{"id":1917,"date":"2013-06-17T23:41:02","date_gmt":"2013-06-17T21:41:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/?p=1917"},"modified":"2020-10-22T19:25:43","modified_gmt":"2020-10-22T17:25:43","slug":"precision-is-our-diamond","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/?p=1917","title":{"rendered":"Precision is our diamond"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Today I happened to find\u00a0 an old message of mine that I wrote way back in 2004 in a yahoogroup called n0by (Spelled n-zero-b-y).<\/p>\n

For years I have been living out my need for details.
\nAsked for the why of this importance I would say things like: when something is contradictory on the levels of details, something is wrong with the idea.
\nOr, as a friend wrote me today: main issues and side issues are relative.<\/p>\n

Once I wrote\u00a0 (http:\/\/groups.yahoo.com\/group\/n0by\/message\/17408<\/a>), it was in 2004, as an explanation of my communicative behaviour this:<\/p>\n

Hi all 15,<\/em><\/p>\n

In searching for the explanation of the question mark,<\/em>
\nI just added to a statement of Valerie, I found the<\/em>
\nmeta model.<\/em>
\nThe what?<\/em>
\nTHE meta model!!!!<\/em>
\nThe NLP meta model.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is a model from NLP, Neuro Linguistic Programming<\/em>
\n(The name is a monster).<\/em>
\nIt’s meta model is designed to be a help in the process<\/em>
\nof gattering information.<\/em><\/p>\n

That is what I very often start with, in communication.<\/em>
\nJust to find out what my partner in communion is talking<\/em>
\nfrom.<\/em>
\nIn here is the place, where I have experienced the most<\/em>
\nunwillingness to go along with this, since my protestant<\/em>
\nupbringing.<\/em>
\n(Recently, during a retreat, someone said: there is no<\/em>
\ndifference between sannyassins and catholics).<\/em>
\nAnd it is something that still was frustrating for me.<\/em><\/p>\n

The alternative, is just chatting back, no matter how<\/em>
\nunclear someone’s message is to me. No thanks.<\/em><\/p>\n

So, back to the meta model.<\/em>
\nI am a very trained NLP-practitioner, and now found the<\/em>
\ncomplete nlp meta model on the net.<\/em><\/p>\n

My advice: study it.<\/em>
\nBut only, when you are interested in precision.<\/em>
\nOtherwise: keep chatting.<\/em><\/p>\n

It is here on the web:<\/em>
\nhttp:\/\/www.23nlpeople.com\/NLP\/NLP_Meta_Model.php<\/a><\/p>\n

And for the weblink handicapped, here it is direct:<\/em><\/p>\n

NLP Meta Model. Part one<\/em><\/p>\n

The Meta-model was drawn from common questions and challenges made by<\/em>
\neffective therapists and was developed by Richard Bandler and John<\/em>
\nGrinder in the 1970’s.<\/em><\/p>\n

The questions have the pattern of typically “chunking down” – i.e.<\/em>
\ntaking large units of behaviour offered by the client and breaking<\/em>
\nthem down into smaller and more understandable chunks.<\/em><\/p>\n

They lead the client to sensory specific data rather than common<\/em>
\ngeneraLIEsations.<\/em><\/p>\n

There is no need to learn what each category is called – an<\/em>
\nunderstanding of the patterns will suffice.<\/em><\/p>\n

In reading through the examples below, you will notice some degree of<\/em>
\noverlap. More than one pattern can occur simultaneously in any<\/em>
\nsentence. In practice, the word “specifically” can be left out of the<\/em>
\nchallenges since it tends to rather annoy!<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #1: Deletion.<\/em><\/p>\n

A common pattern in speech which is often necessary. Simple deletions<\/em>
\noccur when the speaker assumes the listener knows the necessary<\/em>
\ninformation to fill in the gaps. However this is not always the case,<\/em>
\nhence the meta-model challenges.<\/em><\/p>\n

These are typically, “About what?” questions.<\/em><\/p>\n

“I’m not able to cope.”<\/em>
\n“My thinking is muddled.”<\/em>
\n“A decision was made.”<\/em>
\n“I need help before it is too late.”<\/em><\/p>\n

