Robert Dilts - Sleight of Mouth - The Magic of Conversational Belief Change

292 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

This also serves to deflect the outcome frame back to the
speaker, so R is able to maintain the problem frame.)

P2: Let's call them together. (Attempts to widen the frame
to involve R.)

R: No, you have to do it for me. If I called the hospital they
would probably think I was crazy. Since you understand
me, I know you'll help me by calling them for me. (Mota
Frame: A third party has more credibility. They will
think I'm paranoid, because I will be saying that it is
happening to me.)

P2: What would make them think you were crazy? (Going
to their Model of the World and Chunking Down, in
order to find possible options or Counter Examples.)

R: Give me a break, you know why they'll think that!
(Reasserting the Meta Frame in the form of a presuppo-
sition: "You already know why")

P2:1 don't think you're crazy. (Attempting to provide an
ongoing Counter Example.)

R: That's beside the point. I need help right now! (Shifting
to Another Outcome: "1 need help now")

P3: What would happen if you stopped monkeying around
with the microphone chord? (Using the cause-effect
generalization asserted by the belief to shift attention to
the influence of R's own behavior.)

R: (Suspiciously) What are you asking me that for? (Meta
Frame: "Your implication that I should change my
behavior means you are against me.")

APPLYING THE PATTERNS AS A SYSTEM 293

P4: (Laughing) She's weird. I'd watch out for her too.

R: Yeh . . . Jim wears glasses and she's wearing them too.
What am I going to do? Won't someone help me?!
(Widening the frame size.)

P5: What could Jim do so you wouldn't feel he was after
you? (Seeking a basis for counter examples to the
limiting belief about Jim.)

R: I don't want to feel any differently about him. I just
want to get rid of him. I already know he's after me.
Look! Here's evidence! (Holds out microphone chord).
Can't you see it? You don't deny that this is cold hard
evidence do you? It's right here. Help me. {Asserting the
presupposition that Jim is out to get R, Chunking Down
to focus on the microphone chord as evidence.)

P6: Well first let's get the microphone off of you; and then
go talk to Jim about it. You need immediate relief right?
(Attempting to establish an outcome frame in relation to
the microphone chord and Jim's intention.)

R: But if I take the microphone off he'll just do something
else. That's just treating the symptom. He's put this
thing on me consistently every day. What makes you
think that taking the microphone off will stop him?
(Changes the frame size by expanding the time frame in
order to refocus on the problem frame and the conse-
quences of Jim's 'negative intention'.)

P5: What do you need in order to know that he's not after
you? (Attempting to Chunk Down to define the Reality
Strategy for the belief about Jim's intention, and estab-
lish possible Counter Examples.)

294 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

R: Why do you keep trying to convince me that he's not
after me?! I can already prove that he is after me. I don't
want to be convinced that he isn't after me. That would
just get me in trouble. (Meta Frame: "lb try to change
my belief that he is after me would have negative
consequences.")

P7: What do you want us to help you accomplish? (At-
tempting to establish an Outcome Frame directly.)

R: I just want to be protected...to be safe from him. And I
can't do it by myself. I need help. (Using a slightly
negative formulation of the outcome in order to main-
tain the problem frame.)

P8: (Vehemently) Yes, but you noticed t h a t this wire was
out here all the time. That's the first step you can take for
your own safety! (Using a Consequence of R's belief to try
to establish a feedback frame—indirectly applying the
belief to itself—and bring R out of a Victim' position.)

R: It really makes me nervous when someone starts yelling
at me. (Meta Framing the comment to place attention
on the consequence of the non verbal portion of the
statement on R's internal state.)

P7: How would you know when you were safe from Jim?
(Attempting to establish an outcome frame and a feed-
back frame by Chunking Down and establishing the
Criterial Equivalence for 'safety1.)

R: I can't be safe as long as he's out there. Get rid of him
for me right now. (Chunking back up and reasserting
the problem frame and its consequence.)

APPLYING THE PATTERNS AS A SYSTEM 295

P9: What is it doing for you to still keep t h e wire on, even
though its dangerous? (Chunking back down and shift-
ing focus from Jim to the "wire," and seeking R's
intention in order to establish an outcome frame. "Not
safe" has also been redefined as "dangerous.")

R: The microphone is only dangerous when I walk. The
point is that its just another way that Jim is trying to
get me. (Meta Framing and changing the frame size in
order to shift attention away from the microphone chord
and back to Jim's negative intention.)

P9: So the wire lets you know he's trying to get you?
(Chunking down to check the Reality Strategy for how
the wire and the generalization regarding Jim's inten-
tion are connected.)

R: The wire doesn't let me know anything. I already know
he's after me. Are you trying to confuse me? (to audi-
ence) I think she's crazy, (lb P9) I'm confused so you
must be crazy... Come on you people are supposed to be
NLP Practitioners. Why don't you help me? (Putting
attention fully in Jim's negative intention as the cause
of the "danger." Making a 'complex equivalence' between
R's internal state—"I'm confused—and a judgment about
the other person—"you must be crazy." Also, R is placing
responsibility for his problem state on t h e audience.)

