Context/Content Reframing Differences? - I'm confused.

[unhypnotizablynot]

I'm confused about the difference(s) between 'Context' & 'Content' Reframing in terms of 'Sleight of Mouth'.

Are the definitions of and differences between them quite concise or quite loose?

And if not loose, then what specifically are the definitions / differences?

Any opinions/ideas/suggestions that would begin to start to continue to enable the transformation of my confusion into understanding, would be much appreciated.

:)

[Eric]

Hi unhypnotizablynot,



Imagine you have got a suitcase with one million dollars, nah, let's make it ten million dollars, and your are in a City Mall surrounded by stores where you can buy everything you ever wanted. Well now, imagine you have that same suitcase standing alone in the desert surrounded by nothing else but sand. That money becomes a heavy bunch of paper to walk around with. In this case the changed context (City Mall/desert) gives a different significance to the money.



a behaviour/quality that is bad in one context/situation may be excellent in another context/situation



Now, being in the desert with your 10-Million Dollar suitcase you see several footprints in the sand, here are two content frames: "Finally, there are human beings! I was already worried all alone in the desert. I may buy a camel from them, so I can get out of here faster." or, same footprints but "My god! Alibaba and his 40 thieves, they will steal my suitcase and leave me here in the desert!"



a fact/piece of information can have different meanings, be interpreted in different ways



All the best,



Eric

[unhypnotizablynot]

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

Eric, your explanation is much appreciated.

Using the information you've given, let me see if I understand this correctly from a CONVERSATIONAL point of view.

If I say:

"These footprints in the sand mean I can buy a camel and get out of here faster."

or if I say:

"These footprints in the sand mean Alibaba and his 40 thieves will steal my suitcase."

Then either of the two statements above ( which are complex-equivalences in NLP ) have the same CONTEXT ( i.e. 'footprints in the sand' ), but the CONTENT is different ( i.e. it can be either 'get out of here faster' OR 'thieves will steal my suitcase'. )

Have I understood this correctly, from a conversational point of view??? i.e. the Context stays the same but the Content has ( in this instance ) two possible frames.

Furthermore, if someone presents me with the C-Eq statement: "These footprints in the sand mean I can buy a camel and get out of here faster", and I reframe it by saying: "It's not the footprints in the sand that mean you can buy a camel and get out of here faster, it's actually the fact you have a suitcase full of money that means you can buy a camel and get out of here faster", then would this be ( from a conversational point of view ) that I have in this instance reframed the Context ( by changing the frame of 'footprints in the sand' to a frame of 'suitcase full of money' ) whilst the Content ( i.e. 'get out of here faster' ) remains the same ???

Am I on the right track with this, from the conversational angle?

I have been puzzling over this Context/Content Sleight-of-Mouth conversational issue for months, as it happens.

Any input from anyone else would also be much appreciated.

Thanks.

:)

[Eric]

Hi unhypnotizable,

Allow me to draw you a picture. Let's make this situation part of a halted motion picture slide. We just see that one frame, a man with his money filled suitcase stares at footprints in the sand. Because of the heat you can't see exactly what is behind him, all you see is the sand, the footprints, the sun and that man with his suitcase full of money. Now, as the director of the film you can change the upcoming slides by changing the context only... (Footprints, suitcase, man, sand stay equal) but in the next frame the viewer recognizes the desert or a people filled beach or a theme environment in Disneyworld. The context would be like the blue screen in films. Changing the context would provide a different meaning to the situation, as it is quite not the same being in a real desert or in Disneyworld. The context influenced the meaning of the situation.



A context reframe places the same behaviour/ situation in another environment, where the behaviour/ situation stays identical but changes its outcome or is an acceptable choice.



But what if the man is in fact in the desert and the context is not changeable. As the director you go for a reframe of the content you have several options for the upcoming slide frames i.e.:



Footprints in the desert sand mean …Alibaba is near …helpful people are near …the man is walking in circles.



You can also take another chunk of the content, the suitcase for example can signify …I am a rich man, I can buy me a camel when I find a seller … this money is heavy and slowing me down… I am so glad I have that money, as I can burn it, so they’ll find me because of the smoke.



A content reframe leaves the behaviour/ situation as it is but gives the behaviour/ situation another meaning.



Quote:



Furthermore, if someone presents me with the C-Eq statement: "These footprints in the sand mean I can buy a camel and get out of here faster", and I reframe it by saying: "It's not the footprints in the sand that mean you can buy a camel and get out of here faster, it's actually the fact you have a suitcase full of money that means you can buy a camel and get out of here faster", then would this be ( from a conversational point of view ) that I have in this instance reframed the Context ( by changing the frame of 'footprints in the sand' to a frame of 'suitcase full of money' ) whilst the Content ( i.e. 'get out of here faster' ) remains the same ???

In terms of SOM I would classify this reframe as Redefine (Substituting a new word for one of the words used in the belief statement that means something similar but has different implications).

CONTEXT: Standing in the desert, with a suitcase full of money, seeing footprints.

CONTENT: These footprints in the sand (X1) = (Y1) I can buy a camel and get out of here faster.

CONTENT: A suitcase full of money (X2) = (Y1) I can buy a camel and get out of here faster.

From a conversational point of view you redefined the content of the belief.



All the best, Eric

[unhypnotizablynot]

Eric,

I'm fascinated by your last post, and would like to consider it more carefully.

I'm offline for a day or so, but have made a print-out of your post, and shall give thought to your comments.

I hope you'll be able to check back on this thread in a day or two, as I'll be able to reply properly then, and by then have thought about what you said more carefully.

Many thanks.

:)

[unhypnotizablynot]

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

Eric,

I've cross-referenced your last posting with some Dilts SOM materials, and I believe I understand a lot better now.

One thing that you said really made a big difference, and that was where you said: "You can also take another chunk of the content........."

I now realise that I had previously been getting confused between 'the context' and 'a chunk of content'.

It's really so much clearer to me now that I think in terms of "chunks of content".

You've helped me a lot.

Many thanks.

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif :) http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif :) http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif :) http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Robert]

One of my favorite reframes from Milton Erickson that is applicable to your question is, "Confusion is only the doorway to a new and different reality."

[unhypnotizablynot]

As a reframe, I like the classic NLP one of: "The meaning of every communication is the response you get".

[Robert]

Reframing reframers can be reframed.

What kind of context reframe is apply to self?

[unhypnotizablynot]

Reframing reframers can be reframed.

I feel dizzy.


What kind of context reframe is apply to self?

A kind of counter-frame?