Modal Operator "would" Questions

Hi,

On the most recent module of my Practitioner training, I did a context reframing drill in which one of a group of three make a sentence, "I am too..." and the other two reframe that statement. I did one that got a great reaction, my partner's head jerked back, his eyes dilated, and the muscles around his eyes became flaccid. He came back somewhat and then did the above again. Then while I was basking in my obvious power with language patterns and indeed the whole field of NLP, his eyes focused, he leaned back in his chair and said, "Yeah, that'd work." Stupidly, I said, "Sorry, what?" He said, "Yeah, that was great. If you said that to someone, that would really work."

Here is my understanding of what happened. My partner was strongly affected by the reframe, and then dissociated himself from that experience. I got that from his use of "would." I am not yet able to read other cues that undoubtably would have given me even better information as to what he was doing internally.

I have two requests. One is if anyone has any comments or ideas to help me better understand what happened, I "would" greatly appreciate them.

The other is, what could I have done with the "would" statement to get him to reassociate into the original experience and to keep it?

My personal experience of "would" is that I dissociate, that is, I see myself in the experience. I extrapolate that to think that is what others do as well. Any comments on that?

Thank you,
Charles

"Yeah, that was great. If you said that to someone, that would really work."''''

The other is, what could I have done with the "would" statement to get him to reassociate into the original experience and to keep it?

As you say he is using the word 'would' to disassociate (....someone...) and future pace (...if you...)
Bring it back to the here and now for him.
"How is it working for you right now?"

John

I'm not a vegetarian but I do eat animals who are

Thank you John, that was helpful.

I was hoping for more replies, I think my questions are straightforward and answers to them could help others as well. Come to think of it, my last thread also had only one reply. Maybe I need to model more successful threads.

I am thinking about one where someone asked how to use NLP in car sales but didn't want to spend the money to buy a book. That thread turned into 5 pages and included a lot of great help from Jonathan Altfeld. Then there was the one from a guy who wanted to use NLP to shag two women at the same time, including a woman he claimed to have driven to mental illness. That got two pages and included a post from Eric Robbie. Now there is an active thread from a guy who wants to use hypnosis to help a 14 year old forget a first love. Now that Steve Andreas is active on that one, who knows how long that'll go?

Any ideas on how I can get great responses like they got?

Charles

Hey Charles

I'm just imagining what i would say in the same situation, and with the benefit of hindsight..lol

I think I'd have said some similar to John...also i m might have might have just said 'would?' back using my tonality to turn it into a question....follow by raising my eyebrows which is a trick I learned form the evening with RB the other night that I have been having lots of fun with! if fact you could probably not say anything and just use the raised eye brows...lol

Hi Charles,

Too many unknowns. You say:

"One is, if anyone has any comments or ideas to help me better understand what happened,"

Don't know. Wasn't there.

Don't know, for example, whether the "great reaction" you got - the head jerking back, and the dilating of eyes - was a reaction to the reframe, or, as you sorta suggest, was (also) the dissociation. Or was it being slightly trancey? Or what?

Don't know, when you say "he came back somewhat", what he came back to. Was it the "here and now" of the room? Had you previously calibrated, as a specific step in your process, to what that looked like?

".. and then did the above again."

Again, the description of "the above" is not clear. So it would be hard to offer good advice, or useful advice. Can't beat open and clear channels, y'know? And also Being There.

And THEN, you say, he dissociated - WHEN was that? When "his eyes focused" and "he leaned back in his chair"? Leaning back in one's chair is not, on its own, a reliable indicator of dissociation. It might be, but it's not enough. It's quite possible your gent dissociated LONG BEFORE (in terms of micro-seconds) he decided to lean back. Similarly, "eyes regaining focus" (on its own) is not indicative one way or the other of dissociation.

Only way to get assoc/ dissoc from external behaviour is to calibrate to assoc/ dissoc thru external behaviour.

So my first suggestion is for you to go off and, quite independently of this reframing exercise (even tho it's an old favourite of mine and one that goes back all the way to the early 80s), and quite independently of this module, sit down with somebody and just "calibrate" to assoc/ dissoc ALL BY ITSELF.

Do it with several other people, and preferably over several days - make a thing of it even - until you have a much better sense of what assoc/ dissoc looks like.

I could tell you in words the half-a-dozen or so things you will most often and most likely find in most people as indicators of assoc/ dissoc - but it makes much more sense if you do it by experience. (Direct experience beats anything you learn thru Auditory Digital or Visual Digital. By a mile.)

2. Now, by the time your gent got to talking about it - "Yeah, that'd work" - he may have changed in some way YET AGAIN. Ie, first he dissociated from the state - and then he leaned back - and then, possibly as a separate process, he switched into evaluation.

In my experience, all the info to make those distinctions - that there were two stages or three, for example, and what they were - that info was and is there, waiting to be read off …. if you have the sensory acuity.

