Actions and descriptions are circular. Actions and descriptions are circular.
This chapter describes how we utilize an interactional view to understand client interactions of solution descriptions and attempted solutions. We then describe how questions can introduce difference and how to choose questions that fit an interactional understanding.
As we described briefly in Chapter Two, we subscribe to an interactional view. We assume that the interaction of descriptions and actions is circular and that the interaction of meaning and action is circular. Together, descriptions and actions form experience. More pragmatically, we mean that there will usually be a fit or consistency of interaction between the way people describe a problem or goal and what they do about the problem or goal. If parents think that the situation with their child is one where the child is acting badly, they will take the action of punishment. If a husband thinks that the reason for conflict in a marriage is his spouse’s stubbornness, he may try to fix the stubbornness by trying to change his spouse’s attitude.
People usually use the same meaning to determine the outcome of the attempted solution or course of action. If parents punish their child for bad behavior, they will look at the outcome of that action for confirmation about the original decision about the behavior being bad. If a husband tries to convince his spouse to be less stubborn so that they have fewer fights, he will probably look at his spouse’s response and actions for feedback about his original decision about the stubbornness.
With a solution-focus, we carry this interactional view into the conversation with our clients. We assume that there is a circular relationship between how they describe their situation and what they do about it. So when we converse with them about their goal, their “exceptional times,” and their hypothetical solutions, we assume that a change in the meaning or description may lead to more of what they want. Our intent in conversation with them is to facilitate their opening up new or different meaning so that they can do something different and get more of what they want outside of the therapy time. The criteria for the success of our conversing with clients is when the clients say that they are getting more of what they want or that there is no more reason for meeting with us.
This interactional view of meaning and action (meaning of the stated goal and the resulting action) is exemplified by a young man who is having trouble writing a dissertation for school. He complains that he cannot get started. When we ask how we can help him with this, he states that he would like to be making more progress. Right now, he feels as if he is not getting much done, that he is just procrastinating and worrying. He states, however, that this past week he did get some of it done.
We ask about these times when he is getting something written. He states that he recently decided to adopt a “first draft” mode. “How is this different?” we ask. He says that normally he starts writing and then thinks about all the mistakes or imagines that his advisor will think this is not good enough. Then he stops writing. With this new “first draft” mode, he does not stop to correct things as much and he just keeps going. Despite the tendency to correct his mistakes or question the thinking about the paper, he continues to write.
These thoughts and actions of the exception can be described as an interaction of meaning and action taken. There are several differences within the exception from the problem time. The client makes the initial distinction of “first draft” being different from finished copy with which he would be more critical. He decides to continue writing despite temptation to critically evaluate his writing as he writes. He decides he is making progress because he has written several more pages in less time than if he tried to judge the work as he went along. All these differences act as feedback about his initial distinction of “first draft.” The differences serve as feedback also for his deciding to continue to adopt this new rule.
Given that he makes the distinction about first drafts being different from other writing, he goes on to write even more despite his urge to evaluate and rewrite. The fact that he has continued to write, seen through the lens of the “first draft” distinction, is feedback for him. If he gets stuck by a temptation to go back immediately and correct an error, he may see this as further evidence that he needs to stick with his initial decision to make this only a first draft. If he sees himself as making progress overall in getting something written despite the temptations to correct, he may see this as further evidence of the validity of his initial decision.
This “first draft” mode appears to have a more open meaning for him and one that appears to allow him to act in ways that enable more of what he wants. The circular quality of the new meanings could be described in this way:
Figure 8. Solution Interaction
An interactional view can also be used to understand exceptions and solutions between people rather than only between meaning and action. In conversing with more than one person, we invite descriptions from each. We can put both descriptions together in terms of interaction. We can think interactionally about how each thinks of the situation and what he or she does. We can also consider the interaction between the two of them.
For example, in conversing with a couple about the exceptions to conflict, we would want to know the views of each and what each thinks she or he does differently. In a couple who had been married for several years, the wife complained that they had had so many fights in the past year that they were talking seriously about divorce. We asked about exceptions—that is, times when they did not fight or when the fights were okay. She said that there were some fights that were good or at least not destructive.
“What was different about those times?” we asked. She said that during those fights he did not walk away from her and leave her upset. Instead, he stayed until they were finished. “What did she like about that?” we asked. She stated that it gave her a chance to air her feelings and that it seemed to her that at least he cared enough to listen and hear her out. “What was different about that?” we asked. She said that other times when he would leave her she would then wonder whether he was blaming her for the fight and thinking she was just crazy.
