Change Remedy?

[phil]

Something a client said recently has raised an interesting question for me: when asked 'what would you like to have happen?', they said:'to change... no, I want a change'.
Two things came to my mind from that, one straight away, the second as I was musing on it the next day.

The instantaneous awareness I had was to wonder about how different the first and second 'change' words seemed.

The 'to change' part of the answer is a verb which implies process, some action and an 'enactor'; that is, the client would DO something.

The second 'a change' categorises change as a thing, a something that can be got and is missing ('I want'). It doesn't imply action or an enactor.

Leaving aside my assumptions about what this might mean for this client and how it might be an example of 'it's happening now', as Penny Tompkins might say, a higher-level aspect of the client's response struck me this morning.

Using Penny and James PRO model (if you don't know it, you may like to read the article (http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/PRO.html)), I realised I wouldn't in this client's system describe 'change' as a Desired Outcome(DO) - it seemed far more like a Remedy, that is, a desire for not-the-Problem.

The key to this perception was in the sub-text, the backstory, the emergent information that as the session progressed made it clear where the client's attention was: on their Problem.

This is an important distinction I think. If I treat 'change' as a DO, I develop it: 'what kind of change?', ''is there anything else about change?', 'whereabouts is change like that?', etc.

This might encourage responses from the domain of:
the Desired Outcome ('a change that will mean I am happier')
the Current Problem ('well, because I'm stuck at the moment...')
or the Proposed Remedy ('so that I can get rid of my problems')
or it might develop the change process itself.

From now on when I hear 'change' in the client's first response to WWYLTHH?, I shall treat it cautiously. This means not developing it to start with, not until I am clearer about where 'change' sits in the client's system.

As the client will be waiting for a response from me, I will probably assume to start with that it's a Remedy statement and try the model's suggested reply question: 'and when change, then what happens?' to see if that leads more towards a DO.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Phil,

Thanks for bringing up the subject: couldn't it be that 'a change' refers to something outside the client, and 'to change' to something inside, or would it all depend on the client's logic?

Last week at the IEP-congres (see the thread 'Clean post-it in CS) I did a CS exercise (with a Belgian facilitator). I had stated my D.O. (B) in positive terms, but I put it on a wall-painting just beneath an angry looking face. So I couldn't help moving away from it (intruding on other peoples spaces) and even turning my back to it. When I was invited to return to B, I realized that the face was looking to me from a mirror (it turned out to be the angry queen from the fairy tale), so she had her back to me.

At that point I realized that 'a change' was not an option, so 'I' had 'to change' in order to deal with the situation.

What question would you ask me at this point?

Corrie

[phil]

That's an easy one! I would have asked you 'what would you like to have happen now' since your original DO would appear to have changed.

[Corrie van Wijk]

So 'a change' resulted in 'to change', which implied a change of B.

In Normandy David used boxes to put our D.O. on, so you could turn them and move them around. My client at the time even split the box into two pieces, so B ended up to be in two spaces.

Corrie

[hansvl]

hi there

I am brand new to clean language, just having read Metaphors in Mind and a bunch of articles, so bear with me please.

Phil's observation about the meaning of 'change' made me ask a metamodel question right away: change into what?

So returning to clean language, my intuition would tell me to understand this as a 'resolution' and my follow up question would thus be: 'and what happens next?'

Hans

[phil]

Hi Hans, welcome!

In the original post of this thread, the client's response to 'what would you like to have happen?' was:
'to change... no, I want a change' .
In this session with this client I agree with your assertion that this may well be an attempted resolution, if I may add that qualifying word to yours. This is what Penny and James call a Remedy which in the PRO model* would expect a 'And what happens next?' response.

At the same time I want to highlight that my characterising it as Remedy emerged from information that emerged as the session continued, not just the initial response - it. It would be too early IMO to classify the response based on just these few, vague words; 'change' is a generic, conceptual word with no sensory and precious little metaphorical information in it. So I think my next question would have been a developing question like 'anything else?' or 'what kind of?'; I don't remember now.



That said, the response 'and what happens next?' wouldn't be likely to do any harm in this context.

Phil

*now extended to include resources and renamed REPRO.

[JamesLawley]

Congratulations Hans on noting that the Meta-model question you considered: change into what? has all sorts of presuppositions built in, e,g.

