|
Do
you have a question or comment? Send
us an email. |
Six Blind Elephants:
Volume II
Understanding Ourselves and Each Other
by Steve Andreas
Contingent Implication (excerpt from chapter 1, Implication)
When two events are linked together in someone’s mind, and one of them occurs,
that implies that the other event has also occurred. For instance, if someone
believes that graduating from college indicates intelligence, then when that occurs,
they will be convinced that they are intelligent. (Whether that is true or not
is another matter!)
This is particularly useful when someone has a problem that you know that you
can solve easily, but you want to do more than just solve their problem; you want
to create a more general attitude of optimism or willingness to take on life’s
challenges.
If someone congruently agrees that getting over a phobia would mean that they
can make other changes, or that life would be worthwhile, then when the first
event occurs, the second is implied. There may be no logical linkage between the
two events, but if they have congruently agreed to the contingency in advance,
it will be effective in reorienting them.
You can create this kind of contingency overtly by saying something like the following,
“You have had this problem for years, and you have tried everything to overcome
it. Now, if you could solve this problem to your complete satisfaction, that would
be proof positive, would it not, that you can change in the ways that you have
desired for so long, and that your life can be worthwhile.” If the client congruently
agrees, then when you solve that problem, it will convince them that “life can
be worthwhile.” This is an example of what is often called generative change,
in contrast to just solving problems, which is called remedial change.
This kind of contingency can also be created covertly. For instance, Giorgio Nardone
and Claudette Portelli use the following instruction as part of their work with
clients, an instruction that can be used with any problem whatsoever.
During the following weeks, I’d like you to ask yourself this question. Every
day, in the morning, question yourself: “What would I do differently today as
if I no longer had my problem, or as if I had recovered from my problem?” Among
all the things that come to your mind, choose the smallest, most minimal but concrete
thing and put it into practice. Every day, choose a small but concrete thing as
if you had already overcome your problem, and voluntarily put it into practice.
Every day choose something different.
If the contingency is not clear, reread the paragraph above to give yourself an
opportunity to discover the contingent implication before reading on. . . .
Milton Erickson often used to talk about making a small change that would begin
a “snowball” effect, creating a much larger change. However, people often make
a small change and it doesn’t “snowball”; they make some effort, resolution, or
decision but then backslide into their old behavior. What distinguishes a small
change that will “snowball” from one that won’t? There are a number of elements
in this instruction that result in a cascade of change.
This instruction repeatedly uses an “as if” categorization to create a “make believe”
world in which anything can happen, free of the constraints and limitations of
the real world. This neutralizes any objections based on categorizations that
the client may have about it being “impossible,” “silly,” “stupid,” etc. Within
this “as if” categorization, the instructions link the concrete behaviors in the
client’s mind with having recovered from the problem.
Then when the client actually does one of the concrete behaviors, that makes it
real, taking it out of the “as if” categorization. The contingency implies that
it is equally real that the problem has already been overcome. Usually this will
occur entirely outside of the client’s awareness; they will only notice that their
lives are going better, or that their depression has lightened somewhat.
There are several other very useful elements in this instruction. When the client
is asked to choose from “among all the things that come to your mind,” that they
would do if they had recovered, that presupposes that many things will come to
their mind. That creates the category, “all the things that I would do if I recovered,”
associating each example in the category with all the others (aggregate categorical
scope).
Each example in this category that they think of will direct them to think of
what it would be like to have recovered from the problem. That focuses their attention
repeatedly on the solution, rather than the problem—and this will be true even
if they don’t do any of the things that they think of.
Another way of describing this is that the client is told to repeatedly think
about recovering from the problem every morning, and then to do a concrete behavior
that validates the implied recovery. Since every morning begins with the implication
of having recovered from the problem, that makes it likely that they will also
think of it, consciously or unconsciously, at other times throughout the day.
This instruction would not be nearly as effective if it were assigned in the evening—unless
perhaps there was an explicit suggestion to do it in their dreams while sleeping.
The client is told to choose the “smallest, most minimal” thing to do, in order
to make the task appear easy to do, eliminating any residual objection or resistance.
However, it really doesn’t matter how small the task is, it will still create
the contingency. If a small smile is an indication of happiness, it doesn’t matter
how brief it is. And since the client does this over a period of weeks, and each
morning they have to choose a different smallest thing that they would do if they
had recovered, each day they will have to choose a somewhat larger thing to do
from those remaining on their list.
If the client enlarges the list by including additional “smaller” things, that
means that they will think of the solution even more often as they review this
longer list of things in order to choose the “smallest” one. And if they are at
all oppositional or rebellious, they may decide to do one of the “larger” things,
giving them an opportunity to resist an element of the task, while complying with
the larger task. If they do a “larger” thing, that is even better evidence for
the implication that they have recovered.
Furthermore, since each morning the client does something different in the category
“what I would do if I had recovered,” soon there will be a group of things that
they have already done that indicate that they have already recovered. That aggregate
of experiences will become larger and more compelling each day, providing more
and stronger evidence for the category “recovery” as time goes by.