We asked if this was true for him, too, that sometimes things went a little better when they did not fight or when the fights were okay. He said that was true. Sometimes she insisted that he “hear her out” and he would stay. “What was different about that for him?” we asked. He stated that when he did stay and listen sometimes she would eventually say what she wanted. He said that was different because she usually complained after the fact when it was too late for him to do anything. “Oh, so she has better luck getting what she wants from you if she tells you beforehand,” we summarized.
He said, “Yes, but she is still resentful that I do not know what she wants.” We asked if this was also true for him telling her. He replied that he did not think so because she seemed to know what he wanted, sometimes even before he knew.
We asked, “How did you decide to stay and listen?” He said that he knew she was serious when she told him directly that she wanted him to stay.
In this example, we can list the meanings and actions that provided for an exception interaction. For him, when she tells him what she wants, either by insisting that he stay and listen or on something else, he is more than likely to stay. He does not tell his wife what he wants, however, because he sees her as intuitively knowing what he wants and anticipating it.
For her, she sees his staying, rather than leaving her upset, as a sign of his caring. She likes the opportunity to air her feelings and for him to hear her out.
Figure 9. Exceptions Interaction
The client’s descriptions of the exceptions can be put together as the more she tells him what to do the more likely he is to do some of it and listen—the more he listens, the more she thinks he cares and the more likely she is to continue to tell him what she wants.
In describing goals, exceptions, or hypothetical solutions, interactionally, we want to know the meaning that the individuals ascribed around their own as well as the other’s behavior, and the course of action they take. Our knowing the meaning of each enables us to see how the two points of view and the corresponding actions fit together either as exceptions or solutions. A diagram of the exceptions might look like Figure 9.
As this couple further constructed their solution by describing the hypothetical solution, she discovered that his way of going about things was different from hers. Previously, she had thought that his not anticipating what she wanted was a sign that he did not care. Now, she thought of him as different, that rather than being intuitive about another’s needs, he was someone who responded only to direct requests. This was neither good nor bad, just a different way of acting.
He continued to listen to her, and found out that she would very much like him too be more direct about what he wanted. We would describe their new meanings and actions as presented in Figure 10.
This interactional view of the recursiveness of meaning and action forms the basis of our understandings. As we mentioned before, we apply this interactional perspective to the client’s actions with regard to solutions, the client’s actions with others, and the interaction between the clients and ourselves.
Figure 10. Hypothetical Solution Interaction
When clients initially come in for therapy they usually bring with them their view of the situation and of the solutions they have attempted. Given how they view the situation and what they have been doing, they are looking for a change. We help them introduce difference to their situations by asking questions that invite them to a different view.
So far we have focused on introducing difference by using the major frames, namely:
These frames invite difference for clients because most clients have not thought about what they do want or what life will be like without the problem. Looking for potential in the exceptional times also provides difference for them. Inviting difference with these questions allows the client to construct a more open meaning for a solution for themselves and, therefore, take new actions.
With many clients, these questions in these forms are all that may be needed to construct solutions. For others, these questions in the above form may be difficult for them to enter into. The questions just may not make sense to them. For other clients, these questions in these forms do not offer an opportunity for difference. We need to adjust the questions in some way as needed so that clients can enter the frames and find a difference for themselves.
For some clients whose troubling situation involves other people, a meaningful difference can come about through entering the other person’s frame of reference. Questions which require them to enter the other’s frame of reference can be difficult for some people but often provide a significant difference. For example, in the marital case cited above, the husband did not think that he was doing anything different during the exception times. He thought that all the change was done by his wife. To him, the change was his wife being nicer and so he was nicer in response. In order for him to recognize his part in the exception times, it was helpful to have him look at himself through his wife’s eyes during the exceptions. By doing so, he could see that his actions were extraordinary and different from the problem times. Through her eyes he could recognize his actions of “listening,” rather than of walking away in disgust, as useful.
Other clients can find a difference by taking a more detached position with regard to their situation. They are too close to the trees to see the forest, too much into their feelings of the situation to find a difference. By having them look at themselves from a detached position of some distance, we can facilitate their seeing the forest. By their gaining some distance from their immediate feelings, they can recognize what they may be thinking or doing differently during the exception times.
