Steve Andreas > Articles > Transforming an Uncertain/Ambiguous Quality

Demonstration #1: Ambiguous Quality to Positive Quality

So, Janice, there's some quality that you are aware of, and you're not sure if you have it or not. Is that right?

Janice: That's right.

I'd rather you didn't mention content, by the way, unless we get stuck somewhere, and then you can just whisper it to me. Mentioning content would distract others from following the process, so I want to be kind to them and withhold it. You have already worked with a quality that you were sure of and that you liked. Can you tell me a little bit about the structure of your positive template?

Janice: I had sort of a collage of pictures here in front of me.

OK. Fairly close, are they?

Janice: Yes, quite close, about here. (She gestures about a foot in front of her face.)

And tell me a little bit more. About how many images are there?

Janice: Oh, lots.

Lots. Hundreds?

Janice: Probably. Lots of them.

So then the pictures have to be fairly small.

Janice: Yes.

OK. And are they more or less rectangular?

Janice: No, they're kind of oval shaped.

Ovals. And how about the overall shape of the collage—is it kind of an oval, as well?

Janice: It's kind of wavy.

OK. Now, given that the pictures are fairly small, how do you access information from them?

Janice: I can choose any one of them and step into it. It happens spontaneously.

So it's easy for you to associate into any of them. It's very quick, you go into it, and it's right there in front of you, right?

Janice: Yeah.

And when you see the whole collage, there's probably no sound, but when you step into one, then you get the sound and the feelings.

Janice: Yeah, it gets big. (She gestures broadly with her hands.)

Usually the nonverbal gestures give you wonderful information that confirms what the person says. Occasionally they appear to disconfirm, and then you need to check more to find out what's going on, or if something important has been left out. OK, this is the positive template, the structure that we want to end up with when we are done. And Janice, you know all the ways in which you improved this template earlier.

If I were working with someone who didn't know anything about what you have been learning, I would go through the list of all the different things that we've done, and make sure that they have all three perceptual positions, small chunks and large chunks of time, future examples, counterexamples, and all those other things that we have been working with. Since you have all done that, I can just demonstrate the overall pattern.

Next, Janice, we need to know the structure of your ambiguous quality. I'd like to call the positive aspect of your ambiguous quality “Q,” just so I have a way of talking about it without mentioning content. And there's also the negative aspect, the “not Q.” How do you represent the ambiguity at this moment?

Janice: (looking up) Ummm, it's in a grid.

It looks like it's higher, too.

Janice: Yeah. I have quite a lot of examples of the positive. But equally as many negative.

And are they in the same place? Tell me a bit more about your grid.

Janice: It's more rectangular, and the individual pictures are more rectangular... And I've got it tied in with time. They mostly alternate—the negatives and the positives. Sometimes there can be a bunch of either one or the other. The negative ones are brighter.

The negative ones are brighter. That probably makes them more prominent to you.

Janice: Yes, I notice them more.

When you say it has to do with time, does that mean that each image is later in time than the one next to it, in a sequence?

Janice: Yeah.

And they more or less alternate, right? So you get a plus, then a minus, then plus, then every once in a while you get a few minuses, and then maybe a few pluses or whatever. They're organized by time, and the negatives ones are brighter. Are there any other difference between the negatives and the positives? How about size—they're both rectangles?

Janice: The negative ones are maybe a bit more three dimensional, like a relief.

OK, Are there any other differences? ...

Janice: I think those are the key elements. With the negative ones, there's more auditory.

There's more auditory with the negative ones.

Janice: Yeah, there is some auditory. If there's any auditory in the positive ones, it's much quieter.

Since the negative ones are brighter, more 3-D, and have auditory, I'd guess that you more often think of yourself as “not Q.” Does that fit for you? (Janice: Yes.)

Before proceeding, I want you to do a thorough congruence check. Turn your attention inward, and ask if any part of you has any objection to your having Q as an unambiguous part of your identity. Be sensitive to any signal in any modality—Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic...

Janice: No, all I have is a nice expectancy, a kind of eagerness to go ahead, and that's in all modalities.

