Backing Up and Going Around Problems

Backing Up to Cheerfulness

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.

In NLP and Neuro-Semantics, one of our favorite magical lines involves the question that explores the
frame structure in a person's mental universe. We simply ask, "And what stops you from...?" A typical
interaction would then go like this:

She says, "I just can't speak up to him."

And we go, "And what stops you from speaking up to him and letting him know what you are thinking
and feeling?"

"I just couldn't stand it if he got angry at me?"

"And what stops you from letting him have his emotions and feel angry at you if that's somehow
appropriate for him?"

"It would ruin everything. He might walk out."

"So the very idea that he might get angry and threaten you with the relationship―that's what stops
you?"

"And what stops you from tolerating that idea, knowing that you really want a relationship built on
something more solid than walking around on the eggshells of another's refusal to speak up and have
your own voice and opinion?"

We use this approach on a lot of things. "What stops you ...?" is a Meta-Model question that explores
the rule-structure of our higher frames. We speak it in terms of our modus operandi or style of
operating in the world (hence the modal operators). "I have to ..." "I must..." "I can..." "I can't..." So
we just question the consequential implications. "Okay, if that's how your world is formed, then what
happens when you violate the rule and speak up, take a risk, experience an uncomfortable emotion,
believe that you can learn effectively, etc.?"

Yet the "problem" described here has a particular structure. It is a very common one. What is the
structure of a great many of the "problems" that we all struggle with?

Is it not that we feel a certain way, feel that we are caught up in a certain mood, feel moved
to say or do something but at the same time know that we should not. We then struggle to
exercise all the self-control, self-awareness, and knowledge we can to stop ourselves from
saying or doing something?

No wonder "change" seems so hard! No wonder experiencing a transformation seems like a struggle
that takes a long time! In solving a problem in this way we spend most of our energies fighting
ourselves ― fighting our own states. We fight against what we are feeling, which is primarily a function
of what we're thinking. And that's a function of our model of the world ― our belief and value frames.
An analysis of the structure of this problem goes like this:

We get our into a strong emotional state. We feel a certain state. Then, as it grows in
intensity we experience "state dependency" which then colors our world in terms of that
state and activates lots of motor programs so that we talk and act according to that state.
Then we try to not experience that!

What a situation for a comedy. In fact, most sit-coms seem to use this format. Star actor gets into a
state, feels apprehensive, fearful, angry, confused, upset, depressed, etc. When in that state, state
dependency takes over so that the world is colored in terms of that state. The state takes over. The
state has the person. Then all of his or her motor programs want to talk and act out of that state. Yet
knowing that such talking and acting will make things worse, they try not to be in that state.

"But I've Just Got to Confront People who Offend Me!"

I recently saw this a text of a demonstration in the book, Using Your Brain―For a Change (1985). In
eliciting the strategy of a woman who "always got anxious about confronting people," Richard Bandler
asked her lots of questions that essentially backed her up step by step to find out how she had created
this limitation. He asked enough questions so that she essentially backed up far enough to get before
the time and place where she felt so bad she just had to confront the other person. He kept inviting her
to a prior situation where she had a much more cheerful state of mind. In doing that she didn't have to
get herself out of the pit at all because she never got into it in the first place. Duh! Then there was no
problem to solve. It was then easy to go around what would have been the emotional pit.

In reading this afresh in Using Your Brain―For a Change, I realized for the first time that we could
easily take this process and format it into a NLP pattern that's never been articulated explicitly. Hence,
The Backing up to Cheerfulness Pattern.

The Story

Jo said that she felt anxious about confronting. Yet when someone offended her in some way, and she
wanted them to treat her better, she just had to confront that person and yet she felt anxious about
doing so. Isn't that typical of most of us?

At this point Bandler asked the dreaded "why" question. Yes even he asked the "why" question at
times. He asked, "Why do you have to confront someone?" (p. 56).

She didn't know.

"What will happen if you do? What good does it do?" (Ecology questions).

"It makes me feel like I'm standing up for myself, protecting myself, preserving myself."

"From..? ... What is the function of the behavior? Do you do it with everybody?"

"No."

"How do you know who to go up to and confront, so that you can feel better? ... what makes it so
urgent?" (These are strategy elicitation questions which seek to discover when, where, with whom, for
what reasons, etc.).

Asking these questions bring about a shift in Jo who says that she now is thinking about it differently
and that it doesn't seem like rejection anymore. In testing to see if a pervasive enough shift had
occurred, Bandler asked about when she might confront in the future. She said if she was over-charged
for something or received poor service, she would confront.

That's when Bandler again tested the ecology―

 "Is that a way to continue to get good service in a restaurant?"

Then he said,

"Did it ever occur to you to make people in a restaurant feel so good, before they serve you,
that they'd have no alternative but to give you good service...? ... There something about
being around somebody who is nice to you that's more attractive than being around
somebody who isn't nice―or who isn't even acknowledging that you exist." (p. 58).