- maybe, instead of Change 'into' ..., the client is thinking: Change 'from' ..., or Change 'to' ..., or Change 'with' ... etc.

- maybe, rather than 'what' ..., the client is thinking: 'who' or 'how' etc.

if you had asked your Meta-model question the client would need to:

(a) process/make sense of the question
(b) consider one or more answers to 'into what?'
(c) decide what/how to answer.

If, in the meantime they had been considering, say, 'a change with ease' they would likly stop attending to 'with ease' and instead start attending to 'into what'.

Of course, that maybe exactly what you, as the questioner want.

Using a 'clean' approach, the general aim is to ask questions that are congruent with where the client's attention currently is. In doing so, the idea is that:
(a) the client's experience will be acknowledged,
(b) the client does not need to abruptly shift their attention
(c) the client does not need to spend time and effort taking into account the facilitator's map.

Because, as Phil says, we do not know what aspect of 'a change' the client is attending to, we want to give them maximum opportunity to stay with their own experience. 'And then what happens?' is a fine question as long as you remeber you have asked them, to shift their attention to the next thing that happens (in their perception) and at some point you or they may well need to backtrack to where they started.

My favourite second question (after 'And what would you like to have happen?') is "And is there anything else about that?' which I would probably asked in this case.

You sound like you have a fair experience of NLP and so I hope this rather technical post makes sense. (If not, do say and I'll have another go.)

James

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

Hi All,
Corrie I am still not high enough on the Totem pole to be invited to ‘Normandy’ :cool: (sorry guys inside joke). However I was intrigued with the box exercise and have introduced it to a few sessions. A statement like the one you encountered Phil ‘to change... no, I want a change’ would be a perfect for this exercise.
Incorporating boxes and downloading what each ‘change’ knows you could get a real clean space exercise working here. By asking the client to represent what the first ‘change’ knows on a box, and what the other ‘change’ knows on another box. Each box becomes ‘B’ for its respective ‘change’, more information can be downloaded onto the boxes 6 faces. As they are loaded the space becomes psyco-active with respect to each other. The boxes (there maybe more than 2 boxes) then can be move around each other physically, thus moving in their psyco-active space. The results could be quite dramatic.
Without the boxes (which may just be a conscious mind distraction) I would look at analyzing what each ‘change ‘ knows individually and then what they knew about each other.
Cheers
John F

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Hans,

Thanks for joining us: your reply inspired me.

Of course Phil and James are right, you should develop the client's answer and patiently wait if (s)he comes up with a change 'into' or 'to' change and then proceed on that.

Hi John,

I think it is a good idea to use several B's and put them on boxes so they can form a system-space, and an overall change might emerge.


Corrie

[phil]

Hey, Corrie, remember, not everyone who reads your posts will know what a B is. Could you include a brief explanation? Thanks.

[hansvl]

thanks Phil for your clarifying question about "B". I have to say I was getting lost in the letters, although I suspect it has something to do with Clean Space. Of course, at this point in time, that suspicion really doesn't help me any!

[phil]

I think, Corrie, you have extended your description of what B contains in this case. I may have not made clear that I was hoping you would give a a brief explanation of what a 'B' is in relation to the model of A, B, space of C and D. I think this may be useful as Hans is not familiar yet with that model of David's. Thanks

Phil

[Corrie van Wijk]

ok, a little lecture:

- A in the ABCD model stands for the client, in the space (s)he is in now, at this moment of time;
- B is the statement you make at the beginning of a session about what you like to have happen (e.g. I would like to be in control of my situation).
You put the statement on a post-it (choose the right colour!) and put it where it (from the point of view of the statement) needs to be (you can also use an object that symbolizes it);
- C is the space between A and B. If you had already achieved your goal (to go from A to B), there wouldn't be a problem, so C is usually a problem-space. David says (so it is a law) you can never get from A to B by C. C is like a Kleenex box, you can pull out paper towels as many as you like (and dry your tears), they don't hold the solution: so you need to look outside the space of A (C) B, which is outside the box: D. (D originallly stands for David).

Read James's excellent article on clean space or go meet David!

