FIGURING OUT
PEOPLE
Reading People Using Meta-Programs
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
Bobby G. Bodenhamer, D.Min.
©2006 Figuring Out People
By L. Michael Hall and Bobby G. Bodenhamer
First Edition, 1997 ISBN 1899836101 By Crown House Publications Second Edition 2000
Reprinted 2004
Reprinted 2005
Second Edition by Neuro-Semantic Publications
2006
2009
All rights reserved.
Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a
retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded, or
reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owners.
Enquires should be addressed to Neuro-Semantic Publications.
Published originally in the UK by
Crown House Publishing Ltd.
Crown Buildings, Bancyfelin, Carmarthen. Wales www.crownhouse.co.uk
The right of L. Michael Hall and Bob G. Bodenhamer to be identified as the authors of this work has
been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988. British
Library of Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue entry for this book is available from the
British Library.
Publishing Company of second edition:
NSP: Neuro-Semantic Publications P.O. Box 8
Clifton, CO. 815120—0008 USA (970) 523-7877
www.neurosemantics.com
FIGURING OUT PEOPLE
Preface 4 Foreword 7 Profiling 282
13. Reading Meta-Programs on the Outside 298 I: INTRODUCING METAPROGRAMS AS A
MODEL
1. The NLP Foundation 14 14. Clustering Meta-Programs in the Matrix 308
2. What are Meta-Programs 30 Finale:
What Color are Your Glasses 319
3. Reading People
via Meta-Programs 47
4. The Source of
Meta-Programs 65
APPENDICES
A: Questions for Eliciting
Meta-Programs 320 II: THE META-PROGRAMS
5. Classifying Meta-Programs 78 Meta-Program List 91– 92
6. Cognitive Meta-Programs 93
B: Meta-Programs and
Satir Categories 327
C: Meta-Programs
Driver Grid 332
7. Emotional and Social
Meta-Programs 143
D: Meta-Programs
Profiling Grid 334
8. Conative Meta-Programs 183
E. Meta-Program
Profiling Summary 337
9. Semantic Meta-Programs 218 F: The Meta-Detective Game 341
III: UTILIZING
META-PROGRAMS 253 10. Context in
Meta-Programs 254
11. Expanding Meta-Programs 265
12. Meta-Programs for
Bibliography 345
Glossary 350
Index 356
Authors 359
L. Michael Hall
Bobby G. Bodenhamer
Books 363 Trainings 368
PREFACE
Wyatt L. Woodsmall, Ph.D.
Figuring Out People: Design Engineering With Meta-Programs fills a serious void in the literature
of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Meta-programs allow us to understand human behavior and human
differences. Yet even more important, they reveal how we may vary our own behaviors and
communications to become more successful in relating to and changing our own, and other people's,
behaviors and models of the world.
Meta-programs are probably the greatest contribution the field of NLP has made to understanding
human differences. Only by understanding and appreciating human differences can we begin to
respect and support other people whose models of the world differ dramatically from our own. Only
by understanding human differences can we begin to replace animosity with understanding and
antagonism with compassion. Only once we realize that other people are not just behaving the way
that they do in order to spite us, but because that is their fundamental pattern can we begin to replace
conflict with cooperation.
Yet unfortunately until recently there has been very little written in the field of NLP on this highly
important area. I am excited about the authors’ outstanding contribution to this area which lies at the
heart of NLP.
I was already interested in the general area of human typology when I began my NLP training. With
training in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Enneagram Personality model, I came to NLP
curious to see if it had similar personality models. I felt excited to find that it did.
I first learned meta-programs in 1982 from Anne Linden and Frank Stass. Also I was fortune to attend
Rodger Bailey's training onhis IPU Profile. I then learned the Clare Graves Value Model (1984) from
Chris Cowen and Don Beck. I was excited about all of these powerful models to explain human
similarities and differences and took every opportunity that I could to tell others about them.
Anthony Robbins was one of the first people I taught them to. I met Tony at a modeling training by
John Grinder in 1983 and got Tony involved in a modeling project that I was engaged in on pistol
shooting for the US Army. As Tony and I became friends, I taught him all of the NLP Master
Practitioner patterns including meta-programs and values. Later, I assisted Tony in teaching his first
NLP Professional Certification Training (Feb. 1985).
During the Second Certification Training (Sept. 1985), we added a Master Professional Track. There
I taught both meta-programs and values and met Marvin Oka, Richard Diehl, and Tad James. They
were in the class of NLP Master Practitioners in Honolulu and were as excited as I about combining
Myers-Briggs and the Graves Values model with MetaPrograms.
This book also covers more metaprograms in more depth than any other book in NLP. Its value does
not just stop there, however. Its virtues are not just expansiveness and
comprehensiveness. Perhaps its greatest virtue lies in the creative insights of the authors into the
subject of meta-programs in general and into each of the meta-programs in
particular.
After Tad and Ardie began using meta-programs in their business with excellent results, we
collaborated to develop the meta-programs and values inventory that was published in Time Line
Therapy and the Basis of Personality. My wife Marilyne and I have spent the last decade applying
meta-programs and values in business, performance enhancement, and therapy which then led to an
application book of meta-programs in business, People Pattern Power.
It’s gratifying that L. Michael Hall and Bobby Bodenhamer are similarly excited about meta-programs
and even more gratifying that they have accepted my admonitions:
NLP does not end with John Grinder and Richard Bandler. It is up to all of us to further advance this
field.
They have accomplished this in this excellent book. The authors have immersed themselves in NLP
and meta-programs, in General Semantics, and the latest developments in cognitive psychology and
therapy. It is refreshing to find that the authors are not just cacooned in the field of NLP, and that they
have extensively studied the origins of NLP in General Semantics as well as other disciplines that
bear on NLP and its application in the real world.
I have had the privilege of knowing both authors for several years and one thing that has impressed
me about both of them is their integrity, their compassion, and their dedication to applying and
expanding NLP into areas of the world where it has not traveled previously. This has not come easy.
Both have made major sacrifices to pursue their interests in NLP. While readers often assume that
somehow books just happen, they do not. Nor is this book an accident. It has resulted from long, hard
work and study and a great deal of sacrifice and dedication to the field of NLP on the part of both of
its authors. For this, they deserve our gratitude and thanks.
The Uniqueness of this Book
Figuring Out People is unique in several ways. First, it explains the origins of meta-programs and
places them in the larger context of human growth and change. Secondly, it provides an in-depth
discussion of meta-programs. Thirdly, it expands on the field of meta-programs and makes a
significant new contribution to the field. I will briefly touch on each of these points.
Figuring Out People has an excellent discussion on the origin and history of the development of
meta-programs in NLP. It also places some very important frames around meta-programs. NLP
essentially involves a process of "denominalization" and the authors begin their study by
denominalizing both “personality” and “meta-programs.” They make the crucial point that
metaprograms deal not with what people are, but with how they function.
Figuring Out People presents an excellent typology of meta-programs. You can classify people in
many different ways. The critical question remains, "Is the classification useful?" We only have 5-to9 chunks of attention, and with 60 meta-programs to be considered, it would be easy to get lost. The
authors help us to avoid overload by chunking meta-programs into four categories (i.e. mental,
emotional, volitional, and semantic). This approach provides both a valuable contribution to the
typology of meta-programs themselves and a very useful map to help us sort out these powerful
patterns. They have provided valuable information on how to elicit and apply each of the 60 metaprograms. The appendices to the book are extremely helpful, and I suggest that the reader familiarize
himself with them at the beginning, since they serve as an excellent guide to the text. Also, they are
invaluable for future references in eliciting and utilizing meta-programs.
Perhaps the most exciting part of Figuring Out People is the major contribution that it makes to the
development and expansion of meta-programs. I have already mentioned the significant contribution
that the authors make in their new typology for meta-programs. This book also covers more metaprograms in more depth than any other book in NLP. Its value does not just stop there, however. Its
virtues are not just expansiveness and comprehensiveness. Perhaps its greatest virtue lies in the
creative insights of the authors into the subject of metaprograms in general and into each of the metaprograms in particular.
The authors challenge us to both understand and apply. And they continually provide new avenues for
further exploration and study. This makes this book so valuable. It is truly generative and will lead to
the further development, explication, and utilization of even more patterns as we strive to understand
and apply its insights. This is perhaps its greatest contribution.
Wyatt L. Woodsmall, Ph.D. 1997
FOREWORD
We have written this book so that it will change your life. In what way will it change your life? How
will it change your life?
Figuring Out People is designed to change your life by enabling you to discover, detect, and
understand the perceptual filters you use as you move through the world. It does this by mirroring
back your perceptual filters. In that mirror, you’ll be able to see the perceptual glasses you wear
which colors the way you see yourself, life, others, and reality. You will come toseehow you
seethings. Then, just as when you stand in front of your bathroom mirror and use it so naturally to
dress and to make changes to your appearance, you will be able to experience the natural
transformation of your mind by viewing these perceptual filters, which we call “meta-programs.”
Are you ready for that kind of reflection? That kind of exposure?
This life-changing process, however, is not automatic. This book will not give you a magic pill on a
silver platter which will melt in your mouth and immediately transform every problem. It’s not that
kind of book.
“What kind of a book is Figuring Out People?” It is a book that presents a model with multitudes of
distinctions, distinctions that will give you the tools you will need to create tremendous
transformations if that’s what you want and what you will use. But that’s the catch. We will not pull
any punches about that.
This book presents Meta-Programs (a domain of NLP) to open up new vistas of understanding and
insight for yourself. Figuring Out Peopleputs meta-programs into your hands as an elegant new form
for building rapport, empathizing with people, achieving in depth understanding, enriching
relationships, winning friends and influencing people, managing and leading with new artistry,
writing and speaking with more persuasive power, and much, much more. Yet, this book will not do
so without your involvement.
“What kind of involvement are you talking about?” In the strongest words we know, we are
suggesting that learning Meta-Programs necessitates a passionate learning state, a fascination for
understanding how people work, a persistent willingness to explore and to embrace both confusion
and uncertainty, and a nonjudgmental attitude when first noticing and witnessing while being kinder
and gentler with yourself.
Also once you learn and apply the Meta-Programs model to yourself and later in relationships with
family, friends, clients, customers, audiences, etc., you will have a richer and a more enhanced way
of interacting with people. This will make for greater rapport and connection. It will mean deeper
intimacy with loved ones, and it will bring about more collaborative partnerships.
What’s this “Meta” Stuff?
In a book about meta-programs, you are going to see the word meta a lot. Meta is a Greek word that
literally refers to anything “above, beyond, or about” something else. When wethink about our
thinking or feeling, we are using metacognition. When we experience a mind-body state about another
state, we are experiencing a meta-state (joy of learning, fear of anger, shame about fear, joy about
love, etc.).
We make a meta-jump whenever we step back from ourselves to notice our experience. This step
back is a critical skill. Daniel Goleman referred to it as essential for developing emotional
intelligence.
“At its best, self-observation allows just such an equanimous awareness of passionate or turbulent
feelings. At a minimum, it manifests itself simply as a slight stepping-back from experience, a parallel
stream of consciousness that is ‘meta’—hovering above or beside the main flow, aware of what is
happening rather than being immersed and lost in it.” (Goleman, 1997, p. 47)
The meta-programs described and utilized here are those processes that we use to format or structure
our thinking, emoting, and perception. The most common one that everybody knows is the
optimist/pessimist pattern. “Is the glass half-empty or half-full? What do you see?” Thecontent is the
same, the liquid is at a certain height. But does the person perceive it using the lense of half-full or
half-empty? That’s a meta-program. It is one meta-program that helps us to understand and figure out
people—to understand the glasses they wear in viewing the world.
Who is this Book For?
In a single sentence this book is for anyone who wants to figure out people. If you work with people,
if you work through people, this book is an absolute necessity. If you want to influence and persuade
people with your ideas, projects, products, services, or yourself, this book will enable you to
understand how to maximize your presentation so that it fits the way others think. If you manage, lead,
delegate, model, profile, motivate, teach, train, coach, or parent, this book will enable you to
customize your presentation to any given person as you learn to hear and match that person’s metaprograms.
If you want to model the expertise or best practice of an expert, you need to know that person’s metaprograms or perceptual filters. If you want to understand the crazy and even toxic inner world of a
person suffering in mental and emotional pain, you need to understand how they sort for information
and perceptually see the world.
When we do not take meta-programs into account, we fall into the trap of assuming others are like us,
or that all people are alike and then fail to see and deal with each person’s uniqueness. The model of
Meta-Programs is not that difficult. It is certainly not rocket science. Yet mastery of these distinctions
and patterns does involve mental and emotional work. Part of that work involves developing the skill
of recognizing the patterns, their names, and distinctive features. Part of that work involves applying
the model to yourself so that you can first recognize your own perceptual filters which color your
world. That’s important because often what we think we see in others actually stems from our own
filter. Ignorance of our own perceptual filters, or meta-programs, blinds us not only to ourselves, but
also to how we project onto others and think that what we see is “out there.” This is the structure of
how we engage in mind-reading of others.
Will this book be an Easy or Hard Read?
The short answer is “Neither, yet both.” First, it is not an easy read if you want a novel-like book
that will whisk you away to a faraway place and give you something so that you don’t have to think.
You will have to think, consider, ponder, and apply. Yet at the same time, it is not a particularly
difficult book.
With this book we will put into your hands a model about how we humans perceive things and we
will ask you to apply the model to yourself and then to the practice of reading and figuring out others.
Learning the model and reading the pages will demand focus, fascination, and intention. It will
require the willingness to stop, go inside, think, apply to self, and then begin to use what you have
learned in your everyday conversations. If you’re willing to do that —this will be a fun read and it
will take you on a journey of discovery.
The content is psychological and personal, hence activating your inter-personal and intra-personal
intelligences as per the Multiple-Intelligences model of Howard Gardner. This is not an academic
treatise. Our focus is that you learn the model, enjoy learning the model, and find great pleasure,
delight, and wonder in applying the model. If that’s the kind of book you want, that’s what we have
for you here.
Modeling Peak Experiences and Human Design Engineering In describing and detailing the
model of Meta-Programs, Figuring Out People puts into your hands a model for analyzing and
modeling experiences. With it you can identify key factors in any experience —positive or negative,
enhancing or limiting, pathological or genius. Meta-Programs in the field of NLP is the second metadomain (after the Meta-Model, and before Meta-States, and MetaModalities).*1 This is the heart of
NLP and Neuro-Semantics, to model the structure of experience.
This focus comes from engineer-turned-linguist, Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski felt that if only we
could develop the tools for working efficiently with the human mind-body-emotion system, we could
create a field for human engineering. Then, as we build bridges, buildings, and machines, each
generation builds upon the discoveries and learnings of the previous, thereby building cultures,
languages, understandings, communications, and all of the tools that facilitate social, mental,
emotional, and interpersonal well-being. This was his dream for both better science and sanity. He
wrote this about his vision, words that have guided our search into the structure of experience using
meta-programs.
"By human engineering I mean the science and art of directing the energies and capacities of human
beings to the advancement of human weal. (p. 1)
Production is essentially a task for engineers; it essentially depends upon the discovery and the
application of natural laws, including the laws of human nature. Human Engineering will embody the
theory and practice—the science and art—of all engineering branches united by a common aim—the
understanding and welfare of mankind. (p.6-7) . . . The task of engineering science is not only to
know, but to know how.” (Korzybski, 1921, p. 11)
Why Meta-Programs?
The domain of meta-programs explores perceptual filters and so enables us to understand how we
can look at the same event and walk away with different understandings, beliefs, decisions, emotions,
and responses. When you know that—you have an important key to human functioning, thinking,
and experiencing. You have one of the central keys to effectively communicating, relating, and
influencing people.
After all, if we all see the world in different ways due to the perceptual lens that we use, then the
ability to recognize those lenses, detect them, work with them, speak to them, and use them in
packaging our communications, empowers us in all of these ways. Learning the meta-programs also
increases our emotional intelligence as it increases our empathy for others. Now we can more fully
understand where another person is coming from. We can discover that others are not trying to be
difficult or stupid, they are simply wearing different colored perceptual glasses!
As this appreciation frees us from assuming that our perception is the only one, our empathy for other
viewpoints increases—making us more understanding and less reactive. Recognizing these metaprogram patterns not only enables us to handle differences more effectively, it also enables us to
communicate with more flexibility. Now we can pace another’s way of perceiving so that our
messages can more optimally fit and influence. After all, who doesn’t want their messages to have the
maximum impact?
The ability to detect and use meta-programs not only transforms our ability to handle differences, it
also gives us insight as to how to transform differences into resources for collaboration. We can now
put our differences to good use. More often than not, the difference and source of conflict turns out to
be a metaprogram. And if it is just a perceptual filter, just a mental lens, this eliminates the bite of
conflict, does it not? After all, why go to war over the color of another’s lens? Why not understand it,
why not take it into consideration, why not just point it out? When we know that it is just a metaprogram, then we can choose to match that processing style to create rapport.
As we more fully accept and appreciate how others structure what and how they perceive, we are
freed from demonizing their processing information style. No perceptual filter (meta-program) is a
moral evil. Then, rather than fight their style, we can appreciate what it does for them that’s valuable
and match it as we communicate and relate. This, by the way, will cut out most of the "resistance" in
others.
Recognizing how we differ in our patterns for sorting, attending, processing, and making sense of the
world enables us to stop fighting and to use our energy for understanding and communicating. When
we stop fighting another’s metaprograms we can meet that person at his or her model of the world.
This lets us enter into the other’s matrix of frames and gain true insight into what they value, how they
think, feel, do, etc. What a sane approach to inter-personal reality!
Finally, with expanded empathetic and respectful understanding of others, metaprogramsgive us a
means for more accurately "reading" and predicting responses. We will be able to figure others out
because we will have greater access to the kind of thinking that creates their reality.
Many enriching insights and empowering skills arise through discovering this model of MetaPrograms. First, this domain enables us to really open our eyes, ears, and senses to observe how
people actually operate in terms of thinking, valuing, believing, imagining, emoting, somatizing,
languaging, responding, etc. As we recognize these processes, we can use them to figure out a given
person’s response style in that moment and respond in an appropriate and effective way. We can then
match the person’s processing and filtering style for making sense of things to create rapport, a
clearer sense of understanding, and improve our skills of persuasion and influence.
With a name like Figuring Out People, this book will obviously explore human functioning and
psychology. Yet we will do so without much theorizing or philosophizing about "human nature." We
don’t need to. If our purpose is to understand ourselves and others better so that we can relate more
effectively, we only need to focus on how we think, emote, speak, and behave and model those
processes rather than theorize about them. Inasmuch as many will use this work for self-analysis, we
have provided a self-analysis check-list at the places where we describe and illustrate each metaprogram. In this way, this book can be used as a tool for self-discovery and exploration. If you do
that, remember that you will not discover what you are, but how you operate in a given context to
achieve a given outcome.
Come with us now and discover the dynamic and fluid Meta-Programs model. That’s because metaprograms are relative to context and contexts-of-contexts. This model is about how we actually think,
feel, act, perceive, process information, respond, relate, and behave. To that extent, it informs us
about the way of sanity—how we can stop doing what does not work and do that which does.
If you are already familiar with Meta-Programs, Figuring Out Peopleplows some new ground. In the
first edition we offered many new distinctions about metaprograms:
C Driver meta-programs
C Meta meta-programs
C A five-fold sorting grid for distinguishing meta-programs C Patterns for changing meta-programs.
In this new and completely revised edition, we introduce additional distinctions: C Meta-programs as
solidified meta-states.
C The meta-programs categories as matrices of the mind, that is, the
categories of self, others, time, etc. are also the categories that we’ve used as the matrices for the
Matrix model.
C The clustering of meta-programs to support ease of use, detection, and learning.
C Using meta-programs to create more flexibility of consciousness.
Welcome to this exciting adventure of discovering how meta-programs as our perceptual filters affect
our everyday lives, which specific filters we habitually use, how to change and transform them for
more options, how to profile ourselves, others, and tasks, and how to figure out people. If any of this
fascinates you as it does us in understanding yourself and others, Figuring Out People will make the
Meta-Programs model come alive. Let the adventure begin!
End Notes:
1. For more about the four meta-domains of NLP, see User’s Manual of the Brain, Volume II, the
Master Practitioner Course (2002).
PART I:
INTRODUCING
THE
META-PROGRAMS
MODEL
Chapter 1
THE FOUNDATION OF
META-PROGRAMS
"People are not nouns, but processes." Richard Simons, Editor
Psychotherapy Networker (1997)
“The meta-programs are a status report on how a person responds to a given situation.” Rodger
Bailey, Developer of the LAB profile
People! If we could only figure them out. When we don’t, we find them frustrating, difficult to
understand, difficult to deal with, and difficult to communicate with. Everyday we hear the frustration
of not being able to figure people out:
"I give up, I just can't figure him out!"
"Why in the world does she act that way? You'd have to be a psychologist to figure it out."
"Why does my supervisor have to act so secretive about office memos? He's so paranoid these days. I
don't understand him."
"Go figure! I haven't a clue. When she gets into those moods of hers you never know what to expect..."
"You're doing that because you're just trying to get back at me! I know your kind! So stop it, will
you?"
Figuring out people . . . we all attempt it. Living in human society demands it, doesn’t it? Every day
we spend a good part of our time second-guessing people, mind-reading motives and intentions, and
even psychoanalyzing without a license those with whom we live. We look for temperament patterns.
We study books on "reading people." We attend relationship seminars on personality types. We do all
kinds of things in an effort to figure out people.
C Yet what good does it do us?
C How effective are we really in understanding the strange and weird world
that people live in, and out of which they come?
C Do you even have yourself figured out?
C Do I even know my own patterns and processes?
Beyond "Temperaments" and Types
In this work, you will discover that we have moved far beyond all the models and instruments that try
to figure people out by classifying them according to types and temperaments. Since the early Greeks
with their model of the four basic temperaments (“humours”), hundreds of models of personality
typing have arisen. The authors base these types upon the assumption that people walk around with
permanent traits inside them which explains "why he is the way he is."
If you’re looking for that kind of thing, you will find none of it here. Rather than assuming permanent
traits, we work from a different assumption. Our premise is that people are forever learning,
growing, developing, changing, and so are forever in process. This fits with the comment of Richard
Simon, editor of The Family Therapy Networker, "People are not nouns but processes."
(March/April 1997). This book looks not at what people are, in some absolute, unchangeable trait
way, but how we actually operate.
C How is this person thinking-and-emoting?
C How is this person talking, acting, and relating?
C What processes and patterns describe this person's perceptual style? C How is this person focusing
his attention?
C What information is she attending to?
C What human software (ideas, beliefs, etc.) does this person use in
processing information?
By focusing attention on how people actually function (think, act, and feel), we shift from types to
behavior, performance, and states. This is critically important. It enables us to move beyond the
cookie-cutter approach that seeks to classify people. There is no one-size-fits-all approach nor
simplistic pattern that captures the essence of people. People are unique. This new approach allows
us to think about people in a fresh way. Now we can consider the levels and dimensions of actual
behavior as we examine a person’s—
C Thinking or cognitive processing.
C Emoting or somatizing ideas into one’s body.
C Speaking and languaging.
C Behaving as in responding, gesturing, relating, etc.
C Meaning-making and reflexively moving up the levels of mind.
When we do this, we discover not what a person is, but how a person operates in any given context at
a given time. Why have we shifted to this paradigm about human nature? What is the value of this new
focus?
Recognizing how a person operates enables us to figure out that person’s model of the world—his or
her internal or mental paradigm. It is from that inner mapping that we live and move and have our
being as we navigate reality. This increases understanding exponentially as it enlightens us about
“where the person is coming from.” It also increases our sense of empowerment. That’s because
when I know how someone is operating, I can match that process style and more effectively connect
with him or her. At this point we can run a quality check and make better choices about how we want
to function.
C How effectively does this way of thinking work?
C How well do I like this way of emoting and somatizing my ideas? C How desirable do I find this
way of talking and languaging? C How resourceful does this way of sorting actually work?
People as Processes
Dealing with such processes enables us to change, alter, and transform any process that does not work
well. Conversely, when we mentally map people in terms of their traits and the way they "are," we
experience the world as static and unchanging. We say things like,
"Well, that's the way I am!"
"That's the way he is, he’ll never change.”
The stuck feeling arises from these erroneous maps. In this work we start from a much more
empowering presupposition. "People are not nouns, but processes." Alfred Korzybski said that
when you take a label and stick it on a person, then the deceptively alluring, but passive verb, "is,"
tricks us into creating a primitive form of unsanity—the "is" of identity.
"I am a failure." "She is arrogant." "What can you expect from a bleeding-heart liberal." "Communists
are like that." "She's heartless because she is a Republican." "He's a sanguine!" "They are
sadistmasochists."
Our emphasis here goes against the history of philosophical labeling, psychiatric name-calling,
psychological typing, and the entire focus of the DSM-IV (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders). Reducing people to fit a category of a type, trait, or personality disorder blinds
us to the rich diversity and uniqueness in people. It blinds us to the actual processes that create our
personal reality at any moment. People are too complex to so categorize, label, and classify. Nor will
people stay put when we put them into such word-boxes. They will continue to grow and change.
They will continue to learn new and different ways of functioning.
There’s another thing—we act, think, and feel differently in different contexts. Most of us know all
too well that in different contexts we feel and experience ourselves differently. We play out different
roles, we take on different personas, we think-and-feel according to a context and what it means to us.
C What model allows us to take context itself into consideration as we
figure out people?
C What model enables us to take learning, development, growth, and empowerment into
consideration?
"People are not nouns, but processes."
developed for "reading" people. Years ago (1979) Psychology Today reviewed Neuro-Linguistic
Programming (NLP) in an article entitled, "The People who Read People." It surveyed a brand new
field within cognitivebehavioral psychology and some of the models and technologies that Bandler
and Grinder At that time, Meta-Programs as such had not
even been discovered. The reading of people was entirely based on the earlier discoveries—
recognizing sensory representation systems via eye-accessing cues and the linguistic markers of
sensory specific predicates. Today NLP and NeuroSemantics has made many advances in this area,
which of course, is the subject of this book.
NLP for Dummies: A Quick Overview of NLP 101
Can NLP be described in one line? Yes. NLP is a communication model. It is all about how we send
and receive messages (verbal and non-verbal), how we process that information, and how that
information puts us in mind-body-emotion states. Here is another one line description. NLP is a
model of behavioral modeling that specifies how we can identify and replicate that experience.
As a communication model, NLP explores many questions about how we communicate. Yet even
more centrally, it explores the meaning of communication. What is communication? While
communicating certain involves sending and receiving messages, it is not that. It is not even talk. We
can talk and not communicate. Do you know that one? Communication is about communing, about co-
sharing meanings until a sense of understanding is created. We co-create by sending messages back
and forth until eventually we create a sense of union, at least in understanding, if not at some level of
agreement.
NLP explores the processes within our mind-body-emotion system for how we communicate, for how
we use our nervous system (i.e., neurology and brain) to create our working "model of the world"
which we then use to navigate life. We communicate by creating, sending, receiving, and processing
linguistic and nonlinguisticmaps. These word maps and gesture maps are not the territory, just our
way of talking about, symbolizing, and altering our understanding of the world.
The Elements of Communication
The genius of the NLP communication model is that it is based on something very simple, something
so simple that when the first and earliest psychologists in the late nineteenth century could not make it
work, they gave up and psychology spent the next 70 years looking elsewhere. What was this
incredible secret or discovery? It was that our nervous system and brain system inputs information
from the world via our senses—from our sensory based see-hear-feel-smell-taste senses.
The early psychologists knew this. They even tried to create an elementary chart composed of these
sensations as chemists had created the periodic table. In spite of years of unsuccessful attempts, they
never made it work. The later psychologists also knew this, but they didn’t know what to do with it.
That’s where two men from outside the field came in and saw it with new eyes. They saw it without
the paradigm blindness of those within the field.
Bateson commented on this incredible stroke of genius in his Preface to The Structure of Magic
(1975). He said that Bandler and Grinder found what he and his associates had long looked for, the
very “languages of the mind” upon which to build a theory of mind. Bandler and Grinder simply used
the sense modalities to describe our internal processing as the variables with which we
communicate.
Designating these sensory distinctions as representational systems,they noted that we use them for
presenting to ourselves again (re-presenting) what we have already seen, heard, felt, etc. As we
have seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted things as we encounter them through our sensory end receptors
of eyes, ears, skin, tongue, and nose, so we “make sense” of things by representing them to ourselves.
We create representations and play them as a movie on the screen of our mind.
What does this mean? It means that “thought” and “awareness” and “knowledge” and all of the rest of
the vague nominalized terms ultimately boil down to the movies that we play in the theater of our
mind. True enough, there are no actual movies in the brain. There are no literal pictures, sights,
images, sounds, smells, sensations, tastes in the theater of our mind, but to us it seems like there are.
Inside our mind we have the sense that we can see our early school, where we lived at seven, when
we graduated, our first job, our parents, where we live today, etc. We think that we can hear in our
mind what certain people sound like, their voice tone, volume, tempo, or that we can hear our
favorite sound.1
The neuro-sciences assure us today that in all of the brain surgeries, they have never found a movie,
let alone a screen or theater, nor even a sound system or any other device that could create sounds.
All of this simply describes our way of neurologically mapping things. We re-present the world
“out there” inside our mind and can “go inside” and revisit the recordings we have made.
This is how we communicate to ourselves. We create see-hear-feel representations of the sense
modalities and linguistic representations of those representations. These are the variables that make
up what we call “mind.” We use these variables to communicate to ourselves and to each other. This
gives us the representational system model of mind. NLP uses the following as a shorthand code:
V — Visual: sights, pictures, images, etc.
A — Auditory: sounds, noise, volume, tones, etc. K — Kinesthetic: sensations, feelings, etc.
O — Olfactory: smells
G — Gustatory: tastes
M — Motor: kinesthetic movements
NLP shortens the way to talk about all of this describing it as the VAK. That seems pretty jargonistic,
so we prefer to talk about it as the Movie, the movie that we play in our mind when we “think” about
something. MovieMind (2003) is an entire book that plays with this metaphor.
NLP Strawberries
Notice the sensory modes you use when you “think” about a strawberry. What comes to mind when
you read or hear the word “strawberry?” Do you imagine a big bowl of juicy ripe red strawberries,
so ripe that as you bite into one, the juice runs down your lips and the cold whipped cream on top
melts in your mouth and you say, “Hmmmmm. Delicious!”?
What do those words communicate to you? Do you know what we mean by them? Do you understand
what we have in mind? You probably do because you have all kinds of pictures, images, and sights
flashing through your mind. You might also have certain sensations activated in your mouth and nose.
Did you smell anything as you read those words? Did you taste anything?
One time I presented this and one man heard the rustling of leaves as he remembered pulling
strawberries off the vine and smelling a whole field of strawberries. Did you? One lady even began
to sneeze. She even had to leave the room. Later I asked her about it. It turned out that she had an
allergy to strawberries and when I talked about them, my talk alone activated her allergy. How about
that? Just “thinking” about it had that much neurological effect.
We make senseof words by literally creating sense representations of them. We represent the
referent experiences of the words. Words in themselves mean nothing. The word “strawberry” is only
an arbitrary term that stands for and references a piece of fruit. Words operate as a shared reality. To
someone who doesn’t know the words, the linguistic system and code, the sounds of the word and the
spelling of the word mean nothing. Listen to any language foreign to you and you will discover that
the meaning is not in the words, but arises as we construct meaning using a symbolic or meaning
system.
We make meaning from words as symbols when we know the symbolic system and can use it to
represent to ourselves the reference that the speaker is representing. How do we “think” using
words? We make a movie in our mind of sights, sounds, sensations, smells, tastes, etc. If we can track
from a word like “strawberries” or a “bowl of strawberries,” or “a big bowl of juicy red
strawberries covered with cold whipped cream,” then we can understand the message sent and so the
communication succeeds in transferring a movie in one person’s mind to that of another’s.
In NLP we not only have these sensory systems for representing things, but we also have the ability to
make even finer distinctions within each sensory modality. You might have already noticed this.
“Big,” “red,” “juicy” are terms that govern the cinematic features of our inner movies. These
cinematic features were originally called “sub-modalities” in NLP, but they are not actually “sub” to
the movie. They are the editorial features or frames that we code into the movie. We can step up to
be the editor of our inner movies. (SeeSub-Modalities: Going Meta).2
Other Representation Distinctions
In understanding “mind” and “thinking,” NLP made two additional distinctions of the representational
systems. They distinguished external (e) and internal (i).
The source of our data can come from outside (external) or we can generate it inside (internal) as we
imagine things. If you have never seen an actual strawberry patch, you might have imagined how one
would look and so “think” about the words in that way. If you have, you might have remembered that
information (r) rather than constructed (c) it.
r
— Remembered information.
c — Constructed information.
i—
Internal source of information (going inside to use your stored images).
e — External source of information (going outside and using sensory awareness).
A moment ago you probably remembered a time when you saw or experienced strawberries. Even if
you remembered a scene from a movie or television, you remembered it from the outside rather than
created it on the inside. You inputted that information frominside. If you actually have a bowl of
strawberrries in front of you at this time (hey, isn’t that a good idea?), then you received the sensory
information in real time from the outside.
This gives us our primary sensory systems. These modes or modalities enable us to becomeawareof
things,representthings to ourselves, andthinkabout real and tangible things. But what about things that
are not real and tangible? What about the things of the mind like concepts, abstractions,
generalizations, beliefs, and all of the higher level ideas? How do we represent them? Can we make a
movie of those things?
Higher Level Distinctions
Can we make a movie of them? No. Well, not directly. Yet we can do some other things. For
example, we can classify the movie, we can add words into the sound track so that the people talk or
act out concepts, we can edit the movie so that certain cinematic features symbolicallystand fora
concept, we can set frames about the movie. In all of these ways we can do a lot of things.
So above the sensory systems that make up our internal movies, we have a meta- representation
system. “Meta” ("above," "beyond") references not the outside world, but the inside world of
communication. When we set one thing in relationship to another so that the higher classifies the
lower, and categorizes it, then the higher becomes a frame for the lower. It becomes a meta-state or
meta- frame at a higher “logical level.”
What system or representation occurs at this higher level? Why language, of course. As our key
meta-representational system, language is the symbolic system of words, sentences, and phrases
which enables us to talkaboutthe sights, sounds, and sensations in our movies. It enables us to move
to a higher level of thinking and abstraction. In NLP, the meta-representational systems are
symbolized in the following ways:
Ad Auditory digital: a language system made up of words, propositional statements, mathematics.
Vd Visual digital: diagrams, flow charts, illustrations, mind-maps, cartoons, formulas, etc.
We used the language representation system when we elicited your responses and references for the
term “strawberry.” The word “strawberry” is a label; it’s a label for an entire sensory experience. By
that label we can encode, store, process, remember, and feel a great deal of information about
strawberries. With the sentence about seeing, smelling, and tasting a big bowl of big red ripe
strawberries, we use an abstract symbol system for communicating a sensory experience that turns on
the inner movie.
Imagine if we had used a more abstract term. What if we had said, “Just in your mind enjoy eating a
fruit?” What would that have evoked in you? The strawberry movie? The problem with language is
that when it becomes increasingly more abstract, it evokes less and less specific references and so
turns on fewer and fewer specific movies. The more vague a term or phrase, the less power it has to
elicit a specific movie or to activate a specific neurology. With less specificity, the listener has to
invent his or her own meanings, and that, of course, is what we mean by “hypnosis.”
The Visual Track of Pictures, Images and Movies: Brightness:
Focus:
Degree of Color: Particular Color: Fact of Color:
Size:
Distance:
Contrast
Movement:
Direction/Location:
Salience of Figure: Frames:
Number of Images: Edges of Pictures: Shape / Form:
Horizontal & Vertical Perspectives: Ratio
Perspective: Inside (associated)— Outside
(dissociated) Actor Position — Multiple Camera:
Editor, Director, Producer, etc. Dimensionality: Flat 2-D image — 3-D, holographic Dull — Bright
Fuzzy — Clear
Light/ Pastel — Bright/ Bold Disliked/ Liked Favorite
Black-and-White — Full Color Range Small
Far
Low
Still
Right
Above
Tilted
Foreground
Snapshot
Still Picture
Single
Bordered
— Large
— Close
— High
— Full of Action — Left
— Below
— Straight on — Background — Movie
— Moving Film — Multiple
— Panoramic
Normal, Fisheye, Flattened, etc.
Editing Your Cinema
We used to think that the domain of the cinematic features of our movies was below, or perhaps
within, the sensory representations of our movies. That was the understanding at the time and the
reason for the term “sub-modalities.” However, we eventually discovered that the characteristics,
features, and qualities of the modalities were not at a “sub” or lower level, but at a higher or metalevel. Think of these cinematic features as the control knobs on your inner mental movies—control
knobs that you can take charge of, and edit, the movies so that they enable you to become more
resourceful.
We use the following key distinctions in editing our mental movies. These are sorted in terms of the
basic sensory systems: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and linguistic. To simplify things, we have
included the olfactory sense of smell and the gustatory sense of taste under “kinesthetic.”
The Auditory Sound Track of Sounds, Noise, Music, and Words Content:
Pitch:
Location of Sounds:
Nature of Sounds:
Tone Quality:
Tone Style:
Number of Sources: Perspective:
Tempo:
Inflection:
Volume:
Rhythm:
Duration:
Distance:
Clarity:
Whose Voice: What inflection used? Low — Noise (no rhythm) — On-and-off Close
Vague, Fuzzy Unintelligible Identification of Voice: High
Presence of Rhythm Endures
Far
Crystal Clear
Intelligibility
Self, Real,
Imagined, Invented
Music: Melody:
Cinematic Exercises Are you game to take a moment to play with this communication model? The
following provides a way to become more fully acquainted with the cinema of your mind. Doing this
will more fully empower you to “run your own brain” as you become the editor, director, producer,
and executive CEO of the movies that play in your mental theater. If you are committed to mastering
your own mind, do not skip this.
What is said Low
Front / Back Up / Down Continuous
Pleasant Accent One
Inside (associated)— — —
—
—
— High
Panoramic
Single Source Interrupted, On-and-Off Unpleasant
—
————
What music? Many
Outside (dissociated)
In illustrating how we understand strawberries through representing that word in the form of a movie,
the cinematic features of the movie play a big role, do they not? Consider how you represent your
own movie as you consider the following questions regarding your sensory representations.3
C How large of a picture do you have of the bowl of strawberries?
C Where do you see this picture? (Immediately in front of you, to your right, left, in the distance, etc.)
C Do you have a clear, sharp focus or not?
C Do you have a 3-D image or a flat 2-D postcard picture?
C Do you see the strawberries in color or as a black-and-white picture?
You have undoubtedly experienced the shift that occurs when you change the
quality of your representation. For most people, seeing a black-and-white picture
of a strawberry evokes a different feeling from seeing one in color. Does it for
you? Distance typically plays a significant factor. If you imagine the bowl of
bright red, juicy strawberries at the distance of a block away from you . . . that
probably feels less “real” or compelling than when you put your picture at one
inch away from your mouth, does it not?
The Linguistic Sound Track of Words and Language: Location of Words: Above / Below;
As Sound Track Level: Sensory Based
Simple, Empirical — Complex Source: From Self — From Others — Single source Multiple
— As Visual Images — Evaluative
When we make a richly detailed set of representations it generally evokes increasingly more of our
neurology. So when we “turn up” or increase our internal representations so that we vividly see and
feel the bowl of strawberries, we generally also begin to smell and taste them. Don’t you?
These cinematic features of our inner movies play a key role in the structure of experience. What part
do they play in "the building blocks" of experience? Once we called them “sub-modalities,” assuming
that they occurred at a lower level to the representations themselves. Now we know that they are the
editorial frames of the movie.2 They operate as meta-frames and as part of the code we use in order
to construct "the difference that makes a difference" (Bateson).
From Movies to Strategies (How-to Movies or Documentaries) How we code our movies reflects
and organizes the meanings that we give to our inner movies and so informs our brain and nervous
system about how to respond. Change or alter these cinematic features of the images, sounds,
sensations, word, etc. and the whole gestalt of the experience can change. This is true with a
vengeance when we find a critical cinematic feature.
Consider your motivation strategy. How do you motivate yourself to do what you’re doing right now,
i.e., read a book or study a work on human personality? What do you picture to yourself, say to
yourself, in what tone of voice, what kinesthetic sensations do you experience, how much do you have
to repeat or increase one of these steps? Which do you do first and second, third, etc.? A strategy is a
sequence of representations that we experience as snapshots, or movies, in our mind.
The Kinesthetic Track of Sensations and Feelings: What sensations: Pressure:
Location:
Extent of sensation: Moisture:
Shape:
Texture:
Temperature: Movement: Duration:
Intensity: Frequency: Rhythm:
Smells:
Tastes:
Warmth, Movement, Pressure, etc.
Light — Intense, Heavy Where on Body or in Body?
Local — Pervasive Little (Dry) — Much (Wet,
Moist)
Scattered, pin-point, round, up-and-down, etc.
Smooth
Rough —
Cold Warm Kind and Nature
Momentary
Light — Timing, pattern — Low / High
Puget, Aromatic / Putrid, etc.
Sour / Sweet Bitter / Salty
Hot —
Repeating Continuous
High
Low / High
When we sequence our representations with the appropriate movie qualities and features, we create
information that enables us to do things. When our brains create and process information as a how-to
video thereby giving us instructions for how to get up in the morning, invent something, be friendly,
feel playful, communicate effectively, manage a business, eat healthily, etc., we have a “strategy.”
C What strategy do you have for learning as you read?
C Will you make internal pictures as you read to create an instructional
video of how it all works?
C Will you talk to yourself, repeating words and phrases, asking questions, and wondering about
applications?
C Will you feel yourself doing the processes, or using your hand and arm taking notes to make sense
of things?
C What order will you do these things in order to give yourself the richest learning possible?
In addition to the first level of sensory representations of our movies, our metarepresentational system
of language enables us to construct more abstract ideas in the form of understandings, beliefs, values,
intentions, decisions, etc. The form by which we put these together make up a strategy. Within the
strategy, there is a syntax that describes the order and sequence of our thinking. By this formula we
create our experiences.4
When Caught up in a B-Rated Movie
With strategies we create specific mind-body states. If we experience the state intensely, it can take
on a life of its own. Intensity of a state, in fact, leads to state-dependency. When this happens, then
our learning, memory, perception, communication, and behavior is dependent on the state. This
describes how a mind-body-emotion state will govern the way we think, learn, remember, perceive,
talk and act. As with any self-fulfilling process, the state governs and colors our processing so that
we see and experience the world according to that state.
If you get into an intense learning state, then your perception, memory, behavior, and feelings will
accord with that neuro-linguistic state. You will see the world via the lens of learning. If you get into
a closed-minded state, you will find yourself thinking, feeling, perceiving, and remembering in terms
of closed rigidity. In that state of learning, curiosity, openness, etc. will be restricted.
What can we do about unresourceful state dependency? We can interrupt (i.e., disrupt, interfere with)
the state and its driving factors (the inner representations of that movie). We can shift our awareness
to redirect our brain-body toward the representations that will enhance our state and life. We can shift
the cinematic features of the movie or the movie itself, swishing our brain to outcomes that we desire.
There’s more. We direct our thinking-and-feeling to the me for whom the challenge or problem would
not be a problem (the Swish pattern). This creates a meta-movie—a movie of a more resourceful
identity. As this reframes the meaning of the event, it alters the triggers that set the brain to go off in a
certain direction and re-anchor us in a new direction.5
Even better, we can rewind the movie and take the emotional charge out of any old movie that puts us
in an unresourceful place, that triggers anxieties, fears, phobias, and even traumas. The Movie
Rewind pattern has proven effective for all kinds of negative emotional states. In this, as NLP
specializes in teaching us how to "run our own brain" it provides processes whereby we can
communicate to ourselves—to the conscious and unconscious dimensions of our mind to create more
empowering states.
Now we can take charge of the cognitive-behavioral mechanisms that govern our experiences. What
are these mechanisms that control our subjectivity? The movie that we play in our mind, (the internal
representations and their cinematic features), the language track that classifies that movie, and our
physiology which registers the meaning in our nervous system (hence making our experiences
neurosemantic or neuro-linguistic).
Movies and Movie States
As we internally communicate to ourselves via the Movies that play out on the screen of our mind, we
go into mind-body states. Of course, you knew that. Go to any movie and what happens? We feel. We
access various mental, emotional, and even physiological states. In a way, the term “state” is an
unfortunate term. Because it sounds like “static,” it’s easy to assume that states are static. They are
not. Actually they are dynamic, fluid, and forever changing. Our states ebb and flow in a continual
dance of change, and so, never remain the same.
When we first think or self-communicate, we create a movie and from that we experience our first or
primary states. Next come our meta-states. Meta-states arise as we apply one state to another state. In
doing this, we set up a metarelationship between one mind-body state and another. As we
communicate certain thoughts-and-feelingsabouta state to ourselves, our second thoughts-andfeelings
become a meta-state to the first. In doing so, we transcend the first state (learning, for example) with
other thoughts-and-feelings (joy, playfulness, curiosity, interest, commitment, intention, etc.). This
generates joyful learning,
The meta-move in these instances curious learning, intentional learning, etc. means that we shifted to
a meta-level.
We can think about these meta-levels as “logical levels or types.” Every metastate classifies or
categories the state to which it is meta. In the previous example, joy becomes the category or class of
learning. The joy both transcends the learning and includes the learning as a member of its class.
Meta-states arise as we apply one state to another state. In doing this, we set up a metarelationship
between one mind
These “logical levels” describe a key facet about the way we communicate to ourselves and others as
we use our self-reflexive awareness. We never just think, we engage in layers of thinking about our
thinking. Bateson (1972) introduced the use of “logical levels” in his research on learning and change
into NLP having used “logical levels” as a distinction that he applied to communication,
metamessages, schizophrenia, and many other things. Today there are more than a dozen “logical
level” systems in NLP including: the Meta-Model of language, Meta-Programs, the Meta-Modalities
of the cinematic features (“submodalities”), and Meta-States. Within these four meta-domains we
have four central models for mapping the structure of experience.*6
For a set of distinctions, or levels, to operate in a logical relationship to each other, the higher level
must encompass the lower level as a class encompasses its members. As it does, the higher level
relates to, and functions as, the context about the lower. In this, it sets the frame for the lower. When
we move up from a primary sensory-based level to a meta-level, the going meta process describes at
the same time the meta-stating process.
