Steve Andreas’ NLP Blog

NLP Articles, News, and Tidbits about Psychotherapy and Personal Development

What is the Experience of “Meta”?

What is the Experience of “Meta”?
A dialogue between Steve Andreas and Michael Hall

Some time ago, I (Steve) made the following general proposal to Michael for a dialogue to exemplify a respectful exchange of views in the field:

In the past, you and I have had significantly different fundamental understandings on a number of issues that could be the basis for a public dialogue between us, such as:

1. Whether or not it is important to distinguish between two uses of “meta” to refer to large scope (“the big picture”) or general category — a topic I explored at length in my Six Blind Elephants books.

2. My description of your concept of “layering” as the reverse of nested categories in the logical levels of naïve set theory, as set forth in Elephants, pp. 114-116

3. Whether Submodalities are meta or subdivisions of scopes of experience.

Of course you may have changed your views on one or more of these issues, or you might prefer to choose others. Assuming we could agree on an interesting issue on which we have differing views, I have some fairly specific ideas about how to create a respectful dialogue to avoid misunderstandings, side issues, etc.

Privately one of us would write up a position statement on the selected issue, and the other would respond to it in writing. Then we would each edit or revise our positions until we are both satisfied that we have had an opportunity to present our position fully, respond fully to the other’s position, and that we each understand the other clearly, to avoid problems like, “Well, that’s not what I said,” or “That’s what I said, but what I really meant was—” etc. This would also be an opportunity for each of us to notice any “ad hominem” arguments or other logical fallacies, and remove them.

After we are both satisfied with the result of this process, we would jointly offer this to the public (the summit group, your and my blogs) and invite comments from others.

I think this could serve as an example of working toward clarification or resolution of important issues that currently divide or confuse the field. Please let me know if you might be interested in joining with me on this, and/or if you have other views on how we could better accomplish the goal of presenting contrasting views in a way that could provide a productive dialogue.

Michael agreed in principle, and sent me a number of different extensive position statements on the meaning of “Meta,” and I take this as an invitation to focus on this topic. I prefer to begin with a more concise statement for our dialogue, but other writing projects (and my struggle with greatly diminished energy due to Parkinson’s disease) have delayed me until now.

Read the rest of this entry »

Self-acceptance and Self-rejection

I want to begin with a quotation from my old teacher Fritz Perls, who developed Gestalt Therapy:

It is obvious that an eagle’s potential will be actualized in roaming the sky, diving down on smaller animals for food, and in building nests. It is obvious that the elephant’s potential will be actualized in size, power and clumsiness.

No eagle will want to be an elephant, no elephant to be an eagle. They “accept” themselves; they accept them-“selves.” No, they don’t even accept themselves, for this would mean possible rejection.

They take themselves for granted. No, they don’t even take themselves for granted; that would imply the possibility of otherness. They are what they are what they are.

How absurd it would be if they, like humans, had fantasies, dissatisfactions and self-deceptions! How absurd it would be if the elephant, tired of walking the earth, wanted to fly, eat rabbits and lay eggs. And the eagle wanted to have the strength and thick skin of the beast.

Leave this to the human—to try to be something he is not—to have ideals that cannot be reached, to be cursed with perfectionism so as to be safe from criticism, and to open the road to unending mental torture.

—from Fritz Perls’ autobiography, In and Out the Garbage Pail.


Discovering and Understanding Hidden Self-negation

As we interact with other people, we are always responding to each other, and some of these messages will be liking and disliking aspects of what we and others do. As long as these messages are freely given and received, with no demand to be different, and with no threat to our well-being, there is no problem. That is the same as liking some food or art better than others. The expression of our preferences is one way that we come to know each other. We may even ask for this kind of feedback information in order to know someone else better, and whatever they express—positive or negative—is accepted as useful information. As Fritz Perls used to say, “Contact is the appreciation of differences.”

This free give and take becomes transformed into something very different when someone has negated themselves in some way. This inner negation is often obscure, making it hard to realize what is going on. For instance, many people are concerned with wanting to feel that they deserve to have a good life, or they want to have “self-worth.” Others seek “acceptance,” a “secure place in the world,” or “a right to be here,” and all these goals sound positive. However, underlying these desires is thinking that they don’t deserve to be happy, or feeling a lack of self-worth, that they are not accepted and don’t have a place. These are all negations, and they can negate a relatively small scope of the self, such as intelligence, beauty, or confidence, or the much larger scope of the entire self, “You are garbage.” “I wish I had never been born.”

When babies are born, they certainly aren’t concerned with “self-worth” or being “deserving,” “accepted,” or “finding a place in the world.” Like other animals, they have needs and desires, and they are very direct and emphatic about announcing their presence, and demanding satisfaction of their needs. They don’t show the slightest doubt about their “right to be here” or “deserving to have what they want.”

Then parents and other adults send them messages, first nonverbally and then verbally, about not being worthy or deserving, not being accepted, or not having a place, and the child learns to think that they don’t belong. All these have the same structure: negation of the natural functioning of the child, a negation of part, or all, of who they are. These experiences continue as memories, which can be in any or all of the different sensory modalities. Although this could be primarily an image or a perceptual feeling, for simplicity in discussing how this works, I will assume that an internal voice negates: “You don’t deserve it.”

Then when someone seeks to counter these negations with reassurances that they do belong, are deserving, are accepted, or do have a place, that is actually an attempt to negate what is already a negation. “I’m not undeserving.” “I’m not unworthy,” etc. This sets up incongruent categorical opposites within the person: “not self-worth” and “self-worth,” “not deserving” and “deserving,” etc. For simplicity, I will use the word “reassurance” to refer to any response that affirms something that someone has already negated.

If you’ve ever tried to reassure someone, you probably discovered two things. First it’s futile, and second, if you think you succeeded, it didn’t last. Reassurance feels good in the short term, but over the long term, it doesn’t solve the problem, and it actually increases the incongruence between the negation and the negation of this negation. This happens in several different ways.

First, no matter how much reassurance someone gets, this doesn’t regain what the small child began with, and what they really want: total and unquestioning being who they are, without a hint of either non-acceptance or acceptance.

Second, reassurance from others is actually “other worth” rather than the “self-worth” that they want and seek. Since people differ in what they approve of, someone will need to do very different things in order to get reassurance from different people. That usually results in a strong involvement with others, which can extend to “chameleon” behavior, attempting to satisfy different people in different ways. And since some people are almost impossible to get approval from, this may sometimes result in extreme behaviors like “acting out” or a suicide attempt.

A somewhat different way of getting reassurance from others that they are OK is to follow a particular set of social or religious teachings, so as to get reassurance from that group of people. This is more stable, since someone is always attempting to satisfy the same standards in order to get reassurance, rather than different people with different standards. However, it can lead to less contact with other people, since matching a set of abstract standards doesn’t require attending to the responses of individual human beings.

Third, when someone seeks reassurance from others, that is inevitably conditional rather than unconditional. It is conditional upon the behaviors that the person uses to ask for reassurance, and it is also conditional upon the willingness of the other person to provide it. If someone stops asking, or if other people stop responding, they will no longer receive reassurance.

Fourth, reassurance from others is temporary, because it doesn’t eliminate the underlying negation; it only opposes it and offsets it. The internal voice will continue to negate the person’s being, lovability, acceptability, or place in the world, etc., and they will need to repeatedly seek acceptance to counteract it.

Fifth, each external reassurance that “I am worthy” will tend to elicit an opposing “No you’re not” from that internal voice, escalating in the same way as an argument between two people, increasing the incongruence. If someone has an internal voice that negates who they are, and their lives seem to confirm this by being relatively unsuccessful in their job, relationships, etc., that is very unpleasant, but at least it is congruent.

But if someone has the same internal negative voice, and they are successful in work, relationships, etc. the contrast between their internal voice and the outward success will be much greater. They may have a much better life, but at the cost of greater incongruence. The more reassurance they get from others and worldly success, the larger the incongruence between the internal message about not being worthy and the external message about being worthy. Their internal voice will contradict and nullify any amount of external success.

Seeking approval from others is like using make-up or any other artificial behavior to attract someone. The more you use, the more it contrasts with what it’s covering up, and the more you know that the other person is responding to something that is not real, rather than to who you really are. This greater incongruence causes instability, and a loss of the external success may result in someone collapsing into mid-life crisis, depression, or suicide.

Sixth, there is an interesting parallel between the voice that says someone is not deserving, and the assurance that says that they are. Both are based on the opinion of other people, not the person themselves. Whichever voice someone attends to, they become slaves to someone else’s opinion, rather than attending to their own experience.


