Why Ask Why? Multi-ordinal Levels of Causality

By Judith E. Pearson, Ph.D.

"Why do I do these things?"
"Why can't I stop?"
"Why did this happen to me?"

These are the questions that clients pose to therapists and coaches. In Figuring Out People: Design Engineering with Meta-Programs, Hall and Bodenhamer (1997) state that one's "Philosophical Direction," is a mental meta-program, with the two distinctions of "Why" and "How." People with a "Why" orientation think about causation, source, and origins, while those with a "How" orientation think about use, function, direction, and destiny. "Why" people sort for the philosophical past, based on the assumption that "If I can understand where something came from, I can gain mastery over it." They may get stuck in mentally reliving trauma, because they keep looping back to it, asking "why?" "How" people sort for purpose and maintain a solution focus, by asking "How can I respond to, or use, this?" A "Why" person tends toward philosophical approaches, while a "How" person tends toward pragmatic approaches.

Interestingly enough, NLP seems to be a "How" approach to therapy. We assume the "why" is due to the individual's "map" and we leave it at that. NLP's philosophical "How" orientation is concerned with strategies for modeling, noticing patterns, and developing procedures that lead to outcomes. We are far more interested in solutions, than in exploring the origins of a problem.

Munshaw and Zink (1997) take issue with the NLP emphasis on "how:"

The subject of reasons was unfashionable from the very beginning of NLP. Questions of why were disdainfully left for some of Bandler and Grinder's favorite targets--traditional psychologists, theologians, and theoreticians. Here, however, is the rub....In their subjective experience, people act more like theoreticians than they act like modelers....People are not so much model-makers as reason-makers....Maps aren't so much about the apparent sensory-based features of the world...as they are guesses about the rules of the world....Fundamentally our maps are the embodiment of our concepts of cause and effect---the reasons why things happen as they do (p. 31-32)

When clients ask "why?" they are asking for help with the parts of their maps that concern cause-and-effect. Their "why?" without a "because" creates a Zeigarnick effect, for which they need closure. Perhaps it is the closure itself that creates the "insight" that some clients (and some psychotherapists) believe will come from understanding the "cause." Haley (1996) wrote:

The confusion about the cause of symptoms has been encouraged by the way insight into the past can come about after a therapeutic change. Rather than assume that insight into the past causes change, it's better to think of change causing insight into the past....Therapists should be taught to respect insight as an aftermath of change. (p. 43)

For clients seeking an answer to the question of "why?" NLP practitioners must first understand the client's paradigm of cause and effect. However, searching for cause poses a problem, not only because doing so runs contrary to NLP's philosophical stance, but because, linguistically speaking, "cause" is multi-ordinal, having many definitions and locations in linear time. Depending on which definition of cause one favors, cause can exist in the future, present, or past, or even in past lives. It can exist within the self or external to the self. It can reside within conscious awareness, or it can hide in the recesses of the unconscious mind. Sometimes even your clients, themselves, aren't sure what kind of information they want when they ask "Why?" The purpose of this article is to present the various levels of causality with respect to time, and to suggest some NLP interventions and that could fit each level of causality.

Causality in the Future, Present, and Past

Causes that reside in the future are motives, goals, and anticipated outcomes for which an individual strives. Here the "why?" is really asking "What outcome is the client pursuing or hoping to accomplish?" People usually ask "Why?" when the outcome was not achieved or not immediately evident. One intervention here is to elicit the client's strategies for goal attainment, evaluate it's usefulness, and teach him or her more effective strategies.

Causal factors that reside in the present, concurrent with unwanted behavior, can fall into a number of categories. The "why" may inquire about a client's mind-body state that accompanied some resulting behavior. Such an inquiry fits the stance of cognitive psychology. The question really is "What was the client thinking and feeling at the moment the unwanted behavior occurred?" The intervention then is one of changing meaning and redirecting consciousness with techniques such as Sleight of Mouth Patterns (Bodenhamer and Hall, 1997a). Sometimes the "why?" addresses external factors that serve as cues or triggers for unwanted behavior. This definition of cause fits with the stimulus-response model supported by behavioralists. The question really is "What was the individual responding to in the environment?" An NLP intervention could be to anchor and install resourceful states in response to environmental triggers. Swish patterns and submodality alterations could also be appropriate to desensitize the client's reaction to the stimulus.

