Neuro-Linguistic Programming Models Summary (02 of 14)

GeneraliSation

The The Meta Model generaliSations make explicit the way we summarise and categorise our experiences. Generalisations are basically the rules we use to manage life.

There are usually exceptions or counter examples to rules. These rules and categories create self-imposed or company wide limitations. Examining these limitations is a powerful problem solving strategy.

By generalising one or a few experiences, we can figure out what to do in a different experience. We learn to drive a particular car, and then use that experience to drive a new one. If we weren’t able to generalise, we would have to learn how to drive all over again.

Problem Solving

Examining categories and generalisations is an excellent creative problem solving strategy. What are the experiences that come to mind when you think of money for instance? We typically use an emotionally charged experience to stand in for all our experiences in a category.

We generalise and categorise all kinds of things without knowing it. For instance, we learn that skiing is fun or dangerous. We decide that reading is powerful or boring. We figure out that other people are interesting or annoying.

Because we often make these generalisations with only a few experiences and/or when we are very young, it is useful to examine them critically.

Universal quantifiers – a Meta Model Generalization

When using universal quantifiers, you are saying, “there are no exceptions and therefore there are no choices.” Sometimes this can be useful. If you believe you will always find a way if you persevere for instance.

Modal operators – a Meta Model Generalisation

Modal operators sound weird. The term refers to your mode of operating. They are words like must, should, can’t, have to, mustn’t, can, will and indicate possibility or necessity. There is a big difference between doing something because you feel you have to and because you want to.

Complex equivalences – a Meta model generalisation

A complex equivalence involves constructing beliefs out of generalisations. It is making two experiences equal. For instance, I may believe that someone not making eye contact means they have something to hide. They are sometimes very tenuous links.

Universal Quantifiers

When using universal quantifiers, you are saying, “there are no exceptions and therefore there are no choices.” Sometimes this can be useful. If you believe you will always find a way if you persevere for instance.

Mostly, this kind of language pattern creates limitations for us. We don’t even look for a solution because we assume there isn’t one. We can limit ourselves especially when it comes to the kind of person we think we are.

Universals are words such as all, every, never, always.

When you hear these words, the person (or yourself) is showing you their beliefs. Pay attention when you use them, particularly if it’s to do with a problem you’ve had for a while.

For example

• “I’ll never get this right”
• “I always try to get along with her, but she hates me”
• “Every woman I know is jealous and possessive”
• “He never listens to me”
• “We all know how hard it is too lose weight”
• “My credit card is always maxed by the end of the month”
• “I never seem to get ahead”
• “I always do badly in job interviews – they never give me a chance”
• “you can never get it right”
• “You always find a way to mess things up”
• “You are all against me”
• “Every time I try to do something nice, it backfires”

Recovery Questions

The Meta Model response involves opening choices using exaggeration and searching for counter examples.

• “Has there ever been a time when I did get it right?”
• “You mean every single person is against you?”
• “So I have messed up every thing I have ever done?”
• “Has there ever been a time in your whole life when doing something nice didn’t backfire?”

Lost Performative

Lost performatives are when someone is talking about a personal belief, but presents it as though it was a universal truth. We then accept it as true without questioning it as we would if we heard it as someone’s personal opinion.

Things like clichés and new age rhetoric that “everyone” knows is true. Even though some of these truisms are useful, the origin is lost, so they are disconnected.

Some examples

• Vitamins are an essential part of our diet.
• You need eight glasses of water a day.
• You need a good suit to be successful
• Boys will be boys
• The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach
• Good mothers don’t work full time
• Knowledge leads to power
• If its meant to be, it will happen
• Behind every successful man is a woman.
• Things always work out in the end
• Always be the first to arrive and the last the leave.
• Always be the last to arrive and the first to leave.
• God is on our side
• If you want to lose weight cut down saturated fats
• If you want to lose weight cut down carbs
• If you want to lose weight don’t eat potatoes
• Bottled water is better than tap water.
• Soy is good for menopause.
• Fish oil is good for your heart.