The interactional matrix (Figure 11) is a tool for selecting questions to facilitate the solution-construction conversation from an interactional view and to invite clients into areas of difference.
Across the top of the matrix are the frames we use in various parts of solution construction. We introduce the conversational frame of goal, exceptions, or hypothetical solutions at different parts of the conversation, depending on where we are or where we want to go on the solution construction map of Chapter Five.
Along the left side of the matrix are the different reporting positions of the question and response. The first is the “for self” position. Questions of this position invite respondents to answer from their own position, that is from their own shoes, eyes, ears, thinking, and so on. The next position is “for the other.” Questions from this position invite answers from respondents as if they were listening and reporting for someone else who is involved in the solution context.
For example, with a husband and wife, a “for the other” directed question to the husband would ask him to answer from his wife’s point of view. He is requested to say what he thinks his wife would say from her way of thinking and in her words. Questions in this row usually begin with, “What would your spouse (or other family member or other persons involved) say …?”
In order to answer this question, the man has to suspend his way of thinking for the moment and imagine his wife answering the question. He has to either put himself in her shoes briefly or at least think of what she might say if she were responding to the question.
This change of reporting position for the client usually induces a search for (or the creation of) new and perhaps different information. Clients often stop for a moment as they experience this difference and they either recreate their experience from a different perspective or create a new experience.
For example, a husband states that his goal in coming to therapy is for his wife to change her attitude and for her to be more involved in the relationship. He states that he does not think that his wife loves him anymore.
When asked if his wife would say that she does not love him anymore, he hesitates and then reports that she would probably say that she does love him. “Would she say there are times when she is more aware of how she loves you?” This exception-oriented question also invites him to enter her reality and search for what makes for the “loving” times for her. This slight change often leads to more solution-focused realities as the husband enters a different way of thinking. He may also begin to think in terms of the relationships of actions.
Figure 11. Interactional Matrix
The third row on the matrix is reporting “for the detached position.” This position is of someone who is detached from the problems and solutions and merely observing all the parties of the interaction impartially. We frequently ask a question like this: “If I were a fly on the wall observing you and your wife, what would I see you doing differently?” This question invites the respondent to answer the question from outside of himself or herself and from a neutral position.
Crossing these categories with the different conversational frames of goal, exception, and hypothetical solution provides us with a matrix of questions we can choose from for our interactional solution construction.
Each question or box of the matrix invites respondents into an area of experience different from their usual way of thinking.
These difference-oriented questions of this matrix are invitations to clients to loosen old restrictive beliefs or rules they have about themselves or their experience and to create more useful beliefs. By accepting the invitation of the question, clients can suspend their restrictive problem frames and enter a reality of exceptions, hypothetical solutions, or someone else’s position.
All of these alternative realities enable the client to move to a more expansive view. The exceptions frame can facilitate recognizing the potential of what they are already doing. The hypothetical solution frame can pop them out of an attempted solution and into a more positive and future reality. The “for the other” and “for the detached” reporting positions can facilitate a view of the impact of their own behavior on someone else or on themselves.
The matrix is a conceptual schema for organizing frames, reporting positions, and creating the questions that result from crossing these concepts. The matrix does not provide a decision tree for when to use each question. In general, the solution process and the client will tell you which question or questions to use.
However, there are some questions or areas of the matrix you will find more useful depending on how the client presents their situation or depending on the circumstances of the therapy.
Here are six contexts that lead to predominant use of certain areas of the matrix.
1. Client(s) present the solution as primarily their own responsibility: using the “self” row only
When clients speak of the solution in terms of what they will be doing differently based on their own responsibility or contribution to the future, there is no need to use questions other than the “for self’ position.
For example, a family with three children came to see us because the children were all having different problems, but the chief problem was that the second child had recently been arrested for participating in a car theft. Problem-talk all centered on this girl.
When we asked the hypothetical solution question, however, of each family member from the self position, each person responded with what they individually would do as part of the future when there was greater “harmony,” their stated goal.
The father had already recognized that he needed to be home more and not burden his wife with total responsibility for child rearing in the family. He had already stated at his job that he would not be taking on any more overtime.
The mother said she would be keeping the house clean so that everyone could see how the family needed to respect their home. The oldest boy said he already recognized how he needed to talk with his parents more. The girl said she would be taking care of the dog who was contributing to the mess of the house. The youngest boy said he would not be playing basketball in the house and would be listening to his mother.