P6: (Laughing) I'm starting to get scared of Jim too.

R: And rightfully so. (To audience) He's the only one of you
that's got any brains. He's going to get rid of J i m for me.
(Asserting a problem consequence of accepting R's prob-
lem frame.)

296 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

P10: If his tying you up means that he's after you then . . .
(Redefines the problem with the microphone as being
"tied up.")

R: No. You are missing the whole point. He's not 'tying me
up'. He knows that in the course of the program 111
eventually trip on the wire. (Challenging the redefini-
tion.)

P10: And the only way you can stop that is by getting rid of
him? (Checking for Counter Examples.)

R: Right!

P10: So maybe its a good thing you have that chord tied
around you so you don't get mad and kill him. (Rede-
fines "getting rid of as "killing" and attempts to estab-
lish a positive consequence with respect to the wire.)

R: I don't want to kill him! I just want to be protected from
him. What are you trying to do, make a murderer out of
me? See?! What Jim has been doing to discredit me is
working. He's got you thinking that I'm out to get HIM.
(Meta Frame: "Your redefinition of "getting rid of him" to
"killing him" is a reinforcement of my limiting belief and
problem frame.)

As the transcript illustrates, I was able to recapitulate, to
a certain degree, what Bandler had done in the program in
Washington D.C. It was upon my return from this seminar
that 1 explicitly formulated the fourteen patterns comprising
the system of Sleight of Mouth patterns, based upon what I
had been able to internalize intuitively from Bandler's per-
formance.

APPLYING THE PATTERNS AS A SYSTEM 297

Sleight of Mouth and the
Law of Requisite Variety

These initial experiences with Sleight of Mouth, made it
clear to me that the ability to either maintain or outframe a
particular belief is essentially an application of the Law of
Requisite Variety to belief systems. According to the Law of
Requisite Variety, if you want to consistently get to a particu-
lar goal state, you have to increase the number of options
available for reaching that goal in proportion to the degree of
potential variability (including possible resistances) in the
system. That is, it is important to have variations in
operations used to accomplish goals—even if those opera-
tions have produced successful results in the past—because
systems are prone to change and variation.

It is often claimed that "if you always do what you've
always done, you will always get what you've always got."
But it is not necessarily true that you will even "get what you
have always got." Doing the same thing does not always
produce the same result if the surrounding system changes.
It is obvious that if there is a traffic jam or road work
blocking your typical route to work, you will not get there on
time if you 'do what you've always done'. Instead you must
find alternative routes. Taxi drivers in big cities often know a
variety of ways to get to the airport or to a particular street
in case there is some type of obstruction on the usual route.

The necessity of 'requisite variety1 is probably nowhere
more evident than in the basic biology of our bodies. The
biological killers that plague us today are not dangerous
because of their strength, but because of their 'requisite
variety1; and our lack of requisite variety to regulate them.
What makes cancer dangerous is its degree of variation and
adaptability. Cancer cells are quickly changing cells that arc
able to adapt rapidly to different environments. Cancer
becomes life threatening when our immune systems are

298 SLEIGHT OF MOUTH

unable to produce the regulatory variety necessary to iden-
tify and effectively 'absorb* proliferating cancer cells. The
field of oncology has been stymied in its attempt to treat
cancer because cancer cells have more requisite variety than
the powerful chemical poisons and radiation treatments
being used in the attempt to destroy them. At the beginning,
these treatments are able to effectively kill many cancer cells
(along with many healthy cells as well, unfortunately). Varia-
tions of the cancer cells, however, are eventually produced
that are resistant to that treatment; leading to a reoccur-
rence of the cancer symptoms. Stronger and more deadly
chemicals are tried, until a point is reached in which the
therapy becomes life threatening to the patient, and no more
can be done to help medically.

The AIDS virus produces similar problems. Like cancer,
the AIDS virus is extremely flexible and adaptable, making it
difficult to treat with chemotherapy. The virus itself effects
the immune system reducing its flexibility. It should be noted
that the AIDS virus does not destroy a person's entire
immune system. It only influences parts of it. People with
AIDS still fend off many infections and diseases every day.
What AIDS influences is the immune system's adaptability
Recent studies have shown that in a healthy person's body,
roughly half of the immune system cells are 'preprogrammed'
to respond to specific illnesses. The other half are not yet
programmed to respond to anything in particular, leaving
them available to adapt to new challenges. In the bodies of
people who have AIDS, that ratio changes such that approxi-
mately 80% of the immune cells are preprogrammed and only
20% are non-specific and free to learn and adapt to new
situations. The cells that are effected by the AIDS virus are
the ones that give the immune system its 'requisite variety*.

An implication of the Law of Requisite Variety is that
these illnesses would be most effectively treated by increas-
ing the regulatory variety of the immune system. A healthy
immune system is essentially an effective learning organiza-