3. As to the effects and use of modal operators: it's a mistake to think they are always dissociative. Think of where people are when they chant "Yes, we can!" (topical reference).

The shift from direct modal operator (can, shall, will, must) to the "conditional" form of the modal operator (could, should, would) may be:

- a conditional shift in time, or
- a conditional shift in "truth value".

and either way, that shift is, I agree, USUALLY accompanied by some degree of dissociation - for example, with a picture that is small, and some way off, and different in content from what is now going on. But again, there's no hard guarantee that it always is dissociated.

Think of, for example, a cheesy-but-earnest Barry-White-type chatter-upper: "Oh, lady, if you'd let me, I would make such love to you ... " Is he associated to the prospect, or what?

4. As to what else might have been going on: well, it's possible that in this exercise your friend didn't pick something that was a problem of his, but one that he just "played with" for the sake of the exercise. People do that sometimes - because they don't want to go into anything that's too deep, or too personal "just for an exercise", or they don't want to engage in a process that they don't know you can handle, and deal with, and finish competently.

He may have been picking a problem he sees someone he knows as having, and exploring it for himself, out of curiosity, by "going to their first position". So the "jolt" of the reframe may have been real. ("Wow. I never realized ... ") But then, maybe, he very rapidly dissociated from that, and - maybe - went back to his own "first position". And then made comment - about how the technique would work on them.

What I'm saying is that sometimes it makes sense, as a first approach, to take what people say literally, as being what is actually going on with them. And then work from there.

Again, figuring it out is helped by sensory acuity - but, at your level, that may not be enough. So you ask questions. And you go after content. "Can I just ask you something? What I just saw you do didn't make sense. I saw you [offer brief behavioural description, then hypothesis] ... " and then wait for them to either agree with you, or correct you.

What you don't do at Prac level is guess. What you do do is further investigate it. You do nlp.

Maybe he always talks about himself in the third person. I've heard some professional sports players do it in broadcast interviews recently. It could be a fashion that's catching on.

5. Now as to your other question:

"What could I have done with the "would" statement to get him to re-associate?"

For me, the Q is: Why would you want to? What would be the purpose? What would be the gain?

Just 'cos in the exercise you were "supposed to"? Or you're interested if it can be done with that specific kind of language?

Surely, if your reframe was any good, he would/ will from now on have trouble getting back to the original?

As for actually getting him back (to associated), I wouldn't bother trying to do something clever with the word "would". Far too complicated. As the others suggest above, just go for it direct: "The original problem - can you think about it, NOW."

And long-running threads? Well, my experience is they take on a life of their own - often bearing no relation to original starter-question or opinion. Somebody adds something important but tangential, and everybody reacts to that, and so on.

Another factor? That there is often a very strong emotional or "drive" component to the question - for example:

- desperate, "oh-I-feel-for-him" ambition (sales guy);
- passionate devotion to one trainer/ approach/ style vs another (Tad James training, or not);
- attacks on components which require both belief AND competence (unconscious installation);
- college-philosophy-101-type arguments which have become bound up with identity ("I'm a reductionist and I don't believe in any of it - WHICH MEANS IT DOESN'T EXIST - and YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!"), and
- cheap trix to get hot chix - BECAUSE THAT'S UNFAIR, IN BAD TASTE, AND S-O-O-O IMMORAL.

I mean, if you want to deliberately angle your Qs to hit "hot-button" issues, go ahead. But I can think of better, worthier ambitions. And myself, I sort by what makes it interesting, not what makes it merely emotional. :-))

Eric.

PS. It may even be that these remarks of mine on threads prompt the tangential spin off from this one. I hope not - that really would be examining our own entrails.

Thank you Eric and Lenny for responding. I really appreciate it.

Eric,
Wow. There is so much in your post. I keep coming back and rereading it, thank you. By reading this last post and a few other of your recent posts, I am starting to be able to see and hear new things. I am now enjoying going back to older posts of yours and others and discovering more than when I first read them. I'm also looking forward to discovering the 6 indications of assoc/dissoc.

Charles

I'm also looking forward to discovering the 6 indications of assoc/dissoc. Charles

You didn't discover them in Eric's post ?

Hi Cameron,

This is a copy of the private message I'd already sent to Charles a few days ago:

Hi Charles,

Actually there's more than six - but having something for you to aim for is a start.

And much more of an achievement than being able to say what even some of them are (verbal coding) is being able to "just know" (non-verbal coding) which state the other person, the person you're working with, is in - from the gestalt of what you get.

Also, non-verbal processing is faster.

And BTW, "this isn't a test" - you don't have to report what you get to me, or anyone, in order to use it.

Best of luck,

Eric.

Sorry to be shooting your fox, Cameron. Pehaps you have something really witty and droll up your sleeve ... in reserve, as it were.