Resolving Negation

If reassurance doesn’t work to counter negative feelings of self-worth, what can someone do? The answer to this puzzle is to make the original negation clear, and find a way to eliminate it, so that someone can return to their original state in which they neither deserve, nor not deserve, they just are.

One way to do this is to listen carefully to those internal messages of negation, and realize that those messages are about the adult who said them, not about the child who heard them, a change in scope. These messages came from adults with limitations, people who couldn’t just say directly, “I’m overwhelmed; I can’t (or won’t) provide what you need and want.” Instead, they said in effect, “The only way I can deal with what you ask for is to tell you that you don’t deserve it. That way you won’t ask for it, and I won’t have to provide it.”

A slightly different way to elicit the same realization is to first collect and list all the internal rejection messages that the client has accumulated, including the emphasis, tempo, and tonality in which each statement was made. “You’re no good.” “You’re stupid,” etc. Then ask the client to visualize themselves as a newborn infant or small child, and ask them to say each of these messages to this child, including the volume emphasis, tempo and tonality. This shifts the person’s perceptual position from being the receiver of these messages to being the sender. From this position, usually it quickly becomes obvious that this is totally inappropriate and ridiculous. Their response to the rejection messages changes from taking them seriously to hearing them as messages about the parent’s limitations and inadequacies, rather than their own.

Virginia Satir’s “family reconstruction process” provided a vivid dramatization of what a client’s parents had to deal with from their parents, and how that created their limitations. In this process, the parents’ bad treatment of the client is seen as a consequence of the parents’ limitations, and had little or nothing to do with any limitations in the client. Their previous thoughts about “not deserving,” etc., were all a result of a mistaken scope.

When you realize that your understanding was a mistake, you can easily shrug it off and move on. Of course, some people will blame themselves for making the mistake, but that is also a mistake, at a more general logical level. The same kind of process can be used to elicit this realization. “See yourself as a tiny infant or young child, and scold them for making this mistake in misunderstanding their parents.”

Another way to work with internal negation is with Connirae Andreas’ Core Transformation process, in which someone is guided to a realization of what they really want, which is an experience of being, uncluttered by “not deserving” or “deserving.”

When “not deserving” disappears, there is no longer any need for “deserving” to negate the “undeserving.” Unpleasant things and pleasant things happen to each of us, and that’s a fact. We can be sad about the unpleasant events, and grateful for the pleasant ones, and realize that we didn’t deserve (or not deserve) either one. That allows us to return to simply experiencing whatever is going on—including our responses to what is going on—free of any thought or question about deserving it or not. This is something that sages and saints have described for centuries, using various terms like “enlightenment,” “waking up from the world of illusion,” or “simple acceptance of what is.”

Many people who actively seek spiritual or mystic experience are driven by an underlying negation without realizing it, seeking bliss and oneness without first neutralizing the inner negation that keeps them from returning to their original integration and oneness. This is even more likely to be true of spiritual teachers and gurus who become invested in the status and importance of their employment, and have to uphold their role of being “enlightened,” a sure sign that they are not.

Now let’s examine “deserving” in more detail, to find out how people get into this kind of mess in the first place. The meaning of the word “deserve” is a condensed version of “I think I should have/get something because I have a right to it.” Whenever a word is a condensed and shortened form of a longer communication, it is usually packed with hidden or poorly recognized meanings that can become a trap for the unwary—both speaker and listener.

There are both pleasant and unpleasant versions of deserving, as in “She deserves a medal for what she did,” or “He deserves to be hung for that.” So “deserving” is an expression of reward and punishment, established by someone’s judgment of what ought to be.

Usually the word “deserve” is used without any additional information, “He deserves it.” That kind of statement is called a “factive,” because it is stated as a fact, not to be questioned. Even when deserving is stated as someone’s personal view, “I think he deserves it,” the reason for deserving is often omitted.

When people say that they “deserve” something, usually the implication is that someone else should give it to them without their having to do anything to receive it. Their reason is usually because they are “entitled” to it, and often this is because they are special, more important than someone else who doesn’t deserve it—a version of the “divine right of kings” and the nobles that the kings “entitled” by giving them titles.

In NLP terms “deserving” something is an outcome that is “ill-formed,” because it is not under the control of the person who has the outcome—someone else should provide it. Since we have no direct control over what someone else does, this puts the person who “deserves” at the mercy of someone else’s ability and willingness to provide what they want. When someone else doesn’t provide what someone “deserves,” they usually complain, rather than taking useful action themselves.


Appropriate Deserving

If someone has made an agreement that specifies what they are to receive by that agreement, then they do deserve to receive whatever was promised—no matter how silly or ill-advised the agreement itself might have been. Like the word “fairness,” “deserve” only applies to agreements, a limited scope, and what someone deserves is specified clearly by the agreement.

However, many people go far beyond this appropriate scope, thinking that they deserve things that have nothing to do with any agreement. They often act as if they had some kind of written agreement with God, or nature, or the universe, specifying what they should receive. For instance often people say, “A child deserves a loving home,” or “I deserve an opportunity to succeed.”

I certainly prefer a world in which everyone has an opportunity to satisfy their needs, and has a loving home and opportunities to succeed, etc., and I do my best to move the world in that direction, but that is based on my desire, not an imaginary agreement.

Some people even say that something is a “God-given right.” But if it were really “God-given,” then we would all have it, and certainly no one could possibly take it away from us! Once I observed Fritz Perls smoking in a school auditorium where he had just given a demonstration of Gestalt Therapy. A woman approached him and asked, “How come you have the right to smoke when all the signs say, “No smoking”? Perls responded, “I don’t have the right, and I don’t not have the right; I just do it.”

As far as I know, life is a gift, and it comes with no agreement or guarantee except that it ends in death—usually much sooner than we would like. Making sure that all people have opportunities to satisfy their needs is a job for us all. It is not based on any kind of “deserving.” It is based on what we want to have happen because we think will work best for all of us, and it is up to us to create and maintain the kind of personal agreements, society, and government that support that.

Excerpted from Six Blind Elephants, volume II, chapter 2, “Negation,” pp. 43-49.


BT16 Clinical Demonstration 11 – Sewing Partners Together:

Sewing Partners Together: Techniques for Moving Couples Toward Secure Functioning – Stan Tatkin, PsyD, MFT One hour video download $29.95.

Videotape Review/Commentary

I like to watch videotaped demonstrations of therapy any time I can, to see what I can learn. Very few therapists are willing to make complete sessions available, and usually I find them disappointing — despite very low expectations. Often my response to viewing a demonstration is to think of what I would have done differently, and sometimes this helps me develop more clarity about what does and doesn’t work to elicit personal change. Much more rarely I find a session that demonstrates a high degree of exceptional skill, sometimes mixed with gross incompetence.

What is most striking about this clinical demonstration is Stan’s ego-free, complete and gentle and warm nonverbal engagement with the couple. He is present, caring, spontaneous, and appropriately humorous. The speed of his acknowledging responses clearly indicate all the above — you can’t fake that kind of speed consciously. I wish he could “bottle” his mode of being and provide it to others, because most therapists desperately need it, and without this solid foundation of rapport, even the most appropriate interventions won’t be very effective. Most therapists give lip service to “entering the client’s world,” but few are able to actually do it well. Stan is right up there with Erving Polster in this regard.


What needs to be done?

I understand this couple’s needs to be twofold:

  1. They need to resolve the immediate distressing problem, which is their shock and grief over their foster grandson’s violent suicide, which they learned about at noon on the day before the session with Stan. Judy says, “It’s heartbreaking, very, very, and we thought he was going to make it. He came so far; he had some wonderful years. We gave him a life that he never could have had, that was hard to sustain when he became an adult. We bought him a car; he wrecked the car. We do things for him — maybe that doesn’t work — setting clearer boundaries. So he went back to his family of origin, who had abused him sexually, physically, in every way, and he got caught up in that system again, and that’s where he died.”

There are strong indications in Judy’s statement that there may be additional troublesome “unfinished business” responses that need to be clarified and resolved. There may be anger at the grandson (“How could you do this to us!”). There may be guilt (“What did we do — or not do — that caused this?”). Bruce or Judy are both therapists, so there may be shame. (“We should have been able to prevent this.”)

Bruce and Judy are also still grieving in response to the earlier murder of a young nephew 15 years ago (“We still suffer from that.”) and the earlier suicides of two other close friends of one of their sons. These old unresolved wounds may also have associated “unfinished business” aspects that need to be resolved.