It is in this way that we create meta-programs in the first place as you’ll discover in the following
chapters. Meta-programs are our metaframes-of-reference out of which we think-emote-speak-andrespond. At a meta-level, they classify and set the context to our primary thinking-and-feeling. Even
right this minute— as you read this—you have various meta-level frames-of-reference working,
trying to make sense of the words on this page. Soon you’ll discover yours. These meta-levels
typically operate outside of conscious awareness. Yet, we can become aware of them and as we do,
we develop the ability to figure out people.
Summary
C This brief introduction to NLP suffices for the purpose of understanding and developing skill within
the domain of Meta-Programs. Later you will discover that you have just been exposed to the first
meta-program.
C NLP is a Cognitive Psychology that models the structure of experience. Here we have identified the
basic NLP communication model and within it, the form of the first meta-program.
C The premise of meta-programs is that human nature is a process rather than static. Because it is
our nature to grow and develop, we have choice in how we represent and perceive. We have choices
about our states, skills, and ways of navigating reality.
End Notes:
1. Phenomenologically we experience consciousness as simple and direct. Our thoughts seem so
“real” and concrete to us. Our representations, values, beliefs, and memories seem so much “the way
it is.” Yet behind our experience of this phenomenon of consciousness there’s great complexity.
Bateson (1972, 1979) repeatedly asserted that we have no consciousness of the neurological
mechanisms that give rise to our phenomenological sense of consciousness of reality (phenomenology
refers to our sense of, and experience with, phenomena at the sensory level). Quoting studies in
perception, he showed how that we usually cannot become aware of the mechanisms that create or
cause perception, which explains, in turn, how various perceptual “illusions” can so easily fool our
nervous system. We only know what we "sense" on the screen of our consciousness as it ebbs and
flows.
2. In 1999 we wrote The Structure of Excellence that challenged the “sub-modalities” model and the
term “sub-modality” and showed that there is nothing “sub” about these distinctions, but that the
distinctions are meta-distinctions, meta-modalities, and operate as cinematic frames for the mental
movies in our heads. We have retitled the second edition, Sub-Modalities: Going Meta (2005). For
more on NLP 101, see MovieMind (2003).
3. The great majority of people “see” images and pictures as they think and have at least some
awareness of these images. There are some people who lack that awareness. Their visual cortex is
working perfectly well, they simply lack conscious awareness of their images. See MovieMind
(2003) for how to open up your visual modalities.
4. For more about the order of the component pieces of our representations and about strategies as a
domain in NLP, see NLP: The Study of the Structure of Subjectivity (Dilts, et al., 1980) and NLP
Going Meta (2001).
5. In NLP there are hundreds of patterns for “running your own brain,” to see these and others, see
Sourcebook of Magic (1997), User’s Manual of the Brain, Volumes I and II, or almost any basic
NLP book.
6. For a full description of the four meta-domains in NLP see User’s Manual of the Brain, Volume
II, the Master Practitioner Course.
Chapter 2
WHAT ARE
META-PROGRAMS?
“The encouraging news from Kagan’s studies is that not all fearful infants grow up hanging back in
life —temperament is not destiny.
The over-excitable amygdala can be tamed with the right experiences.” Daniel Goleman (1990, p.
221)
“Too much of the best thing becomes toxic. Too little of the worst thing is likely to become toxic,
too.” Gregory Bateson
Think back to when you began reading this book. What was your frame-ofmind? Did you take time to
access an effective frame-of-mind that would support your learning, retention, and enjoyment? Does
your frame of mind support you in this reading for understanding, memory, and use? Or, were you in a
passive, bored, upset, or distracted frame of mind undermining the effectiveness of your learning?
Meta-programs are frames of mind. Each meta-program in this book specifies one of many framesof-mind that you can adopt in processing information, feeling that information, and/or making choices
as a result. Each describes a distinction of consciousness that works as a perceptual filter. Think of
meta-programs as different frames-of-mind that color the way we see and experience the world.
Every person you meet today, that you engage in conversation, that you seek to influence, or who tries
to influence you, operates from some frame-of-mind. As such, these frames-of-mind as filtering
programs lie above and beyond ("meta") their specific content and determine the person’s
perspective, way of valuing, style of thinking and emoting, and/or pattern of choosing and behaving.
Now suppose you could recognize these filtering programs in people's heads, the meta-programs
which govern the way they think-and-feel and make choices. Suppose we had a way that we could
detect the specific frames-of-mind that people use in processing information and events. What would
that enable us to do? It would enable us to more effectively communicate with them, relate to them,
and figure them out. It would empower us to stop getting angry at their mentaland-emotional filters
and free us so that we could work effectively with them. That’s the power of meta-programs.
Where did Meta-Programs come From?
If you want to know who came up with the meta-domain of meta-programs, they originated with
Leslie Cameron Bandler. She was doing classical NLP when she found that some of the patterns did
not work with everyone. Woodsmall (1988) says that while doing "textbook NLP" with individuals
Leslie discovered that sometimes the processes failed to achieve their objective. The patterns that
usually worked magic with people at times didn’t go anywhere. Why not?
What interfered was the person’s meta-programs. This “failure” excited her. Using it, Leslie and
Richard ultimately discovered that these "failures" brought to light the initial list of NLP metaprograms. This suggests the powerful role of meta-programs in how they can interfere, and even
sabotage, powerful change processes.
Upon discovering these distinctions, Leslie presented them in a seminar in Chicago. Among the first
to learn them were Annie Linden and Steve and Connirae Andreas. While Leslie invented these
distinctions within the context of therapy, Rodger Bailey and Ross Stewart later adapted the metaprograms as a personality profile to create a powerful new use for them in business, known as the
LAB profile.
Woodsmall then expanded the meta-programs by integrating into them the four distinctions of the
Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory. Later he collaborated with Tad James and co-authored one of
the first NLP books on meta-programs, Time Line Therapy and the Basis of Personality (1988).
About the same time Ed Reese and Dan Bagley (1988) applied the meta-programs to profiling people
in the context of selling. Shelle Rose-Charvet (1995) used them to highlight how to use metaprograms in language for persuasion and related them to various cultures (Canadian, American,
European, French, etc.) showing how they influence groups of people.
Building upon the NLP model of "personality" (along with formulations in General-Semantics, and
development in Cognitive and Perceptual Psychology), we (Hall and Bodenhamer, 1997) expanded
and extended the meta-programs to create the most extensive and exhaustive work on meta-programs.
We took up the NLP theme that meta-programs are not about what people are in a static, permanent,
fated, and unchangeable way, but that they describe how people function. As a model of human
functioning, meta-programs allow us to create a "personality" profile that takescontextinto account
and simultaneously allows for growth, development, transformation, and empowerment.
So What are Meta-Programs?
Meta-programs are the “programs” we use in our mind-body system to input and process information.
They operate at a level meta to our content thinking and so refer to the sorting devices we use in
perceiving, paying attention to things, and inputting and processing stimuli. Jacobson (1996) refers to
them as the "programs that run other programs.” Meta-programs describe our attitude and orientation
toward various contexts and situations.
When we think about how computers work we recognize that there is within them some sort of
operating system. When they were first created, we used them through DOS (Disk Operating
System), then along came Microsoft Windows as an operating system. Today (2005) there is
Windows 98, Windows XP, Linux, etc. Without operating systems, computers would be nearly
useless in processing information. Yet with an operating system, a computer can run a highly
functional system by merging its own hardware (the materials that comprise it physically) and its
software—the programs it runs, from word processing programs, mailing applications, spreadsheets,
games, and the internet.
Analogously our brain is an information processing system with both hardware and software. The
hardware is our neurology, nervous system, brain, blood chemistry, neuro-transmitters, physiological
organs, etc. These organic facets participate in inputting, processing, and outputting information.
Humansoftware is our thinking patterns, our ideational categories (we think and reason via
categories, Lakoff, 1987), our belief concepts, our values, meanings, intentions, hopes, dreams,
visions, expectations, etc. These “programs” govern how we think, reason, feel, and relate.
C What processes run our thinking-and-emoting?
C What “software program” in our mind sets the instructions for how to
think-and-feel?
C What processes provides us, functionally, the equivalent of anoperating system—a system that
connects hardware and software so that the neurology of our brain-and-body can input, process, and
output the information of our thoughts, ideas, beliefs, etc.?
The answer is meta-programs. By definition, metaprograms are the programs above our everyday
thoughts-and-emotions. In terms of levels, the everyday thoughts-and-emotions operate on the primary
level as the content of our thinking—what’s on our mind. These primary thoughts-and-feelings are
about things “out there” in the world, the stimuli that trigger our responses. Content is “the story”—
the specific details and strategies of our thoughts. Above content we have thoughts-and-feelings about
those details. These things “in the back of our mind” operate mostly outside-of-conscious awareness.
These "programs" function as the sorting and perceiving rules that govern how we think-and-emote.
They direct what we sort for and how we attend those thoughts.
What’s an Example of a Meta-Program? Consider a person's strategy for "reading." On the surface
it seems like a simple task involving a primary state. Yet reading is not that simple. We begin with the
stimulus of words in the form of a visual external. "The little brown and white cat fought furiously
with the dog..." We then take those scribbles of ink on paper and use them to anchor or trigger the
internal representations of their referents on the screen of our mind. Using past references and
constructed representations we "make sense" of words by recreating on the theater of our mind the
sights, sounds, sensations, smells, and tastes. We create a movie in our mind from the words to
“think” about something not present. So far, so good.
Meta-programs are the “programs” we use in our mind-body system to input and process information.
This is where meta-programs come in. If we are using the meta-program of information size (Scale,
#3),1this governs whether our mind processes information by seeking to globally understand "the big
picture" or whether we first focus on receiving and inputting specific details. Do you recall the color
of the cat?
Bob tells the story of trying to find the salt shaker in a kitchen cabinet. As he stood looking and
scanning for it, his wife Linda came over to the cabinet and immediately picked up the salt shaker
which happened to be immediately in front of him. This was prior to her understanding metaprograms, so she jokingly commented on his inability of seeing something directly in front of him,
“You are sick!” Bob, having just learned about meta-programs said,
“Actually, I’m not sick, I just see things globally. That’s why I can’t see the trees for the forest! You,
on the other hand, can see each and every tree as you so choose, but not the forest!”
I, also more global, find working at the detail level of proofing an article or book challenging and
even unpleasant. Zooming down to notice every letter is not my natural style reading. This served me
well when I first learned to speed-read. That came easy. Even at the beginning of an Evelyn Woods
Reading Dynamics course, I tested at 3500 words a minute. That’s what most people seek to achieve
by the end of the course. But what confused me at thetime was how could I both read quickly and
comprehensively and not do well in spelling. How, I wondered, could I see and recognize words on
a page and read quickly and yet, in another way, not see them at all? This later became clear when I
discovered the global/specific meta-program distinction (Scale meta-program, #3).
“Today I can spend time proofing texts and can shift consciousness from the whole forest down to the
individual trees. Yet I find it mostly “work,” rather than play. Shifting and keeping my awareness to
the detailing level takes effort. If I let the tiniest slip in awareness occur so that an idea pops into my
mind, then zoom—I’m off and running at a conceptual level, thinking about the meaning rather than
noticing spelling details.”
Consider the meta-program of matching / mismatching (Relationship, #4). We match for sameness
and we mis-match for differences. This distinction governs whether we read in order to match what
we already know or whether we sort for differences and look for what differs from what we already
know. At a metaprocessing level, matchers look to compare similarities. Mismatchers search out
differences.
Bob says that this explains why for many years he would not share with Linda many of his new
projects.
“Early in our marriage I learned that if I shared a new project with her,
she would find something wrong with it and ‘criticize’ it. At least I took
it as criticism. It only took a small number of those experiences for me
to shut down. I decided I wouldn’t share with her, rather than get such
negative feedback (which is not a good thing for a marriage!).”
“Later when I learned about the meta-programs, I learned that she wasn’t ‘being critical,’ but simply
that her brain sorts information in this way. Understanding that she sorts for differences by mismatching totally changed my thinking and feeling. So the next time I presented some new wild idea
and she noticed how it wouldn’t work, I paced her experience, ‘You have to find out what is wrong
with something before you can look at what is right about it, don’t you?’”
“‘Why yes, doesn’t everybody?’ ‘Actually, no. But now that I know that sorting for differences by
mis-matching simply describes how you think, and that you are not trying to be mean or trying to hurt
me, I can hear it without feeling hurt!’”
What are Driver and Non-Driver Meta-Programs?
As our style of processing information, meta-programs occur along a continuum. This continuum
perspective enables us to distinguish the degree or intensity of a given meta-program in our
perceiving. A driving meta-program refers to those perceptual filters we habitually over-use. As we
over-use the meta-program structure for thinking about most things it becomes our default thinking
pattern. If, for example we habitually think in terms of details, matching, and visual, these become
our driving meta-programs. Not only will they color the world we live in, they will also determine
what we notice, as well as what we delete from attention. Driver meta-programs arise when our
perceptual filter operates at only one end of a continuum.
By way of contrast, whenever we mind things in the middle of a given metaprogram continuum or can
flexibly move from one pole to the other, that metaprogram willnot be a driver. Neither response
would drive or govern us. Instead we would experience a flexibility of consciousness allowing us to
use either distinction of that meta-program depending on the time, context, environment, purpose, etc.
Cattell (1989) writes:
"Just as all virtues come with vices, especially when carried to an extreme, persons who score
toward the extreme end on any temperament factor (even if on the seemingly more desirable pole) are
apt to have adjustment difficulties." (p. 15)
What Does this Mean about "Personality?"
In speaking about human functioning, information processing, and styles of behavior, we use a wide
range of terms. These suggest many things about human nature. Yet what do we really mean by
"personality," "temperament," "human nature," "constitutional drives,” “instincts, etc.," "traits," etc.?
The problem with these words is that they do not refer to things at all. Linguistically, these terms are
nominalizations. So while they look like, sound like, and feel like things, they are not. Talking as if
they are tangible and "real" entities, do not make them so. When we apply “the wheelbarrow test” to
these words, we find that we cannot put the things these words represent in a wheelbarrow (Bandler
and Grinder, 1975).2 Neuro-semantically they work on us as if they were things, that is, we often
respond as if the terms point to entities, yet they do not.
"Personality," "temperament," "human nature," etc. are not externally real objects. They do not exist in
the real world. They are mental constructs and abstract nouns in the world of mind or
communication. They exist in our minds only as ideas.
How can we understand what these words mean and the references they actually point to? By using
Meta-Model questions we can discover and determine the actions and processes (the verbs) hidden
in the terms that have been nominalized. Because someone has named an activity, using a noun instead
of a verb, we need to find the hidden verb. This is the power of the Meta-Model of Language, the set
of distinctions and questions that enable us to create a more well-formed mapping from words and
sentences. So, what is the hidden action? As we recover the action, and perhaps the person, who
created that mental map (the lost performative), we can examine the ideas for their merit, validity,
legitimacy, and usefulness.3
What actions or processes do the nominalizations "personality," "temperament," "human nature," etc.
point to? How can wede-nominalizethese terms for clarity? Given that this work is about the
functioning of consciousness on both content levels (the primary state) and structural levels (metalevels), we will want to brush away the thick mental fog around these terms. As the fog of fuzzy
definitions and vague understandings evaporate in the light, we invite a sharper relief of perspective,
as we specify with precision the actual processes. Do you ask, “So what?”
What do we seek from this? We seek a clearer understanding of the mind-bodyemotion processes. We
seek a set of procedures for understanding the workings of our mind-body-emotion system. We seek
to effectively use our own reflexivity because we will be using mind to think about our mind in its
structuring and selfmapping of its perceptions. Yet, ultimately, we will find that there are fewer and
fewer "things," and more and more processes. Woodsmall (1988) notes:
". . . our personality is developed as a coping mechanism. It overlies our essence and masks it. Our
personality needs to be seen for what it is, i.e., an arbitrary coping mechanism, and not for what we
usually take it to be, i.e., what we think is most uniquely us. . . . Our personality is what makes each
of us different from everyone else. It is the set of patterns of behavior that we operate out of
habitually . . ." (pages 11, 50, italics added)
Denominalizing these terms shifts the questions we ask. We will ask fewer nominalization questions:
C What is human nature?
C What kind of a person is she?
C What is his temperament style?
Instead, we now shift to more process questions:
C How does Jane run her brain in this or that context?
C What style of mental structuring does Bill typically use, the big picture
or specific details?
C Does your meta-program work well in accomplishing this particular goal? C Does it enhance your
skills and life?
Approaching human nature in this way moves us away from "typology," and "personality" or
"temperament" analysis in the old sense. Using meta-programs, we will not seek to discover what
people are. We will seek to discover how they function using their thinking, emoting, valuing,
believing, perceiving, relating, communicating, etc. powers. We will discover their operational style
for perceiving, processing information, emoting, and making choices. It’s not about type (as in
typology), but about state and dynamic structure.
This facilitates change. If we find ourselves, or another person, using a metaprogram that doesn't
work very well, we can simply shift our awareness to the other side of the continuum. After all, we
aren’t stuck with our meta-programs. This eliminates the lame excuse that we often use when we
don’t want to change, or find change difficult:
"Well, that's the way I am! I'm just that kind of person." "Well, what can you expect from someone
with her personality traits?"
While Woodsmall (1988) brought the typology of the Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory into the
Meta-Programs model, he also took a denominalized attitude toward typology, one that fits this focus
on processes and states.
"Typology is the study of human differences. . . . A type, in reality, is merely a set of characteristics
that a group of people have in common . . ." (p. 2)
The approach we take here de-emphasizes the whole concept of typology and follows Carl Lloyd's
(1989) approach to personality. We noted this in The Structure of Personality: Ordering and
Disordering Personality Using NLP and Neuro-Semantics (2001). In a creative doctoral research,
Lloyd gave groups of people Myers-Briggs and Johnson-Taylor personality typing tests and asked
them to fill the test out as they are today. He then asked them to take the same personality profiling test
as if they were 16 years old again, and then as if 70 years old. What he found was revolutionary to
typology assumptions. Their answers, reflecting the state of mind that they were in, or imagined they
were in, so the profiles changed dramatically in those different contexts. If people were of a certain
type, there would be almost no change.
Shelle Rose Charvet (1997) similarly notes:
“The meta-programs describe ... what we let in and out in a given situation. It is this recognition of
our ability to change our behavior that sets this tool apart from the psycho-metric profiles that make
sweeping generalizations about our personality.” (p. 11)
How does Context play into Meta-Programs?
O'Connor and McDermott (1995) wrote that we should not think of metaprograms as only inside a
person, but as an interactive relationship between a person and his or her encounter of the world in
various contexts. These caveats about meta-programs suggests a new direction for exploring the
meaning and function of meta-programs.
"Meta-programs are often reified into 'things' that live inside the person, instead of a description of a
set of behaviours that are evoked in a certain context—a combination of context and action. They are
not completely 'inside' the person. So it is interesting to ask: 'What sort of context brings out
particular ways of acting that can be coded as metaprograms?’
We would like to suggest a way to look at meta-programs and similar behavioural patterns. We tend
to think of meta-programs, talk about them and write about them . . . as if they exist inside a person. It
seems to us the context is equally important, and that meta-program patterns are a combination of
context and particular ways the person has of deleting, distorting, and generalizing." (78-79)
This supports the approach here of describing meta-programs in terms of the contexts that trigger
them. Doing so enables us to put the lie to static mismapping as expressed in, "Well, that's the way I
am!" Now we can ask counterexample questions:
C When do you not think that way?
C In what environment would you not process things in terms of X
(matching, procedures, visual images, etc.)?
C As you imagine a context in which you would shift from that style to another, how does that feel?
C What changes does that evoke in you?
This also warns against falling into the nominalization trap of treating metaprograms as if they were
indelibletypes. They are not. Wedo personality. They are descriptions of behavior—the mental
behavior of framing our perceptions. So even though the term "meta-programs" itself is a
nominalization, it does not refer to a thing, but to a process.
Realizing that we ultimately refer to processes of mind operating in various contexts when we talk
about meta-programs, we must continually remind ourselves to denominalize. We must constantly
contextualize when, where, with whom, under what conditions, etc. do we use this or that perceptual
filter. We must constantly think of them as behaviors—as mental, emotional, volitional, perceptual,
and semantic ways of acting. If we do not, we will fall into the same fallacy of thinking about them as
static "traits" or types.
Why do we emphasize this? Because if we delude ourselves into thinking of metaprograms as things,
rather than dynamic, ever-changing processes, this "thingthinking" deceives us into viewing
“personality” as innately determined and unchangeable. When we assume people are of a certain
“type,” we limit their potential for change. In his dissertation, Lloyd (1989) highlighted the learning
process and the role that context plays in the expressions of "personality."
"Roles, norms, and rules are learned within social situations or contexts via language and
relationships. Just how semantics and social rules are learned has been the continual interest for
cognitive and social psychology researchers." (p. 28)
The Dynamic Fluidity of "Personality"
What then is personality? How do we think of “personality” in NLP and NeuroSemantics? We think
of "personality" as simply the characteristic ways that a person typically behavesin thinking,
believing, valuing, emoting, communicating, acting, and relating. Personality is a holistic description
of the overall gestalt that emerges from all of these particular ways that we respond.
In NLP and Neuro-Semantics we intentionally avoid nominalizing and reifying "personality" as if it
were a thing. We avoid treating it as if it were a formulated entity inside us, which makes us the way
we are. Keep this in mind as you read and work with the meta-programs. Though awkward
linguistically, it is useful to put the terms back into verbs (programming, patterning, sorting, etc.).
People are not their meta-programs, Meta-Programs is just a model for how they perceptually filter
information.
Personality results from both our content programs that specify what we think, believe, value, etc.
plus our meta-programs or howwe engage in thinking, sorting, believing, valuing, etc. With both of
these levels of functioning (what and how), any thinking, feeling, or behaving response that we
perpetuate by continually repeating, will eventually habituate. As it habituates, it will drop out of
conscious awareness to become one of our unconscious programs. Behaviorally it develops as "an
unconscious ongoing way of processing or structuring information." This patterning is what we call a
meta-program.
Obviously this habituating process occurs for our content programs (e.g. typing, driving a car,
playing ball, expressing social skills, looking friendly, reading, etc.). It also occurs for our metaprocessing habits. The behavior of how we structure information also habituates as our meta-level
patterning style. When this happens, these unconscious or outside-of-awareness processes at the
meta-level, make these programs even more powerful, making them seem permanent.
“Personality” is the end result. All of the inner and outer dynamic behaviors that make up
"personality" are these stableways of perceiving and processing. These may seem an innate part of
our "temperamental" nature (another nominalization). Yet "temperament" refers to the "make-up" of
our mind, "the peculiar or distinguishing mental or physical character" of it. Of this Cattell (1989)
writes,
"People respond to their perceptions of reality rather than to reality itself, and these perceptions are
shaped through past experience and do not readily alter, even in responses to here and now
actualities." (p. 71)
This explains why we all experience a feeling of pseudo-stability of our self which leads us to view
our "traits" and "temperaments" as stable. This explains why here-and-now actualities often do not
(and cannot) change our meta-programs and "personality." They do not because we falsely assume
that personality is stable and unconnected to the habituation of our perceptions and mental maps.
"While trait theory posits personality as a product of a single underlying static disposition, state
theory views personality as a multifactorial phenomenon which is the product of the total social
environment." "In studies by Bern and Allen (1974) and Schweder (1975), it was found that people
self-reported more behavioral consistency than was actually demonstrated. A conclusion that could
be drawn, then, is that people have stable perceptions of their own behavioral responses even when
their actual behavior is not stable." (Lloyd, 1989, p. 20)
In other words, at meta-conceptual levels (the meta meta-programs) about "self," we createstable
identity perspectives (or frames) about ourselves, about our self traits, temperament, and personality.
This explains the durability of these constructs and our pseudo-feelings of a more permanent self than
actually exists. Similarly Bateson (1972) noted that higher “logical levels”organize and drivethe
lower levels. We will use this insight in the chapter on changing meta-programs to suggest that the
lower level experiences will change when we change our higher level constructions.
Lloyd (1989) noted the nature of these constructions as products of our linguistics and semantics.
"What is being argued is that the terms used within personality research
are nothing more or less than constructs of convenience. And it is the
aim of this project to illustrate that the assessment of temperamental
traits, by traditional methods, is significantly affected by specific changes
in stimulus conditions." (114)
In other words, NLP and the cognitive-perceptual psychologies have only begun to identify numerous
patterning sorts that people use in structuring their perceptions. These may seem solid and
unchangeable, yet they are only constructs, human constructs that we create and which we can recreate.
So Why Does "Personality" feel so Solid?
"Personality" seems and feels permanent because we create our “self” conception at a meta-level.
This explains why it seems more difficult to change "personality" than to change a specific behavior,
thought, choice, or feeling. As there’s less psychological investment, changing things at lower
“logical levels” is generally much easier.
Which mechanisms generate this stability and sense of permanence? The mechanism that William
James (1890) targeted was habit. Repetition of a way of behaving makes the behavior more solid,
firm, "real," and unconscious. In this model, repetition habituates the process so that it rises to a
higher “logical level.” From there, it organizes and drives lower level functioning.
Language additionally contributes to creating this sense of stability. As a metalevel phenomenon,
language enables us to encode higher level abstractions so that, perceptually, abstract language (like
nominalizations) seems and feels more solid, permanent, "real," and unchangeable. What languaging
do we specifically engage in that locks in our "personality" so that it seems and feels more and more
innate, determined, static, and permanent? The sneaky nominalizations that arise from the “to be”
verb, namely, the is of identity.
"I am a loser."
"I'm just the kind of person who..."
"I'm Irish, that's why I get angry so quickly."
"I don't have much self-esteem; never have."
"You're just selfish."
Examine this kind of languaging in how it maps experiences. We take a piece of behavior (such as
losing, getting angry, not esteeming oneself, etc.) and we identify our self with that behavior. This
creates an equation between two things that occur on different levels. It creates an equation betweena
behavior (primary level) and a self-definition (meta-level construct). One is empirical and occurs in
the external world, the other is an abstraction, a mental action of computation and occurs in the world
of mind and communication. This “complex equivalence” (the Meta-Model) is one of the many ways
that we create meaning. Yet the phenomena exist on different “logical levels.” First is behavior, the
second is our thinking-feeling response about the behavior. In this way we create a "self"
nominalization that seems static and unchangeable.3
This languaging involves taking an evaluative quality ("selfish," "good," "charming," etc.) and using
the is of predication. We map things by predicating (or asserting) that the evaluative quality exists as
("is") the person's essence. What a jump in logic! Yet this is the way we construct our psychologics.4 Here we lose the evaluator, the evaluator's standard by which he or she made the judgment,
and the time and event when this process occurred. Here also we have someoneidentifying self (a
meta-level generalization) with the end results of that process (the disliked behavior).
Are we over-emphasizing this? Perhaps. Yet we do so because even in NLP writings about metaprograms, these linguistic violations are all too frequent. Even in NLP literature you can read about
some people being matchers and that others are mis-matchers; some are options, and others are
procedures. Yet if there is no "is" in the territory, than such talk indicates a false-to-fact mapping.5
Our aim here in pointing this out is to clean up this language. We will do that by avoiding the “is”
term when describing people, “personality,” and meta-programs. Because these are descriptions of
psychological behavior (thinking, feeling, choosing, creating meaning), we will avoid both the "is" of
identity and the "is" of predication. We will adapt, as much as possible, a behavioral, functional, and
process language by talking about peoplematchingor mis-matching, as choosing to sort for options
or seeking the right procedures as they adapt to the world. This is not what they are, it’s how they
operate in a given context at a given time.
Where do Meta-Programs come From?
Meta-programs come from repeated thoughts-and-emotions, from the mental-andemotional states that
we habituate. We will detail this in great length in chapter four. For now it is enough to recognize that
we create our meta-program or perceptual filters as we layer one idea (a thought-feeling state, and so
metastating)6 upon another. So we create the most basic meta-programs of optimistic—pessimistic by
bringing the idea of optimism (or pessimism) to our information process. When we set optimism over
our thinking in general, it becomes a filter—a perceptual filter.
We can do this by bringing the idea of detailing to our thinking. Or we could bring its opposite, trying
to get the big picture and then create global or specific meta-programs. We could meta-state
matching for sameness as our frame or its opposite, mis-matching for difference. We could layer the
idea of needing and wanting a procedure, or its opposite, valuing coming up with new alternatives
(options).
Our reality first arises from our primary states which when we step back from become ourmetastateswhich, in turn, formulate our meta-programs. This brings us back tostates. Aprimarystate is a
mind-body-emotion stateabout something in the world “out there.” Like primary colors from which
all other colors are composed, there are basically about twelve primary states: attraction and
aversion, tension and relaxation, joy and sadness, fear and anger, lust and disgust, love and apathy.
These generally have reference to some trigger or stimulus “out there.”
Generally states come and go. We experience dozens and dozens of states every day. By way of
contrast, meta-programs like meta-states are a more enduring psychological phenomena. This is what
can make them more challenging to change if you don’t know what you’re doing. When you do know
how they work and what you’re doing to change them, we can easily change them. This will be the
subject of chapter 11.
A meta-state, as any mind-body-emotional state of awareness involves thoughtsfeelings and
physiology. But this state is meta to a primary state in that it is not about anything “out there” in the
world, it is about another state. In this way a meta-state transcends the primary state and its
composition of thoughts-andemotions (i.e., fear, anger, like, dislike, calm, tense, joyful, miserable). It
first transcends and then includes the primary state within itself. As a state-about-astate, a meta-state
refers to our mind-body experience of a state. So a meta-state may be fear of anger, feeling guilty
about having fun, being excited about learning, fearing fear, loving anger, etc.
The mechanism that enables us to build meta-states in the first place is reflexivity. Our self-reflexive
consciousness enables us to reflect back onto ourselves, to think and feel about our thoughts and
feelings. When we do, we move to a meta-level to our own experience. It is this spiraling and goingin-circles reflexivity that makes our mind rich, complex, and systemic. We are a class of life that not
only thinks, but we think about our thinking. We not only feel, but we feel about our feelings. We also
think about our feelings and feel about our thinking. And so it goes, layer upon layer.
Via our self-reflexive consciousness, we think-and-feel about levels and layers of other thoughts and
feelings and so set frame upon frame to construct a matrix of meaning around things. We do this about
all kinds of things. This is what creates the higher level or meta meta-programs, the semantic metaprograms operate at even higher level perceptual filters. Here we put all of our “values”—our
metastates beliefs about what we deem important.
Of course, once we have a meta-program, it becomes our style for processing other information and
events. As a meta-program it governs how and what we attend and what we leave out. Consciously
we are limited to 7 +/- 2 chunks of information, meta-programs set the frames as to what we select and
de-select. Meta-programs inform us about what to delete from our awareness as well as what to
focus on. So once installed, meta-programs operate as self-fulfilling prophecies, validating precisely
what we expect to see for us.
Reflexivity, as a mechanism, gives us the ability to make meta-moves to higher “logical levels.” As
we reflexively move to such levels, this experience habituates and becomes incorporated into our
perceptual frames-of-reference. Examples of self-reflexive consciousness in everyday life include
fearing fear and in doing so becoming paranoid, feeling afraid of one’s anger, and so turning one’s
fear against oneself, feeling guilty for feeling afraid of one’s anger, or feeling hopeless about ever
changing guilt about fear of anger(!). When we do not effectively manage our reflexivity, we create
torturous meta-states or dragon states that turn against us.7
As we transcend one state and include it with the framework of a higher state, this builds up the metastructures of our Matrix of frames. Eventually, these metastates become the Matrix of our neurosemantic system, and become embedded all of our states and frames of meaning. Our primary states
are embedded within the larger context of these embedded meta-states. Together as we meta-state
layer upon layer of frames, the entire Matrix becomes a canopy of consciousness to us.
Imagine embedding all of your states and meta-states with acceptance and appreciation. Imagine that
such states are meta-stated up the levels until they become the canopy over all of your states and
experiences, over all of your emotions negative and positive. At that point, appreciation would
operate as one of your primary perceptual filters, as one of your highest meta-programs. How would
that change things for you in terms of your personality, character traits, beliefs, and style for orienting
oneself in the world? Would you like that? Would that be transformational?
Figure 2:2
Matrix of Frames that Become our Canopy
If we build a matrix of meta-states into the structure of our consciousness, we will not have to access
the state of appreciation, acceptance, or whatever. Appreciation will come to operate as a higher
meta-program—as our way of perceiving the world. We no longer have to access the state of respect
for people, this canopy of consciousness would simply govern all of our thinking-and-emoting about
people—respect will operate as our self-organizing frame.
So what is a meta-state and how does it differ from a meta-program? A metaprogram is a solidified
meta-state. It begins with the content details of our stories, then it becomes a meta-stating process,
then eventually it becomes a style or way of thinking, a meta-program.
Our current meta-programs only reveal the way we have learned to structure and pattern our thinking
up until now.
Identifying a Matrix of Frames As human beings we have already meta-stated many canopies of
consciousness or layers of embedded frames. The difference is that we typically do not do so with
acceptance, appreciation, respect, dignity, or other
such positive resources. More often we do so with contempt, blame, fear, anger, dread, skepticism,
pessimism, etc. As those who are self-reflexive by nature, we have already generated many thoughtsabout-our-thoughts and inevitably experience the habituation of our thought-feelings so that we
already operate out of a Matrix or canopy of consciousness.
Given this, we do not have to develop the ability to use our reflexivity. We already can do that. We
need to develop consciousness about how we are using our reflexivity, discover the constructs we
have built, and evaluate them for ecology. Then we can decide which ones to eliminate, transform,
update, or build. This understanding about meta-states creating and solidifying into metaprograms
explains the difficulty we have in helping someone who operates out of a primary state or a meta-state
embedded in a canopy of pessimism. C How do you help someone when the person filters everything
you say
through a filter of pessimism?
C What do we do when the most optimistic, hopeful, encouraging, and helpful suggestions get filtered
out and re-interpreted in a negative way?
C How do we interrupt this pattern of pessimism?
C How do we interrupt it if it is a meta-state of pessimism?
C How do we get through to a person operating from a meta-state of pessimism that generates a thick
and dark canopy of consciousness?
Can We Change Meta-Programs?
Are our meta-programs susceptible to change? You bet! We are not stuck with our meta-programs.
Meta-programs are not destiny. You and I are more than our meta-programs. Our current metaprograms only reveal the way we have learned to structure and pattern our thinking up until now.
They only reveal how we have learned to do so—up to this point in time. Yet as a dynamic, on-going
process of patterning and structuring our thoughts-emotions, we can always alter that process. To that
end we have an entire chapter detailing the process of transforming meta-programs.
Summary
C Why don't we all behave, speak, value, feel, or think the same way? Because we use different
perceiving patterns for thinking that we call meta-programs. We have meta-stated ourselves into
having different meta-programs.
C Everybody doesn't think the same way. We all know that. Nor does everybody feel the same way,
or value the same things. It’s equally obvious that not everybody talks or acts the same way. We
differ. We radically differ in each of these facets of functioning.
C As our operational systems, meta-programs exist at a “logical level” above our conscious thoughts
and emotions (primary states). Metaprograms describe our sorting styles which we have learned to
use in thinking about things.
C As higher level programs for thinking-and-emoting, meta-programs are for the most part outside or
above consciousness.
C As a model,Meta-Programs,a cognitive-behavioral model that describes how we manage our
awareness, which explains how and why we live in different internal worlds.
C
As men and women who inevitably map the realities we live in, we
structure our conceptual worlds and then habituate those structures or meta-programs. But there’s no
law that demands that we so structure information. We can choose to use different perceiving
patterns. We can choose to create and live in different worlds.
End Notes:
1. The numbers like #3 refer to the list of meta-programs which are presented at the end of chapter
five, pages 93 and 94.
2. Nominalization. The wheelbarrow test in the Meta-Model enables us to distinguish a true noun
from a false noun. Because true nouns refer to externally real tangible things (people, places, and
things), theoretically we could put the referent in a wheelbarrow. This does not hold true for false
nouns which are actually nominalized verbs. We cannot put relationship, self-esteem, motivation, etc.
in a wheelbarrow! They are not externally real things. They are “things of the mind,” that is, ideas,
concepts, and semantic structures.
3. Complex Equivalence. For more about the construction of meaning and “complex equivalences” in
language and how we can understand and transform such see MindLines: Lines for Changing Minds
(2002) and The Matrix Model (2003).
4. Psycho-logics. In the world of mind and communication, things are not logical, but psycho-logical.
It works according to how we have set up and organized its logics. Our psycho-logics is more fully
described in chapter three.
5. The ‘is’ of identity. For more about the linguistic distinctions around the false-tofact term “is,” see
Communication Magic (2000).
6. We will detail meta-states and the meta-stating process in chapter four. For more about the MetaStates model, see Meta-States (2000), Dragon Slaying (2000), and Secrets of Personal Mastery
(1999), NLP: Going Meta (2000).
7. Dragon state. A dragon state is an unresourceful state, typically when we turn our thoughts and
feelings against ourselves.
Chapter 3
READING PEOPLE
VIA META-PROGRAMS
How could we possibly figure out people if we can’t discern the mental and emotional worlds they
inhabit?
“Emotional intelligence counts more than IQ or expertise for determining who excels at a job—any
job— and that for outstanding leadership it counts for almost everything. Daniel Goleman, Working
with Emotional Intelligence
In almost every area of life, whether it be business, personal relationships, family, children, etc.,
getting along well with others is a critical facet of well-being, health, sanity, longevity, and success.
Getting along well with others plays is an important a role in our everyday lives as does intelligence,
skill, and aptitude. Getting along well with people, in part, necessitates having some ability in
figuring people out.
C What do we mean when we talk about understanding someone? C What is it about people which we
need to “figure out?”
C Do we need to figure out their way of thinking and emoting? C Do we need to figure out their style
of valuing and behaving?
When we don't understand someone, when we do not understand another’s way of thinking, emoting,
speaking, behaving, and/or valuing, it’s difficult to effectively relate. Why? Because we relate to
people according to how we figure out what they think, feel, belief, want, etc. We relate to people
according to our views, beliefs, ideas, and understandings of people.
In this, we all have an inner map about people, who they are, what they want, whether they are safe or
dangerous, whether they are trustworthy or not, what we think of people when they are upset, angry,
critical, needy, taking charge, being grumpy, bossy, etc. We not only have a general map of people,
we have maps of specific people.
Sometimes our maps of others are right on, sometimes our mental maps leave us clueless as to what’s
going on with another. “Why is she that way?” “Why can’t he be nicer to me?” “What’s wrong with
her that she can’t follow through on what she says she will do?” “I never expected that he would let
me down that way.” “I wonder what in the world got into her?”
When we can't figure out why someone thinks or feels as he or she does, when we can't figure out how
in the world another can feel the way he or she does, we are adrift without a map. We don’t know
how to respond. As a result, we feel misunderstood, disconnected, out of alignment, or on a different
channel. Yet understanding is one of the central values that we all want as we relate to each other. We
want to understand and to be understood. This is true of our most intimate relationships as it is of our
business and casual relationships. Being understood, the sense that another person gets us, senses
where we’re coming from, and what we’re really about confirms that we matter. This makes life
meaningful. Then we feel seen for who we are—visible to another.
What we need is a model and a method for effectively and, as rapidly as possible, figuring out
people, do we not? Yet as soon as we figure out people, another problem arises. Differences. As we
discover how differently others think, feel, value, choose, and act, we then have to handle those
differences and learn to take those differences into account as we communicate and relate. Learning to
recognize how others differ from us is only the first step. Step two involves learning to accept,
appreciate, and validate those differences. That’s a big job, wouldn't you say? Nor is that the end.
Then comes step three, utilizing those differences. Not only do we have to not let the differences get
in the way of communicating and relating, we have also to use the differences for communication.
This is the theme of this chapter.
The Target of People Reading
C How do you attempt to figure out people?
C What specifically do you pay attention to as you make your evaluations C Do you focus on the
clothes they wear? Their behaviors and gestures? C Do you zoom in on their style of eye contact?
C Do you intuit by your gut feelings about them?
When it comes to "reading" people, we are talking about “meaning attribution.” C What meanings do
we attribute or give to these items?
C What do we use as the basis of our appraisals?
C To what extent do we let our own history, experiences, emotions, etc.
influence how we read someone?
This list of things to "read" suggests reading levels. I can start outside at your persona—at the roles
and positions you play in society and in relationships. Yet these roles suggest driving thoughts and
feelings. So we can go deeper, we can go to "personality" style, to one’s characteristic thoughts and
emotions, style of relating, valuing, etc.
Figure 3:1
Yet that only represents another level. We can go deeper. We can go beyond the surface thoughts and
feelings to deeper levels as we identify a person’s inner movies and representations and then to one’s
higher values and beliefs. What comprises you as a "person?” Certainly your cognitive-emotive style.
"Reading" those patterns provides a more profound sense of having reached a fairly core level.
In day-to-day life we often are quite blind to each other. More often than we might suspect, we fail to
realize what other people are actually experiencing. How does this occur? What contributes to this
blindness? It occurs in part due to our presupposition that others think-and-feel as we do. Using
ourselves as the yardstick of how others think, feel, speak, value, gesture and behave (or should), we
easily fall into the habit of projecting our own thoughts and feelings onto others.
The things we notice about others fall into two main categories: verbal and non-verbal. The verbal
category includes words, language style, predicates, and other linguistic facets that form a person’s
inner conceptual world. The non-verbal category includes such things as eye scanning cues, gestures,
breathing patterns, a sense of space (territory), behaviors, roles, context, etc. While learning how to
figure out people, we also learn to more accurately predict the responses of others. Doing this allows
us to learn to predict behavorial, communicational, and emotional responses more accurately. In such
“reading,” we want to move beyond the external roles and masks until we truly see the person in all
his or her uniqueness.
Meta-Programs as a means for Reading People
C What specific patterns determine the way people think, value, feel, speak, gesture, behave, and
respond?
C How can we learn to more effectively read these unique and personal patterns in others?
C How can we accurately read people?
Regarding this business of "reading" people, we all doit, we do it incessantly, and we cannot not do
it. All of us feel the need to figure out what makes ourselves and others tick. So we constantly
speculate about what others are thinking, wanting, feeling, intending, choosing, and preparing to do.
We do this based on our assumptive beliefs about people and human nature. We do so because if we
can figure out the motives and intentions of others, we lessen the possibility that they will trick us,
hurt us, or pull something over on us that could cause pain or trouble. We also make second-guesses
about what they will do in the future and how they will respond if we make this or that response. We
do all of this secondguessing using upon our predictions of what we believe about the person's inner
nature, behind all of the roles and manners. We mind-read their deeper motives.
Yet even more importantly, every single day we also misguess andmisread people. Why does this
happen? Because of the complexity involved in “reading” people. Because of the multi-dimensional
nature and functioning of people. After all, how well do you "read" your own thoughts, emotions,
values, motives, beliefs, etc.? How well do you know your own structuring processes, your own
thinking and emoting styles, and your own mapping of meaning?
When it comes to the art of figuring out people by reading their patterns, it is an imperfect art at best.
Yet we can develop and refine our skills in this area. We can learn how to improve our calibration to
the patterns at meta-levels as we learn to detect, recognize, and respond to meta-programs.
The Art of Reading
We have lots of ‘programs” in our mapping of the world. We also have lots of meta-programs which
run our mental, emotional, choosing, communicating, and semanticizing responses. They operate at
two levels: content and process.
For an example of the difference between content and process and how they interface, consider
reading. Because you are reading at this very moment, you are using a reading strategy. Notice how
that you quickly and unconsciously look at the ink marks on this page and as you observe those marks
you perceive English letters and words which, in turn, evoke you to represent various things on the
screen of your mind. Some are audio-visual, others are kinesthetic, some could even be olfactory
and/or gustatory, but most are abstract words representing concepts, ideas, and higher level
understandings. Isn’t that amazing? Somewhere inside you there is a “program” (or strategy) for how
to “make sense” out of spellmarks of ink on paper and to utilize such symbols to create your internal
experience.
Yet you were not born with this reading program. As a newborn, you had no language and for years,
you were unable to look at spell-marks and experience worlds of fantasy or instruction in your mind.
Your language development arose over time as a learned phenomenon. Unfortunate feral children who
grow up outside of human culture not only do not know how to read, they also don't know how to
process symbols to enter the human experience. Knowing how to read words on a page or a book is a
pretty fantastic thing, something on the verge of a miracle! Yet reading itself is a learned strategy, not
an innate skill.
When we consider the intricate complications of “reading,” we are left to wonder in amazement about
how it works. We have to translate ink marks into meaningful symbols and then we have to use those
symbols to evoke within us appropriate representations and layers of abstract classifications and
meanings. Yet in spite of this complexity, we all pick it up, mostly without that much awareness about
it, and eventually it habituates so that we run our “reading” program unconsciously. Then we can
engage in reading without noticing the process. We just do it. Scanning our eyes across a line of print
brings in a series of words which, in turn, evokes representations and mental movies.
Today our neurologically stored “reading” program operates at a level outsideof conscious
awareness (we typically use the spatial metaphor of below consciousness). Once upon a time we had
to slowly and meticulously learn the eye-scanning patterns and associations between letters, words,
and meanings. At that time we slowly learned to start on the left side of a page and move to the right.
Yet over time, repetition enabled even our eye-scanning process to drop out of awareness. Now,
whenever we pick up a paper or book as a stimulus, the program is automatically activated. This
holds true for a great many other behaviors (i.e. riding a bike, skating, shaking hands, adding,
subtracting, etc.).
Yet there’s something else involved in reading. To read anything we have to know the patterns that
govern the structure of the writing. Patterns give us this key to unlocking the meaning. We can't read
anything without knowing the organizing patterns. By definition, reading means "to receive or take in
the sense of by scanning, to study the movements of" (as in reading lips), "to understand the meaning
of words or symbols, to interpret."
If we want to learn to read Hebrew, first we
have to identify and learn the characters that Patterns give us this key are used as the elementary
symbols of that to unlocking the meaning. system. Then we have to recognize and
reorganize our expectations that the pattern
will move from right to left, that words
consist of consonants (and in some Hebrew writing, the points and dots above and below the
consonant letters are the symbols for the vowel sounds).
Figure 3:2
A line of Hebrew Word
Can you read that? Even after you learn the pronunciation of the letters and words, you have to ask,
"Okay, so what does it mean?" This illustrates that above and beyond the raw lines and dots (the
symbols) and the brute sounds is a patterning that creates words out of letters. To read we have to
not only know the elementary symbols, but the patterns that give significance to the words. Without
the patterns, the ink marks on paper make no sense at all. They are spellmarks that convey no
meaning, even to a searching receptive mind. It is the system or patterning itself that enables us to
both articulate the expression (say the words) and understand the references to which they point
(understanding the significance or meaning). It is via pattern recognition that we are able to bring
order out of chaos.