Each person stated a solution within his or her responsibility and control. Asking each person how she or he felt or what they noticed about the other person’s changing strengthened the solution.
For example, the mother was asked if she thought her husband’s deciding to stay at home more could amplify the solution. Mother stated how much she liked his decision and how relieved she felt that the burden would not be all hers. She thought she might feel a little more like herself again.
The question was posed to her from the self position. There was no need to use the “for the other” questions.
Using questions from the other two reporting positions would probably get you more statements that are not necessary. We want to stay true to our rule of thumb: “Keep it simple.” So we ask only for as much as we think is necessary.
2. The client(s) present the solution as someone else’s responsibility
Very often one person, whether a husband, wife, parent, or in some other role with regard to someone else, thinks the problem is all the other’s fault and, therefore, all the responsibility for change lies with the other.
The problem for clients is that the solution, as they see it, is outside of their control. They think it is not their responsibility. Framing the solution as someone else’s responsibility leaves clients waiting for the other to change or frustrated in attempts to get the other to change. The goal needs to be framed as something they can do something about.
To help clients define a goal that is within their control, questions which require them to put themselves in the other’s position are very useful. For example, a man came in with his wife about their conflicts. We had identified that there were exception times in which they were not fighting.
Therapist: So, Dick, there have been times in the past week and a half when there have not been the expected conflicts? (Asking for exceptions)
Client: That is right, it has been somewhat better.
Therapist: And what have you been doing different? (Asking for specification and within the frame of “his doing something different,” that is, within his control. The question is from the self row, exceptions frame.)
Client: I really think that it is my wife that is different. She has just been more agreeable and less defensive. (States the difference as being his wife’s. So far this does not give him options for him to do anything different that is within his control.)
Therapist: So you do not think you have been doing anything different?
Client: No, she has just been nicer.
Therapist: Would she say that you have been doing anything different? (Exceptions frame, reporting for the other)
Client: I don’t think I have been doing anything different.
Therapist: I know. From your point of view, she has been different. From her point of view, would she say that you have been doing some things differently? (Accepting his first response and asking the question again from the “for other” position)
Client: Well, she might say that I have been less defensive, that I have been more likely to listen to what she has to say. (Entering her view for the moment and reporting differences in his behavior.)
Therapist: So, do you think that along with her changing you have been listening more? (Inviting a different view of his behavior)
Client: I guess I have, actually.
Therapist: How did you decide to do that? (Asking for specification of the exception in “agency” language)
With empathy and support, along with the “report for other” position questions, the husband is able to identify his part in creating the exceptions. He might see it initially only as his response to his wife’s changes, but that is a start. We might suggest to him that he is more likely to continue to have more of the good times he seeks as he convinces her that he will continue to do what she thinks is different even if he does not think it is all that different from his own point of view.
The same can be done with the hypothetical solution frame. The client may initially think that it is his partner that will be different in the future.
Therapist: So, as you walk out of here today, Dick, and you and your wife are on track to solving these problems, what will you be doing differently? (Hypothetical solution frame, reporting for self. Asking, “So, when you walk out of here today, what will I see you and your wife doing differently?” [Hypothetical solution frame, for the detached position could also be useful.])
Client: Well, I think it is Susan who will be different. She will be more agreeable and not so attacking.
Therapist: And when she is that way, how will she say that you are different with her? (Hypothetical solution frame, reporting for the other)
Client: Hmm. I guess she will say that I will be more engaging with her.
Therapist: More engaging? Does that happen a little now? (Asking for exceptions)
Client: I guess sometimes I engage a little.
In talking about a problem-solved future the client thinks that his wife will be different. This is probably consistent with his view that she is the cause of the problem. However, when you invite him into the future as he walks out of the therapy door and into his wife’s point of view, he is able to identify how he might respond differently.
What he initially sees as only his response to her can be built as a step of solution for him. A task for him might be to see how his wife responds to him as he initiates by his “engaging.”
3. Alignment of goals
Sometimes, clients are working under very different assumptions of what the other person wants. Questions from the “for the other” position can be used to align the goals of two or more people.
Therapist: So, Jim, what you want from coming here is to have more freedom to pursue your work and activities outside of the family.