  1. Judy and Bruce need to learn how to find better ways to respond to each other as a couple when dealing with this, or any other, difficult life issue — specifically, Bruce’s tendency to “close down and withdraw” in response to trouble, and Judy’s strong fear that Bruce won’t come back from this “depression.”



Stan made no intervention in regard to their grief other than acknowledging it. Ideally both the grief and the relationship would be changed. I would have focused first on the couple’s shock and grief, because it is so intense and immediate. I would have used the phobia cure method on the traumatic manner of the grandson’s death, and I would have used the resolving grief method on the grief/losses, each of which usually takes only one session or less. If there are additional responses of anger, grief, shame, etc., those would also need to be resolved, using appropriate methods. Each of these interventions would have changed the structure of the memories that elicit their distress, so that they would automatically have much more resourceful responses to each other in the present.

Stan focused on the couple’s difficult interaction in response to this and other stressful issues, specifically Bruce’s tendency to withdraw in the face of difficulty, and Judy’s need to stay connected with Bruce, and her intense fear of his withdrawal into “depression.” This focus was consistent with the title of the session, “Sewing Partners Together: Techniques for Moving Couples Toward Secure Functioning.” (I have some serious reservations about the metaphor “sewn together” because if partners are sewn together, it’s very difficult to walk, much less dance.)


Cross questioning

Stan nicely demonstrates how to ask one member of a couple about their understanding of the other’s experience. For instance, after Judy says, “Whenever he gets depressed, I get really scared,” Stan asks Bruce. “Do you know why she gets this reaction, why she gets scared?” This method provides both verbal and nonverbal evidence of how well they understand each other, because it simultaneously elicits both Judy’s experience, and Bruce’s understanding of her experience. If there is any kind of mismatch, as there so often is when a couple is in difficulties, this provides an opportunity to clarify misunderstandings.

Understanding how a present behavior is actually in response to a distressing childhood memory, rather than the present situation, is a great way to give the partner perspective, and elicit empathy, and this is particularly useful with partners who are blaming and combative.

Rather than ask “Why?” which could elicit historical analysis, it would be better to ask, “Do you know what she experiences when you get depressed and she gets really scared?” because that would elicit a specific description of her internal experience in the present, in contrast to the past history that created it.

Their responses indicate that they understand each other quite well, and care for each other, so while this is an elegant demonstration of a very useful way of questioning, this couple doesn’t really need it. Judy and Bruce’s responses indicate that they already have this kind of understanding, probably developed in their previous therapy. They mention having therapy with well-known family therapist Frank Pittman “30 years ago,” when “she was a witch and he was a wimp,” and there are other indications that they have had additional therapy since then — perhaps quite a lot.


Eliciting positive resourceful memories

Stan also skillfully demonstrates how to inquire about positive memories to elicit resourceful feelings, something that Virginia Satir was so good at. He spends over eight minutes asking how they met, what attracted them to each other, what they liked about each other, etc. This is an intervention that is particularly useful with combative or distant couples, and it was clearly enjoyable for both Judy and Bruce. But since they already had ready access to these memories, it wasn’t any kind of “breakthrough” for either of them. So again it was an elegant demonstration of a very useful skill, but one that this couple didn’t really need.


Eliciting how responses in the present relate to personal history

Stan asks both Judy and Bruce if their current responses are related to childhood experiences, and they both agree. For example, when Judy was a little girl her father would “get depressed, seriously depressed, withdraw for weeks, and there wasn’t much anybody could do. He would close down and just go about doing things on the farm; he wouldn’t talk. And then he’d come back one day.” At these times Judy’s mother would weep and tell Judy, “I don’t know what’s wrong with your father; he won’t talk to me.” Bruce had parallel experiences that elicited withdrawal from conflict.

While it is likely that Judy has troubling images of her childhood in response to Bruce’s “going away” that elicit her fear (and most therapists would assume that) it isn’t the only possibility. Judy’s response might be anxiety about a future image of being alone and helpless, rather than a past image. Or she might be fearful in response to a panicked internal voice predicting disaster, such as, “I’ll never be able to survive alone!” Or her experience might be a combination of these possibilities, or something else altogether.

Each of these responses would be the result of her childhood experiences, but each would have a different structure in the present, and require a different kind of intervention. For instance, if Judy is experiencing anxiety about the future (rather than a past memory) an intervention called “spinning feelings” will be more appropriate.

Rather than making assumptions, it would be simpler to ask Judy, “When you see Bruce “depressed,” what goes on in your mind that makes you afraid?” That would provide specific detail about what her internal experience is, and indicate what kind of intervention might be most useful.

Judy says, in regard to Bruce, “We’re joined at the hip!” suggesting “enmeshment” that would make Bruce’s absence or death particularly difficult for her to cope with. Perhaps they are already “sewn together,” contributing to the intensity of Judy’s fear. If so, that would indicate another important issue to explore in more detail and resolve.


Understanding dynamics vs. making changes

Understanding that Judy’s present fear is more in response to her history than to the current situation relieves Bruce of at least some of the responsibility for Judy’s present distress, and Judy’s understanding of Bruce’s childhood will do the same for her. Unfortunately, eliciting historical reasons for present behavior also implies that the present behavior will be hard to change. Fortunately, there is a flip side to that same implication, namely that if you change their experience of their history, that will automatically change their responses in the present.

It’s very important to make a clear distinction between understanding how something happens and intervening in order to change what happens. Many therapists make the mistake of thinking that understanding or “insight” alone is curative, but it isn’t. At best, understanding provides good information that can be used to select an appropriate change intervention. In medicine, knowledge that a fever is a result of a virus or bacterial infection may be very useful in selecting an effective treatment, but the knowledge is not a substitute for the treatment, and knowledge without treatment is of no use.

None of Stan’s many skillful interventions were directed at changing the implicit procedural memories that are the basis for this couple’s automatic and unconscious troublesome responses in the present. (Daniel Kahneman’s “system 1.”) Stan presupposed that Bruce and Judy would continue to respond with withdrawal and fear; his interventions were directed at how they could cope with each other’s troublesome responses.

To summarize, this couple’s childhood memories elicit problematic responses. Rather than attempt to change the memories that cause their difficulties, Stan attempted to change how they dealt with the troublesome symptomatic responses that resulted from the causes. Treating a symptom is only appropriate when there is no way to treat the cause.

In all fairness, treating the symptom rather than the cause is very widespread in therapy. For instance, the symptoms of anxiety (hyperarousal, tingling, fast breathing, etc.), are generally (perhaps always) caused by an internal voice predicting some kind of disaster, such as a plane crash, or being abandoned and helpless. Most therapies, and most therapists, focus on trying to change these symptoms using relaxation, deep breathing, repeated exposure, paradoxical intention, etc. At most, they try to change the content of what the internal voice says, by arguing with the voice, which is counterproductive.

However, the main cause of anxiety is not the content of the internal voice, but the fast tempo, loud volume, high pitch and strident sound of the voice. You can easily verify this in your own experience by saying an innocuous sentence like “I’m going downstairs” in a loud strident, “anxious” voice. Slowing the tempo of such a voice automatically lowers the volume, pitch and strident quality, and these changes elicit feelings of security instead of anxiety. Another way to change the nonverbal aspects of an internal voice that elicits anxiety is demonstrated in this short video.


Changing past memories in order to change present responses

There are a number of different ways to change troublesome implicit memories. Most therapists try to eliminate them with some kind of amnesia, distraction, or replacement, but it is much easier and more effective to modify them so that they are no longer troublesome. As Milton Erickson said of therapy, “Your task is that of altering, not abolishing.” Furthermore, altering always involves adding to the memory in some way, rather than subtracting. For instance, eliciting the positive intention behind someone’s harsh criticism changes its emotional impact by adding to your experience of it.

One of the most straightforward ways to change a troublesome childhood memory is to have a vivid dialogue with the younger self, in which the client imagines being with the younger self at the time of the troubling memory, and uses all their adult skills to advise and comfort the younger self in whatever way is appropriate, both verbally and nonverbally, using nonverbal visual, auditory, and kinesthetic feedback to verify when the younger self has, in fact, been comforted and reassured. One particularly useful piece is to point out that, “I am from your future, and I know you survived this,” because it is so incontrovertibly true.

In doing this, it is crucially important that the client take the active empowering role in comforting and reassuring the younger self. In contrast, in some “inner child” work the client is asked to take the role of the younger self, who is reassured by someone else. This is disempowering, since the “other” has the power, not the client, so it is ineffective at best, and infantilizing at worst. There is much more detail about this method of changing troublesome memories in this article.