There's a great idea here. The idea is act in a thoughtful, considerate, and nice way ahead of time
rather than trying to become more competent at being unpleasant. Instead of developing more skills for
"standing up for yourself" and "letting other people have a piece of your mind more thoroughly," why
not proactively put yourself and others in a state where you can go around the whole problem of being
in an unpleasant state in the first place?

"I Could Have Had a Moment of Cheerfulness!"

What would you have to experience so that you simply do not get yourself into a negative emotional
state in the first place? If you don't get into a state where you feel bad, and feel that you would like to
let someone "have it," where you would be instead?

The new frame is this. What about doing something proactively before you get into a state where you
feel so bad? Why not just back up to a place where you are in a more cheerful state of mind and more
resourceful? While the universe doesn't go backwards, and time doesn't go backwards, and light doesn't
go backwards, your mind can go backwards.

So when you don't get what you want from life or from another person, remember, "feeling bad is
extra." A more resourceful question would be, "What could I do that would make her want to do this for
me?" Bandler said,

"The greatest error of all is in thinking that the only way for you to feel good in certain
situations is for someone else to behave in a certain way. 'You must behave the way I want
you to, so I can feel good, or I'm going to feel bad and stand around and make you feel bad
too.'" (p. 62)

It seems that we so easily forget what we want. In part, this occurs because we focus so much on what
we don't want. Yet in that focus we often don't even notice when what we're doing is not working. We
then feel even more frustrated so we do more of the same that doesn't work, yet we never don't
wonder why. What do you really want? If you move through the world only noticing what you don't
have, what's missing, what you don't like ― you'll forget to be cheerful, to feel lucky, to appreciate
good things, to take pleasure, to think about solutions.

"Married people don't usually feel lucky, the way they did when they first met. Imagine what
it would be like if every time you see him you feel lucky." (p. 64)

Going Around Problems Pattern

Even when you have a good and valid map as you're traveling to a new and exciting place, sometimes
it happens that a road is blocked and you can't go through. Sometimes things happen and road crews
shut down a road in order to make repairs. Typically, they put up signs that tell us to go around. Detour
signs show us the way around the blocked street. But then there are times when we drive right up to
the construction and hear it right from the boss. "You can't go this way, go around by following the
detour signs."

A similar pattern can occur with mental maps. Yes, we have a good and valid map. Yes, normally it
would take us straight to our desired experience. But right now we have to go around another way.

1) Identify a re-occurring problem

 What behavior do you find yourself engaged in from time to time that is not effective?

What problematic states or feelings do you experience that you don't need and when you
get into them it takes a lot of time and trouble to get out of them?

What frame of mind or thought can you go round and round with that only digs you deeper
into unresourceful feelings?

2) Back up to the previous state.

What state were you in just prior to this unresourceful state?

What trigger or anchor elicited that response in you?

3) Keep backing up until you back up into a pleasant and cheerful state.

And what state occurred prior to that?

And what were you thinking and feeling prior to that?

And what provoked that state?

And when you were in that pleasant and fairly cheerful state, what was that like? How much
did you like that state? Step into it again and enjoy it even more fully.

4) From the cheerful state, go around the problem.

As you amplify and strengthen the cheerful state ... what would be a fantastic response that
you could make at this point that would allow you to step aside from the path into the
negative state?

And how else could you go around the problem?

5) Confirm, future pace, and solidify.

Would this enhance your life and empower you as a person?

Would you like to use this step-aside maneuver and just avoid the problematic states?

What would you need to set up in your mind and life to remind you to step aside?

How much better would this make life in the days and weeks to come?

Are you willing to let this be your path?

Avoiding the "Problem" in the first place

Bandler (1985) explained his thinking about this pattern in this way.

"Jo can't grumble and gripe. Where is it that she can't, because I want to learn how to not
do it there? I started asking her questions: 'When do you do it?' 'What is its purpose?' 'Who
do you do it with?' My questions go backwards in time. Starting with the problem, I backed
up the process she goes through. When I backed her up far enough, she got to the place
before she grumbled and griped, and before she even felt any inclination to do it. That is the
place where she can go around it. If she takes the next step, the 'problem' starts happening.
But if she step over to the side, she can go somewhere else that she likes better." (p. 60)
With a little proactive foresight and planning, we can simply avoid a great many problems and
problematic states. Then we don't have to use up all of our energy, creativity, and problem solving on
that but can devote it to more interesting problems, problems that once we solve them may also enrich
our lives and those of others.

Author

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D., cognitive psychologist, international NLP trainer, entrepreneur; prolific author
and international training; developer of Meta-States and co-developer of Neuro-Semantics. (P.O. Box 8,
Clifton CO 81520), (970) 523_7877.

www.neurosemantics.com www.runyourownbrain.com

Michael@neurosemantics.com

Referents:

Hall, Michael L. (2000). Meta-States: Managing the higher levels of the mind. Grand Jct. CO: N.S.
Publications.

©2002 L. Michael Hall. All rights reserved.