I've heard from somewhere that you should fractionate rapport so that people don't think you want something from them or be seen as trying to manipulate or needy. As I've known rapport as a way to pace someone, the statement seems to undermine the whole point of rapport? Any ideas you can share about this?

Hi Steve,

I've never heard of the term "fractionate rapport" . . . I take it to mean establishing and then breaking rapport. Seems a little incongruent since the purpose of rapport is to build trust. I would imagine it would send a mixed message - or at best a rather confusing one. If you are genuine and acting with integrity, why would you need to use fractionation?

mindopoly wrote:

If you are genuine and acting with integrity, why would you need to use fractionation?

If you are genuine and acting with integrity, why would you need to use a technique to gain rapport at all?

The deal with fractionation is that it increases the sense of rapport when it's re-established. I've seen one trainer use it very cleverly for instance, when talking with people after an exercise -- when they communicate congruently about what they've done he gives them attention, when they wander into talking 'about' the exercise and theorising, he moves on. The effect is that he intentionally loses rapport with them for a while before regaining it when the group reconvenes (he's very good at establishing and re-establishing rapport with a group and the individuals within it). In other words, he takes rapport away when people are off track. And that tends to get them thinking/acting about how to get it back...

Hi, Adrian

Thanks for your reply; however, I believe you may have misconstrued my words, "If you are genuine and acting with integrity, why would you need to use fractionation?" and generalized them to mean a "technique to gain rapport at all". Just to clarify: I believe that rapport - though something that can and does happen organically between and among people - is not always so easily established without a skill set. All the honesty and integrity in the world won't matter if you cannot establish rapport with your 'audience'. My comment was in regards to the issue of 'fractionation' alone.

To that end, thanks for illustrating a context where fractionation might be useful. I hadn't been thinking along those lines.

In the context of teacher to student (or parent to child) fractionating rapport makes sense. It's a hierarchal relationship. Since rapport is designed to bring about a symmetrical relationship, "fractionation" of rapport would seem to bring about an opposite asymmetrical effect. Perhaps useful in 'authority' or 'power' relationships. Otherwise, I would see no use for it. Can you give me some other examples of where you might think it would be suitable, where there isn't a hierarchal relationship?

Please understand, I am not debating the use of fractionation in your above example, merely trying to open a discussion on other congruent uses. Thanks.

mindopoly wrote:

Thanks for your reply; however, I believe you may have misconstrued my words, "If you are genuine and acting with integrity, why would you need to use fractionation?" and generalized them to mean a "technique to gain rapport at all".

I read Adrian's comment quite differently. He wasn't attributing those words to you; he was asking you a new question, to explore - why would need to use a technique to gain rapport?

You can use fractionation techniques or not, but do you need rapport techniques at all?

mindopoly wrote:

In the context of teacher to student (or parent to child) fractionating rapport makes sense. It's a hierarchal relationship. Since rapport is designed to bring about a symmetrical relationship, "fractionation" of rapport would seem to bring about an opposite asymmetrical effect. Perhaps useful in 'authority' or 'power' relationships. Otherwise, I would see no use for it. Can you give me some other examples of where you might think it would be suitable, where there isn't a hierarchal relationship?

Thing is, I don't agree with the presuppositions you're bringing to this: that relationships are symmetrical or asymmetrical, and that these differences are to do with power. Thinking that way assumes that someone is going to be top dog and someone else bottom dog, and that is not at all helpful.

mindopoly wrote:

Hi Steve,

I've never heard of the term "fractionate rapport" . . . I take it to mean establishing and then breaking rapport. Seems a little incongruent since the purpose of rapport is to build trust. I would imagine it would send a mixed message - or at best a rather confusing one. If you are genuine and acting with integrity, why would you need to use fractionation?

Hey,

I see it differently, you can use fractionate rapport to get to a deeper level of rapport with someone. I don't think it's For some people getting almost instant deep rapport with someone might freak them out, because they are not used to feel that. So you go more slowly back and forth each time deeper.

Hope that helps

Have fun

Bart

Maybe I'm just generalizing a bit here. Language by its nature tends to be slippery. After all, the meaning of communication is the response you get... not necessarily what was intended. To me "fractionating rapport" (a term I've also never heard) could mean a simple "pattern interrupt" which can be very useful when working with a client or in any situation where one wants to direct the conversation toward a specific outcome. When a client gets into their story for example (sometimes, but not always, useless information) as a way to continue to rationalize and strengthen the underlying structure like a limiting belief that created and perpetuates the problem, a pattern interrupt skillfully applied will immediately redirect the attention away from their story and back toward the solution. Interrupting the story begins to redirectionalze the brain toward new neurological possibilities. A skilled practitioner can do this without losing rapport. And even if it is "fractionated" momentarily, pacing the client back into the flow is easily done in a number of ways... even if they get angry. Just a thought.
Respectfully,
F. P.

chris_morris wrote:

I read Adrian's comment quite differently. He wasn't attributing those words to you; he was asking you a new question, to explore - why would need to use a technique to gain rapport?