Similarly it is the patterning that is crucial if we want to learn to “read” or figure out people. As
with words, we begin with the raw and brute facts of behavior, gestures, words, tones, etc, then we
look for patterns in the person’s thinking, emoting, valuing, culture, contexts, learning history, etc. to
understand what a person means, what symbolic systems he or she uses and lives within.
This holds true for any medical doctor who has been trained to "read" symptoms of pain or distress in
the human body. There are the brute facts on one level and there is the symbolic meaning system at a
higher level—the set of patterns that give meaning to the first-level facts.
It holds true for auto mechanics who learn to "read" the mechanical cues of cars. These professionals
must first develop a familiarity with how a body or a car operates (or should optimally operate). This
means becoming acquainted with the brute facts of what’s there, how the parts are inter-related, the
principles that govern the interactions of these facts, and then how each operates systemically in
response to various internal and external stimuli. Only then can they come to understand the
significance of the symptoms they encounter. Each professional must also learn how to calibrate
attention to specific expressions to term what are the significant cues to notice and what meanings to
attribute to those cues.
What about "Reading" People to Figure Them Out?
This also holds true for developing proficiency in figuring out people. When we first face the chaos
of the many facts and cues in a person's communications and expressions, we need a thorough
acquaintance with the brute facts of the person’s outputs. Then we need a comprehensive knowledge
of the interactive facets within the mind-body-emotion system and how human beings use their
neurology of nervous systems, brain, and sense receptors to process information. After that comes a
thorough acquaintance with the patterns and patterning by which we construct meaning systems.
Figure 3:3
The Meaning of the Hebrew Words
Did we mention that there’s a rich systemic complexity to “reading” people? There is and it is
learnable. Just as you learned to read your native language (and perhaps other languages), you can
learn to read people and do so in a way that creates a fun and playful adventure, and eventually
become so proficient at it that you can do it automatically and even unconsciously.
A meta-program functions at a level above a specific learning program that informs and governs our
thinking, emoting, speaking, and acting. It does not deal with content, it deals with process. Our
meta-programs are always about the content level. They function as messages or processesaboutthat
lower level. The meta-programs prescribe the various ways we can pattern or structure what we think
about any given content.
As an example, when we read words (and use our unconscious reading program) we may do so by
taking the stimulus of a visual external word written on paper and then hear those words in our head.
If so, we "make sense" of the marks on paper by representing the auditory information as if we were
hearing an internal voice saying the words. But everybody doesn’t do it that way. Some people use
the words to see images of what the words refer to and so populate the inner theater of their mind
with sights and images. They make a visual movie in their mind whereas the auditory readers only
creates a sound-track in their movie theater. There are others who do not make many sights or sounds,
they mostly just get sensations from the words and about the words or about the meanings of their
words. We say that they use kinesthetic representations (or body sensations) to feel things and so
make meaning in that way. Obviously, the richest way to make sense of things is to use all of these
modalities. When we use all of these modes of awareness to encode our inner movie, we have an
audio-video production that we can step into and feel.
Most people prefer one mode over the others. Do you have a favorite sensory system that you prefer
—visual, auditory, or kinesthetic? If you know which representation system you primarily use, you
know one of your meta-programs (Representation, #1).
To continue with this illustration of reading, when some people read, they look for things in the text
that match what they already know. They pattern their attention so that they seek sameness with what
they already know. Do you? Others have a different style in reading. They look for what they do not
know and what stands out as different. They mismatch what the author writes or presents and look for
how it is not so Again, if you know your style in this area, you know another one of your metaprograms (the Relationship Comparison meta-program, #4).
Easy Change: Enriching Representations
In this way meta-programs describe the structure and form of our information processing. Sometimes
this plays a crucial distinction in learning and developing.
Once I worked with a young adolescent as a client who had failed three grades in school. At 14 years
of age and seemingly not getting school, both he and his parents were convinced that he had a low IQ,
suffered from severe “learning disabilities,” and really needed some help. When his parents brought
him to me, they brought in a three-inch stack of psychiatric reports indicating a trail of “learning
disabilities” that dated all the way back to the first grade. Along the way he had been diagnosed as
having half-a-dozen different problems.
When I first began working with Jim, I began by seeking to understand how he used his brain to
represent things. Not knowing what I would do, I first wanted to get a sense of how he “thought” and
what flexibility he had in using the movie theater in his mind. So I began by asking about the color of
his room. “What’s the color of your bedroom?” He didn’t know. “Well, what is the shape of your
bedroom? Is it rectangle, square, or some other shape?” Again he didn’t know.
“What does your dad’s voice sound like?” Here he not only didn’t know, but didn’t have a clue. “Is it
high or low, raspy or clear, how loud?” Blank. “Okay, you know what Donald Duck sounds like,
don’t you? Does your dad sound like Donald Duck?” He didn’t think so, but really didn’t know until I
did an imitation of Donald Duck and he was then sure that his dad didn’t talk like that! “So your dad
never just quacks out at you things like, ‘Are you dumb or something?’” “No, my dad doesn’t do that,”
he said as he snickered about that idea.
This fourteen year old boy was a big kid standing six-foot-one-inch and weighing 205 pounds. And,
would it surprise you to know that he was on his school’s football team (American football) and that
he simply had no sights or sounds in his head. No wonder he didn’t do very well in academic
learning! When I discovered that he was on the football team, I decided to use that area of skill and
resourcefulness which I knew he had and so I explored that with him. “How did you learn to play
football so well?”
Well, as it turned out, his coach also had lots of trouble with him. Jim never seemed able to “get it”
when the coach drew out the football moves on the blackboard that he wanted his boys to learn and
use. Jim could see the diagrams on the chalk board and see and hear the coach draw lines between the
Xs that stood for the players, but the coach inevitably would have to take him out to the field and
actually walk him through the moves.
That told me nearly all I needed to know. Jim’s learning strategy and representational strength was in
the kinesthetic modality, not the visual or auditory. So I gave him some homework.
“Jim, I want you to go home and during this week I want you to make lots of mental snapshots of your
room, your house, the classrooms you sit in at school, your mom’s face, etc. Just look at something,
and take a snapshot with the camera of your mind. Click. Then close your eyes, and see if you can see
what you just saw on the outside. If not, open your eyes and take another snapshot. Notice the colors,
shapes, forms, textures, etc. I also want you to begin to make auditory snapshots of your dad’s voice,
of Donald Duck’s voice, and of two of your favorite songs. Will you do that?”
During the next two months, our sessions consisted of his reports of the sights and sounds he had been
“snapshotting” in his world. My questioning grew more and more detailed as I wanted to know more
about the cinematic features of what he was seeing and hearing. My questions simply gave him the
opportunity to begin noticing—really noticing what he had never noticed before, and as he had never
noticed before. Eventually, as he began to “snapshot” and encode visual and auditory information and
to create richer and more vivid mental movies in his mind, his grades mysteriously began to improve.
Suddenly he could see and hear inside. Suddenly he discovered to his incredible surprise, as did his
parents, that he didn’t have a low IQ or even learning disabilities. He had simply not developed his
visual and auditory modalities.
How can we Figure out the Differences?
The process of figuring out people is precisely that—a process. It doesn’t happen in a moment. No
one is that simple. When it comes to human beings, we all exude a rich complexity. What’s involved
in this process? Three steps:
1) Understanding the differences in how we filter our perceptions, the differing styles for thinking,
attending, sorting, choosing, and valuing.
2) Accepting, appreciating, and validating those differences as just differences and as neither good
nor bad, right or wrong, but differences that may or may not lead to connection, rapport, and
understanding.
3) Using and working with those differences as we relate and communicate so that we can take the
different perceptual filters into account and keep readjusting the messages sent and received until we
can create a strong sense of mutual understanding and rapport.
As we explore meta-programs, we begin with an important presupposition that enables us to
anticipate and work with differences. The premise is that psychologically, we all come from our own
model of the world. Each of us have our own unique reality, meta-programs, and matrix of frames for
thinkingemoting, valuing, choosing, etc. It is as if we all grew up in a different world. This premise
alerts us from the beginning, so we do not expect sameness.
Expecting others to be the same as us is what disorients us and troubles our communications.
Assuming that others will attribute the same meanings and understandings that we give to words and
gestures sets us up for disappointment. Differences are what we should expect. We should expect that
words will not mean to others what they mean to us. It is in recognizing that we bring our own world
or universe of meaning with us everywhere we go that saves us from assuming too much.
Let’s begin at the opposite side. Let’s start from the assumption that we really do not know anddo
notunderstand. Doing this puts us in a more active and attentive position of exploring and questioning
things. It puts us in a place of checking out what others “hear,” rather than assuming that our words
mean the same to them as to us.
This stance enables us to use the Meta-Programs model for guiding our perceptions and
understandings about howpeople differ in their perceptions. As a set of distinctions this model
provides critical distinctions about how we can differ in perceiving, attending, and thinking. As we
recognize these as neutral processes, neither good nor bad, right or wrong, we are freed from judging
the way others think and respond.
Once we develop an understanding of the wide range of thinking and sorting styles in information
processing, we can begin to appreciate the different styles and take them into account. Then we can
accept and validate the differing meta-programs in others. This reduces the shock of differences and
any need to fight the differences. They are just differences. We can then use the basic communication
pattern ofpacing and leading as we listen and respond. By taking different metaprograms into account
and dovetailing the other’s filters with our own, we can then utilize them to create more effective,
precise, and influential communications, rather than fight about them.
We Map Worlds into Existence?
Korzybski (1933) wrote extensively about the difference between map and territory. His famous
aphorism, "The map is not the territory," enables us to distinguish the two dimensions of reality that
we navigate. First there is the dimension of external reality, what we might call “the real world.”
That’s the world “out there” beyond our nervous system and brain, the world of energy
manifestations. Then there is the world of internal reality. This is the world of mind and
communication (Bateson), the world of human subjective experiences, the world of thinking-emoting,
believing, and valuing.
These are very different dimensions of experience. One is external and empirically real, the other is
internal and semantically “real.” What is the relationship between these two dimensions? How do
these two dimensions interface and interconnect? We live in the real world, but we do not directly
deal with it. Doesn’t that mean we relate to it indirectly through our maps? Our neurological,
linguistic, and conceptual mapping is howwe engage and encounter the real world out there.
Even our sense of what is “out there” is mostly a matter of how we have mapped it, and map it we
must. We abstract from the world via our senses and sense receptors (eyes, ears, skin, nose, mouth,
etc.) and bring the world inside by mapping and re-presenting it to ourselves as we “think.”
The actual world has too much information. Hundreds of thousands of bits of stimuli impact our
nervous system every second. To cope we delete most of it, we leave characteristics of the world out
of our map. We have to. Our sense receptors are designed to only pick up a small amount of the
electro-magnetic field. We have to invent and use special extra-neural devices to pick up the radio
and television waves, the infrared part of the spectrum, etc.
Not only do we delete, but we also generalize the stimuli. We process information into general
categories and classes to avoid overload. The third modeling process is distortion. We distort the
stimuli we receive to create our own private worlds of understanding. These three processes of
deletion, generalization, and distortion occur at both the sensory level and the linguistic level (how
we talk about it).
These filtering processes distort, delete, and generalize information because we can only handle so
much information at a time. In a now classic paper, Miller (1956) said that consciously we can only
attend to five to nine variables (7+/-2) at any given time. As our thinking-perceiving style habituates
into our metaprograms, they operate as unconscious filters. When we go beyond the five to nine
variables, we experience overload and our structuring of information becomes unconscious. When we
consciously cannot cope, we habitualize our filtering into an out-of-awareness meta-pattern.
Originally, we learned the alphabet one small chunk at a time, and as those chunks of information
habitualized, we eventually came to know things without needing to be conscious of that knowledge.
The same occurs with typing. Do you know where K is on the keyboard? X? Most of us don’t, yet our
fingers know (as weird as that sounds). When we attempt to recall the location of certain letters on
the keyboard, the knowledge is no longer available consciously. At least it is not if you type well.
Your fingers know while your conscious mind does not.
As you read this description, you have deleted lots of auditory and visual stimuli around you, have
you not? Take a moment right now and just notice around you ... notice all of the sights, sounds,
smells, tastes, internal dialogues, body sensations around and in you. A moment ago you were not
noticing them, and now you are. How did you selectively tune out all of that stimuli? Equally
interesting, how do you now tune into it when you so choose? Neurologically you have the capacity
for selectively hearing, selectively seeing, and selectively feeling. How easily can you now shift
awareness to left foot and to your toes? That stimuli was there the moment before we mentioned it, yet
you were probably not conscious of it. This is the foundation for the focus meta-program of screening
and non-screening (Focus, #9).
This selective seeing, hearing, and feeling explains how we can live in the same world with others
and yet have different experiences, understandings, and feelings. It explains why two witnesses to the
same event walk away with different stories about it. Their stories may tell as much about them and
their own meta-programs as about the event. This understanding reveals a crucial factor about people.
All of us operate out of our own model of the world which we create by our unique styles of
attending, sorting, and perceiving.
What is this model of the world? This model is made up of all our mental mappings. It is our Matrix
of frames—belief frames and perceptual systems. It is the internal subjective world, the dimension of
our inner reality where we live. It is axiomatic in NLP that we do not deal with the external "reality"
of the territory (i.e., the energy manifestations "out there"), but with transforms of those energies. Our
nervous system abstracts from those energies to create our map of a territory. Actually the only thing
that we can know and deal with is our map. We engage reality through our maps. First level reality
(the external and "objective" world) differs from second level reality, our subjective experience of
it.
From Mapping to Relating
The extent that we can identify another person's map of reality empowers us in understanding that
person and relating effectively. We can then meet that person at his or her model of the world. In this
way, we can use our understanding of the other’s way of perceiving, thinking, sorting, emoting,
choosing, etc. to enhance our communicating and relating. It’s in figuring out mapping styles that we
can utilize differences for win/win communication.
All of us operate out of our own model of the world which we create by our unique styles of
attending, sorting, and perceiving.
Many things are involved in this: becoming aware of language patterns, belief and value filters, and
thinking style. As we enter into the other person’s world, we match the other’s maps. Doing this gives
the other an experience of being seen, understood, and validated. This creates connection or rapport,
and when we do that, we are able to more profoundly influence, motivate, connect, and relate.
If the first dimension in which we live is the interface of our neurology with the territory, then the
second dimension is our neuro-semantic world. This is our universe of meaning. This model of the
world results from how we map. The term neuro-semantic highlights the critical fact that when we
map something, it is not just a mental idea, but anembodied meaning. The meanings that we create are
communicated to our bodies as feelings. Messages are sent to our entire mindbody system so that the
“knowledge” becomes neurological, it becomes encoded in muscle memory. No wonder our models
of the world are not trivial, they create our felt realityand our mind-body system works
toactualizethem, to make them real in our bodies.
In other words, we are the ones who create and invent our own unique psychologics. We do so via
our mapping. When we classify something, it becomes part of our own unique psycho-logical
structure. Asking, “What does a mistake mean to you?” someone will tell us that it means “Failure,”
while another will say, “Learning,” and another “Feedback,” and so on. What is it really? It’s nothing
really. Inside any given person, it is what that person says it is. The person who classifies it in the
category of “Failure” will find that making even a tiny mistake distressful, while the person who
classifies it as “Feedback” may feel excited.
As you can probably tell, in figuring out people, this is critical. People are not logical; people are
psycho-logical. We operate by the psycho-logics that we have been taught and have created. In this,
people are methodical, systematic—their responses make sense. What sense they make, of course,
depends on their psycho-logics, not ours. Is this “just semantics?" Yes and no. It depends on what you
mean by that.
No, it is not just semantics if you mean, just words and not internally real and compelling. And, yes, it
is just semantics if you know that we, as meaningmakers, are a neuro-semantic class of life who have
to create meanings or semantics, and as we do, so we are.
The world of semantics (e.g., words, language, gestures as symbols, meanings, frames, etc.) exists
first on the verbal level of our inner mapping. It does not exist externally. There is no meaning “out
there” in the world apart from a meaning-maker. It takes a human beingmapping things to construct,
invent, find, discover, and create meaning. Meaning, in turn, is a semantic reality of mind and
communication. But it will not stay only at that level.
People are not logical; people are psycho-logical. We
operate by the psycho-logics that we have been taught and have created.
The meanings that we create using our brain and nervous system send messages throughout the entire
mind-body system, and that system is designed to make that meaning real in our bodies and behaviors,
to actualize it. It is in this way that we are a neuro-semantical class of life. Meaning, as the very
source of our kind
of life, is far from non-trivial. We live by meaning. We live by creating meaning. Meaning guides and
directs what we do, how we do it, and why we do it.
Is it just semantics? Yes, and that’s what makes it so powerful. Our neurosemantic reality leads to
arguments, confusion, unresourceful states, ruined relationships, starts wars, and induces insanity. It
also creates civilization, beauty, honor, self-actualizing peak experiences, and the best of human
expertise. Yet while mapping the territory creates our sense of reality, when we confuse our mapping
with the territory, we attribute a false concreteness to words and ideas. This undermines our ability to
figure out people regarding their processing styles (meta-programs) and inner world.
A cognitive schema about this is called the ABC's of emotions.1 The ABC model refers to how an
Activating event triggers Consequences in our bodies in terms of emotions and behaviors, and does
so by activating and being processed through our Belief Systems (i.e., understanding, interpreting,
meaning, appraisal, perspective). How can we figure out ourselves or others? First by recognizing
that it is never the event or experience that “makes” us think or feel as we do. Our interpretation
creates our response. Our belief frames create our inner psycho-logics and responses.
If we work from the assumption that others process information, emote, value, perceive, respond, and
experience reality as we do, we will fail to reckon with their uniqueness. We will then be tempted to
project our own model of the world onto them. This will blind us to the variety of ways people think
and emote and prevent us from "reading" them. Then we will "read" people through our own patterns
and meta-programs. We then mostly see what our maps and meanings allow us to see.
Our interpretation creates our response.
In summary, the ways we pay attention, encode, and process information both describe and create our
model of the world and this falls into predictable patterns, meta-programs. We can identify our
perceptual patterns by learning the
meta-programs that govern the way we interact and communicate. This assists us in developing higher
quality and professional communication and relational skills. This improves our ability to understand,
connect, influence, persuade, etc. It empowers us to reduce conflict and misunderstanding. It enables
us to meet others at their model of the world rather than wait for others to meet us at our model.
Meta-Programs as Channels of Awareness
Whenever we communicate, we say words using our entire physiology. This generates the two
primary communication channels, verbal and non-verbal. This output of information involves both the
content details of our messages and our process styleof packaging the messages, another metaprogram (Communication, #11).
Bagley and Reese (1989) explain:
"Everywhere we look we see patterns. Patterns are so important to us that they form our reality.
Perhaps you have gone through a formal receiving line where the protocol and patterning is so rigid
that if you say anything other than the obligatory ‘Hello, how are you?’ ‘I'm doing fine,’ you probably
won't even be heard. The information won't sink in. . . . we also make decisions based on certain
predictable patterns. In other words, we tend to make decisions in the same way we have made
similar decisions before.
All this pattern talk lays the foundation for this important premise: people buy within their own
predictable patterns. These patterns are principally based on how they mentally sort information.
Therefore, when you are able to recognize these mental sorting patterns you are in a position to
understand the required steps they go through to arrive at decisions. If what you offer aligns with how
they decide, then you have rapport and you are on your way toward satisfying their pattern needs as
well as their outcome needs.”
As unconscious perceptual filters, meta-programs structure the messages we receive and give. Each
generates a channel of awareness—awareness of the chunk size, its relationship to other information,
representational system, etc. We may ask, "What channel of awareness have you tuned into?"
As these patterns habituate to become unconscious filters, they take on a life of their own. We then
have less and less awareness of them as we take them for granted. We assume them. We may even
come to think it wrong to do otherwise.
Your Meta-Programs for “Reading”
We end this chapter by returning to a typical strategy for reading. We began with the stimulus of
words in the form of a visual external. We saw the words:
"The little brown and white cat fought furiously with the dog..."
We then take those scribbles of ink on paper and anchor referent representations so that can see, hear,
feel, smell, and taste them on the screen of our mind. Whenever we ask, “What do those words refer
to?” we answer by accessing past referents and constructing representations for our cinema made up
of various sensory combinations. In this way we "make sense" of the words. In the end, reading works
as we use words to generate our internal movies.
Yet while we are doing that, other things are going on. At a meta-level, we are using various formats
to process the information. Perhaps the most central of all meta-programs are our sensory
representational systems (Representation, #1). C What sensory meta-program do you use to process
those words? C Did you see the little brown and white cat?
C Did you hear it “fighting” with the dog?
C Any smells in your mind? Sensations?
C Did you use the appropriate the sensory system?
C Did you use them all?
C Did you over-use one of the systems and leave out others? C Do you have any representational
weakness in one of the systems? The matching / mis-matching meta-program (Relationship
Comparison, #4) is also critical. This sorts for sameness / difference and governs our focus in
reading.
C When you read, do you do so with a view on checking to see if it matches
what you already know?
C Or perhaps you sort for differences?
C Do you look for what differs from what you already know?
At a meta-processing level, the matching style compares for similarities. The mismatching style
searches for differences. These thinking styles are cognitive patternsthat operate at a level meta to
the content information—the story. At that meta-level, they govern how we read, what we pay
attention to, and the kinds of thinking processes that we apply to our reading.
Figure 3:4
Channels of Awareness
These responses and processing styles exist along a continuum. We can sort at high and low degrees.
We can do so in an extreme way—at one of the polar ends of the continuum. Or we can do so in a
balanced and flexible way—experiencing a flexibility of consciousness to match one moment, and to
mismatch the next, to use the visual system, and then to switch to the auditory. By recognizing the
degree or intensityof a given meta-program, we can examine how it might govern someone's style of
perceiving. When a person habitually overuses a meta-program and consistently operates at one of the
ends of a continuum, that person has a driving meta-program. Those in the middle will have the
flexibility of consciousness to choose either meta-program.
Summary
C Figuring out people begins with the NLP communication model as a way to manage our own mind
as we learn how to “run our brain” and the movies that we play in the theater of our mind.
C It continues as we move to a meta-position and make distinctions about the meta-programs that
form, format, inform, and govern how we attend and perceive. This extends and expands our ability to
figure out people.
C Figuring out peoplebegins from understanding that each person inhabits an unique and different
world of thought, emotion, meaning, and experience. Each uniquely maps and frames the world
idiosyncratically and then lives in the universe of meaning, their Matrix of frames.
C Meta-Programs, as a set of distinctions, enable us to understand others in terms of the different
mental mapping we use to make sense of the world. By these distinctions we can detect and identify a
person’s metamapping style.
C What gives us entrance into another’s matrix is our states and frames of accepting and appreciating
these differences, the ability to step aside from our own meta-programs and to match or pace the other
person at his or her model of the world rather than fight about it. This makes this approach a much
more enhancing process.
End Notes:
1. The ABCs of emotions model comes from Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT).
Chapter 4
THE HIGHER SOURCE OF
META-PROGRAMS
Meta-Programs are Solidified Meta-States
“Those who know and manage their own feelings well, and who read and deal effectively with other
people’s feelings— are at an advantage in any domain of life...” Daniel Goleman, Emotional
Intelligence
As perceptual filters, meta-programs not only describe the way we see and perceivethe world as we
process information, they also reveal the extent to which higher level thought becomes so
incorporated into our neurology that they seem inborn, permanent, and part of our “temperament.” The
key word here is “seem.” As you will soon discover, these seemingly innate programs are learned
and developed, which is what make them amendable to change and transformation.
Meta-Programs and "Personality"
The concept of “personality” has arisen several times already in describing metaprograms. This
raises numerous questions:
C How are meta-programs and “personality” related?
C Are our meta-programs the same thing as our “personality?” C If they are not, how do they differ?
As we begin it is obvious that meta-level patterns governing our thinking and attention style critically
affect how we experience ourselves as “persons,” and our “sense of self.” They also critically affect
our emotions—how we feel, how and what we value, the states that we access, how we speak and
behave, etc.
These processes are intimately related to "personality," as their component behaviors. That is, we
experience ourselves as “persons” and having a “personality” that we present as we express the
powers of our person, namely, our powers of thinking (reasoning, representing, valuing, believing,
etc.), of emoting (feeling, caring, valuing), of languaging (talking, self-dialogue), and of behaving
(acting, responding, relating, etc.)
Linguistically, “personality” is a nominalization. Hidden processes are inside the noun-like word.
Some processes have been turned into a noun, “person,” and then that pseudo-noun has been
nominalized further into “personality.” C So what hidden verb lies inside these terms?
C What process have we nominalized when we use this term?
Since personality refers to "the organization of an individual's distinguishing character traits,
attitudes, or habits" (Webster), the hidden verb harks back to “acting as a person." And "person" goes
back to Latin designating "persona" which refers to an "actor's mask" used in the Greek and Roman
plays that portrayed or characterized a person. These former usages help us to recover the processes
within this highly nominalized term of personality. What are the processes?
C The characteristic ways that a person typically behaves in thinking,
believing, valuing, emoting, communicating, acting, relating, etc.
C The overall gestalt that emerges from all of one’s particular response styles in thought, emotion,
speech, and behavior.
C The overall configuration of a person’s meta-levels of perceiving, sorting, and paying attention—
the meta-programs.
C The overall configuration of a person’s meta-levels of frames that describe believing, valuing,
identifying, understanding, deciding, intending, etc.—the governing meta-states.
Understanding “personality” in this way frees us from the misunderstandings that seductively result
when we nominalize "personality." When we turn “personality” into a thing, or worse, into an internal
entity, we think about it as if it were a solid and unchangeable. It is not. De-nominalizing
"personality" enables us to recognize that this multiordinal term refers to the combination of our
content programs (strategies) that we use in life as we play out our roles and from our style of
structuring information (the meta-programs, meta-states).1
Regarding these levels of functioning (i.e., content programs and meta-programs), any behavior or
response style that we perpetuate will eventually drop out of conscious awareness and begin to
operate unconsciously. If this happens for conscious content programs like typing, driving a car,
playing ball, expressing social skills, looking friendly, reading, etc., how much more does it occur for
the more unconscious meta-programs? And meta-level unconsciousness increases the power and
stability of these programs.
When we have lots and lots of "characteristic ways of functioning and thinking" operating at an
unconscious level, we experience them as solid, real, and enduring. It works because we don’t
question them. We assume them. We then experience our "personality" as solid and not susceptible to
change. So inasmuch as they lie close to how we experience our "temperamental" nature (a
nominalization that refers to our "temper" of mind or mental style) typically we feel tempted to think
of them as permanently "built in." Yet this other term, "temperament," simply refers to the "makeup"
(or temper) of mind, "the peculiar or distinguishing mental or physical character" of it.
Meta-Processing Levels
Early in my trainings with Richard Bandler, I learned that we create our metaprograms by making a
meta-move to the content of our thinking (see The Spirit of NLP, 2000). In this way we create these
meta-levels. In modeling of metaprograms, I originally sorted them into five categories of processing:
mental, emotional, conative (choice), communicational, and semantic and I made each of these areas
of meta-programs an entire class of meta-programs.
These processing categories highlight the wide range of ways we can pattern or structure our
experiences. As we engage in mapping cognitively, emotionally, conatively, and conceptually or
semantically—we generate our personal "style" or modus operandi called "personality.”2
Our learned and cultivated style of patterning becomes our meta-level reality which we apply to all
of our encounters (Figure 4:1). We apply our habituated style so that it becomes our way of operating
in the world and our way of moving through life. Consequently, this generates the stable phenomenon
of our "personality." At this level it exists as the way we have learned to typically structure our
perceptions and responses.
The Source of Meta-Programs
If meta-programs operate at a meta-level, at a level higher to our primary thinking-and-feeling about
things in the world, it shouldn’t surprise us that they are related to meta-states. But how? What’s the
relationship between meta-states and meta-programs?
Because these processes occur at a level above the primary level of our everyday content thinking
and responding, they relate to the structure of perceiving itself, not content. Meta-programs are the
form of the story, not the story. Yet where do these meta-levels come from? They arise as meta-states.
They are solidified meta-states, meta-states that have coalesced into muscle. As such, they have
“gotten into our eyes” and have become our way of looking at the world.
Because meta-states form the foundation of meta-programs, metaprograms result from metastates. They are meta-states that have become so habituated that they have coalesced into muscle
and have thereby “gotten into our eyes” to color our perceptions.
Figure 4:1
The “Logical Levels” of Meta-Programs
Meta-programs as perceiving patterns begin as mind-body-emotion states. They begin as a state we
repeatedly access. We then default to these states so often, or perhaps so intensely because we “had
to” (we were commanded to do that, or forbidden to go the opposite way), or because we lived in an
environment that kept evoking them. We evoked them so often that they eventually became our
primary, or only, option. Now weonlyaccess these states. In this way these states get into our muscles
to become part and parcel of our neurology. No wonder some early descriptions of meta-programs
called them “neurological sorts.”
A Prototype Meta-Program Creation
It does not take a lot to imagine how this takes place. Imagine growing up in a home where we are
told to “get the big picture.” Or, what if that was the style of thinking most often demonstrated by our
parents. Or, what if we experienced humiliation or insult if we got too involved in details. Given
these contexts, it would be easy and natural to learn to think and process information in terms of the
big picture, globally, rather than specific details.
The opposite could just as equally occur. We may have been repeatedly instructed, “Pay attention to
the details!” If so, we would learn and practice zooming in on the most minute specifications. And, if
we did that month after month, year after year, such thinking would inevitably induce us into either a
detailed state of mind, and so we will feel. And if it works, if it succeeds in helping us get on in life,
then we willvaluethat way of thinking. After awhile, we might even draw the conclusion that, “I’m
that kind of a person; I naturally sort for details.”
As a prototype, this describes how a way of thinking, and the holistic mind-bodyemotion state it
creates, becomes a meta-state. We use it, default to it, let it become our way of thinking and feeling,
and eventually use it reflectively in all of our thinking. It then becomes our perceptual pattern or metaprogram.
The Meta-Stating Dynamic
This understanding of how meta-programs arise gives us a model for thinking about what happens to
a meta-state in the process. As we activate the reflexivity mechanism of mind so that we continually
bring thoughts-and-feelings to reflect back onto our thinking, we construct state-about-state structures.
It is reflective thinking that operates at the core of our ability to make meta-moves to higher logical
levels with our thoughts-and-emotions. As we reflexively think about our thoughts, this conceptually
moves us up to higher levels so that we keep layering meta-level of thoughts-and-feelings onto
thoughts-and-feelings.
Yet it doesn’t stay layered in the way this metaphor suggests. Unlike an onion with stable layers or a
set of Russian Dolls embedded within each other, mindemotion states are dynamic. They move. As
we run our neuro-pathways in a particular way (matching/ mismatching; options/ procedures; global/
specific, etc.) using our nervous system in these ways of processing information habituates into a fluid
state. These higher levels coalesce into the lower levels. They merge into them. Eventually, all we
have left isa perceptual frame-of-referencethat’s a rich and full perception. The testuring by the
higher state generates a dynamic way of seeing. It now stabilizes as the state by which we see the
world. It is in this way that our meta-states solidify into meta-programs.
Suppose a person over-uses the meta-state of global thinking while at the same time he de-emphasizes
detailed, specific thinking. As this particular thinking and perceiving pattern (a meta-program) is
operating, it is also a state of consciousness (a meta-state). We could describe the person as being in
a global state. We could say the person is accessing thoughts-and-emotions of a global state. We
could say that he has stepped into a state or position of being a visionary, seeing the big picture, and
operating from a philosophical stance. We could just as well describe him as operating from the
global meta-program.
If we then want to strengthen that meta-program, we only need to bring value to it. When webelievein
the importance of the global perspective, then we outframe it with value. We could also construct this
meta-program by bringing it upon itself (global about global), joyful about global thinking, fearful to
get too specific, dislike or disgust about details, etc. There are a great many ways we could construct
the meta-program out of various meta-states.
Repeating any meta-state structure over and over eventually creates a habituated meta-state that gives
us a meta-program. Sometimes these meta-structures generate a new category—agestalt state. In the
first Meta-State books, I describe these as a “canopy of consciousness.” I use this phrase and
metaphor as one way to talk about how a meta-state can so completely engulf all of our other states so
that it creates the mental atmosphere within which we live.
Metaphorically, living within a pervasive meta-state is like living within an atmosphere. The
atmosphere not only filters everything and determines how we color our world, it also operates at a
level outside-of-normal awareness. Living in such an atmosphere we hardly notice how the
atmosphere filters all incoming information and outgoing perceptions, how it colors our
understandings, experiences, memories, anticipations, etc. As a canopy of consciousness, it becomes
the very fabric of our mental and emotional life.
More recently, I have shifted metaphors, as we have shifted from canopy to Matrixto describe the
idea of meta-states as embedded frames within frames, and the overall configuration as the Matrix of
our Frames (Frame Games, 2000). Because meta-programs arise from meta-states, we can think of
meta-programs as coalesced or solidified meta-states. Therefore the more we value, believe in,
appreciate, find benefits in, and identify with the meta-state, the more we create driver metaprograms.
Meta-Stating Driver Meta-Programs
In a driver meta-program the state-dependency of the meta-state governs how we perceive, sort, and
process information as our default style. It becomes our “way of being” in the world. It is our way to
do “personality.” We do personality because personality is not a “thing,” but a set of processes. This
puts the process front and center making it more fluid and easy to transform an experience. In a driver
meta-program we have our primary states embedded inside of a larger context that is made up of the
meta-states which form the meta-program.
Consider when the meta-program of mis-matching becomes a driver. Here we have the cognitive
style of perceiving, sorting for what’s different, embedded inside of higher states. The person
undoubtedly believes that doing this is important and valuable. It’s a way to “be oneself,” to “think
one’s own thoughts,” to “not be controlled,” to “not be told what to do or think,” etc. It’s probably
embedded in other higher frames: this is who I am; I have to do this; memories of parents or teachers
forcing me to do things their way shows what happens when you just give in and compromise, etc.
While modeling any particular person driven for mis-matching will provide different structures for
this gestalt, the basic principle is the same. Within every meta-program we find layered meta-states
within even higher meta-states that support, validate, and give the structure meaning. In Meta-States
we say that there are always “frames by implication.” That is, whatever state we apply to another
state and so layer level upon level, there are multiple implied frames that we have not made explicit,
but just assume.
Put all of this together and we have meta-state structures that grow into metaprograms and into
canopies or maxtrices of consciousness. Together as a synergistic force, they create a pervasive
psychological force that pervades all facets of our lives. They define and construct meta-level
structures of "reality" for us.
Meta-Stating to Create Perceptual Filters
Did you get all of that? Yes, we know that was pretty heady, so in the next chapter we will continue to
sort it out. For now, here’s a practical application. We will do it with a state that is typically
considered a meta-program, and an important one, Internal Reference (Authority Source metaprogram, #24).
Let’s begin with the state of internal reference. This means that you look inside your own mind,
emotions, voice, and behaviors to make up your mind about something. We are not born that way. We
are born without any of those discriminations. We are born without any sense of self or other, any
sense of boundaries or distinctions. We are born undifferentiated. So at first, everything was just one
thing. Then we began to open our eyes and use our senses to notice differences and eventually to
differentiate ourselves from mother, family, home, etc. It’s the way we grow, individualize, and
become an autonomous human being. We learn that our thoughts are ours; our emotions are our own;
so with our movements and words.
Now imagine what would happen if you embedded all of your states with internal reference.
Suppose that you began here, what do I think about this or that? What do I feel? What do I say? What
do I want to do? Can do? Suppose you brought this state of internal referencing from yourself, from
your values and visions, from your opinions and choices and applied it to every primary experience,
thought, emotion, and behavior you experience? What if you embedded every belief about yourself,
others, the world, your identity, mission in life, etc. in this kind of self-referencing?
Once internal referencing becomes our highest frame of reference, our highest meta-state, and metaprogram, it engulfs all of life. It engulfs our sense of being responsible, owning our choices, and
running our own brain. Then it becomes the very fabric of our reality. Subsequently this would make
blaming others increasingly difficult. Passivity, helplessness, and reactivity would also become
increasingly foreign. Ownership of our own responses would then become the core of our perceptual
filters for thinking and feeling. It would become one of our more permanent character traits, belief
systems, and dispositional styles for how we orient ourselves in the world.
Can we Consciously Install Meta-Programs?
Yes. Knowing where meta-programs come from empowers us to intentionally design meta-programs
that give us a mental-and-emotional edge regarding a given expertise. We can install it first as a metastate, then repeat it, and meta-state it with value, belief, decision, etc. until it becomes a metaprogram. Using metastates in this way enables us to establish higher frames to enhance any
experience. In this way we can choose higher canopies or matrices and incorporate them as part of
the very structure of our consciousness. By habituating our states and meta-states at higher “logical
levels,” we no longer have to consciously access a particular frame of mind. We can make that
mindset an intimate part of the resource states that make up the very mental-emotional and conceptual
atmosphere in which we live. Because we never leave it, we do not have to go there to get it. It
automatically operates as our consistent and structured way of being in the world. It operates as a part
of our structure of consciousness, as how we naturally see, hear, feel, and smell— a meta-program.
We can even do this for states of mind that are not now considered metaprograms. For example,
suppose you never had to access the state of respect for people, personal confidence, thoughtfulness
of others, mindfulness of mapmaking, etc.? Suppose you made any of these (or any other resourceful
state) part of your meta-program canopy of consciousness? How would that change things for you?
How much more resourceful would you be then?
Doing this takes a conceptual construct and feeling and installs it as a frame of mind that we can wake
up in for the rest of our lives. It would then govern all of our thinking-and-emoting, all of our emoting,
languaging, and responding. Or, we could make it sensitive to various contextual cues so that it would
only operate under certain conditions. It could even govern our sense of identity. It would then
become who I am, and who I am becoming. This explains the significance and power of these metalevel processes and how they operate as the largest structures of subjective experience.
Developing effective ways of thinking and installing them as our default programs, showcases the
value of meta-programs. Now we can incorporate effective perceptual patterns in our nervous system
as our intuitive way of moving through the world. As we put meta-states into muscle memory, our
higher levels of mind become our felt and embodied perceptions. This model of meta-programs
enables us to do this with conscious intentionality. We can design and install new meta-programs
from the states of mind that we discover are most useful, practical, powerful, and resourceful in
running our own brains. Isn’t this human design engineering with meta-programs at its best?
Figure 4:2
Canopies of Consciousness or Matrix of Meta-Programs
Identifying Meta-Program Canopies
Our nature as a symbolic class of life with reflexive consciousness endows us with numerous metastates, meta-programs, canopies of consciousness, and gestalt states. We never leave home without
them.
C Do you know yours?
C How easily can you identify those in others?
Self-reflexive consciousness means we can do no other than build these structures of “personality.”
Whenever we have a thought or feeling, we immediatelyreflect back on that experience and so
develop meta-thought-and-feeling states.
If this is the structure of human thinking and feeling, then our challenge is making sure we are using it
effectively, ecologically, and powerfully. Problems arise depending on the content that we run
through this structure of reflexivity. Typically, most of us do not develop meta-states / meta-programs
of appreciation, acceptance, respect, dignity, or other resources. More typically, we build metastates
of contempt, blame, fear, anger, dread, skepticism, pessimism, etc., do we not? As self-reflexive
people we have already generated many thoughts-aboutour-thoughts structures to habitually create
meta-states of pain, what we call dragon states. Given this, our first task is to find these
constructions and evaluate them for ecology. After detection we can then decide which ones to
eliminate, transform, update, or build.
Realizing how meta-states naturally grow into meta-programs explains the difficulty we often
experience with meta-level constructions. Imagine attempting to help someone who operates out of a
primary state embedded in a matrix canopy of pessimism. With such a person, everything you say and
do to help gets filtered by the person through a filter of pessimism.
“That won’t work!”
“You’re too positive, you don’t think about the real world!”
How could we offer any message that might effect a positive change? In this case, all of the
optimistic, hopeful, and encouraging suggestions that we offer at the primary level will be distorted
and filtered out through the person’s metapessimism.
If dealing with someone in a primary state of pessimism gives us enough difficulty getting through,
and if attempting to interrupt that state of mind to shake someone out of that state would be challenging
enough, how much more when the pessimism occurs at a meta-level? What if someone has a metaprogram of pessimism? State dependent learning, memory, perception, etc. will contaminate things
pretty severely at the primary level. How much more will it contaminate things when we operate from
a meta-state of pessimism, when we have a whole matrix of frames (or meta-states) that operate as a
canopy of consciousness? In such a structure, the pessimism would be pervasive and thick as a set of
filters. As a result, we experience the person as "thick-headed" and hard to get through.
Yet we can get through. We can recognize the person’s meta-program mapping and how it has become
stabilized as a pervasive meta-state. Such awareness alerts us to “the dragon state” and to use various
Dragon Slaying and Taming skills. Even though the thinking has become stabilized at meta-levels as
seemingly permanent and static structures—all of it still represents mental mappingand has to be
constantly refreshed by use in order to not deteriorate.3
Expanding and Changing Meta-Programs
C Can meta-programs be changed?
C Can we switch our own or another’s meta-programs around? C Can we specify and install certain
meta-programs for particular contexts?
You bet they can! As ways of processing information,meta-programs are learned as meta-level
processes. They are simply thinking patterns that we have elevated to a meta-level to structure our
awareness, that’s all. This description prescribes nothing about how we have to structure thinking,
only how we have or do format our thinking.
As a dynamic, on-going process of patterning and structuring our thoughts-andemotions, we can
always alter our meta-program patterning. It may take some time and trouble. It may take a skilled
practitioner to coach the process, but it can be done.4 With a modicum of cognitive or ego strength,
we can consciously design the meta-programs that we want in any given context. Meta-programs that
have become a part of our neurology and in our muscles sometimes require a lot of determination and
persistence to alter. Checking with a person’s willingness to change, motivation, and permission
typically makes the transformation more effective.
In his work on changing belief systems, Robert Dilts (1990) uses both a metaposition and time-lines
to change meta-programs. Robert uses a process that essentially invites a person to go back to an
earlier experience in time when context evoked a decision to adapt a certain meta-program or
perceptual filter. Then from that meta-position a person can access new resources and beliefs. Why is
that? Because the meta-position above the meta-program creates the mentaland-emotional spacefor
making changes to our meta-programs. When we return to this subject of changing meta-programs in
chapter eleven, we will present six patterns to do precisely that.
Meta-Programs in Modeling
This description of the model of meta-programs provides insight about the role these processes play
in any and every strategy. In detecting and eliciting a full description of the sequence of
representational steps of a strategy—the meta-level distinctions of the meta-programs inevitably
plays a crucial role. To not know, detect, or discover the governing meta-programs of an expert
effectively prevents us from discovering his or her critical elements. We have to go meta to the
metaprograms to fully model the structure of expertise.
Frequently, the meta-programming of consciousness governs a strategy of excellence. It explains what
and how a sequence of representations becomes a model that provides us instructions for replicating
a given expertise. Knowing that a person makes an internal picturewithout knowing its size (Scale,
#3, global or specific) or if a person uses this internal picture to compare with the similarity or the
difference (Relationship Comparison, #4) of a remembered picture—prevents us from knowing many
of the “differences that make a difference” in a strategy.
Summary
C We not only think, we also create thinking p a t t e r n s — m e t a p r o g r a m s . W e formulate
these thinking We have to go meta to the metaprograms to fully model the structure of expertise.
styles at a higher “logical level” to our conscious processing of information. No wonder these
patterning styles are mostly outside (or above) our conscious awareness. Yet they are not
inaccessible to consciousness.
C Meta-programs arise as habituated meta-states that have solidified over time. Understanding how
we create our meta-programs gives us the structural key for how we can change them.
C Above and beyond the traditional list of Meta-Programs (which only presents them as one level
above content) there are programs meta to those. These are even higher programs that run our other
mental programs.
C Knowing the structuring of meta-programs enables us to both model and design engineer human
excellence in communicating, confrontation, understanding, etc.
End Notes:
1. In the book The Structure of Personality: Modeling “Personality” Using NLP and NeuroSemantics (2001, Hall, Bodenhamer, Bolstad, and Hamblett), we used metaprograms as one of the
sets of distinctions to diagnose and understand how personality can be ordered and disordered.
2. We used that format in the first edition of this book.
3. For more about dragon taming, slaying, and or transforming, see Dragon Slaying: Dragons to
Princes, 2000.
4. For a model describing how we can facilitate change, see Meta-Coaching, Vol. I: Coaching
Change.
PART II
PRESENTING
THE
META-PROGRAMS
Chapter 5
CLASSIFYING AND LEARNING
META-PROGRAMS
Developing a Template for Meta-Programs
"There is no definitive list, nor is there general agreement on criteria with which to compile such
a list." O'Connor and McDermott (1995)
C How shall we organize the meta-programs so they are easy to learn, remember, and use?
C How can we format them so that we can use them in the most natural way effortlessly?
C What kind of a template can we set up to help with being able to detect meta-programs?
C How do we decide on what to include as a “meta-program?”
When the Meta-Programs model was first presented, there were only nine. Then the list grew to
fourteen. At first there was no particular order or structure, just a list. Coming from the cognitivebehavioral sciences, I distinguished the metaprograms using the traditional categories of thinking
(mental), feeling (emotional), choosing (conation), and responding in word and deed
(communicational). To that I added another category, conceptual. This list was first published in The
Spirit of NLP as well as in the first edition of Figuring Out People.
Those five categories gave us five classes of distinctions which we used in the first edition. We found
this classification for learning and using meta-programs to be very useful. Over the years, however, I
became discontented with that way of mapping the meta-programs. In an effort to simplify them, I
revised the classification to the following four categories for this edition.
C Mental: thinking, representing, and conceptualizing. C Emotional and social: somatic feelings and
social feelings. C Conation: choosing, willing, deciding.
C Semantic or conceptual: creating categories of meaning.
The History of Meta-Program Formatting
If you read the literature of NLP, you will find several different structural formats for meta-programs.
Most simply made a list of them and so the list itself was the way the meta-programs was presented
and formatted. This was sufficient when there was a small number of recognized meta-programs.
James and Woodsmall (1988) structured them from simple to complex, an useful format. Wyatt
Woodsmall studied the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and extensively used that instrument.
