Ben: Well, I'd still like to know what it's like.
Woman: I think you would certainly be safe doing it with Ben, because he is asking for it.
I still won't do it. I don't care what his conscious mind wants. Conscious minds are dumb.
Woman: What if his unconscious mind wanted you to?
Unconscious minds can be just as stupid. I don't want to pick out anybody's in particular, either!
Ben: Well, let's say a man comes to you and you listen to him and it becomes obvious to you that he believes that women are intrinsically out to control his behavior. His mother always controlled him, and now he's thirty–six years old and has never been married because of this limiting belief. It would certainly be useful for him to generalize his belief and realize that all people attempt to control the behavior of others.
Yes, of course. But that's going to be a final step. What I would do first is to metaphorically describe how much it delights me to have a woman try to control my behavior—what a compliment that is. Because if she didn't try to control me, it meant that she wasn't interested in me in any way whatsoever. That's a meaning reframe.
Woman: I assume that this man has been around men who have been trying to control him for a long time and it hasn't bothered him. That's why it doesn't seem as if that is the essential thing to reframe. I don't think he minds being controlled by a man.
Of course not.
Woman: So even if you reframe that it is good to be controlled he still might say «Well, OK, it's good to be controlled and I think I'll choose to be controlled by a man.»
Well, you give people much more credit than I do. I don't think people can usually make those kinds of distinctions. First, I doubt seriously that he would admit that men are out to control women and each other nearly as much—and it would always be as much—as women are.
Woman: But he's been experiencing that and tolerating it and not seeing it.
Yes, but that's just a lack of sensory experience. His lack of sensory experience is going to be based upon all the presuppositions in his behavior. It's like eye accessing cues: if you know about them, you are much more apt to see them. He knows that women are controlling, so he's more apt to notice it when a woman is manipulating. However, a man will be able to control his behavior like crazy, because he won't notice it.
All I want to change is his internal response. Now his response to being controlled by a woman is negative. If I can change that to a positive response, then it will be possible for me to do what I want, which is to get him to control people and to do so gracefully and expressively.
Man: Last night I was really glad I watched a show about the feminist movement. If I hadn't watched that show, I wouldn't have realized how well women can control men.
Well, I find that the more women get into the feminist movement, the less they can control men. That has been my experience. It's one of the disservices that the feminist movement has done to women. I think we're now going through a phase where women are going to keep some of the benefits that they got out of the feminist movement, like more money when they work and not having to go through certain rituals that they don't want to go through. But women are going to get back into some of the groovy stuff, like fancy clothes. They had a fashion show on television the other morning, showing all the new fashions. Women's clothes are really becoming women's clothes again—great things with capes hanging down, and feathers, and all kinds of long trailing things. Feminists can't wear those.
Now, who's limited? Whenever you say «We will not do this," then you lose. If you say «I'm going to do it when I feel like it, and when I don't feel like it, I'm not going to do it," then you've got choice and you've got some basis on which to be in control.
Man: With the man who believes that women want to control him, would it be an appropriate strategy to get him to notice the ways in which he was controlling people, even though he is a man?
No. Absolutely not. Your question is «Would it be appropriate to get this man to consciously see or feel that he is in fact controlling people, without knowing about it. So perhaps women don't know about it either.» And my answer is «Absolutely not, that's the wrong approach.» This is a choice about the syntax, the order in which you do things. If you do things in the wrong order, you make it really difficult for yourself. If you succeeded in doing it, what would be the result of convincing him that for years he had been controlling people without knowing about it?
Man: Probably guilt. He's just like his mother.
Right! Guilt. He'd go straight to a psychiatrist.
Man: Then you could reframe his belief about guilt.
You could do that. But if you change the meaning of control ahead of time, it's much easier. If you first make controlling into something good, then he'll never have to feel guilty. And it will be a lot easier to reframe controlling if it's not him doing it. If you reframe so that he begins to notice that the women who are trying to control him are after his body, then controlling becomes something that's worth having. Then later you say «By the way, this counts for you, too.» The syntax, the order of what you do makes it easy for him, and it makes it easy for you.
Frank: You said earlier that content reframing was the essence of sales. Can you give us some examples?
Sure. Let's say someone comes in to buy an expensive car. He is looking at one model, and he says «I can't see myself driving a car like this; it's kind of racy and frivolous.» First you can say something like «Well, I certainly couldn't see myself in one that had racing stripes on it, or something gaudy like that» to pace his objection. Then you go on to say «But having the quick acceleration and power that this car has is more than just a frivolous thing: it's really the safety of being able to get out of somebody's way quickly. This car handles better and performs better on wet and winding roads, and I certainly don't consider my safety to be frivolous.»
You first give him something to object to that isn't on the car anyway, like racing stripes. Then you go on to reframe the implication of the content. The fact that it's a fast sports car doesn't mean that it's frivolous; it means that it's safe.
Of course you first have to gather enough information to know that safety will appeal to this particular person. Safety doesn't mean a thing to some people. To do an effective content reframe you have to know at least a little bit about what criteria are important to the person that you're talking to. Then you take whatever elements he objects to, and find a way that those elements can satisfy other criteria that he has. You go for saving money, saving time, prestige, or whatever is important to this particular person.
If somebody says «It's too racy; I want something more conservative," then you go for redefining the car as being truly conservative: the safety, the speed, the good repair record all conserve your investment as well as your life.
If he agrees but says that other people won't realize it, you can reframe that. «Doing what you know is best is the earmark of a true conservative. It's really conservative to be willing to drive a car like this even though other people don't know that you're being conservative.» With your emphasis and tonal shifts you imply that it is a question of appearance in contrast to the car's real function.