Client: Yes. Right now, she is always on my back to be with her and her daughter more. She wants me home and taking more responsibility for the raising of her daughter. But she does not understand that I have to work these long hours and the weekends are the only time I have to get away and just relax. She wants me to be a slave to her idea of what a family should be. (Appears to be reporting his wife’s goal, but from his position and interpretation)
Therapist: So, I can see why you are so anxious to ensure your freedom. So, if I asked your wife how the two of you will be acting differently when the problem is solved, she would say you will be acting like a salve? (Hypothetical solution, for the other position)
Client: Well, no, not a slave. She would probably say I will be coming home more and showing as much interest in home as I do in my job.
Therapist: Is this something you are interested in, too, having more home life? (Checking for compatibility of goals)
Client: Well, yes, just not to the total detriment of my career. (As we talk about more of the specifics, he aligns his goals more with what he thinks are his wife’s goals.)
Therapist: From your wife’s point of view, what will you be doing differently when she thinks you are more interested in home life? (Hypothetical solution, for the other position)
Client: She probably would say she wants me home every night at dinner and taking her daughter to her swim meets on the weekends.
Therapist: Is this true, Margaret, you want these things? (Goal frame, for the self)
Margaret: No, I would be happy if he called to let me know when he is going to be late and if he went to a swim meet maybe once a month.
Having the husband speak from his wife’s point of view in front of his wife enables him to acknowledge what he thinks are his wife’s expectations. It also enables him to acknowledge how he might agree with her and for the two of them to mutually focus on what they want or will be doing differently in the future.
His speaking in front of her also enables his wife to agree or not agree about what she wants and to participate in the mutual construction of solutions.
4. Clients who think they will only be feeling different
Many clients respond to goal-oriented questions with the response that they will not be doing anything different, they will just be feeling different. This response is consistent with how they view their situation and themselves. They probably do not see action as the vehicle to change or as the means to new feelings.
These clients very often see any exceptions as rather spontaneous and change as outside of their control. They may think they have to feel different to do other things.
However, we want them to identify something more in their control to use toward their goals. To do this, we ask the client to answer from a detached position.
Therapist: So, you will be going about your day the same way, but you will be feeling more confident, is that right? (Summarizing the goal as initially stated by the client)
Client: Yes, it is terrible to go through the day doubting myself all the time.
Therapist: So, if I were watching you go through your day in this more confident way, how would I know you were feeling this way as opposed to something else? What would I see or hear different? (Hypothetical solution frame, for the detached position)
Client: I guess you would see me talk more directly with people. (Client steps out of herself, observes herself as confident, and reports the difference.)
Therapist: What would I see you doing that would tell me that you were being more direct?
Client: I would be saying what I want rather than waiting so long to figure out whether people would be offended by my request.
Therapist: And when you are doing that, will you be saying anything different to yourself? (Asking for a possible meaning difference that will correspond to her actions)
Client: I guess I will say to myself that what I want can be important. (Contextual difference)
Therapist: So, you will be saying different things to other people and to yourself. How does that happen now when it happens? (Now that the hypothetical solution has been described, we try to bring the solution into the present with exceptions.)
In this situation, the client initially thinks that only her feelings will be different. Through having to report for a detached observer in the hypothetical, she is invited to step outside of herself and view the differences in her behavior with this different feeling. These external differences are joined to differences in meaning in the things she says to herself, “that what she wants is important too.”
Again, with these identified differences, we as therapists invite her to look for exception times when that is happening a little now. The exception times can then be built on to form solutions.
5. When two or more people seem to be stuck in exclusive positions and seem to have difficulty reporting from the “for the other” position.
Sometimes, taking the detached position can be useful as it enables the therapist to maintain a neutral position and the clients to step out of themselves to a more neutral position.
Therapist: So, in the coming weeks when the problem is solved, Dennis, what will your wife see you doing differently? (Hypothetical solution, for the other position)
Client: I don’t know. I am not going to do anything as long as I cannot trust her.
Therapist: Yes, I suppose you do not want to let yourself be wide open to hurt again. And when the two of you are past this, what will I see the two of you doing differently? (Accepting his expression and position and changing to hypothetical solution, for the detached position. He may be too angry at her at this time to want to step into her position.)
Client: If I could trust her, you might see us spending time together again.
Therapist: What will I see each of you doing differently during your time together that will tell me there is trust? (Asking for more specifics)
This position of detached and hypothetical enables you, as therapist, to be neutral and the clients to see you that way. As the clients hear you stating the question as “What will I see each of you doing differently?” the implication is that you are not viewing this as a one-sided situation and that each of them is responsible for changing or creating something different.