Isabel Briggs Myers developed the MBTI by taking those four distinctions from the work of Carl
Jung. At the time, numerous NLP people were mapping experience into three areas: internal states
(IS), internal processing of information (IP), and external behavior (EB). For Woodsmall, this
corresponded to the categories of Introvert—Extrovert, Sensor—Intuitor, Thinker—Feeler, and
Judger—Perceiver.
Then, assuming that they could frame or map these four psychological distinctions as moving from
simple to complex meta-programs, they set forth this as their format. While there’s no research
evidence for this, it remains a viable construction that you may want to play around with as you learn
and use the meta-programs. James and Woodsmall (1988) believe that the relationship, direction,
attention direction, and frame of reference meta-programs function as "the most important metaprograms in predicting how a person will act and react.”
Rodger Bailey and Ross Stewart structured them in the format of a Personality Profile (the LAB
Profile), thereby giving them a useful and practical application. In the LAB profile, which Shelle
Rose Charvet followed, Bailey formatted metaprograms in two categories: motivation traits (those
people use to become and stay motivated in a given context) and working traits (the internal mental
processing that a person uses for thinking).
Jay Arthur (1993/ 2002) reworked nine meta-programs giving them new labels and a focus on
motivation, especially in the context of business. He then honed in on five motivational mind-sets and
used them to identify “irresistible influencing language.” Along the way, he developed an extensive
profile, “The Motivation Profile” that’s one of the best in NLP.
Sid Jacobson (1996) in a work on moving from problem states to solution states, organized 15 metaprograms into three categories: convincers, motivators, and thinking style. WhileMeta-programs map he
developed that format entirely apart from ourmeta-level functions. model, this way of classifying meta-programs fits
in very nicely with the format in Figuring Out People. We also begin with the thinking style metaprograms, then move to the emotional or motivators, and then on to the convincers, or what we call
the conation.
With the meta-level analysis of the meta-programs in Figuring Out People, we have used the four
categories that make up a state of consciousness, which reflects the essential human powers. If we
think of meta-programs as perceptual filters, then we human beings filter the events, people, and
information in our lives mentally, emotionally, conatively, and semantically. As we expanded the list
of meta-programs, we took them from several resources: the cognitive-behavioral psychology,
perceptual and gestalt psychology, and developmental psychology.
In using this cognitive-behavioral format, we are not negating or discounting the value or usefulness
of other meta-program formats. Not at all. As with any way of mapping things, each map has its own
strengths and weaknesses. We recommend this particular methodology for handling the metaprograms simply because it offers a perspective about them, which leads to some useful sets of
patterns.
How did we decide on what to include as a meta-program? What criteria did we use in determining
whether to include or exclude a given patterning format? We have essentially used the cognitive
psychology question of whether "mind" can sort or pattern the stimuli of the world in a given way and
whether this style seems fairly typical for human beings.
C Does this distinction describe a way that people do process, sort, and
perceive information?
C Does this distinction describe a mental, emotional, volitional, or semantic response to information?
C Does this distinction typically identify a way that people structure their internal mental mapping?
C Does this pattern assist us in understanding the different formats or frames that people use in sorting
and perceiving?
Meta-Patterning Levels
Because these processes occur at a level above the primary level of everyday life where we process
content, they concern the structure of perceiving itself. Metaprograms map meta-level functions.
The categories in Figure 5:1 suggest that we have a wide range of ways to pattern or structure our
experience of the world. As we engage in mapping cognitively, emotionally, conatively, and
conceptually or semantically, we generate our personal style or “personality.”
Figure 5:1
The Meta-Program Classification in Figuring Out People
In presenting the meta-programs in the following chapters, we present each metaprogram to include
the following features:
C Description: We first offer a brief description of each meta-program
pattern to present its distinctions. We include some source references for further reading.
C Elicitation questions. Next we offer elicitation questions. These questions provide some ideas
about how you can elicit and detect the meta-program in a person’s language and behavior.
C Identification. This section details special facets and significant factors of the meta-program. In
our trainings we devote lots of time for multiple examples, demonstrations, and experiential activities
so participants can develop skills in recognizing and utilizing such.
C Languaging: Next we offer some linguistic cues and markers that identify the meta-program, so we
can recognize it in the way we talk. These are offered as way of training your intuitions to learn to
detect meta-programs in language. We can then pace with meta-programs as we match another
person’s perceptual style to meet the person as his or her model of the world.
C Contexts of Origin. With every meta-program we have sought to look at the nature—nurture
question. To what extent is any particular metaprogram learned and to what extent is it hard wired
into our genetics or neurology?
C Self-Analysis. We conclude each meta-program with a little summary for your own self-awareness
and analysis. We recommend that you begin with yourself to first become fully acquainted with your
own metaprograms. Knowing them enables you to then take them into account as you “read” those of
others.
Figure 5:2
Guidelines to Support Learning Meta-Programs
How do we learn meta-programs? With the dizzying set of dimensions and distinctions set forth here,
what guidelines offer insight as we begin detecting, using, and working with meta-programs? In
preparing for your first “readings,” we offer some basic guidelines and ideas for learning and
developing skill with the meta-programs.1
1) Look for the general direction that the meta-program creates. How do meta-programs differ
from beliefs or are they beliefs? While there are beliefs within meta-programs, as perceptual filters
they are more general than beliefs. Beliefs involve specific content whereas meta-programs direct or
focus attention in a certain way. In this way meta-programs describe a general tendency regarding
how we select and channel our awareness about information, data that we later form into beliefs.
What is the general attention of the meta-program?
2) Look for the contextual dependency of the meta-programs.
The way we think-feel differs according to context. We sort for different things when we go to the
movies, go out for dinner, go to work, on holiday, when arguing, etc. In one context of life we may
perceiveand operate in a very internal way (i.e., when tired, down, upset), while very external in
another (i.e., at work, at a dance, a birthday party). The relevance of context of meta-programs calls
on us to look for the areas where they will operate consistently and where they are more variable.
Generally we can expect meta-program consistency in numerous areas. When that’s the case, the
meta-program governs the person’s general style of thinking and emoting, speaking, and behaving.
Simply inquire about the context within which a person uses a given meta-program, and the contexts
wherein it is not used.
Meta-programs depend on the cultural contexts. A style of sorting can habitualize in a whole group of
people, so that certain meta-programs may predominate for various racial, religious, familial, or
political groups. This means that the percentages of people in a given country, society, area,
generation, economy, educational institution, etc. may favor a certain meta-program style for thinking,
emoting, etc. As we examine meta-programs, we will want to take this into consideration. Does this
thinking-emoting structuring style typically characterize any larger groups with whom this person
associates?2
For example, the fundamental mindset, whether political or religious fundamentalism, operates from a
perceptual category sort of black-and-white thinking. An extreme “liberal” will similarly use that
kind of thinking. Moderates, by definition, operate somewhere in the middle and hence sort by using
continuum thinking.
3) Identify the meta-program’s continuum.
With almost any way of thinking and perceiving, we can conceptualize the opposite. Doing so gives
us a continuum with two poles.
C As such we can consider the degree or extent of a meta-program: how far
to one end of the continuum are we?
C How much flexibility of consciousness do we have to move between the polar ends?
C How rigid or stuck are we at one end or the other?
C Is our pattern first at one end and then the other?
To process and perceive information on one end or the other, and to be limited to that describes what
we call a driver meta-program. While some people perceive in a polarized way with one to several
meta-programs, most people fall somewhere in between on the continua. Look for this and ask degree
questions. C To what extent? How much?
4) Look for state dependency in meta-programs.
Our use of meta-programs greatly depend upon our mental-emotional state at a given time. A metaprogram can differ according to our internal state (internal context), the situation (external) in which
we find ourselves, and the amount of stress we experience. As we look for this, we can ask about a
person's state. C How do we perceive in a stressful state versus a calm and relaxed one? C How do
we think-feel when in a social group versus working alone? C When resourceful or unresourceful?
Typically, most people in a stressful situation will step into it and associate into all of the emotions of
stress. When this happens, count on the person taking things personal and engaging in other cognitive
distortions such as Awfulizing, Catastrophizing, Blaming, etc. Stepping into a state of stress
necessitates sending “danger” and/or “overload” messages to the brain and activating the fight/flight
mechanism. When that happens, the autonomic nervous system goes into high activation of defense.
Yet in most modern situations, this response pattern does not serve us well. This results if w use that
as our meta-program. Knowing how to “read” this provides us with the ability to choose to step back
and to invite others to step out of a situation as well.
5) Refuse to moralize about meta-programs.
Meta-programs do not have anything to do with morality (i.e., correct or incorrect, good or bad, right
or wrong). There is no ethically correct way to filter information. From beginning to end, a metaprogram is just a system of information processing. Obviously some meta-programs, in certain
contexts, will work more productively than others. Yet these styles provide choices about how to
process information and respond. They do not prescribe "the way things are," much less "the way
things should be."
As sets of distinctions we can make about information, meta-programs are not true or false, but useful
or not useful in any given context and time. The human brain works in a far too many marvelously
complex ways to neatly categorize its functioning in moral terms. Morality occurs at the point of
action and behavior. Meta-programs more simply provide us a useful tool for thinking about
information processing and perceiving. Nor are meta-programs to be used as a new way to label
people. If these distinctions enable us to more productively understand ourselves and others, then they
have value.
6) Look for consistency rather than permanence.
Structuring information at a meta-level endows our sense of self and reality with a consistency. How?
It does this by creating ongoing coherent patterns. Though flexible and alterable, meta-programs give
us a sense of stability. It is this which creates the pseudo-sense of having an unchangeable personality
or temperament. If we habitually over-use a meta-program (options, procedures, matching or
mismatching, etc.) the repetition will create a habit. And of course, habits, for all the bad press they
get, do keep our behaviors consistently regular.
So with our meta-habits of mind. We inevitably follow patterns in how we process and code
information. This form of patterning gives us a way to discover the patterned ways people think.
7) Look for meta-programs changing over contexts and time.
As we grow and mature, the way we pattern our thinking in creating and finding meaning changes.
These are not permanent or static traits, but dynamic states. For example, during a healthy maturation
from a child to an adult experience in life, we can expect that a person will change from attending
from Others to Self (Authority Source, #23).
Lloyd (1989) devoted his doctoral research to this subject. His dissertation, "The Impact of RoleExpectation Cognitions upon exploration into the trait hypothesis behind psychometric tests (i.e.,
Taylor-Johnson Temperamental Analysis, Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, etc.). He tested the trait
theory presupposition that the way a person "is" will not change over the years and would not change
if you ask a person to take the test while in different states. Yet the test-taking experiments showed the
very opposite. People's scores move all over the place as they imagined taking the test as "my
eighteen year old self," "as my current self," "as myself at sixty," etc. In other words, the state (even
accessed in imagination) determined the “trait” that they created and experienced. State is that
powerful in influencing how we perceive the world.
Test-Taking," describes his the construction of several
In summary, since meta-programs describe our mental-emotional categories of internal patterning,
they determine what information we will use and how we will formulate both our world view and
self-view. Knowing this empowers us to work with others calmly, thoughtfully, respectfully, and
patiently. There is no longer any need to take offense or get angry about someone's meta-programs.
They are just meta-programs and in the appropriate context, they are always useful. Knowing this
assists us in more accurately predicting the way another person will act, because people will be
consistent.
Yet best of all, awareness that these meta-programs are neither things nor permanent traits enables us
not to put people into conceptual boxes. We can now more empathically understand others as we
relate. People "are" not their metaprograms, they merely express styles of thinking and emoting in
various contexts at various times and can sometimes develop some really entrenched habits of mindand-emotion that sabotage their best efforts and make them difficult to get along with.
The Art of Learning Meta-Programs
1) Learn them one at a time.
An easy way to overwhelm yourself is to look at thefull list of meta-programs and try to learn them
all at once. We know several people who have attempted that to their own dismay. So we do not
recommend that. Instead, aim to learn them one at a time. We have provided several diagrams to
assist in organizing thinking and remembering them. We have also designed a sorting grid
(Appendices D and E) to assist learning. Begin by using the meta-programs as a tool for
psychologically profiling yourself and then others that you know well. This will help you think about
these processing patterns. Take one meta-program at a time, practice it until you feel proficient with
it.
2) Give yourself permission to make the content/ structure distinction. Do you have permission to
step back from the content as you communicate and notice meta-programs? Many do not. If you do
not, be sure to do that. Give yourself permission to notice both content (the story) and the form of the
story. Do you have permission to do that while talking with someone? Do you fear that they will see
what you’re doing or view it as rude or uncaring? If you get that kind of internal objection, reframe it
as representing a truly caring and considerate approach because it empowers you to understand them
more fully.
3) Look for Patterns.
When you step back, look for patterns. After all, if the ways we code information and pay attention to
things both describe our model of the world and create it, then the ways we perceive fall into
predictable patterns. This enables us to look for such systematic and regular patterns in ourselves and
others. So step back and develop conscious awareness of how another is thinking and the thinking
pattern that it reflects.
4) Use lots of open-ended questions.
Use open-ended questions to encourage someone to express his or her meta-programs.
“What work experience have you found invigorating, exciting, and one of your best or even peak
experiences?”
“When you work, go on holiday, or do a project together with others—how do you prefer to go about
that?”
Using questions which invite another to indicate a typical and/or preferred way to perceive or to
direct one’s attention creates space for a person to use his or her meta-program style. Use the
elicitation questions which we have included with each meta-program for this.
5) Use lots of downtime questions.
The best kind of open question is a downtime question. It is “downtime” because it invites a person to
turn inward and to go down inside to find an answer. Such questions are valuable in eliciting metaprograms to the extent that they require one to access the information in real time. Because we do not
have information "on the tip of the tongue," there is a tendency to demonstrate the meta-program as a
person accesses the information.
6) Elicit fully associated states.
To detect meta-programs, we will need to get a person into state and so experience the subject and
not just talk about it. It is a mistake to elicit metaprograms when a person is not fully accessing an
experience, but is just talking about it. The information will be less accurate and may only be the
person’s conscious ideas about it and not how he or she actually perceives.
7) Prioritize the meta-programs and look for the drivers.
Meta-programs do not carry the same weight of importance in any given context, but will differ
according to how a person uses and values them. Inidentifying the meta-programs, prioritize them in
terms of importance to the person in the given context. Identify the meta-programs which seem the
most important and impactful. These are typically the person’s favorite meta-programs or those
presupposed by the experience. Keep asking yourself as you step back from the overall context,
"What meta-programs seem to be exercising the most significance for this person?"
8) Practice writing pacing statements.
When you feel ready to use the information that you gather, practice writing pacing statements to
match that person’s processing style. This will significantly increase your communication skills and
expand your flexibility.
For example, if the person strongly sorts internally (Authority Source metaprogram, #24) and
mismatches with counter-examples (Relationship metaprogram of mismatching with polarity
responses, #4), he will probably feel inclined to challenge you with “prove-it-to me” statements. This
can spiral into a pointless matching of wits. Instead of going in that direction, counter that approach
with a pacing statement.
"While you are undoubtedly excellent at knowing your needs so that only you can truly decide what's
ultimately right, so whilehere are a few ideas, you probably already know them or they don’t really
contribute to your decision.”
Pacing the meta-programs which structure his thinking and emoting will fit his style and validate his
values. Then, instead of fighting his style of thinking and deciding, we utilize it.
With a person who encodes things visually (Representational meta-program, #1) and thinks globally
in terms of information size (Scale, #3), keep the details at a minimum and focus on describing future
possibilities in general terms. This will allow the person to shape it into his or her own image. The
person will also feel respected because you are not boring her with details and in doing so,
patronizing.
"With your great eye you can see how you could use this in your business to improve production."
By learning to match another’s meta-program patterns, we avoid swimming against the current of a
person's biases and processing inclinations. This puts a turbo charger to our communication skills and
enriches our ability to influence. Obviously, we will want to first get acquainted with our own metaprograms. This will deepen our own understanding of how we operate at this psychological level and
enrich our appreciation for the value of meta-programs. Then we will know the right way to sell
ourselves on something we want which provides a custom-made self-motivation program that will
perfectly fit our own personality.
9) Play the Meta-Detective Game.
Finally, you can usethe Meta-Detective Game™ to learn to detect and use metaprograms. As of
2005, this is the only Meta-Program board game available and offers a fun and playful way to learn
the meta-program distinctions, how to recognize them in action, and how to use them in pacing
someone to create rapport (see Appendix G for a description of the game).
Beginning to Figure Out People
Given all of this, as you prepare for your first “readings,” what else do you need? What resources
will help you develop your people-reading skills using metaprograms?
1) The state and experience of sensory awareness.
Unless you have your eyes and ears open to the input that others offer, you will miss a great many of
the cues and indicators. The first resource is being in a sensory awareness state. This means “losing
our (meta) mind and coming to our senses.” It means putting all of your preoccupying thoughts,
emotions, intentions, agendas, etc. on hold while you shift your awareness to the raw data before you.
The more skill you develop in sensory awareness and attentive listening, the quicker and greater will
your skills develop in figuring out people.
2) A clear awareness between descriptive and evaluative.
The distinction between the brute empirical facts that we candescribein sensoryspecific terms and the
meta-facts that we create through our meaning attribution and evaluation offers another critical skill. It
is also one of the most fundamental meta-programs (Epistemological, #2). This distinction prevents
us from "reading" others through our patterns and filters. As we distinguish between what we actually
see, hear, sense in sensory awareness (description) and between the values and meanings (which
come from memories, values, traumas, beliefs (evaluative), we can read without projecting and mindreading. To develop and refine this, continually ask yourself:
C What are the brute empirical facts?
C What does this descriptive element (language, gesture, behavior, emotion,
etc.) mean to me?
C To what extent is this my projection or evaluation?
C How do I know it is empirical?
Acquaintance with our own meaning system of evaluations gives us a “heads up” about what we may
be projecting rather than detecting. It is precisely because all of our evaluative processing arises from
our model of the world that we need the ability to step back to content and move into a descriptive
mode.
3) Attention to linguistic markers.
Some linguistic distinctions mark or cue us as to the presence of meta-programs. Acquaintance with
these linguistic markers enables us to more easily and quickly identify the factors that mark how a
person is representing, attending, and formatting experience. Linguistic markers can help us gain
insight into a person's operating model of the world. Most of the meta-programs have cue words that
can alert us. For example, the Representational meta-program (#1) distinguishes visual words (see,
look, color, etc.), from kinesthetic, feeling, and sensation words (feel, heavy, smooth, impact, etc.),
and auditory or sound terms (hear, rings a bell, sounds right, etc.).
4) Comprehensive knowledge of the meta-programs.
The list of meta-programs provides us a central key to our "reading" in our effort to figure out people.
These lists enable us to organize the input offered us for making sense of them. By learning, drilling,
memorizing, utilizing, and practicing them until they become second nature, we make them our
framework. As we do this until they become part and parcel of our own processing, we train them to
become our intuitions. As one learns how to make auditory discriminations to appreciate music and
visual discriminations to appreciate art, so we must train our senses to note discreet meta-program
distinctions.
5) Clean kinesthetic channels.
One of our tools for reading people involves the felt impact that another's words, gestures, and
behaviors make on us. We begin to learn how to utilize this capacity as we put ourselves into a calm
state wherein we can cleanly note the impressions which we receive that stir our senses and
emotions. Mere kinesthetic awareness is not enough. We must have kinesthetic channels
uncontaminated by our own emotions, emotional filters, and predispositions.
Generally when people talk about taking “a feeling approach” to others, they refer to feeling sensitive
to their own feelings, not the other’s. The danger is that this becomes yet another way to mind-read
and project. The emotions they think they hear, see, and feel in others are actually their own and arise
from within. The ability to distinguish between what is received as outside input and what’s
generated within distinguishes an effective communicator from a poor one.
6) The Step Back Skill to go Meta.
It is by stepping back to a higher or meta-level to another person's meta-programs, that you are able to
detect processing styles. Set the enquiry inside yourself: C What does this way of talking, acting,
emoting, etc. tell me about this
person's operational meta-programs in this context?
C What does this trigger in me or in my meta-programs?
C What is the structure or form of this story or content?
7) The skill of keeping the "reading" tentative.
When “reading” someone in attempting to figure out the processing form and style, present your
conclusions respectfully by keeping your conclusions and interpretations tentative. The truth is, you
do not know. At best, you are making informed and studied guesses based on the data in front of you.
Ultimately, only the person truly knows—and more often than not, even he or she doesn’t know. In
learning to read a person, get into the habit of asking the person about his or her experience and what
they are thinking, emoting, choosing, etc. to check your guesses. Inviting more information and testing
it against the person's responses, your guesses will become more well informed and accurate.
Summary
C Meta-programs began as a list, a list of processing distinctions and eventually Meta-Programs
became a more complete model describing and mapping the many distinctions that influence our
perceptual lens. Today, the list of meta-programs has become more encyclopedic and offers a coach,
manager, trainer, or modeler many distinctions.
C There’s an art in learning to detect and recognize meta-programs as well as the best states. As you
begin to prepare for your first “readings,” use these as a set of guidelines for doing so respectfully.
End Notes:
1. The very best way to learn meta-programs is experientially which is why live training provides an
excellent laboratory for learning, practicing, and playing with others. This is the rationale behind the
Meta-Detective Game as well. 2. See Bateson (1972) for some early analysis of profiling British,
German, and American thinking or attending styles. Also Edward Hall (1990) and Sharvet (1997).
META-PROGRAM TEMPLATE
Chapter 6
THE COGNITIVE OR THINKING META-PROGRAMS
Meta-Programs In Thinking, Sorting, Perceiving
We begin with the cognitive or thinking meta-programs because they preeminently describe how we
perceptually filter information. Metaphorically these function as our “operational system” for
processing data and describing what and how we direct our attention. Knowing these meta-programs
gives us a clearer grasp about how a person attends to data and processes information cognitively to
create his or her mental understanding of the world. These meta-programs answer the question about
what we are attending and how—critical factors that determine our experience.
Cognition is a fancy psychological term for “thought.” Cognition refers to what and how are we
thinking. What is our cognitive style for inputting information, processing that data, and outputting it in
the form of the messages that we send to ourselves and others? While none of these cognitive metaprograms are inherently bad or toxic, they can become toxic in certain contexts and conditions. We
will note such along the way.
Ultimately “thinking” comes down to making representations as we map the things in the world
around us—making representations that encode differences or distinctions. It is our ability to make
distinctions which enables us to see and perceive critical things. Bateson went so far as to say that
"mind" represents and encodes “difference,” that difference is all that “gets onto the map” anyway.
These facets of our mental-emotional processing or meaning-making matrix describe how we have
learned to "run our brain." In this, they offer us an understanding of the thinking patterns that we use,
or could use, as we learn to more effectively "run our own brain."
THE COGNITIVE OF THINKING META-PROGRAMS:
#1. Representational:
Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Language #2. Epistemological:
Sensors — Intuitors;
#3. Scale:
Global — Specifics
#4. Relationship Comparison:
Matching — Mismatching
#5. Information Staging:
Counting — Discounting
#6. Scenario Type:
Pessimist — Optimist
#7. Classification Scale:
Either-Or — Continuum — Multi-Dimensionality #8. Nature:
Static — Systemic
Aristotelian — Non-Aristotelian
#9. Focus:
Screening — Non-screening
#10. Philosophical:
Why (Origins) — How (Solution)
#11. Communication:
Verbal — Non-Verbal
#12. Durability:
Permeable — Impermeable
#13. Causation:
Causeless, Linear, Complex, Personal, External,
Magical, Correlation
#14. Completion:
Closure — Non-Closure
#15. Information Kind:
Quantitative — Qualitative
#16. Stream of Consciousness:
Focus — Diffused
#17. Conventional:
Conformist — Non-Conformist
#18. Speed:
Deliberate and Slow — Witty and Quick
#1. Representational:
Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Language
Description: Our brains "think" via the process of re-presenting sensory data or information. In this
way "mind" processes information. We take the input from our external senses and reproduce them on
the inside so that we have the sense that we see images and pictures, hear sounds, noise, music, and
words, feel sensations and movements, and even smell and taste what our sense receptors pick up
from the outside. These sensory systems of information inputting and processing are our
representational systems. These systems make up the essence of our "thoughts” and what occurs in the
magical experience of thinking. It’s that simple; it’s that profound.
Bandler and Grinder (1975) noted that most people develop and use a favored representational
system in thinking. This explains why some people operate primarily in the visual system, others in
the auditory system, others in the kinesthetic system, and yet others in the language (or what’s called
the auditory digital system). Language is a meta-representational system.
Having a favorite representational system means that we pay more attention to that channel than the
others. Yet not everybody has a favorite system. Some have developed sufficient flexibility so they
are equally responsive to two or more systems. In addition, we may use one system for representation
and yet another system for accessing (or re-accessing stored data in our memory) as our lead system.
That is, we lead with it in accessing information and another system in representing the information.
A person may see a scene and recall it visually (using visual as lead system), but not realize it
because the person will be representing in another system, perhaps only have a feeling of such (using
the kinesthetic system). Bandler and Grinder (1976), Hall and Bodenhamer’s User’s Manual for the
Brain, Volume I. (2001).
Elicitation:
C When you think about something or learn something new, which sensory system do you prefer?
C In thinking about things, do you prefer to do so visually, auditorially, kinesthetically, or using
words?
C What kind of predicates do you tend to prefer?
Language
Visual Auditory Kinesthetic
Identification: To discover this pattern of processing, listen for the kind of predicates (verbs,
adverbs, adjectives) that a person uses. Train yourself to calibrate to the person’s eye accessing
patterns and to listen for visual, auditory and/or kinesthetic predicates (Figure 6:1). Eye accessing
cues give evidence of a person’s representational systems. Generally speaking, eyes moving up
indicates visual access, eyes moving down to the right for kinesthetic access, eyes moving
horizontally on a level plane and down to the left as auditory access.
In any given context a person may have a synesthesia or cross-over circuit. This means that a person
may see÷feel, hear÷feel, feel÷see, feel÷hear, smell÷see, taste÷hear, etc. Sometimes people hear a
harsh tone of voice and feel terror; or see red blood and feel terror. A synesthesia can be a great
resource as when we hear leaves rustling and feel relaxed, see numbers and taste our favorite foods,
hear music as we see notes on a page.
Figure 6:1
Chart of
Eye Accessing
Cues
1) Visual Representers: People who process and organize their world visually usually sit up erect,
move eyes upward when visualizing, breathe high in chest, use high tones, move quickly, and use
visual predicates (Figure 6:2). Typically visuals processors look at people and like others to look at
them when they talk. In terms of body types, many visuals appear as thin and lanky. Those who sort by
seeing sometimes need “space” so that they can see; that’s because they defocus their eyes to imagine
things out in front of them. When communicating with them, step to the side so they have room to see
what you’re saying.
2) Auditory Representers: People who process and organize their world with sounds move their eyes
from side to side when accessing information. Their respiration comes from the middle of the chest in
a regular and rhythmic way. Many will have a gift of gab and enunciate clearly, will demonstrate a
sensitivity to tones and volumes, may sub-vocalize as they think, may not look at the person talking so
that they hear better, and even may often point to their ear. In body type, they typically have a
moderate form between the skinny visual and the heavy kinesthetic, sometimes a pear-shaped body.
These processors will use more auditory predicates. Figure 6:2
Sensory Predicates Words Indicating Sensory Systems
Visual:
see, view, observe, witness, sight, spot, look, glimpse, glance, peer, peek, peep, survey, eye,
examine, inspect, gaze, stare, glare, pale, find, read, show, etc.
Auditory:
listen, hear, overhear, loud, soft, clear as a bell, sounds right, sound, quiet, ask, beg, ring, chime, yell,
scream, sing, speak, talk, shout, whisper, groan, moan, whine, buzz, call, click, etc.
Kinesthetic:
bite, burst, bend, bind, touch, feel, warm, break, fall, catch, fight, go grasp, grab, hold hit, climb, run,
struggle, throw, walk, jump, push, feel, grip, handle, sense, impact, move, etc.
Language:
lists, criteria words, rules, meta-communication forms, abstractions, nominalizations, etc.
Unspecified:
seem, be, aware, have, think, believe, allow, become, be able, have to, must, shall, know, do, make,
understand, create, contemplate, ponder, desire, appreciate, sense.
3) Kinesthetic Representers: People who process and organize things with their body sensations will
move their eyes downward when assessing and using kinesthetic predicates. They breathe deeply,
talk and move slower, and gesture a lot.
4) Language Representers: Laborde (1984) describes them as "the cerebrals" because they can "live
in their heads" and can develop "a thick filter of language between their sensory perceptions and their
experiences." Such people can live so much "in a world of words" that they have little awareness of
pictures, sounds, or sensations. At times this puts them in "computer mode" (e.g., the Satir Category,
see Appendix B). Woodsmall notes that those who prefer the metarepresentation system of language
will typically love lists, criteria words, rules, meta-communication, etc. It seems to be an
occupational hazard of going to university, reading too much, or loving to abstract. Such experiences
can send a person “into their head” so that they mentally live more and more in a “world of words.”
Languaging: Listen for specific visual, auditory, and kinesthetic predicates. The indicators for
language (auditory digital) are lists, rules, criteria, abstractions, nominalizations, and other forms of
more abstract language. To match your communication with someone, use the predicates that fit that
person’s favorite representational system. Using that person’s language will enable you to “get on
another’s channel” so that what you say will more easily make sense to him or her.
When you mismatch a person’s favorite representation system, you can expect confusion or a “Idon’t-quite-get-you” response. If you meet someone who overuses one system to the exclusion of
others, that person may respond as if amnesic and literally be unable to hear what you are saying.
Contexts of Origin: Did parents or culture put more value on seeing, hearing, feeling, or saying
words? Trauma experience involving the tabooing of one of these, "Be seen and not heard!" may lead
a person to over-value the visual channel to the auditory. Frequently, a child over-exposed to
traumatic experiences will become overly associated into the kinesthetic mode. As a result they may
even shut down their visual and auditory inputting. Training plays a key role in this. What sensory
system was stressed as most critical? To the extent that our bodytype influences our representation
system use, then to that extent neurology plays a role.
Self-Analysis:
__ Visual / Auditory / Kinesthetic / Language
Contexts:
__ Work / Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies / Recreation
__ Other:_____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes / No
__ Cross Modalities: V
÷A, V÷K, K÷V, etc.
#2. Epistemological:
Sensor — Intuitor
Description: There are two key ways for gathering information—we can do so either by using our
senses or by intuiting. Those who use their senses primarily gather information about the world
empirically through the sensory modalities. They use their capacities for seeing, hearing, feeling,
smelling, and tasting to deal with concrete and factual experiences. This means accessing an uptime
state and using it as our key lens as we move through the world. Philosophically, sensors are the
empiricists and pragmatists.
On the other side of the scale are those who use their intuitions. They “gather information” from
inside rather than from outside. They use non-sensory means, namely, their own inner knowledge,
experience, insights, meanings, or “intuition” (literally, in-knowing). Those who do this look for
possibilities, meanings, relationships, and patterns. They appraise the larger significances of things
and approach things more abstractly and holistically. Philosophically they are the as rationalists and
visionaries. In contrast to sensors, they access downtime states (hypnotic states) and move through the
world mind-reading.
In terms of knowledge acquisition, epistemology relates to how we know what we know. What do we
trust as we gather and process information, our senses or our mind? Uptime refers to noticing and
focusing primarily on the external world, being up in one’s senses to the external world. Downtime
refers to going down deep inside oneself to process data through the filter of our own subjectivity.
James and Woodsmall (1988), Dilts, Bandler, and Grinder, DeLozier (1980).
Elicitation:
C If you began to study a subject, would you take more interest in facts and their applications for the
present or would you find more interest in the ideas and relationships between the facts and their
future applications?
C When you listen to a speech or conversation, do you typically hear specific data or do you intuit
what the speaker means and/or intends?
C Do you want proof and evidence or do you find it more interesting to explore intuitions?
C Which do you consider more important—the actual or the possible?
C Upon what basis do you make most of your decisions—the practical or abstract possibilities?
C When you listen to a speech or conversation, do you hear the specific sensory-based data or do you
mostly listen for what the speaker means?
C From where would you gather reliable information that you can trust?
C Do you focus on the elements of experiences or the inner-connections between those elements?
Sensory — Uptime Downtime — Intuiting Getting see-hear-feel information Using inner meanings to understand things
Identification:
1) Sensing: By sensing we primarily prefer to work with facts and the meanings of a shared symbolic
system. This style of perceiving the immediate, real, and practical facts of life's experiences. Sensors
think of themselves as practical, down-to-earth, and real. Sensors think of intuitors as unrealistic,
having their head in the clouds, and impractical. Sensing leads to factual and empirical thinking,
valuing authority and pragmatism, and appreciating realism, order, goaloriented tasks, etc. The
sensing style will focus primarily on descriptive, sensorybased language. The danger in this style
arises when we only use sensing. We may then disregard hunches, creative intuitions, dreams, and
wild ideas. Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998) re-labels sensors and calls them tangibles and calls
the intuitors the intangibles (p. 109).
When in uptime, we have full sensory awareness of our environment as we pay attention to what we
receive from the outside. When listening, we process by attending descriptively to the other person's
responses (posture, eye contact, gestures, etc.) rather than by our meanings and assumptions about
those cues. When we operate from an uptime state, we generate little information from our model of
the world. Sensors will typically model someone who knows what they are doing and gather
information via looking and hearing externally. They will also like and use demonstrations as the
source of information. Seeing or experiencing impresses them. They are highly into observation.
2) Intuiting: By intuiting, we gather information by trusting our intuition to determine the meaning. In
so doing, we may pay less attention to external observation and more to our gut feelings. Intuiting
moves us to use meaning to determine facts, not vice versa. They intuit by focusing on possibilities,
relationships, and meanings and so focus on things more abstractly and holistically.
The danger in intuiting is that we may end up ignoring or disregarding sensory data that conflict with
our internal intuitions. Intuiting frequently leads us to think of ourselves as imaginative, ingenious, and
in touch with our unconscious. Intuitors often view sensors as dull and boring. On the positive side,
intuiting can lead to possibility thinking, tolerance of complexity, appreciation of the aesthetic and
theoretical, autonomy, pattern thinking, loving to work at symbolic level, creativity, etc. The intuitive
style will involve more evaluative language and labeling. The danger in this style is of confusing our
intuitions with reality and imposing our intuitive meanings on others.
When we go inside to take cognizance of our own thoughts and emotions—we notice how we feel
about something. As a trance state (we have transitioned from the waking state to an internally
focused state) this can make us "blind and deaf" to the external world. It can also be a highly
informative state. This is especially true if we have trained our intuitions in understanding or
experiencing something. By way of contrast, intuitors will rely on conceptualizing for gathering
information. They will do this by reflecting, meditating, relying on logic, or possibly by studying,
researching, and even talking aloud about something.
Languaging: This is an easy one to detect, it is the difference between empirical and evaluative
language. Sensory-based words will predominate in those who primarily operate from the sensor
position, and possibilities, evaluation, feelings, meanings, and concepts in those who operate from the
intuitor position. More often than not intuitors will sort globally and sensors specifically. To
communicate more effectively with sensors, use sensory specific terms and be explicitly detailed in
explanations. With intuitors, communicate with more abstractions, intuitions, and talk about
possibilities as well as your overall frame.
Woodsmall and James (1988) makes this interesting observation about intelligence tests.
"Intelligence tests that are currently in use in the United States tend to be
biased toward intuitors, since a sensor needs to weigh all of the answers
for a specific question in the test, while an intuitor can often see at a
glance which is the right answer. So on the Myers-Briggs, there tends to
be a direct correlation between the score of the individual on the intuitor
scale and his level of intelligence." (p. 103)
Challenges: The evaluative thinking and intuiting pattern, when over-done, can lead to labeling and
mind-reading. Labeling arises from using general, vague, and unspecified language that fails to keep
the evaluation indexed to person, place, time, event, etc. Mind-reading attempts to intuit another
person's internal states, intentions, motivations, and thoughts without checking with the person for
validation. When so intuiting, we should avoid "you" language, present our assumptions and guesses
tentatively, and invite feedback.
Contexts of Origin: These are patterns that we learn. We learn them according to how sensing and/or
intuiting are valued, appreciated, and rewarded in our early home environment and culture. We learn
them via the style emphasized in our education.
Self-Analysis:
__ Sensor (Uptime) / Intuitor (Downtime) Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#3. Scale:
General Global — Detail Specifics Deductive, Inductive, Abductive
Description: The scale of information relates to its size. We can package information in various sizes
from small to large, from micro to macro. As information has various sizes most of us have
preferences. When thinking, communicating, learning, and understanding some of us like to begin
small and move up the level of abstract to larger and larger chunks. Others prefer to start with the big
picture of things, the global or general overview, and move down to smaller and smaller chunks.
This gives us two basic directions and processes for thinking and reasoning, inductive and deductive.
Deductive thinkers start globally and move down to more specifics. Inductive thinkers start at the
level of details with lots of specificity and move upward. There are also abductive thinkers who like
to think laterally. They step aside, as it were, and think or reason using metaphors and analogies.
Those who prefer to start with specific information in very small chunks induce upward to generalize
and create principles. They go for details and feel most comfortable with this level and size of data.
They prefer to chunk their processing of information in sequences that enable them to then induce up
the specificity to abstraction scale. Inductive thinkers prefer working with details and then seeing
what it means to them. This is the technical and scientific perspective par excellence. A person who
sorts in a highly specific way sees the trees, rather than the forest.
By contrast, others prefer to start with the big picture to encapsulate an overall understanding. They
make sense of things by starting from the general or global perspective. They want the forest first, not
the trees. They want a gestalt configuration (the whole or overall pattern) in their information
processing and then they can deduce downward to specific details. Deductive thinkers prefer to start
with a general concept or idea and will figure out how to apply it. Traditionally this has described
more the philosophical and artistic mind par excellence. A person who sorts globally will see the
forest, rather than the trees.
With this continuum from specific to global at each pole, we turn the continuum 180 degrees so it
becomes vertical (Figure 6:3). At the bottom are the micro details and at the top are the highest and
largest perspectives. The ability to move from specific to abstract describes the scientific attitude or
intuition. Here a person chunks up to larger levels of information. The ability to chunk down to
specifics describes the philosophical form of intuition as one details abstract concepts. This vertical
continuum gives us a way to think about the size and direction of information and the ability to move
up and down the scale from specificity to abstraction and back again.
Bateson (1972, 1979) described a third style, abduction. This thinking does not move up or down the
scale, but "on the side" by means of indirect models: analogies, metaphors, stories, etc. In abduction
we think about one thing in terms of something else. Abduction shows up when we use slogans,
proverbs, icons, koans, riddles, stories, metaphors, poetry, myths, etc. to language an abstraction. (pp.
149-153). In lateral or abductive thinking, we conceptually move to the side.
The model and questions of the Meta-Model move us down into specifics as they elicit more
precision and de-hypnotize from the conceptual trances we live in. Reversing the Meta-Model, using
the Milton Model, and using the MetaQuestions from Meta-States moves us upward into larger level
patterns and frames. Bateson (1972, 1979), Bandler (1985), Hall and Duval (2004).
Elicitation:
C What do you want first when you hear something new—the big picture or the details?
C On a scale of specificity and abstraction, where do you feel most comfortable?
C Do you like details? How important are specific details to you?
C Do you like the big picture? How important is the big picture to you?
C When you begin to study a new subject or attending a workshop, what do you want first—the big
picture or specific details?
C If we decided to work together on a project, would you first want to know what we generally will
do or would you prefer to hear about a lot of the specifics?
Inductive
Reasoning from details up to higher or more abstract principles
Identification: 1) Inductive Thinking from Details. This meta-program describes the detailed
thinking that glories in sensory-based specifics. People who think and sort in this way believe that “if
you keep your eye on the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves.” They begin with specific
details and induce to the general conclusions. Those who perceive in this way will recall the
frustration of dealing with someone who seemed to talk "up in the air," vaguely, and did not supply
them important details that make things real.
Abductive Deductive Reasoning “to the side” Reasoning or thinking and thinking in metaphors by moving down to specific details
Whereas the global person is context sensitive and looks for relationships between events and ideas
and so looks for similarity and unification, detail people take a very different perspective. They are
more analytical. They make specific distinctions as they look for differences between elements, not
connections. They look for incongruence, not congruence. Inductive thinking builds up from details.
2) Deductive Thinking from a Global Perspective. This meta-program describes thinking more
abstractly rather than concretely in details. Those who think globally begin with high level
abstractions (principles, ideas, concepts, beliefs, etc.) and deduce downward to specifics. They
generally believe that “if you keep your eye on the dollars, the pennies will take care of themselves.”
In global processing, we think in terms of the big picture, overall vision, and principles. Those who
perceive in this way will easily recall times they felt bored and frustrated by someone who seemed
compelled to feed them detail upon detail which they really didn't want or need. Deductive thinking
starts with a statement and moves down to detail the consequences and applications.
Pascal Gambardella forwarded the following to me from Polly Stewart. It speaks about the difference
between inductive and deductive reasoning. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are going camping, and
pitch their tent
under the stars and go to sleep. During the night, Holmes wakes his
companion and says, “Watson, look up at the stars, and tell me what you
deduce.”
Watson says, “I see millions of stars, and even if a few of those have
planets like Earth out there, there might also be life.”
Holmes replies, “Watson, you idiot! Somebody stole our tent!”1
The greater the scale of information, the more global it is and the more able to represent the big
picture. The greater the depth of information, the more it probes to specific details. Global perceiving
prefers an expansive scale to depth while specific perceiving prefers depth to a large scale. Yet in
saying this, both tendencies are relative and occur along a continuum.
3) Abductive Lateral Thinking. This meta-program goes beyond induction (the scientific mindset)
and deduction (the philosophical mindset) to reasoning through analogy, metaphor, story, narrative,
simile, etc. (the poetic mindset). Thinking about things in terms of other things is the source of
creativity or lateral thinking.
Languaging: As you listen to someone speak, does the person give you lots of specifics and details?
Or does the person talk in terms of overviews, principles, and concepts? Knowing how, and at what
level, a person processes information puts into our hands critical information about how to effectively
package our communication. Yeager (1985) describes the language at the top of the scale as "metawords" (p. 153). To pace and communicate, give specifics lots of details, break things down into
sensory specific information, use lots of modifiers and proper nouns. To pace and communicate with
someone more global, talk in concepts, principles, and the larger ideas first. Skip the details when
you start; you can go there later.
Approaching a global thinker with specifics will likely bore and frustrate. Approaching a detail
thinker with vague generalities will likely create distrust and confusion. To become more
professional and influential, notice where the person starts on the specificity to abstraction scale and
match your information to that level.
Managers mostly need to be detailed and specific around the tangible elements of a business since
they are the ones in charge of administrating day-to-day business. On the other hand, leaders need to
be more global in that they provide the vision, strategic thinking, and framing that inspires people
with the vision and mission of the business. Yet it is in the integration of both, the ability to metadetail that gives each role its true balance and health. Jay Arthur (2002) notes that when someone
responds to a question with the phrase,”It depends” that’s an indicator to dig deeper and to get more
specific.
Challenges: In global thinking the danger is over-generalizing too quickly using too many fluff words,
non-referencing nouns, verbs, labels, etc., and/or by drawing inadequate conclusions too quickly. "I
failed to make the team! I'll always be a failure. I can't ever do anything right!” In over-using the
inductive reasoning pattern, the danger is that we may get so lost in details that we may lose our way
and not know our direction or purpose.
Contexts of Origin: These patterns can arise from modeling parents and other key figures in our early
life who demonstrated global or detail thinking. They can arise from reacting to parents who misused
one of the perceptual filters so that we polarized and valued the opposite. Trauma experience with
teacher or authority figure who forced us to get the big picture or look at the details can also set the
frame for either pattern.
Self-Analysis:
__ Detail and Inductive / Global and Deductive __ Abductive Contexts: __ Work/Career __ Intimates
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
__ Hobbies/Recreation __Other:_____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
Figure 6:3
Vertical Continuum
The Scale of Specificity and Abstraction
High Level Abstractions
8
Semantic Meta-Programs Highest Meta-States
8
What does X mean to you? What is the purpose of X? What intention do you have in this? What do you believe about X?
8
The Big Picture
Abstractions
8
Meta -language is the mechanism that moves us upward into higher level abstractions.
Milton Model and the Meta-Questions Conceptual Trance
8
Move up to create an agreement frame.
The place of Intuitions.
Existence 8
8
Deductive Intuition: Starting with a general principle moving down in applying it to specific situations.
Inductive Intuition: Start with specific details and moving up to create higher level meanings.
9
What are examples or references of this?
9
Marketing— Managers
Economy 8
Business
CEO
8
Managers
What specifically do you mean? Ask Meta-Model specificity questions.
— Finance 8 Managers
Unit Managers
8
Supervisors
8
Administrative Support
Meta-Model questions enable us to move down the scale into specificity.
Increasingly more specific details and distinctions
Going down enables us to come out of conceptual trances.
#4. Relationship Comparison:
Matching Sameness — Mis-Matching Differences
Description: This meta-program addresses how we work with and compare data. It describes the
relationship we adopt toward information. Do we approach things seeking to match what we already
know or do we approach seeking to mis-match? When we put these two basic approaches ways on a
continuum, we have a range of choices. We can either look for what matches what we already know
—what we find as the same as our existing knowledge, or we can look for what differs or mismatches our knowledge. This meta-program plays a dominant role in determining our overall style of
thinking, reasoning, learning, as well as our world-view.
When we match for sameness, we are looking for commonalities; when we mismatch for difference,
we are making distinctions. These means that in matching, we are searching for correlations while
when we are mis-matching, we are searching for exceptions. James and Woodsmall (1988),
Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998).
Elicitation:
Ask any question about the relationship between experiences, things, or ideas. C What relationship do
you first see between what you do now and what
you did last year?
C What do you pay attention to first when you walk into a room? C When I put these four similar pens
of different colors on this table, three
lined up and one in a different position, what do you first notice? C What is the relationship between
where you live today and lived before you moved here?
Matching matching balanced mis-matching Sameness with exceptions Equally with exceptions
Identification: 1) Matching for Sameness. People who match for sameness focus their attention on
how things match current experience with a previous experience. They are looking for similarities
and patterns. Those who match generally value security and want things to stay pretty much the same.
They will not like or value change and may even feel threatened by it. The sameness perspective
elicits a more conservative approach. Because they like regularity and stability, they can contently
stay on a job for several years and experience no discomfort. As the rapid growth and change of
information and technology speeds up, the sameness perspective can create stress and difficulties.
