Breaking Calibrated Communication Loops at the Transition Point of Decision
When Fred initially made his first incongruent communication, Mary responded by tightening up — she was calibrated (operating on a fixed generalization from the past) to respond only to his analogue communication. As she observed the process of the therapist's teaching Fred about the difference between his intended message and the outside result, she was also learning about how she was calibrated to ignore other messages from Fred. She did not acknowledge his words, only his tone of voice and his gestures. In essence, she decided that the analogue message was the real message and responded only to it. The therapist could have chosen to intervene at this transition point first; for example:
Therapist: Mary, as I heard Fred ask for you to be more loving, I saw you flinch, and I'm wondering what you saw, heard, and felt as he said this.
Mary: Oh, he was just criticizing me again. I never am sensual enough for him.
Therapist: I heard him ask for something for himself. I wonder if you could say what made you feel as though he were criticizing you. Was it his tone of voice or the way he looked? Did you not believe what he was asking?
Mary: It was like he was yelling at me for making a mistake. Hummmm ... I guess I don't believe he was asking but that he was telling me.
Therapist: Would you like to check that out? I have a guess at this point in time that Fred has some trouble asking directly for things for himself, that maybe he believes he won't get it anyway, so he asks in a very clumsy way. I think that maybe you don't know how to understand any better than he knows how to ask. I think that there is something here for both of you to learn, if you would be willing. I would like to check it out with him and try to find some way through this block.
From this point, the therapist can teach Mary that both sets of messages she receives are valid, and that she has been responding only to one of them — to a gesture and tone which she doesn't understand. By asking, she can get helpful feedback; by continuing with the calibrated communication, she will only feel bad. At the same time, this teaches Fred that his message was clumsy, and that Mary's response was to his non-verbal message. Furthermore, his understanding of her response was a misinterpretation of her non-verbal message.
Breaking Calibrated Communication Loops at the Transition Point of Generalization
The therapist may also choose to break the calibration at the transition point of generalization. When Mary heard Fred's incongruent communication, she made a decision to pay attention only to the non-verbal part of that communication. Just as Fred didn't understand that his output did not match his intent, so, too, Mary did not understand that her response did not match Fred's intent. His gestures and his tone of voice were not congruent for Mary with asking — they were congruent with her experience of demanding. She had the feeling that he was criticizing her, telling her that she felt a certain way, the way she feels when she is being criticized, and was demanding something, so she generalized.
Let's examine the process of generalization more closely.
1) Fred is incongruent in his communication, presenting Mary with sets of messages which do not match. Specifically, he consciously intends to ask her for more loving, and his words match his conscious intent; he also feels helpless, and this feeling (largely outside of awareness) is reflected in his tonality, body posture and gestures. . ..
2) Mary must now respond. She sees Fred's body posture and gestures and hears his tone of voice, and she responds to that set of messages rather than to his words.
3) In her past experience with Fred (and others), the tonality she presently hears and the body posture and gestures are associated with demands he has made on her.
4) Mary's decision in step (2) above, plus her past experience with the part of Fred's incongruent communication to which she is attending and responding, lead her to the generalization that Fred is demanding something from her.
5) In the past, these demands, for Mary, have been connected with feelings of helplessness and anger at the unfairness of being imposed upon. Her response to Fred, then, is based more on these past feelings of anger and helplessness than on the present time-place situation.
The therapist needs to be aware that surface communication often contains deeper messages which, if uncovered, can help to establish feedback. This process of generalization constitutes another transition point at which calibration can be broken. For example:
Therapist: Mary, as Fred just asked you a question, I was wondering what this was like for you. How did you feel as Fred just asked for you to be loving?
Mary: Well, I felt like he was scolding me, telling me what I should do.
Therapist: Could you say what made you feel that way?
Mary: Well, he looked disgusted and he sounded angry.
Therapist: How did you feel as he did this?
Mary: I guess I felt defensive, pushed.
Therapist: Mary, when you see Fred looking disgusted and sounding mad, as you described he just did, does that mean he is criticizing you and pushing you?
Mary: Of course; he does that kind of thing a lot.
Therapist: Oh, so that's it. Mary, have you ever had the experience of being disgusted with yourself, or mad at yourself, and so when you spoke to someone else, it didn't come off quite the way you meant?
Mary: Well, yes; but this is different — he does this a lot.
Therapist: You're so very sure? Is it possible that this big, strong guy over here maybe doesn't feel that strong on the inside, so, when he talks to you about something which is important to him, it doesn't come out quite right? Is that a possibility?
Mary: Well, I guess so.
Therapist: Would you like to find out? I have a hunch that when Fred feels low and looks and sounds like he just did, you take one look at him and go, "Oh, my God; what have I done now?"