Systems Theory also applies to cause, when we presuppose that the client's problem is caused by his or her maintaining a role as part of social system (usually a family or peer group) whose balance relies on its members acting in predictable ways. Conformity studies of the 1960's, such as those conducted by Stanley Schachter, demonstrated that individuals will behave in ways contrary to their beliefs and perceptions, under social pressures and perceived expectations of others. The question really is "What were the expectations of the social system within which the client was functioning?" Your intervention of choice might be to reveal the individual roles within a system, as demonstrated by Satir's (1972) approach to Conjoint Family Therapy, and to promote open communications, as taught by Gordon in his Effectiveness Training programs (discussed in Bolstad and Hamblett, 1997).

When the client stipulates that the cause must lie within the unconscious mind, out of conscious awareness, NLP has a ready-made solution by pairing the "parts model" with the presupposition that all behavior serves a positive intention. We say it's as if a "part" of the client is producing the unwanted behavior. The question becomes "What is the positive intention (of that part) of which the client is unaware?" You can use content reframing (sometimes called six-step reframing; Bandler and Grinder, 1982) to bring the presupposed positive intention into conscious awareness, so that the client to choose other methods to satisfy the intention, thus eliminating the need for the unwanted behavior.

Other causal factors of the present could include the client's physical and/or biochemical states, which occur with the unwanted behavior. Sometimes, the client may pose the question of "why" as "What is wrong with me that I would do that?" Does he or she get into altered states due to drugs, toxins, allergic reactions, a chemical imbalance, or an injury or illness? This "why" asks about a medical model of causality, for which NLP has few interventions, except in the case of allergies (see Eliminating Allergic Responses, p. 37 - 45 in Andreas and Andreas, 1989). You can also engage client meta-programs and values and help alter his or her submodalities to help the client avoid such substances, allergens or circumstances, where possible, in the future.

When causal factors reside in the past, we assume a deterministic view of human behavior. If cause occurred in the past, then the associated learnings could still be operating today, placing limitations on the client's map. The question is "What happened to the client in the past that created his or her current-day understandings and beliefs associated with the unwanted behavior?" Past causal factors, more or less external to the individual, are "significant emotional experiences" (often traumas) that have given rise to limiting beliefs and now-maladaptive coping patterns. NLP interventions that redefine such past events and thus update the client's map include V-K Dissociation (Bandler, 1985), Reimprinting (Dilts, Hallbom, and Smith, 1990) and Core Transformation (Andreas and Andreas, 1994). Time-Line interventions (James and Woodsmall, 1988; Bodenhamer and Hall, 1997b) lend themselves especially well to reshaping the meanings associated with events of the past, even those not consciously remembered (wherein the client only has to identify a "dark" or visually unusual submodality on their imagined time line).

Other factors that reside in the past include long-standing social and cultural constraints and influences, more ubiquitous than single emotional events. These include ethnic and religious beliefs and practices, gender role and racial expectations and stereotypes, and socioeconomic barriers. Here, interventions, such as Reimprinting and the Walking Belief Change Pattern (MacDonald, 1994) can target limiting beliefs that occur at the level of identity and self-concept.

Sometimes the cause that originated in the past is a physical impairment, which may or may not continue to exist in the present. Physical impairments could include genetic factors, birth defects, injuries, inborn chemical or biological deficits or predispositions. Such factors are usually outside of the client's control, although other people may carry some responsibility for inflicting the impairment on the client. Again, this level of causality implies a medical approach to causality, for which NLP offers few interventions, except for strategies to compensate for the identified impairment, as in the case of Attention Deficit Disorder (Blackerby, 1995).