Mis-matching Differences
“Sameness people certainly do not want things that are new and different. Absolutely not! There
could be nothing more loathsome and unpleasant than change to one who lives in sameness. . . .
sameness people detest change and often have an excruciating time dealing with it.” (Woodsmall and
Woodsmall ,1998, p. 26, 50)
2) Mis-matching for Differences. Those who mis-match will first notice the things that differ. They
will value change, variety, and newness and they will not like situations that remain static, but find
them boring. When this is overdone, the person mis-matching will only notice differences, problems,
and things that do not fit. This represents a fresher style of thinking in contrast to the more stable style
of sameness. Those who mis-match for difference will notice the picture that is not hung straight.
They will want change almost as a constant diet and may even value change for change’s sake. Terms
about change like re-engineering, innovation, new, different, troubleshooting, etc. will sound like
music to the ears of mis-matchers. People who extremely mis-match will get excited about
revolutionary changes.
3) Degrees in between matching and mis-matching. The continuum line between matching and mismatching gives us numerous places in between. People who live here do a bit of both. We may first
match and then mis-match, or first sort for differences and then for similarities.
Matching then mis-matching describe those who first notice similarities, then differences. They like
things to remain relatively the same, but allow gradual change. Generally, they prefer a little change
in life every two or three years and can endure a major change every five to seven years. Such people
live quite stable lives and tend to adapt well. They accept change that occurs through gradual
improvements and love such words as better, improvement, gradual, and kaizen.
Mismatching then matching describes those who first notice differences, then similarities. These
individuals like change and variety, but not too much and certainly not revolutionary change. They
enjoy rearranging things and enjoy a diet of changing things. This may lead to changing relationships,
jobs, homes, etc. fairly frequently to satisfy the desire for variety. They like evolutionary change.
Equally matching and mis-matching describes a fairly equal sorting for both of these distinctions,
giving a person lots of flexibility in shifting back and forth, with neither pattern dominating. These
individuals frequently say, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." They will equally
seek both change and diversity.
While there may be some people who match or mis-match in an extreme manner, most of us
incorporate a mixture of both. This means we can put our tendency to find similarities (matching) and
to find differences (mis-matching) along a continuum and view them, not as either-or choices, but
matters of degree. Doing so allows us to ask, To what degree, or how much, do you filter for
similarities (or differences)? It also enables us to create two axes from which four quadrants can
arise as in Figure 6:3.2
Figure 6:3IHigh
Problem Solvers Recommend solutions Scientific OrientationTe n d e n c y
II
Pathfinders
Purposeful behavior Systemic orientation
to find
Similarities
III
Doers
Implements solutions Practical orientation
IV
Problem Formulators Formulates the problem Artistic orientation
Low ____________________________________________ High Tendency to find Differences —>
Languaging: People who match will tell you how things look the same to them. They will focus on
the things that remain stable. With those who match, emphasize areas of mutual agreement, security,
what you both want, etc., and ignore differences at first.
Those who mis-match will talk about how the things differ. You will hear them talk about things that
are new, changed, different, revolutionary, innovative, etc. People who match then mis-match, and
people who mis-match then match. will discuss how things gradually change over time. Listen for
comparative terms such as more, less, better, greater than. Mis-matchers emphasize how things differ,
the things that are new, different, distinctions, innovative, the revolutionary, adventurous,
developmental, growth, evolving, etc. With those who incorporate a bit of both (the patterns with
exceptions) alternate between things that match and those that mis-match.
With the mis-matcher who steps into the tester’s role when part of a team, listen for his or her
statements and translate them into a question that invites a reality check. This utilizes the difference
sorting for problem-solving.
“Thanks for that critique, we can use that. It raises the question of what we can do about these
potential problems and how can we proactively prevent them from arising in the first place. What
thoughts do you have on this?”
Challenges: We often find those who mis-match difficult to deal with because they perceive what’s
different. Whatever we say, they will mis-match. In their mind-body-emotion system, they constantly
go to the counter-examples to challenge our statements. When we present an idea, instruction,
suggestion, belief, principle, etc., their brain immediately mis-matches. That’s why they will come
back with a list of "Yes, buts..." to demonstrate why the idea will not work or lacks validity. When
they do this constantly, especially in intimate relationships or when working with them on a project, it
can be very frustrating to say the least. Yet this is not “bad,” just different. To reduce this tension,
present your idea as something that probably won't work so they can mis-match that. They will be
more likely give you a list of reasons why it will. Pace them with something like, "I have some
serious reservations about whether we can get this project out on time ..."
Polarity mis-matchers are those who are caught up in an extreme pattern of mismatching. These
people will respond automatically with the opposite response from whatever you desire or expect.
When this happens, congruently and sincerely play their polarity. In Uncle Remus, Br’er Rabbit
illustrated this by begging Br’er Fox to not throw him into the briar patch (the outcome that he actually
wanted because then he could get away).
When you offer a matching person something new they will typically respond with a similarity
comparison, "Isn't this just like...?" Such individuals will first filter for similarities. Matchers
generally feel quite comfortable to perceive similarities more than differences. In influencing, play to
their comfort zone and emphasize the similarities between your proposal and their familiarities.
Because more people match in their filtering than mis-match, standardized franchises have been very
successful.
Entrepreneurs are the creative business persons who like doing new and exciting things. They sort by
difference and love making new distinctions that create innovations. Yet because they constantly
change systems and employees, they tend to be poor managers. To be successful they will need to hire
people who sort for sameness to run their daily operations, marketing, accounting, and business
systems.
Contexts of Origin: This meta-program can be conditioned from parenting experiences with those we
modeled in terms of how they perceptually matched or mis-matched. If our parents misused either
style, we might have learned or decided to value the opposite. Trauma experience with parent,
teacher, or authority figure who forbade us to disagree may lead us to develop either a fear of mismatching or to make a decision to always mis-match. The meta-program of the strong-willed in
temperament (Self-Instruction, #49) is closely related to mis-matching.
“Some people believe that personality patterns are innate and others believe that they are developed
in childhood. Sameness people prefer to believe that they are innate and that they cannot be changed.
Difference people prefer to think that man is a product of his environment, and that as the environment
changes, then man changes. . . . choose which explanation that you think most adequately fits the
facts.” (Woodsmall and Woodsmall, 1998, p. 63)
Self-Analysis:
__ Sameness Matching/ Difference Mismatching / Balance
Contexts: __ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other:____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#5. Information Staging: Fore-grounding — Back-grounding Counting — Discounting
Description: Inrepresentingsensory information we create objects and characters on the theater of
our mind. This presupposes that we put these things somewhere on the stage in our mind, front and
center, off to the right or left, in the background. Where do we typically stage good news and bad
news? What do you put in the theater that is salient to you, that stands out, and that counts? What do
you put in the background—things that for you do not count?
What and how we foreground and background things determines what we focus on, what we see, what
we respond to, and essentially what counts for us. In every awareness there are ideas and
representations in the foreground and others in the background. This is inescapable when it comes to
the basic sensory representations which we encode as a movie full of sights and sounds. It is much
less obvious with regard to conceptual representations. What counts as important and significant
enough to pay attention to the foreground? When we zoom in on these things, we notice them. We
make them front and center. What’s in the background gets less attention and focus, yet can set the
context and the environment of the assumed frames that contribute to the meaning and sense of what’s
foregrounded.
Elicitation:
C What’s in the foreground of your mind?
C What movie is playing on the screen of your mind?
C How do you represent that movie in terms of its cinematic features? C What stands out about those
cinematic features?
C What thoughts, ideas, and awarenesses come to mind when you think about X?
Fore-grounding Counting
Identification: 1) Discounting: thoughts counter-factual. This kind of thinking causes one to feel that
we “should have done better and more.” “These thoughts make us feel bad, which motivates us to sit
around and to feel sorry for ourselves.” In Rational Emotive therapy, discounting is one of the key
cognitive distortions by which we can make ourselves unduly miserable. When we discount the value
of what we are learning and doing, we don’t derive any pleasure in the small approximations that we
make in the right direction. They don’t count. Because discounting dismisses these as inadequate, and
it under-utilizes resources.
Back-grounding Discounting
Denise Beike and Deirdre Slavik (2003) call discounting
2) Counting: On the other side of the continuum is counting. In counting, we take credit, validate,
affirm, recognize, acknowledge, and add up small steps as contributing to our overall momentum. In
this way of thinking, we reflect on successes, even the smallest approximation of success, and we
congratulate ourselves to reinforce the feeling and behavior. Slavik (2003) says that this way of
thinking helps people to “feel more in control of themselves and their circumstances.”
Languaging: Listen for words and terms that indicate that something counts or doesn’t count, stands
out, is front and center, is off on the periphery, foreground, background, back of your mind, etc. Then
use this very language to pace and lead to new and more enhancing representations.
“I know that the very idea of thinking that your value and worth as a human being as being
unconditional as a given is not something that’s been front and center in your thinking, but probably a
long way from your conscious awareness, and yet, if you did bring it into the foreground of your
thinking, and just let it be there as a central idea, I wonder how would that enhance your life? Would
that make you feel more like you count?”
Discounting as a thinking pattern can undermine and eliminate all kinds of potential resources. Those
who have perfectionistic tendencies have learned or been raised to think, “It’s not good enough; it
could have been better; why can I never do anything right?” Yet the discounting thinking pattern
prevents us from ever really having a chance to learn through small approximations. We discount
small beginnings and so prevent learning through trial and error. There are also things that would
serve us well to discount and ignore—things that distract us from our dreams, visions, and goals,
things we do not need to invest with mental and emotional energy. These we can screen out (Focus,
#9).
When I first met Jill, she was the person selected to be the Logistics leader for a three week training
in Sydney, Australia. As a delightful, well-organized, and very thoughtful leader, she ran the team
very effectively and devoted an incredible amount of time and energy. Yet every compliment seemed
to land on deaf ears and those that seemed to get through were immediately brushed aside, “Ah, that’s
nothing; anybody in this position would do that.” After about two thousand such brush offs, I
commented, “You are really masterful at discounting, aren’t you? Did you learn this growing up or
did you model someone to fend off compliments to prevent you from accessing too many good
feelings?”
Later I discovered that my mirroring of the meta-program apparently interrupted her pattern to such an
extent that she felt the need to take time to reflect on it. As she did, she also ran a quality control
evaluation. Discounting did not serve her very well, in fact, it had been and was continuing to
sabotage her effectiveness and prevented her from stepping step forward as a leader. Several months
later we met again and she announced that she was no longer a discounter, but that she now let things
count and that it had brought about a complete transformation in her relationships and activities.
Contexts of Origin: We learn this meta-program. We learn both to discount as we learn to let things
count. Parenting, childhood experiences with teachers and others train us in foregrounding our
achievements or failures. If we foreground our failures, then mistakes count—count to call our skills,
competency, and even ourselves into question and discount our value.
Self-Analysis:
__ Counting, Foregrounding / Discounting, Back-grounding Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#6. Direction:
Pessimistic — Optimistic; Worst — Best Case
Description: How we look upon events, situations that are challenging, hard, painful, and even
traumatic is a meta-program—another perceptual filter. Do we first look for the problems, dangers,
threats, obstacles, difficulties, and challenges of a situation in terms of threat, loss, taking away from
us, predicting the future, making our lives miserable? Do we look upon them as challenges to deal
with, as opportunities to master, as doors to new possibilities, as part of the human experience, or as
chances for learning and development determine whether we are pessimists or optimists?
This meta-program distinguishes between processing things using the worst case scenario or best
case scenario format. Sorting for the best-case scenario orients us in an optimistic, hopeful, goalinspired, and empowered way. This way of thinking inspires hope as we look for good things. Sorting
for the worst-case scenario orients us in a more pessimistic and skeptical way with a focus on
problems. We then focus on actual dangers that need to be addressed. Each approach and perceptual
filter has its strengths and weaknesses, and each creates different kinds of limitations when over-done
or taken to an extreme.
These two filters govern how we experience the things that happen and how we will attempt to
respond. The pessimistic thinking pattern when high and overgeneralized will generate feelings of
worthlessness (something is wrong with me), helplessness (nothing I can do about it), and
hopelessness (it’s always going to be this way). The optimistic thinking pattern enables us to keep the
hurt, pain, and evil out so that we can cope and even master it. Seligman (1975, 1991), Goleman
(1997).
Elicitation:
C When you encounter a problem, hurt, or difficulty, do you first consider the worst case scenario or
the best?
C Does your mind more naturally go to problems and difficulties or to opportunities and positive
challenges?
C Do you see the glass half-empty or half-full?
C Do you think that negative and bad events make you negative?
C What do you believe is most important to notice or focus on?
Pessimism / pessimists Optimism/ optimists Looking for what doesn’t work Looking for what’s working and involves problems and pains
and what’s offering oppotunities
Identification:
1) Pessimistic Worst-Case Thinkers. Those who first have their minds conditioned or trained to go to
worst-case scenarios are the skeptics who focus on problems. They can become "pessimists" and
"negative" thinkers if this pattern is over-done and unbalanced. Yet as one’s consciousness entertains
problems and difficulties, we develop expert skill at quality control analysis, the technical
distinctions for trouble-shooting problems, and the sharp eye of a proof-reader. When over-done, the
problems becomes too dominant, thereby creating a dark helpless, and hopeless perspective.
Seligman (1975) summarized the “learned helplessness” or pessimistic mindset using three Ps:
personal, pervasive, and permanent. Personal—the problem is about me; "I'm flawed."
Pervasive—"It affects everything in my life!" Permanently—this problem will last forever; it can't
be changed. With this kind of mind-set, a person takes a hurtful or evil event and brings it inside him
or herself where it does great damage.
Seligman’s research focused around two concepts: controllability and predictability. When animals
or humans conclude froma particular context that they have no ability to effect or control a result, and
cannot predict results, they learn to be “helpless” which includes feeling hopeless and powerless.
The extreme pessimistic view is that one is inherently flawed, cannot change, and so is guaranteed
misery forever.
2) Optimistic Best-Case Thinkers. We recognize those whose minds are trained to go first to the
best-case scenarios as "optimists.” They typically move through life with a strong expectation that
things will turn out all right, in spite of setbacks and frustrations. Their visions, dreams, and values
pull them forward rather than their fears and apprehensions. Optimists can skillfully catch and present
a vision, and keep people motivated with a long term dream. In contrast to the negative and helpless
frame, thinking optimistically activates an empowering frame of mind.
At the heart of optimism is a style of how people perceive, filter, and explain to themselves the
presence of good and bad, fortune and misfortune, successes and failures. Optimists see failures as
due to something that they can change so they can succeed next time; pessimists take the blame for
failure ascribing it to a character of themselves or blame life, genes, or God for their misfortune.
When over-done, the optimistic style sees everything as changeable, that nothing can constrain or stop
them, that all the world is easily conquered with a few positive affirmations. This can lead to viewing
the world with "golden glasses." At the extreme, such an “optimist” can become crippled by anything
negative as the person would lack the capability to face a difficulty directly. Too much of this, and a
person becomes motivated to deny problems and live in illusions. These “explanatory styles” tell us
who will give up and who will persevere. Insurance salesmen who scored as optimists with
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company sold 37 percent more insurance in their first two years on the
job than did pessimists, and during the first year, the pessimists quit at twice the rate of optimists.
More notably still, agents who scored in the top 10 percent for optimism sold 88 percent more than
those ranked in the most pessimistic 10 percent. Agents who scored in the bottom 50 percent on the
same test were twice as likely to leave their jobs as their most optimistic counterparts, while those in
the bottom 25 percent were three times as likely to quit. (Seligman, 1990, Learned Optimism, pp. 99102.)
Languaging: Those who think pessimistically will first speak about problems, dangers, threats,
difficulties, etc. Meet them at that model of their world. Those who think optimistically will first talk
about dreams, visions, solutions, ideas, suggestions, etc. Pace where they begin, then lead to the other
side of the continuum to facilitate them developing flexibility of consciousness and a balanced
perspective.
Challenges: Those given to the problem-orientation mode of perceiving, when over-doing it can end
up filtering out the positive and discounting (Information Staging, #5) to their and other’s detriment.
When this occurs in times of high levels of stress, distress, and upset, it can lead to a tunnel-vision
that views the world as through dark glasses. When a person does this, he or she will then disqualify
and discount solutions, positive ideas, suggestions, resources, etc. This pattern will obviously
generate corresponding "positive," pleasant, and “up” emotions for the optimists bit "negative,"
unpleasant, even painful and distressful emotions for pessimistic sorters.
Contexts of Origin: We typically learn each style by modeling and/or identifying with parents and
others. Overly sheltered and protected in childhood may lead to extreme development of rosy-colored
optimism; traumatic experiences may lead to fatalistic pessimism. Physiological sensitivity to stimuli
may lead to the "worst case scenario" type of thinking— more awareness of what may go wrong.
Self-Analysis:
__ Optimists (Best Case) / Pessimists (Worst Case) / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career __ Intimates
__ Relationships __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Sports __ Other: __________________ __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Driver MP:
Yes/ No
#7. Classification Scale:
Either-Or — Continuum — Multi-Dimensionality
Description: When it comes to how we package or classify information, we can do so in broad
strokes in the either-or categories of black-and-white thinking. Or, we could do more refined
classifying by categorizing things in terms of degree and extent along a continuum. As children we all
begin with the broad strokes: good and bad, pain and pleasure, want and don’t want, right and wrong,
smart and stupid, pretty and ugly, etc. Black-and-white thinking is the kind of thinking and perceiving
that’s appropriate for major categories, day and night, life and death, male and female, etc.
Continuum thinking enables us to engage in a more refined and discerning awareness, as we recognize
degrees and possibilities. From the broad categories of distinctions we can eventually make more
sophisticated discernments as we notice the gray areas in-between the polar ends of a continuum.
This enables us to think in terms of degrees and amounts, which enables us to speak in terms of
percentages, both-and, probabilities, and scales. It enables us to handle indeterminacy (“fuzzy
thinking”) and systems thinking (Nature, #8). Piaget (1954), Korzybski (1933), Kosko (1993).
Elicitation:
C What kind of categories do you typically discern, the broad black-andwhite categories or the more
relative and refined steps and stages of the gray area in-between?
C Which do you value most, clearly defined categories or degrees of comparison?
C How easily can you move from black-and-white thinking to discernable degrees?
C When you experience emotional states like anger, fear, joy, relaxed, love, are these either-or
experiences, or matters of degree?
Either-Or thinking
Thinking is polar categories
Identification: 1) Either-0r is a categorical or nominal scale involving black-and-white thinking
which enables us to make clear and definite distinctions for boundaries. It enables us to make quick
decisions that are appropriate for “go—no go” type of decisions.
When we use the meta-program of black-and-white thinking we are able to be decisive, take charge
of our responses, and make a judgment call about something.
Continuum Thinking Thinking in terms of degree Multi-Dimensionality Thinking in terms of
multiple dimensions
All of us go to black-and-white thinking style when we experience an intense state of stress or threat
(Stress Coping meta-program, #22). When we get to our stress threshold, the fight/flight syndrome
kicks in as our autonomic nervous system withdraws blood from the brain and stomach and sends the
blood to our larger muscle groups for fighting or fleeing. This consequently brings out the all-ornothing or survivalistic thinking, a meta-program perceptual filter that is generally appropriate for
extreme situations of danger or threat.
When the black-and-white categorical thinker over-does this pattern it can result in all-or-nothing
thinking. In most situations this is an inappropriate cognitive distortion. The dichotomizing style of
thinking sorts the world of events and people into polarities (good-bad; right-wrong; mind-body, etc.)
which seldom maps things accurately. Such mapping deletes all of the choices in the middle. When
over-done, this kind of concrete thinking leads to the authoritarian personality style that is so definite,
one can easily assume that one’s thoughts are absolute and that one’s mapping is the territory. This
encourages fanaticism and the “true believer” syndrome where we not only believe, but we believe in
our beliefs, thereby closing our minds to any new learnings or adjustments.
2) Continuum thinking enables us to discriminate at much finer levels, enables us to make more
relative judgments, and allows us to work with the indeterminancy (or fuzzy logic) of a situation.
Taken to an extreme, this meta-program becomes problematic,as when a context calls for a definitive
answer. When over-done, they may even "Yes, but" themselves and continually end up in a state of
indecision.
3) Multi-Dimensionality refers to thinking simultaneously in multiple dimensions. “The principle of
multi-dimensionality maintains that the opposing tendencies not only co-exist and interact, but also
form a complementary relationship.”2
Languaging: Continuum thinkers talk about the gray areas of life; they use lots of qualifiers in their
language, and typically correct themselves about other possibilities. Black-and-white thinkers speak
more definitively, they express far less tolerance, speak dogmatically, and will typically talk in
perfectionistic terms. They will speak of continuum thinking as indecisive and equivocating. After
identifying the dominance of one style or the other, match the perceptual style that you find. Speak in
solid and firm categories to one, probabilities, percentages, degrees of scale to the other.
Contexts of Origin: As children we all begin our cognitive learning by separating and distinguishing
the larger categories. Piaget identified this as the concrete thinking stage. Over time a child will learn
to make finer and finer distinctions and so develop the continuum thinking mode. Some physiological
conditions of brain functioning can inhibit, even prevent, a person from moving into the operational
and post-operational thinking stages. Trauma experiences typically induce us into a fight/flight mode.
This causes a regression to more survivalistic thinking in a black-and-white mode.
Self-Analysis:
__ Either-or — Continuum Thinking — Multi-Dimensionality
Contexts: __ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#8. Nature:
Aristotelian: Linear, Static — Non-Aristotelian: Process, Systemic
Description: Similar to black-and-white versus continuum is Aristotelian versus Non-Aristotelian
thinking. This meta-program focuses on how we categorize things regarding the nature of the world
and how weperceive this nature. Do we see the world in terms of dynamic processes or comprised
more statically of things and entities? This meta-program distinguishes those who have fully moved
into the twenty-first century and think systemically, recognizing that reality is fundamentally made up
of fluid and dynamic processes, versus those who mentally live at a more macro-level and the world
in terms of objects, things, and entities. Korzybski (1933), Capra (1996).
Today, it is increasingly important to be able to shift to systems thinking, to being able to perceive the
many variables, interactive parts, and the relationships between them. Thinking linearly in terms of
static things (Aristotelian thinking) has value in certain contexts, yet that’s true for fewer and fewer
contexts.
“We live in a non-linear world, but people typically think in terms of a linear world. In the real
world, there are not just simple cause-effect relationships, but feedback loops that blur the
distinctions between “causes” and “effects.” Systems thinking provide the means to help manage
problems in this real, non-linear world.” (Pascal Gambardella)
It is this ability to think in terms of the system feedback and feed forward loops that enables us to
begin thinking in non-linear worlds, to think about the circuits of the system loops, and to recognize
that many things are going on simultaneously, and that thinking about the events within a system as if
they occur in a linear step-by-step fashion fails to map the dynamic complexity of the system.
Elicitation:
C Do you think about things as permanent and solid or as ever-changing processes?
C Do we see things, people, activities, and processes as static or dynamic?
C Is the world made up of concrete things or ongoing ever-changing processes?
C How do we think about the territory of out there?
C Is it made up of permanent things that are solid and eternal or changing processes?
Aristotelian thinking and perceiving: world is solid, permanent, stable Linear thinking
Identification: 1) Aristotelian thinking is static and linear. Here we mentally conceptualize the world
as populated with “things” and objects described as nouns. We reify processes by treating them as
things and talk about them using nominalizations. Aristotelian "logic" especially glories in using the
"is" of identity ("He is a failure.") and the "is" of predication ("She is stupid.”). Yet doing so means
we will perceive the world as a solid and frozen universe with change being rare, hard, and painful.
Non-Aristotelian Thinking and perceiving: world is in process, fluid, always changing Systemic and non-linear Thinking
2) Non-Aristotelian thinking involves perceiving in terms of process and perceiving change as lying
at the heart of reality. It mentally conceptualizes reality as a process, as an event of energy
manifestations, a “dance of electrons.” The "things" we perceive occur at a macroscopic level and
are actually the product of our nervous system. Mapping “things” does give us a workable map which
allows us to cope with the world.
Non-Aristotelian thinking is systems thinking, which means thinking about the interactions,
relationships, dynamics, and movements within systems. When we think in terms of processes, we
think more dynamically and fluidly. Recognizing processes enables us to think operationally which
gives us the skill of thinking systemically regarding how things work. We then look for the dynamics
of and within the processes.
Languaging: The language of nouns and nominalizations generates for the Aristotelian mind a solid
black-and-white world full of static things, encourages more concrete thinking, and leads to making
more definitive statements about the way things “are.” The language of verbs and processes for the
non-Aristotelian leads to more continuum thinking, how thinking about how things works, more
perceiving without the need to evaluate and more fluidity in personality (flexibility).
Contexts of Origin: Our nervous system actually invites us into the Aristotelian way of perceiving
and thinking. That’s why the “common sense” view of life at the macro-level is right for life at that
level. Yet that level defines the child's mind and the mind of the primitive. Non-Aristotelian
perceiving arises from the worldviews encouraged by any systems models, General Semantics, NLP,
NeuroSemantics, quantum mechanics, quantum physics, etc.
Self-Analysis:
__ Aristotelian or Static / Non-Aristotelian or Process, Systemic Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#9. Focus:
Screening — Non-screening
Description: "Stimulus screening" refers to how much of the environment we characteristically
screen out. Doing this enables us to reduce the environmental load of input stimuli as well as our
arousal level to it. In this regard, people typically fall somewhere along a continuum between
screening out none of it to screening out a great deal of it.
This meta-program relates to how long it takes a person to experience stimulus overload and
therefore neuro-semantic "stress." Because we all have stress limits, none of us can endure frequent
and extremely high states of arousal levels without going into overload. In chronic stimulus overload
our nervous systems reach their limit and fatigue sets in. Not only does physical tiredness result, but
other defense mechanisms also begin to kick in. Mehrabrian (1976). Some psychologists describe this
as “field dependent” and field independent. By this they mean that the field (environment) either
constantly affects a person or the person is oblivious to what’s going on around them in the field.
Elicitation:
C When you think about the kind of places where you can study or read, can you do this everywhere
or do you find that some places seem too noisy or have too much of other stimuli that prevent
concentration?
C Describe your favorite environment for concentrating on something?
C How distractable do you find yourself generally in life whether reading, playing, talking, thinking to
yourself, etc.?
Screening out stimuli Focusing and experiencing the world “going away”
Not Screening out stimuli Distracted by noises, lights, stray thoughts, voices, etc.
Identification:
1) Non-screening Perceivers: We use “non-screening” to describe those who characteristically do
little stimulus screening. Their attention to the environment is less focused and more diffused. They
typically see, hear, feel, smell, and otherwise sense a great deal of what goes on around them. They
will also not rank the various elements of a situation and so fail to shut out unimportant or irrelevant
stimuli. As a result, they often experience places as complex and over-loaded with triggers for
distraction. Mehrabrian (1976) notes,
"Low levels of stimulus screening simply indicate less selectivity and therefore amplified arousal to
different situations whether pleasant or unpleasant. We can say that non-screeners have a more
delicately or finely tuned emotional mechanism. They are relatively sensitive to small variations in
stimuli and may be put out of whack by gross ones." (60)
There are also some neurological indicators for this meta-program. “For non-screeners who
experience high physiological arousal, they also have peripheral vasoconstriction, namely, the
capillaries in the hands and feet contract. This means that the skin temperature of these organs have a
lower temperature than one's body temperature. ... Highly aroused people are likely to have cold feet
or cold hands." (Mehrabrian, 1976, p. 60).
Bob describes himself as a non-screener who inputs mostly via the auditory mode so that he finds
noise distracting and even annoying. He often finds that while presenting he can not only hear, but
also he cannot not hear when someone is ruffling papers or clicking a pen. Bob has even found that
sometimes while sleeping he hasn’t been able to screen out dogs barking in the background.
2) Perceiving by Screening: We use the term “screeners” to describe those who can select what they
notice and screen everything else out. They automatically and unconsciously rank facets of a complex
situation so as to reduce the need to attend to everything. They move into an environment in a focused
way by screening out the less relevant elements. A high level screener can screen out so much that he
or she may come across as non-attentive, zoned out, and even uncaring. Autism describes an extreme
state of screening. I can so thoroughly screen things out, ignoring all noises, voices, sounds, etc. that I
can easily study in a busy airport or coffee shop. When over-done, this can create numerous
problems, from not hearing a loved one say something, to even missing flights.
In the same environment, those who do not screen will feel much more aroused (even stressed) than
those who screen. "What is more, the non-screeners' reaction to novel, changing or sudden situations
lasts longer than that of screeners." (Mehrabrian, 1976, p. 59). Typically, passives (Stress Coping,
#22) will screen less than will aggressives inasmuch as they sort for danger signals in the
environment. Look for signs of distractibility in those who do not screen andundisturbability in those
who do.
"Non-screeners reach the maximum tolerable arousal levels more quickly and more often than
screeners. This means that prolonged exposure to high-load environments tend to overwork the nonscreeners' physiological mechanisms. Thus, stressful settings, which are often unpleasant as well as
loaded, take a heavier toil among nonscreeners than among screeners." (Mehrabrian, 1976, p. 60)
Non-screeners often show a higher degree of empathy for others inasmuch as they feel sensitive to the
emotional reactions of others (Attention meta-program, #24). Mehrabrian says that "there is a slight
tendency for women to screen less than men." In the introduction training to Meta-States (APG,
Accessing Personal Genius) we essentially provide skill development for learning how to step in
and out of a highly focused state of engagement and set up the frames that allow us to screen out
distractions.
Languaging: In the contexts where a person needs to concentrate, non-screeners will talk more about
wanting "quiet, peace, comfort, and no distractions," They will complain about various noises which
prevent them from thinking, smells which are overwhelming for them, etc. The screener will talk less
about those things and more about experiencing environments that are exciting and novel. They do not
find environments a controlling factor in their states of mind.
Contexts of Origin: This meta-program is similar to the Durability metaprogram (#12) with regard to
contexts of intrusion or non-intrusion, time for thought and meditation, or lack of it. As children we
generally begin life with seemingly little or no ability to screen out and so learn how to selectively
attend. Most children need permission to screen, and adults can easily prevent them from doing so.
Also, the more internally referenced a person is (Authority Source, #23), the more that person will
probably be able to screen better.
Self-Analysis:
__ Non-screening / Screening / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#10. Philosophical:
Why (Origins) — How and What (Solution)
Description: This meta-program centers around the degree that we naturally focus on philosophy or
practicality. Do you think philosophically in terms of why something happens and what this or that
means in terms of origins and source? How do you perceive and think about things philosophically?
Do you care mostly about why things are the way they are and where they come from or do you mostly
care about what to do and how to solve things? The difference in this meta-program determines what
a person listens for and pays attention to when attending a seminar or presentation, listening to a
conversation, watching a political debate on television, or one’s favorite kind of reading material.
Some don’t perk up their ears until explanations and history are given, others perk up when practical
applications are given—the how-to use the knowledge. LearningStyle Inventory, Kolb (1981).
Elicitation:
C When you think about a subject (whether a problem or not), do you first think about causation,
source, and origins (why), or do you think about use, function, direction, destiny (how)?
C Which do you find most interesting and compelling, the why or the how?
C Do you lean toward philosophy or practicality in your basic disposition?
Philosophically Why?
Practicality What and How?
Identification: 1) Why focuses people philosophically on why things are as they are (ontology), their
origin and source (history). Sorting for the past (Time Zone, #57), they value understanding things
analytically (Representation meta-program, language, #1). The assumption driving this thinking
pattern reasons is that if we can understand where something came from, we can gain mastery over it.
This can led to “the psycho-archeology” (Bandler and Grinder) that we find in the classical Freudian
and Jungian psychotherapies. Glasser (1965) painted stark portraits of this in his writings and
criticized it.
When those who sort for why go to therapy, they invest a lot of importance and emphasis on wanting
to know the why—the cause and origin of the problem. People who have experienced traumatic
experiences frequently get themselves “stuck” in their trauma state and generate post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) because they loop around and around asking about the why.
2) How focuses people primarily on the use and purpose of things. As such, they devote minimal
attention to origins, and focus mostly on the immediate practical questions regarding application (the
“so what?” question). Philosophically, the how question moves one into a more solution focus rather
than problem focus. In addition to the how-to question, they ask the, "What can I do about it?" “How
can I use or respond to this?” questions as well.
Languaging: The why orientation turns us into a philosopher (Perceiving metaprogram) whereas the
how orientation turns us into a pragmatic who takes action in changing things (Judger meta-program,
#37). To hear this and use this in language, tune in to explanations about origin and history and to the
discussion about practical applications. These content areas indicate the governing frames.
Contexts of Origin: Which philosophical orientation is predominate in the minds of one's parents and
teachers? Did one identify and model it or dis-identify from that style of orientation? Trauma
experiences frequently encourage people to look for the reasons and origins of the problem.
Self-Analysis:
__ Why - Origins / How - Function / Balance
Contexts:
Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: __________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#11. Communication Channel: Verbals – Non-Verbals
Description: While information comes to us along two primary channels—the verbal and the nonverbal channel, most of us prefer to focus on one or the other. The verbal channel contains all of the
symbolic systems that we have developed to communicate: language, music, math, art, computer
languages, etc. The nonverbal channel contains all of the signal cues that arise from our physiological
and neurological state: breathing, posture, muscle tone and tension, gestures, eye scanning, etc.
Bandler and Grinder (1976) described the verbal channel as containing content messages and the
non-verbal as analogical and relationship messages (p. 34). While both of these channels provide a
multitude of messages and data, we can favor one channel or the other.
". . . in any set of simultaneously presented messages, we accept each message as an equally valid
representation of the person's experience. In our model, no one of these paramessages can be said to
be more valid—or truer, or more representative of the client—than any other. No one of a set of
paramessages can be said to be meta to any other member of its set. Rather, our understanding of a set
of paramessages is that each of these messages represents a portion of the client's model(s) of the
world. When the client is communicating congruently, each of the paramessages matches, fits with, is
congruent with each of the others. When the client is communicating incongruently, we know that the
models of the world which he is using to guide his behavior are inconsistent." (pages 37-38)
Neither verbal nor non-verbal communication is the “real” or “true” channel, they are parallel
messages (para-messages), equally true and a part of the whole communication. Bandler and Grinder
(1975, 1976), Johnson (1994).
Elicitation:
C When you think about communicating with somebody, what do you typically focus on and give more
importance to—what they say or how they say it?
C When you communicate, do you pay more attention to the words and phrases that you use or to your
tone, tempo, volume, eye contact, etc.?
C When you hear someone say something that seems incongruent with how they express it, and you
don't know which message to go with, which do you favor as the more 'real' message?
Verbal focus Non-Verbal focus Digital awareness Analogue awareness
Identification:
1) Verbal Perceiving: People who primarily focus on what another says, their language, terms,
phrases, etc. hear and operate more on the verbal channel. The more a person uses the language
representation system, the more likely that he or she will favor the verbal channel. Certain
professions thrive in this meta-program (e.g., lawyers, writers, beaucrats, researchers, linguists).
Those with the emotional coping style of "aggression" (Stress Coping, the “go at,” #22) may also be
more likely favor the verbal channel than those who use the “go away from” stress response. The
latter, with their focus on danger signals, will typically pay more attention to the non-verbal channels.
2) Non-Verbal Perceiving: People who primarily focus on how others talk will sort for tone, tempo,
volume, pitch, breathing, etc. They will value and care more the neurological state that the person's
physiology demonstrates than what the person actually says. Typically, such individuals will distrust
the verbal channel knowing how easily others can "just say words" to cover up reality. Some
professions obviously favor the non-verbal channels (e.g. acting, nursing, sales, body therapies, etc.).
When over-done they can jump to conclusions as they mindread and about what others "really" think
and feel. These individuals favor the Intuitor meta-program (#2).
3) Balanced between Verbal and Non-Verbal: Those who take both channels as equally valid
expressions of information will treat both categories as paramessages without favoring one over the
other. They will easily notice both and be able to shift to match and pace someone who does favor
one or the other.
Languaging: Those who favor the verbal channels want words and will even distrust their "senses"
and intuitions when they pick up messages and signals from the non-verbal channels. You may hear
them saying things like, "Just tell me what you think or feel." "Just take me at my word." They may
over-talk and trust talk and “talk” devices: debate, logic, discussion, etc. Those who favor the nonverbal channel will say things like, "Those are just words, I want to see actions." “Your words say
one thing, but your tone another.” People who consider that the highest quality information comes
from behavior will develop a strong interest in people watching skills whereas those who assume the
highest quality information comes in language will develop more refined linguistic skills.
This meta-program will effect our accessing skills. When detecting states and meta-programs, we use
linguistic cues or markers (verbal) and physiology cues (non-verbal). These inform us about metaprograms, “sub-modalities,” states, frames, etc.
Contexts of Origin: Our favorite Representation system (#1) will play a role in the development of
this meta-program. Also if our parents and teachers were trustworthy and reinforced their words with
appropriate and congruent actions, we will probably be more balanced and not favor either channel
over the other. Disappointment and trauma surrounding the talk of adults can lead us to distrust that
channel and prefer to "read" the non-verbal channels. Our learning and experiencing history with the
role of language accurately or deceptively representing interpersonal reality plays a crucial role.
Self-Analysis:
__ Verbal/ Non-Verbal / Balance Contexts:
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ Work/Career __ Relationships
__ Intimates __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Sports __ Other: _________________
#12. Durability:
Permeable — Impermeable
Description: This meta-program addresses thequality of our mental constructs in terms of their
permeability or impermeability. What kind and quality of mental constructs do you create? When
some people process ideas, thoughts, beliefs, values, etc. they generate strong, solid, firm, and
impermeable constructs (both as ideology and representation) while others process such with much
more permeability. This means that other influences (ideas, emotions, experiences) can permeate and
effect the person’s thinking. Cade and O'Hanlon (1993) A brief guide to brief therapy. Schultz (1990).
Theories of personality.
In building their mental constructs, some people build impermeable ones, such that they seem
"... not capable of being revised or replaced, no matter what new
experiences are available . . . a person can tolerate a number of
subordinate inconsistencies without discarding or modifying the overall
construct" (Schulz, 1990, p. 390-1)
Elicitation:
C As you think about some of your mental constructs, your ideas of success and failure, of love and
forgiveness, of relationships and work, of your personal qualities, do you find the representations of
what you know permanent or unstable? How can you tell?
C Think about something that you know without a doubt—about yourself. Now think of something that
you know, but regarding which you have doubts and questions... How do these sets of representations
differ?
C How well are you able to hold and maintain an idea or representation?
Permeable Impermeable Concepts unstable and easily disturbed Ideas, beliefs, etc. are not easily disturbed
Identification:
1) Impermeable Perceiving: With impermeable constructs, people typically move through life with
rigid and ungiving beliefs and belief systems. They construct images, sounds, and words that seem
concrete and locked in.
2) Permeable Perceiving: Others build constructs that are highly permeable. Such permeable
constructs "are capable of being revised and extended in the light of new experiences." Cade and
O'Hanlon (1993) describe this distinction about the range of permeability of constructs as cognitive
complexity.
"... this may be defined in terms of the large number of independent dimensions available to be used
in the drawing of distinctions at any time, can arguably be equated with flexibility, responsiveness,
tolerance, understanding, creativity, etc." (p. 27)
A client once described her problem to me as “suffering from extreme fluctuations in emotions about
myself.” In response, I elicited a full description of several repeated events in which she felt
especially resourceful. I then asked questions to amplify and anchor those states. Yet as soon as we
finished the process, she was not able to hold on to or maintain those representations or the feelings
that they evoked. Other thoughts, memories, and feelings from other events would immediately
permeate them and so contaminate her sense of resourcefulness.
This led me to question her Perceptual Durability filter. Once she realized that she had habitualized
this permeability pattern (a meta-level awareness on her part), I invited her to quality control the
experience. “Does this enhance your sense of yourself or your life?” Upon realizing how it sabotaged
her, she decided to develop more flexibility of consciousness so that she could choose to create
impermeability of this resourceful state. She made that change. Thereafter, she experienced more
solid representations and feelings about herself so that she could live and maintain a more solid sense
of herself.
Languaging: Listen for terms and words of hesitation, doubt, questions, shiftingness, etc. to detect
permeable constructs. Listen for terms and words of sureness, definitiveness, "no question,"
"undeniable," "absolutely," etc. to detect impermeable constructs. Look also for the modal operators
of necessity (“must”) and impossibility (“can’t”) connected with impermeability and those of
possibility (“can,” “will”) connected with permeability.
Contexts of Origin: Degree of intrusion and respect for personal boundaries, including privacy, right
to think-feel and respond as a separate and autonomous person may lead one to creating solid
representations in consciousness that persevere. Chaotic and rushed environments may have provided
too little time for a child to consolidate representations. Taboos against thinking in certain ways,
intrusive models that ripped up thoughts, ideas, ways of thinking may lead to over-permeable style.
Self-Analysis:
__ Permeable (Stable) / Impermeable (Unstable) / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#13. Causation:
Causeless, Linear, Complex, Personal, External, Magical, Correlationa
Description: How do you think about what causes events or experiences? How do you look upon the
factors that bring things into existence? Does inexplicable magic, direct linear cause-effect as in
physics? Does a whole range of contributing factors? Or does nothing actually cause other things? Or,
perhaps things are only, at best, a matter of correlation?
This meta-program distinguishes the possible ways we can perceive how things work, what causes
things, and the concept of causation. As a higher level meta meta-program, perceptions about “cause”
grow out of the Authority Source metaprogram (#23) where we internally or externally reference
events. It also grows out of the Responsibility meta-program (#53). Moving up into this meta
metaprogram focuses on how we relate to the concept of causation and to the conceptual explanations
we invent to orient ourselves in the world. Munshaw and Zink (1997).
There’s a reference in "The Naturally Slender Eating Strategy" of Andreas and Andreas (1989) to this
meta-program. In a story, someone said, "You're lucky to be so slim. I'm just not that kind of person. I
just don't have that body type." The client here views slenderness and/or overweight as the result of
genetic accidents over which one has no control. She speaks as if operating from the meta-program of
External causation and then, in the context of eating, shifted to External referent. As a result this had a
dramatic effect on her strategies; when she saw food, she felt compelled to eat (V6 K).
"She did not consider whether she was hungry or full, whether the food tasted good, how it would
affect her if she ate it, or anything else." (p. 122)
Elicitation: Ask any question that involves some kind of causational awareness. C Why did you
choose to work at your current job?
C What is your current situation in your life?
C What makes people behave as they do?
C How do relationships get into the states that they do?
C Why did you get divorced?
Causeless Linear External Personal Multiple Magical Correslation
Identification:
1) Perceiving: No Causation: Some people simply do not think in terms of causes and so they need
no explanations regarding how processes work. They live in a world that does not make sense in
terms of cause-effect and therefore consequences. Things just happen. No intelligence drives the
world, only randomness and chance.
2) Perceiving: Linear Cause-Effect: Those who live at the other end of the continuum of "cause"
believe in a closed-system world where everything results from direct and immediate causation.
Their style of thinking works really well in the hard sciences of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and
mechanics. However, it works poorly in the soft sciences of human behaving, politics, economics,
communication, etc. This fits more with Aristotelian thinking (Nature, #8).
3) Perceiving: Complex Cause-Effect: Considering "causes" in an open-system enables us to think
systemically, so that we can recognize that there is almost always a multiple of contributing factors
that come together to produce various effects. Thinking above the linear level, we move into higher
“logical levels” where a gestalt of configurations arise. This is part of the systems thinking of the
Non-Aristotelian meta-program (Nature, #8).
4) Perceiving: Personal Cause-Effect: Thinking in terms of the role we personally play in causing,
effecting, and influencing things create the personal cause-effect meta-program. When balanced and
contextualized for appropriate contexts this meta-program is expressed in the Healthy Responsibility
metaprogram (#53). In those instances, the internal referent of the Authority Source meta-program
(#23) makes this possible. When over-done, we can move into the Over-responsibility filter.
5) Perceiving: External Cause-Effect: When we believe we play no role in causing, effecting, or
influencing things, we are operating from the external referent (Authority Source, #23) and the underresponsibility of the Responsibility meta-program (#53). This empowers circumstances, events,
environment, genetics, etc. as the controlling factors in our perceptions. As a result, we more easily
blame, accuse, and posit our locus of control outside of ourselves.
6) Perceiving: Magical Cause-Effect: Developmentally, we all pass through the stage of “magical
thinking.” As children we believe that we can control the world or universe by wishing, hoping, or
engaging in some ritual. We believe that if we wish hard enough, our wishes will come true and, in
fact, have to come true. Living in a magical world means believing that we can influence things by
“magic,”—by forces and/or entities beyond this world or dimension. This superstitious way of
thinking is characteristic of children and primitive cultures. In magical causation we live in a
universe where we have to adjust and/or appease these powers of the heavens (the stars and
constellations), angels, demons, and gods, ancient persons, saints, etc. For those with this metaprogram, ritual repetition of various secret knowledge holds the key to making fortune favor us. Those
in the field of athletics seem particularly prone to this kind of thinking as evidence by the
superstitious rituals that baseball players, golfers, and other athletes engage in.
7) Perceiving: Correlation. Regarding causation, it is easy to confuse the factors that "cause" things
with correlations. For example, the fact that children typically gain weight while they are in
elementary school does not mean that “weightcauses increased intelligence.” The correlation of these
separate factors does not suggest that we interpret body weight or foot size as the cause of increased
intelligence. These are correlations, not causes.
Source of Origin: This meta-program mostly arises from our philosophies about cause and the frames
we set and believe as to why things happen as tey are presented and believed among parents,
teachers, and the larger cultural environment.
Self-Analysis:
__ Causeless/ Linear CE / Complex-CE/ Personal CE/ External CE/
M agical/ Correlation Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#14. Completion:
Closure / Non-Closure
Description: Whenever we listen to, read, or present information, we sometimes complete the story
or process and sometimes we do not. Sometimes we run out of time; sometimes we don't have enough
information; sometimes the information itself is incomplete and sometimes we forget or become
distracted. Whatever the reason, this meta-program relates to how we handle closure and/or the lack
of closure. Do we have a high drive for closure or a low drive? Do our frames allow our mind-andemotions to live comfortably with an unfinished gestalt?
There may also be comparisons and relationships with closure and non-closure with the In-Time and
Through-Time meta-programs (#58). Typically, those who sort “time” via the In-Time mode will
tolerate non-closure better than those who do so by the Through-Time mode.
The experience and concept of closure relates to our Adaptation meta-program (#37) regarding how
we move through the world, often making the world adapt to us or ourselves to it. This meta-program
focuses on the internal experience of living with something unfinished, whereas the adaptative meta-
program focuses more on one's style of adaptation.
