Meta-model (NLP)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meta-model (initially named meta-model of therapy^[1] and also known as meta-model of language^[2]) is a communications model for gathering information, clarifying and challenging incomplete or poorly structured information. It was developed by the co-founders of Neuro-linguistic programming, Richard Bandler and linguist John Grinder between 1973 and 1975. The meta model represents an attempt to explicate the patterns that gestalt therapist Fritz Perls and family therapist Virginia Satir used to produce change with their clients.^[1] Bandler and Grinder claimed to bring together their observations of the language patterns that Perls and Satir used to effect change with language patterns from transformational syntax and ideas about human modeling from the work of Alfred Korzybski.^[3] The meta model consists of categories of questions which respond to linguistic distortion, generalization and deletion that occurs in natural language, such as "What X, specifically?", "How specifically?", "According to whom?" and "How do you know that?" to get back to sensory specific information. It is often constrasted with the Milton model; a collection of "artfully vague" and metaphoric language patterns Bandler and Grinder later observed in Milton H. Erickson working with clients.^[4]

Contents 1 Discussion 2 Examples 2.1 Distortions 2.1.1 Presuppositions 2.1.2 Cause-Effect 2.1.3 Mind-reading violation 2.1.4 Nominalization 2.1.5 Complex Equivalence 2.2 Generalization 2.2.1 Universal quantification 2.2.2 Modal operators 2.2.2.1 Modal operator of necessity 2.2.2.2 Modal operator of possibility 2.3 Deletion 2.3.1 Simple Deletions 2.3.2 Unspecified Verbs 2.3.3 Comparisons 2.3.4 Unspecified referential index 2.3.5 Lost Performative 3 Influences 4 See also 5 References

[edit] Discussion

Definition of the meta-model:

People respond to events based on their internal pictures, sounds and feelings. They also collect these experiences into groups or categories that are labeled with words. The meta-model is a method for helping someone go from the information-poor word maps back to the specific sensory-based experiences they are based on. It is here in the information-rich specific experiences that useful changes can be made that will result in changes in behavior."^[5]

Uses of meta model in psychotherapy:

"The question the PTSD victim often asks is, why did this happen to me? The astute clinician needs to probe for the deep meaning (Bandler & Grinder, 1975) of the term "this." What specific aspect(s) of the event have toxic meanings to the individual? In addition, the clinician needs to assess the specific attributions that patients give to their responses. For instance, if they believe that because they have intrusive memories of the experience, they are crazy, this will lead to increased suffering."^[6]

[edit] Examples

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page. (December 2007)

[edit] Distortions

[edit] Presuppositions

"Presupposition" refers to an assumption whereby the truth is taken for granted.

Crucially, negation of an expression does not change its presuppositions: I want to do it again and I don't want to do it again both mean that the subject has done it already one or more times; My wife is pregnant and My wife is not pregnant both mean that the subject has a wife. In this respect, presupposition is distinguished from entailment and implication. For example, The president was assassinated entails that The president is dead, but if the expression is negated, the entailment is not necessarily true.

Example 1:

• "John had lunch in the city yesterday, too."
• Presupposition: The word "too" presupposes that the speaker (or an unknown third party) also had lunch in city yesterday.
• Reponse: Am I to assume that you also had lunch in the city yesterday?

Example 2:

• "Do you want to do it again?"
• Presupposition: I have done it already, at least once.
• Challenge: "Have I done it before?"

Example 3:

• "My husband is as lazy as my son."
• Presuppositions: You have a husband; you have a son; your son is lazy.
• Challenge: "Am I to assume that your son is lazy?"

[edit] Cause-Effect

Cause-effect, this shows how to identify the inappropriate use of causal thinking (x means y, x makes me y, or x makes y happen), which is considered semantically ill-formed and unacceptable (irrational).^[7]

Causality always implies at least some relationship of dependency between the cause and the effect. For example, deeming something a cause may imply that, all other things being equal, if the cause occurs the effect does as well, or at least that the probability of the effect occurring increases.

Example 1:

• "My wife makes me angry."
• Challenge: How specifically can your wife make you angry?
• There is a presupposition here that someone can physically cause an emotional response in another person. NLP emphasizes the importance of state management and that individuals have choice about which state they occupy independent of others. People can choose how they response to stimulus. Along these lines, it is impossible for someone to make or cause someone else to feel, be, do something with words alone.

Example 2:

• I'm nervous because something happened to me last time in this situation.
• Challenge: How specifically can a past effect cause your current state to change?
• There is a presupposition in NLP that memory of the past is no more unchangeable than a goal in the future. If a past memory is impacting on current performance then you can make changes to the past memory.

[edit] Mind-reading violation

Mind-reading violation occurs when someone claims to think they know what another is thinking without verification. Assuming the intentions of others or how someone will act without evidence or confirmation.

Example 1:

• "If he doesn't start paying his share of the bills, she is going to leave him."
• Challenge: "How do you know this? Has she told you that she intends to leave him if he doesn't?"