With what, specifically?<\/em>
\nMuddled about what, specifically?<\/em>
\nMade by whom, specifically? About what?<\/em>
\nToo late for what, specifically?<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #2: Referential Index.<\/em><\/p>\n

Another type of deletion is where the speaker introduces a person,<\/em>
\nplace or thing into a sentence but is not specific about who, where or<\/em>
\nwhat. They do this by use of generalisation.<\/em><\/p>\n

“Things get me down.”<\/em>
\n“They don’t like me.”<\/em>
\n“People think I’m fat.”<\/em>
\n“Something should be done about it. “<\/em><\/p>\n

What things, specifically?<\/em>
\nWho specifically, doesn’t like you?<\/em>
\nWho specifically thinks you are fat?<\/em>
\nWhat should be done about what, and by whom, specifically?”<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #3: Unspecified Verbs.<\/em><\/p>\n

You may remember from school that a verb is a “doing word”. Here, the<\/em>
\nspecifics of this “doing” have been deleted out. Therefore, the<\/em>
\ntypical challenge is the “How?” question.<\/em><\/p>\n

“I can’t do it.”<\/em>
\n“He hates me.”<\/em>
\n“I’m blocked.”<\/em>
\n“I know that.”<\/em>
\n“I’m jealous.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Do it how, specifically?<\/em>
\nHates you in what way?<\/em>
\nBlocked how? In what way?<\/em>
\nKnow that how, specifically?<\/em>
\nJealous how? In what way?<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #4: Nominalisations.<\/em><\/p>\n

A nominalisation is where a “process” is taken and turned<\/em>
\nlinguistically into a “thing.” Essentially these are false nouns<\/em>
\n(naming words). The test for a nominalisation is to ask yourself, “Can<\/em>
\nI carry this in a wheelbarrow?”<\/em><\/p>\n

Typical nominalisations are words such as, “jealousy”, “respect”,<\/em>
\n“love”, “harmony”, “depression”, “obesity” – all these things are<\/em>
\nprocesses or activities and not” things” . At the point of use, the<\/em>
\nspeaker will typically view these processes as static “things” i.e.<\/em>
\nfalse nouns. The examples will help clarify:<\/em><\/p>\n

“There is no respect here.”<\/em>
\nWho is not respecting whom? Respecting in what way, specifically?<\/em><\/p>\n

“I need more strength.”<\/em>
\nStrength in what way?<\/em><\/p>\n

“It’s just a thought.”<\/em>
\nA thought how, specifically?<\/em><\/p>\n

Now, in order to truly de-nominalise we need to turn the noun back<\/em>
\ninto a verb. I.e. we get the client to refer back to the process. For<\/em>
\nexample:<\/em><\/p>\n

“I have depression.”<\/em>
\n“You are depressing yourself, how?”<\/em><\/p>\n

“I have a compulsion.”<\/em>
\n“You compulse yourself how and in what way?<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #5: Modal Operators.<\/em><\/p>\n

Modal operators are words such as, “can”, “cannot”, “must”, “should”,<\/em>
\n“could” “won’t”, and “will”. Technically, they can be put into two<\/em>
\ncategories of 1. Modal Operators of Possibility (can, could) and 2.<\/em>
\nModal Operators of Necessity (must, should). These words reflect a<\/em>
\nvariety of things for example, when someone says: “I’ll try to return<\/em>
\nyour book” I know that they won’t do it. The use of the word try will<\/em>
\npermit the speaker to come back later and say, “Oh, I’m sorry, but I<\/em>
\ndid try…”<\/em><\/p>\n

Modal operators are used in the positive (can, will, must) or negative<\/em>
\nform (cannot, won’t, mustn’t). Typical challenges to these are as follows:<\/em><\/p>\n

