Re-interpreting Facts
Any context can readily be interpreted and described in a variety of ways. For instance, in the puzzle found on the first PBS T-Shirt, there are specific words (“what,” “occasionally,” “always” and “never”) that are immediately identified as the qualifiers or initiators of a question rather than being the focus of the question. The puzzle is solved when we suddenly realize that a focus must be placed on the number of letters in each of these words. We move from a “macro” level (words) to a “micro” level (letters) in our re-framing of the question and re-interpretation of the statements being asked on the T-Shirt. These statements are declarations rather than questions. A second-order change in our viewpoint is required if we are to make sense of that which we are reading on the T-Shirt.
Similarly, our second PBS T-Shirt requires a re-interpretation of a specific word (“times”) which, in turn, unlocks the mystery of three sets of numbers. A first order examination of this T-Shirt would leave us bewildered. What does a musical clef, staff and set of numbers have to do with our recognition that the world in which we are living is quite challenging right now. In fact, it is a bit insulting to bring in music when I am faced with “difficult times.” As in the case of all-too-many circumstances, we become irritated with something because we simply don’t understand what is being said or written. A moment of reflection and reframing can help us reduce the irritation, resulting stress and (frequently) inappropriate reaction.
Any second order change in the prevalent interpretation of any statement or situation may have this calming and restraining effect–and have a profound impact on an individual or organization. One can reframe an interpretation of a context by choosing to focus on the strengths and resources inherent in the situation rather than focusing on its weaknesses and deficits. This appreciative perspective can be very effectively employed as a means to effect change. As Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (1974) noted in their thoughtful analysis of the reframing process:
“To reframe . . . means to change the conceptual and/or emotional setting or viewpoint in relation to which a situation is experienced and to place it in another frame which fits the “facts” of the same concrete situation equally well or even better, and thereby changes its entire meaning . . . . What turns out to be changed as a result of reframing is the meaning attributed to the situation, and therefore its consequences, but not its concrete facts—or, as the philosopher Epictetus expressed it as early as the first century A. D.: “It is not the things themselves which trouble us, but the opinions that we have about these things.”
I have already offered the quite poignant example of the reframing of facts and its potential power is found in a story about Anti-Semitism. In this case, the potential recipient of an insult chose to reframe the context by first shifting the referent of the other person’s insult back onto the person delivering the insult and then cushioning this shift with courtesy. By reframing the context, Mendelssohn places the responsibility back on the insulter. The bigot may choose to accept the reframe and consider the whole matter to be a misunderstanding that resulted in a sign of courtesy from the person being insulted (a variant on turning the other cheek). Alternatively, the bigot can view the whole thing as a very unsuccessful attempt at delivering an insult that ended up with the other person winning the battle. The latter choice would probably be unacceptable to the proud bigot, hence leaving him with no option other than the appreciative reframe. A remarkable interaction!
The self-fulfilling prophecy that Robert Rosenthal (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 2003) made famous (often called the “Pygmalion effect”) further exemplifies this model. If one person judges another person as stupid or unmotivated, and interacts with them from that attitude (e.g. talks down at them, withholds information and encouragement) then the labeled person is likely to end up acting unmotivated and less competent, whether or not he initially was so inclined. People inadvertently comply with our expectations of them, because we treat them differently, depending on how we view them. Thus, if we choose to enter into an interpersonal relationship with a positive mind-set, we will interact with the other from an appreciative perspective, and then this person is likely to relate in a positive manner toward us and be as productive as they can – thus having the greatest chance of fulfilling our positive expectations and validating our original frame of mind.
Download Article 1K Club
