In the case of the stubborn daughter, «stubbornness» in the father's experience changes from being something that works against him to being something that he feels good about when he sees it occur, because he knows that this behavior is something that she will need to survive in the world. That changes his internal response.
In the other example, when the mother looked at the footprints on the carpet, she took them as a comment about her being a bad housewife—that she hadn't finished doing the things she was supposed to do. If you change the meaning of the footprints to «You're around the people you love» then her experience changes. That change in experience is really the only essential piece of any reframing model. That is what reframing is all about.
Man: When you change the meaning, aren't you installing a complex equivalence?
Yes. Actually, you're not installing a complex equivalence, you are just altering the one that's already there. You're really trading. She already has one complex equivalence. She is saying «Footprints on the carpet mean bad housewife, therefore feel bad.» You are saying «Well, since you are so good at complex equivalence, try this one. This one is a lot groovier: footprints on the carpet mean that the people you love are around, therefore feel good.»
In order to make reframing work, sometimes it's better to begin with the reverse case. Leslie could have just looked at this woman and said «Well, no, no, no. You see, you're all wrong. When you see footprints, it just means that the people you care about are there.» That would not have had an impact; it would not have changed her internal experience or her response. So of course the sequencing of your delivery and your expressiveness are very important.
«You see the carpet there and it's spotless! You've cleaned it perfectly. It's fluffy. You can see the white fibers.» This is pacing: she is responding to the complex equivalence. Then you lead: «And then suddenly you realize that that means you are all alone.» That is something she had never considered before. If you think about it, that is not necessarily true. The whole family might be in the next room. However, it sounds so meaningful in that context that you can use it to influence behavior. Then you switch back: «Now put a few footprints there, and realize that those you love are near.»
Which kind of reframing is more appropriate if somebody says to you «I can't take notes. I'm so stupid!» They'll both work, but which one is more immediate? When you hear a complex equivalence as in this example, it tells you something about meaning. If I say that I don't like something, especially about others, typically it has to do with meaning. If I say «Well, Byron has never been really interested in my groups; he sits in the back corner," that's a statement about the meaning of a behavior.
If you make the statement «It annoys me when X happens," which kind of reframing is going to be most appropriate? … Meaning reframing will be. What kinds of statements will tell you that context reframing is more appropriate?
Woman: «I'm not happy when I'm sitting in this room.»
Which kind of reframing is going to be most immediate for that: context or meaning? She's essentially saying «I don't like what this means," so it's meaning again.
What happens if I say something like «I'm too tyrannical»? … That tells you something about context. Too tyrannical for what? … or for whom?
Now, what's the difference between the two forms? Each of them is a kind of generalization. Can you tell the difference between those kinds of generalizations? If you can identify form, that will tell you which kind of reframing is more immediate to use.
No behavior in and of itself is useful or not useful. Every behavior will be useful somewhere; identifying where is context reframing. And no behavior means anything in and of itself, so you can make it mean anything: that's meaning reframing. Doing it is simply a matter of your ability to describe how that's the case, which is purely a function of your creativity and expressiveness.
Now let's play with this a little. Give me some complaints, and I'll reframe them.
Woman: There's no more coffee in the evening, and I don't like that. Have you been sleeping well?
Man: There are too many sessions scheduled at once. I decide to be in one workshop, and then I want to be in another. I can't switch and go over to another session in the afternoon, because it's already progressed too far.
Yeah, I understand. I really do sympathize. And one of the nice things about arranging the workshop that way is that it gives you extra practice in decision–making processes.
Woman: I don't see the reframing there.
Well, I placed his remark in a frame in which it has a function other than the one he consciously recognized: it gives him practice in decision–making.
Man: My wife takes forever to decide on things. She has to look at every dress in the store and compare them all before she selects one.
So she's very careful about decisions. Isn't it a tremendous compliment that out of all the men in the world, she chose you!
Man: I don't want to tell my wife what I want sexually, because that would force her to limit herself.
But you are willing to limit her ability to please you when she wants to, by not telling her what you like?
Woman: My children yell and run around too much.
When they are playing outdoors or at sporting events, it must give you great satisfaction to see how uninhibited your children are, and how well you and your husband have preserved their natural exuberance.
Now I'll give you some complaints, and you reframe them. «I feel terrible because my boss always criticizes me.»
Man: He must really notice the work that you do, and like you enough to want to help you improve it.
OK. Fine. «I'm too easy–going.»
Woman: Well, I'm thinking of many of my friends who are getting heart attacks because they react so strongly when someone asks them to do something they don't want to do.
Exercise
I want you all to practice meaning and context reframing for twenty minutes. Get together with two other people. One of you will be a client, one of you will be a programmer, and one of you will be an observer. Switch roles periodically.
The client's job is to come up with a complaint. You could role–play a client of yours and state some really powerful complaint that you typically get from clients in your practice. Or you could pretend to role–play a client but come up with a complaint that might be relevant for some part of your own personal evolution. I want you to state your complaints in a particular form to make it easier for your partner. The form of the complaint will tell the other person which kind of refram–ing is most appropriate.
1) Present your complaint as a complex equivalence that links a response to a class of events: «I feel X when Y happens» or,
2) Present the complaint as a comparative generalization about yourself or someone else, with the context deleted: «I'm too Z» or «He's too Q.»
The programmer's job is to find a way of reframing the problem, and then to deliver the reframe in such a way that it has an impact. This is a training seminar, so don't force yourself to respond immediately. Let me give you a strategy to generate reframes. First you identify the form of the complaint that your client has presented so that you know which kind of reframe to go for. With a complex equivalence you do a meaning reframe, and with a comparative generalization you do a context reframe. The next step is to create an internal representation of the complaint that you have received from the other person: either make a picture of it visually, feel what it would be like kinesthetically, or describe it auditorily.