OK, fine. I noticed that your head and body also moved slightly forward, which is congruent with that. Next I want you to group all the negative ones and then examine them, to see if a group of them are actually examples of some other quality, because if so, then we can simply separate them from Q.

Janice: No, I don't think so.

OK. There are a number of choices about what sequence we use to transform these negative ones into positive ones. I'm going to try one sequence, and if it doesn't fit for you, you can let me know, and we'll back up and do it a different way, because I want to make sure it's comfortable for you. If at any time we do something that is at all uncomfortable, let me know, and we'll try something else.

I'd like you to start by just bringing this collage for the ambiguous quality down into the same space where the positive template is. It looks like they're both about the same distance, right?

Janice: Yeah.

Try just bringing it down into the same space that the positive template occupies ... and report back to me about how that works for you, and if that results in any other changes...

Janice: It gets softer.

It gets softer. Did the images become more rounded? Does it take the form of the template—with the wavy rounded outside, and oval individual examples and counterexamples?

Janice: Yeah. They become more random, as well. The distribution isn't arranged by time any more.

OK. Great. That sounds good to me. Notice how important location is. When Janice moved the grid down into the location of the positive template, several things happened spontaneously. The time sequencing disappeared, the positive and negative ones became more randomly oriented, the shape changed from rectangles into ovals. Often when you make a location change, many other things change spontaneously. And I always like to track that, so I know what's happening. Is that comfortable for you?

Janice: Yes, I like the softness.

Now, I want you to see if you can find any other examples of positive Q that you could add in to that. They might all be in there already, but maybe you could find some other positive ones, other times when you have had that quality in the way that you would like...

Janice: I think I have most of them in there already.

OK, fine. I'm doing what I can to make Q more like the positive template. Sometimes people go, “Oh! There's this other one and that other one,” and so on, and then they can add more positive ones into it, which makes it even stronger.

OK, now I'd like you to take a look at the the images of negative Q, the counterexamples. You said that now they are ovals. Are they still brighter? And 3-D with auditory and so on? Or has anything changed in that?

Janice: I get auditory if I step into them. And, yes, they're still brighter.

OK. And how about the 3-D relief?

Janice: Uhhh, no, they're flat now.

Now I want you to close your eyes and allow those counterexamples, the negative Q, to group themselves. Maybe they start moving or swimming around and end up grouping themselves into certain assemblages that have something in common. Perhaps it might be one group, perhaps it might be several, I don't know. But they'll group themselves somehow in terms of what they have in common...

Janice: There are a number of different commonalities between them. And yet in some ways they could also share those commonalities, so it could be, say, three descriptions that would—

OK, so there are three criteria that are common to all of them?

Janice: Yeah.

Let's try taking them all at once and see what happens. I'm lazy, so if we can do something that could change a whole bunch of experiences at once, I always like to try for it. And then if it doesn't work, or there are some left over, then we can always work more with those. So you're aware of how they all share these three criteria, is that right?

Janice: Well, I think I can group the three criteria actually into one word.

OK, so the three criteria can even be grouped into one word, so they all have this in common. Now, choose the most significant one of those counterexamples—the worst one that somehow symbolizes all the others, and represents of all of them.

Janice: Could I take two?

Sure. Take two if you want. And now do some kind of transformation with them. I would transform them one at a time, probably, but do whatever is easiest for you. Start by trying simple videotape-editing. If you were to go through that kind of experience again, what would you like to do differently that would be an example of positive Q? You don't need to tell me about it. Just let me know if you need any assistance in transforming those two examples.

Janice: Well, in both situations there's another person involved ... who is implanting the negative aspect.

OK. So what resources would you need to be able to comfortably deal with that situation in which this other person is behaving in a way that's difficult for you? If you run into any difficulties, let me know, and I'll offer you more specific instructions...

If I were working with someone who didn't know anything about change processes, of course I would need to do much more, and I probably wouldn't do it content-free. I would need to know something about the content of this one word that encapsulates the three words, which describe what is common to all the counterexamples. At this point, it's a matter of using any change technique at your disposal to assist someone in transforming the counterexamples into positive examples.

