Setting up the 'like what?' question

[phil]

Abstract from email from Phil Swallow to James Lawley, 14th November, 2003

PHIL:


I was recently thinking about how the setting up of a question (consciously or not) affects how 'useful' it is. Like when a question doesn't seem quite right, somehow misses the mark (whose mark? :-) ).

Perhaps sometimes this happens when the context isn't established in the mind of the client, say because the attention has suddenly been shifted to elsewhere in the information field or just because it has not been developed at all. You know that thing where clients look puzzled and say "Eh? What do you mean?"

One example is when the 'like what' question is asked before any development of the experience has occurred

<font color="#0000FF">"What would you like to have happen?"</font>
<font color="#339900">"Well, I feel a bit strange"
</font><font color="#0000FF">"Strange like what?"
</font><font color="#339900">"Umm, I don't know really, just strange"</font>

as opposed to

<font color="#0000FF">"What would you like to have happen?"
</font><font color="#339900">"Well, I feel a bit strange"
</font><font color="#0000FF">"And when you feel a bit strange, where do you feel a bit strange?"</font>

...develop, develop, then...

<font color="#0000FF">"And when you feel a bit strange right here, deep inside, around your heart and clutching, that's [strange/clutching/around or whatever (or nothing)] like what?"</font>

When it has happened to me as a fac that a client doesn't understand the questions, I think it has been because the client isn't 'warmed up' yet (PERSON AS MACHINE metaphor). Perhaps that's right, if warmed up is taken to mean that the question does not have its supportive context around it.

I saw a programme the other day about how the brain responds to music in different ways and how different areas of the brain were stimulated in different places by different composers (they show false-colour brain scans).

I would be interested to know whether the area of stimulation switches on straightaway in response to the new stimulus or whether it builds over time. You know that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system, so which is the second smallest planet?

Sorry to do that to you - I am curious - how long did it take you to switch contexts? Did you 'switch' or did you balk at the sudden shift of attention/context? Or some other response?</p>


<font color="#0000FF">JAMES
I had a tiny K reaction which caught my attention and was more interesting than the answer to your question, which I ignored. I later interpreted the K as a reaction to my attention being jerked around. (This is probably a family thing as jumping from topic to topic is a family hobby). However, if the solar system had been part of my metaphor landscape,then I would have been much more interested and probably would have found an answer to your question.</font></p>


PHIL
Into my mind come the many times we have seen beginners to this craft ask questions of the info apparently at random and end up comprehensively confusing both the client and themselves. I wonder if there is isomorphism (="similarity of structure") between zooming/nesting the location questions/responses and setting up/asking the
other questions.

Certainly I think that what you teach us about 'if you can't get a name, get an address and any attribute of the experience until a name/symbol emerges' is like putting together all the jigsaw piece that one CAN match until it becomes obvious which remaining pieces MUST fit in the gap.</p>


<font color="#0000FF">JAMES
I like the metaphor of "setting up" the question. I've also used "preparing the ground" as a way of hinting at the importance of context. This raises the whole question of when to use:

</font><font color="#0000FF">the full 3-part syntax,
the reduced 2-part syntax (especially the value and "and when ..."), and
when just the question on its own works a treat.</font></p>


PHIL
And sometimes asking a question out of context just works anyway (because the client is good at understanding their own info, or because their pattern is never to change the context of their thoughts?).</p>


<font color="#0000FF">JAMES
Maybe the more the landscape is developed the more the odd 'bizarre' question is absolutely necessary to act as a catalyst for generating new connections, insight or meaning.</font></p>


Further thoughts anyone?

[hansvl]

this is a very interesting thread.

I am brand new to Clean Language, and there is no training here on the West Coast, so I am doing little experiments on my own so that I can learn.

I find that people at times don't seem to understand the questions, and I was wondering if it might be a matter of poor rapport. I work in a prison setting, and as a member of the staff, I am "one of them", meaning one of the people that is part of the system designed to control the inmate.

In addition, for inmates it is important to be hyper alert, as there is so much violence between inmates. I was wondering if that might interfere with the state of mind that is evoked by asking the clean questions.

I feel a little sheepish to realize now that I did not even consider that part of it might be my own clumsiness with this new approach!

[super_yacht@hotmail.com]

I’m interested in how you know the client has setup their psychoactive space? By moving objects around they become emerged in the process. I would see this as similar to ‘warmed up’, they are in flow and can answer all sorts of questions, at times coming up with answers unrelated to the question (or that may just be me ignoring Steve :D ).
When the wrong question is asked or the facilitator makes an error in reflecting the client’s words the client can flip out of flow and then the questions grate. They struggle to answer them usually replaying "I don’t know” perhaps because they are back in their conscious (real world) space.
So my question is do we need to be aware of when the client is in process (flow) and when we un-cleanly interrupt this. Out of process do the questions need to be the simpler ones to reconnect with the metaphor?
I think David would say ask a recap question; “& what do you know?”, “& what else do you know?”

Cheers John F

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi John,

Above you ask: "do we need to be aware of when the client is in process (flow) and when we un-cleanly interrupt this."

I think you need to be aware of what kind of process the client is in, no matter if (s)he is in a flow or not.

[Corrie van Wijk]

As I was in the flow of writing this contribution, the fire alarm went of, so I looked around to the other people in the room (which I wasn't aware of before) and ask cleanly: "What is this supposed to mean?" So someone responded: "It means that I am going to shut down my computer and go outside." It sounded like a sensible think to do, so I followed her example.

When I got outside with all the other people in the building, I overheard a professor stating: "The question is, should this person, although we know he has committed terrorist crimes, be handed over to Iran?" I didn't feel like thinking about this question, so I went to the mall and found a dog eating up a garbage bag. It wouldn't respond to any of my clean questions, so the obvious thing to do was to ask who would be the owner of the dog.

Then I wondered what I could buy for the 10 cents left in my pocket ...

So, wouldn't your question depend on the kind of process that is going on?....

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hans asked the question if, when clients do not understand your questions, that would be a matter of poor rapport.
John added the question of how to get your client back into the process if for some reason, especially an un-clean question, they got distracted.

Above I stated that, perhaps, the right question to get your client involved in his or her process again, would depend on the kind of process that is going on.

If people are not used to clean questioning it might seem a bit odd at first. We discussed this when developing Carol and David's Clean Coaching in the pilot. Carol's advice was to explain it a bit beforehand, say it is a new technique and ask your client just to go along with it.

Also, in developing a syllabus for clean space with John and Keiko, we discussed the possibility of setting up the space by asking the client to move around the room a bit, so (s)he can get different 'points of view'.
Now, Hans, you might think this would be difficult in a prison setting, but it is not: even less than an inch can make a difference! And there is always the possibility of a 'proxy space', one that represents the space outside, that we can not go to (or David would rather avoid because it is cold and rainy!).

Wendy has developed, with David, conversational clean language, see the Clean Change Company's newsletter. It seems to me that's easier on someone who is not used to this kind of thing.

As for John's question, if people get distracted during a session, I would think that just waiting for a cue would be the best thing, and go from there. Also, getting distracted might be part of the process: perhaps the conscious is too afraid to deal with the matter.

If all this doesn't help, I think the kind of process that is going on (if you know about it) would be the best cue for continuing:
- if it is an emergency, a question about how to avoid the danger (e.g. what needs to happen before...) would be appropriate
- if it is an intellectual process (the kind you need your neo-cortex to think about), a clean question, e.g. about the relationship between things might help
- if it is a story, a 'then what happens' may get them on track again
- if it is a feeling, a 'what happens to X' might draw their attention to the symbol they used initially.

Any other examples?

Corrie