Example 2:

• Client: "She is annoyed with me."
• Change agent: "I'm curious to know, how do you know that she was annoyed?"
• Client: "Her arms were crossed."
• Change agent: "Did you ask her? Perhaps she crossed her arms because she is cold or she finds it more comfortable in that position."
• In NLP there is an emphasis on calibration and sensory acuity. Intuitions about what people are thinking based on gestures, body language or other cues without adequate calibration distorts the intended communication and considered to be a mind reading violation.

[edit] Nominalization

Nominalization occurs when a verb (process word) is transformed into a abstract noun. A dynamic process (i.e. a verb) is transformed into something static (i.e. a noun). It's like taking a snapshot of a moving object, you don't see the movement any more, just the (static) object.

Examples of nominalization

Example 1:

• "The communication [from 'communicate'] in this company is poor."
• Challenge: "How could we communicate more effectively?"

Example 2:

• Client: "My decision will be made by tomorrow."
• Challenge: "How specifically will you decide?"
• When a verb is transformed into a abstract noun (decision is the nominalized form of decide) it is considered by NLP proponents to become stagnant. In this case, responding with the verb form facilitates movement and helps gathers information about the process of deciding.

Additional examples:

applicability (from applicable)

• The applicability of the meta model was noticeable.
• How specifically was it applicable?

carelessness (from careless)

• Her carelessness was apparent in the way she looked away.
• How specifically was she careless?

difficulty (from difficult)

• The difficulty of the test was a hurdle.
• How specifically was it difficult?

failure (from fail)

• It was a big failure.
• How specifically did it fail?

intensity (from intense)

• The intensity was overwhelming.
• How intense was it?

investigation (from investigate)

• The investigation was carried out thoroughly.
• How specifically was it investigated?

reaction (from react)

• My reaction was immediate.
• How specifically did you react?

Note: there are 2 simple tests that can be used to determine if a word or expression is a nominalization:

• the wheelbarrow test: if you can put it into a wheelbarrow, it is NOT a nominalization. E.g. A drink is a noun, but it is not a nominalization... as it is tangible, it can be put into a wheelbarrow and carried around. Quality control fails the wheelbarrow test and is a nominalization.
• If the word continuous can be put in front of the noun and still make sense. E.g. improvement becomes continuous improvement, hence improvement is a nominalization. (The fact that continuous can be added indicates that there is a dynamic aspect to this static element).

These examples are used to show how to identify limiting use of language. When a verb is used instead, the mind of the user becomes more flexible in terms of seeing different points of view and looking for solutions to problems.^[8]

[edit] Complex Equivalence

Complex equivalence (X↔Y, or X is equivalent to Y) draws an unrelated conclusion from an event to create a logic that "does not follow" See also: non sequitur.

Example 1:

• "And now my secretary quit. I'll be bankrupt by the end of the year!"
• Challenge: "Are you telling me your fortune depended on your secretary's employment?"

Example 2:

• Client: You're late again, which means you don't love me.
• Challenge: How specifically, can lateness mean love is absent?

Example 3:

• Client: If only he bought me flowers then I'd know.
• Challenge: Know what, specifically?
• Client: I'd know that he loved me.
• Challenge: So if I understand you correctly, you equate buying flowers with love?
• Client: Yes.
• Challenge: How specifically, can buying flowers mean love? Can you think of other ways someone might express their love?

Example 4:

• "Being late means she does not love me."
• Challenge: "How, specifically, does her being late mean she does not love you?"

[edit] Generalization

• See also: hasty generalization, Glittering generality

[edit] Universal quantification

Universal quantifiers occur when someone attempts to characterize something as true for everything, everyone or all those in a set. This NLP meta model question can be used when someone is generalizing too broadly. (See also: False dilemma).

Universal quantifiers include: all, every, none, everyone, never, nobody, no-one

Example 1:

• "My co-workers are all lazy."
• Challenge: "All of them?" or "Which co-workers, specifically?"

Example 2:

• "Everyone hates me."
• Challenge: "Every one of them? Which people, specifically?"

Example 3:

• "None of this makes sense."
• Challenge: "What specifically, does not make sense?"

Example 4:

• "Nobody likes me anymore."
• Challenge: "Who specifically does not like you?"
• "My co-workers..."
• "Which co-workers specifically?"

[edit] Modal operators

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

[edit] Modal operator of necessity

The modal operator of necessity, must expresses an absolute (often moral) obligation, order or requirement.

• Example: "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 1: "I shall make an effort."
• Example 1: "I should make an effort."
• Response: What would happen if you didn't make an effort?

• Example 2: "I shouldn't do that."
• Response: What would happen if you did do that?

[edit] Modal operator of possibility

The modal operators of possibility, can/could expresses physical or mental ability;

• Example 1: "I can do it later."
• Example 1: "I could do it later."
• Response: What would happen if you didn't do it later?

• Example 2: "I can't put myself together."
• Response: "What would happen if you did?", "What would happen if you didn't?"

The modal operators of possibility, may/might expresses permission, option or choice;

• Example 1: "I may do it later."
• Example 1: "I might do it later."
• Response: What would happen if you didn't do it later?

The modal operator of possibility, will = intention in 1st person, volition in 2nd and 3rd persons

• Example: "I will redeem myself."
• Response: What would happen if you did redeem yourself?