When cause lies in the past, as in significant emotional events, social and cultural factors, or physical factors, blame can sometimes accompany the client's search for causality. When clients attribute their troubles to the precipitating actions of others, they could be asking "Who is to blame?" Sometimes, by placing cause or culpability outside of oneself, one can adapt a "victim" stance, and, in effect, absolve oneself. Some people may choose to rebel, seek revenge, or rectify a wrong. You can meta-state the blame by inquiring as to its usefulness (Hall, 1995) and help the client reframe it's positive purposes.

Other causes that seemingly lie in the past, but are not directly attributable to humans, include birth order, personality types, and astrological factors. In these cases, your task may be to help your client sort out responsibility for self, and design realistic strategies for the future, while imparting new meanings to the causal events of the past (identify positive learnings, for example).

For clients who believe in reincarnation, you can delve even deeper into the past and find causes in past lives. Indeed, some mental health professionals, such as Weiss (1991; 1992) insist that many human emotional ills have their origins in the forgotten learnings, relationships, traumas, and associations of past lives. Once you help your client identify past life "events" and bring them into consciousness (usually through hypnosis), then you can apply a wide variety of time-line interventions (Pearson, 1994). James and Woodsmall discuss one such past-life intervention in Time Line Therapy and the Basis of Personality (1988).

Table 1 illustrates levels of causality with respect to time, showing the type of information your client may seek, the causal theory, and suggested NLP interventions.

Events Beyond Human Control

Sometimes clients often ask about the cause behind the cause. The question is often posed as "Why did that happen to me?" and the question usually means "What ultimate purpose was served by my having that experience?" This question of "why?" often applies to seemingly incomprehensible human tragedies, losses, and traumas. Searching for an answer is an attempt to make sense out of inexplicable circumstances, and to satisfy one's need for an orderly, predictable universe. "If we have our own why of life," Nietzche wrote, "we shall get along with almost any how."

To find a cause for tragedy, people often turn to science (Chaos Theory, or Probability, for example) or to spirituality. One spiritual answer comes from the causal theory of "Retribution." According to Munshaw and Zink (1997), this theory postulates that people exist within "a system of reward and punishment administered by an agent of vastly superior power," and "Wisdom is discovering what pleases the agent of authority." Here the client believes that the "agent of authority,"---often perceived as God, acted in some way to bring about human suffering or misfortune, as a punishment for some wrongdoing. The question is often "What happened (or "What did I do?") to cause God to create (or allow) this terrible event?"

Certainly, in the Old Testament we see several examples of a vengeful God who punishes the bad and rewards the good. Yet, for countless centuries, human beings have struggled with the question of why a God who is supposed to be wise and loving would visit tragedy and sadness on seemingly good people. In When Bad Things Happen to Good People, for instance, Kushner (1981) disputes the idea that God would cause tragedy or suffering; rather, he states, such events happen at random, or are caused by people (acting on free will), or the forces of nature. God's role is merely to provide comfort when such events occur.

Perhaps, when the client's causal theory involves retribution, the task of the NLP practitioner is help the client evaluate the usefulness of this belief system (meta-stating). If the client stands by the retribution theory, then the question becomes one of whether the client can possibly discern God's motives, and how he or she will best carry on in either case. If the answer is "yes," then the next step for the client could be to seek forgiveness from God, perform atonement, and resolve to sin no more. If the answer is "no," then the client's next step could be an acceptance or surrender to "not knowing,"---a very hard task, indeed, for the "why" person. Such acceptance would require a change in the belief "I have to know why," on which his or her meta-program is structured!

Another theory of causality is "Reciprocation" in which, according to Munshaw and Zink, "You get back what you put out," and "The basic moral stance is to create deliberate effort and exercise skill, talent, and insight," to better one's circumstances. This theory most closely reflects the philosophy of metaphysics, in which people create their external reality by their thoughts and actions. In the Reciprocation theory of causality, the cause redefines the question of "why?" as "What did I do (inadvertently and unknowlingly) to cause this?" Here, I advise that you help the client examine, and possibly change, his or her beliefs about his or her span of control.