The danger of some of these lost performatives is they bypass our reasoning filters. We can take on these ideas as beliefs and delete perfectly good solutions to our problems.

We don’t think which circumstances they apply to. We don’t consider whether they apply to all people.

The origin is important. How many of these studies are promoted by people with a vested interest? Of course, the company is going to say their product is good for you. What are they going to say instead -humans can’t actually digest our stuff, we only used to feed it to pigs but we can get heaps for it if we tell you its healthy? It would be refreshing, but unlikely.

Recovery Questions

• Who says?
• For who is this true?
• According to who?

We want to find out where the belief came from, whether the strategy is based on something solid.

Moral Operator

Modal operator verbs give more information about the function of the main verb that follows it. Although having a great variety of communicative functions, these functions can all be related to a scale ranging from possibility (can) to necessity (must).

Modal operators are formally characterised by expressing a modal attitude, such as necessity (modal verbs: have to, must, should) or possibility (can, might, may) towards the proposition to which it is applied. They can also appear in the contracted negated form (e.g. shouldn’t, can’t, mustn’t).

Modal operator of necessity

The modal operator of necessity (e.g. must, should, ought to, have to, its necessary to, …) expresses an absolute (often moral) obligation, order or requirement.

Example 1: “I must redeem myself.”

Response: What would happen if you didn’t redeem yourself?

The modal operators of necessity, shall/should, in 1st person objective though not moral obligation, no choice, as in:

Example 2: “I should make an effort.”

Response: “What would happen if you didn’t make an effort?”

Example 3 (negated): “I shouldn’t do that.”

Response: “What would happen if you did?”

Modal operator of possibility

The modal operators of possibility (e.g. can, could, might, may, its possible to, …) expresses intention, permission, option or choice.

Example 1: “I can/could/might/may/will do it later.”

Response: What would happen if you didn’t do it later?

Example 2: “I can’t/couldn’t/won’t put myself together.”

Response: “What would happen if you did?”, “What would happen if you didn’t?”

Deletions

Simple deletions are where part of the meaning are left out or lost. You can notice them in sentences with it and that. Also when referring to missing descriptions (adjectives) – as in “Please give me the report.”

Assuming that you know which category or thing the person means can get you into trouble. You think you know what the boss wants when she says “get me a report on it straight away”. Mind reading fills in the deletion gaps. We waste time creating something that doesn’t suit the purpose.

Some examples

I’m so angry

• About forgetting my own birthday
• About him sending an email instead of a thank you
• About getting older
• About the poverty in Africa
• About my candidate not winning the election
• About being tricked out of everything I own

I broke my promise

• The one to stop smoking
• The one where you said you would always love me
• To be home on time
• To love honour and obey, forsaking all others till death do us part
• To climb Mount Everest before I was forty
• To become a doctor like Dad

Questions to Recover

• What specifically are you angry about?
• Which promise specifically?
• Which report do you mean?
• A report on what specifically?

Lack of Referential Index

Lack of referential index is a type of generalisation and refers to a phrase which fails to identify directly a portion of the listener's experience.

Phrases which are generalised in this way are more likely to fit with the world model of the listener and thus be accepted by the listener.

In simple terms, we can utilise a lack of referential index to leave 'blanks' in our communication, blanks which the listener fills with content from their own model of the world.

Consider the following two paragraphs and think about which one you would be able to accept more easily:-

1. On Monday you will learn Matching and Mirroring. On Tuesday you will learn all about Representational Systems. Next Wednesday you will use tag questions all day.

2. In the days and weeks ahead you will learn a number of new things, perhaps without even realising you are doing it, and those learnings can lead you in the direction of making useful changes that will support the direction that you're moving in your life now.

