Dave is presenting us with an excellent illustration of the way in which people calibrate their experience. Dave has decided that, whenever he sees Marcie looking at him in a certain way (not specified), she is depending upon him; she is experiencing an inner state which he labels "dependency." In the second example, Dave has decided that, whenever Marcie narrows her eyes and leans forward, she is unhappy with him. What is common to both instances is that Dave has equated a piece of Marcie's observable behavior with her total communication and then has labeled it an inner experience.
What we are illustrating here is that people cause themselves pain and difficulty by attaching a word (label) to some part of their experience and mistaking the label for the experience. One powerful phenomenon we have seen in our work is the fact that people pay particular attention to different portions of their experience and, subsequently, may come to attach the same label to a very different experience. For example, for people who use their visual skills most extensively, the word respect will, typically, have something to do with eye contact, while people who emphasize body sensations (kinesthetic representational system) will pay more attention to the way others touch them. By this process, people may use the same word to describe very different experiences. We call this process Complex Equivalence (the experiences which the words represent) and, typically, it may be quite diverse for different people. In other words, instead of using feedback (for example, asking Marcie what was going on), Dave has calibrated his experience so that, whenever he detects certain movements by Marcie, he "knows" what she is experiencing. Notice that the therapist makes two different types of responses to Dave's Mind-Reading— Complex-Equivalence statements. First, the therapist re-states the claim that Dave has made about Mind Reading and the specific Complex Equivalence which he uses. This serves two purposes: The therapist checks to make sure that he understands the Mind-Reading process which Dave is presenting; at the same time, the therapist's re-statement allows Dave to hear a complete description of the process. In fact, those with whom we work frequently will laugh out loud when the contention which they have just made is repeated to them, recognizing that the connection claimed is spurious. For others, the therapist's re-statement allows them to fully understand the process for the first time. Dave's response is a good example of this:
I never have been able to get a handle on it; you know, altogether, like I felt when you just said it now . . .
The second response which the therapist makes is to challenge the Mind-Reading—Complex-Equivalence pattern in the family by turning to the other family member involved — in this case, Marcie — and asking her to state whether or not Dave's Mind Reading—Complex Equivalence was accurate. As the transcript shows, Dave was hallucinating. (We use this word [hallucinate] when we are referring to ideas which are "made up" when factual data are not available. Our brain must make something from everything. We do not consider it pathological in this context, only descriptive.) Marcie was not, in fact, unhappy with him at that point in time. In our experience in therapy, so much of the pain experienced by members of a family is connected with calibrated communication, communication based upon Mind Reading and Complex Equivalence. This makes the therapist's ability to detect and effectively challenge these patterns extremely important.
Marcie: No, I'm trying to understand what's going on here, and,. . .
Therapist: Thank you, Marcie. (turning back to Dave) Dave, I want you to try something new for yourself and Marcie. Are you willing to try something new, Dave?
Dave: Well, yeah, OK . . . I'll try. What is it?
Therapist: Dave, I want you to look directly at Marcie and tell her how you're feeling right now, and as
you do . . .
Dave: (interrupting) Oh, no; I'd really like to, but I just can't.
Therapist: You can't, Dave? What stops you?
Dave: Huh? What stops me?
Therapist: Yes, Dave, what stops you from looking directly at Marcie while you tell her what you are feeling?
Dave: I don't know ... I really don't know. I just can't.
Therapist: Dave, could you tell me what would happen if you did this?
Dave: What would happen? I don't know . . .
Therapist: Guess, Dave!
In this portion of the transcript, the therapist has made a request to Dave to try something new, something which runs counter to the calibrated communication, involving the Mind Reading and Complex Equivalence, which is going on between him and Marcie. Dave's response is to state that it is impossible to do what the therapist has asked: I just can't. Now, the therapist knows from his own experience — of looking directly at Marcie when he communicates with her — that looking directly at her when speaking to her is possible for him. Therefore, if Dave thinks that this is impossible, then his claim is a signal that he has been asked to perform an act which is outside of his model of the world and, more specifically, outside of his model of what is possible for him with Marcie. One of the patterns which has assisted us most in organizing our experiences in family therapy is our ability to detect the limits of the family members' models of the world — what acts are, literally, beyond the limits which they allow themselves. In natural language systems (verbal), there are a small number of expressions which logicians call modal operators[12] of possibility and necessity. These are words and phrases which specifically identify the limits of the speaker's model of the world. By identifying these limits, we are able to help the person involved to extend his model to include what he wants for himself and his family, to turn into a choice something which he has regarded as inevitable. In the following exchange between Dave and the therapist,
the two responses by the therapist assist Dave in extending the limits of his model to continue the process of change toward what he wants for himself and Marcie.
Next, we list some of the most common words and phrases in the English language which identify limits in a person's model and, opposite them, the two verbal challenges we have found most effective in helping to change these limits.
The therapist's challenges to these cue words and phrases, which identify the limits of the family's model of what is possible for them, have, in our experience, been extremely effective in assisting in the process of change.
Closely associated with modal operators is the type of exchange illustrated by the following part of the transcript:
Dave: Oh, no; I'd really like to, but I just can't.
Therapist: What stops you?
Dave: I really don't know ... I just can't.
Therapist: Dave, what would happen if you did?
12
Modal operators are discussed in more detail in