A second method is somewhat more detailed and complex, and also more elegant. In this process the client is asked, “What experience could you have had earlier than that troubling event, that would have prepared you for that problem experience and made it easier to deal with?” Then the client is instructed how to create this experience in a way that is vivid and powerful in preparing them for the traumatic event. Finally the client is guided in carrying this new memory with them as they come up through time through the troublesome event — again transforming it by adding to it, in contrast to subtracting.

This new memory is carefully designed so that it changes the client’s internal responses. The choice of this experience, and the details of it, is content that emerges entirely from the client, so no content is introduced from a therapist, role-player, or other outside source. It makes no attempt to magically change the external events that happened in the traumatic memory, which would leave the power in the magic, another disempowering mistake that some therapists make. Again, there is much more detail about this method of changing troublesome memories in the article mentioned above.

Either of these two methods can transform the implicit procedural memory that used to elicit problematic behavior in the present into a response that is more resourceful and useful. When each member of a couple has more resourceful responses, the difficult symptoms no longer occur, so there is no need to develop ways to cope with them.


Eliciting responses to cope with symptoms

In contrast, Stan asks the couple to move closer and look into each other’s eyes, “for a minute,” which I think is deceptive, since he then insists that they continue to do this for the next twenty minutes or so of the session. He elicits how the couple can respond to their own, and their partner’s symptomatic behaviors, to “reach across the chasm” between them when Bruce withdraws and Judy gets scared. Stan gets mutual agreement and commitment to maintain their connection. Bruce agrees to move forward instead of withdrawing, and Judy agrees to be more active in insisting on contact if Bruce withdraws.

Although heartfelt, congruent and sincere, these are conscious-mind agreements (Kahneman’s “system 2”) that are slower, require effort, and presuppose that each partner will continue to unconsciously respond in the ways that were programmed into them by their childhood experiences. Stan’s interventions are directed at helping Judy and Bruce cope with their troublesome responses rather than changing their causes. The unconsciously generated “system 1” grief and the unresourceful coping behaviors that each of them learned in childhood haven’t been altered, and they will be much more automatic, faster and stronger, and will easily overwhelm the conscious strategies that they agreed to.

Bruce and Judy began the session with fresh, raw gaping wounds of grief, as well as several major older festering losses. They were also burdened with the problematic coping behaviors they learned as children when faced with insurmountable difficulties. All these responses — grief, withdrawal, fear, etc. — are elicited by unconscious procedural memories over which they have no conscious control — they can’t just consciously decide to respond differently. They left the session with the same injuries and limitations, poorly prepared for the task of dealing with the real life aftermath of their foster grandson’s suicide — the funeral, the others involved, and all that that entails.

Empathy and mutual understanding is a great foundation, but it is no substitute for effective interventions to change the causes of difficulties. This couple volunteered for a demonstration of how to “sew partners together,” but despite all of Stan’s many extraordinary skills, all they got was a band-aid with a smiley face on it.


Stan Tatkin’s Response

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

I was most impressed with Steve Andreas’ write-up and critique of my live demonstration at last Brief Psychotherapy Conference. I found it comprehensive, informative, loving, and more than a bit flattering. However, within the critique I suspected a possible misunderstanding.

The title of my demo was Sewing Partners Together: Techniques for Moving Couples Toward Secure Functioning. The title’s puzzling message may have implied something profoundly in-depth such as working through trauma, facilitating grief work, or otherwise modifying unconscious implicit memory patterns that maintained partner distance and misunderstanding. Alas, the purpose of the demonstration was infinitely more boring though the couple was anything but. I endeavored to show four techniques for quickly gaining information when interviewing a couple: cross-tracking, cross-questioning, cross-commenting/interpreting, and going down the middle. It just so happened that the volunteering couple, the lovely Bruce and Judy, received news of their foster grandson’s suicide the day prior to our demo. The “session” with them was raw and intensely moving for both myself and the audience.

When doing live demonstrations, one must adapt to the needs of the couple and work with the constraints of the agreed upon demonstration elements. In this case, it was to remain within the scope of crossing techniques, which is what I would likely use regardless at the beginning of working with this or most any couple. Why? Because gaining accurate information is key to understanding precisely who and what sits before me. I have often said that real time is too fast due to subcortical, memory, and implicit recognition patterns found in all interactions. Therefore, the therapist, before doing anything, must find out what is going on and who are the people sitting in front of him/her, determine what they really want, and what might they be up to in this moment or the next. Narratives often lie or are distorted for a variety of reasons and so the clinician, understanding the inherent challenges in getting accurate information, must endeavor to glean information through multiple streams of data, such as somatic feedback mechanisms as observed by monitoring microexpressions and micromovements, vocal or prosody shifts and changes, color changes in the face, changes in pupil size, response timing, and changes in striated muscle areas of the face and limbs. In other words, the main task for any clinician is first the discovery of “what is this” before attempting to do anything “about it.” That’s where crossing techniques come in.

Cross-tracking is a visual means of observing the face and body of the person who is not talking and then sweeping the eyes back and forth, up and down, to survey each partner’s somatic reactions. Because the talking partner is using up resources for language and speech, their face is best observed just after they finish talking, a time when resources are freed up and the face is more likely to show emotion and signs of stress previously hidden. Cross-tracking is a extraordinary method for catching partners in the act of being themselves.

Cross-questioning (based on the Milan Group’s circular questioning method) is yet another powerful technique for gaining information quickly and effectively from partners by asking one partner about the other. Again, the therapist is using this method to observe tiny shifts and changes in the face, voice, body, and timing as compared to narrative. The non-speaking partner is observed first and then the eyes travel back and forth, up and down. All the while, the therapist is also using their own somatic responses, thoughts, fantasies, and impulses as yet another data stream for discovery and understanding. Cross-commenting/interpreting, in a similar fashion, allows the therapist to gain both explicit and implicit information for later use in the session.

Going down the middle is a method of interpreting or confront the couple down the center so as to address the couple system without implicating either individual.

Having partners sit across from each other at a relatively close distance so as to activate the near vision system (ventral visual stream and the fusiform facial area), helps facilitate interactive regulation and attention to one another’s face and eyes, is a precondition for informal trance induction. Given the constraints of the demonstration, trance induction and deeper work in the implicit realm was not the focus of this exercise. Therefore, I had no intention to do concentrated work with the partners’ grief, trauma histories, or longstanding relationship issues.

The demonstration with Bruce and Judy satisfied both the advertised intent of showing crossing techniques and at the same time, only lightly addressing the grief and trauma of their recent loss as well as their history of interpersonal misappraisals and mismanagement. If this were a real PACT session, the methods Steve so eloquently described would most certainly be used, albeit, with methods familiar to PACT therapists. Each of these techniques – not demonstrated at the event – focus on implicit, procedural memory systems and make use of induction methods to facilitate co-created alternate states of consciousness (usually parasympathetic) to promote modification of deeply held childhood beliefs and patterning. We use movement, poses (holding positions) staging, and a particularly powerful, lengthy psychodramatic procedure called Lovers Pose in which partners are put into a trance. Thereafter, we continue to explore, discover, and heal unresolved loss and trauma through “bottom-up”, strategic techniques.

I had the delightful opportunity to speak with Steve Andreas for the first time long after the conference. I believe I found a kindred spirit, someone with whom I had previously been unfamiliar. I have some catching up to do regarding his extensive work with NLP and trauma. I look forward to learning more from him.

  • Comments Off on Video Review – Techniques for Moving Couples Toward Secure Functioning (Stan Tatkin)

Two Very interesting New Kids on the Block!

I’m very pleased to tell you about two new cyber buddies, Kaj Sotala in Finland, and Adam Goldman, currently in Albania. Both are highly skilled in information technology, a perfect background for expertise in NLP.


Kaj Sotala

Kaj is one of very few people who thoroughly understands the principles of scope and category that underlie my books, Transforming Your Self and Six Blind Elephants. He also successfully applied them without assistance to his own 20-year depression and anxiety. He has gone on to explore additional applications and conclusions of these and other topics on his very readable web site, a great resource. Contact.


Adam Goldman

Adam’s work is one of the most exciting developments in the application of NLP I’ve seen in years—and I don’t say that lightly.

Here’s why: He has taken a number of familiar patterns—phobia, swish, grief resolution, etc. and created programs that he calls “Brain Hacking Automation Tools”

People can use these online programs on their own to process a variety of common problems and outcomes, such as trauma, grief, troublesome internal dialogue, etc. No hard statistics yet, but there are already a significant number of reports of success.