I have heard some "motivational" speakers espouse the idea that everything that happens to a person is a direct result of his or her "intention" or "belief" or "drive." Fostering such a belief, in my opinion, does a tremendous disservice to the listener, because the belief sets up unrealistic expectations regarding one's span of influence and control, and does not take into account unexpected emergencies, distractions, interferences, the actions of others, and conflicting demands on the individual's energies. When people do not fulfill such unrealistic expectations, they may feel self-blame, failure, and defeat. A far more realistic stance comes from the Serenity Prayer of Alcoholics Anonymous, in which one prays for "the wisdom to know the difference" between what one can change, and what one cannot change. Metaphysics work quite well where one's own thoughts and behaviors are concerned, but become slightly more difficult when one attempts to influence the actions of others or of nature.

Some people, reflecting on tragedy, ask "why" when they want to know "What ultimate positive meaning can I wrest from this event?" Numerous authors have made the case that human suffering is made bearable when it is paired with a belief that the suffering serves some ultimately good purpose (Anatovsky, 1980; Segal, 1986; Stearns, 1988). After surviving years in Nazi concentration camps, Frankl (1976) developed Logotherapy, on the basis that people must have meaning, so that they can lead responsible lives. Studies of people under severe stress, such as the loss or illness of a child, show that when people have a rationale for their anguish, their capacity to endure is greatly increased (Chodoff, et. al, 1964; Cornwell, et. al, 1977). For many, the meaning they find in tragedy or trauma is that, having survived, they are better people; stronger, more compassionate, wiser, more resilient and flexible in their coping skills. Jung (1966) said "meaning makes a great many things endurable---perhaps everything."

In her book, Why Me? Why This? Why Now? Robin Norwood (1994) expresses her view that human tribulations are intended for the perfection of the human soul, which must travel through several lifetimes before reaching that perfection. Each soul, itself, deliberately chooses the trials it will face, depending on the lessons the soul wishes to learn in any given lifetime. In the human tendency to derive positive meaning from tragedy, NLP practitioners will recognize the process of reframing.

Table 2 illustrates levels of causality showing the type of information your client may seek, the causal theory, and suggested NLP interventions for events beyond human control. Regardless of causality, when a client has suffered a loss or survived a tragedy, the following NLP procedures could apply:

• Grief Procedures, such as the NLP Grief Resolution Process (Andreas and Andreas, 1989; Watson, 1993) which involves mapping across visual submodalities from a resolved loss to an unresolved loss. Another example is the Good Grief process (Klein, 1992) that relies on metaphors and anchored resources. Konefal (1993) describes a Multiple Grief Pattern that calls for dissociation, spatial anchors, and imagined conversations with deceased loved ones.
• Procedures for relieving the effects of trauma such as Visual-Kinesthetic (V-K) Dissociation (Bandler, 1985) and/or Eye Movement Integration (EMI: Andreas and Andreas, 1991).
• The Forgiveness Pattern, developed by Steve Andreas (1992). It is a process of mapping across submodalities from a forgiven person to an unforgiven person.
  Tables 1 and 2 are by no means intended to be comprehensive in identifying all applicable NLP interventions, nor in defining all possible causal theories.

Use Your Modeling Skills

When your client asks "why?" don't assume you know the "cause" that your client seeks to clarify. Make meta-model inquiries to elicit the deeper structure of the "why?" In terms of meta-model distinctions, a client's questions such as "Why do I do these things?" or "Why can't I stop?" or "Why did this happen to me?" are cause-effect statements (distortions) embedded in presuppositions. The presupposition implies that a cause-effect exists. However, while the client can present the "effect" as the unwanted behavior or situation, he or she has deleted the "cause" from the surface structure of his or her map!

Using the meta-model as a method of inquiry, ask questions such as "What type of information would help to answer your question?" or "If you knew the answer, what kind of information would you have?" You could even explain to your client that causality means different things to different people, and give him or her a range of definitions from which to choose. Then the client can pick the causality that fits his or her map. When you find out what the client wants to know by asking "why?" you can then select an NLP intervention that will fit with the level of causality that satisfies the client's cause-effect model.

References

Andreas, C. and Andreas, S. (1989). Heart of the mind. Moab, Utah: Real People Press.