“I can’t do that.”<\/em>
\nWhat stops you?<\/em><\/p>\n

“I can’t do anything right?”<\/em>
\nWhat prevents you?<\/em><\/p>\n

“People mustn’t know.”<\/em>
\nWhat would happen if they did?<\/em><\/p>\n

“You shouldn’t do that.”<\/em>
\nWhat would happen if I did?<\/em><\/p>\n

“I won’t go in.”<\/em>
\nWhat stops you?<\/em><\/p>\n

“You must go now.”<\/em>
\nWhat might happen if I don’t?<\/em><\/p>\n

“I shouldn’t eat cabbage.”<\/em>
\nWhat stops you? What would happen if you did?<\/em><\/p>\n

Meta Model. Part two<\/em><\/p>\n

“The map is not the territory. “<\/em>
\nAlfred Korzybski.<\/em><\/p>\n

As well as challenging questions, there are other patterns in the<\/em>
\nmeta-model that are known to successful therapists. Recognising these<\/em>
\npatterns in the speech of either yourself or your client enables you<\/em>
\nto begin to recognise specific features about the speaker’s model of<\/em>
\nthe world.<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #1: Lost Performatives.<\/em><\/p>\n

These are statements that delete out the authority behind some<\/em>
\n“should” or “must” etc. A typical challenge is, “According to whom?”<\/em><\/p>\n

“The decision has been reached.”<\/em>
\nReached by whom, specifically?<\/em><\/p>\n

“People should know better.”<\/em>
\nWho specifically should know better?<\/em><\/p>\n

“That’s against policy.”<\/em>
\nWhose policy specifically?<\/em><\/p>\n

“That’s a very bad idea.”<\/em>
\nAccording to whom?<\/em><\/p>\n

“It’s a miserable day.”<\/em>
\nAccording to whom?<\/em><\/p>\n

“This is stupid.”<\/em>
\nAccording to whom?<\/em><\/p>\n

“They shouldn’t do that?”<\/em>
\nAccording to whom, who says?<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #2: Generalisations.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is where an entire class of things, people, events etc are lumped<\/em>
\ntogether into one large category. Typical challenges can be to ask for<\/em>
\na counterexample or to exaggerate the generalisation. For example:<\/em><\/p>\n

“All depressives have low self esteem. “<\/em>
\nAll depressives? How do you know that, specifically?<\/em><\/p>\n

“Everyone knows that!”<\/em>
\nEveryone?<\/em><\/p>\n

“I am never happy.”<\/em>
\nWas there ever a time when you were happy?<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #3: Universal Quantifiers.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is another type of generaLIEsation that excludes exception, for<\/em>
\nexample:<\/em><\/p>\n

“Everyone hates me.”<\/em>
\n“I’ll never be happy.”<\/em>
\n“I’m always miserable.”<\/em>
\n“All men are bastards.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Challenge these with an exaggeration of the statement, “Wow! EVERYONE<\/em>
\nhates you??”<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #4: Presuppositions.<\/em><\/p>\n

Elements of some part of the sentence presuppose the existence of some<\/em>
\nthing, event, person etc that is not stated explicitly. For example,<\/em>
\n“They ate all the oranges” presupposes that there was more than one of<\/em>
\n“them” doing the eating.<\/em><\/p>\n

“My dad hit me again” presupposes that “dad” hit the speaker previously.<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #5: Cause and Effect.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is where the speaker puts elements into a relationship whereby<\/em>
\nevent\/action ‘A’ leads to event\/action ‘B’. For example:<\/em><\/p>\n

“When my father shouts at me, I feel depressed. “<\/em><\/p>\n

“When I smell chips, I get really hungry.”<\/em><\/p>\n

“When I hear my girlfriend’s voice, I feel happier.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Pattern #6: Mind Reading.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is the pattern that starts wars, causes paranoia, anxiety and all<\/em>
\nsorts of serious problems. It basically takes the form of, “I know<\/em>
\nwhat you are thinking.”<\/em><\/p>\n