At the very least it’s a prototype “proof of concept”—that it’s possible to do change work using a computer program, without using visual or auditory channels for information-gathering and feedback, and without being able to use those channels to support change work interventions. Even if the overall success rate turns out to be fairly low, that could still be a wonderful economical option for many people for whom individual sessions aren’t even a remote possibility.

Adam also does Facebook chats with clients in which he periodically directs the client to use one of his Brain Hacking Automation Tools, and then report back and continue the session. Since there is an unedited verbatim written record of these sessions, it’s possible to read exactly what was said by both Adam and the client—unfortunately a rarity in the field.

He has posted a verbatim chat in which he resolves a woman’s obsessive compulsion disorder in one session, using familiar processes in a particular sequence. Though it needs to be tested with additional OCD clients, his process makes perfect sense to me, and I expect that it will generalize to other clients with that problem, filling a gap where NLP hasn’t had a dependable protocol.

As if all this wasn’t enough, he also has posted a verbatim chat demonstrating resolving fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue syndrome in an extended session over several days:

Fibro/CFS is a problem that is mysterious, has stumped doctors, and is supposedly incurable, so if the process holds up with even a few additional clients it will be a huge breakthrough that could benefit thousands.

All the information on Adam’s site is 100% free and open-sourced, meaning the code for the tools is available as well, hoping to inspire more people in the field to contribute to this development. He has no permanent address, moves around, with a very flexible schedule, available for trainings/consultations, and he welcomes feedback/contact:

His preferred mode of communication is Facebook:

Second choice is Whatsapp: +63 915 380 7634

Third choice is Skype: adam.goldman43

If all else fails, email:

Case Example Article: Review/Commentary

First, here is the article, for you to read and respond to; my commentary will follow.


It’s Never Too Late

By Daniel Siegel

© 2017 Psychotherapy Networker, May/June, pp. 28-29, 49

This article is a transcription of an extemporaneous short story Dr. Siegel delivered over dinner to a Psychotherapy Networker audience during the 2017 annual Networker Symposium Conference.

Daniel Siegel, MD, is a clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, founding co-director of the UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center, and the executive director of the Mindsight Institute. His latest book is Mind: A Journey to the Heart of Being Human.


When I first met Stuart, he was 92 years old. His son, a therapist, had seen me at a conference and decided, for some reason, that I was the guy to treat his normally pugnacious but now depressed father.

As I walked into my waiting room to greet them, Stuart wasted no words. “I don’t know why the hell I’m here,” he said, scowling.

Stuart’s son, Matt, broke in. “My father’s gotten very depressed. He’s withdrawn from interacting with me, my sister, and his grandchildren. He’s even withdrawn from my mom. But I think you can help him.” He turned to Stuart. “Dad, I’ll stay in the waiting room.”

Sitting across from Stuart, I didn’t feel what you often do with someone who’s depressed—a kind of depletion of energy, a sense of despair. Instead, I got a feeling of someone who just didn’t give a crap. Because he had a reputation as one of the most aggressive litigators in the Los Angeles area, I decided to take a low-key stance. “So what do you think is going on?” I asked.

“I think you guys are just idiots,” he said, waving his hand dismissively. “This is all useless.”

“Well, let’s just talk about what’s going on in your life,” I responded.

“Nothing,” he said. But after some prodding he told me that a few months ago, his wife had been hospitalized with pneumonia. When she recovered and came home, he’d become fascinated with the law books he had lying around the house, and was now spending most of his waking hours immersed in them.

“Well, that’s very interesting,” I told him.

“Yeah?” he retorted, leaning forward a bit, ready to spar. “What’s so interesting about that?”

I said, “Just that you’d start studying so much, all of a sudden.” He stared at me. I pressed on: “Would you be willing to answer a few questions? I know it sounds weird, but I’m trained as an attachment researcher, and I do this thing called the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), where we just kind of talk about your memories of childhood.”

“Look, I’m 92,” he said with disgust. “Why would I care about what happened in my childhood?”

I shrugged casually and responded, “I don’t know—you might just find out something about yourself.”

“Okay. Whatever,” he acquiesced, throwing up his hands. So I went through the AAI with him, and what emerged was a classic portrait of what’s called “dismissing attachment.” The two hallmarks are not remembering much of your childhood and simultaneously insisting that your childhood had no impact whatsoever on your development. Basically, you dismiss the importance of relationships. This became clear when I began to ask Stuart about what he remembered about growing up. “Didn’t I just tell you I’m 92?” he spat.

“I know 92-year-old people who remember a lot about their childhoods,” I told him calmly. “You don’t. And that’s just interesting.”

“What’s so interesting about that?” he snarled.

“Well,” I said, “your wife got pneumonia and then you immerse yourself in studying for hours on end. Your son says you got depressed, but you don’t seem depressed to me.” He made a show of aggrieved patience. I continued, “So it’s interesting that your AAI suggests you might have reacted to early experiences in a way that, to put it simply, shut down half of your brain.”

“To put it simply,” he said immediately, “You’re a moron.” Then something shifted in his expression. “Which half of my brain don’t I have?” he asked. For the first time, there was no trace of contempt.

“I know you have your left half. That’s for sure,” I told him.

He cocked his head slightly and asked, “Which side is that?”

“It’s the side with all the L’s,” I said. “It develops later, it’s logical, it has a kind of linear approach that uses language and deductive reasoning, and it likes making lists—like the one I’m making now. The right brain, on the other hand, is where feelings reside.”

I could almost see the pugnacity drain out of him as he sat with this for a bit. Finally, he said, “There’s this guy, Bill Smith, who started my law firm with me 60 years ago. He’s developed cancer and he’s dying.” He paused. “And I don’t feel anything. My whole life, my whole life, people have said to me, ‘Stuart, how do you feel?’” He shook his head. “I have no idea what they mean by that question.”

At this, I sat back slightly, taking in the vulnerability I sensed beneath his confession. Then he surprised me further with a request. “Can you help me?” he asked, “to feel something?”

“I don’t know why you’d want to change anything, Stuart,” I found myself saying. “You’re 92, after all.”

His forehead wrinkled. “You think it’s too late?”

Sticking with my paradoxical approach, I answered, “Well, I don’t know if it’s too late, but you’ve done so well all this time with half a brain.”

With a sudden sense of urgency, he said, “But maybe before I die, I can find out what the question really means, ‘How do you feel?’”

“Maybe it’s possible we can develop the other hemisphere,” I told him. Aware that Stuart didn’t have all the time in the world, I suggested we meet twice a week.

So we began to do everything you can imagine to activate his right hemisphere. We did nonverbal game-playing, where I asked Stuart to use different tones of voice and facial expressions. We did pantomime. We did exercises to activate autobiographical memory. Since you can’t retrieve a right-hemisphere memory that’s never been encoded, we had to start this very simply. “Tell me what life was like this morning when you woke up,” I’d ask. “Which sock did you put on first? How did you pour your milk on your cereal?” By paying attention to this kind of daily activity, slowly Stuart began to develop his capacity for autobiographical memory. Of course, he thought this was all totally stupid, but he went along with it anyway.

Then one afternoon, Stuart came in and told me that his grandchildren were going skiing and it’s making him feel worried. My heart bumped a little: he used the word feel. “What are you worried about?” I asked.

He thought for a moment and said, “I don’t know. Something about the skiing,” and I flashed on his AAI, when he told me that his brother had been in a skiing accident when they were kids and had lost a leg. When I’d asked Stuart back then how he’d felt about his brother losing a leg, he’d said flatly, “Nothing. He had another one.”

“You told me about your brother losing his leg,” I said to him now. “I’m just wondering if you’re worried about your grandchildren going skiing because you have some leftover feelings about that.”

Tears sprang suddenly to Stuart’s eyes. After a moment, I said, “Do you think you have leftover worries about your brother’s leg?”

“Oh, no. He’s fine,” he said. But once again, he got teary. “I just can’t believe you remember what I say to you,” he added softly after a long pause.

Whoa, I thought. And we just gazed at each other.

At the end of the session, when we shook hands goodbye, Stuart put his other hand on top of our clasped ones and said, “This was amazing.”

In the sessions that followed, I continued to feel like there was now a “we” coming together. Then one morning, about six months into therapy, Stuart’s wife, Helena, called me up. “Dr. Siegel,” she said, “what have you done to my husband? Did you give him a brain transplant?” She was joking but not joking.

