Another significant aspect of NLP in relation to communication with others is the use of what are called Meta Models. There are certain patterns of speech that limit the way a message is communicated to a listener. If we are aware of these patterns we can, as a listener, use our communication to clarify someone’s true meaning and more effectively understand their perspectives. Some examples of these communication patterns are:
Comparisons: Are words like “better”, “worse”, “best”, “badly”. The problem with these words is when they are used we invariable miss out the part of the sentence that puts the comparison in context. For example “I could have done so much better”, raises the question “Better than what?” Whose standard are you using for comparison? Is it yours or someone else’s? How reasonable really is the statement that includes the comparison? And yet when it is used it creates an emotional intensity that prevents the speaker from thinking clearly about the situation. When you hear someone using a comparison like this it is best to establish the context for the comparison by asking “Better than what?” “Worse than who?” to gain greater understanding of the message being communicated.
Universal Quantifiers: Are words like ‘always’ and ‘never’. When someone says always or never they almost never (see how common these are) mean them literally, but when they say them they create the chemical reaction in their brains that would occur as if it really were ALWAYS or NEVER. For example I’m talking to Susie about her husband Jim and she says “Jim never does anything romantic with me”. While it very likely isn’t the case that he NEVER does, by using that language pattern she physically FEELS like she would feel if he NEVER did. I can better understand Susie’s feelings better here by questioning “Always?”. To which she will usually reply, “well not ALWAYS but I can’t remember the last time he did!”. Already I have a better understanding of the situation and at the same time, Susie now feels less emotionally intense about the situation because she has described it differently and so she is in a state that is more conducive to effective communication.
Presupposing: A presupposition is a statement where something is presumed to be true that is not stated but that changes the meaning of the statement. For example “What time do you want to have lunch on Friday?”, (assuming this is the beginning of the interaction) presumes that you already have indicated you want to have lunch on Friday when that may not be true. Presuppositions are frequently used by sales people and those who try to influence our opinion because quite often without us knowing it, they do just that. Be wary of presupposition type statements and be prepared to clarify by asking “What makes you think that…”?
Making Judgments: Judgments are statements that indicate an opinion or fact. Things like “John isn’t very sociable” are considered judgments. These statements are usually taken as fact by most listeners when in fact they can be rather misleading. Whose opinion is it that John isn’t sociable? And on what criteria is this based? Unless these factors are established, the statement “John isn’t very sociable” doesn’t really hold any weight. Again by establishing whose opinion the judgments is and the reason it has been established, a better ground for effective communication is established.
Complex Equivalence: This is a statement that assumes a relationship between two events that might not (and very likely doesn’t) exist. Here’s an example:
“John doesn’t like me”. ”How do you know that John doesn’t like you?” “He always says hello to everyone else in the room before me” This statement assumes a complex equivalence that John saying hello to you last is equivalent to him not liking you. Of course you have never asked him if that is the case so this might well be an incorrect assumption. The way to clarify these are by asking “How does this mean that”? “How does John not saying hello to you first mean that he doesn’t like you”.
Mistaking the Cause: This is very similar to complex equivalence and is where a cause and effect relationship between two factors is implied without being officially established. “He’s been so much happier since they divorced” implies that the divorce is the cause of his happiness when actually that fact has not been stated. Normally a link would be assumed here. When you hear implied cause and effect statements you can clarify by asking “How specifically does this mean that”.
These are just a few of the subtle factors that can influence the effectiveness of communication between people. You probably notice that they apply equally as much in internal communication. You might diffuse some emotional intensity within yourself by realizing that the reason you are angry with that person is because you think he NEVER does what he is supposed to. Upon asking yourself “Never?”, you will see the situation differently, lessen the intensity of your emotional state and be better able to come up with a positive solution.
There are currently no posts in this category.