Elicitation:
C If, in the process of studying something, you have to break off your study and leave it, would you
feel okay about this or would find it disconcerting?
C When someone begins a story without completing it, how do you feel?
C When you get involved in a project, do you find yourself more interested in the beginning, middle,
or end of the project?
C What part of a project do you enjoy most?
C How would it settle with you if someone mentions five points and then only lists four?
Closure Non-Closure Dislike of ambiguity and confusion Embracing ambiguity and confusion
Identification.
1) Non-closure Perceiving:People who enjoy and perform better in the beginning and middle of a
task, project, relationship, etc. do not need closure as much as those who enjoy and feel more
completion in bringing a project to completion. Listen for how a person talks about completing or not
completing something. Listen for levels of anxiety in both experiences. How well is the person able
to embrace ambiguity, confusion, and something left in suspense?
Richard Bandler modeled Milton Erickson in how he often utilized open loops in putting together
workshops and presentations. This refers to sharing a story or metaphor at the beginning and not
completing it until the end of the presentation. In the middle he offers the central data he wants to
communicate. We describe this structure as “opening a loop.” These who like and want closure
typically find themselves more highly influenced when open loops are by suspended than are those
who don’t need closure. This process will have less effect upon those with the non-closure style.
2) Closure Perceiving: Those who enjoy and perform better in sequencing and closing a project are
energized by the need to close things. They do not want to leave things open. Uncertainty and
ambiguity are not desired experiences for them. The closure meta-program describes a filter of
wanting to compartmentalize things so that things are neatly wrapped up at the end of the day (high
closure feelings). They will often think in more definitive, black-and-white categories (Classification
Scale, #7). “Opening and suspending a loop” will most powerfully impact such persons.
Contexts of Origin: Which value did our family, cultural, religious, political, and racial context
value and reinforce—closure or non-closure? Significant pain and confusion in early life can elicit
either meta-program in a person. Then everything can seem as "unfinished business" without closure.
This can result in a person staying constantly and perpetually over-involved with "the past," "old
hurts," resentments, and the like. Or a person builds the opposite meta-program, he or she may bring
pre-mature closure when no need exists to do so.
Self-Analysis:
__ Closure / Non-Closure / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#15. Information Kind:
Quantitative — Qualitative
Description: This meta-program relates to the kind of information we want and favor. Whether we
prefer quantitative information about numbers, measurements, and specific factual information or
whether we prefer more qualitative information relating to meaning. This kind of information often
arises when we engage in deciding between options. As we make comparisons, do we do so
quantitatively and qualitatively? Do the quantity of numbers mostly attract us or the quality of an
experience? Do you have more affinity with mathematics or semantic intelligence?
Elicitation:
C How would you evaluate your work?
C How would you evaluate things in your relationship?
C How do you know the quality of your work?
C Upon what basis do you say that?
C Does the person prefer quantification research and validation or
qualification?
Quantitative Qualitative
Identification:
1) Perceiving by Quantification: People with this meta-program style think in terms of numbers,
ranks, order, measurements, standards and so will reply to questions in terms of numbers, ranks,
order, measurements, standards. "I came in first in production this week." "I brought up my standing
4% this month." Those who think with this meta-program of quantification, go to external standards,
empirical see, hear, and feel indicators (Epistemological, Sensors, #2), and because they start with
concrete details, they will think and reason inductively (Scale, #3).
2) Perceiving by Qualification: People who use this meta-program reply with words referring to the
quality of the experience: good, better, poor, bad, excellent, etc. "I am doing very well, thank you."
"We have never felt closer or been more loving." Those who think with this meta-program of
qualification refer to internal factors, meanings, principles, etc. (Epistemological, Intuitors, #2). And
because they start at the global level, they will think and reason deductively or abductively (Scale,
#3).
Languaging: When a person makes a comparison, the Meta-Model suggests that we can challenge
vagueness by asking for specific indices: compared to what, to whom, to what standard or criteria,
etc.? In response, people present their favorite kind of information in comparing (qualitative or
quantitative) and the standard that they use. "I'm doing just as good as two years ago" provides a
quality ("good") and a quantity measurement (two years ago) against the criteria of one's past self.
"I'm doing as good as one can expect given the circumstances" presents only qualitative comparisons
("good," "expect"). "Next week I will feel much better" compares a quantity (next week) with a future
self using a qualitative standard ("better"). "I'm doing better than most people my age" uses the
standard of others. Listen for whether the person speaks about quantity (numbers, times, amounts, etc.)
or quality.
Contexts of Origin: Right and left brain physiology patterns may contribute to whether we like
working with and measuring effectiveness in terms of external numbers (Qualitative) or internal
meanings and emotions (the Quality of the experience). Contexts that validate, approve, confirm,
reward and/or punish one or the other will greatly effect the sorting pattern we prefer.
Self-Analysis:
__ Quantitative / Qualitative / Balance Contexts:
__ Sports __ Other: _______________ __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ Work/Career __ Intimates __ Relationships __ Hobbies/Recreation
#16. Stream of Consciousness: Focus — Diffused
Description: William James, founder of American psychology, introduced the idea that our minds and
inner experience is like a “stream of consciousness.” Thoughts, emotions, memories, imagination,
worries, excitements, etc. rush into this stream and flow along, sometimes rapidly and wildly, and
sometimes gently and calmly. This metaphor enables us to think about the quality of our stream of
consciousness in terms of the meta-program that gauges how focused or diffused our stream of
consciousness typically is.
While this meta-program is similar to screening and non-screening (Focus, #9), the central
identification in that meta-program dealt with the intrusion or nonintrusion of distracting information,
whereas this distinction focuses more on the quality and nature of one’s focus itself—the
pointednessof the focus, whether that focus is concentrated on a singular object or diffused.
Elicitation:
C On the average, how focused or diffused is your awareness? C Are you generally focused in your
awareness or easily distracted by
diffusing it?
C Under what conditions, if any, are you focused and concentrated in your awareness?
Focused Diffused
Identification:
1) Focused Perceiving: Those who favor this meta-program think in a directed and concentrated
way. In perceiving, their stream of consciousness flows forward in a straightforward way. Those who
perceive things through a lens of focus will more easily persist, stay on subject, and finish projects.
Consciousness here is like firing a rifle. We zoom in on our target and focus our attention specifically
on it.
2) Diffused Perceiving: Those who favor this meta-program experience thinking as diffused, unfocused, and un-restrained. Attention spreads wildly scattering out in many directions at the same
time. It can spread thinly or even wastefully. The stream of consciousness rushes and flows in
multiple directions. One experiences an “intrusion of thoughts” and thought-balls bouncing into the
court of awareness to distract and scatter focus. Consciousness here is more like the scattering effect
of firing a shot-gun.
Languaging: Listen to how people talk about zooming in on something, holding that focus, and
keeping attention sustained. Do they frame it as an in-the-moment experience, a response to a specific
context, or as part of their character? “I’m just all over the place; I just can’t concentrate today.”
“There I go again, must be my ADD acting up again.”
Contexts of Origin: While there may be some physiological tendencies toward focus and diffusion,
how we learn to focus attention and keep attention is probably mostly a matter of experience, history,
and learning.
Self-Analysis:
__ Focused / Diffused / In-between Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#17. Conventional:
Conformist — Non-Conformist
Description: The concept in this meta-program concerns how we think about “fitting in” with others,
with significant groups, and with society as a whole. What do we think about getting along,
conforming, fitting in, being a part, being accepted, being liked, having approval, etc. or are these
experiences not desired? How important are they? Similar to Social Presentation (#28), this metaprogram focuses on our thinking—and how conventional or non-conventional our thinking style and
focus is. It is also related to Relationship Comparison (#4), matching and mis-matching.
Elicitation:
C How important is fitting in with others to you?
C How much of your mental time do you spend thinking about being
accepted by others?
C What social groups do you want to be a part of?
C To what extent do you dislike fitting in and enjoy being the rebel?
Conformist Balanced Non-conformist
Identification:
1) Conformist Perceivingdescribes the person who thinks and cares about getting along, being
accepted, and having the approval of peers and associates (Relationship Comparison, matching, #4).
This person is or can be a team player, a contributing member of society, and a leader who
safeguards the status quo and maintains things on course. The conformist is “the tried and true” person
in organizations and has a tendency to dislike things “not invented here.” He will care about
appearances and she will become skilled in image management. As a driver meta-program, this
perceptual lens and way of thinking often lead to dreading change, becoming beaucratic in style,
opposing new developments, and fearing to stand up to the status quo if that puts him or her in a nonconventional position.
2) Non-Conformist Perceiving describes the person who doesn’t care for the current state of affairs,
who can think out-of-the-box,and who has little regard for social propriety. The non-conformist may
be the creative person who loves to have lots of options and alternatives (Operational Style, options,
#36, or who just mis-matches (Relationship Comparison, #4). The non-conformist may also be the
rebel who is strong-willed by temperament (Self-Instruction, #49) and cannot or does not get along
with authority figures.
Languaging: Listen for the language of matching and mismatching as in the Relationship Comparison
meta-program (#4). Listen for how well a person does or doesn’t take instructions, gets along with
others, and whether or not the person can be a team player. The non-conformist will talk about
differences, changing norms, and may love to violate social protocols for the fun of it.
Contexts of Origin: Our first exposure to those in authority (parents and teachers) generally creates
the first contexts in which we learn, or don’t learn, to get along, value groups, etc. Our training in
independence whether in childhood, adolescence, or as an adult further creates or fails to create our
ability to stand on our own against the crowd.
Self-Analysis:
__ Conformist / Non-Conformist / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#18. Speed:
Deliberate and Slow / Witty and Quick
Description: This meta-program relates to the speed of our thought processes. Do we think and
process information quickly or slowly? How deliberate and thoughtful are we generally and how
much flexibility do we have to slow down thought or to speed up our processing? This meta-program
deals with the quickness or slowness of our mental processes and wit.
Elicitation:
C Are you a quick thinker and speaker?
C Do you typically jump to conclusions when you listen, read, and reflect? C Are you more of a slow
and deliberate thinking who weighs things
carefully or do you find that boring and a waste of time? C Does it generally take you a while to
process information and get new concepts?
Deliberate and Slow Witty and Quick
Identification:
1) Deliberate and Slow Perceiving:The person who processes information slowly will typically be
more deliberate, thoughtful, and steady in his or her resolve. Individuals with this style will be
tenacious once they make up their minds and then can be adamant, even rigid. They can then find it
painfully slow to change their minds to another way of thinking about something. They are also more
likely to be thoughtful in considering long-term plans.
2) Witty and Quick Perceiving: The person who thinks quickly will typically be witty and quick to
get things. Such a person will also be able to change his or her mind quickly as well and may be much
more tempted to jump to conclusions and make rash decisions. The quickness of mind often shows up
as quickness of tongue thereby saying whatever one is thinking.
Languaging: There is a correlation with thinking slower with playing it safe and being more cautious
in decision making (Decision Making, #47) and in risk aversion (Risk Taking, #46) and so valuing
deliberation and thoughtfulness, and a correlation with quick thinking with desiring change and
flexibility, the primary indicator of this meta-program is in the actual speed of one’s speaking and
reflecting.
Contexts of Origin: There is probably more of a genetic base to this metaprogram than to most metaprograms. The more skilled, competent, and intelligent we become in a given area of life may
increase the speed of how quickly or slowly we think in that area, but it probably will not
significantly alter our basic style. Injury and disease, on the other hand, can certainly slow down the
speed of our mental and emotional processing. Our thinking speed is obviously slower when we are
tired, sick, or feeling unresourceful. It also slows when we are in contexts that we deem threatening,
dangerous, or intimidating.
Self-Analysis:
__ Deliberate and slow / Witty and quick Contexts:
Summary C As we move through life we mentally learn to make many cognitive distinctions. We
learn to represent information using various sensory systems, and then to favor either the visual,
auditory, kinesthetic, or language system. We learn to process globally or in detail, to match for
sameness or mis-match for difference, to gather information from the world or intuitively from inside,
to consider solutions or problems, to endure or fade away, to focus or distract, to wonder why or
wonder how, to process things as static at the macro-level or as processes at the microlevels, and to
pay more attention to the digital language system or the analogue system.
C In these “mental” categories, we learn and develop a style of perceiving, paying attention to
information, and sorting for different things. This style becomes our cognitive pattern for thinking and
cognizing, a “mental” way of perceiving which affects our emotions and behaviors.
C These first meta-programs give us the first distinctions regarding how our brains process
information to create our frames and matrix of frames to generate numerous semantic categories from
epistemology, causation, responsibility, etc.
C Before proceeding to the next chapter, take some time to reflect on the following questions. Even
better, write your reflections in a notebook. What have you learned about your own style of thinking
as you reading these descriptions?
Which meta-programs have you discovered most powerfully drive your experiences? How well do
they serve you? How much flexibility of consciousness do you have with these meta-programs?
Do you over-do any of these first meta-programs so that a given processing style creates problems or
difficulties for you?
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
C As you take some time to go through this list of the cognitive metaprograms, playfully imagine
shifting your mind to the other side of each continuum. Imagine perceiving, sorting, and processing
information with the opposite meta-program. As you do, notice the kind of a mental world it puts you
in. Identify two or three people in your life that you know well. Now go through the list and identify
their cognitive meta-programs. What does this suggest in terms of communicating with them?
A Brief Metalogue
Meta-programs, as the codes of our mind informing us about how we process and structure
information, operate as our mental “software.”
Once while I was reading a computer book on WordPerfect, my daughter Jessica asked me why I
wanted to do that. Attempting to describe it so a twelve-year-old could understand, I said that I
wanted to learn how to run the brain of my computer. The more I can figure out its “brain” and its
programming formats, the better relationship I would have with it, and the more I could get it to obey
my every command!
Jessica: "Dad, what does 'format' mean?"
"It indicates the form or style that the computer will put a document into—the form or shape of the
paper size, the print size or shape, bold or italic." "Well, what if you don't format, dad?"
"Thenthe default settings would kick in and run the show and I’ll have no choice about how the
document will look then.”
"Default settings?"
"Yes the settings that the designer built into the computer's brain so that if you don't make a choice,
you go with the designer's choices, the default choices. See, when you push Shift-F8, the computer
shows you all of the options about formatting the document's information."
"But when I look at the screen I don't see any format commands."
"No, you don't. You have to push F11 to reveal the codes. Shift F11 and we get the ‘Reveal Codes’
screen. You remember when we talked about metaprograms?”
"You mean all that stuff about wearing colored glasses?"
"Yes. The Shift-F8 is the ‘Format’ command in WordPerfect in a similar way to how meta-programs
operate in our minds. It moves us to a level where we can format and pattern information in a
document at whatever level (word, page, document) of specificity we choose. So by pressing Shift-
F8, we can install new meta-programs for the computer's head."
"Neat! Do people have a Shift-F8 button that reveals their codes?"
"Well, no, not exactly." I said.
"What do you mean with those hedge words 'not exactly,' dad?"
"Well, if you know the formatting options available to people like global or specific, matching or
mis-matching; visual, auditory, kinesthetic; etc., then when you look at the way a person has formatted
information, you can easily recognize what default choices that person works from in formatting
information."
"Neat. Could you ask questions, formatting questions, to get someone to format in a certain way?"
"You jumped way ahead of me, you little sneak! . . . Yes, you could. Suppose you asked, 'What would
the big picture of that idea look like?' Or, 'What specific detail would you like that would enable you
to understand better?' Or, 'If you matched this with what you know, how well does this fit for you?’
‘You are probably going to play devil's advocate and mismatch what I just said, aren’t you? Actually,
I expect that of you, so go ahead.’” Each question invites a person to format in a certain way, as it
invites a particular meta-program to activate.”
"Neat. So, dad, when you look at the big picture of what you really want to do for your beloved
daughter this evening, and see what you really feel great about in fulfilling your values of being a
good father, doesn’t a pizza smell just right?"
End Notes:
1. This comes from Polly Steward, Associates Press, 23 December, 2001.
2. Figure 6:3 comes from Gharejedaghi (1999) in his book, Systems Thinking. Dr. Pascal
Gambardella contributed this as well as other diagrams.
Chapter 7
THE EMOTIONAL OR FEELING META-PROGRAMS
The Emoting and Somatizing Meta-Programs
“Out-of-control emotions can make smart people stupid.” Daniel Goleman
In this chapter we turn to another set of meta-programs, those that deal with our emotional states and
power. These perceptual filters describe how our emotive processes work to influence the way we
input, process, and attend information to perceive things as we do.
"Emotions" differ from mere body sensations—what we call kinesthetics or feelings. They differ in
that within them are cognitive evaluations or judgments. At the feeling or kinesthetic level there is not
a lot of difference between the primary emotions of fear, anger, excitement, and sexual lust. All of
these emotions involve pretty much the same physiological arousal, bio-chemical "juices," neurotransmitters, and neurology. What separates and distinguishes these emotions are our inner
evaluations.
We designate emotions as kinesthetic-meta (Km) because they involve this valuational process at a
higher level to the kinesthetics. We feel the validation of our values in our "positive" emotions. For
this reason we can describe our positive emotions as goal congruent emotions. Conversely, we
experience "negative" emotions as a threat, a discounting, and a violating of our values. Because we
feel these emotions as a dis-confirmation of things valuable and precious, they are goal incongruent
emotions.1
Our mind-body system works together in this way to create the holistic experience that we call
“emotions.” Thinking systemically about emotions leads us to recognize that what we call mind and
emotion work together as a whole and can only be separated in language, not reality. Korzybski
(1933) suggested that we get into the habit of hyphenating these terms to remind ourselves that they
work as a holistic system, hence, mind-body, mind-emotion, thought-feelings, neurolinguistics, neurosemantics, and mind-body-emotion system. "Mind" and "body" do not, and cannot, operate separately.
The elements work as an interchangeable system. Separating the elements (“elementalism”) is falseto-fact. In fact, as we process information in our nervous system, end receptors, cerebral cortex,
neuropathways, etc. we somatize (put into our body, or soma) our evaluations and encode them
throughout our entire mind-body system.2
In short, as we think, so we emote. When we alter our thinking, we change our emoting.
In "thought" we always have body sensations and neurology and in "emotion" we always have
"thought" as awareness, understanding, ideas, concepts, etc. Always and inevitably we have, and only
have, mind-body-emotion as a system, thoughtsand-emotions operating together as a unit.
When the cognitive facet predominates, then we have thoughts-emotions and when the somatic,
feeling, neurological part predominates, then we have thoughtemotions.
Ellis (1976) reflects this holistic understanding of mind-body:
"Human thinking and emoting are not radically different processes; but at points significantly overlap.
Emotions almost always stem directly from ideas, thoughts, attitudes, beliefs . . . and can usually be
radically changed by modifying the thinking processes that keep creating them."
In short, as we think, so we emote. When we alter our thinking, we change our emoting. It is as simple
as that; it is as profound as that. In fact, this describes the cognitive-behavioral mechanism in
experience and change. Our emotional states influence our way of perceiving the world. These
emotional filters color what and how we see things.
Because emotions have action tendencies within them, emotional perceptual filters are related
motivationally to our response patterns. We feel these perceptual filters as energies to act and relate.
And no wonder, an emotion is a motion that we feel in our body to move out (ex-) from where we
are. As these feelings get into our higher frames as meta-states, they color the way we see ourselves,
others, and the world. The emotional meta-programs are more dynamic for this reason.
C What emotions color your perceptual filters?
C What emotional experiences have been elevated in a meta-position so that
they now frame your perceptions?
C What emotional states set prohibition frames in the back of your mind? C What emotional states set
attraction frames and, in fact, currently work
as a self-organizing attractor in your mind-body system?
EMOTIONAL META-PROGRAMS
#19. Convincer Representation:
Looks, Sounds, or Feels Right — Makes Sense #20. Movie Position:
Associated — Dissociated
Step in — Step out
#21. Exuberance:
Desurgency — Surgency
#22. Stress Coping:
Passive — Assertive — Aggression
#23. Authority Source:
Internal — External
#24. Attention:
Self — Other
#25. Emotional Containment:
Uni-directional — Multi-directional
#26. Rejuvenation:
Introvert — Extrovert
#27. Somatic Response:
Reflective, Active, Inactive
#28. Social Presentation:
Shrewdly artful — Artlessly genuine
#29. Dominance:
Power, Achievement, Affiliation
#30. Work Style:
Independent, Team player, Manager, Bureaucrat #31. Change Adaptor:
Late — Medium — Early Adaptors
#32. Attitude:
Serious — Playful
#33. Persistence:
Impatiently reckless — Patiently Persistent
#19. Convincer Representation:
Looks, Sounds, or Feels Right — Makes Sense
Description: As we process information, we learn to value different qualities and experiences. This
leads to developing different strategies for feeling convinced about the value, importance, or
significance of things. Yet what specifically leads us to accept something as believable? Ultimately,
such data comes from the basic representation systems. Some of us will believe in something, feel
convinced, and take action about it because it looks right (V+), sounds right (At), feels right (K+), or
makes sense (Ad). What makes something believable to you? What convinces you to feel sure about
something?
There are other factors that influence us to believe in a person, thing, or event. The Convincer
Demonstration meta-program (#34) deals with other factors influencing our choices.Repetition:How
often does someone have to demonstrate competence to you before you feel convinced? How many
times do you typically have to see, hear, read, or do something before you feel convinced about your
own competency at it? Because feeling convinced is an inherent part of most decision making
strategies, this meta-program deals directly with how we make decisions. And knowing what data a
person uses to make a decision empowers us to communicate and influence more effectively. Time
Span: Over what length of time?
Consider all of the different facets that go into the structure of persuasion around a major purchase,
like a new car. How do we go about gathering information in the first place for making this decision?
What information do we need? What sensory systems do we use as we think? How often do we have
to think about it before the information seems right? Here we distinguish two facets of the experience
of being convinced to distinguish two meta-programs: Convincer Representation and Convincer
Demonstration (#34). James and Woodsmall (1988), Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998).
1) Representation: Which mode of awareness do you use (VAK and Ad)?
2) Demonstration: What process moves you from merely thinking about something to feeling
convinced and persuaded? How many times does it take in order for you to believe something?
Elicitation:
C When in the process of decision-making, what representations evoke the convinced feeling in you?
C Why did you decide on your present choice of car?
C What helps you decide where to vacation?
C As you make a decision about where to vacation, how do you think about such? Do you see, hear,
or create feelings about it?
C What lets you know that a product feels right for you?
Looks Right (V+)
Identification: 1) Looks Right: representations look right. When the visual qualities seem
compelling, they act. Visual aids, diagrams, pictures, etc. assist them in their decision making.
Makes Sense (Ad) (meta-representation)
Sounds Right (At) Feels Right (K+)
People who use visual convincers do things because their
2) Sounds Right: People who use auditory convincers have a representation that sounds right. They
hear it as clear as a bell. What volume, pitch, voice quality, speed, style, etc. do you find most
convincing? Here modeling the voice quality of one who a person finds most convincing really helps.
3) Feels Right: People who use a kinesthetic convincer have a visceral representation of their choice
that triggers the right tactile or internal sensations—it feels right. Here hands-on experiences have a
significant impact.
4) Makes Sense Linguistically: People who use the language convincer move above the sensory
representations to the meta-representation of language. They encode their criteria, standards, and
values for feeling convinced and ready to act. Now their feelings seems logical and reasonable, they
“makes sense.” They like data, facts, and reasons. What specific ideas, words, values, expressions,
etc. most effectively elicit persuasion? “Make sense” people commonly look to books, reports, letters
of recommendation, etc. in feeling convinced.
Languaging: Listen for a person’s sensory-system predicates. Pay attention to the representational
system the person primarily favors. When communicating, present your information in the
corresponding sensory channel, use appropriate predicates to juice up your descriptions and to match
the person’s convincer strategy.
Contexts of Origin: This will be similar to the Representation meta-program (#1). It is significantly
impacted by experiences of coming to trust as a child as well as by experiences of belief in
emotionally significant persons. Trauma experiences can undermine this process so that a person
builds a belief system of categorically never believing in anyone.
Self-Analysis:
__ Looks right/ Sounds right/ Feels right/ Makes Sense Linguistically Contexts:
__ Sports __ Other: ____________________ __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Driver MP: Yes/ No __ Process:
__ Work/Career __ Intimates __ Relationships __ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Automatic __ Repetition __ Time Period __ Never (almost never)
#20. Movie Position:
Inside (Stepping in or Associating and Feeling) — Outside (Stepping out or Dissociating and
Thinking)
Description: As we process data, we can do it in one of two ways— we can step into the pictures
and story to experience it or we can step out of it to just observe it. While traditional NLP uses the
terminology of associated and dissociated for these distinctions, these are problematic terms for
several reasons. Not the least of which is that in the DSM-IV and other psychological and psychiatric
literature, “dissociate” is considered a form of pathology. That’s why we will avoid them for the
most part in this work.
When we step into the representational information that we create, we associate into the movie. Then
we think and process by experiencing the full impact of the movie emotionally. Creating an associated
representation enables us to see what we would see, if we stepped into the movie. Representationally
we are there again. We hear as if we were there, smell, taste, and feel as if immediately present.
Bystepping into the picture, we entertain the thoughts of the experience and so re-experience it.
When we step out of the representational movies, we think and process data with a degree of
"psychological distance" from the emotional impact of the material. Stepping out enables us to see our
younger self in the picture (we represent what we remember or imagine that we looked like back
then). We are no longer there. We are on the outside looking in. We are observing or witnessing, not
experiencing. We now see, hear, smell, and feel representations as if they stand "over there." We
have stepped outside of the image so that we can think "about" things.
While stepping out will sometimes reduce the intensity of our emotions, just as often stepping out of
one movie means stepping into another and in doing so, initiating even more emotion. “Going meta” in
this way does not mean “unemotional.” It means that we do not have the emotions of the
representations. Instead we have the emotions about the representations. In stepping out we often
experience even more intense meta-feelings.
As we observe the eye-accessing cues, we can note the extent that a person engages in any kinesthetic
access. If a person accesses the kinesthetic mode and stays there, assume that he or she has entered
into an associative mode of being inside the movies. If he or she accesses kinesthetic awareness, but
does not stay there, you can probably assume that the person observed it, witnessed it, but is not
currently experiencing it emotionally. Ellis (1976), Hall (2000 Meta-States).
Elicitation:
C Think about an event in a work situation that once gave you trouble and step back into that memory,
what do you see, hear, and feel?
C What experience surrounding work would you say has given you the most pleasure or delight? How
do you typically feel while at work?
C When you make a decision, do you rely more on reason and logic or personal values or something
else?
Stepping in to experience
Representing things as if inside the movie
Identification:
1) Inside Perceiving, the Step In position. feel and re-feel from a full body state as if we were reexperiencing all of the sights, sounds, and sensations. This can range from a very light and mild
emotional state to an extreme and exaggerated one. The more intense the emotional associating, the
more changes will occur in skin color, breathing, muscle tension, and all of the other physiological
signs.
Stepping out to observe Representing things as if up on a screen
When we associate into a movie, we
While we have a favorite way of experiencing the things we represent, we can use our preferred style
so much that we can get stuck in one or the other and either lose or fail to develop the flexibility of
stepping in or stepping out. What we believe and value about each, how we identify ourselves
regarding each, what frames we set about each—these strengthen and solidify each skill.
The emoting style of association leads to a more social, spiritual, nurturing, affiliating, and tenderminded style of life and to the values of caring, empathy, understanding, and supporting. Out-ofcontrol stepping in and associating into representational movies that create lots of powerful emotions
of distress, pain, trauma, and upset can create a living hell. Doing this repeatedly can cause the state
and the experience to habituate and become chronic. When this happens the movie goes on automatic
and can unconsciously keep playing over and over to continually evoke the negative and limiting
emotions. All that a person may notice is the symptoms—unexplainable depression, despair,
hopelessness, helplessness, etc. and/or the phenomenon of the cognitive distortions of Awfulizing and
Catastrophizing (Ellis, 1976).
The linguistic pattern of Awfulizing amplifies the emotional pain as it exaggerates the negative
undesirable experience and puts it into a negative downward spiral. Along with that, we may also fall
into the cognitive distortion of Emotionalizing. This means over-estimating the importance of our
emotions and moods, assuming that if we feel something, it must "be real." "I feel like a rotten
miserable failure, therefore I am a rotten miserable failure." Emotionalizing leads us to victim
thinking-and-feeling, dis-empowerment, impulsive reactiveness, and impatience.
2) Outside Perceiving, the Step Out position. A level of objectivity arises from this style as we take
the third perceptual position or a meta-viewpoint. This will be true to the extent that we step out into
a witnessing role. In this role we will be thinkingaboutthe movie rather than experiencing it. Note the
emotional affect the person demonstrates. It will be mild, dull, or bland. The person will be in the
Satir category of the "Computer Mode" (see Appendix B). He or she will talk about an experience
rather than of it. The person will operate more from reason and logic than emotion. This corresponds
to William James' (1890) “toughminded” category and associated corresponds to his “tenderminded” category. If the person steps out and into another movie, that person may step into an
emotional state about the first state that is just as intense or even more so than the first.
When we step out, we can more easily adopt the observing or witnessing style. This facilitates
thinking scientifically and grounding things empirically, taking a theoretical orientation, being
skeptical, reality-testing, adopting an experimental style, handling intellectual realms (e.g., lectures,
examinations, science, technology), and the values of order, achievement, dominance, and endurance.
Languaging: Use the language of association and stepping in if you want to pace someone who is
already there and the language of stepping out for someone not psychologically in an experience.
Listen for the reference of the state, is it a primary state experience or a meta-state reference?
Contexts of Origin: We are born “in our bodies” as fully emotional and emotive beings. Unless there
is neurological damage, we naturally and easily feel things and emote. It’s our heritage. We naturally
represent things from out of our own eyes and therefore live inside of our mental movies. It takes
learning to do otherwise. We learn to step out by modeling, identifying, and/or dis-identifying with
others or as the case usually is, from traumatic experiences that make stepping in feel completely
dangerous and terrible. We also step out because various cultural norms and taboos forbid us from
stepping in and feeling. Typically in the West, females have more permission for feeling or
associating into experiences while males have more permission and encouragement for stepping out
of to analyze things.
Self-Analysis:
__ Inside associated in Feelings / Outside dissociated in Thinking / Balance
Contexts: __ Negative Emotions
__ Present
__ Future
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Positive Emotions
__ Past
__ Work/Career
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other:____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#21. Exuberance: Timid Desurgence — Bold Surgency
Description: By creating a movie or idea and stepping into those representations, we are able to
directly experience and feel it. Yet doing so does not tell us anything about how much we will feel it
or the degree to which we will surge forth with energy. Emotional exuberance or intensity differs
from the mere fact of experiencing an emotion. Exuberance relates to how we experience the
emotional state, its degree and intensity.
Cattell (1989) describes this as the timidity to boldness factor in emoting. He takes the position that
the continuum from timidity (desurgency) to boldness (surgency) is constitutionally determined for the
most part. The term surgency means “to surge forth with energy, hope, excitement, fun, etc.”
Desurgency means to move forward without these qualities. This meta-program measures the
emotional exuberance of a person on a continuum from shy, timid, restrained, and threat-sensitive to
adventurous, thick-skinned, and socially bold. Cattell (1989), Goleman (1997), Galen (1994).
On a continuum between low and high exuberance and emotional intensity, we can value low to high
levels of emotion and use such in our experiences and perceptual filters. What’s your style of
emoting? Do you do so with energy that surges forth throughout your entire body? Or are you more
reserve in your emoting?
Elicitation:
C As you think about a situation at work or in your personal life that seems risky or publically
vulnerable, what do you think or feel?
C Do you naturally draw toward or away from novelty?
C Are you reluctant or excited to explore new territory and to take risks?
C Do you think of yourself as a “sensitive person” with a low threshold for excitability?
Timid, Shy Bold, Outgoing Desurgency Surgency
Identification:
1) Surgency Perceiving: People with high emotional intensity seek out and enjoy contexts where
strong emotions of excitement, fun, joy, and even of fear are welcomed. They enjoy the limelight,
center stage, attention, and receiving recognition, and so engage in more risk taking. They often think
and act in very creative ways. They also enjoy dangerous types of experiences (e.g., rollercoasters,
haunted houses, horror movies, etc.). They often enjoy feeling fearful. Cattell (1989) writes,
"Their physical underactivity provides immunity to physical and social threats that others find
noxious." (p. 136)
When over-done, this pattern can lead to anti-social behavior and when combined with concrete
thinking, many behave like the "fools who rush in where angels fear to tread."
"Their bold inattentiveness to danger signals and the press for excitement, in combination with low
intelligence, inevitably resulted in poor and rash judgment. This combination is often found in
prisoners." (p. 141)
2) Desurgency Perceiving: People with low emotional intensity cling to certainty and predictability
and develop neither criminal-like thinking nor creativity. With their low tolerance for fear and
arousal, they protect themselves by going into a shell, fear attracting attention, avoid risks, secure
themselves with routinized lifestyles, etc. When over-done, one can feel fear and anxiety driven, act
like a doormat for others, and experience a body full of nerves.
Languaging: The timid and fearful are silent and introspective in how they talk and feel. They are full
of cares and worries, reflective of danger and risks, cautious, negative, and avoidant. Because they
will internally process their emotions we may think of them as unemotional. Those who are bold and
take risks move forward in a cheerful, happy-go-lucky style; they are frank, expressive, quick, alert,
and talkative. They will more likely be external processes.
Contexts of Origin: Jerome Galan, eminent development psychologist sees this as a basic
temperamental type, yet one that can be changed through experience. It undoubtedly originates from
physiological factors and nervous system functioning that we were born with. Kagan believes it lies
in the excitability of a neural circuit centered on the amygdala. It can also be conditioned by
experience that allows, permits, or reinforces surgency or not. Long-term chronic trauma experiences
can alter thinking-emoting, acting, blood-chemistry, and the habitual way of experiencing life.
Self-Analysis:
__ Desurgency / Surgency / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#22. Stress Coping:
Passive, Assertive, Aggressive
Description: This meta-program relates specifically to stress and how we cope and perceive when
we feel stress. Stress can take one of two forms. It most typically arises when we face threat and
danger in our world. Acute stressors are the dangers that suddenly arise, chronic stressors exist when
we live in an environment where such physical threats are ever-present. Stress also arises from a
sense of overload, from the sense that we have too many things to do, too many demands to meet, too
many things on our plate. When we feel overwhelmed in this way, whether it is an acute situation of
overload or a chronic environmental sense, we feel “stress” and go into the fight/flight mode.
This fight/flight or General Arousal Syndrome describes a neurological process, cued by the
conscious mind via messages of "danger" or "overload.” Yet once in operation, it runs entirely by the
unconscious mind or autonomic nervous system. This system prepares our physiology and neurology
for accessing a high energy state so that we can fight or flee. Via repeated experiences of fight/flight,
trauma, distress, etc., a person could learn to "turn it off" through repression, denial, and other
defense mechanisms. Those who do this repeatedly and make it their driver program for responding
become dissociated from the emotions of fear, anger, etc. When one over-does this, one can create
what is called “dissociative” disorders of personality. Hall (1987), Goleman (1997).
We have two primary patterns for coping with stress, the “go at” and the “go away from” responses.
How do you neurologically and perceptually think about, perceive, and sort for things when in stress?
Do you think and perceive stressors as something to move toward to confront, take on, and deal with,
or do you perceive the stressors as something to move away from and avoid? Do you aggress at the
stressors or take the passive role by moving away from them? Selye (1976), Hall (1987), Lederer and
Hall (1997).
The "go at" and "go away from" emotional coping responses arise from the fight/flight syndrome built
within our neurology. Consider these response styles of the General Arousal Syndrome on a
continuum from one extreme of passivity to the other extreme of aggression. Consider how the person
responds in other arenas: work/career, home, relationships, hobby, sports, etc.
Elicitation:
C When you feel threatened, or challenged, by some stress, do you immediately respond on the
emotional level by wanting to get away from it or to go at it?
C Tell me about several specific instances when you faced a high stress situation that felt threatening.
How did you feel and respond?
C Do you detect a "go at" or "go away from" response to it? Or do you think and choose the best
course?
Passive Assertive Aggressive Type B Type C Type A Go away from Think and choose best course Go at
Identification:
1) Aggressive Perceiving, going at the stressors. More often than not, these people actually like
challenges, stress, pressure, and adventure. Look for the automatic and immediate response which
wants to take on the challenge or stress. When over-done or when engaged in with little thought,
aggressive responders become violent, dangerous, and out-of-control. At moderate levels, these
individuals manipulate through intimidating and threatening. In the field and literature of stress and
stress management, Type-A personality describes these people.
2) Passive Perceiving, moving away from the stressors. These are the people who are forever
seeking to avoid and get away from stresses, confrontations, threats, and dangers. They want more
than anything to make peace, to create harmony, and to make things pleasant and nice for everybody
(Satir category of Placator, Appendix B). When over-done, they transform into people-pleasers and
door-mats and unintentionally play into the "go at" responses of others. We think of them as having a
Type-B personality.
Both styles of responding operate as a function of stress and insecurity. Messages which cue the brain
of "danger" or "overload" activate the autonomic nervous system to go into these fight/flight
responses. In long-term intimate relationships, as many as 90% of marriages involve the attraction of
opposites. This suggests that we typically value and adore the behavioral traits of the opposite style
and unconsciously need to "marry" it and yet, so often resist doing so.
3) Assertive Perceiving, keeping presence of mind to think and choose. The tempering quality of
assertiveness lies in the middle of the continuum. Here we have learned to stop fighting or fleeing
and have learned how to cope with the internal sense of stress by thinking and talking the stress out
rather than acting it out. We still experience the emotion and urge to fight or flee, but will control (or
manage) that urge without acting on it. Consequently, we can maintain enough presence of mind to
think and talk out stresses—which is a description of an emotionally healthy person.
The Fight/Flight stress responses also relates to whether we typically step in and associate
emotionally or step out to analyze things (Movie Position, #20). Fight/Flight responses experienced in
emotional association will show up in overt and obvious ways. We will see changes in breathing,
skin color, eye dilation, etc. When we see a “dissociated” fight/flight response to high stress, the
person will seem cold and unfeeling, unemotional, and unaffected. Some people will access the
"computer mode" (Satir category). If the person gets stuck in that mode, then he or she will
continually push away awareness and expressiveness of the emotions.
Languaging: Aggressive responders will typically use the modal operators of possibility, while
passive responders will use those of necessity. Those with the go at approach style will think and talk
in terms of possibilities, ideals, and hopes as they focus on what they want. People who primarily
avoid (move away from) will think and talk in terms of what to avoid, laws, rules, protocols, and
necessities that they feel imposed on them in terms of shoulds, musts and have tos.
To pace and communicate with an aggressive responder, take his or her idea and wrestle with it.
Explore it, ask questions about it, have the person future-pace it. A person with the "go at" style wants
you to confront it, deal with it, and grapple with the ideas. Because these people appreciate
directness, forthrightness, and confrontation, affirm these qualities in them.
To pace and communicate with a passive responder, hear his or her ideas out fully and completely
without interrupting. Give verbal and non-verbal "go ahead" signs that essentially say, "Tell me more,
I have a lot of interest in what you've got to say. I want to understand you and your point of view."
Don't disagree directly or vigorously. Talk about the importance of finding harmony and peace, and of
being pleasant and nice.
At times an assertive person may choose to go to computer mode and analyze or just witness a
situation. The difference that will cue you here is that of choice. When you ask about the stress state,
the person can access the kinesthetic feelings of that state and choose to step out of that stress to deal
with it.
Contexts of Origin: This meta-program arises neurologically in response to the nervous system's
sensitivity to stress. Nobody is a passive or aggressive as a category. We rather function in passiveaggressive ways or in aggressive-passive ways. Physiological nervous system sensitivity: those who
typically move away from stress, conflict, distress, etc. may have a more finely tuned and sensitive
set of sense receptors, whereas those who move toward such do not find the sensory impact
significant until much later. Modeling and identifying with significant persons during childhood plays
a role in developing and modifying these styles. Trauma experiences that induce states of stress can
habituate and become so chronic that a person moves to one extreme or the other of passivity and
aggression.
Self-Analysis:
__ Passive / Assertive / Aggressive
Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: _________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#23. Authority:
Internal — External
Description: This meta-program deals with where we look for the authority, rights and privileges,
and permission to do things. Do we look internally to our self, to our own thoughts, feelings, frames,
etc. (Internal) or outside to some reference out there (External)? This perceptual filter concerns
where we posit our locus of control and judgment. Do we put the authority for our judgments,
understandings, and action as coming from inside ourselves or outside? Who (or what) do we use as
our reference point? When we sort for authority, do we posit, frame, and feel the authority as internal
or external?
Through the process of maturation over the lifespan, as babies and then children we entirely used an
external frame of reference—referencing our parents, teachers, culture, friends, mentors, etc. As we
grow, we develop more and more of an internal frame of reference. This occurs as we come to feel
more and more sure of our own thoughts, values, beliefs, skills, tastes, etc. The majority of
personality models views a mentally-emotionally healthy person as moving more and more to selfreferencing without losing the ability to do other-referencing as needed. The studies about our locus
of control reveal the same thing. “Locus” refers to a circle. If we draw a circle of authority, would
we put ourselves inside or outside of that circle?
Elicitation:
C Who do you reference and rely upon for authority?
C To what extent do you feel that the locus of control in your life is inside
yourself or outside in others, in rules, in social conventions, etc.?
C How do you know that you have chosen or acted right, or that you have done, chosen the right bank
(right car, etc.)?
C When it comes to decision-making, how do you go about it?
C What kind of information do you want in making decisions?
C How do you know when you’ve done a good job?
C How do you feel about taking charge of your own life in your finances and career?
Internal Referencing Balanced External Referencing Locus of Control Within Locus of Control Outside
Identification:
1) Internal Referent Perceiving: Those who operate internally evaluate things on the basis of what
they think is appropriate. They motivate themselves and make their own decisions. They choose and
validate their own actions and results. While they may gather information from others, they always
assume the right and power to ultimately decide for themselves. As their locus of control is internal,
they live "from within." Internal referencing people can easily decide within themselves and know
within themselves what they want, need, believe, feel and value.
2) External Referent Perceiving: Those who operate externally evaluate things on the basis of
external authority that which is outside—in the world of rules, people, and events. They look outside
for guidance, information, motivation, and decisions. They feel a greater need for feedback about
their actions and results, and they can even feel lost without guidance or feedback from others.
Because their locus of control is external they live "from without" and often fall into a pattern of
people pleasing. This can be both their gift and their curse. Some feel so dependent on others that they
live their life totally in reference to the values and beliefs of someone else.
Generally speaking, the person with the internal reference will tend to ignore feedback or at least not
take it very seriously while the person with the external reference will need and want it. Regarding
criticism the first will either ignore it or handle it in a straightforward manner, while thesecond will
personalize it and use it for feeling bad.
Given this, people who are internally referenced will be easy to manage. All a manager has to do is
provide the standards, strategies, and reasons, and if there’s buy-in, the task is as good as done. For
them, feedback can be felt and interpreted as intrusion, distrust, and micro-managing. Externals, on
the other hand, need lots of feedback, want it, and feel neglected, ignored, and even disrespected
without it. Because externals care about what others think, selling and influencing them involves using
others—testimonies, experiences, etc. Internals will not like that approach and may even find it
irritating. This means that relationships and all of the facets of relating (respect, rapport, listening,
caring, etc.) will play a bigger role in influencing an external than an internal.
In the area of learning, while internals will take new information and materials and apply it to self
more readily, and know within themselves what fits or doesn’t, they may also be less open and
receptive to outside information. The more they already “know,” the more closed-minded they will
be. The best learning occurs when we shift to external reference, and after practice and incorporation,
shift to the internal frame.
Languaging: Listen for whether the person tells you that he or she decides (Internal) or whether they
get information from some outside source (External). An excellent follow-up question is to ask, “Do
you just know inside or does someone else have to tell you?” (External)?
Those who look within for authority will say, "I just know. I feel it. It feels right." They come from
their own internal state will speak of their own values, beliefs, and understandings. They will come
across in an assertive and forthright manner. Those external referenced will say, "My boss tells me. I
look at the figures..." Those coming from some external source will speak of placating and pleasing
others.
In pacing and communicating with those with the internal referencing metaprogram, emphasize that he
or she will know inside. "You must make the decision—it belongs to you." "What do you think?"
“What do you feel?” Help the person to clarify his or her own thinking and feeling. With externals
emphasize what other’s think. Give statistics, data, and testimonials. "Most people find this product
or service very useful."
The internal referencing use their own frames-of-reference to decide which stereo to buy as they
identify their own personal inclinations. The external referencing care about information from
external sources (i.e., mass media, consumer reports, advertising, and opinions). Internals with an
external check or Externals with internal check provide a more challenging pattern to discern.
Use language that matches the person’s style. For Externals, positing authority, right and wrong,
what’s proper, acceptable, etc. outside on authority figures, teachers, people who have the cultural
symbols of authority. For Internals, authorizing of one’s life based upon what’s within, intuition, inner
potentials and talents, inner vision, etc.
Those who become entrepreneurs, leaders, and pioneers typically use internal referencing. They
blaze new trails. Managing these self-regulating people involves communicating with clarity, about
goals, procedures, or criteria, do that and then turn them loose. They will dislike tight supervision.
Those who do external referencing typically depend on external checks. They excel in jobs where
their program to "go external" to get the facts and figures fit the situation. Managing someone who
uses an external frame-of-reference will be generally easy and direct when matching this style. Give
such persons feedback, information, validation, praise, affirmation, and commendations.
Contexts of Origin: Who we model and identify with early in life will grant us either permission or
prohibition for internal or external referencing for authority. What were we rewarded for positing
authority and control internally or externally? Cultural norms play a role here. Cultures that encourage
obedience, respect, honor, status, etc. will be more external referencing, whereas in cultures that
emphasize democracy, equality, informality, first-name basis of acquaintance, etc. will favor internal
referencing. McConnell (1977) quoted research on regional contexts (the north versus the south in the
USA) as having more internalizers versus externalizers (p. 298-302) which, interestingly enough,
affects survival rates in tornados and hurricanes.
Self-Analysis:
__ Internal / External / Balance
__ Balanced
__ Internal Referencing with some External check __ External Referencing with some Internal check Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other:_____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ If Other-Referencing: referencing off of who or what? Reference person or group?