Breaking calibrated communication at the transition point of generalization requires that the therapist have access to some experience which the family member has had which contradicts the generalization. Or the therapist can simply create one by checking out the generalization with the other family members. Generalization can also be broken linguistically by exaggeration. For example, the therapist could say:
Therapist: Mary, if you believe this, both you and Fred are in a real bind. Do you mean that Fred has to wear a perpetual smile and always sound happy or you're being criticized and demands put upon you? That sounds like a terrible burden for both of you. Is that what you're telling me?
Breaking Calibrated Communication Loops at the Transition Point of Fixed Generalizations from the Past (Complex Equivalence)
Fixed generalizations from the past is the next transition point in calibration loops and is also another juncture at which the therapist can intervene. Mary can be helped to build a program which, for the most part, will be outside of awareness, and which has the following steps:
When Mary thinks that someone is angry at her, she feels bad in a certain way. At some other point in time, when Fred is communicating with her, but he is not angry at her, if she feels bad in that same way, then she has a fixed generalization which says, "If I feel bad in this specific way, then Fred must be angry at me."
Mary has come to experience her world in a certain way, and she has learned to move in that world by paying attention exclusively to certain clues from outside of herself, while, at the same time, ignoring all of the other messages she is receiving. This limits what is possible for her to experience. By making it possible for Mary to accept and act on the other, presently unnoticed, clues, the therapist helps her to break the fixed generalization that has held her in bondage. In other words, when Fred is angry and demanding, he presents a whole set of messages. When he communicates incongruently, he presents a small part of the messages which he uses when he is angry. Mary is calibrated by fixed generalization to interpret any of the analogue communications which occur when Fred is angry to mean that he is angry. So, by her calibration,
she responds to only a part of Fred's total message. One choice the therapist has here is to make the Complex Equivalence explicit — to label it — and then to demonstrate that it is not necessary and, in fact, distorts the communication process.
Mary: Yes, I know what he was saying: That I'm not good enough and he is tired of it and that I don't give enough.
Therapist: That isn't what I heard. What makes you think he means you're not good enough and that he is tired of it?
Mary: Well, look at him.
Therapist: What is it about the way he looks that makes you think he is tired of you and that you're not being good enough?
Mary: He always looks that way when he is tired of my making the same mistake, even when it is just not balancing my check book.
Therapist: So, if Fred makes that particular face, then anything he says means he is tired of your making
some mistake?
Mary: Yeah; well, it sounds kinda . . .
Therapist: What if he makes that face and tells you he has to go to the bathroom, is that your fault, too?
Mary: Well, no.
Therapist: Then it's not always?
Mary: No.
Therapist: Is it possible that Fred could mean something else and maybe you're just using that face as a way to be hard on yourself? Is that a possibility, maybe? (She nods "yes.") Let's find out, shall we?
Here the therapist has a chance to give new meaning and, therefore, new choices for responding to familiar behavior.
Breaking calibration loops in this way not only teaches that, just as family members are not mediums who can read minds, neither are they such good logicians, either. Most importantly, the therapist provides a model for family members to use when they have been — or suspect they have been — misunderstood. They learn that feedback works two ways, that uncovering the process beneath a response can be a tool to understanding as well as to being understood. The success of the therapist in breaking calibrated loops will be the model for family members later on, and the experience will also be an incentive for further change, especially when it is done lightly, gracefully, and without blame.
Once one of the calibrations is firmly enough established in the patterns of interaction of a family, the responses may be so programmed that, if one member does X, then another member automatically responds with Y. For example, the dialogue which occurs when one family member begins to speak and another member says, "I know what you're thinking; you don't have to tell me," is typical of what we term Mind Reading. At this point, the therapist has the choice of cutting into the Mind Reading just long enough to break the calibration. This simply may require repetitiously interrupting the pattern until the interruption itself becomes part of the process, so that intervention toward breaking the calibration can occur. For example, every time Amy begins to speak, her husband, Bill, starts to shake his head back and forth "no" before she has uttered more than half a word. Amy immediately flies into a rage, which is just what Bill claims he knew was going to happen. At this point, Amy tries to reply, stating that it is making her mad, but, as she begins to speak, Bill again starts to shake his head. In order to change this pattern, the therapist needs to interrupt long enough to gain the attention of the family members. For the therapist to make the same criticism as Amy offers would only serve to set up the same system for Bill with the therapist as he has with Amy. Here is where humor and pattern-interruption become powerful tools. The therapist tells both of them to stop.
Therapist: You said earlier, Bill, that you would like to get some peace and quiet and that you would like Amy to stop nagging you. Is that true?
Bill: That's what I said.
Therapist: I believe I can help you get it if you will try a little experiment with me. Are you willing?