“No,” I said. “Why do you ask?”

“Because he’s like a different person,” she answered. She paused a moment. “Some friends moved away the other day and I put my arms on Stuart’s shoulders for a bit of comfort. And he said, ‘That feels good.’ I said, ‘Would you like a shoulder rub?’ And he said, ‘Yes.’” Helena’s voice went thick with emotion. “That’s the only time in 65 years of marriage that he’s let me give him a shoulder massage.”

My first thought was God, why did she wait around for 65 years? But that’s a whole other story.

When Stuart came in next, I told him, “Your wife called.”

“Yeah, yeah, I heard,” he said.

“So what’s the story with the massage?” I asked.

He went silent a moment, then said, “You really wanna know? What we’re doing here, this therapy thing . . .” In a flash, the bellicose litigator reappeared. “First of all, I don’t know why it’s taking so goddamn long. We’ve been working at this for what, six months? I thought it was going to be six weeks. Are you just trying to get my money?”

“Well, I don’t mind your money,” I said. “But no, that’s not why. Therapy usually takes a while. In fact, a lot of people would have to spend six years doing what you’ve done in six months.”

His face softened a bit and he said, “Really? Well, maybe I’m just very motivated because I don’t have that much time left. It’s just a very different feeling to be, uh, alive like this.”

I circled back. “So what’s going on with the massage?”

“You know what happened to my mother?” he responded. I nodded because he’d told me earlier that she’d died when he was young. “It was so painful,” he continued. “And then my father just stopped talking. He didn’t take care of me.” He stared at the rug. “So I decided that I’d never need anyone again. And that’s why, when my wife got pneumonia, I just had to disappear from everyone.”

I stayed quiet, wanting to give him a chance to take in the full impact of what he’d just said. “But with what we’re doing here,” he went on, “I feel I can need people now. I could let Helena massage me. I could let it feel good. And what I want to work on now,” he said, his voice gathering energy, “I want to work on joy. I want to have joy in my life before I go.”

Stuart and I worked together for several more years. He died recently, at the age of 99, having achieved his goal of contacting joy. One of the last times I saw him he told me, “You know, none of this would’ve happened without getting the other half of my brain back.” He looked at me with a kind of wonder, then his eyes crinkled. “And just to set the record straight, you’re not a moron,” he added.

No compliment I’ve ever received has touched me more.


Steve’s Commentary


I appreciate Daniel’s willingness to present this case description in great detail, which makes it possible to study it, notice what worked and what didn’t, and offer alternative understandings and interventions that might have worked better. Daniel prefers to describe his article as “an extemporaneous short story,” rather than as a “case description in great detail.”

However it is certainly a report of a case, and it is very detailed. Moreover, Marian Sandmaier’s introduction to the stories in the Networker Magazine describes them as follows, “The first-person accounts below, originally composed for a storytelling event at this year’s Networker Symposium.” “Originally composed” seems to contradict the description of Daniel’s story as “extemporaneous” (“spoken or done without preparation.”)

Moreover, the account in the Networker is much too readable and detailed to be a verbatim extemporaneous talk. Either it was written out in detail before delivery (“originally composed”) or heavily edited after delivery (or possibly both) because it’s exceptionally rare for a speaker to talk in such well-formed sentences, with such detailed dialogue.

I want make it as clear as I can that my commentary isn’t about Daniel personally; it’s about his report of his work with this particular client, and a discussion about what I think effective therapy is and isn’t. Though I have never met Daniel personally, I have heard him speak on several occasions, and I know him to be an exceptionally intelligent, hard-working, and good-hearted human being. I feel only good will toward Daniel; my goal is to use his article to illustrate what I think are some very important and practical principles in therapy.



One of the few things that almost all therapists agree with is that the first task in therapy is to gain rapport with a client. This has been described in a wide variety of ways: “making sure that the client feels understood,” “empathy,” “entering the client’s world,” “establishing a good relationship,” “making a good connection,” “joining with the client,” “acceptance,” and probably several thousand other such phrases.

Stuart begins the session in the waiting room when he says, “I don’t know why the hell I’m here,” he said, scowling. (All quotes from Daniel’s article will be in italics.)

Stuart’s words are a very clear statement that he isn’t interested in therapy, and thinks that it’s a complete waste of time (which he further clarifies with his first sentence after he enters Daniel’s office, “I think you guys are just idiots,” he said, waving his hand dismissively. “This is all useless.”) Stuart is a classic example of an unmotivated client who is dragged into therapy by a concerned family member.

So what does Daniel say to indicate his understanding of Stuart’s experience? “I decided to take a low-key stance. ‘So what do you think is going on?’ I asked.”

Whatever your definition of rapport, understanding, or connecting with a client is, I don’t think that response qualifies. There is no acknowledgement of Stuart’s experience—no joining, no empathy, no entering Stuart’s world, either verbally or non-. Stuart’s attitude is “in-your-face” and “high-key,” Daniel’s response is bland and low-key, almost a scripted caricature of a detached analytic therapist. Stuart’s response clearly indicates zero rapport.

This lack of rapport is particularly curious, since Daniel has written so extensively about rapport in terms of “interpersonal neurobiology,” for instance:

“Our separate bodies become “connected” as energy flows from you in the form of a smile that then connects with me. Your eyes and your ears pick up how that energy was received and two separate “entities” become connected as one in the exchange. This is how people come to feel “close” to each other even with physical distance that separates their physical bodies. Closeness is about resonance where two “systems” become linked as one.”


Possible rapport moves

In contrast, I ask you to get a vivid image of Stuart in your mind’s eye, and then observe how this Stuart in your mind responds to the following possible alternate opening responses below:

  1. “Stuart, from what you just said in the waiting room, it’s clear to me that you don’t want to be here, and you think it’s a complete waste of time; do I understand you correctly?” This is an overt straightforward acknowledgement and acceptance that is almost certain to get a “Yes” response from Stuart. This could be followed with a further acknowledgement of his experience by saying, “At your age, you have no time to waste on foolishness,” and/or with a follow-on that could open a door to change, such as, “You may be thinking that your son is a pain in the ass, and he may well be. But I think he loves you and is distressed because you’re AWOL and he wants to connect with you.”
  2. Another possibility would be to say, “Your son brought you here so that I could help you, but I completely get that you don’t think you need any help, and don’t want any. We could just “shoot the shit” for the rest of the hour, but your son is paying for it, and I like to provide value for my pay. If there’s anything in your life that you would like to be different, maybe I could offer some useful input for you to consider. But if everything is totally fine, let’s not waste your time and your son’s money.
  3. Alternately, Daniel could have said, “I’ve known for some time that I’m an idiot, and that what I do is completely useless, but it took me somewhat longer to realize how obvious that is to other people.” Although this response is unexpected, it completely acknowledges Stuart’s experience. However it’s also self-contradictory, because it’s not the kind of thing an idiot would actually say, so it obliquely challenges what Stuart said. Again this could be followed up with an invitation to change.
  4. “You’re a lawyer, and from what I’ve heard, a very skillful one; I know almost nothing about law. Would it make sense for me to tell you how to try a case?” This may seem “off the wall” and irrelevant, but it implies that since Stuart isn’t a therapist, it would be foolish for him to assume that he knows a lot about therapy, and what’s useless and what isn’t.
  5. “Thank you!” (Pause, and wait for a verbal or nonverbal indication that Stuart is puzzled, trying to figure out what he’s being thanked for.) “I really appreciate your being so straight-forward and forthright about your disbelief in therapy. That is so much better than someone who hides their doubts, pussy-foots around, just goes through the motions, and wastes both my time and his. Thank you!” This reframes Stuart’s objection as a doubt, and that his directness will be helpful to the process, rather than a hindrance.
  6. (Based on Daniel’s observation, “Sitting across from Stuart, I didn’t feel what you often do with someone who’s depressed—a kind of depletion of energy, a sense of despair. Instead, I got a feeling of someone who just didn’t give a crap.”) “I agree with you completely!” (Pause, and wait for a verbal or nonverbal indication that Stuart is trying to figure out what is being agreed with.) “I don’t think you’re depressed; I think you just don’t give a crap, and I’d be happy to tell that to your son. However, I also get that your son cares about you, and is genuinely concerned about you. I suggest we ask him to join us so that we can clarify his concerns; what do you think of that possibility?” This response allies with Stuart against his son, at the same time that it allies with the son’s positive intent, and provides an opening for family therapy. As in the previous example, Stuart will be responding instead of being in charge, opening himself to further interventions.
  7. Or, playfully, “You remind me of one of my favorite jokes. In your long career, you have probably heard every lawyer joke a hundred times over, so you must know the answer to this one: ‘What do lawyers use for birth control?’ ” If Stuart answers correctly, “Their personalities,” he said it, not you, and he’s likely to laugh. If he hasn’t heard it, he’s likely to laugh even harder when you tell him the answer. Your response indicates you’re not insulted, and are taking Stuart’s exasperated comment lightly, to be responded to in kind. If someone is pugnacious, few things get their respect faster than to find a worthy opponent. If Stuart is offended, you can say, “You just insulted therapy, so thought I’d return the compliment. You impress me as being the kind of person who can take it as well as dish it out; was I wrong about that?” The word “compliment” is a reframe, even if Stuart rejects it.
  8. Stuart, your son has practically dragged you in here against your will, and you probably wish he’d get off your back and leave you alone. We could invite him to join us, and I’d be happy to try to convince him to do that.” This not only acknowledges Stuart’s experience, it allies with it, and suggests an outcome that Stuart is likely to agree with, which would involve the son in family therapy, providing a richer opportunity to find out what’s going on in more detail.