[edit] Deletion

[edit] Simple Deletions

In a simple deletion an important element in a statement is missing. For example:

Example 1:

• Client: "Go and do it."
• Response: "Do what, specifically?"

Example 2:

• Client: "That is important."
• Response: "What specifically is important? Important, to whom?"

Example 3:

• Client: "I feel bad."
• "How specifically do you experience that feeling?", "What specifically do you feel bad about?"

In these examples, the key words to look out for are it and that.

The appropriate response would be to ask what, where or when exactly? “Go and do what exactly?” This example is used for teaching how to identify this common linguistic distortion. In responding, this question is considered to help gather information about the limiting pattern of the client.

[edit] Unspecified Verbs

In an unspecified verb it is not clear how the action creates or created the result. For example:

Example 1:

• Client: "I created a great impression on them."
• Response: “How exactly did you create a great impression (and note the unspecified referential index “them”) on who exactly?”
• The appropriate response is to ask how exactly does taking “x” action lead to “y” result.

[edit] Comparisons

Unspecified Comparatives or null comparative is a comparative in which the starting point for comparison is not stated. These comparisons are frequently found in advertising. For example, in typical assertions such as "our burgers have more flavor", "our picture tube is sharper" or "50% more", there is no mention of what it is they are comparing to. In some cases it is easy to infer what the missing element in a null comparative is. In other cases the speaker or writer may have been deliberately vague in this regard, for example "Glasgow's miles better".

Example comparisons in English:

good	better	best
well	better	best
bad	worse	worst
far	farther	farthest
far	further	furthest
little	littler, less(er)	littlest, least
many	more	most

Example 1:

• Client: "I made my best effort"
• Challenge: "Best, compared to what?"
• Essentially the response is attempting to recover information about the comparison criteria the client is using.

Example 2:

• Client: "I'm playing much better now"
• Challenge: "Better, compared to what?"

Example 3:

• Client: "I felt worse."
• Challenge: "Worse, compared to what?"
• Client: "Than before..."
• Challenge: "Before, what specifically?"
• Client: "I felt worse than I was before the accident."

[edit] Unspecified referential index

Unspecified referential index, refers to the use of personal pronoun when the context is unknown, or can not easily be understood based on the preceding sentences. For example uncontextualised use of they, them, you, ...

Examples:

• Example 1: "They say I should go into business, but I don't know if I have the confidence."
• Challenge: "Who is it that says you should go into business?"

• Example 2: "Yeah, I have tried alcohol before. It makes you say stupid things."
• Challenge: "Wait, it makes me say stupid things?"

• Example 3: "I hate watching the Vikings in the playoffs. We always lose and it makes me depressed."
• Challenge: "By 'we', do you mean that you are part of the Vikings?"^[1]

• Example 3: He shook her hand.
• Challenge: Who shook who's hand exactly?

• Example 4: Why do they always rely on Mary to do their homework for them?
• Challenge: Who specifically is 'they'?

• Example 5: They tried to run away from the hunter, but he set his dogs after them.
• Challenge: When you said, 'they', who were you referring to? Also, who exactly is, 'them'? Also, can I assume that by "he" you were referring to the hunter?

[edit] Lost Performative

Lost Performative makes reference to a performative speech act, but the person who is the source of it, and sometimes the speech act itself, is unspecified. This often takes the form of a value judgment without acknowledgment of the fact that a person is the source of that value judgment.

Example 1:

• Client: "Her book was highly acclaimed."
• Challenge: "Highly acclaimed by whom?" or "How do you know that?"

Example 2:

• Client: "Disobeying the government is wrong."
• Challenge: "According to whom?"

Example 3:

• Client: "An apology was given"
• Challenge: "Who gave the apology and to whom was it given?"

Example 4:

• Client: "He was under arrest."
• Challenge: Who was he arrested by?

Example 5:

• Client: "The girl was christened"
• Challenge: The girl was christened, by whom?

Example 6:

• Client: "Mary was sentenced to death"
• Challenge: Who sentenced Mary to death?

Example 7:

• Client: "An apology was made."
• Challenge: Who made an apology?

Example 8:

• Client: "The song was dedicated to Mary"
• Challenge: Who dedicated the song to Mary?

Example 9:

• Client: "This meeting is now adjourned"
• Challenge: Who specifically adjourned the meeting?

[edit] Influences

John Grinder did his doctoral thesis on Noam Chomsky's Transformational Grammar.^[3].

It can also be traced to the nominalistic tradition of William of Ockham.^{[citation needed]}

An effort unrelated by origin but going in the same direction of improving clarity of communication is the constructed language Loglan (and its close cousin, Lojban).^{[citation needed]}

Influenced by Korzybski's critique of cause effect (x makes me feel y).^[7]

[edit] See also

• Neuro-linguistic programming
• List of NLP topics
• Richard Bandler - co-creator of this meta model
• John Grinder - co-creator of this meta model
• Fritz Perls
• Virginia Satir
• Transformational Grammar
• Cognitive distortions
• Cognitive restructuring

[edit] References