Steve Andreas > Articles > Transforming an Uncertain/Ambiguous Quality

Find out how your database for this ambiguous quality is organized

Just as when we explored counterexamples previously, there are three possibilities for the organization of your ambiguous database:

1. Examples and counterexamples are integrated into the same database, using the same modality.
2. Examples and counterexamples are represented in the same modality, but separately in different locations.
3. Examples and counterexamples are represented in different modalities, and in different locations.

First, I'd like to see by a show of hands how many of you found that your database fit the first possibility? About a third.

And how many fit the second possibility? About half.

And how many the third? Only a few.

Did anyone have counterexamples in a different representational system, but in the same location? No. Although it is theoretically possible, no one who comes to seminars seems to do it, but perhaps someone out there does it, so it's good to keep the possibility in mind. Perhaps they are all in mental hospitals or something.

And how many of you had an ambiguous database that was already in the same form as your positive template? Only one. Usually the positive examples are not in the form of the positive template, and the first step is to put them in that form, because when they are in that form, they are most compelling to you.

As before, one of the first things that you can do is examine the content of your counterexamples as we did before, and consider the possibility that some, or all, of the counterexamples might actually be examples of a different quality. In that case, we can divide this ambiguity into two separate generalizations. The positive examples would form the basis for the unambiguous positive quality, and the counterexamples, or a group of them, would form a basis for a different and separate quality.

For instance, let's say that your ambiguous quality was intelligence, and you find that all the counterexamples are situations in which you simply hadn't had an opportunity to learn anything about a topic. Then you could think of all these “counterexamples” to intelligence as examples of situations in which you hadn't yet had an opportunity to learn, or simple ignorance. Ignorance doesn't have anything to do with intelligence, although many people confuse the two. This would resolve the ambiguity about the original quality, and clarify that there are certain situations in which your intelligence can't be expressed well because of a lack of information.

Of course, this process still usually leaves you with situations in which your intelligence can't be expressed well, but this is simply one of those difficult situations we face in life. If it's important to you, then you can seek out and learn the kind of information that will make it possible to be intelligent in those situations, too.

This is another way of understanding and accomplishing the process called content reframing, finding a different “frame” of understanding for a certain set of experiences. By reexamining a generalization, you can find a different way of thinking about the same information, such that it is valued differently. Although most of my examples here are of changing a negative evaluation into a positive one, can also change a positive evaluation into a negative one, when someone doesn't recognize that a quality has harmful consequences. Someone's quality of being a “free spirit,” and “responding spontaneously,” can also be described as being irresponsible and thoughtless of others' needs. Reframing can be a very rapid and effective way to transform the meaning of a group of experiences. Since this process has been described in great detail elsewhere, (12, Ch. 1) I won't spend much time on it.

Let's say that you have already examined your counterexamples, and have separated some of them out as belonging to some other valued quality. The next thing to do is to process the counterexamples that remain, in order to transform them into examples of the positive quality.

Since there still may be quite a lot of counterexamples, it will be even more useful to first gather them into groups before processing them. Transforming an ambiguous quality into a positive one is a significant change, so it requires particular attention to congruence. Although all the processing methods include steps that check for congruence, it is useful to begin with one about the overall process itself. “Does any part of me have any objection to having this positive quality unambiguously?”

The last important element is to check to be sure that the final database containing both examples and transformed examples is represented in the same form and location as the positive template. Now I would like to demonstrate how to transform an ambiguous quality.