Those are only a few possibilities, based on Daniel’s report. If I had a video of their session, there undoubtedly would have been many other communications, both verbal and nonverbal, that could be utilized in similar ways to gain rapport.

Each of these alternatives fully acknowledges Stuart’s experience, and at the same time actively invites the interaction to unfold in a different direction. The core principle is very old and very simple, exemplified by Aikido and the other Asian martial arts. When you are attacked, first actively join with the attack, and then guide it and redirect it in a more useful way, a utilization tactic that was a mainstay in the therapeutic work of Milton Erickson, the most skilled therapist I know of.

There’s no guarantee that Stuart would have responded well to any of these alternatives, but since each one validates and connects with what Stuart has said or done, it’s a lot more likely—and if one doesn’t work, you can always try another. If you imagined Stuart’s response to each of them as I asked you to, I would bet a lot of money that the Stuart in your mind responded in a more positive way than his response to Daniel, “I think you guys are just idiots,” he said, waving his hand dismissively. “This is all useless,” a very explicit and overt indication of a complete lack of rapport.

Daniel’s response to that is to say, “Well, let’s just talk about what’s going on in your life,” another low-key response that sounds like a well-worn “all-purpose” scripted response. This does nothing to acknowledge Stuart’s experience, and Stuart continues to express contempt and disgust for therapy. I think many clients in Stuart’s position would either get up and walk out of the session immediately, or suffer in silence until the end of the hour and never return.


Gathering Information

I think it’s almost certain that with even a minimum of rapport, Stuart would have become much more cooperative, and would have opened up much sooner, but since that’s hypothetical, I’ll return to Daniel’s description.

“After some prodding” Daniel learns that Stuart’s wife was in the hospital with pneumonia just before he began to withdraw from his family and become absorbed in his law books. In response to this information, Daniel says, “Well, that’s very interesting,” another bland, non-committal comment that is heavily laden with many possible implications. Stuart predictably responds, “Yeah?” he retorted, leaning forward a bit, ready to spar. “What’s so interesting about that?” Again Daniel’s response is vague and non-committal, “Just that you’d start studying so much, all of a sudden.”

It doesn’t take therapeutic genius to suspect that there may be a causal link between his wife’s illness and Stuart’s subsequent withdrawal. I think it would have been more direct and honest if Daniel had been explicit about what he was thinking, “I wonder if there might be a connection between your wife’s hospitalization and your withdrawing into your law books,” and explore that further. However this kind of interpretation is pretty intellectual and analytical, not likely to be useful unless it’s translated into a sensory-based experience in the present.

I think it would be better for Daniel to keep his guess to himself for the time being, and use the information about his wife’s illness as a new opportunity to gain rapport. “When my wife was in the hospital some years ago, that was very difficult for me, as it is for most people. I wonder what that was like for you?” This both matches and normalizes Stuart’s experience, and is a gentle invitation to discuss it further.

However, instead of following up on his guess, Daniel asks Stuart questions about his childhood memories in the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). Since Stuart doesn’t see any relevance in childhood memories, this appears to be changing the subject. Predictably, Stuart thinks this is a complete waste of time: “Look, I’m 92,” he said with disgust. “Why would I care about what happened in my childhood?” However, Stuart “acquiesced, throwing up his hands.”

After going through the AAI with Stuart, Daniel says, “I know 92-year-old people who remember a lot about their childhoods,” I told him calmly. “You don’t. And that’s just interesting.” Despite Stuart’s previous antagonistic response to Daniel’s use of the loaded word “interesting,” he uses the word again and Stuart predictably responds, “What’s so interesting about that?” he snarled.

Daniel responds, “Well,” I said, “your wife got pneumonia and then you immerse yourself in studying for hours on end. Your son says you got depressed, but you don’t seem depressed to me.” (This is the first time Daniel acknowledges and agrees with even part of Stuart’s experience.) He made a show of aggrieved patience. I continued, “So it’s interesting that your AAI suggests you might have reacted to early experiences in a way that, to put it simply, shut down half of your brain.”

If I were Stuart, I’d be very annoyed at this third use of the word “interesting,” after twice making it very clear (ready to spar, snarled) that I don’t like it. “This guy isn’t listening to me at all!”

Daniel then describes the antiquated, over-simplified, left-brain, right-brain dichotomy (surprising for someone who is often described as an interpersonal neurobiologist!), closing with, “The right brain, on the other hand, is where feelings reside.” If it was true that Stuart had really “shut down half of his brain,” then Stuart wouldn’t have any feelings at all. However this is clearly false from Daniel’s description of Stuart expressing many different feelings: anger, contempt, disgust, impatience and frustration.

Stuart doesn’t have any difficulty feeling and expressing negative judgmental feelings. His difficulty is much more specific: he only has difficulties with positive feelings of love and connection, and likely also with any feelings of vulnerability. (A lawyer seldom scores any points by being vulnerable.)

However, Daniel’s statement that his childhood experiences “shut down half of your brain” did get Stuart’s attention, and after Daniel explains a bit, concluding with, “The right brain, on the other hand, is where feelings reside,” Stuart’s pugnacity changes to thoughtfulness, and he volunteers that he has no feelings about his friend and partner of 60 years who is dying of cancer. “And I don’t feel anything. My whole life, my whole life, people have said to me, ‘Stuart, how do you feel?’” He shook his head. “I have no idea what they mean by that question,” followed by, “Can you help me?” he asked, “to feel something?”

This is a lovely revelation and a clear statement of a positive outcome that Stuart is committed to. Whatever you think of Daniel’s statement, “The right brain, on the other hand, is where feelings reside,” it got a very useful response from Stuart, both verbally and nonverbally. Then Daniel nicely uses “paradox” (called “reverse psychology” when I was a kid) twice to increase Stuart’s motivation and commitment, and then describes doing a variety of “game-playing” exercises with Stuart to “activate his right hemisphere” with nonverbal pantomime, developing autobiographical memory, etc. Apparently this did work, despite Stuart’s thinking, “this was all totally stupid,” and it’s hard to argue with success. However, none of these very general “right-brain” exercises directly addressed the more specific outcome of eliciting feelings of love and connection. I think it’s likely that Daniel’s sincere good will and companionship may have had a much larger contribution to success than the exercises themselves.


Specifying the outcome

I’d like to offer an alternative approach that I think would have been much faster, and more specifically directed at what Stuart wants. First, I’d specify his outcome by pointing out to Stuart that he’s adept at experiencing (and expressing!) negative feelings; what he has difficulty with is experiencing positive feelings of caring and connection. This more specific outcome is much easier to achieve, and it suggests more specific interventions.

Then I might gently ask, “When your wife was in the hospital, did you also have no feelings about that?” If Stuart agrees, that would confirm that we’re on the right track; if he disagrees, we could explore what those feelings were. Either answer moves us closer to the outcome.

When going through the AAI earlier, Daniel learns that Stuart’s brother lost a leg in a skiing accident, and that, “When I’d asked Stuart back then how he’d felt about his brother losing a leg, he’d said flatly, ‘Nothing. He had another one,’ ” which certainly sounds like further confirmation that Stuart needs access to positive feelings of connection.


The structure of Stuart’s problem

The key question for therapy is, “How does Stuart manage to have no positive feelings of connection to those he cares for?” The answer to this question isn’t in history (as most therapists assume) the answer is in Stuart’s experience of his history in the present moment. That distinction may seem like petty linguistics, but it invites us to focus on how he experiences memories, rather than the memories themselves. That information ought to tell us what kind of intervention would be most useful in changing his response.