Janice: I am having a bit of difficulty in finding resources to deal with it.

OK. Can you think of someone else that you know, or you've heard of, or seen in movies or something, who has that kind of resource? Someone who can deal with that kind of situation in a way that you consider resourceful and appropriate...

Janice: OK.

So have you got it the way you want it? Have you done both of them?

Janice: Yes, I've done both of them.

So now you have two representations of positive Q that have been transformed from the negative. We said these were to represent all the others, so I want you to check several of the other negative ones, and see if they are transformed, or if we have some further work to do.

Janice: Mmhm.

Are they all different, too?

Janice: They're not as bright.

That's probably a good indication. I want you to pick any one of them and step into it, and find out if it is transformed, or if is it still a negative example. Doing change work on a group of experiences usually transfers to all of the examples, but I like to check to make sure.

Janice: Should these feel all like the positive Q?

Uh huh.

Janice: (hesitating) Well, they're not negative. Even the ones that I deliberately transformed are less negative, but they're not—

OK. Now, that's an indication to me that you need an additional resource, because we want these to be fun, not just less negative. Maybe “fun” is the wrong word. But, we want them to be really positive, not just “OK.”

Janice: “Fun” sounds good.

If it fits for you, that's wonderful. But whatever resource you add, we want these experiences to end up being so positive that no matter what happens out there in the real world, you're “bullet-proof,” and you can take great pleasure in that. So maybe you need to search for another resource. Maybe fun, maybe humor—that is a wonderful resource—or some kind of enjoyment.

And since you said this has to do with another person, I'm going to suggest a couple of things, without knowing anything about the content. Sometimes it can be very helpful to have some compassion for them, and to realize that their negative behavior is just what they're doing out of their own unhappiness, or their own limitations, or family history, or whatever. In other words, what they're saying or doing is not really about you—it's about them.

Janice: Mmhm.

Are they positive examples now? (Janice: Yeah.) Great. Now check some of the others to make sure they're also positive now. (Janice: Yes.) Great. Are there any leftovers? (Janice: No.) When you look at them, do you have some way of knowing which ones are transformed and which ones really happened.

Janice: Yes, the transformed ones are smaller.

OK. And they're not as bright now, is that right? (Janice: Yes.) OK. Now, I want to ask you about them being smaller. I'm a little concerned that by making them smaller you would be deemphasizing them. Those transformed examples could be even more valuable as a direction for you in how you want to be in your life than the original examples, because they represent how you can exhibit that quality in situations where you previously couldn't. I suggest that you consider color coding them in some way to indicate that they were transformed from counterexamples, so that they could be the same size as the others.

Janice: In the positive template, the counterexamples are turquoise, so I could use that color.

That sounds fine. Go ahead and do that, and then see if it is OK to have the transformed ones be the same size as the originals.

Janice: Yes, that works.

Now I'd like you to compare what you have assembled with the original positive template, and find out if you notice any differences.

Janice: The only difference I see is that the positive template has those turquoise counterexamples that haven't been transformed.

Oh, you still have counterexamples there? Counterexamples are useful, but they are relatively crude, so my preference would be for you to take the counterexamples that are now turquoise in the original positive template and transform them into examples in the same way that you did the others.

Janice: OK. Mmhm.

Take a minute to do that.

Janice: It's done.

It's done already. OK, fine. Sometimes people are fast, and jump ahead. So now if you compare Q with the positive template, are they the same structurally? (Janice: Mmhm.) Now I want you to check to be sure that Q is an appropriate name for this database we have just created, or if some other name would fit better.

Janice: Q is fine.

OK, great. Open your eyes. Are you a Q person?

Janice: Hmm! (slightly surprised) I am a Q person. (she laughs)

Can you say anything about how you feel about that?

Janice: Very positive.

And if you look back and compare what you're experiencing now with what you experienced 15 minutes ago? ...

Janice: It's hard to remember. (laughing) It feels much stronger.