Asking the question from the position of “for the detached” may also enable clients to step out of the emotions of their distress long enough to consider a more positive future that they can build on. With their description of a hypothetical solution, you can then ask about times in the present (exceptions) when the hypothetical solution is happening “a little bit now.” (Cf. using the hypothetical solution of Chapter Six.)
6. Involuntary clients
Involuntary clients often state that they have no problem and have no use for therapy. We will discuss in more detail in Chapter Sixteen how you, as therapist, can facilitate creating goals for therapy with an involuntary client. At this point, we merely want to identify how questions from the matrix may be helpful for you and the client.
Involuntary clients often are in a situation where they have to fulfill some conditions set by someone else. By using questions from the “for the other position,” with the “other” being the person ordering therapy, you can help clients identify options. For example, a client comes in to see a therapist after having been ordered to do so by the dean of discipline.
Client: I should not have to be here. The dean just has it in for me, and thinks that I am always making trouble.
Therapist: So, you think the dean has the wrong idea about you and, given this idea he has, he is requiring you to see me for counseling. (Summarizing client’s perception of the situation) So, I guess one way to get out of having to come here is for you to convince him that your view of yourself is the more accurate one. From the dean’s point of view, what will he see you doing when he agrees with you that you are something other than a troublemaker?
This question from the “for other” position invites this client to enter temporarily the perceptual position of the dean. The question also assumes by the verb “will” that a time is coming when the client will be convincing the dean and solving her or his situation. In answering the client will search for more positive behaviors or signs, from the dean’s point of view. The client will then have a choice as to whether he wants to do those things.
Sometimes you may be in the roles of both therapist and evaluator. Perhaps you are a child protection worker and you are both a case manager and the therapist. You are responsible for making a recommendation as to if or when children may be returned to a parent. You are also responsible for monitoring the progress of the parent and for helping the parent make the needed changes. Posing questions from the “for other” position and the hypothetical can be helpful. In this situation, since you are the one setting the conditions, the “other” is you. For example:
Therapist: So, when I am more convinced that you are moving beyond your problems with drugs, what will I see you doing differently. (Hypothetical solution, for the other position)
Client: I guess you will see positive urine tests.
Therapist: Well, that might convince me you are clean. Is there anything else that would convince me, or even yourself?
Client: Maybe, you will hear me talking about things I want to do instead of getting high. (Client attempts to enter therapist’s position.)
The client is invited to enter your position and view her or himself convincing you as the therapist that she or he is solving the problem.
QUESTION:
I have tried using some of these questions and the clients get confused. What do I do?
Clients very often will get confused in attempting to answer these questions. For some clients, putting themselves in someone else’s shoes may be very different or awkward. To help them, you need to ask the question slowly, and maybe more concretely to ease them into position. For example, you might say, “Let’s say the dean of discipline was here in the office right now and I were to ask him what he wants you to be doing differently, what might he say?” Or you might have the client actually pretend to be the other person for awhile. For example, you might say, “Let’s say you are your wife right now, what do you want your husband to be doing differently?”
By gently leading the client into the situation by setting the stage a little, clients can begin to report from the “for the other” position or from the “for the detached” position.
QUESTION:
Sometimes clients object to my asking them to report for another when the other person is right there in the room. They say something like this: “She is right here. Why don’t you ask her?” What do I do?
Clients frequently ask this. They appear to not understand why you are asking them to speak for someone else. To respond, merely say that you want to know what they (the person you are speaking to) think the other is expecting and that you will check out what the other person says in a minute.
In order to give yourself some experience with these different reporting positions of the matrix, try this. Pick a situation with you and someone else, a problem interaction. This may be a situation where you and someone else have had several conflicts.
Once you have identified a situation, either ask yourself or have someone else ask you each of the questions of the matrix. Go across the rows within the same reporting position—from goal, to exceptions, to hypothetical solution. Note the difference in your experience and then write down your responses. Take notice of changes in your internal movies or dialogue within or about the movie. Then, move to the next row of a different reporting position. Take note of how your experience changes and what differences are introduced. What differences do you notice in your movies and the dialogue? How do you experience things differently when reporting for someone else? How do the meanings of situations change as you report them for someone else or from a more detached position. Which questions give you greater difference or are more useful?
*We wish to thank Michael Banks who first suggested this exercise.