Itemizing information

         Distracting When Daniel reports, “When I’d asked Stuart back then how he’d felt about his brother losing a leg, he’d said flatly, ‘Nothing. He had another one,’ ” Stuart is clearly distracting himself from thinking about the lost leg by focusing on the leg that his brother still had. Feeling nothing about the good leg makes perfect sense, but it isn’t an answer to Daniel’s question. It’s likely that Stuart’s recent passion for his law books is distracting him from thinking about his wife’s recent hospitalization, and that he’s also likely distracting himself in a similar way when he thinks about his law partner dying.

         All-or-none thinking Stuart has repeatedly demonstrated that his thinking is typically universal “black or white,” “all-or-none”; “nothing,” “You guys are idiots.” “This is all useless.” “I don’t feel anything.” We also know he’s a lawyer, whose long life has been devoted to skillful verbal arguments that make black-and-white distinctions about guilt and innocence, truth and lying, etc. The opposite of “I don’t feel anything,” is to feel “everything” which Stuart would likely find overwhelming.

         Distancing Stuart is probably also using another common way to avoid feelings, distancing himself from a disturbing memory. Many people think that “distancing” is only metaphoric, but it’s actually very literal in someone’s experience. When an image of a memory is seen at a great distance, (sometimes even miles away) it will be very small, and emotionally inconsequential. There are also other ways to create distancing. For instance seeing a memory as a flat black-and-white photograph framed behind glass will make it appear much less real, and less emotionally evocative. The remedy for distancing is to revivify the memory by bringing it closer until it is experienced life-size, moving, and 3-D, as if it’s happening again in the present moment.

         Abstract thinking The practice of law deals with very abstract concepts like justice, equity, due diligence, fiduciary responsibility, etc., so it’s almost certain that Stuart is adept at that skill. Since “abstract thinking” is itself a poorly understood abstract topic for most people, I’d like to provide you with a direct experience of different levels of abstraction.

Think of someone you have strong feelings about—either positive or negative. . . .

Now imagine that person fairly close to you in a specific context, and notice both what your image of this person looks like, and your feelings toward them. . . .

Now describe that person with a more general word such as “man,” or “woman,” or a word that describes that person’s occupation, such as “accountant” or “bus driver” and notice how that image changes, and how you feel toward that changed image. . . .

Now use an even more general word, such as “mammal,” and notice how the image, and your response to the image changes. . . .

Next use the word “vertebrate” and notice how your image and response changes. . . .

Next use the word “animal,” and notice the changes. . . .

Next use “organism,” and notice the changes. . . .

Finally, notice what image and response you have to a “flow of energy and information,” (a phrase that Daniel often uses). . . .

As you went through this process of going from a very specific and “concrete” image to a much more general and abstract one, I want to point out three things:

  1. Each successive image became less detailed, more fuzzy, vaporous, and indistinct.
  2. The context soon vanished, making it impossible to identify a specific time or place for your experience.
  3. Your feelings became less intense, perhaps dwindling to near zero with “flow of energy and information.”


Collating information

If we assume that Stuart is living in a verbal world of distraction, all-or-none abstract thinking, and distancing, all his experience makes complete sense, particularly his lack of feeling (except his contempt for people who don’t think logically the way he does) and his apparent difficulty with autobiographical memory, which requires some context.

Assuming all this is true, it tells us what needs to be done to teach Stuart how to journey from his lofty objective world back to the concrete feeling world of ordinary mortals. We need to focus on a specific time in Stuart’s life when he must have had feelings of connection (but didn’t experience them), elicit a concrete sensory experience of it as if it’s happening in the present moment, and make appropriate changes. This can be done with a past experience, or by eliciting an appropriate experience in the present moment.


Intervening in the “past”

When Daniel asks Stuart to respond to the AAI questions, he is assuming that Stuart’s earlier troubling memories are the cause of his inability to feel positive emotions in the present. This is a widespread assumption in therapy, and it’s a reasonable one—even though the evidence for it is almost entirely retrospective rather than prospective. Assuming that is true, one would need to change Stuart’s early memories in order to change his responses in the present. There are a number of ways to change troublesome early memories usefully, some of which are described in detail in an earlier blog post, along with discussion about common mistakes in doing this kind of “inner child” work. However Daniel doesn’t report using any interventions that could change Stuart’s early memories.


Intervening in the present

Daniel could have said, “I’m sure that a good lawyer notices when a witness doesn’t answer a question. When I asked you how you felt about your brother losing a leg, you said, ‘He had another one,’ meaning his remaining healthy leg. But I didn’t ask you how you felt about his good leg—or about his arm or his head. I asked you how you felt about his losing the leg that was injured in the skiing accident. That must have been a very serious injury if it required amputation. What do you recall about the extent of his injuries? Did you see him in the hospital before he had the amputation?”

If that didn’t result in Stuart expressing any feelings, it would be easy to take a further step by utilizing what Stuart said in a more explicit experiential test of his not having any feelings. “I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you are sitting at your brother’s bedside in the hospital just before the amputation of his injured leg. As you hear the hospital sounds around you, and notice the antiseptic smell, I want you to look at your brother and say to him, ‘I have no feelings about you losing your leg,’ and just find out what happens next.”

Since that only asks Stuart to say what he has already reported, it’s a request that’s hard to refuse. However, bringing his statement into a specific sensory-rich present context nullifies the distracting, distancing, all-or none abstracting, so it’s a challenge to Stuart’s report that he has no feelings about his brother’s leg amputation that is pretty likely to elicit some kind of feeling.

However unlikely, let’s assume for a moment that Stuart still shows no feeling, either verbally or nonverbally. The same kind of revivification could also be used with his saying that he has no feelings about Bill, his law partner and friend of 60 years who is dying of cancer. “Imagine that Bill is here in the room with us, and you can see the expression on his face as he sits in that chair right there, and tell him, ‘Bill, you’re dying of cancer, and I have no feelings about that,’ and find out what happens when you do that. ”

This same method could also be used with the wife’s hospitalization, “Stuart, I want you to remember the time when your wife was sickest in the hospital and the outcome was most uncertain. See her face as she’s lying in the bed as you tell her, ‘I don’t have any feelings about your being ill,’ and notice what happens next.”

One or more of those scenarios is almost guaranteed to elicit feelings, most likely a combination of feelings of love and connection competing with whatever process has been blocking their expression. That brings both sides of the conflict into focus, and the nature of the blocking will indicate what kind of process will be most useful to resolve it.

The blocking could result from quite a variety of different processes. For instance, if Stuart is angry at his father for abandoning him, the forgiveness process would be useful, but if he feels shame, a different process will be effective. If the events around his mother’s death were traumatic, the phobia method will be most useful, but if feels guilty for his mother’s death, yet another process will be appropriate. When Stuart’s mother’s died when he was young, and his father “stopped talking. He didn’t take care of me,” Stuart concluded, “So I decided that I’d never need anyone again,” what many would call a “belief,” or a “life decision,” that would need to be revised, using yet another process. And of course there may be a combination of these, or other processes, that need to be teased apart and resolved separately.

This approach of revivification and gentle confrontation would directly elicit both the positive feelings, and the processes that block them, without any need to do the much less specific, less effective, and time-consuming “game playing” “right-brain” exercises that Daniel used.



Daniel reports convincing evidence, both from Stuart and his wife, that Stuart was happy with the results of his therapy. I generally agree with Daniel’s outcome for Stuart, and success speaks for itself. However Daniel also reports seeing Stuart twice a week for six months, which would total 52 sessions, and seeing him for several more years after that, without specifying how often. So I also agree with Stuart when he says, after six months, I don’t know why it’s taking so goddamn long.” I think that with more rapport, a more specific outcome, and one or more of the interventions briefly outlined in this post, Stuart could have easily reached his outcome much faster, likely in one-tenth of that number of sessions, or possibly even fewer.


I sent a draft of this post to Daniel, inviting him to send a response to be added to this post; his office replied as follows:

Thank you for your email inviting Dr. Siegel to respond to your blog. Unfortunately Dr. Siegel is currently unavailable due to his writing deadlines and lecture schedule.”


Real People Press

Andreas NLP Trainings banner


This blog contains NLP articles and news from Steve Andreas, NLP author, trainer, and developer.

If you enjoy these articles, please visit the Real People Press NLP bookstore for great books, CDs, and DVDs on personal change, therapy, and communication.