Thanks so much for the question. The difference does indeed lie in where the negative (or absence) is placed. In an A – B type of statement, whether the opposite or absence of A as opposed to B (or vice versa) is present will make a world of difference. Take the example of “Jason is the boss.” If Jason is A and being the boss is B, I think you can see where negating one or the other will dramatically change the meaning of the statement.

David

I agree, it is a great model for the willing participant As with any change model, the MOST important part is the convicted interest in making the change on the end of the recipient. If you are in a position of resistance it is probably not the best time to push forward with something like this. My advice there would be to further work on rapport AND delve deeper into what is at work at an implicit level.

Especially from an addiction standpoint, although someone is “willingly” working with you it is very possible (even likely) that this is their explicit (cognitive) mind imposing direct volitional control (which is inherently temporary) over implicit drives/urges (which have considerably more “staying” power). The result often is just plain cognitive dissonance and unearthing the roots of that dissonance NEEDS to happen first, then the actual change models can be used effectively. I think that you will agree that if this doesn’t take place, the addict’s brain is unbelievably well trained to rationalize and defeat any external change mechanisms

Again, I appreciate your comment and please feel free to contact me if there is anyway that I might be of assistance.

DP