#24. Attention:
Self-Referent — Other-Referent
Description: This meta-program deals primarily with our attention when it comes to self and others,
hence how we relate to each other. Where do we invest our attention as we move through the world,
taking in information, communicating, relating, taking action, etc.? Do we fundamentally attend to
ourselves (Self) or to others (Other)? Do we focus our attention on what we think, feel, want, choose,
and do? Or do we focus our attention primarily on what others think, feel, want, choose, and do? This
emotional meta-program relates to the investment of our attention and how we emotionally see the
world of others. James and Woodsmall (1988). Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998).
Elicitation:
C Where do you put most of your attention—on your own thinking and choosing or externally on
circumstances, events, rules, others, etc.?
C In relationships do you find yourself primarily attending to your needs or to those of others?
C If there’s a conflict of interest, do you focus on your needs or those of others?
C How easy or hard is it to attend to others? To attend to self?
C Where do you put most of your attention—on yourself or on others?
C Who do you first seek to take care of or attend to?
Self Referent Balanced Other Referent Strong Boundaries Highly Skilled at Empathy
Identification:
1) Self-Reference Perceiving: When we operate by the self referencing metaprogram, we think, feel,
and evaluate on the basis of ourselves—what I think, feel, and want. Self-referencing people motivate
themselves and make decisions by themselves. They choose and validate their own actions and
results. While they may gather information from others, they decide on their own. They attend to their
own needs and take responsibility for themselves. Self-referencing people easily decide within
themselves and know what they want, need, believe, feel and value.
Those who filter both by internal and self referencing are independent thinkers who need much less
confirmation or validation from others. They trust their own understandings, values, beliefs, desires,
tastes, etc. This results in the emotions of independence, autonomy, confidence, clarity, selfmotivation, and proactivity. When over-done, the Self referencing can fail to attend to others, neglect
loved ones, children, and key business relationships.
2) Other-Reference Perceiving: In this meta-program we focus attention primarily on others, and we
care primarily about others, value and nurture others, their interests and concerns. Our other
referencing perception leads us to attend to what others think and want. We may default to them, even
in significant decisions. Other referencing is sometimes related to External referencing. A person can
internally reference in terms of authority and be Other referencing in terms of where they put attention
when relating to people. Attending to others is an essential meta-program for anyone working with
people in customer service, the helping professions, coaching, therapy, and even managing. Attending
to others facilitates the emotional intelligence of empathy. It involves the skill of taking secondposition. When over-done, one can attend the needs of others and neglect one’s own needs or even
betray one’s own values.
Languaging: Listen for the linguistic cue of the use of the word "you." When Other referencing
people talk about themselves they often say “you.” Selfreferencing people typically are more direct
and will use the personal pronoun "I." Often those who reference externally feel more insecure and so
trust others for validation. They feel more dependent upon confirmation by others. They generally
appreciate clear-cut guidelines, prizes, feedback, recognition, etc. They can enjoy and participate as a
team player more readily as well.
The self referent (and internal referent) will process things in terms of how they experience
management, communication, and generally ready to speak their mind about things. This can make
them more challenging to manage or to step into the role of a team player. Those whose attention is on
others will thrive in teams, be highly aware of how others are doing, and extend themselves to meet
the needs of others. They may also more typically not speak up for themselves and so may not express
dissatisfaction until they are at a threshold point.
Contexts of Origin: Who we model and identify with early in life will grant us either permission or
prohibition for self or other referencing. What were we rewarded for, attending self or other?
Cultural norms play a role here also. Western cultures typically encourage more self-referencing,
whereas in Eastern cultures it is for other-referencing. Gender conditioning favors males to filter by
self, and females to filter for others.
Self-Analysis:
__ Other / Self / Balance
__ Balanced in both other-referencing and self-referencing __ Other-Referencing with Self-referencing check __ Self-Referencing with
Other-referencing check Contexts:
__ Relationships __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Sports __ Other:_____________ __ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ If Other-Referencing: referencing off of who or what? Reference person or group?
__ Work/Career __ Intimates
#25. Emotional Containment:
Uni-directional — Multi-directional
Description: This meta-program relates to how we experience and express our emotions in terms of
focus or diffusion. It refers to directional quality of our emoting when we experience a feeling state.
When some people emote, they do so in a uni-directional way, others do so multi-directionally. The
fact that we can displace our emotions, get angry with our boss or some authority figure, and displace
our emotions on our children, pets, spouses, and friends describes a multi-directional use of
emotions. If we were to ask, “What are you so angry about?” the person may not even know the
source of the emotion. He or she may focus on some tiny trigger that sets it off. Emotionally do you
see emotions as contained to specific events and situations or as diffused?
Elicitation:
C Do your emotions often bleed over and affect some or all of your other emotional states?
C Or do your emotions stay pretty much focused on whatever it relates to?
C When you get mad at work (or home) do you take your emotions with you and displace them on
others?
C How easily can you let strong negative emotions go?
Uni-directional Multi-directional Contained, Focused Spreads out, Diffused
Identification:
1) Multi-directional Perceiving: When some people have a “down” day at work, their "down"
emotions immediately and powerfully affect every other area of life. The emotions are not contained
to the context or to whatever triggers them, but “bleed over” to other things or even to everything. The
emotional state that relates to one facet of life spreads out multi-directionally. When over-done, that
pattern leads to moodiness, instability, displaced emotions, and other forms of emotional instability.
The person seems unable to keep the emotions about that one facet limited or contained to that area.
As a meta-program, multi-directional is a great choice when experiencing powerfully the bright and
positive emotions. We can then spread or diffuse those delightful emotions everywhere in our world.
Problems with the multi-directional meta-program occur when we experience negative emotions and
then diffuse an emotional storm by displacing them on innocent bystanders. People who diffuse
emotions from one source to many other sources will more like experience the phenomena of
“psycho-eating,” “psycho-sexing,” etc. In spreading and diffusing their emotions, they become less
aware of those emotions, less clear as to what evokes them, or what mental map and criteria they
relate to and so they will eat to de-stress, feel comfort, love, fulfillment, sociality, and many other
emotions (See Games Slim and Fit People Play, 2001).
2) Uni-directional Perceiving: Some people contain their emotions and emote in a direct and
singular way, uni-directionally. If he feels upset, down, angry, joyful, contented, etc. at work, then he
will keep those feelings contextualized to that referent. The person does not let the emotions bleed
over into other areas of life, relationships, hobbies, recreation, finance, etc. She may feel her
emotions fully in the area of reference, but will not relate them to other areas. The emotional state is
“cleaner” and more distinct.
When balanced, this enables us to keep our emotions appropriate and contextualized. When overdone, this pattern can prevent us from using good feelings in one area of life to spread to enrich our
states in another area. It then reflects overly rigid ego boundaries.
Languaging: The person with the multi-directional filter will often displace emotions from one
context to another context and even allow a strong negative (or positive) emotional state to collapse
into other states. Their emoting style operates in a diffused way, without boundaries or constraints.
The uni-directional sorter segments and sequences their emotional states so that this or that emotion
about a particular situation stays contained.
Case Study: Jane never seems to know what she felt about anything in particular. Her feelings about
work, her children, a friend, Bill, her aging parents, her health, etc. was almost entirely dependent
upon the emotion of the day. She colored everything else with that emotion.
By way of contrast, her husband Bill never experienced his emotions in a multidirectional way. He
could easily and quickly tell you what he felt about work, about his marriage, his hobbies, his
children, etc. If he had a bad day at work, he would feel upset, frustrated, angry, confused, or
whatever about work, but would leave it there and come home and have a delightful time.
Jane didn’t know how to think or feel about Bill’s uni-directional focus and diffusion of his emotions.
“How can we have a tiff and then go out and enjoy the kids riding bikes? He acts like nothing is eating
away at him.” Bill similarly didn’t understand Jane. “How can she treat me and the kids so bad when
she’s had a falling out with her mother? Can’t she leave that there, take a break from that and quit
fuming and fussing about it?”
Contexts of Origin: We learn this meta-program. It is determined by the permissions or prohibitions
we received or created for experiencing and registering emotions according to which areas we
viewed as acceptable and which as forbidden. A child may experience a home context where parents
accept his or her fear, but reject anger, frustrations, etc. The child models and identifies with how
parents and others separate or don’t separate the various facets of their emoting.
Self-Analysis:
__ Uni-directional/ Multi-directional / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#26. Rejuvenation:
Introvert — Extrovert
Description: The terms introvert and extrovert in this meta-program are not about being social,
having social skills, or even liking people and wanting to be around people. These terms, which
usually convey these ideas do not mean that here. The terms rather refer to how we process things and
deal with our thinkingand-feeling when we are tired, exhausted, stressed, or generally need to renew
our batteries. In this meta-program, the word extrovert is for those who re-charge their batteries by
getting with people, talking, going out, and needing the encouragement and presence of others.
Introverts are those who, when they need to re-charge their batteries, want to be alone, spend time by
themselves, and not be around a lot of people. The term ambivert is used for those who have a
balanced mixture of the two styles and can do either.
Carl Jung described the Introvert / Extrovert category as an attitude preference. He said it begins
with an awareness of whether we pay attention to ourselves or others, whether our attention moves
inward or outward. Woodsmall created this meta-program by introducing this distinction into NLP.
(James and Woodsmall, 1988).
The context of this meta-program occurs when a person feels down and wants to feel better. Does the
experience of interacting with others rechargetheir batteries or expend them? Each feels most
comfortable within the given realm. Those who are introverts enjoy the peace in his or her own inner
world of personal thoughts and ideas. They experience such as solitude. The extreme introverting
style enjoys a reclusive style. Because they attend to ideas, concepts, thoughts, they often have a
greater depth of concentration and introspection. They view extroverting as shallow and inauthentic.
Extroverts prefer the company of others and so love crowds, parties, events, etc. Because they love
people, they tend toward a sociable, action-oriented, and impulsive style involving high social
adjustment skills, talkative, gregarious, outgoing, etc. Typically, these people experience the
aloneness of solitude as distress and pain of loneliness.
Elicitation:.
C When you feel the need to re-charge your batteries, do you prefer to do it alone or with others?
C How do you rejuvenate your emotional state and get into a better state of mind? What do you like to
do? Do you prefer to do this alone or with others?
C How do you emotionally see others as sources for rejuvenating yourself or opportunities to serve
others and contribute?
C Do social events wear you out or recharge you?
Introvert
Recharges by Self Ambivert Extrovert Balance Recharges with Others
Identification: 1) Extrovert Perceiving: When it comes to the context of needing some
mentalemotional rejuvenation, encouragement, support, and personal renewal, some turn their
attention primarily to others. They have an extroverted meta-program style when stressed or down.
They need others to re-charge their batteries. Being alone feels like loneliness for them and depletes
them.
2) Introvert Perceiving: These are those who turn their attention inward, get off by themselves when
they need to deal with their stresses, negative emotions, demotivations, etc. They have an introverted
meta-program style under stress. They do not need others to re-charge their batteries. They get with
others to express their energy, visions, hopes, resources, etc. They may be very social, but they use
social interactions for expressing their strengths rather than renewing their state. Introverts experience
time alone as solitude and find it refreshing.
3) Balance between Introvert and Extrovert Perceiving: Those who can equally use either pattern
have an balanced meta-program style that we can call ambivert. They can recharge their batteries
alone or with people. It doesn’t matter to them.
Extroversion and introversion in this context refers to our desire, need, and enjoyment of experiencing
other people and social environments or solitude when down, discouraged, negative, or stressed.
James and Woodsmall (1988) say by introverting a person will have fewer friends, but deeper
relationships, reflect before acting, enjoy working alone, score high on aptitude tests, love concepts,
value aesthetics, and look to self for causes. By extroverting, a person has lots of friends and
acquaintances, but usually not many deep relations. They look outside of themselves to others or the
environment for causes, and may even fear being alone.
Languaging:. Listen for the context of re-charging one’s batteries and a person’s desire for
encouragement and validation from people or through oneself. Listen for the attention meta-program
of self referencing for introverts and other referencing (Attention, #24) for extroverts when it comes
to the context of feeling down and needing a shot in the arm.
Contexts of Origin: Some neurological studies suggest innate factors that predispose a person toward
a more shy and retiring style versus a more engaging style. Yet that does not entirely explain this
meta-program. How significant persons model social interactions, skills, and whether they make it a
joy, or a living hell, powerfully conditions one toward extroversion or introversion.
Self-Analysis:
__ Extrovert / Introvert / Ambivert or Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: _________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#27. Somatic Response: Inactive, Reflective, Active, Reactive
Description: Some people process information and emotionally respond in a very active, quick,
immediate, and impulsive way—they have an active style. Others engage in the handling of
information more reflectively, thoughtfully, and slowly—the reflective style. Emotionally and
somatically they do not activate their motor cortex programs that evoke them to feel the need to act as
they think. At the other extremes on the continuum we have those who do not seem to engage in
information processing much at all, or at least with much reluctance—the inactive style, and those
who are over-active, maybe even reactive and unable to effectively even think in a clear way before
responding. Woodsmall (1988).
Elicitation:
C When you come into a social situation (a group, class, team, family reunion, etc.), do you usually
act quickly after sizing it up or do you engage in a detailed study of all of the consequences before
acting?
C How do you typically respond when you encounter something new or different?
C How much do you feel the urge to act when you are just thinking or talking?
C How hard is it for you to just sit still when engaged with a fascinating subject?
C How old were you when you first started earning money outside your home?
Inactive Reflective Activ Reactive
Identification:
1) Active to Reactive Perceiving: Those with the active pattern feel the need to act as they think
(Active) or before they think (Reactive). Their motor cortex is easily activated and so they orient
themselves in the world as doers. They make things happen. They often act first, and think later
(which can have its drawbacks). This sets them up to be entrepreneurs and go-getters, they are the
movers and shakers who shape the world to their visions. While they will more likely make lots of
mistakes, they also get things done, and have many more successes.3
Applied socially, the socially active person immediately takes action. He or she will go at or aggress
toward the person or event, either out of a sense of threat (Stress Coping, aggression, #22) or desire
(Motivation Direction, toward, #35). If too active, the person will respond impulsively and
unthinkingly. Those with the Active meta-program both make lots of mistakes which also is the
foundation for scoring lots of successes. Typically they will talk fast, think fast, and act fast. They like
to get things done; they like to "take the bull by the horns." When wellbalanced, they are proactive.
They will typically use the meta-program of internal reference (Authority Source, #23) as well. Pace
them by saying, "Just get up and do it." "Go for it." When this is over-done, the impulsive energy
leads to reactivity. Well-balanced and modulated, it can lead to the resourceful state of proactivity.
The question about how old were you when you first began earning money outside your home comes
from Roger Dawson (1992). He asked this question of hundreds of job applications for years and
wrote this, “I’ve found a very direct correlation. The younger you were when you first started earning
your own money, the more initiative you’ll have. And the more initiative you have, the more you will
function on possibilities rather than necessity.” (p. 153).
2) Reflective to Inactive Perceiving: Those with the reflective pattern are able to think things through
without activating their motor programs. They like to study things first, engage in a good bit of
pondering, and than take action. This makes them more passive as they sit back to contemplate before
acting. A belief frame that supports this perceptual filter is, "Don't do anything rash!"
Applied socially, the socially reflective person thinks and studies prior to taking action in reference
to groups. They can even let things go for a long time without taking any action at all. They feel more
inhibited about taking action out of fear of making a mistake (Risk Taking, Aversive, #46). They may
feel less confident and more insecure. When overdone, they may procrastinate to their own detriment
and move into the inactive pattern. They will more rarely be in the forefront of the business world.
Typically they will have the meta-program of both external reference and other reference. They work
best in contexts that demand more thought and reflection.
3) Balanced between Active and Inactive Perceiving: Those who have a choice regarding these
response styles have a richer repertoire of options and can operate in a more balanced way. Look for
them to operate primarily in the Representation meta-program of language (#1) and to communicating
assertively even when in stress (Stress Coping, #22). Applied socially, the socially balanced will
equally use both styles as they eagerly pursue their goals in group contexts with sufficient reflection
about them. They take time for analyzing feedback before they move forward.
Languaging: In your communication match each meta-program style by appealing to the styles and
values of each. Observe the level of physiological and neurological activation when a person is
talking or listening.
Contexts of Origin: How we are wired in our physiology and neurology can set a predisposition for
these modes. The extent to which our motor cortex has been conditioned to act can be increased or
decreased with the use of certain psychoactive drugs. These styles also come from modeling and
identifying with key people in our lives, even dis-identifying with others. We sometimes learn and
come to believe that one of these meta-programs is the acceptable one, one prohibited, one leads to
success, another leads to pain. As children we are generally wired to immediately "act out" emotions
and ideas. So most of us have to first learn how to slow down our reactive processes, and learn to
reflect on things. Trauma experiences inducing fight/flight patterns may lead to a reactive style.
Self-Analysis:
__ Active / Reflective / Inactive / Reactive Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#28. Social Presentation: Shrewdly Artful — Artlessly Genuine
Description: How do you perceive your social presentation in the world? How much do you care
about what others think about you? How much do you mentally and emotionally manage your image?
Cattell (1989) describes those who move through life, in relation to other people and various social
groups, as warm, artless, spontaneous, and naive versus those who move in a very artful, even
shrewd, and socially correct way. One believes, values, and cares about their social presentation, the
other doesn’t care that much and may even dis-care, disbelieve, and dis-value it. Cattell (1989).
Elicitation:
C When you think about entering a social group or going out in public, how do you handle yourself?
C Do you really care about your social image and want to avoid any negative impact on others so that
they recognize your tact, politeness, social graces, etc.?
C Or do you not really care about any of that and just want "to be yourself," natural, forthright, direct,
transparent, etc.?
C How do you emotionally perceive your image or reputation in the eyes of others?
C How much time do you spend anticipating what others will think of you?
Artlessly Genuine
Doesn’t care about social impressions Socially naive
Artfully Shrewd
Manages social impressions Socially sophisticated
Identification: 1) Artful and Shrewd Perceiving: Some people really care about the impressions they
make on others in their social presentation and want to ensure that they create no negative
impressions. They value the image they create in the minds of others and so are more likely to be in
other referencing in their attentions (Attention, #24). They value politeness, tact, etiquette, protocol,
etc., and strongly dis-value too much self-disclosure, expression of thoughts and feelings, spontaneity,
etc. They will generally have lots of social ambition. When over-done, such persons can be very
manipulative, "political," selfish, etc.
2) Artless and Genuine Perceiving: Some people de-value the whole social presentation and think of
it as play acting, "not being real," "being a fake," or a hypocrite. They prefer to "just let things hang
out." Typically they will have little or no social ambitions, are more resilient to disappointments with
others, and can come across as artless and crude in their social manners (or lack of them). In this
way, they will be more self referencing in their attention (Attention, #24) and internal in their locus of
control (Authority Source, #23). When over-done, a person may behave rudely and inappropriately in
public, he or she may even develop an anti-social style.
Languaging: Which set of values does the person highlight and talk about the most? These metaprograms lead both to the social butterfly, the politician, and the socially adept and to the socially
crude and rude, the artlessly forthright person who always speaks his or her mind.
Contexts of Origin: These meta-program styles typically arise from modeling and identifying with
early role models, parents, teachers, etc. who showed a positive portrait of the importance of social
adeptness, or dis-identification from hypocrites and manipulators, and/or modeling within an antisocial group of rebels. They may also be connected with our innate predispositions for timidity or
boldness (Exuberance, #21) and passivity versus aggression (Stress Coping, #22).
Self-Analysis:
__ Artful and Shrewd / Artless and Genuine / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#29. Dominance:
Power, Affiliation, Achievement
Description: In the social realm where people interact, relate, and communicate we have the
emergence of social phenomena such as “power,” “control,” and influence. How do you perceive,
think about, and handle such experiences? When in a group or social event, what are your thoughts
about these facets of human experience? What’s your style and focus? What do you filter for? Harvard
professor, David McClelland, developed the McClelland Model by looking at three central aspects
of human interacting—power, affiliation, and achievement. From this three-fold focus, Joseph Yeager
(1985) constructed what he called the Yeager Power Grid.
This meta-program relates to how a person adapts to the “power” moves of others in a group,
organization, team, family, community in terms of such social interactions as one-upmanship, putdowns, trying to take control, influencing, persuasion, etc. This meta-program describes the style a
person uses in handling or not handling power effectively. Yeager connects this to the passive-
aggressive meta-program using a 1-to-10 scale, 1 for passive (like Charlie Brown), 5 for assertive
(like Snoopy) and 10 for aggressive (like Lucy or Attila the Hun). Yeager (1985), McClelland
(1953), Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998).
Elicitation:
C What are your motives when interacting with others given your preferences of the following?
Power (dominance, competition, politics)
Affiliation (relationship, courtesy, cooperation) and Achievement (results, goals, objectives)?
C If you used 100 points as your scale and distributed the hundred points among these three styles of
handling "power,” how much do you give for each?
__ Power
__ Affiliation
__ Achievement
C What’s your focus when you’re working with a group of people around these three values?
C If you allocate a percentage of power, affiliation, and achievement out of 100, what percentage
would you estimate for each?
C How much do you emotionally see things in terms of power, affiliation, and achievement?
Achievement Affiliation Power Getting Projects Done Getting Along and Enjoying Each Other Being in Charge and Calling the Shots
Identification:
1) Perceiving via Power: People who sort for power operate fully as "a hierarchical animal"
(Yeager, 1985, p. 110), and value the experience of dominating, competing, playing politics, being in
charge, and calling the shots. When they feel satisfied in this pursuit, they feel combinations of
superiority and satisfaction. When negotiating, they typically think in Win/Lose terms. When overdone, they think, "It's not enough that I win ... others must lose." (Attila the Hun meta-program). In
their language they will talk about power struggles, who’s in control, status, influence, positions,
reputations, politics, confrontations, etc.
As a leader, power people will be either seek to empower themselves (authoritarian) or others
(authoritative). They move toward control, being in
Their strength is in their ability to direct and charge, status, and recognition. apply pressure.
2) Perceiving via Affiliation: referencemeta-program (Attention, #24) and manage relationships by
turning on courtesy, cooperation, empathy, politeness, comradrie, etc. They value and care more
about creating and maintaining good relationship with others via thoughtfulness. They think in
Win/Win terms when working with others and will not play if everybody can’t win. Their talk will be
friendly and cordial; they will talk about cooperation, relationships, and emotions. As leaders their
affiliation People who sort for affiliation use the other
needs will give them the interpersonal skills that many middle and upper management lacks, but also
undermine their ability to be firm and to create the necessary structures for accountability. Their
strength is their charm and friendship.
3) Perceiving via Achievement: People who sort for achievement care most of all for getting things
done. These are the practical results people who can focus on the task of the group and on the team
performance and make things happen. They will talk about competition, accomplishments, successes,
tasks, risks, adventures, etc. As a leader their focus will be on productivity and profitability. Their
challenge will often be that of releasing and delegating. Their strength is their positive success
orientation, ability to consult and achieve, and to create a winning environment.
Languaging: Listen for the words and ideas which indicate one of these three arenas in the context of
social groups and organizations.
Contexts of Origin: The value and style that predominated in the way one's parents and teachers
operated in the family and school may predispose one to likewise sort. Did one identify and model
this style or did one dis-identify from that style of orientation?
Self-Analysis:
__ Power/ Affiliation/ Achievement/ Balance
Contexts:
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ Work/Career __ Intimates
__ Relationships __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Sports __ Other: ______________
#30. Work Style:
Independent, Team Player, Manager, Bureaucrat
Description: This meta-program refers to how we process and handle the experience of working with
other people in a task-oriented situation like work. How do we perceive ourselves vis-a-vis the
group? How do we want to relate to the group? What’s important to us about that? In response to this
question, people generally sort for playing different roles, for being independent, a team player,
managing or running the organization, or a part of a bureacracy.
Because this meta-program relates to any context that involves getting a task accomplished, it is
especially applicable for business. It provides valuable information for determining a person's
suitability for self-management, working as a team player, and/or managing others. It also provides
insight into a person's flexibility in inter-personal relations. Do they naturally think about the success
of others, do they desire to assist them, to manage processes of the organization, or to lead out to new
areas? James and Woodsmall (1988).
Elicitation:
C Ask the following questions successively in the following order. 1) Do you know what you need to
be more successful at work or in this task?
2) Do you know what someone else needs to function more successfully? 3) Do you find it easy to tell
someone what they should do? 4) Do you have a sense or vision of what else is possible in the future?
C As you think about a work situation where you felt the happiest, when and where did that occur?
C What factors contributed to your sense of fulfillment in that situation?
C How long can you work alone?
Independent Dependent Self Others only
Identification: 1) Independent or self only Perceiving: The answers to the series of four elicitation
questions will be Yes, No, No, No or Yes. This describes those who perceive, value, and orient
themselves independently. They have the capacity for management in that they know the strategies for
succeeding, but they do not want to manage. Independent workers like to do things on their own. They
also like to
Team Player
Self and Others Manager/Leader Bureaucrat Self and Others Self
assume and take responsibility for their own motivation and management. They score high on selfcontrol and discipline, internal and self referencing metaprograms (Authority Source, #23, Attention,
#24). Those who operate from a polarity response will sort for independence because "they can't be
told anything” (Self-Instruction, strong-will, #49).
2) Dependent, or Others Only, Perceiving: The answers here will be: No, Yes, Yes-or-No, No.
They typically will wait on the boss, the system, or a spouse to tell them what to do. They may
intuitively lack awareness about what to do, simply do not trust their own judgments, or function by a
passively waiting style. Typically, once they are given instructions, they do not hesitate to take action.
(Self-Instruction, compliant, #49).
3) Team Player Perceiving: The answers Sometimes, Sometimes, Sometimes, Sometimes describes
those who perceive, value, and orient themselves via a team playing mode. Depending upon the
circumstances and contexts, they may or may not want to play a manager role, but may want to cofacilitate the success of the group as a whole. Team players like the comraderie that comes with
working as a team and doing something together. They like the terms and concepts of togetherness,
"family," "just being around people," etc.
4) Potential managers, self but not others, Perceiving: The answers Yes, Yes-or No, No, Yes
describe those who have the interest to potentially become managers. They know what it will take for
others to succeed, yet they feel hesitant or inhibited from intruding or getting involved in such
communications. Various beliefs, values, experiences, lack of skills, etc. may hold them back.
Typically this means that they do not yet desire to manage or lead, but they could potentially develop
those skills.
5) Managing or self and others : A Yes answer to all questions. These people know the structure of
success in an activity, care about it, think about others, and love to communicate about it. Their metaprogram gets them to value and orient themselves to manage self and others. They know what they
need to do to increase their success, know what others need to do, and don't hesitate to say so. Often
these managing types, with their "take charge" attitude will assume that others should have and use the
same principles and values that they do. In adaptation, they operate from the Judging perspective
(Adaptation, #37). Managing persons enjoy the supervisory role of directing and guiding
6) Bureaucrat Perceiving: These will also answer No, Yes, and Yes, and Yes to the questions. They
want to manage others and have no one, including themselves, to manage them. Not a pretty picture, is
it?
Languaging: Notice the emphasis in your client upon the subject of affiliation, team playing, or
independence. Then pace your communications according to the person’s way of filtering things.
Contexts of Origin: The debate continues about whether leaders and managers are born or develop.
Here the style of social action in early life, the thoughts-andemotions surrounding such, identifying or
dis-identifying from such models seems to primarily create this way of sorting. Obviously, trauma
experiences can provide a strong stimulus to stay away from trying to work with or through people.
Experiences early in one’s career contribute to the development of this meta-program. The person
who experiences a great deal of satisfaction through working on a team or in management will
undoubtedly attach a lot of pleasure to such. The same may occur if one experiences a positive role
model in this area.
Self-Analysis:
__ Independent/ Dependent/ Team / Potential Manager/ Management / Bureaucrat Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#31. Change Adaptor: Closed — Open to Change; Late—Medium— Early Adaptors
Description: We all have a thinking and feeling style about change. This change adaptor metaprogram relates to how open or closed we are to change. Do we do so quickly and easily? Do we
embrace change? Or do we fight it, resist it, fear it, hate it, and even when we want to make a change,
find ourselves fighting the process of change? This meta-program is related to the meta-programs of
Risk Taking (#45) and Decision Making (#46).
Regarding this change meta-program there are numerous distinctions (noted by Denise Pederson):
Speed of changing: Change motivation: Quality of Change: Slow — Medium — Fast
Externally — Internally motivated Cosmetic — Core
This meta-programs begins with ideas and beliefs about “change” in general, typically drawn as a
conclusion from specific changes that one has experienced. How we have meta-stated ourselves
about the idea or concept of change sets up this meta-program. Do we welcome change, long for it,
desire it, bring a willingness to it, or resist it, fear it, hate it, etc.? In welcoming change, there are
other qualities and textures to the experience: welcoming uncertainty, willing to suspend judgment
and to be tentative.
How open or closed we are to change depends on our beliefs about change. In this, it is important to
discover if there are any beliefs in the back of our mind about change that may sabotage the
transformation process (i.e., “Any change that I make will eventually revert back to its original
status.”) A belief like that will be incredibly unuseful when engaged in coaching, counseling,
consulting, or training for change. A belief like that would potentially make change incredibly
difficult and challenging and lead to other beliefs about the inability to sustain a transformation. Hall
and Duval (2004 Meta-Coaching Vol I.: Coaching Change).
Everett Rodgers (1995) covers the subject of adapting innovations and posits the following adaptor
distinctions:
Innovators: Venturesome
Early Adaptors: Respect
Early Majority: Deliberate
Late Majority: Skeptical
Laggards: Traditional
Elicitation:
C How willing and open are you generally to welcoming change into your life?
C Do you tend to be a pioneer in change (a change embracer), an early adopter, adopter when the
wave of change has come, a late adopter, or even a change resister?
C How do you emotionally see change?
C How do you emotionally keep things the same?
C What do you feel emotionally when you experience change, planned or unplanned change?
Closed to Change Late Adopter
Open to Change Early Adopter
Identification: 1) Closed to Change Perceiving: The more closed we are to change, the more we
dislike it and perceive it as disrupting or even threatening. This will make us more likely to be a late
adopter to changes and will follow innovations rather than lead or champion them.
2) Open to Change Perceiving: The more we are open to change, the more likely we will be an early
adopter of new technology, models, and processes. This will make us the early and medium adopters.
We will perceive change as desirable, exciting, and enriching (see Operational Style meta-program,
#36).
Languaging: Those who embrace change will talk about adaptations, modifications, changes, etc.
Those less open or closed to change will speak about keeping things the same, avoiding changes, and
protecting the hard-earned status quo. When communicating change to a single person, to a workforce,
or to a community, match the language of those who are being addressed. Frame the change in terms
of either sameness or difference, depending on the receiver’s meta-programs.
Listen especially for the Relationship Comparison meta-program (#4) of language. The sameness—
difference meta-program critically influences our feelings and perceptions about change. One
question that elicits that meta-program is: “How do you react to change and how frequently do you
need change?” Those with the sameness meta-program generally prefer things to staythe same and so
do not like change. They will more likely resist and refuse change and so dig their heels in against it.
Those with the difference meta-program, on the other hand, love change and often thrive on it. It is
sameness and regularity that they dislike and resist. In-between these choices are the sameness with
difference who accept change from time to time if it is not too much or too radical. They will accept
change if it is gradual. Those who sort for difference with sameness have a mild taste for change and
so will seek out low levels of it. They prefer changes that evolve and which are not revolutionary.
Contexts of Origin: How much change we experience as children and how prepared we were for
such changes mostly determines whether we fear or embrace change. Change feels threatening and
dangerous to the degree that we think or feel that we don’t have the resources to handle it, to the
extent that we don’t think of change as natural, inevitable, and the only constant, and to the degree that
we value or over-value stability, sameness, and familarity. Numerous factors influence a person to be
closed to change including low self-confidence (SelfConfidence, #50), preference for sameness, low
on Ego Strength (#54). Numerous factors also influence an openness to change—beliefs in the value
of change, the toward Motivation Direction meta-program (#35).
Self-Analysis:
__ Closed to change / Open to Change — Late / Early Adopter Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#32. Attitude:
Serious — Playful
Description: Our attitude about ourselves, others, work, health, and life in general can be anywhere
on a continuum from serious to fun and playful. The degree of humor in life measures how much
lightness or heaviness we bring to things and filter things. As a perceptual lens, serious versus playful
offers two very different ways to look at life, self, others, work, hobbies, and the world. Each metaprogram filters and colors our basic philosophy about life and so relates to our Scenario Type metaprograms (#6) and our Philosophical metaprograms (#10).
Elicitation:
C Is your general attitude about yourself and others serious or humorous? C How much humor do you
generally experience about yourself when you
make a mistake?
C How easily do you laugh at yourself and especially at your fallibilities? C How much are you a
serious person—earnest, committed, focused, downto-business?
C Would those who know you best say that you have a good sense of humor and are generally playful
in your approach to things?
C Is your perspective on life more on the humorous or serious side?
Bland
Serious Balanced Playful
Identification:
1) Serious Perceiving: The attitude and perspective of the serious person comes from believing,
caring, being in earnest, disciplined, committed, and focused. These are the positive traits that enable
a person to be “serious” and to take things seriously. When over-done, the person may accept the idea
that “the end justifies the means,” which can invite all kinds of cruel and inhuman activities. There’s a
difference between believing in something strongly and believing in one’s beliefs. When we forget
that our beliefs are but beliefs—maps created by fallible brains, maps that are not real, but just
representations of reality, we close the subject to any new learnings and adjustments. In this way we
become fanatical. That is, we believein our beliefs, forgetting that they are just beliefs and so become
what Eric Hoffer calls “the true believer.”
2) Humorous and Playful Perceiving: The attitude and perspective of the humorous and playful
person is most natural. joking, etc. came easily and naturally to us. As children, play, fun, laughing,
We have to learn how to become serious, to “get that smile off” our face, to endure punishments,
insults, threats, etc. Some people turn to humor as a way to fend off the dangerous and threatening
facets of life. Comedians often grow up in homes and situations where there is much pain, tragedy,
and heartache. The person who processes everything in terms of humor may also come from the
failure to grow up, to mature, to find a passion or commitment in life.
3) Balanced between Serious and Playful Perceiving: The healthiest perspective is that of the metastate of being playfully serious (and not, seriously playful). It is to find one’s talents, passions,
interests, visions and be able to focus with concentration and discipline on it and yet at the same time
to know and embrace our humanity, fallibility, and to step back to take a light and playful view of
things.
Languaging for Pacing: How much does humor play a role in a given person’s communications?
How much laughter, word play, punning, and enjoying seeing the silly side of things is there in the
person’s perceptions?
Contexts of Origin: Early pain, trauma, tragedy, and heartache can lead to both views and beliefs,
that life is hard, painful, and serious, or that life is ridiculous and comic.
Self-Analysis:
__ Serious / Humorous and Playful / Balance
Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#33. Persistence: Impatient — Patient; Reckless — Persistent
Description: One of the factors that plays a role in how we perceive, sort for things, and filter our
experiences is our degree of patience or impatience. When we meta-state ourselves with these
emotional states, we set patience or impatience as our meta-program frame. With patience as our
meta-program, we develop the ability to “hang in,” persist, calmly consider things, and hold the
course. Without patience, mind, focus, concentration, and persistence wanes. Contexts of time
pressure, social pressure, or other kinds of pressure frequently induce states of impatience thereby
undermining persistence. With impatience as our metaprogram frame we become more active, even
reactive in our Somatic Response meta-program (#27).
Elicitation:
C How patient and persistent are you when you feel the pressure of a situation?
C In work and task contexts, do you look for and expect quick results or do you think patiently about
the processes involved and realistically consider the time element?
C What evokes impatience in you? How often does that occur?
C How do you access patience as a resource state? How easily can you do that?
C To what extent do you naturally operate in a patient and easy-going way?
Impatient with things Patient with things Reckless, Impulsive Persistent, Reflective
Identification:
1) Impatient Perceiving: The states of patience and impatience are fairly easy to detect. In the state
of impatience we are in an animated state that with being full of energy, movement, activity,
nervousness, distraction, etc. Calibrating to this state means observing a person’s state when calm
and cool and then contrasting it to when a person’s attention seems to be scattered, the person has a
lot of “nervous energy,” and the person keeps changing the subject. At that time, exploring what’s on
the person’s mind and his or her sense of pressure helps to capture the thing about which the person
may be impatient, frustrated, fearful, apprehensive, or worried about.
2) Patient Perceiving: The person who sees the world, life, others, and self through the lens of
patience has a long-term view and so can persist toward desired goals. This is the natural and organic
view of those connected with nature and the seasons, who knows about planting in the spring and
harvesting in the fall and that no amount of demanding, yelling, tantruming, or putting the pressure on
self or others will speed up the natural systemic processes.
Languaging: The language of impatience is the easiest to identify and catch. The language is
demanding, the pace is quick and sometimes jerky as the person jumps from subject to subject.
Contexts of Origin: We are all born impatient. It’s the nature of being an infant and child; we want
what we want now. By contrast, patience is learned. We develop patience over time as we raise our
frustration-tolerance. This occurs through growth and maturity. Where do we learn how to handle our
emotional states? Who do we use as examplars? Families pass down such knowledge through
modeling, through beliefs, and through cultural or ethic identities.
Self-Analysis:
Impatient — Patient; Reckless — Persistent Contexts:
Summary When we use the "body stuff" of our kinesthetic sensations to somatize our evaluations we
create “emotions”—motions in our bodies that create urges to move out and do something. That’s why
every emotion has an action tendency within it. The origin of the word “e-motion” speaks of this
“moving” (motion) “out” (ex-) and so describes emotions as how our motor programs trigger us to
move out. What occurs in our bodies has correlations in our head. Together our mind-body-emotion
system works as an integrated whole. As a result, this creates many of the meta-programs or
perceptual filters that governs what we focus on and pay attention to as we move through life.
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
We "go at" and "move away from" experiences, information and people both mentally and
emotionally. We feel confident or insecure about doing so, we reference from what we think-feel or
care more about what others think-feel. We have an action style from low to high activity. We have a
strategy for trusting or distrusting. And when we emote—we do so in a focused and directed way, or
in a way that indicates that we are all over the place. All of this emoting comes out of a basic style of
exuberance or lack thereof.
Take some time right now to review and contemplate your “emotional” metaprograms.
C Are any of these meta-programs drivers in you? Which drive you too
much?
C In which meta-program do you lack the flexibility to shift to the other side of the continuum at your
discretion?
C What thoughts, beliefs, or values drive your emotional meta-programs?
As you take second position to somebody with a different emotional metaprogram, try it on fully and
notice the different world or Matrix that it generates. What would you experience if you used this
meta-program more often? What emotions does it evoke within you? How do you feel in your body
and what “urges to act” (or not act) do you detect?
Finally, it’s important to remember that we are more than our emotions. We have emotions and we
emote as expressions of our thoughts, yet we “are” not our emotions. These body correlations of our
thoughts and values indicate what meanings we have attached to things, positive and negative. Yet it
is common for people to identify self with emotions. To what extent have you identified yourself with
your emotions? Do you now have permission to know yourself as a person who is more than your
emotions? that permission even now?
End Notes: 1. See NLP (1980) by Robert Dilts for Km. For more about emotions see Sourcebook of
Magic (1997) and Secrets of Personal Mastery (1999).
Does anything stop you from giving yourself
Together our mind-body-emotion system works as an integrated whole. As a result, this creates many
of the meta-programs or perceptual filters that governs what we focus on and pay attention to as we
move through life.
2. Elementalism describes treating a holistic phenomenon like thinking-feeling or mind-body as if it
was made up of separate parts or elements. False-to-fact refers to a mapping result, mapping
something that is not true-to-fact, but false-to-fact.
3. Reg Reynolds, an NLP and Neuro-Semantic trainer has noted that the use of Reactive here differs
from its use in the LAB Profile. There reactive refers to refers to reacting to external stimulus.
Without an external stimulus, there’s no action. Even an amoeba reacts if prodded. Proactive would
then indicate that no external stimulus is required, motivation and energy comes from within.
Here we have used reactivity in the psychological sense so that along the continuum of being active
to being over-active and highly reactive indicates an unthinking and defensive state.
Chapter 8
THE CONATIVE OR CHOOSING META-PROGRAMS
The Meta-Programs of Willing and Choosing
Everything is complicated until you understand it.
“Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.”
Napolean I
Today we commonly think of our inner world as made up of two key factors—mind and emotion. It
hasn’t always been that way. Once people commonly conceptualized and spoke about human
experience as involving three things: mind, emotion, and will. Will or choice was called conation. As
psychology began in the twentieth century, “will” was viewed in the Victorian sense of “grinning and
bearing” struggle and so fell out of favor.
Then people began to rediscover will. Otto Rank, one of the first psychoanalysts, left the Freudian
school and began focusing on will and its central role in human experience. So did Rollo May (Love
and Will) as did William Glasser (Reality Therapy) and others in the human potential movement.
NLP picked up on this in its thematic focus that people can learn to “run their own brains.” Yet in this
rediscovery, will is not in the old Victorian sense of “will power,” “grinning and bearing
difficulties,” or forcing one’s way through life. Will is much more dynamic and alive than that.
Will is the sense of choice, awareness of options, and the ability to sayNo to some choices that we
can say Yes to more valued choices, experiences, and visions. In will we literally “cut off” (decision) one choice or option from the other as we decide. In a decision state, our cognitive
understandings of our choices, together with our emotions of attraction and aversion, move us to
choice points where we decide. In these states we perceive the world in terms of how we make
choices and our characteristic styles of choosing. Our conative meta-programs describe these
perceptions of choice and choosing.
This chapter explores these meta-programs of choice which deal with another facet in our focus of
attention —conation, choosing, willing, and attending our intentions. We commonly speak about this
as our will, what we intend to think, perceive, feel, and do, and what we then follow up with
attention.
#34. Convincer Demonstration:
Number of times
Length of time
#35. Motivation Direction:
Toward — Away From
#36. Operational Style:
Options — Procedures
#37. Adaptation:
Judging — Perceiving
#38. Modus Operandi:
Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility #39. Preference:
People, Place, Things, Activity, Information #40. Goal Striving:
Skeptic — Optimization — Perfectionism #41. Buying:
Cost, Quality, Time
#42. Social Convincer:
Distrusting — Trusting
#43. Interactive:
Competitive — Cooperative
Win/Lose — Win/Win
#44. Directness:
Inferential — Direct
High — Low Context
#45. Management:
Control, Delegate, Collaborative
#46. Risk Taking:
Fearfully Aversive — Excitedly Embracing #47. Decision Making:
Cautious — Bold
Our conative dimension of mind most intimately involves our thoughts-andfeelings. When we analyze
the old term "will," we discover two processes within it—intending and attending. Intending speaks
to what we want, desire, like, and value. In intending we focus our mind on the object of our desire.
In attending we do the directive work at the primary level of awareness as we “pay attention” to the
things that we have intended.
Our thinking-and-feeling states are not only made up of representations (the mental or cognitive
element) and kinesthetic and somatic sensations of the body (the emotional element), but also our
choices.
C What direction do we typically send our brain?
C How do we direct our attention of thoughts-feelings?
C How do we experience our intentions and attentions in various life
contexts (i.e., home, relationships, work, career, recreation, etc.)? C What rules have we chosen to
live by?
C Have you decided that the world operates by compulsion or desire? C What facets of life do we
find most pleasure in?
C How do we go about moving ourselves forward in fulfilling our desired
outcomes (goals)?
C How do we relate to choosing?
C How have we chosen to trust or distrust people in choosing to believe
them or not?
C How do we attend and choose our frames?
C How do we want to focus our attention?
#34. Convincer Demonstration: Number of Times/ Length of Time
Description: The meta-program of Convincer Representation (#19) focuses on theemotional facet of
feeling convinced and so answers the question, How do we need to represent something so we find it
convincing? Does it need to look right, sound right, feel right, or make sense?
Being convinced, however, doesn’t only involve our feelings, it also involves our choices, how we
make our choices, and how we perceive the process of deciding. This brings up other factors and
variables in the experience of feeling convinced: How many times it takes us to become convinced
(times or repetition)? How long does it take (period of time)? James and Woodsmall (1988); Bagley
and Reese (1988).
Elicitation:
C How often does someone have to demonstrate competence before you feel convinced?
C How many times do you typically have to see, hear, read, or do something before you feel
convinced of your own competency?
How does your convincer (or believability) occur? Does it occur— a) Automatically: You start from
the state of being convinced. b) Repetition: Over a number of times: how many times? c) Time
Period: Over a period of time: how long a time? d) Consistently: You are never convinced, you
consistently doubt.
Automatically Number of Times Period of Time Never
Identification:
A) Automatic Perceiving: People with an automatic convincer are easy to sell and convince. They
essentially need no convincing. That’s because they assume believability. They not only begin with
trust, but they trust people and things, until that trust is proven foolish. With a meta-program of being
automatically convinced, they need little evidence, little proof, and little argumentation. Naively they
are ready to believe even before the presentation begins. While they may gather some information,
they are ready to imagine the rest. The problem here lies in sometimes trusting too much and too
quickly.
Bob tells stories of how he operated in this automatic mode of trusting and how it led him to
purchasing products that he didn’t need and didn’t even want. He says that he was easily persuaded to
sign up for many Multi-Level Marketing programs. When he eventually had enough, he shifted his
meta-program to “Number of Times,” choosing to give himself three to seven times before acting.
Such experiences can encourage and empower us to change our meta-programs.
B) Repetition Perceiving: Most people use repetitions of trustworthy actions and communications as
the foundation and basis for trust and believability. They only trust and believe after they have had a
certain amount of exposure to information and experience. It then takes so many exposures to the
information for it to solidify enough to seem "real" and believable. The specific number of times
(e.g., 3, 5, 17, etc.) will be different from person to person, yet some number will be the lower
threshold number that has to occur. Prior to that the person will not be persuaded. A number of
presentations has to occur. "How many times does it take for you?" When you know, then pace that
person’s meta-program by using that many repetitions. Persuasion will then occur as we speak to the
person the required number of times. The frightening thought about this is that the majority of people
can come to believe almost anything if repeated often enough.
C) Perceiving via a Time Period. Unlike the amount of exposure to an idea (Repetition), others need
for the exposure to occur over a period of time. This quality of “endurance over time” describes the
factor that allows an idea to solidify in the mind. For people with a period of time convincer, the
sense of "time" plays the crucial element in their convincer strategy. If an idea, presentation, offer,
etc. holds up over time and/or if a certain amount of time passes then their convincer is satisfied. As
an example, it has been suggested that we might wait 10% of the person’s period of time criteria (e.g.,
6 days if 60 days represents the period of time that it takes them to feel convinced), and then call them
up. "I've been so busy since the last time we talked, it seems like it's been two months, do you know
what I mean?"