Bill: Shoot.
Therapist: I would like you to place your hands on your head, one on each ear, and to do this tightly. If Amy begins to yell or nag, then clamp your hands down tight so you can't hear her. And, while you're doing this, you might use your hands to hold your head still, because I've noticed that, just as Amy begins to speak, your head rocks back and forth, and both of you get dizzy and start hallucinating. Do you know what I'm saying?
Bill: (chuckling, and Amy chuckling, too) All right, all right.
Therapist: Now, Amy, this is your big chance to say what you want to Bill, but remember, if you yell or nag, he will clamp his hands down. So, don't get dizzy, OK?
Amy: (laughing) He looks cute that way.
Therapist: I'm wondering if maybe he doesn't look like this most of the time to you?
Amy: Yes, I believe he does, but when I see it like this, I have to laugh instead of getting angry.
Therapist: OK. Now maybe we can begin to build some channels for you to really hear each other, but you will have to go slowly and not get dizzy for a change. Are you both willing?
This kind of pattern interruption (non-verbal exaggeration with humor) provides a vehicle to slow down the process long enough to get something new through the calibration loops. At the same time, another dimension can be added to the process, one which also affects the decision transition point by adding to the picture the message which was deleted by the calibration. For instance, in this particular case, the therapist might add these instructions to Bill:
Therapist: Now, Bill, as you hold your hands over your ears so you can protect yourself if Amy yells, I want you to repeat over and over, out loud, "Don't say anything bad or loud, I'm too fragile." And, Amy, as he does this, I want you to yell as loud as you need to in order to get Bill to hear you: "I'm not yelling; just listen to me, I'm not yelling." OK, now both of you do this at the same time.
The result of this kind of intervention is commonly that both family members have an experience which is familiar and, at the same time, humorous, with no blame, neither of them being the culprit. At the same time, they will get tired of the silliness and then will be ready to try a new way, after being presented with an exaggeration of the complete cycle all at once. The techniques for breaking calibrated Mind Reading are as numerous as the creativity of the therapist. The process, however, is always basically the same: To identify Mind Reading and make the process by which it occurred obvious enough to both parties that the need for feedback itself becomes apparent. We often end up saying to family members, "Do you have a license for fortune telling? Are you sure you have the credentials; I didn't know they were giving them out!" Then two things can be learned by the family members: First, how to break through calibration loops without blame, and, second, how to establish feedback. Breaking calibration loops opens the door for family members to begin to appreciate the different ways each family member gives and receives messages. The most important learning here is that what is intended is not always what is received. Or, as we like to say, the map is not the territory. When two people have different maps, they may not be of the same territory. If they then compare the differences without blame, the experience will provide a better guide for both travelers. Arguing about which map is the true map is a sure-fire sign that both individuals have forgotten that neither is.
Giving Perspective of Process
(Achieving Meta Position with Respect to System Process)
The three general strategies which we are presenting in this section will, to some extent, overlap; the difference will be more of the focus of teaching. They are provided as guides to organize your behavior, not distinctions in the territory which are isolated from one another. With this in mind, we turn, now, to the concept of assisting family members to gain perspective of system process. For a therapist to help family members to achieve this, he needs to put it in a concrete form so that the family members can understand it, and that they are given a chance to see, hear, and get their gut feelings involved. System process is the ways that all of the patterns which we are explaining in this book fit together. The therapist will be able to open up a family system only to the degree that he can represent to himself that the problem is not the pr
oblem — the patterns of coping are the source of the individual problems. So, when a family comes in and a wife says that her husband, Tom, is unreasonable because he refuses to let her go out and get a job and have a career of her own, and Tom loudly rebuts with: "Your responsibility is to the children at home, and there is no way that I will stand for your robbing them of having a mother and a secure childhood with contact and love" —
then the therapist's task is not to say who is right or who is wrong; it is not his domain to arrange a compromise. The resolution of the problem is not the main task of the therapist. Even if this problem is resolved, the calibrated communication which caused this problem will just produce another one. The task of the therapist, then, is to break the calibrated communication loops and to provide an environment for learnings about what choices and resources the family have which they can use to solve any specific problems. The therapist's jurisdiction is process, not content, the process of how each family member can achieve the hopes which the problem-solving represents (as an example). His task is to add to that process so the family members can resolve their own problems without further assistance. Then, each new conflict is an opportunity for every member to get what he wants. So, system process is the level of patterns to which the therapist is sensitive. He wants to understand what and how, not why. He strives to assist all members of the family in establishing feedback. If the family therapist does not operate at this level, he will get entangled and become part of the process, which will result in further difficulty.
Changing with Families - A Book About Further Education For Being Human Page 11