The likelihood is that you found paragraph 2 more acceptable and if you did, what was it about paragraph 2 that enabled you to accept it more easily?

Paragraph 1 includes specific referential indices - Monday, Tuesday, Next Wednesday, Matching and Mirroring, Representational Systems, tag questions.

These indices reference the specific times and the specific topics you will learn which creates a context in which two occurrences are more likely:-

a) The referential indices clash with your world model i.e. you decide that you are unwilling or unable or that's it's just not possible to learn those specific things in accordance with the specific timetable given.

-or-

b) You accept the inherent presuppositions and believe both that you can and will learn the specific subjects within the timetable given and then fail to do so.

One of the particularly useful aspects of the permissive style of the Milton Model for hypnosis and hypnotic language is that language is used in a way that reduces considerably any possibility of failure, or at least of it's detection.

To explain, let's dissect paragraph 2:-

In the days and weeks ahead you will learn a number of new things

The referential indices of specific times and specific learning outcomes present in paragraph 1 are not present in paragraph 2. The phrase days and weeks ahead sounds specific but it's actually completely open-ended and imposes no deadline by which learning must be achieved.

...you will learn a number of new things...

Another statement which is difficult to disagree with as unless you lose the cognitive power of thought, the sheer volume of data flowing into your sensory systems every moment that you're alive forces you to learn new things from moment to moment. How many new things will you learn? A number of them, so any number will make this statement true. What new things will you learn? Anything that you learn will make this statement true. Thus the absence of the referential indices on the type and number of learnings to be made again creates a context where acceptance is easy and failure is almost impossible.

...without even realising you're doing it...

Wondering how you're going to make those new learnings? Good! The lack of referential index on doing it creates a context in which doing anything that leads to a learning will fit with the statement given. And if you don't even realise how/what/why/when you're learning that's fine too - many useful learnings are made below the level of consciousness anyway. It's also probable that by beginning to think about what you might learn you will focus the flashlight of your attention on finding opportunities for learning those very things i.e. we get what we look for.

...and those learnings can lead you the direction of making useful changes...

The lack of referential index on those learnings and useful changes allows the listener to identify which learnings and which changes are most appropriate and applicable.

...support the direction that you're moving in your life now...

Which direction are you moving in your life now? It doesn't matter - the lack of referential index on the direction means that whatever direction you happen to be moving in will fit the statement.

Comparative Deletion

Comparative deletions are hypnotic words where we make a comparison but don’t explain what we are comparing. There is some kind of standard or judgment involved, but it isn’t made clear.

When you accept a judgement without understanding what’s behind it, you can get stuck. Many “self esteem” issues come from deciding someone is better or more worthy at a general level rather than questioning the standard. “Better at what specifically?” If you don’t know what the standard is, how can you improve or disregard it?

Vague comparisons use words like better, best, harder, faster, stronger, improved, more, less, very, bigger, smaller, brighter, louder, healthier, superior, smarter, enhanced. Marketers love these terms. They slip in a percentage together with the comparison so it sounds more credible. (Did you catch the deletion – more credible than what?)

Examples

Get a 20% better wash with new improved Gunge-off.

• Better than old ordinary Gunge-off
• Better than washing in muddy water
• Better than washing in clean water without detergent
• Better than if they weren’t washed.
• Instead of coming up as grey shade 100 it is grey shade 80.
• Better than the leading market detergent

The burgers are bigger at the Grease Trap.

• Bigger than Swedish meatballs
• Bigger than the cockroaches out the back
• Bigger than the take out next door
• Bigger than our famous competitor
• 1% bigger
• 95% bigger
• Bigger than we used to make them because now we put sawdust in

Buy our double strength glue

• Double the strength of paper glue
• Double the strength of egg white
• Double the strength of professional welding
• Strength of the smell
• The bond lasts 2 days instead of 1
• It melts the material it is supposed to stick at twice the speed.
• Double the adhesion of the last batch we tried to flog

It’s better not to say anything.