You can use fractionation techniques or not, but do you need rapport techniques at all?

Ah understood!

In answer to that question, yes and no. I believe that rapport is a naturally occurring outcome of what happens when people unconsciously create enough symmetry in their interaction such they feel connected. "People like people who are like them". The NLP rapport building techniques are a model of that unconscious process.

So to the degree that you have an unconscious competence with the process of establishing rapport, then no you don't need a single 'technique'. There are people who never took an NLP course and are quite adept at establishing and maintaining a deep rapport with others (one to one and in groups). NLP was simply meant to codify this degree of 'excellence' so it could be taught as a skill set, as in "how to establish and maintain rapport", to anyone. If you don't already have unconscious competence, then yes it might be a useful skill set (rapport techniques) to acquire.

adrian r wrote:

Thing is, I don't agree with the presuppositions you're bringing to this: that relationships are symmetrical or asymmetrical, and that these differences are to do with power. Thinking that way assumes that someone is going to be top dog and someone else bottom dog, and that is not at all helpful.

Hi Adrian,

You presuppose a meaning that I never intended. Power may have been too strong a word for what I was wondering about. Rapport is about creating symmetry "I join you at your map of the world, you join me at mine". We pace and lead each other constantly in our every day interactions. Sometimes you lead, sometimes you pace (follow).

My comments were intended to illustrate that some relationships are, by their very nature, more hierarchal than others - as in the case of parent to child. In such a relationship, the parent should have the 'greater influence' to lead (my definition of power) in the relationship as the child is younger, with lessening degrees of this asymmetry as the child grows older.

We all started out 'guessing' what fractionation meant. What it meant and its implications to rapport and its utility. My comments are in no way intended to 'take a stand' on something that I have no familiarity with. I was curious as to what your thoughts were on 'where else' it might be useful. I still am...

Wondered what you think of James Cervelloni's comments. I would tend to agree with James' interpretation of 'fractionating' to mean more of a 'pattern interrupt', the clinical utility of which makes perfect sense to me.

Perhaps, I got tripped up with the word 'fractionation'. It's a term generally used in hypnosis, meaning to bring someone in and out of deepening and lesser degrees of trance (which tends to deepen the hypnotic experience). I couldn't translate how establishing and then breaking rapport with them would lead to greater rapport.

Oh well, nuff of this. High ho, high ho it's off to see I client I go!

Thanks for the 'food for thought',

Lucia

What do I think of James's take on fractionation?

I like it.

What else might fractionation be used for?

Flirtation could perhaps be described as fractionation -- eye contact given then taken away, an ambiguous touch -- repeated to negate the ambiguity, then a smile from deep within. It's all about making contact then taking it away, again and again, contact deepening as time goes on.

Hi Adrian,

I like the flirtation example you gave.

It brought to mind one of Cialdini's Laws of Influence, The Scarcity Principle ~ the "take away" in sales is much like a flirtation. Seasoned sales people do it all the time. After a period of rapport they begin to break it by threatening the customer's access to what they are selling, thereby eliciting a click-whirr response in the customer to take a step toward them to immediately deepen the rapport to re-engage the sales process.

http://www.nlpconnections.com/images/smilies/smiley.gif

Thanks for all the great ideas.

I guess when you break rapport in a way that makes the other person want to get it back, they appreciate it more.

I think it's also similar to nested loops for stories.

simpcore wrote:

I've heard from somewhere that you should fractionate rapport so that people don't think you want something from them or be seen as trying to manipulate or needy.

Steve,

Could you dig in and let us know where exactly you heard this? My guess is from Ross Jeffries. Fractionation in English means "separate into constituents or fractions containing concentrated constituents". The context in which Ross uses it is derived from the concepts in Robert Greene's book '"The Art of Seduction". And he also doesn't use it in the context of "Fractionating Rapport". His usage was in the context of "fractionating states" which is purely to project several seductive characteristics like humorous, melancholic, daring, poetic, etc., etc., etc., using language with in a condensed time frame and hence speed seduce. I do not think it means break and re-establish Rapport. I however also don't know if breaking and re-establishing rapport will lead to a stronger rapport. I think we should get more clarity about the context in which you've heard of this term and obtain references before students of NLP start using this term to study rapport or even start teaching it.

Thanks,

-Bharath

I believe I heard it from Igor Ledowski(?), and also seen it mentioned in various places.