| |
| |
| |
| |
Hall describes how to elicit a Meta-No:
“1. Get a good strong representation of saying “No!” to something. Think about something that every fiber of your being can say a definite and unquestionable “No!” to. Recall several examples so that you can fully get this resourceful disconfirming state. “Would you push a little child in front of an oncoming bus?” “No, I wouldn't.” “No, I don't believe you; you would!” “No I would not!” “Yes you would. You would do it for the thrill.” “No, damn it, I would not!” When you get the person to that place, anchor it!” (7, p. 164)
When you say a No loudly, intensely, and repeatedly, there is an inherent incongruence that becomes obvious when you ask the question, “Why do you have to say it so loudly?” This is not a new observation. As Shakespeare wrote over 400 years ago, “The lady protests too much, methinks.” When you really believe something solidly, it is so much a part of you that there is no need to shout it, you just say it. I once saw a filmed interview with C. G. Jung, in which the interviewer asked Jung if he believed in God. Jung replied in a soft, deep, slow voice, “Oh no, ... I don't believe; ... I know.”
Hall says, “Even stronger than the neurological no (or yes) is the matter-of-fact no (or yes),” and that the neurological no (or yes), repeated loudly and intensely, will eventually result in a matter-of-fact no (or yes). To summarize, the client is asked to utter an incongruent No (or Yes) until it becomes a congruent one. When and if this happens, it is only by overwhelming the initial incongruence. The “neurological No” is an incongruent No.
Congruence is what is often referred to as “ecology.” However, as John McWhirter has pointed out, it is better described as congruence. Even when someone is congruent about a change, that may not fit with the larger ecology of spouse, children, co-workers, larger social group, etc. To test for ecology, we would have to ask all of these other people whether or not the change fits well for them. Usually we are not able to do this, so we are limited to asking the person if it fits for all parts of them. Even if we ask them to imagine how others would respond to the change, that is only checking with the person's own representation of these other people, not the others themselves, so we are still checking for internal congruence, not the larger ecology.
| |
| |
| |
| |