Andreas, C. and Andreas, S. (1991). Eye Movement Integrator (Seminar Workbook),
Boulder, Colorado: NLP Comprehensive.

Andreas, C and Andreas, T. (1994). Core transformation: Reaching the wellspring
within. Moab, Utah: Real People Press.

Andreas, S. (1992). The forgiveness pattern (audiotape). Boulder, Colorado:
NLP Comprehensive.

Anatovsky, A. (1980). Health, stress and coping. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Bandler, R. and Grinder, J. (1982). Reframing: Neuro-Linguistic Programming and the
transformation of meaning. Moab, Utah: Real People Press.

Bandler, R. (1985). Using your brain for a change. Moab Utah: Real People Press.

Blackerby, D. A. (1995). Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD): NLP interventions that
work. Anchor Point, October, p. 28-32.

Bolstad, R. and Hamblett, M. (1997). Transforming communication: Leading-edge
professional and personal skills. New Zealand, Addison Wesley Longman.

Bodenhamer, B. G. and Hall, L. M. (1997a). Mind-lines: Lines for changing minds.
Grand Junction, Colorado: E. T. Publications.

Bodenhamer, B. G. and Hall, L. M. (1997b). Time-lining: Patterns for adventuring in
time. Wales, U. K: The Anglo American Book Company.

Chodoff, P., Friedman, S. B. and Hamburg, D. A. (1964). Stress, defenses, and coping
behavior: Observations in parents of children with malignant disease. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 120, 743-749.

Cornwell, J., Nurcombe, B., and Stevens, L. (1977). Family response to loss of a child
by Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The Medical Journal of Australia, 1, 656-
658.

Dilts, R., Hallbom, T., and Smith, S. (1990). Beliefs: Pathways to health and well-being.
Portland, OR: Metamorphous Press.

Frankl, V. (1976, 25th printing). Man's search for meaning. New York: Pocket Books.

Haley, J. (1996). Does the past cause the present? Family Therapy Networker,
November-December, p. 43.

Hall, L. M. (1995). Meta-states: A new domain of logical levels, self-reflexiveness in
human states of consciousness. Grand Junction, Colorado: E.T. Publications.

Hall, L. M. and Bodenhamer, B. G. (1997). Figuring out people: Design engineering
with meta-programs. Wales, U. K: The Anglo American Book Company.

James, T. and Woodsmall, W. (1988). Time line therapy and the basis of personality.
Cupertino, California: Meta Publications.

Jung, C. (1966). Collected works: The practice of psychotherapy, vol. XVI. New York:
Pantheon Bollengen Series.

Klein, R. (1992). Good grief. Anchor Point, January, p.1-5.

Konefal, J. (1993) Mutliple grief pattern. Anchor Point, March , p. 5-10.

Kushner, H. S. (1981). When bad things happen to good people. New York: Schoken
Books.

McDonald, R. (1994). The walking belief change pattern (audiotape). Boulder, Colorado:
NLP Comprehensive.

Munshaw, J. and Zink, N. (1997). What's a map? Anchor Point, May, p. 31-36.

Norwood, R. (1994). Why me? Why this? Why now? A guide to answering life's toughest
questions. New York: Random House.

Pearson, J. E. (1994). Past lives: Metaphors for healing, Anchor Point, December, p. 3-8.

Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, California: Science and Behavior Books.

Segal, J. (1986). Winning life's toughest battles. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stearns, A. K. (1988). Coming back: Rebuilding lives after crisis and loss. New York:
Ballantine Books.

Watson, S. (1993). When Losses Come. Anchor Point, April, p. 38-40.

Weiss, B. L. (1991). Many lives, many masters. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Weiss, B. L. (1992). Through time into healing. New York: Simon and Schuster.

---

This article originally appeared in Anchor Point, The Practical Journal of NLP.

Judith E. Pearson, Ph.D. is a Licensed Professional Counselor, writer, and speaker with a counseling and coaching practice in Springfield, Virginia, specializing in hypnotherapy and Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Her web site is www.engagethepower.com.