[Corrie van Wijk]

Now that I thought this over: there is a third option: to change, a change, or change a part of something. I wouldn't need to change (to be honest, I'm perfectly happy with me), if I were able to change the situation (which I so far didn't manage to), but if I could change my attitude towards the situation, I wouldn't need to change, or would that imply a change in me?

So I could try several options for a solution of B. However, would a clean question be: 'what kind of attitude would I need to be in control of my situation', or, if that is not possible, 'what kind of attitude would I need to not let it bother me'?

So, would a change in a part of something be a change or to change?

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

Hi Phil,
I have been thinking about your question “what is ‘B’”. While ‘B’ itself is the download by the client of the information they know about their issue or goal. So the line of emergent questioning would go

F: “and what do you know about [x]?
F: “and can you put that up there or find something that represents that?
The client either writes, draws or however they want to represents their answer to that question. They may also find an object that represents their issue or goal.
The following question would be:
F: “and what else do you know about [x]?
F: “and can you put that up there?
Here they are loading ‘B’ this would be repeated as required.

Now here is my question; as they are loading ‘B’ it is becoming psyco-active and so is the space around it. So the pot plant or rubbish bin beside their drawing becomes part of their psyco-active space, does this hold information and how do you draw the clients attention to it? We draw the client’s attention to gestures, which they are unaware of, which often hold information. I have asked what the rubbish bin knows when the client has thrown their drawings away.

We tried playing with the idea of the horse becoming ‘B’ but he kept moving – but then this could also be part of what needed to happen!:confused:

So much to do and so little time.
John

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi John,

I wonder if uploading B (What would you like to have happen?) also would hold the solution, because B is not the problem, it's how to get there.

Wouldn't the clean questions 'What needs to happen before [change]?' or 'What happens just before [change]?' draw the client's attention to a solution?

Corrie

[phil]

John re your question... the pot plant or rubbish bin beside their drawing becomes part of their psyco-active space, does this hold information and how do you draw the clients attention to it?

This reminds me of figure/ground, foreground/background, focus/context. Whatever we pay attention to there is always stuff around it, physically and/or metaphorically. Chasing the 'around' can be like trying to look directly at one of those 'floaters' that occasionally appear in one's vision. You move your eye, the floater moves with your eye.

Still, when what was 'around' becomes the focus of attention, does it hold information? My view on this is that it does if the perceiver deems that it does. In my world view, the perceiver generates the information and puts it out into space, makes the world a metaphor, a map of the territory inside them. To re-use an over-used simplistic metaphor: information = film, perceiver = projector, space = screen. Different film or projector, different results on screen. That's why where I sit now, though it is a space which for one client was 'my worst nightmare' and another 'comfort zone', it holds neither of these projections for me.

In between your two questions, I would interpose 'how might the facilitator notice that 'around' holds information?' I offer this because I think this is an important precursor to your last question about how to draw their attention to it.

You touched on ways to notice with your reference to gestures: line-of-sight, quick unconscious glances, facial expressions, nonchalant waves of the hand. Word-choice, puns, phonic ambiguities are also part of what's available to notice that may be out of ('around') the client's awareness. In a clean process, one of the prime benefits a facilitator can offer to a client is to notice the unconscious references to information in the 'around'.

I think noticing perceivers' unconscious referencing 'around' is important because it is cleaner to direct the attention to something outside of the conscious awareness of the client if they have dropped clues as to its existence, rather than directing their attention to see whether there just 'happens' to be any information stored there.

I don't say the latter is wrong or that interesting stuff will not emerge from trying that. Given that there are infinite aspects of the 'around' that we could draw their attention to, it makes sense to me to work first with the information that the client seems to be indicating is relevant.

Finally to your 'how to'. You know this already of course. Clean Language and Clean Space have cleanish means to work with line-of-sight (e.g. pointing and asking 'and where do you go when you go there?') and gestures ('and what kind of [replicate gesture from client perspective] is that?'). For a more general effect, I have heard 'And is there anything else around that?' with the 'around' lightly stressed.

I wonder if anyone has collected all these 'periphery' (but not peripheral as in trivial) phrases together?

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

A couple of things come up for me Phil. It is important I think to develop a heightened awareness of the client’s conscious/ unconscious gestures. Therein lies information, the wave of a hand, the tapping of a finger. The direction of the wave, or the eye gazing towards a particular place, that place will also hold information.
F: “What could be over there?” (pointing in the direction of their gaze).
F: “what do you know from that direction there?” (when the are facing the direction of their gaze).

