Deciding which model to use is only a question of when you're going to tell which lie. I'm serious about that. If I look meaningfully at somebody in a session and say «Now, look, there's a part of you that finds this a little scary and I can understand that," that's a huge lie. «Part of what?» I don't know what that means. Or we can say «Now, you have a strategy, and your difficulty is a byproduct of this strategy.» These are all just ways of talking about things, and those words are not grounded in reality. These descriptions are just useful ways of organizing experience.

It's not that one way of talking approximates reality more closely than the other one. Whenever you start trying to decide that, you're gone. People who try to approximate reality fall into what we call «losing quotes.» For example, once I was reading a Tolkien book out loud to some kids. One of the characters in the book, Strider, said to Frodo «Close the door," and one of the kids I was reading to got up and shut the door. That's losing quotes.

The biggest losing quotes of all is what we call the «lost performative» in the Meta–Model. The most dangerous, and I think the most lethal, is losing quotes on yourself and believing that your thoughts are reality: believing that people really are «visual," «kinesthetic," or «auditory»; believing that people really are «placators," «super–reason–ables," or anything. Believing that you actually have a «parent," «child," and «adult» is psychotic! It's one thing to use those constructs to do good work—to organize someone's behavior. It's quite another thing to lose quotes and believe that that's reality. So when you say «Well, this lie approximates what's 'really' going on more than the other one» be very careful, because you are on dangerous terrain. You might become a guru if you do that.

Somebody like Werner Erhard is in a dangerous situation. If he loses quotes on his own ideas, then he's going to go into a very strange loop. If somebody who goes to EST loses quotes, typically they'll fall out of EST after a while, so the consequences aren't too bad. However, if the guy that runs EST loses quotes, then it's all over.

I don't know which model of reframing is more real. I would never admit it if I thought one was more real than the other. More important, it doesn't matter if one is more real.

Man: One is more real for me and yet neither of them is real.

Well, you can get by with that one. Whichever lie works, it's important that you understand that they are all lies. They are only ways of organizing your experience to go somewhere new. That's the only part that counts. We're going to assume that the other lie, the six–step model, is antiquated because it's been around too long. That is always a good policy. That model, presupposing that one part is responsible for negative behavior, has been around for several years now.

So we're going to take another lie for a while and assume that the problem is not inherently that some part generates behavior that you don't want. We're going to assume that the problem behavior is the result of the interaction of two or more parts, and the solution will come from negotiating between them.

So let's say somebody comes in and says «I can't study. I sit down and I try to study, and I can't concentrate. I think about going skiing.» With the old model we'd say «There is a part that interrupts your concentration.» Rather than doing that, with this model we say «Look you've got lots and lots of parts inside of you. You've got all kinds of parts running around doing different jobs. You have the ability to study. You have the ability to go out and play. When you sit down to study, some other part is active in trying to carry out its function.»

In order to negotiate a solution, I need to identify each part, get communication with each part, and get the positive intention of each Part. I might start by going for the part that interferes with studying. So I say «I'd like you to go inside and ask if the part of you that really wants to study knows which other part is annoying it so that it can't concentrate fully.» Then I have you go to this interfering part and ask What is your function?» That's a quick way to find out what the intention behind the behavior is. «What do you do for this person?»

«Well, I get him to go out and play.»

Then I want to find out if the interference goes both ways. I ask this part, «When you want to get the person to go out and play, do other parts get in your way? Does this work part ever come in and say 'Hey, you should be studying'?» If you get a positive answer, you've got it cinched, because then both parts want something from the other, and all you've got to do is make a trade.

Bill: I don't even understand how you get that part to say what its function is.

You don't? There's no way in the world that you could possibly do that.

Bill: Well, I want to keep listening to you.

Is that the only option you have? Do you ever have trouble listening at a lecture? Have you ever had trouble doing that? Bill: Sometimes.

Would you go inside and ask if the part of you that likes to listen to lectures knows which part interrupts it from time to time … ? Bill: Umhm. It knows one of the parts. OK. Did it give you a name?

Bill: Yeah. The part that worries about business and financial matters. The part that worries about things—the worry part.

The «worry part.» Listen to that name! Which of the two types of content reframing is really appropriate right now?… Meaning. This is very important. If you define a part as «The Old Worry Part» you'll have much more difficulty getting to its positive function.

So there's some part of you that has grave concerns about things, and gets labeled your «worry part.» I'm wondering if you could go inside and ask «Will the part of me that gets labeled the 'worry part' tell me what your function is for me? What is it that you do for me?' … OK, did it tell you?

Bill: Umhm.

Do you agree that this function is something positive?

Bill: Yes, it is positive under some circumstances. The worry part overdoes it, I think.

Well, if I was your worry part, I would, too. That's all I've got to say!

Bill: It keeps me behaving responsibly, and keeps me paying my bills; it keeps me out of jail.

OK. The point is that it interrupts you sometimes when you want to concentrate on something else. Now go back and address the part of you that concerns itself with your well–being, which you like to call your «worry part» — a little meaning reframe there! Ask that part the following: when it's trying to do what it does for you in terms of adequate planning and motivating you to take care of business and that sort of thing, is it ever interrupted by the part of you that would rather be just paying attention to a lecture, listening to a tape, or doing something else that part does? Go inside and ask it if it ever gets interrupted by that particular part.

Bill: I just scanned a whole lot of interruptions, and when I came back out, I noticed my head was bobbing up and down.

That «well–being» part has a tendency to be more visual, that's true. It makes sense.

Bill: Umhm. It's always on the lookout for possible dangers.

Now, ask that «well–being» part this: if it was not interrupted when it was spending time organizing your behavior in the activity that you call 'worry'—what I call 'preparation'—would it be willing to allow you to listen to lectures without interrupting? Ask if that's a trade it would be willing to make, if it had a way of being sure that the other part wouldn't interrupt it. … (Bill nods.)

OK. Now, go to the part that likes to listen to lectures. Ask if that part thinks it's important for you to pay attention during lectures, and not to let your mind wander into things which are not important at that particular time… . (Bill nods.)