The C-Operato The C-Operatorr
C- OPERATOR / 75 When the messages carried are not consistent with one another,
we have:
C(Ad < V, K, At. O >) >No
The C operator determines whether or not for any specific 4-tuple(s) being experienced or expressed at a point in time, t1, the values for the variables At, V, K, O, and Ad are consistent in meaning. For example, when Joel says (Ad) Yes and shakes his head "no" (K) the message value of the two of the variables are inconsistent:
C (Ad < V, K, At, O > ) > no
If a person were to communicate with words "yes" while shaking his head up and down, sounding and looking affirmative, such that all his output channels have messages which have meanings which match, then he would be said to be congruent:
C (Ad < At, K, V, O > ) >Yes
Similarly when Martha represents this same communication by Joel of a verbal yes and a visual no, and she has conscious access only to the visual dimensions of her experience, (her R-operator is V), she will not be aware (~ R is K, O, A, A) of the no message. The disassociation of two simultaneously presented inconsistent messages allows Martha to respond to these two inconsistent meanings from the world. However the unconscious portions of the inconsistent 4-tuple (R variables) are still accessed present.
Let us take another example. In a family therapy session Frank tells Mary he loves her. As he does this he slowly and unconsciously (involuntarily) moves his head back and forth no. Mary looks at him knitting her eyebrows. The therapist asks Mary if she believes Frank. She again hesitantly replies yes. The therapist asks Mary about the hesitant tone of her yes. She replies, "I don't know—it's just a feeling. I can't get a handle on it." In this
76 / C-OPERATOR
case when Mary was presented with incongruent communication the R-operator brought the verbal message A d into consciousness, however the visual message which was in~R was represented kinesthetically. In the session described, the therapist accused Mary of not being totally honest. This accusation was a gross and ungraceful simplification of the complex processes at work in this communication. The therapist had failed to observe Frank's incongruent communication, let alone to try to understand its source. And it is that source we wish to now discuss. Was Frank lying or was it accident that his head moved? These two answers are both inadequate with respect to the complexities of human beings. Any incongruent communication by a person is a reflection of two (minimally) inconsistent models for their behavior. Since consciousness is a limited phenomenon and the R-operator determines what will be represented, then as the R-operator shifts (as it typically does for most people), then separate representations can be constructed and thus separate models which may or may not be consistent with respect to being guides for their behavior are created. Check your own experience, have you seen something you wanted to try, but felt it was too dangerous. Or conversely perhaps you have felt a longing for something in your life, but saw it as to risky to try for. These are common expressions and are frequently the result of inconsistent representations or models for the same experience. If such inconsistent models are expressed simultaneously, then the result is incongruency such as the examples described above. (See Part II, The Structure of Magic, volume II for further discussion.)
The usefulness of the C-operator distiction is most evident in the case of hypnotic communication with clients who are incongruent — that is, clients who have more than one model for their behavior and these model are inconsistent with one another. To review briefly, there are two logical possibilities when the client the hypnotist is working with has inconsistent models— either the client expresses the conflicting models simultaneously or the client expresses the conflicting models sequentially. The first case—that of simultaneous incongruity—can be represented, as we have stated:
C-OPERATOR / 77
In other words, the messages carried by at least two of the output systems do not match—this indicates to the hypnotist that the client has conflicting models and that effective hypnotic commun ications will require that he communicate multiple messages simultaneously to each of the models involved. The second possibility—that of sequential incongruity—can be represented as:
C ( C (Ad< V, K, At, O>) t1 A ( C (Ad < V, K, At, O > )t2 > no
while both
C (Ad<V, K, At, O>)t1 >yes
and
C (Ad<V, K, At, O>)T2 >yes
The symbol C is used to identify the consistency operator when it is used to compare the consistency of two or more complete 4-tuples at two or more distinct moments in time. Such is often the case with clients who come for hypnosis for weight control. They congruently state that they want to lose weight, but when they try to maintain a diet they inevitably fail. During the time t 1 when
they are expressing the desire to lose weight they are congruent— that is, there is no model which contradicts the desire to lose weight. However there is a model or models which contradicts the desire to not eat. Such models are often stronger than post hypnotic suggestions, and in fact, work in much the same way. A series of TOTES which constitute the act of going to the kitchen and eating, are both disassociated and programmed to respond to an anchor represented in one of the variables of the 4-tuple. So very often the well meaning client is only discouraged to find him or herself half-finished with a consciously unwanted trespass on their vow of not eating. Many clients trigger the TOTE sequence by internal imagery of food, or the mention of food with internal dialgoue, this anchor is typically not represented in consciousness (that is, it is~R). Thus the sequence is fired and the sin committed. Client will often get hungry at the mere mention of food, just as the average person will automatically extend his hand for a hand shake at the slightest indication it is appropriate. Such sets of behaviors are almost involuntary unless the deliberate awareness
78 / C-OPERATOR
is used to control them. The limits of conscious representation, however, prevent long term concentration and so the smoker will smoke, the obese will eat, until reprogramming creates some pervasive change in the intact series of TOTES. Further, if the trigger or anchor which initiates the series of TOTES is in~R for the client, they will not have the choice of bringing it into consciousness as a way for regaining choice and control over theirown behavior. In terms presented previously, these particular forms of incongruency are examples of the split between lead system and representational system where the contents of the two systems are inconsistent* Part of the job of an effective communicator hypnotist will be to access all parts or models of the client they are working with particularly relevant to the changes the client wants. For example, in the case of sequential incongruity, it will be particularly important for the communicator/hypnotist to access the par ts of the client, the models which in the past have sabotaged all attempts at weight loss or any other type of habit control such as smoking, na il -b iting. .. By accessing models whic h would otherwise express themselves sequentially after the session, sequential incongruity is converted into simultaneously expressed incongruity, thus allowing the communicator to communicate with all models at the same time.* In this way all the parts of the client are available as resources to produce the desired change instead of just a portion which will be overpowered by other parts at some later time. Here the hypnotist/communicator will do well to insure he or she has a full range of choice in their own verbal and non-verbal repertoire of communication skills. With regard to this, we mention in passing the techniques of asking the client to pretend they are different and noticing incongruities, asking the client to speculate freely about how their life would be different if they had accomplished the change (essentially the Meta-Model question for modal operators — "What would happen if you did?"), playing polarity (see Part II, The Structure of Magic, volume II), asking the client to pretend to not want to make the change and then demand that he explain why they don't want to....
The usefulness of a communicator/hypnotist understanding and being able to detect and utilize incongruency, is of vital importance. In our training seminars many hypnotists ask for techniques for working with resistant clients. Our understanding
C-OPERATOR / 79
of resistance is that some part of a person is not willing to cooperate with the hypnotist, say, for example, in the context of a trance induction, even when the client verbally has stated a desire to go into a trance. If the hypnotist/communicator does not use up-time strategy and does not detect the multiple messages of an incongruent client, then he will meet resistance. If he detects mu lti ple messages and does not have the tools to pace, and communicate with more than one model of a single client at the same time, then he will meet resistance. If he detects multiple messages and does not have the tools to pace, and communicate with more than one model of a single client at the same time, then he will also typically meet resistance. Resistance, in our understanding, is a lack on the part of a communicator to detect, communicate with and utilize creatively all pa rts of a client.*
We break the following discussion into two parts, first com munication with congruent clients (where C ( Ad <At , V, K, O>)
= yes) then secondly the incongruent client case (where C ( Ad < At,V,K,O>) = no).