I noticed with a few clients that they will load ‘B’ and then when placing it in the right place they will start to move other objects around the room. So one client positioned ‘B’ (a sheet of flip paper) on the wall like a painting, then started to move the furniture around ‘B’. So pot plants moved and a small box was placed aside. They were all becoming psycho-active within the clients p-space, so I would expect that they hold information? My questioning might follow the line

F: “and what do you know about that (pot plant)?”
F: “and what do you know about that (small box)?”
F: “and what does that (pot plant) know about you?”
F: “& what does that (small box) know about you?”
Words in brackets only being used if they are the clients otherwise I would gesture to the object.


The question “what could be around that?” or “is there anything else around that?” are moving into a whole other level of David’s work, scaling! This is exciting work but I have only just advanced to training wheels in this stuff. It’s not a question I use lightly and seems to be more powerful than the Emergence work. Although using it once may give results, scaling is ‘meta driving’ that question.

As I have said there is such much to do and so little time.
Regards
John F

[phil]

I like the approach where you interrogate any objects the client interacts with. I am not sure I would 'expect' these to contain information, though they may do.

If a chair is physically in the way of reaching an object, it may be a metaphorical 'projected' obstruction or simply a chance piece of the local environment which doesn't match the gestalt in the client's mind that they are trying to portray. It's certainly worth asking the question.

We could say that the fact that it doesn't match is information in itself and we could say that about almost anything they interact with.

RE scaling, I have started another topic on that.

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

Not everything in the psychoactive space will hold information. However by being aware of the client we can deduce that an object or gesture may hold information.:rolleyes:

One questioning sequence you could use;
F: “and what do you know about that?”
F: “and what does that know about you?”
F: “and what does that not know about you?”


Sometimes the information isn’t in the knowing, it’s in the not knowing. When to ask these questions is art as much as science. :(

see what happens
John F

[phil]

being aware of the client we can deduce that an object or gesture may hold information


Yes, I appreciated the 'may' above as it seems appropriate to 'deduce' as in infer inconclusively, that is, not in a conclusive Sherlock Holmes fashion but rather along the lines of that police phrase 'having reason to believe'. That way I remember that my deduction may still be wide of the mark so I hold it lightly.

The question sequence reminds me of 1st and 2nd position questions in NLP. I somehow felt a 4th question would complete the set:

F: “and what do you know about that?”
F: “and what does that know about you?”
F: “and what does that not know about you?”
and
F: “and what do you not know about that?”

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Phil,

Adding a few more questions to the above:

F: 'And what do you know you don't know about that?'
F: 'And what don't you know you don't know about that?'

[The unknown] can only be described in terms of the known. If we say 'I don't know', at least we know that we don't know something, if anything. Not knowing what you don't know makes it impossible to even be aware of what is beyond your present knowledge, or even to imagine that there would be anything.

Clean space is about downloading information from several spaces and by having all that information interact in your brain, (perhaps) making sense of it.


Corrie

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

Hi Phil & Corrie,
OK you asked for our full sequence……….
What do you know about that?
What don’t you know about that?
What do you not know about that?
What don't you not know about that?
At the right time this sequence (in 6’s) can really break a person from a stuck place.

Talking about objects hold information. We are experimenting with the horse in these interactions. The horse (for the client) holds no judgments, hence its interactions become part of the metaphor, and p-space the client is working in. We had a case where the client was attempting to spin in one direction (right) and the horse wouldn't let her. It followed her around the other way but when she again tried to turn towards the right the horse blocked the way. The client drew information form this action thoughts that effected her outcome and helped her to a greater understanding.
So objects within the p-space could develop information as the session plays out.

Especially watch out for dogs and cats who can have some major interactions in these sessions. We would like to have a dog on all our 7-day course, because of some of the experiences we have had.

