For example, I had a client who had the complex equivelence between making mistakes and being a failure. His language told me he had a very small chunk size. Too small a chunk size can prevent people from seeing the benifits of their mistakes. My hope was that, by using a larger chunk size, he would be able to develop other meanings for mistakes. Just calibrate to make sure he is following.
Some people make a distinction between 'lasting change' and change that wears off after a while.
I find this metaphor especially unhelpfull. Nominalizations are the ZIP-files of processes, so to speak. It may put those who do not translate it to process on the wrong track, however. I also have a separate model that says that for change to occur there must be a destablization period. This must be created by a perturbation stimulous that is stronger than the system's dampening circuits can smooth out.