From: L. Michael Hall                                
2016 Meta-Coaching Support: Morpheus #04
Jan 27 2016 （2016 年 1 月 27 號）

During Coaching Mastery you have heard it said many times— “Don’t ask ‘why’ when your client is in a negative state.”  And you probably heard the reason why: If your client is in a negative state and you ask “Why are you feeling that?”  “Why did you do that?” the person will give you reasons!  That is, the person will justify it, rationalize it, come up with some understanding to validate it.  Simple enough.

你在大成教練課程已經聽過許多次「當客戶處在負面狀態時，不要問爲甚麽。」你或許也聽過原因: 如果客戶處在負面狀態，你問：「爲甚麽你感受到它？」「爲甚麽你那樣做？」他會給你許多原因！也就是，他會證明那是有道理的，合理化它，找一些理解認可它。就那麽簡單。

Well, it is actually more complex than that.  That’s because the why question does more.  What the why question assumes is that there is a cause for the person’s state or experience and that the person consciously chose it.  “Why did you not get this report in on time?”  “Why did you get upset and say those cruel words?”  Why invites a person to think that there’s a single, and simple reason for why things happened, and that all we have to do is understand the why, then we would change.  Yet that’s a very big assumption, one that frames things in ways that really do not support the coaching process.

當然，事情幷非如此單純。那是因爲「爲甚麽」會帶來更多。「爲甚麽」的提問假設客戶的狀態或體驗是有原因的而客戶是有意識選擇它。「爲甚麽你沒有準時交這份報告？」「爲甚麽你難過幷說出那些殘酷的話？」「爲甚麽」邀請客戶去思考爲甚麽事情發生的單純原因幷且我們只要理解到

「爲甚麽」我們就會改變。那可是很大的假設，是一種支持不到教練進程的設框方式。

Further, is that true?  Consider typical why questions: “Why did you get depressed?”  “Why did you yell at your kid?”  “Why did you do that wrong?”  The problem with all of these why questions is that they frame human experience far too simplistically and as if knowing why solves the problem.  But does it?

還有，那可是真的嗎？考慮一般的爲甚麽提問：「爲甚麽你那麽消沈？」「爲甚麽你對小孩大吼大叫？」「爲甚麽你做錯？」這些「爲甚麽」提問方式的問題在于他們設定人類體驗的框架過于簡單幷且知道爲甚麽就可以解决問題。但會嗎？

The problem with exploring the reasons why something happened is that merely knowing why very seldom ever provides a solution.  This is actually one of the biggest problems with Psychoanalysis.  Even today, the “average” length of psychoanalysis is over 700 sessions or over seven years.  Seven years!  An hour session two or three times a week!  Yet for all of that exploration, all of that trying to understand why, the person still has to live with the condition and deal with it.

探索爲甚麽事情會發生的問題是只知道爲甚麽很少會提供解答。其實，這是精神分析學裏最大的問題之一。至今，精神分析學治療的「平均」長度是超過 700 節或超過七年。七年！每一周要兩到三次的一小時！但那些探索都是只是要知道「爲甚麽」而那個人却一直陷入在要處理的生活裏。

Why doesn’t provide the same thing as a solution.  Why gives you reasons, “understandings,” justifications, and explanations and then after all of that, you still have to deal with the situation. 

That’s why Fritz Perls put a tremendous emphasis on not asking why.  That was Gestalt Therapy.  And in the book that Richard Bandler transcribed, The Gestalt Approach and Eye Witness to Therapy. (1973), this is what Perls said:

爲甚麽不提供同樣的東西當作解答呢？爲甚麽要給你理由，「理解」，正當理由和解釋幷且做了那些，我還是要處理那種情况。這就是爲何完形治療創始人弗烈茲，皮爾斯非常强調不問爲甚麽。那就是完形治療。李察班德勒轉寫皮爾斯的書裏面有記載皮爾斯曾經說過：

Therapy oriented to the past is invalid because the whys of the patient’s neurosis really explain very little.  ‘Why’ opens up an endless series of questions which can only be answered by a first cause that is self-caused.  How will an explanation which makes the aunt the villain in the piece solve his problem.  Such an explanation only gives the patient license to project all his difficulties onto the aunt.  It gives him a scapegoat, not an answer.”  (Perls)

傾向過去的治療是無效的，因爲病人的神經裏的爲甚麽真正能够解釋的東西非常少。「爲甚麽」打開無盡的提問，這些提問也只能透過自己造成的第一個原因所能提供的答案。一個解釋如何能够使情境中的壞人解决他的問題。那些解釋只能够給病人權力將所有困難投射到壞人身上。這提供他一個代罪羔羊，不是答案。（皮爾斯）

“The ‘why’ questions produce only pat answers, defensiveness, rationalizations, excuses, and the delusion that an event can be explained by a single cause.  Not so with the ‘how.’  Those inquires into the structure of an event, and once the structure is clear all the whys are automatically answered. … If we spend our time looking for causes instead of structure we may as well give up the idea of therapy and join the group of worrying grandmothers who attack their prey with such pointless questions as ‘Why did you catch that cold?’  ‘Why have you been so naughty.’”  (p. 77)

