From: L. Michael Hall                                
2016 Meta-Coaching Support: Morpheus #06
February 10 2016 （2016 年 2 月 10 號）

 

[翻譯注：我想了老半天以及花了許多時間上網到不同字典去察看有沒有更適合的翻譯，還想不出可以很好翻譯 Distinction 這個字。如果造字翻譯是區別，辨別，區分，差別， 特性等的意思。但此字較正式用詞，除指事物在本質上的差別外，還指在某一方面或某一細節上的區分，要在認真觀察、研究後才易覺察。這才是此字在裏面所要表達的。我最後選了區別性問題。但大家只要明白真正要表達的是剛剛所提的除了本質上差別外，認真觀察才易覺察]

 

Last year (2015) I began noticing another new category of questions.  I’m going to call these, Distinction Questions.  These are the questions that invite a client to make a distinction that the client may not be making.  In a sense they are Socratic Questions because by asking the question in just the right way, and that sometimes means a series of questions, you lead and facilitate the person to learn a distinction that the person may not have known.  Yet when you do, it unleashes in the client all sorts of new possibilities and potentials.  Because of this the person will want to answer the question.  And in answering the question, or series-of-questions, will be learning something that taps into new resources and/or de-confuses.  This is what makes these distinction questions so powerfully profound.

 

去年（2015 年）我開始注意到提問的新類別。我將稱它們爲區別性提問。這些是邀請客戶做出他們可能不會做的區別。這也可以說是一種蘇格拉底哲學提問因爲透過正確方式的提問，也有時候是一系列的提問，你帶領和優化客戶學到她可能自己也不知道的區別。一旦你做到，你會釋放客戶所有可能性和潜能。因此客戶會要回答那些問題。也因爲回答問題，或一系列問題，會學到某些東西開拓新的資源或者去除困惑。這就是使這些區別性提問如此深奧。

 

I first noticed them when I caught myself asking them.  Now I have to admit that, at first, I felt

“bad,” as if I were cheating and doing too much leading.  Later I discovered that it was mostly due to my in-elegance in asking the question.  As I started collecting these distinction questions and meditating on their structure and effect, I realized that they are sometimes similar to many of the torpedo questions that we introduce at the PCMC level.

 

當我注意自己提問那些問題時，我開始注意到它們。這時，我要承認，我一開始感受「不好」，似乎我在欺騙以及做太多引導。最後我發現那幾乎是我雅致地提問問題方式。當我開始收集這些區別性提問幷深思它們的結構和效應時，我發現有時候它們與許多 PCMC 級別的魚雷提問很相似。

 

As the phrase indicates, a distinction question is a question that calls forth an important distinction.  As such it leads a person to avoid confusing things that he might otherwise fusetogether (literally, con-fuse) and treat as if they are one and the same thing.  By asking this kind of question, you invite the person to make a new distinction.  By asking the question, you facilitate the person to create a mental map of more precision, specificity, and therefore clarity about things.

 

就如句子所指示的，區別性提問是出于一種重要的區別。因而它帶領客戶避免混淆東西，不然客戶可能會融合（照英文字義是混淆意思）幷當作它們是同一樣東西。透過提問，你優化客戶創造更精確，更具體的大腦地圖，因此對事情做澄清。

The first time I asked a distinction question that I was conscious of asking, I asked a lady this: “Do you know the difference between self-esteem and self-confidence?”  But that was far too clumsy and awkward.  The question was a “yes/no” question, and even in asking, I felt it was too direct and too controlling.

 

我第一次問區別性提問時，我是有意識提問的，我問一位女士這個：「你知道自尊和自信的差別是甚麽嗎？」但此問題過于笨拙。那是一種「是否」提問，甚至我再提問時，我感覺那還是太過直接和操控。

 

The next time I rephrased it to make it more elegant, “How well do distinguish your value as a person from what you do as an expression of yourself?”  The person said, “What? [pause] …  I don’t get what you are asking.”  I continued, “Well you do things as expressions of yourself [“yes”] and you esteem yourself as a human being.  That’s about your value as a person [“oh, yes, I get that.”].  Okay, so how clear is that distinction in your mind and in your emotions— your self-value as a person and your activities, your self-confidence in what you do?”

 

下次我改變說詞使它更爲幽雅。「你如何區別身爲人的價值和把你做的事情當作自己的表示？」客戶問：「甚麽？「停頓」。。我不知道你在問甚麽。」我繼續，「你做的事情是自己的表示」「是」以及你尊重自己是個人類。那是身爲人類的價值「喔，我瞭解。」，那麽你對于大腦和情緒的區別有多清楚 – 你身爲人類的自我價值和你對所做事情的自信？」

 

In that instance, the person had one of those sudden Eureka! Moments.  “Oh!  Oh my!  I never thought of that in that way. ….   That’s great!  What I do is not the same as my value as a person!”