If you examine one of the transformed examples, they used to have a lot of auditory in them. If you step into one of those, does it still have a lot of auditory, or is it different?

Janice: It has the auditory, but it's much softer and kinder.

OK, so the tonality of the voices or the sounds has shifted.

Janice: Yes. And it doesn't “get me” emotionally in the same way.

Great. When I ask questions like this, I am also testing, to be sure that the changes are complete. Janice, I want you to check again to find out if any part of you has any objection to the changes we have made? ...

Janice: I just have a little happy bubbly feeling all over, so I'm pretty sure the answer is “No.”

Do you have any questions for Janice about her experience of doing this? Save any questions about the process for me.

Fran: How did it feel when you were changing?

Janice: Much easier than I anticipated. It was primarily visual. Because I only had the auditory if I stepped into a picture, what was going on was really just visual. When I grouped them together and looked at what could be their positive intent, there was a sense of relaxation when I recognized that there was a positive quality to the negative. So that was a sort of a “Whew!” feeling. And then when they were transformed, it just felt good. But primarily it was visual.

Are there any other questions for Janice? ... Thanks very much. Do you have any questions for me about the process?

Tess: I'm wondering why you got all the information about the positive template and the ambiguous quality first, before asking about congruence? Why not ask about congruence right at the beginning?

If you do a congruence check right at the beginning, there is some danger that the change we are proposing might be unclear, and that muddies the communication. A part of the person that might actually object to it might not realize it, and a part that wouldn't actually object to the change might be worried and think that it did have an objection. By gathering all that information first, I set the stage for the check, so that every part of the person knows exactly what we're proposing to do. “We're planning to make this ambiguous quality just like that positive template.” That's a very clear and specific communication that makes sure that we get any real objections, and not have to deal with concerns that are only due to vague communication.

Fred: I still wonder about making all these transformations. If all I had is transformed examples, I might forget all the mistakes that I made in the past, and the way I thought of myself would be kind of a lie, because I didn't actually do all those things.

Well, there are several related issues here that I'd like to respond to. The first is that if you are concerned about forgetting past mistakes, make sure that you include the counterexample linked to its transformation, or color code the transformed examples the way Janice did. If you include the counterexample itself, then you have all that information about how you made mistakes in the past available to you. If you code the transformed examples in some way, that indicates that you made mistakes in the past, but omits the detailed information about how it occurred.

The second point I want to make is that a transformed quality might be a lie with regard to the past, but it's a truth with regard to the future. Remember that your self-concept is a feed-forward system that creates how you want to be in the future. In one sense, NASA's moon program was a lie for years until it actually put a man on the moon. If you have made effective transformations of past mistakes, they will result in your actually being different in future situations, and that is the truth that matters.

In order to understand behavior, psychology and psychiatry has searched for cause-effect relationships in people's lives, and that has produced a lot of useful information. However, sometimes that gets warped into the idea that we are only products of our past, or completely trapped and determined by our past experiences. We also have feed-forward systems, in which our goals in the present determine our future—and the self-concept is the most powerful one that I know of. If you didn't utilize your self-concept in order to change your future, then you would be trapped by your past.

Alice: Janice's ambiguous quality was in the same visual representational system as her positive template, but in a different location. What if the ambiguous quality was in the auditory or kinesthetic system, as well as being divided in different locations?

OK, let's assume that the positive template is visual, and the ambiguous quality is divided between the positive auditory examples and negative kinesthetic examples. I would first take the positive auditory ones, and change them into visual images, and then put them into the template, because that gives you a head start on creating the positive quality.

Then I'd take the negative kinesthetic ones and change them to visual images, examine them, group them, and transform them into positive examples, and put them into the template. However, if that wasn't comfortable, I'd try something else. When you keep your eventual outcome clearly in mind, you can vary how you get there.

For instance, I might first try just moving the entire ambiguous representation into the location of the positive template, as I did with Janice, to see if the examples would automatically change into visual images. I wouldn't count on that working, but it might. Rather than talk about it, let's demonstrate. Who has an ambiguous quality that's in a different modality and in different locations?