Have a great weekend
John

[phil]

As in raining cats and dogs? :-)

Your innovative work with the horse, made me think about the 'clean-ness' of space. 'Clean space' and 'perceptual space' are concepts and projections, aren't they? Space has always got stuff in it that we respond to consciously or unconsciously. I wonder if we could ever relate meaning to a locus in space, without there being features of that space to associate it with? Some 'news of difference': a hook, a grain of sand to be coated in the nacrous secretion of our beliefs. If there's a rubbish bin, we'll use that, won't we, rather than a point in the air 2cm above, 15 cm to the side and 10cm beyond it?

I don't think humans are very good at coping with undifferentiated data; we will normally create a structure, look for (create) patterns. When someone says 'Sit anywhere...' I want to say '...but I can't, I have to sit somewhere...'

Maybe taking a spatial environment and deliberately naming or 'calling' the salient features at the start of a session would be cleaner than acting as if a space around one is 'unpopulated'. Cleanest if the calling is done by the client. e.g. F: "What's [around you] here?" C: "There's a floor and a fence and you and a horse and the sky and the sun and that tree over there".

Lving creatures in that space are part of the space and disturbances in it. They change it as they move - partly in a clean way to the extent that they are self-governing and inhabit the environment in a way that is largely unaware of and disinterested in the client's perceptions and partly in a way that is not clean, that responds to the client's actions.

Moving to human animals, I wonder what we can learn about ourselves by our reactions to the existence of other people in our day-to-day space?

I was at an exclusive restaurant a couple of nights ago, for a posh evening out with friends (an unusual occurence!). We had all followed the dress code and decked ourselves out in the required formal attire. The manager of the place was a friend and I watched his face as seven guests who were not 'properly dressed' were quietly shown (at his previous insistence) to a private dining room. His face was a picture; disdain, dislike - almost despair!

His awareness was not on his own reaction but rather on the seven miscreants who had dared to set foot in his space without the right clothing. I venture to suggest that his reaction said more about him than about them. They were ripples in the field of his projected perceptions, which surfaced aspects of him that we would not otherwise have seen. If he had been in a self-awareness process, he might also have been aware of them.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Phil,

Above you state: " 'Clean space' and 'perceptual space' are concepts and projections, aren't they? Space has always got stuff in it that we respond to consciously or unconsciously."

I like this statement: especially the fact that space triggers our mind unconsciously. E.g., if I'm in the kitchen and I need a pair of scissors to open some package and can't find them in one of my drawers, I may walk into the living room to look for them, but when I get in the livingroom I may have forgotten why I went there in the first place. I can't remember, so from experience I know that the best strategy to find out is to go back into the kitchen, then I remember.

Similarly, I believe that all the (un)conscious stimuli that are triggered in a certain space are related to (all) the time(s) they were triggered before and left some trace that allows you to recognize the situation and respond emotionally.


Then you say: "I wonder if we could ever relate meaning to a locus in space, without there being features of that space to associate it with? Some 'news of difference': a hook, a grain of sand to be coated in the nacrous secretion of our beliefs. If there's a rubbish bin, we'll use that, won't we, rather than a point in the air 2cm above, 15 cm to the side and 10cm beyond it?"

I don't think meaning has to be related to anything in a perceptial space for it to work. Just the (unconscious) perception of it does it's work. A change of light, a difference in distance to something else, other sounds, etc. can trigger memories and associated emotions.


You continue: "I don't think humans are very good at coping with undifferentiated data; we will normally create a structure, look for (create) patterns. When someone says 'Sit anywhere...' I want to say '...but I can't, I have to sit somewhere...' "

I agree very much with that: that's why it is important for us as intelligent beings, living in a complicated world, to make sense of what is happening in our brain and make a conscious choice of what we need: 'I want to sit right here' (perhaps after having tried several spaces). Then you may analyze why you want to sit in that particular space, and you'll recognize, e.g. that you always like to sit at the window, because your mother used to hug you over there.


Finally you wonder: "Moving to human animals, I wonder what we can learn about ourselves by our reactions to the existence of other people in our day-to-day space?"

I think other people in our day-to-day space are part of our perception of that space. We may like to move away from them if they trigger negative feelings or we would like to approach them if we 'like' their presence. Perhaps you could treat this similar as the positioning of the WWYLTHH-statement (B). Is he/she, am I in the right space, at the right distance, at the right height?
I think it would be very disturbing if they start moving on their own, and probably would need you to adjust to that, spacially or mentally, every time they do.

Corrie