Man: You are firing off anchors with your tone of voice and emphasis.

That's right. The connotation of what you are saying is as important as the words you use to describe it. All the patterns for building connotation are the patterns of hypnosis, what we call the «Milton–model»: ambiguity, nominalization, all of that good stuff. For the most part people don't consciously notice all those linguistic forms because language goes by too quickly to process all the exact words. People read «There will be times when dinner is not served.» «No dinner!» It doesn't say that there's not going to be dinner. It doesn't say anything about that. If I say «You realize you are all alone," that doesn't mean that nobody is coming later. However, the fact that the statement is uttered implies that.

If I look at you and say «Are you here again in the front row?» it's just a question, but the tonal emphasis gives a few additional implications. «You again?» «Do you have another question?» I cannot emphasize enough the importance of what we call «congruence» and «expressiveness. " That is always going to be a very important part of the context in which the reframe occurs.

The actual physical context is also very important. It is very, very different to be in a doctor's office and see the doctor glance at you and look uncomfortable, than to see the same thing at a hotel registration desk. Those are two entirely different experiences, although the sensory experience has some similarities. I want you to keep the context in mind when you do reframing. That will help you to have the impact you want to have.

The frame that you put around a proposed new behavior will also have a strong impact on whether, or how, a person will consider it. Once for a demonstration someone brought in a client who was «frigid.» She was a school teacher with three children. Her husband wanted more sexually than she was able to offer, and she also congru–ently wanted more than she had been able to offer.

I established rapport quickly, and then said «Now, think of one thing that you can do sexually with comfort and ease. Don't tell me about it.»

Her slight body movements as she thought about it were ample evidence for me of what the content was, but she was unaware of that.

Then I said «And now think of one thing that lies just on the boundary of what is acceptable for you consciously as far as sexual behavior is concerned.» I asked her to consider actually engaging in some sexual behavior with her husband that wasn't quite acceptable: something that was a bit tantalizing and interesting, that she wasn't quite sure she could pull off, but that she thought some day she probably could. This was asking her to imagine doing something that was on the edge of the limits of her model of the world.

When I asked for that, I got a very strong polarity response. She wouldn't do it. No way. My understanding is that the part of her that had an objection to that kind of behavior was afraid that she might actually try it, so it stopped her from even considering it.

When I observed her polarity response, I shifted my own analogues and asked her to think of one of the most outrageous sexual behaviors that she could engage in with her husband—something that she knew for sure that she would never ever have the audacity to actually do. She was able to do that comfortably. She accessed, and went through a sequence of implicit muscle movements.

Later her therapist told me that the following day she sent her children off to school and her husband off to work, and told him to be sure to come home for lunch. When he came home for lunch, she was wrapped in cellophane with a big red ribbon—exactly the behavior that was so outrageous she would never consider actually doing it.

If the proposed new behavior is perceived as being somewhere within a person's model of what she might do, she may resist even considering it. But if you go far enough outside her model, you'll get a dissociation that allows her to consider it. Since the new behavior is framed as being totally beyond what this woman would consider doing, the part that objects has nothing to object to, and it's safe to allow her to think about it. Thinking about it allowed her to contemplate fully what it would be like to do the new behavior, thereby setting up the internal programs to do it at some future time. Considering the behavior fully, in context, is actually a future–pace—the same as step five of the six–step reframing.

Man: Why wouldn't the part object to the behavior as it is future–paced?

Well, what this particular part objected to was her considering doing the behavior, not the behavior itself. Once she actually considered the behavior, the part didn't object. If a part had objected to the behavior, she wouldn't have done it.

Many people limit themselves by never even considering certain behaviors. If they actually considered the behaviors, they would often find them acceptable. But some part objects to their even considering the behavior. The part assumes, with very little evidence, that doing the behavior would be bad, and it also may assume that if you consider a behavior you have to go ahead and do it.

One of the greatest favors you can do for many of your clients is to get them to make a distinction between considering a behavior and doing it. If they can do that, they can fully consider what it would be like to do anything. As they consider it, they can find out in internal experience what it would be like to do it, and they can discover whether or not they think it would be worthwhile—in terms of their values and goals—to actually do it in external experience.

Man: So reframing—whether it's a small belief or a larger presupposition—is simply taking the concern about something and making it into something positive.

No. Be careful with the «positive» stuff. You reframe in a way that is useful, in some context. You have to be careful about this «positive–negative» stuff. It's positive to be useful. That's a reframe, by the way.

So far we have talked exclusively about reframing something «bad» into something good, and in therapy that's usually the way it's most useful. But reframing isn't just for taking things that have negative connotations and changing them to have positive connotations. Sometimes it's useful to reframe the other way. For instance, think of somebody who really believes in himself, but is incompetent. He needs to have his confidence reframed to overconfidence.

I saw Frank Farrelly do an interesting «negative» reframe once. Frank was working with a man at a conference where I was supposed to model his behavior. The man was telling Frank about how he couldn't seem to get a zing out of his wife, basically. And Frank, in his inevitable form, was badgering the guy so fast he couldn't keep track of what he was saying.

Frank: «Well, do you ever kind of give other women the eye, you know?'

Man: «Well, yeah, sometimes.»

Frank: «But you get with your wife and nothing happens?»

Man: «Well, yeah, I just kind of stiffen up.»

Frank: «Well, where do you stiffen up? This is very important!»

Man: «Well, you know, all over.»

Frank: «And when you're with other women, do you stiffen up all over?'

Man: «Well, no, no. You know, I've had lots of interactions with other women and ah — "

Frank: «Interactions? Is that like fucking?» Frank is very subtle.

Man: «Well, ah … yes.»

Frank: «Does your wife know about this?»

Man: «No.»

Frank: «Well, does your wife have 'interactions,' too?»

Man: «Well, ah, no.»

Frank: «How do you know?»

Man: «Well, you know, I just feel that — "

Frank: «Ah! The intensity of your feelings is not the test of reality!»