«Then I want you and this person to look into the future together to see how present events will develop without you. As you do this, I want you to consider if there is anything you want to do now before you go, to influence those future events… .

«Now take the time to do the same with each and every one of those people you have gathered around you.»

If the person is truly ready to die, it can alert him to the things he needs to do first so that his death has the most constructive impact on his friends and relatives. If the person is not congruently ready to die, this ritual will give you lots of information about the outcomes behind his decision to suicide, and you can use this information to develop other ways of satisfying them. You will also learn a lot about the people and events that still have meaning for him, and you can use this as leverage to help accomplish the changes you want to make.

Now let's get back to the exercise and talk about the other part of it. Somebody give me a sensory–grounded description of what you could see, hear, or feel—if you were making tactile contact—that seemed to be an indication that you just did a successful reframe. What did you observe when there was a reorganization of the person's understanding unconsciously—and usually also partially at the conscious level—that indicated that you succeeded in the reframe?

Ben: There was a loosening of the body, especially in the chest. The muscle tension in the face and shoulders softened.

Does anyone have any counter–examples to that? Did anybody tighten up in that area when the reframe worked?

Man: The initial surprise seemed to make them tighten up … and then they relaxed.

Becky: I experienced what I perceived to be a slight epileptic seizure internally, and then I relaxed.

OK. Did it show up externally?

Becky's Partner: Yes. I also noticed another thing. When Becky was considering something, she would «chew it over» metaphorically. She was also literally chewing. It was very visible in her jaw movements.

OK, and what happened when she made a decision on whether or not she was going to swallow it?

Becky's Partner: Her jaws relaxed, and there were major skin color changes. Each time I made the reframing statement, there was a visible pink flush in her cheeks and forehead.

OK, so there was an increase in blood flow to the skin. Are there any counter–examples to that?

Woman: Along with the tightening there was some whitening, and then the flush came with the relaxation.

What we are describing now are some of the visible signs of the functioning of the autonomic nervous system. There are two parts to the autonomic nervous system: the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. The two tend to balance each other through opposite effects.

Sympathetic activation results in increased muscle tension and a readiness to respond physically to some threat. There is more adrenalin, and the skin whitens as the blood vessels and pupils constrict. Parasympathetic activation results in muscle relaxation, flushing of the skin, dilation of blood vessels, dilation of the pupils, etc.

These are some very general visible characteristics of those two systems. What we have been describing is that people tend to have sympathetic activation when presenting a complaint and considering the reframe. Then they shift to parasympathetic activation when the reframe works, which is what you would expect to occur. If the reframing works, what was perceived as a problem to cope with becomes not a problem at all. What other changes did you observe?

Ken: I saw accessing changes. Typically when the client was presenting her complaint, she would be in one mode of accessing. Usually the ones we saw were high–intensity kinesthetic. As we presented the reframe, her accessing switched into a visual or auditory pattern. Then when we went back and talked about the problem situation, she accessed in the second pattern.

Excellent. That's a really elegant nonverbal test to find out if the reframe continues to work after you first introduce it. Your client may accept your reframe at the time that you make it. Later, she may reject it because of objections that arise. However, if later you mention some other dimension of the same presenting problem, and you see that she goes through the accessing sequence which was characteristic of the reframe and not the accessing sequence that was there before the reframe, then you know that the reframe is integrated into her experience of the problem area.

Woman: That's what happened with Bob. His eyes went to visual construct when he made the complaint. When the reframing took place, his eyes became defocused and he stared straight ahead. Then when I mentioned the complaint again, he went through that same defocusing process.

Great. As far as I'm concerned, the generalization is this: one indicator that the reframe works at the moment is that you get a different accessing sequence when the person considers the same problem area. You observe some new strategy. Perhaps rather than being locked into kinesthetic feelings, the person is able to take a new perspective. Or you may observe the same accessing sequence, but with a different response. You recognize that by observing the autonomic cues that we mentioned earlier: skin color changes, breathing changes, muscle tension changes, etc.

Then you go on to other material, or have the client practice some new behavior to be wired in, so that she has lots of choices in the context that you reframed. Then later, at the end of the session, you can use what you observed earlier to test whether the reframe has endured. You might ask «By the way, does so–and–so—who is part of the original presenting problem—have a moustache?' If you see the same changes that were characteristic of the reframe moment, then you know you've got integration for that material. If not—if she goes back directly to the original pattern—then you might suspect that you need to do some more work. Any other examples or comments?

Woman: My client was playing a blind person, and she said «You people just don't understand what it is like to be blind.» I said «Gee, we must be missing a lot.» Her whole body jerked, and her eyes opened up.

Great! What you said reversed the presupposition of her statement. She's complaining «You don't understand what it's like to be blind and miss so much.» Your response is " We're the ones who are missing out.»

This is a typical pattern that Carl Whitaker uses. Let me give you an example. Carl is working with a family and the father says «Nobody in this family has ever supported me by taking care of me. I always have to do it all myself. No one is ever solicitous or takes care of me, and it's been like this my whole life.» His supporting nonverbal behavior is «Isn't it terrible that I should have to live through this!» Whitaker watches and listens very attentively. When the man finishes, Whitaker pauses meaningfully while the man is waiting for some supporting remark like «Oh, that's really too bad. Maybe we can make changes in the family.» Then Carl looks over at him and says «Thank God!»

The outcome of that maneuver is 1) pattern interruption, because Carl's response is so unexpected, 2) the father will go inside and search for some way of figuring out how he could possibly be glad about that behavior, and 3) it honors the part of the father that has organized his behavior in such a way that nobody ever supports him in an overt way by taking care of him.

If you think about the message that is being offered, it's actually a conscious–mind complaint about his own behavior. He has behaved in such a way that no one has ever formed a relationship in which they take care of him. The response that Carl offers is a validation of the part that put him in that position of not having people take care of him. He is essentially saying «I'm sure glad that this part of you established those kinds of relationships with your family members and caused those behaviors to occur.»