「爲甚麽」的提問産生只有部分答案，防衛，合理化，藉口以及某個事件可以透過單一原因解釋的妄想。但如果用「如何」就不一樣了。「如何」詢問事件的結構，一旦結構清楚後，所有的「爲甚麽」就自動被解。。如果我們花時間找原因而不找結構，我們乾脆放弃

治療幷加入婆媽團擔心無意義的問題例如：「爲甚麽你感冒？」「爲甚麽你那麽調皮？」

“In our electronic age, we don’t ask why anymore, we ask how.  We investigate the structure, and when we understand the structure, then we can change the structure.” (p. 122)

「在電子時代，我們不再問「爲甚麽」，我們問「如何」。我們調查結構。當我們理解結構以後，我們便可以改變結構。」（第 122 頁）

Those powerful arguments against asking the why questions originated with Perls and came directly into NLP.   If you ask why questions as a coach, you are moving away from the uniqueness of coaching and heading back to the assumptions of psychoanalysis.

對于反對提問「爲甚麽」的强有力的辯論來自于皮爾斯幷直接進入 NLP。身爲教練，如果你問

「爲甚麽」的問題，你在遠離教練特徵獨特性反而朝向精神分析學的假設。

It’s for these reasons, that we ask how questions.  With how questions you will get much richer information, structural information, and information that your client can then use to find solutions.  The how question invites a person to look at the entire process that has led to a certain result. In Meta-Coaching, when you hold this frame about how and ask sufficient number of questions, you begin to elicit the person’s Strategy Process and when you can hear that, you are engaged at a Level 3 competency level of Listening.

基于這些原因，我們提問「如何」的問題。用「如何」的問題，你會得到更豐富的信息，結構性的信息以及客戶可以找到答案的信息。「如何」的提問邀請客戶看著造成某一個結果的整個進程。在大成教練，當你保有框架關于「如何」以及提問足够提問的數量時，你開始誘導客戶的策略進程。

當你可以聽到它時，你已經是處在 3 分的聆聽層次。

How elicits strategy.  How gives you an inside look at the person’s inner game which then enables them to step up to the point of responsibility and choice.  “Responsibility” because they begin to realize how that their response is within their powers.  “Choice” because now they can begin to make new and better choices.  All of this is because whatever your client is experiencing, your client is creating.  Present tense.  Your client is currently creating it.  Sure, he probably doesn’t know that.  Sure, she isn’t aware of it.  To try to persuade them of that will usually elicit resistance.  That’s why you ask questions.  That’s why you ask curiously and not rhetorically.  That’s why you start from not-knowing and seek to find out.  And as you find out, they find out.

「如何」誘導策略。「如何」提供你透徹到客戶的內在游戲使客戶走到責任點和選擇點。「責任」因爲他們開始發現自己有權力做自己的響應。「選擇」因爲他們這時候可以開始有新的和更好的選擇。所有這些是因爲不管客戶正在體驗甚麽，他正在創造它。現在式。客戶正在創建它。當然，她可能不知道。當然，她可能沒有覺察到。要嘗試說服他們通常會引發阻力。這就爲甚麽你要發問。這就是爲甚麽你好奇地問而不是流于形式地問。這就是爲甚麽你要從甚麽都不知道開始去找尋。當你在尋找時，他們就會找到。

Now the why questions I’m addressing here are the why questions about history, cause, and explanation.  There’s an entirely different why question, when you ask about the why of importance, of value, and of intention.  That’s entirely different.  Ask that one.

在這裏我要講的「爲甚麽」的提問是「爲甚麽」問有關于歷史，原因和解釋。但當你要問有關于重要性，價值和意向的爲甚麽，那可是完全不一樣的爲甚麽。非常不一樣。這個，你就要問。

When a person is not in the best state, not highly resourceful, but in a negative state— then why will deepen that state, make it worse, and amplify it.  That’s why in the supervision at Coaching Mastery and at MCF Chapters, we train those on the Assist Team to listen for this kind of why and interrupt the coach to ask, “Do you really want your client to answer that question?”  “Where will that question take your client?”

當一個人不是處在最佳狀態，不是高度有資源但是處在負面狀態，「爲甚麽」會加深那種狀態，使它更糟幷擴大它。這就是爲甚麽我們在課堂上和分會裏訓練助教要聽到這種「爲甚麽」幷打斷教練問：「你真的要客戶回答那個問題嗎？」「那種提問會帶客戶到哪裏？」

The principle of Meta-Coaching derived from basic NLP: Do not ask why when your client is in a negative state.  This will be good for you, and it will be great for your client

大成教練的原則來自于基礎 NLP。當客戶處在負面狀態時，不要問「爲甚麽」。這對你好，對客戶更好。

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。