For example:<\/em><\/p>\n

“I know that you don’t like me.”<\/em><\/p>\n

“You think I did it because I love Mildred.”<\/em><\/p>\n

“I know that you don’t really feel that.”<\/em><\/p>\n

“Don’t be stupid, you don’t really believe that!”<\/em><\/p>\n

Meta Model Example<\/em><\/p>\n

“No one ever listens to anything I ever say.”<\/em><\/p>\n

You, acting as an effective listener need to pay attention to how the<\/em>
\nspeaker speaks – i.e. their tonality, pitch, speed, volume etc. The<\/em>
\nclient saying the above sentence said these words in a whiney, nasal<\/em>
\ntonality and she made no attempt to adapt her voice to fit into the<\/em>
\nenvironment that she was in. In short when she told me, “No one ever<\/em>
\nlistens to anything I ever say” my internal response to myself was,<\/em>
\n“Well, I’m really not surprised!”<\/em><\/p>\n

Note in this example the speaker does not place herself “at cause” –<\/em>
\nshe places responsibility external to herself and she places herself<\/em>
\nat the level of “effect”. Some counsellors would reply to this<\/em>
\nludicrous statement with, “And how do you feel about that?” However, a<\/em>
\nmore skilled practitioner would hear that statement differently.<\/em><\/p>\n

Now, let’s look at the meta-model violations.<\/em><\/p>\n

The speaker uses three universal quantifiers. You could ask:<\/em><\/p>\n

1. No one?? Has there ever been a person who did listen to what<\/em>
\nyou say?<\/em>
\n2. Nothing? No one listens to anything you ever say? Was there<\/em>
\nanything you ever said that someone did listen to?<\/em><\/p>\n

The speaker offers two unspecified verbs. Find out what their evidence<\/em>
\nis for them. For example, you could ask:<\/em><\/p>\n

1. Listens how, specifically? How would you know if someone was<\/em>
\nlistening? What would they need to be doing so that you would know<\/em>
\nthat they were listening?<\/em>
\n2. What is it that you are trying to say?<\/em>
\n3. How are you saying whatever it is you are trying to say?<\/em><\/p>\n

Essentially, where we are trying to get the speaker is to the point of<\/em>
\nbeing “at cause” – i.e. She is responsible for her communication and<\/em>
\nthe outcomes arising from it. I chose to challenge the<\/em>
\ngeneralisations\/lack of referential index of “no-one” and “anything I<\/em>
\never say.” Essentially I challenged these with:<\/em><\/p>\n

1. Who specifically does not listen? Me? My hamster? Who?<\/em>
\n2. What specifically is it that you are saying that <persons> are<\/em>
\nnot listening to?<\/em><\/p>\n

Through these challenges, I was able to direct the client to the<\/em>
\nposition whereby her generalisation of no one ever listening to<\/em>
\nanything she said could be moved to considerations of.<\/em><\/p>\n

1. Who it was that was not listening.<\/em>
\n2. The evidence by which she would know if a person was listening<\/em>
\n– i.e. what behaviour does she need to observe from the listener to<\/em>
\nlet her know that he or she is in fact listening. Is her evidence<\/em>
\nrequirement for this reasonable?<\/em>
\n3. The mode by which she communicated – i.e. the tone of her voice<\/em>
\netc and the impact this had upon the listener.<\/em>
\n4. The content of what it was she was communicating.<\/em><\/p>\n

A common example of a language pattern that traps the listener into a<\/em>
\npresupposition is that of, “When did you stop beating your wife?” The<\/em>
\npresupposition is that the listener is married and that he beats his<\/em>
\nwife. Naturally, the meta-model question to break this presupposition is:<\/em><\/p>\n

“Beating my wife at what, specifically? Croquet? Bowls? Monopoly?”<\/em><\/p>\n

Presuppositions presuppose a reality that is shared by everyone, don’t<\/em>
\nthey? As long as the speaker believes and acts “as if” their<\/em>
\npresuppositions are true and not simply a question of belief, then the<\/em>
\nspeaker will remain stuck in certain undesirable patterns of behaviour<\/em>
\nand belief.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today I happened to find\u00a0 an old message of mine that I wrote way back in 2004 in a yahoogroup called n0by (Spelled n-zero-b-y). For years I have been living out my need for details. Asked for the why of … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":1921,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-my-blog"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/11115913_s11.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1tD9I-uV","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1917","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1917"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1917\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5591,"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1917\/revisions\/5591"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1921"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hansvandergugten.nl\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}