Both thinking of the actions that indicate recovery and doing them will act as
prototype experiences that will sensitize them to when they do them spontaneously
during the day. For instance, if smiling or laughing are two of the behaviors,
and they find themselves smiling or laughing sometime during the day, they will
tend to notice that they have spontaneously smiled or laughed, instead of ignoring
it. A spontaneous response will be even better evidence that they are recovering
than a deliberate action.
And if they refuse to do the task, they will still think of it every morning,
perhaps even more than if they did it. Even thinking of the task will sensitize
them to all the behaviors that would indicate that they have recovered from their
problem, making it more likely that they will notice them when they occur spontaneously.
This instruction is a beautiful example of how to pack a host of implications
and presuppositions into a task, most of which will be completely outside the
client’s awareness. When a task is well constructed, the harder the client tries
to evade the task, the more effective the task will be.
This kind of instruction will also work even when you understand the pattern.
Pick some change that you would like to make, and follow the instructions above,
and you will find what a useful task it is. The instructions can be made more
generative by rewording it so that it is not about a problem, but about a positive
outcome that would expand your creativity and resourcefulness, making you even
more capable and evolved.
Below is an even subtler example of contingent implication from the work of Milton
Erickson.
Now, this woman I saw just before I came here had her masters degree. She was
an exceedingly intelligent woman, with strong resistances to hypnosis. Her daughter
was going to college, and it was a rather simple matter to enlist the daughter’s
interest.
The daughter said to me, “You can hypnotize Mother, but you can’t hypnotize me.”
My reply was, “I’d like to have you tell that to your mother.”
How many of you recognize what I said? “I’d like to have you tell that to your
mother.” It’s another way of saying, “Tell it to somebody else—I don’t believe
you.” I asked her to tell it to her mother because I was rejecting her statement.
So the girl told her mother, “He can hypnotize you, but I don’t think that I can
be hypnotized.” She was in a bind right then and there, and she never even recognized
what I did. The girl very promptly went into a nice trance, and then I used her
to demonstrate for her mother.
Eds: What is the actual bind in this case? The editors speculate as follows. When
Erickson said, “I’d like to have you tell that to your mother,” he was indirectly
implying: “I don’t believe you; I can hypnotize you.” Thus the unconscious implication
(and we know that unconscious implication is a most powerful method of suggestion)
“I can hypnotize you” became associated with “Tell that to your mother.” When
the girl actually did tell that to her mother on a conscious level, she automatically
and unconsciously evoked within herself the consequent associated implication,
“I can hypnotize you.” She therefore “very promptly went into a nice trance,”
and served adequately as a demonstration subject for her mother.
Of course, contingent implication can also be used in ways that are not so useful.
People who promote firewalk “seminars” usually link the ability to walk on hot
coals to the ability to break through all limiting beliefs and do anything. It
is one thing to realize that you can go beyond a limiting belief, and expand what
you believe you can do. But it is quite another to think that you can do anything
and not be harmed. Many beliefs have very useful protective functions, for instance
the belief that you take a substantial and unnecessary risk if you walk alone
in rough parts of town late at night.
Recently a woman who is very dedicated to the work that she is doing said to me
with great emphasis, “This is my life!” I immediately thought about what would
happen if for some reason she was no longer able to do that work. Since the work
is linked to her life, if the work stopped, the implication is that her life had
also stopped, and she might become severely depressed or suicidal. I suggested
to her that she use some other way of describing this, such as, “I am deeply involved
in the work that I am doing,” to avoid the implications that lurk in equating
her work with her life.
Once I knew a volleyball player who had reached 50, well past the time when his
body couldn’t do all the things that it used to. He was depressed, and a bit lost,
wondering what he would do with himself, because now he could only coach. At one
point he said to me, “Volleyball was my life.”
A friend of mine was repeatedly told by her mother, “Live your life before you
get married,” in what I’m sure was a well-intentioned wish that the daughter find
out what was important to her individually before committing herself to a partner.
It took the daughter a while to realize that her mother’s instruction presupposed
that she could only get married on her deathbed!
It can be very useful to review your beliefs for any contingent implications that
you may have made, to find out if you may want to revise some of them. Beliefs
about large issues like life, happiness, etc., are particularly important to examine.
“I can only be happy in a relationship.” “If I became seriously crippled, my life
would be over.” That kind of thinking can easily transform an unpleasant event
into a disaster, and it often results in depression, and sometimes suicide.
When this happens, it is possible to go back to before the time that decision
was made, and use a process developed by Richard Bandler called the “Decision
Destroyer” to create an experience that will alter that problematic decision.
Another way of changing this kind of implication is to explore generative solutions
to any calamity now, so that you are prepared for it in advance. Imagine, one
by one, all the kinds of disasters that you think are possible, and for each one,
ask the question, “If that happened, how could I still live a life that would
be satisfying and worthwhile? Make sure that your answer is a detailed plan and
rehearsal for what you could do. And if you rehearse several different options
for each kind of disaster, that is even better.
Read Exerpts from Several Chapters
Hidden Negation (excerpt
from chapter 2, Negation)
Recursion
(excerpt from chapter 5, Self-reference)
What others have said about Six
Blind Elephants . . .
|