 

就在那時刻，客戶有個突然頓悟的時刻。「喔！我的天啊！我從來沒有用那種方式想過。。那真的很棒！我所做的跟我身爲人的價值是不一樣的！」

 

That’s how I stumbled upon distinction questions.  Since then I have been collecting a series of distinctions that you, as a Meta-Coach, can use to enable clients to avoid confusing things that are unequal, and that are not the same.  Then, by distinguishing what they confuse, they develop a new level of clarity about something critical to their development, resourcefulness, and self-actualization.  Here is a list of distinction questions that we teach in APG:

 

這就是我不小心碰觸到區別性提問。從此我就開始收集一系列的區別，使，身爲大成教練的你，可以讓客戶避免混淆不平等的東西幷知道它們是不一樣的。接著，透過區別他所混淆的事情，他們對發展，資源和自我實現關鍵的東西有新層次清晰度的發展。

 

  • Self-Esteem / Self-Confidence: How do you distinction you as a person, your self-esteem, and you as having developed confidence in what you can do, your self-confidence?

自尊/自信: 你要如何區別身爲一個人，你的自尊，和發展你所做事情的信心，你的自信？

 

  • Responsibility For / To: Are you actually responsible for that or are you responsible to someone “for” something that is part of your agreed-upon relationship? Is that a responseability that you have? How exactly are you responsible for her response?

 

爲你/對你負責：你是真正「爲」這個負責還是你是爲了雙方同意之關係的某些東西而「對」某人負責？是你要有的責任嗎？你完全「爲」她的響應負責嗎？

 

  • Reasons/ Excuses: Is that statement a legitimate reason that you can’t do X or is that an illegitimate reason, actually an excuse that you are using to get out from doing X? If it is legitimate, what standards or criteria are you using that legitimizes it?

 

理由/藉口：這個句子是你不能做到X的正當理由還是不正當的理由，才是你不想做X的藉口？如果是正當的，那麽你是用甚麽標準或條件來使它正當化？

 

  • Cause / Blame: You say that ‘X caused Y.’ Are you holding X responsible because X’s response directly caused Y or are you just blaming X?  What did X do that directly made Y happen?

 

起因/責怪：你說「X造成Y」你是說X負責因爲X的響應造成Y或你只是責怪X？X 做了甚麽直接使Y發生？

 

  • Feel / Emote: You say “you feel X.” Are you speaking about a sensation in your body, some kinesthetic sensation, or are you referring to an emotion?

 

感受/表現情感：你說「你感受X」。你是在說身體裏的某一個知覺，某些觸覺或是你指的是一種情緒？

 

  • Total / Degree: When you say that you are angry (or experiencing any other emotion), what is the degree of that emotion? Is it low, medium, or high?  Is it manageable or unmanageable?

 

整體/程度：當你說你生氣（或體驗其他情緒），那種情緒的程度有多少？是低，中或高？是可管理或不可管理？

 

  • Cause / Symptom: I hear you speaking about X, what is that for you, a cause or a symptom?

 

起因/徵兆：我聽到你說X，對你來說，X是起因還是徵兆？

 

Distinction questions invite clarity.  They are great to ask when a person lacks clarity about something and needs that clarity in order to succeed in reaching an outcome or in being able to manage one’s life more effectively.  Ask clarity questions about some terminology from your experiences in NLP, Neuro-Semantics, Meta-States, etc.  Then when you recognize that there are finer distinctions, critical details, that the person may be missing, use that as an excellent moment to ask a distinction question.  Doing this puts you on the level “3″ of Questioning.  You are asking a high quality question!

 

區別性提問邀請清晰度。當客戶對某些東西缺少清晰而却需要那種清晰才能成功達到效果或能够更有效管理自己的生活時，那種提問是很有效的。如果要澄清一些用詞，你可以從你的 NLP，神經語意學，大成狀態等的經驗裏提問澄清問題。接著當你發現客戶可能遺漏更細的特徵，關鍵細節，

就是提問區別性問題的最佳時刻。你如果做到的話，那是發問 3 分的層次。你在發問高質量問題！

 

Now you have to be careful.  If you are too direct and inelegant as I was in the story above, your question may come across as rhetorical, or worse, manipulative.  So beware!  Think about how to ask the distinction that you think your client needs to make.  Also, you may want to frame what you are about to do:

 

這時候你要很小心。如果你太過于直接和不幽雅，如同我上述的故事，你的提問會變成是不期望得到回答的問題，或者更糟，變得操控性。所以要小心！你的客戶需要做出甚麽要的區別就可以想如何問區別的方法。

 

“I have heard some things in our conversation that there may be a missing distinction and which could be helpful to you.  It could possibly make all the difference in the world to you.  So here is a distinction question or two for us to check.  The questions are designed to identify a difference that makes a difference.  Are you ready for this exploration?”

 

「我在我們的對話裏，聽到一些東西，可能是遺漏的區別，這對你可能有幫助。它可能會對你在你的世界做出不同的事情。這裏有一兩個區別性的問題。這幾個問題是設計識別做出改變的差异。你準備好這個探索了嗎？」

 

 

翻譯：方秀紅
注：如翻譯有誤解原意，純屬于翻譯者對內容的誤解。內容還是以原文爲准。