Now, ask if it thinks it's important enough to pay attention during lectures, that it would be willing not to interrupt the «well–being» part when it spends time preparing to do things. Even though the «listen to lectures» part may not enjoy the process of having to pay bills, ask if it thinks paying attention when you go to lectures is important enough that it would be willing not to interrupt the other part in exchange… .

Bill: Umhm.

Now, if we think about this in terms of the six–step reframing model, where are we?

Man: Just short of the ecological сheck.

How much short? Is it the next step? Have we done step four—giving the part three new ways? … Do we need to get three new ways? …

No. In negotiating we don't need to get three alternatives. Both parts already have appropriate behaviors. All we need is for them not to interfere with each other. That is the new choice, so step four is out of the way.

Have we gotten both of these parts to accept the responsibility for not interrupting each other? … Have they agreed to do it? …

No, they haven't agreed to do it. They said they would agree. Remember, this process is always broken into two parts: First, in step four, the part agrees that the new choices are better and more effective than the one it's using now. Second, in step five, you ask «Will it be responsible for actually using these new choices?» Many people leave that step out. As any of you who have children know, agreeing that a task is worth doing and agreeing to do it are very different things.

So now we want to say «Look, I want to get these two parts together and find out if they will make an agreement not to interfere with one another and to test this agreement for the next six weeks. The part of you that is in charge of worrying and taking care of business will not interrupt while you are listening to a lecture or doing the activities that this other part does. And that part will not interrupt the planner when it is taking care of business.» Get them both to agree that they'll try it out for six weeks and find out how it works. If either one becomes dissatisfied during this time, then they will notify you, so that you can negotiate further.

There may be other parts involved, and of course things change, so you always want to provide the person with a next step. The last time I went to Dallas, a therapist said to me «I was in your seminar a year ago and I did reframing with a woman about her weight. She went on a diet and she lost tons of weight and she's been thin for almost a year. Then about a month ago she started to gain weight, and I want to know what I did wrong.» What did the therapist do wrong? … She assumed that there was some relationship between eleven months ago and now! People change all the time. How many changes could that woman have gone through in eleven months that could have gotten in the way of keeping her weight down? The point is that nothing lasts forever. However, if something goes wrong, you can always go back and modify what you did, to take the new changes into account.

Now, what's left to do? What about step six, the ecological check? What do we need to do to have an ecological check in the negotiation model?

Man: Ask for any objections. «Is there some way in which this may not work?» Who's going to object? Man: The other parts.

The other parts haven't agreed to do anything, so what would they object to?

Bill: Other parts still might object to agreements that have been made that might interfere with them in some way.

How? Give me an example. Other parts haven't agreed not to interrupt.

Woman: What if there's another part that interrupts things?

Well, that part has not made any agreements yet.

Bill: If there's some part that uses the interruption as a signal to do its thing, then we're taking away its ability to take action. For example, in another seminar you talked about a woman who wanted to stop smoking. It turned out that another part used smoking as a cue that it was time to talk to her husband. Every evening she sat down to have a cigarette with her husband and they used that time to talk. The part that wanted her to talk to her husband had not agreed to anything, but the opportunity for it to perform its function had been taken away.

OK. In your case you are «worrying» and you have a part that comes in and says «Hey, let's go do something else.» That interrupts the part that «worries.» Do you think there's another part that could get something from that interruption? Is that what you're saying?

Bill: That's possible.

OK. Give me an example.

Bill: I haven't got one. I'd have to generate one.

Good, generate one.

Bill: I'm worrying, and a part interrupts to play. Some of my play also has a very definite physical health motivation. For example, I label jogging as play, but it also has to do with my physical health. So if I were worrying and my play part didn't interrupt my worry part for a long time, the part that watches out for my physical health would get left out.

Are you saying that part can't interrupt on its own?

Bill: No, it can interrupt on its own, and it probably would. So why don't we ask to see if it is going to interrupt, or if it has any objection to what has been agreed to here?

Well, is there any need to do that? …

There's another way to think about this, which is what I am leading up to. What happens if we ask «Does any part object to these two parts making the agreement?» If we get a «No» do we learn anything? …

No. We learn nothing. So it's a stupid question to ask.

Man: But if we get a «Yes» we have learned something.

Right. However, can we ask a question which will get the information we want; can we ask a question that will get any possible «Yes» answers, and something else?

Man: Do any of the other parts have any suggestions?

OK. «Are there any other parts involved in this?» «Are there any other parts that interrupt this part or utilize those interruptions?» «Are there any other parts that might interrupt either of the two of you?» That kind of question is going to get us the information we want.

Man: Also if we have been completely off base in identifying these two parts, that will get us back on the track of finding the parts that are involved in this problem.

Right. That kind of question also does something else that is very important: it can give you relevant information about how this person's parts are organized. In your example you have a «work» part and a «play» part. Some people's play part has within it a part that says «This is how we're going to stay healthy.» Some people's play part only plays poker and smokes cigars, while somebody else's goes out and jogs on the beach. It depends upon how you organize your parts.

Jogging is a great example of a reframe, by the way. Anybody who can jog six miles a day and call it «play» is already a master of reframing as far as I'm concerned. It's a good reframe to have. If you're going to do reframing, you might as well do it in places where it is useful. Some people even decide «It's cool to be a jogger.» You get to wear special shorts and shoes and other running gear. It's become fashionable. What a great reframe. I think that's marvelous. Let's all be healthy because it's groovy. If some people could reframe sugar to taste bad, think how much their lives would change. If you can redefine fun as being something that's healthy, I think that's really slick. When I was growing up, «fun» was beating each other up, and sitting around in drive–ins eating hamburgers and french fries and smoking cigarettes.

Kit: I'm suddenly having a lot of trouble taking notes. I just noticed that I wrote «jiggling» instead of «jogging.» Can I talk to you about that now, … or later?