• Than if I told her I thought her bum did look big in those pants
• Than if I spoke at all
• Than if I told her I broke her favorite cup
• Than if I told him the world was ending in 3 weeks
• Than if I spent the next 5 hours telling them about my holiday.

He is smarter

• Than my dog
• Than me in physics
• Than the average 5th grader
• Than 99% of the world’s population
• Than the other applicants
• Than the other people in the office
• Than the boss
• Than Einstein in music theory
• Than a decaying cabbage

Questions to Recover Comparative Deletions

• Better than what specifically
• Bigger than what specifically
• Double the strength of what specifically
• Better than what specifically?
• Smarter than who or what specifically?
• Smarter in what area specifically?

Distortions

The Meta Model distortions are responsible for some major limitations and poor map creation. Anything we make up, or that we have no sensory evidence for is a distortion. Maybe you are thinking, “I don’t make things up, I am a very down to earth person”.

Future planning

Consider what happens when you invest in a retirement plan. You are thinking about a future that does not exist. You literally cannot see yourself retired unless you already are. You cannot see a picture of something that hasn’t happened yet.

Yet we can imagine future consequences and benefits.

Concepts

A concept or an idea is something humans make up. Have you ever tripped over a relationship? A relationship consists of a number of ongoing interactions and shared experiences over time (another concept). Can you put a job in a wheelbarrow?

We use labels for categories of concepts, but there is no sensory-based evidence for them. There are certainly examples of them, but we make up the label for the idea. It’s like a shorthand marker.

Nominalisations – Recipe for Misunderstanding

Nominalisations are processes (verbs) we turn into nouns. Doing this sends deceptive messages to our brains. For example, a “decision” is actually the process of deciding; a relationship is the process of relating to someone. By changing the process into a fixed static thing, we can feel it is unchanging and limit our choices for action.

Mind reading – Jumping to Conclusions

Mind reading is assuming you know what the other person is thinking or feeling without checking. This pattern causes a great deal of interpersonal difficulties and is another of the important Meta model problem solving strategies.

Cause effects – How our world works

When a person uses a cause effect statement, they are identifying how they believe something works. That X causes Y, or that doing X makes Y happen.

Lost Performatives – Not my Beliefs

Lost performatives are when someone is talking about a personal belief, but presents it as though it was a universal truth. We then accept it as true without questioning it as we would if we heard it as someone’s personal opinion.

Linguistic Presuppositions – Accepting What I Say

Linguistic presuppositions are the most powerful of the Meta model and Milton model language patterns. As a communicator, wouldn’t it be great if people accepted what you said without question sometimes?

Nominalisations

A nominalisation is an NLP term. It is described as being the result of a verb being turned into a noun. It is what cannot be put into a wheelbarrow.

Eg Lets think about the verb “To Communicate”, ‘There is no communication’. “Communication” being the noun. the word communication is a nominalisation (you can’t put communication in a wheelbarrow, can you?). The Meta Model response would be – ‘Who is (not communicating)?’ ‘How are they (not communicating)?’

Nominalisations are significant because your interpretation of communication may be different to my interpretation of communication. You may think that it means “words” whereas another person may interpret as “actions”. So, if I talk to you about getting better communication it may mean different things to each of us.

You can use nominalisations in order to induce a light form of trance in another person, this is achieved if we use lots of nominalisations together, the mind is not sure exactly what is being said and so it drifts off and gets distracted, this is what a trance is. A nominalisation is an NLP Milton Model language pattern.

Nominalisations are often used to describe things that are important to people eg “Respect in relationships is important to me.” Both the words “respect” and “relationship” are nominalisations. What does respect look like to you? It probably looks different to you than it looks to me. In order to really get to know how I can meet your expectations I need to understand what respect looks like to you, this is where the NLP meta model comes in. The Meta Model provides us with a set of questions that we can use to establish the details of your model of the world .