situation, first you can pace the “should,” or the “choose” and even strengthen it. “So you really believe that you should do X.” Then establish in their experience that it is impossible for them to do X (at least at this time, in their present state of development, finances, etc.).

After doing this preparation, you can put the two together by asking, “How is it that you think that you should do X, when you know that it is impossible? If the preparation was done thoroughly, this is one of those times when you can almost see smoke coming out of the client's ears, as the two beliefs collide, the contradiction becomes apparent, and the “should” (and the problem) vanishes.

However, desire does not presuppose possibility; quite often we desire things that are not possible. This fact is the source of much human misery, since desiring something that is not possible is very frustrating. But this is also the source of human progress, as we are motivated to seek and discover ways to do what was previously not possible.

Optional linkage: Some kinds of linkages are not inherent, but learned.

Again, most people typically use certain linkages often, and others not at all. Many of the less-often used linkages can be very empowering. “If I choose to, I will,” “If I have to, I desire to.” “If I want to, I don't have to.”

Of course some of these linkages are much more useful than others. Nevertheless, if someone uses only a few choices out of 64, that is a pretty severe limitation in what is possible for them, and experimenting with these unused possibilities can be very empowering.

It would be very easy to create a simple written test asking people to complete a series of sentences like, “If I want to, I ......” and then look through the answers for limiting combinations and significant patterns.

Self/Other: In the discussion above, we presupposed that the person applied the MOs to him/herself. If we add another person in relationship, we can get another 64 combinations, such as, “If you want me to, I have to,” or “If I demand, you should.” The applications for couple therapy (whether or not the other member of the couple is present) should be obvious.

Although linkages of two modal operators are most frequent, a linkage of three is not uncommon, and even more are possible. “If I have to, I can choose to want to.” Here there is an even greater variety of possibilities (512) and most of us only use a few of them.

It is a relief to realize that you don't have to memorize all these many possibilities. Starting with the recognition that these can be very important, and with some systematic practice to sensitize your perceptions, you can simply recognize a linkage, and try it on quickly in your own experience to discover its impact.

With more than one other person, as in families, it even becomes even more complicated--and interesting. “If he says I have to X, but she wants Y, I can't do Z.” (an additional 512 possibilities here!).

4. What kind of motivation is indicated by each MO?

Necessity and desire are the clearest. Desire always pulls us toward the object of desire. Necessity apparently pushes us toward something, but more often it actually pushes us away from what will happen if we don't do it. Of course, much motivation includes both these aspects, but it is useful to separate them in order to think about them. The MOs that a client typically uses can alert us to what they are noticing and experiencing, and what they are deleting from their experience of being motivated.

Possibility and choice do not indicate any particular motivation. One can choose possible activities out of either desire or necessity (or both). On the other hand, if we had no needs or desires, possibility and choice would be totally irrelevant, so there is always some motivation presupposed or implied when we use words that refer to possibility and choice.

5. How can each kind of MO be understood as indicating a specific kind of incongruence?

All the MOs express what might be called a counterfactual state of affairs. They all indicate a situation that does not (at the moment) exist, but that could exist in the future (or can be imagined as happening in the future, even if it is impossible in reality) so this indicates sequential incongruence.

If you have to, it means that you haven't yet. (If you had already done it. you wouldn't have to.) Even in the past tense, “I had to” expresses the situation at the moment of having to, not the subsequent action. In a repetitive action that one has to do, like breathing, what one has to do is to take the next breath, not the previous one.

Likewise if you desire something, you don't have it yet. (If you had it already, you could enjoy it, but not desire it.)

If something is possible, that means that it is potential, but not actual. “I can do it” is quite different from “I have done it.” Of course, having done something is a powerful basis for assuming that I can do it in the future. This is why it can be so useful to install a change in the past, so that it is experienced as having already happened. Some of us used to joke about the “human potential movement,” that it was all potential, and very little movement (and some of it wasn't very human, either!).

At the moment of choosing, the activity that is chosen has not yet happened. (Even choosing between things, rather than activities, implies some kind of activity in relation to them.) In choice there is always an additional incongruity in that we are simultaneously drawn (or pushed) toward two or more alternatives. In choosing one, the one that is not chosen is lost, and whatever needs or desires this alternative would have satisfied have to go unsatisfied, at least temporarily.

6. What kind of incongruence is indicated by a person when they use one kind of MO verbally and express a different one nonverbally?

These usually indicate a simultaneous incongruence between the conscious (verbal) words and the unconscious (nonverbal), although a person can also express the nonverbal sequentially. If a person says, “I can do that,” in a whining voice and slumped shoulders, (or they follow the statement with these nonverbals) it is pretty likely that they don't actually believe it, and will not actually do it. As with all NLP work, the nonverbal is often a much better indicator of the unconscious aspects of behavior, and what is actually going on. As John Grinder used to say, “All words are to be taken as unsubstantiated rumor unless confirmed by nonverbal behavior.” The verbal MO may or may not be a reliable indicator of the actual MO being experienced. Sensitivity to the nonverbal indicators of the MO opens us to much more reliable information about the client's experience.

There is a useful training exercise we have used for years that can sensitize trainees to both verbal and nonverbal MOs. In groups of 3, one person says a sentence using one kind of MO (or its negation) verbally, while simultaneously expressing a different kind of MO (or its negation) nonverbally. One of the others in the trio identifies the verbal MO, and the other the nonverbal MO--and later each of the others identifies both. The same exercise can be modified by asking the person to say a sentence with one MO, and then sequentially expressing another MO nonverbally, to sensitize trainees to this.

7. How it can be useful to change a person's experience by suggesting replacing one modal operator with another, and why is it useful?

A MO, like an accessing cue, is both the result of internal processing, and also a way to elicit it. Asking a person to say, “I won't--” rather than “I can't-” was one of Fritz Perls' favorite ways to get people to take more responsibility for the implicit choices that they made, feel more empowered by recognizing their ability to choose, opening the way to choosing differently.

Sometimes changing a MO brings about a congruent change in attitude immediately. More often a client will experience incongruence. But even then, it can be a very useful experiment that offers at least a glimpse of an alternate way of living in the world. The client can try it out, and find out what it would be like if it were true for him/her. The objections that arise will provide valuable information about what other aspects of the person's beliefs need some attention in order to make the change appropriate and lasting.

8. What MO is operating in an experience of complete and total congruence?

This is my favorite, and it is a trick question. Think of a situation in your life when you experienced total congruence about doing something. When you are totally congruent, it is possible to, you want to, you choose to, and paradoxically, you also have to (you really couldn't do anything else!). So the answer is all of them (or perhaps none of them). Or to put it another way, which has a rather mystic flavor, it is not a mode of operating, (which always indicates at least some bias and incongruence), it is just operating, pure and simple, “I am doing,” unmodulated by a mode.

9. What else can you predict about a person's experience when they use a MO?

I asked this open-ended question in the hope of learning something new. But with only two responses, I don't have much to report. When education isn't a two-way street, it's likely to become a dead-end street. One of my favorite quotations recently is that: “None of us is as smart as all of us.” Given the presentation above, what else can you predict now?--or how would you improve on what I have presented? Enjoy.

©2000 Anchor Point, Vol. 15, No. 1, January, pp. 19-26