D) Never (or almost never). Some people never accept anything as believable. They consistently
never trust, so with every communication we have to start afresh with no foundation of trust. Others
are not as extreme, it’s not that they will never trust, it just takes a lot to convince them. These take
the reverse position to the automatic truster, they automatically distrust. They never believe, or are so
skeptical, that they almost never. These people seldom give others the benefit of the doubt and so
never feel absolutely convinced about anything. Their skill is that of doubting, which is the scientific
mindset par excellence. For these people we have to prove something all over again every single
time. Alluding to previous experience will not carry much weight.
Hire these skeptics to do quality control work in contexts where we need someone to never believe,
but check something out each and every time. These are the people to hire to maintain the airplanes!
Languaging: “I believe you.” “I don’t believe him.” “It’s too soon to believe.” “I need to think about
this some more.” For the never-convinced skeptic, pace your language accordingly, "I know you'll
never feel convinced that this is the right time for you to do this, so the only way to know is to get
started and find out."
Contexts of Origin: Babies innately trust. They trust to be loved and cared for. They trust to be fed
and bathed. Where there is distrust, there is or has been some sort of failure in the truthworthiness of
the providers. This meta-program typically arises from what we learn and model from our parents
and other authority figures. It depends on whether they were trustworthy and so can earn trust. Did
they come through with what they said, with their promises? It also involves our beliefs about what
we can trust and the variables (time, repetition, person, etc.) that enter into the experience.
Self-Analysis:
Conative Convincer: Process:
__ Automatic __ Time Period
Contexts:
__ Repetition
__ Never (or almost never)
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#35. Motivation Direction: Toward (Approach) —Away From (Avoidance)
Description: There are two general orientations regarding the direction we move when we feel
motivated to take action and do something. Motivational energy involves both a moving toward what
we value and want and moving away from what we de-value and want to avoid. In this we move
toward the things we value and away from the things that causes us difficulty, pain, and frustration.
When we specialize in either one of these fundamental directions, each creates specific talents,
tendencies, and predispositions. Conversely, a balance and choice of both makes each side even
richer.
Some people have a basic orientation of moving toward their desired values. Others adopt a basic
orientation of moving away from undesired things. The first are the values that pull on us while the
second are the counter-values that primarily push us away from things. Pull values are the positive
benefits that attract us into the future. Push values are the negative values that we do not want. They
create a sense of aversion away from undesired experiences.
What is the content of what we move toward or away from? Our values. We move toward or away
from what we consider important, valuable, and/or significant. Usually, we have both toward values
and away from values. For some, one direction or the other will operate more predominantly. Since
all of us move away from some things and toward other things—we all have an internal propulsion
system away from “pain” and toward “pleasure.” What do you specifically move away from? What
registers neuro-semantically as pain for you? What registers neuro-semantically as pleasure for you?
That your “pains” may comprise another’s “pleasures” alerts us to the fact that we have much
plasticity in our nature regarding what we condition in ourselves as pain and pleasure. Woodsmall
(1988). Robins (1991), Hall (2002, Propulsion Systems), Hall and Duval (Coaching Change, MetaCoaching, Vol. I, 2004).
Elicitation:
C What do you want?
C What do you want in a relationship? (Or a job, a promotion, a car, etc.?) C What will having this
do for you?
C What do you value of importance about...?
C How do you feel about that? (ask several times)
Once we get an answer to these questions (usually in the form of a nominalization, i.e., love, peace,
happiness, etc.), we can move up the levels of outcomes or down to the behavioral specifics (Scale,
inductive, deductive, #3). If we move upward to a meta-level, we will get the meta-outcomes. Here
we ask, “What does that outcome give you that’s even more important?” If we move down, we ask
about the specifics that will give us the “complex equivalence” of that value in behavioral terms. This
will give us the equivalent of that value empirically. C How will you know when you get love
(peace, happiness, etc.)? C What will that look or sound like to you?
Values
Avoidance Approach Moving Away From Moving Toward
Identification:
1) Toward or Approach Perceiving:Those who primarily move toward what they want have a
toward motivation strategy. Because they move toward their desired outcomes, their goals pull them
into their future. They use a go at response style toward goals and values and so they feel motivated
to achieve, attain, and obtain. The strength of this is that it enables one to look forward, set goals, and
feel motivated when one wants something. While those driven by this pattern can set priorities
regarding desired values, they typically have more difficulty recognizing what to avoid. Because their
perspective is mostly future-oriented, they feel most motivated by carrots or incentives, not aversions.
Put a carrot out in front of them and they jump. When over-done, one can move toward things without
considering what it means in terms of what one inevitably moves away from or the price one may pay
for not paying attention.
2) Away from or Avoidance Perceiving: People who move away from what they de-value have a
move away from strategy that energizes them to avoid things that they do not want. They operate with
an orientation and focus on what to avoid, rather than what to approach. They primarily use a go
away from response style. They feel motivated to move away from, avoid, steer clear of, and get rid
of aversions. They typically have more difficulty with goals, managing their priorities, and get easily
distracted by negative situations.
The strength of the away from perspective is that it enables one to see, recognize, and feel motivated
to deal with problems and potential dangers. Those with whom this style predominates feel most
motivated by the stick (e.g., threats, negative aversions, pressure). Threats energize them; deadlines
get them into action. They are more skilled at solving problems and troubleshooting than moving
toward what they want. When over-done, they live their lives by crisis management. Problems and
crises can distract them so that they drop what they’re doing to put out the urgent fire. Their
perspective is mostly past-oriented.
3) Balanced perceiving. Each side of this continuum offers particular strengths and talents—the
ability to see possibilities (Toward) and the ability to see and formulate problems when they are still
small and manageable (Away From). In the Toward mode we dream, create visions, and design new
possibilities. In the Away From mode we detect difficulties and problems, quality control, and plan
ahead for possible contingencies.
Languaging: Listen for toward and away from values. "It means respecting each other and taking care
of each other." "It means not fighting and arguing with each other, not feeling bad." We hear goals,
desires, dreams, visions, etc. in those who move toward values. We hear avoidances, aversions, devalues, etc. in those who move away from things. People will communicate their values and disvalues
in nominalizations (i.e., process words that they have turned into static nouns). Listen for and
distinguish inclusive and exclusive language. Toward language includes (i.e., gain, have, get, attain,
achieve) while away from language excludes (i.e., stay clear of, get rid of, stay away from, avoid,
and don't need).
In responding to a question like, "What do you want ina good relationship?" those with the toward
orientation will say, "I want peace, love, and happiness." Those with an away from orientation will
say, "I don't want any fighting or trying to manipulate each other." Those who move toward with some
away from will say, "I want us to consider each other's feelings so we don't fight." Those who move
away from with some toward will say, "We won't feel hurt by each other because we will have more
of a sense of harmony."
To pace in your communications as you negotiate, manage, and relate, talk to the towards person
about what you can do that will help himor her achieve outcomes. Mention the carrots, bonuses, and
incentives inherent in your plan. With those who move away from, talk about how you can help them
avoid dificulties, the problems they can minimize or put off, and the things that won't go wrong.
Emphasize how easy it will make their life.
Those who move away from will sort for past assurances and look for security, safety, and
protection. Provide them with a history of evidence inasmuch as they want to be rest assured about
their choice as already proven over time. They seek more to solve problems than move toward goals.
They don't feel moved by rewards and goals as much as by avoiding problems and pains. Ask, “Have
you had enough of that problem yet? Do you need another five years of it before making a change?”
Those who move toward values focus on future possibilities. They think and feel primarily in terms
of possibilities, opportunities, excitements, passions, dreams, etc. They enjoy the possibilities that lie
within open-ended opportunities. They feel attracted to bigger risks for greater potential payoffs.
This approach /avoidance perceptual filter enables us to make some distinctions regarding what a
person will look for when seeking to purchase something. Avoidance responders want to know what
problems the product will take care of. Goal-oriented people will experience the problem-avoidance
approach as “negative.” They will want to know how a product will help them attain their goals. Jay
Arthur (2002) describes toward and away from people as achievers and problem solvers.
“Achievers move toward opportunity and possibility. They often create the next step in human
evolution, processes, or technology. . . . Problem solvers move away from possible pain. They tend
to be better at analyzing and solving problems. They can create new things by amplifying the
consequences of not doing it.” (p. 43)
Contexts of Origin: How we are wired neurologically to either move away from stress or to aggress
toward our stresses (Stress Coping, #22) influences this metaprogram. So will our early learning
environment and history and the significant people in our lives. What did we have permission for, and
what was prohibited and tabooed? Trauma experiences also can reorient one to move toward either
the avoidance mode or the toward mode.
Self-Analysis:
__ Toward (Approach) / Away From (Avoidance) __ Balanced: Equally Toward and Away from __ Toward with some Away From
__ Away from with some Toward
Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other:__________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#36. Operational Style: Options — Procedures
Description: We all have a preferred style for how we move through life and handle things. We may
prefer to find and follow procedures. We may like to know the rules, where we stand, the right way to
do things, the steps, the stages, and the proper sequence. Or we may be interested in the procedures,
yet only as one way of doing things. We may care much less about the right way to do things and focus
more on all of the other ways that we could invent. We may prefer to have many options, alternatives,
and choices.
This Operational Style meta-program deals with how we respond. Do we like explicit instructions
that provide guidance and direction or do we prefer coming up with numerous alternatives? We call
the first style Procedures and the second, Options. James and Woodsmall (1988), Dilts, Epstein, and
Dilts (1991), Woodsmall and Woodsmall (1998).
Elicitation:
C Ask why questions. Why did you choose the car that you bought? C Why did you decide to go into
this field of work?
C What was your thinking and reasoning in terms of choosing the town you
live in or the bank you bank at?
Procedures Balanced Options Rules, Sequences, “the right way” Alternatives, Non-linear step
Identification:
1) Procedure Perceiving: People who organize and orient themselves via Procedures like to follow
specific and definite procedures. They work well at doing procedural tasks and they sort for doing
things "the right way." They feel motivated when following a procedure and when they have a high
degree of Procedures, they may have an almost compulsive need to complete a procedure. On the
down side, they may not know how to generate such procedures if no one provides them. They
typically want, and even need, the meta-program of closure (Completion, #14).
“The quickest way to annoy a procedural person is by distracting him while he is ensconced in his
precious procedure. Procedural people have great difficulty diluting their attention when they are
concentrating on their procedures.” (Woodsmall and Woodsmall, p. 293)
2) Option Perceiving: Those who organize and orient themselves via options work much better at
developing new procedures and at figuring out alternatives strategies. More typically, they will not
work very well when it comes to following procedures which they or others have designed. If it
works, they prefer to improve or alter it. Valuing alternatives and creativity, they search for an
innovative and different approach. People with a high degree of Options become bored very easily
and want change as part of their regular diet. On the down side, they will often find themselves
resisting doing something “the same way.” Options people usually like to break the rules.
Languaging: After you ask a why question, listen to the reasons given. Does the person choose
options and expand options? Listen for "possibilities, choices, reasons, other ways, alternatives,” etc.
If, on the other hand, the person tells you a story and/or gives you lots of facts, but doesn’t talk about
choosing, this typically indicates the procedure orientation. They usually will answer the why
question as if you had asked a how to question. The story they tell explains how they came into their
situation, but doesn’t explain why they want it or chose it. A “because” answer to a why question
indicates the reasons that an options person will give. The how-to answer to a why question indicates
a story or series of stories that a procedures person will more typically give. In the procedures
orientation we give the impression that we didn’t have a choice in the matter, that we could not make
a choice. Listen for such linguistic markers as "right way, proven way, correct way, how to," etc.
As you pace and communicate with someone who uses the options style, talk about possibilities,
options, and innovations. "We'll bend the rules for you to get this done." Avoid giving fixed step-bystep procedures. Instead, play it by ear and emphasize all of the alternatives available to them. Allow
them to violate procedures.
To communicate and pace with a person who uses a procedures style, specifically detail a procedure
for them that clearly takes them from their present state to their desired state. Give them ways of
dealing with procedural break downs. Use numerical overviews, “five steps to effective negotiation.”
The thing preventing many with the procedural style from taking action in buying, deciding, or acting
is that they do not know how; they need specific steps. Avoid this with those who use the options
style, it will seem condescending.
Contexts of Origin: Possibly the brain physiology involved in the specialization of right or left
hemisphere contributions to predisposing one to left brain sequential tasks over right brain holistic
and visual processes. Modeling and identifying with someone who effectively uses either style
certainly plays a role as does dis-identifying with someone who uses a style that brings hurt and pain.
Self-Analysis:
__ Procedure / Option / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#37. Adaptation:
Judging / Perceiving
Description: This meta-program relates to how we adapt ourselves to life, to the world, to other
people, and to the information that influences our personal worlds. It relates to the kind and level of
“control” we seek to exert. As such, we can adapt ourselves in one of two broad styles.
In Perceiving, we move through life seeking to understand life on its own terms. We want to witness
it, observe it, and see it for itself. Instead of wanting to control it, we want to join and integrate with
it. We want to respect and honor it on its own terms. We want to just perceive it. Alternatively, in
Judging we move through the world thinking about things in terms of how we can use what’s there,
how we can create strategies for making the most of it, inventing plans to order, regulate, and control
life's events.
In the first case, we just perceive and float along with things. This is a kinder and gentler approach to
life—one that’s more ecological to the natural system of things. It is also a more passive one. In the
second we judge or evaluate what we like or dislike, what we would like to improve, and the ideas
we have to more effectively manage. James and Woodsmall (1988), Seligman (1975, 1991), Huxley
(1954).
Elicitation:
C Do you like to live life spontaneously as the spirit moves you or according to a plan?
C Do you find it easy or difficult to make up your mind?
C If we did a project together, would you prefer that we first outline and plan it in an orderly fashion
or would you prefer to just begin to move into it and flexibly adjust to things as we go?
C Do you have and use a day-timer as a way to organize things? Do you enjoy using it?
Perceiving Judging
Identification:
1) Perceiving by Judging:: Do you seek to adapt to the environment or do you seek to get the
environment to adapt to you? Those who judge and control want to make life adapt to them. They live
their life according to plans, ideas, beliefs, hopes, and desires and so seek to make things fit and to
bring order to their world (the Goal Striving meta-program, #40). They have a strong need for order.
They like closure, definite boundaries (i.e., rules, laws, procedures, etc.), and clear cut categories
(Closure meta-program, #14). The term “judger” is really unfortunate. It is not about being
judgmental, rigid, or mean; it is about wanting the world and things outside of ourselves to adapt to
us.
2) Perceiving by Perceiving: These are the people who float along in life adapting to things, life,
others, and reality. They engage in life by perceiving, observing, noting, witnessing, and accepting. In
this, they flow through life in an easy and gentle way with less concern about right and wrong, and
less of a sense of violation when their plans are thwarted. In the Myer-Briggs model, they resist
limits, order, and structure; they do not like a lot of rules, but actually feel constrained by them.
Typically they will do what they feel like at the moment and take a more philosophical attitude
toward difficulties. They like their options to remain open and may even avoid closure. They may
have more difficulty deciding, evaluating, and taking a stand.
Huxley (1954) described the shift of consciousness that he experienced in an experiment with
mescalin in The Doors of Perception. This experienced moved him out of his everyday thinking to
one that he described as "a sacred mindset." He interpreted it as having connected with "Mind at
Large" so that "the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system" shifted and he experienced a kind
of out of body experience of just perceiving.
"As I looked, this purely aesthetic, Cubist's eye view gave place to what I can only describe as the
sacramental vision of reality. I looked at those bamboo legs, and did not merely gaze at them, but
actually being them—or rather being myself in them. . . . The mescalin taker sees no reason for doing
anything in particular and finds most of the causes for which, at ordinary times, he was prepared to
act and suffer, profoundly uninteresting."
Languaging: Listen for schedules, lists, evaluations, plans, etc. in the Judger meta-program. Listen
for strategies for taking action to make things different. They will more frequently operate in the
"Through Time" meta-program (#58), and will be highly ordered and sequential. Typically, they do
not change their minds unless new data warrants it. For perceivers who adapt to the world, listen for
ideas and terms indicating spontaneity, freedom, understanding, accepting, etc.
In pacing and communicating with someone in the Judger meta-program, relate to him or her with
promptness, in an organized and decisive way, and remain focused on an outcome. Talk about order,
about getting and staying organized, becoming definite, resolution, structure, and commitment. In
pacing someone in the Perceiving meta-program, communicate and relate in a spontaneous way
without insisting on time schedules. Frame decisions as "keeping one's options open," and avoid
wrapping things up too quickly. Talk about the values of feeling free, open, flexible, waiting and
seeing, keeping things open-ended and tentative. They like change, act impulsively, need autonomy,
tolerate complexity well, and function in a "right-brain" way.
Contexts of Origin: The origin of this meta-program corresponds with one's experience of "time" (the
Time meta-programs of Time Zones, #57 and Time Experience, #58), to personal beliefs and values
about taking charge, controlling one's environment versus accepting and adapting to the environment
greatly effects which way one chooses to primarily feel about these issues. Anthropologists have
found entire societies that fall into one or the other extreme. Religion, political philosophy, etc. also
effect this. Prolonged trauma that generates a sense of Seligman's (1975) "learned helplessness" can
nudge one to adopt the perceiving sort, due to feelings of helplessness.
Self-Analysis:
__ Judging (controlling, shaping world to self) / Perceiving (floating, shaping self to world) / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#38. Modus Operandi: Necessity, Possibility, Desire, Impossibility
Description: This meta-program relates to how we conceptualize the world. What kind of world do
you live in? Do you live in a world of rules, permissions, prohibitions, desires, possibilities,
impossibilities, etc.? Our mental mapping and framing of these concepts lead us to a specific
linguistic distinction called modal operators. In linguistics, modal operators refer to those specific
kinds of words that reflect our mode of relating and operating in the world. These words describe the
conceptual worlds we live in. How do you perceive work, relationships, health, exercise, projects,
and a thousand other things? How do you talk about them? Which modal operator naturally occurs in
your talk? Which dominates? What’s the effect of those words on your states?
Modal operator words not only arise from different perceptual models of the world, but also create
differing emotional and behavioral responses. The way we language ourselves makes all the
difference in the world on our internal model of the world (or matrix of frames), and the experiences
we generate from those maps. What world or kind of a world do you live in? There are several
possibilities: C A world of rules and demands: need to, must, should, it’s necessary, it’s
a necessity.
C A world of desires: desire, want to, get to.
C A world of limitations: it’s impossible, I can't, it’s not allowed. C A world of possibilities: can,
possible.
These linguistic terms govern how we talk to ourselves. They make up the words we use to motivate.
These words shed light on the more abstract, conceptual states of choice, freedom, empowerment,
victimhood, obligations, and possibilities. Bandler and Grinder (1975), Ellis (1976), Hall (2000).
Elicitation:
C How did you motivate yourself to go to work today?
C What did you say to yourself that helped to get you moving? C When you think about going to work,
what do you think or say about it? C Why did you choose your present job?
C Why have you chosen this school or that schedule?
Impossibility Necessity can’t have to, must, should
Identification: 1) Impossibility words include "can't, shouldn't, must not," etc. “A person shouldn’t
miss work or show up late!” These indicate that we have mapped out a taboo law against desired or
proposed options. The words of impossibility usually create personal limitations and contribute to a
passive style of coping which can really limit our responsiveness. These words indicate taboos and
prohibitions, “I can’t stand criticism.” We can translate this as, “I don’t give myself permission to
stand or tolerate criticism.” In these kinds of psychological can’tswe have a map that precludes
certain experiences. They differ significantly from physiological can’ts. “I can’t lift a car.” “I can’t
fly.”
Desire, Possibility Choice want to, desire can wish, will
2) Necessity words include "must, have to, should," etc. These indicate that a person operates from a
model of compulsion, control, law, etc. “I have to go to work.” People who live by necessity usually
look at life as a routine or burden of which they have little or no choice. Typically they believe and
feel themselves stuck with their lot in life. Given their model of limitation—so they act, so they
perceive. If you ask a why question, “Why are you doing that? Why are you employed here?” they
will not give you a reason, but will use necessity words indicating that they have no choice, but “have
to” do it.
3) Desire words include "want to, love to, get to," etc. These arise from a model of the world as
including wants, desires, and passions. “I feel so lucky to get to go to work!” The words of desire
typically lead to more motivation and drive, unless they map out unrealistic dreams. In that case they
lead to disappointment, disillusionment, and frustration. If you ask a why question here, those with
this meta-program will tell you about the whys, big reasons, visions, dreams, hopes, desires,
purposes, etc. that drive them.
4) Possibility words include "can, will, may, would, could," etc. These reflect an optimistic model,
where we view various options and alternatives as possible. “Well another day, another dollar.”
“When I get towork today, I will work on...”
People who operate from the possibility mode do what they want to do and so develop reasons. They
look for new opportunities for expanding their options. Possibility people generally believe they have
some (or a lot of) control over life and so feel motivated to make choices and take action.
Those who use both necessity and possibility words and operate from both models will feel
motivated by both options and obligations. Think of some task you will do in the near future. Now say
to yourself, 1) “I must do....” and then, 2) “I can do....” and now, 3) “I get to...” Which of these words
work best for you in terms of enhancing your motivation?
5) Choice words include "choose, want, get to, my choice,” etc. These indicate a mental map that
allows for human will, intention, and choice. “I choose to go to work.”
Languaging: When formatting your communications, look for and match the person's modal operators
and/or subtly provide reframes by suggesting other modal operators. These inevitably operate as
powerful motivators.
The person who operates predominately by necessity, when over-done, can get into should-ing and
must-ing which Ellis has humorously referred to as musterbation thinking. Such should-ing and musting creates a lot of inner pressure for self and others and can evoke resentment and resistence. Too
much should-ing generates lots of unnecessary and inappropriate shame, guilt, selfcontempt and other
similar unresourceful states. People who live by these cognitive distortions have beliefs of
demandingness on self, others, and the universe in the back of their mind. This feeds an attitude of
entitlement which will inevitably create disappointment, disillusionment, and depression. As a
mapmaking style, it makes for poor adjustment to the constraints of reality. Contexts of Origin:
Because language drives and creates this perceptual lens, it is a Meta-Model distinction as well as a
meta-program. A specific kind of language (modal operators) frames the way we think and perceive
about things. Where does this come from? It comes in part from the kind of language parents and
others use to motivate us. "You have to listen to me." "Think about what you can get from this
experience." Trauma and hurt can drive a person away from the world of possibility and desire as a
maneuver to protect oneself from disappointment. Strict and overly disciplined homes and
communities can evoke one to adopt the necessity mode and impossibility mode.
Self-Analysis:
__ Necessity / Desire / Impossibility / Possibility / Choice Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other:____________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#39. Preference: People, Place, Things, Time, Activity, Information, Systems
Description: We all have preferences. We have preferences about what we like and what we want to
do. These show up as part of our perceptual frames when we ask about how a person prefers to do
anything from taking a vacation, to working, shopping, exercising, etc. They show up also when we
ask about a person’s peak experiences in life. Asking such questions typically evokes our Preference
metaprograms.
What is your primary interest? This meta-program enables us to identify the factors that we primarily
value and choose which, in turn, informs us about motivations. We can sort out these preferences into
the following categories. C People (who)
C Place (where)
C Things (what)
C Activity (how)
C Information (why, or what information)
C Time (when)
C Systems
The Preference meta-program gives us a person’s focal point of interest and attention. To detect,
notice the questions that a person asks, the themes in a person’s talk, and the patterns of behavior. To
detect your own, notice what you find easiest and most motivating to talk about. Conversely, what do
you find most boring, or even annoying, to talk about? James and Woodsmall (1988); Woodsmall and
Woodsmall (1998).
Elicitation:
C What is really important to you about how you spend your next two week vacation?
C What kinds of things, people, activities, etc. would you want if it registers as a great holiday?
C Do you have a favorite restaurant? Why is it your favorite?
C What do you prefer in terms of work? What do you naturally become passionate about?
C What is your order of these preferences?
People Places Things Activities Information Time Systems Who Where What How Why, When How
What information interconnected
Identification:
1) People. Those who prefer people care most of all about who. They relate well socially and are
probably outgoing and friendly, or wish they were. They talk about people, what others say, think,
feel, do. When they over-do this, they can fall into the habit of gossiping. Because they hate being
alone, they turn solitude into "loneliness."
2) Place. These people havegeography and location on the mind. Where really counts as of supreme
importance for them. They are highly aware of their environment and find lots of meaning in it. They
perceive things in terms of the environment—what they can or cannot do in various contexts. They
may also have a highly developed sense of direction and location. They will generally take a lot of
pride in their places (home, office, garden, shop, etc.) and focus on locality, layout, furnishings, etc.
3) Things. These people focus on what is in their environment: possessions, money, food,
surroundings, etc. They typically take pride in both tangible things (house, car, clothes, etc.) and
intangible things (degrees, status, security, power, etc). They seek meaning and happiness via these
things. Positively, they will take care of things. Negatively, they may do so to the neglect of people.
They will "love" people by giving and/or using things. In the work environment, this preference
shows up in a love and passion for working with things rather than people, ideas, or systems.
4) Activity. People with this preference focus primarily on the how of a process or set of actions.
They like doing things, going places, and feeling the rush of activities. They prefer liveliness and
motion and strongly dislike "just sitting around." Boredom puts them off. They less often focus on
people or their own feelings and instead focus on tasks—on getting a job done, accomplishing goals,
and the end result of a task completed.
5) Time. These are people whose preference centers primarily aroundwhen. The time could be past,
present, future, or atemporal (Time Zones meta-program, #57). Because there are many meanings and
categories of "time" we can endow this semantic-conceptual reality with many kinds of significance
and meaning. Such will show up in beliefs about time: "Time is money." "Time is a commodity."
"Don't waste time." This meta-program preference focuses our attentions: "How much time will it
take?" "How long will we stay there?" "When will we return?"
6) Information. Those who prefer ideas (the why and what of information) sort for what they will
learn, from whom, the value of the information, and how they can apply it. Rather than where, with
whom, and when, these people care about the information they are learning.
7) Systems. Those who orient themselves toward working with systems think and care primarily
about processes, inter-relationships, cause-effect relations, plans, and procedures. More than
focusing on people or feelings, they focus on the functioning of the system in terms of how things
work, the dynamics involved, the contexts and contexts-of-contexts, etc.
Languaging: Listen for and match back the specific kind of preferences that the person offers. Listen
for the persons hierarchy or order of preferences. It could be activity first, then people, etc.
Contexts of Origin: Since we can give value to all of these experiences, and do, we undoubtedly
develop our sorting style from our own experiences of pleasure and pain with them, as we also model
those significant ones in our life.
Self-Analysis:
__ People / Places / Things / Activity / Information / Systems __ Combinations of such: ____________________________
Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#40. Goal Striving:
Skepticism, Optimization, Perfectionism
Description: This meta-program relates to how we think, feel, perceive, and make choices about
goals. Do we like setting goals and striving to achieve them or do we find goal-setting unpleasant,
even painful? People differ in how they perceive and choose to go after goals. Some people relate to
goal-setting in a perfectionist style (it’s never good enough), others do so in an optimizational style
(doing the best they can and letting it go at that), still others avoid the whole subject as they try to step
aside from it and choose to not set goals (goals are worthless, striving after them is futile and
frustrating).
Elicitation:
C What important goal or goals have you set for yourself to achieve? C How did you go about
achieving that goal?
C Was striving for that goal a pleasant or unpleasant experience for you? C If you set a goal today to
accomplish something of significance, how
would you begin to work on it?
C Have you ever motivated yourself by setting a goal and then went after it?
C If we did a project together, would you take more interest in getting started, maintaining during the
middle or wrapping it up?
Skeptic
Hate goal setting
Optimizing
Does best one can and leaves it at that
Perfectionism
Never good enough could have done more and better
Identification: 1) Skepticism Perceiving: Those who avoid goal-setting and goal-achieving
altogether view the setting and striving after goals with doubt, skepticism, and a defeatist attitude.
They don’t like it; they don’t believe in it. They choose to avoid directly thinking about the future or
taking effective action to give it birth. Expecting only the worst to happen, they refuse to participate in
managing themselves and their objectives through time.
2) Optimizing Perceiving: Those who move toward their goals optimizing operate more
pragmatically. They do the best they can and leave it at that. They set goals in small steps so that they
can appreciate little stages of success along the way. For them, much of the fun is the process of
moving toward a goal. By optimizing, a person sets not only end-goals, but also process goals. That
is, they not only seek to achieve some end-product, but to experience enjoyment goals, learning goals,
and relationship goals along the way.
Years ago when Bob was recovering from a time that he experienced burnout in his work, he came
across this statement that offered an optimizing reframe which he really liked. “When planning a
vacation, enjoy the packing as much as the actual vacation!” Optimizing, like anything else, can be
taken to an extreme. It happens when we adopt an unrealistic "positive" attitude of anything being
good enough so we do not take on sufficient goals that are challenging enough to call forth our best
efforts and striving.
3) Perfectionism Perceiving: Going for "perfection" (flawlessness) makes one a “perfectionist”—he
or she never feels satisfied with his or her performance. He can always see a flaw in his
performance, and in the performances of others. Because she set her goals unrealistically high, she
stays constantly frustrated. He views the end-product as his criteria for moving toward his goal and
discounts the joy and challenge of getting there as part of the process. By setting extremely high goals
and criteria, people who use this style judge themselves and others harshly for anything that falls
short, even if it is just a judgment in the head. Often they fall into procrastination as a protective
device.
Perfectionism frequently involves a future orientation that becomes excessive. Bob says that he used
to live that way. He lived so oriented toward his future that he missed a lot of the present. He also
held a belief against ever attaining satisfaction. Why? Because he wanted to leave room for
improvement, and so he generally lived in a state of continual frustration and dissatisfaction.
Eventually this led to burnout—a good burnout that got him to change his goal striving meta-program
to optimizing. The result, paradoxically, has been increased productivity and enjoyment.
Languaging: This meta-program enables us to predict when a person will stop in his or her efforts of
persevering, as well as the manner in which the person will set goals, strive for them, and recognize
satisfying them. Elicit it by inviting someone to talk about a goal, objective, dream, or a possibility.
Those who operate perfectionistically typically either procrastinate when contemplating a project or
begin a project well and then get bogged down in details and/or caught up in negative emotional
states (e.g., frustration over flaws).
While they talk a lot about the end product, they block themselves from getting there. The end product
is never good enough for them. Optimizers seem to flow along a lot better, and ironically, produce
higher levels of excellence precisely because they are not aiming to get it "just right." The skeptical
defeatists treat goal-setting talk as worthless and useless and tell stories of how it has never worked
or caused great disappointment.
Once you know a person's style of moving toward a goal, match it in your communications about an
objective you want to offer. Expect to see and hear lots of excitement, passion, and motivation in the
optimizers; wild-eyed expectation and/or total frustration in perfectionists, and skepticism and
negativity in those who avoid goal-setting.
Contexts of Origin: How we conceptualize and actualize our goals is a learned phenomenon. We
learn this via modeling, instruction, pain and pleasure that either rewards or punishes our first feeble
efforts, and the language we use to articulate supporting beliefs. Traumatic experiences around being
defeated in reaching a goal can knock a person out of the running so that he or she becomes skeptical
about the whole process. The more “shoulds, musts, and have tos” that a person uses in motivating
themselves (the meta-program of Modus Operandi, #38), the more likely she or he will aim
perfectionistically.
Self-Analysis:
__ Skepticism / Optimizing / Perfectionism Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#41. Buying:
Cost, Quality, Time
Description: What’s in your mind, and what do you sort for, when it comes to making a purchase?
When you are in the process of deciding to buy something, what is the first value that you look for and
perceive? Typically our buying strategy revolves around three primary values. Those typically on the
forefront of our consciousness are cost, quality, and time. Reese and Bailey (1988).
Elicitation:
C What do you primarily concern yourself with—the price, time, or quality, or some combination of
these when you consider making a purchase?
C Where would you put a check on a triangle that contains these three values if you had to put it
somewhere?
C As you imagine a triangle so that each end of the triangle stands for one of these factors—cost,
time, and quality, where would you check the center of your attention?
Use the triangle now to sort out and decide about how to prioritize these things. Put a check at the
place on the triangle that represents where you feel that you put most of your concern. Doing this
brings to the foreground of our awareness the tradeoffs between these values. It also assists us in
avoiding feeling victimized if we change our mind later.
Figure 8:1 The Buying Line
Cost Time Quality
The Buying Triangle
Identification: 1) Cost: Perceptually, many people focus entirely on the price of a product or service.
This primary concern is the filter that governs everything else. The question on their mind is, “How
much does it cost?”
2) Quality: Others focus principally on the quality of the product or service. The question on their
mind governing the way they perceive is, “What is the quality of this product? Is it cheap or solid?
Will it last or will it quickly fall apart and need repair?”
3) Time: Others focus on the time factor of taking ownership of the product or service. What’s on
their mind is, “When can I get this? How long do I have to wait? Is it available now?”
Yet these buying values often conflict with each other. While we often mention cost as the chief, or
only, factor in our purchase decision, we could equally care about any of the other variables on this
continuum. A list of quality factors (i.e., convenience, comfort, etc.) could override the factors. Peter
Young suggests the following combinations of these variables. When we combine cost and time we
have convenience. When we combine cost and quality we have worth. When we combine time and
quality we have craftsmanship.
Reg Reynolds uses these distinctions as a project management tool. A project manager can optimize
all three by finding the optimal balance. Imagine a point that can move within the triangle and be
located at some point. Where is that point? The client’s financial will push the point toward the
lowest cost, the client’s marketing and sales will want completion in the shortest time, and the plant
manager and customers will want to best quality. Keep moving the point until you find a balance that
works.
Languaging: Listen for words indicating the distinctions of each of these values. Once you know the
priority of values between cost, convenience, quality, and time, you will know how to match the
person in your communications.
Contexts of Origin: How we learn to value one of these experiences over the other in our choosing to
buy something undoubtedly arisesfrom those from whom we learned, and the value system encouraged
by the contexts of religion, culture, social status, etc. Negative experiences with cost, quality, and
time can make these "sore spots."
Self-Analysis:
__ Cost / / Quality / Time Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ___________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#42. Social Convincer: Distrusting Suspicious — Trusting Naive
Description: Growing out of how we process evidence and experiences states of feeling convinced
(the Convincer Representational meta-program, #19), this one addresses the same processes, but with
a human twist. This meta-program refers to our concepts, emotions, decisions, experiences in
trustingpeople. How do we relate to the idea and experiences of taking people at their word? Some
people use a thinking-feeling pattern of distrust, others of trust. How easy or difficult do we find it to
choose to trust people? Erickson (1959, 1968).
Elicitation:
C When you think about meeting someone new, do you immediately have a sense of trust and
openness to the person, or thoughts and feelings of distrust, doubt, questions, jealousy, insecurity,
etc.?
C How do you typically choose to relate to a person, or a group of people, before you know them
very well? caution?
Do you do so with trust or with
Distrusting Balance Suspicious, paranoia setting
Identification: 1) Distrust Perceiving: People who immediately question, wonder, feel a little (or a
lot) defensive will hold back, explore, make sure about the person's motives, intentions, and style.
They will typically adopt a jealous, guarded, defensive position, and will not immediately trust. As a
result, they will come across as unfriendly and not very approachable (which can easily become a
self-fulfilling prophecy).
Trusting Takes others at their word, naive
2) Trust Perceiving: People who immediately trust, feel connected, and act trustingly quickly move
out to people and will even embrace the stranger. Typically, they will come across as warm, friendly,
interested, and outgoing. When over-done, they will naively trust anything people say which then
allows them to get manipulated and taken advantaged of easily.
3) Balanced between Trusting and Distrusting: Balancing trust and skepticism can enable us to
distinguish friendliness and openness from trust. We can be friendly, invite trust, and still wait until
we have sufficient evidence for recognizing someone’s trustworthiness.
Languaging: The distrust orientation influences a person’s thinking, perceiving, and acting so that he
or she will move out into social situations and new relationships very cautiously, never feeling
convinced about the other's motives or intentions. When difficulties arise, they can quickly access a
state of feeling controlled and manipulated. This then proves the importance of distrusting others. The
trust orientation as a meta-program causes one toquickly and to immediately reach out to others with
warmth, charm, and sometimes naivete.
Contexts of Origin: Erickson's (1959, 1968) model of the psycho-social stages of development
details the trust/distrust stage as occurring between two and five years of age and primarily
concerning parents and early emotionally significant people. Did they behave in a trustworthy way?
Could the child trust the provider’s words as accurate representations of the world and of the
behaviors that they would then do? Later traumas of betrayal, violation of trusts, etc. can also initiate
the distrust program.
Self-Analysis:
__ Distrust / Trust / Balance
__ Work/Career
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#43. Interactive: Competitive — Cooperative; Win/Lose — Win/Win
Description: In interacting with people, things, information, and events we can do so in various ways
according to the style and the energy expended: competitively or cooperatively in a Win/Lose attitude
or in a Win/Win attitude. How do you see things? Which meta-program is the governing lens that
colors this facet of life for you? Through the eyes of competition or cooperation? C When you come
into a situation, how do you usually respond? C Do you respond with a sense of cooperation or a
feeling of competition? C Is your general attitude at work one of Win/Lose or Win/Win? C When
working with someone new, do you automatically become
competitive or cooperative?
C How often do you think about wanting, getting ahead, and out-scoring another?
C How easily do you see people and opportunities in terms of collaboration?
Competitive Balanced Cooperative Win/Lose Depends on context and Win/Win purpose of interaction
Identification:
1) Competitive Perceiving: This response involves processing an experience, thought, and emotion
in terms of comparison and competition: "Who is the best, the first, the fastest, the strongest, the most
competent, etc.?" A competitive responder might get excited, "I bet I can relax faster or more
completely than you can!" Winning, beating, outdoing, and not-losing colors one’s perspective. In
terms of motivation, this can create a powerful motivation, and when not managed well, can lead to
stress and burnout.
4) Cooperative Perceiving: This response thinks in terms of assisting and helping other people to
share the experience. "How can I make this a more pleasant, enjoyable, resourceful experience for
everyone?" Collaborating, working together, networking, synergizing, etc. colors one’s perspective.
Those more competitive response patterns think in Win/Lose. Those who subscribe to the cooperative
response pattern think in Win/Win terms.
Languaging: Listen for the language of cooperation or competition, for comparative terms (better,
best, faster, etc.), for how a person knows when he or she has a “win,” or a “lose,” and whether this
affects others positively or negatively. Interplay competition and cooperation in a way so that each is
sequenced in a way that supports and enhances everybody.
Contexts of Origin: Typically we learn how to respond given how we have been socially
conditioned to do so. Further, pain and trauma experiences can contribute to us adopting the thinking
pattern of competition and/or cooperation.
Self-Analysis:
__ Competitive / Cooperative / Balance Contexts:
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ Work/Career __ Intimates
#44. Directness: Inferential — Direct; High — Low Context
Description: We all require different degrees of context in order to understand the meaning of a
communication. How much context do you need? Edward Hall introduced the idea of low and high
contexts in his sociological studies on communication. High and low contexts have to do with the
way we explicitly assert or implicitly assume context. As such, contexting performs multiple
functions. Since any shift in the level of context is a communication, whether it moves up or down it
can signal a warming or cooling of relations.
“Context is the information that surrounds an event; it is inextricably bound up with the meaning of
that event. The elements that combine to produce a given meaning—events and context—are in
different proportions depending on the culture. The cultures of the world can be compared on a scale
from high to low context.” (1990, p. 6) “A high context communication or message is one in which
most of the information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted
part of the message. A low context communication is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of information is
vested in the explicit code. Twins who have grown up together can and do communicate more
economically (high context) than two lawyers in a courtroom during a trial (low context), a
mathematician programming a computer, two politicians drafting legislation, two administrators
writing a regulation.” (1976)
Hall identifies Americans, Germans, Swiss, Scandinavians, and other northern Europeans as low-
context. They compartmentalize their personal relationships, work, and many aspects of daily life. By
contrast, Japanese, Arabs, and Mediterranean peoples, who have extensive information networks
among family, friends, and colleagues and who are involved in close personal relationships are high
context.
As a practical consequence of low and high contexts people communicate either directly or
indirectly. It also leads to inferential listening and speaking versus direct listening and speaking. Here
the experience ofcontext elicits corresponding ideas, beliefs, and concepts about being direct versus
being indirect and more inferential. Edward Hall (1976, 1990).
C In any given context (business, friendships, etc.), how much information do you already know and
that you don’t need to be made explicit?
C What do you believe and value about being direct and forthright?
C How well does assertive directness fit with your family and cultural values?
Direct Balanced Inferential Low Context High Context
Identification:
1) High Context and Inferential Perceiving: Those who have high context as a meta-program are apt
to become impatient and irritated when low context people insist on giving them information which
they themselves do not need. For them, the cultural context creates and holds the information. This
allows people to think more inferentially, assuming and “just knowing” what things mean and what
others want. The high context also leads to more inferential speaking—communicating in ways that
just assume things, that does not just come right out and says what we mean.
Culturally, this obviously influences relationships, business negotiations, and beliefs about different
peoples. The inferential listening and speaking of high context people can seem secretive, nonassertive, mysterious, and even manipulative to those not in on the context.
2) Low Context and Direct Perceiving: Conversely, those with the low context meta-program will
be at a loss when high context people don’t provide enough information. They will more likely find it
frustrating and may jump to the conclusion that the others are hiding something. Similarly, when they
are too direct in speaking, they may come across as brash, confrontative, even insulting.
“One of the great communications challenges in life is to find the appropriate level of contexting
needed in each situation. Too much information leads people to feel they are being talked down to;
too little information can mystify them or make them feel left out.” (Hall, Edward, 1990, p. 9)
Languaging: The distinction in this meta-program arises from recognizing the amount or degree of
context that a person needs in communicating. While Edward Hall addresses groups, cultures, and
nations, each of us have situations where the degree of context will vary.
Contexts of Origin: This meta-program is entirely learned. In this, one’s national and cultural origins
play the most influential role.
Self-Analysis:
__ Low Context (Inferential) — High Context (Direct) Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#45. Management: Control, Delegation, Collaborative
Description: This meta-program relates to how we perceive and make choices in working with
others around experiences that have to do with managing a task, process, project, or any goal that we
want to achieve. How do we go about such? Do we take control of things and just do them? Do we
seek out others to delegate tasks, responsibilities, and assignments to? Or do we work with others to
create a joint collaboration, a mutual meeting of the minds?
Elicitation:
C When you want to or have to get something done that’s important and others are involved (or could
be involved), what’s first on your mind—just doing it, delegating tasks to others, or creating a
collaboration with others?
C How do you generally like to work on projects: by yourself, with others, or as a boss?
C If you were in a management role, what kind of manager would you be?
C Who do you most respect as a manager? Why? What was so significant about the way that manager
operated?
Control Delegate Collaborative
Identification:
1) Perceiving via Control: Some people like to be in control in that they want to have their hands on
things and be a part of the decision-making process. They like to take action and to be active (Somatic
Response, Active, #27). They may operate from a self referent meta-program in terms of their
Attention (#24) or internal meta-program in terms of where they look for making decisions (Decision
Making #23).
2) Perceiving via Delegation: There’s another sense in which we might “be in control” and that
relates to “telling others what to do,” a crude form of delegating. They easily delegate and, in fact,
may be unable to take action themselves due to their need to delegate. Others delegate because it is an
expression of sharing, guiding, leading, mentoring, and even empowering others.
3) Perceiving via Collaborative: Some people work best through collaborative efforts, so the
glasses they wear when it comes to getting something done involves checking with everybody
involved to make sure that everybody is on board. They want, and are skilled at, working toward
consensus as much as possible within a group and so run their business and teams accordingly.
Languaging: In the context of managing anything, notice how a person talks regarding controlling,
delegating, and/or collaborating. Pay attention to where the person puts the emphasis, the semantically
loaded words for him or her.
Contexts of Orient: The ability to manage other people is a learned skill, not an inherited one. Other
meta-programs fit or fail to fit into this skill most notably the Attention meta-program of Self or Other
(#24), the Work Style Preference metaprogram (#30), and the Social Convincer of trust or distrust
(#42).
Self-Analysis:
__ Control — Delegate — Collaborative — Flexibility Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#46. Risk Taking: Fearful and Aversive — Excitement in Embracing
Description: This meta-program addresses the subject of how we perceive and make choices around
the awareness and/or experiences of risk. How do we respond to new things, novel experiences,
and/or potentially dangerous things? Do we think and feel fearful and so act with great caution, even
paranoia and resistance? Or do we think and feel excited, see opportunities, and feel a rush of
enthusiasm? This meta-program of choice directly flows from how we handle change and influences,
whether we are pioneers, first adaptors or resistors to risks.
On the continuum of change and risk taking, we have at the far left those aversive to risk. They prefer
to keep things the same and so resist change until it is wellproven and accepted. They are the
traditionalists who want the old ways. Then there are the settlers. They quickly follow a change that’s
occurring in a culture, society, business, or community. They range from the skeptical ones to the
more accepting ones of the change. They may be the first colonists, or the early settlers. Finally, to the
far right are the explorers, pioneers, inventors and discoverers of change.
Elicitation:
C What are your thoughts and feelings about new things, risks, and adventures?
C What are some of the biggest risks that you’ve taken in your personal life? In your business and
career?
C Do you typically get excited or scared when it comes to facing a big risk or an unknown factor?
Aversive to Risk Balance The Embracing of Risk Fearful, Suspicious, Defensive setting Excitement, Playfulness, Hope
Identification:
1) Approach, Embracing Risk Perceiving: Those who are excited by adventure and who embrace
risk and even danger approach such, find it a turn-on, and feel more alive by it. Such people will feel
bored and listless without a sense of danger, thrill, or risk in their lives. These will be the
entrepreneurs in the business world, the venturesome explorers. As such, they actively seek new and
different ideas (Relationship Comparison, mis-matching for difference, #4) and have an internal locus
of control (Authority Source, #23).
2) Avoid, Aversive to Risk Perceiving: Those who find adventure and the unknown scary will avoid
it and sometimes go to great lengths to prevent such from arising in the contexts of their lives. Such
people prefer safety, familiarity, and the known. They will be excellent employees in any business
that provides security, continuity, and that values loyalty. They value safety and security over
adventure and risk. These are the settlers in contrast to the pioneers.
3) Balance between Approach and Avoidance: Here one appropriately approaches the changes that
make a difference and simultaneously moves away from changes that do not significantly enhance the
qualitiy of one’s life.
Languaging: Listen for words and language of approach and avoidance regarding risks, adventures,
or the unknown. Listen for words describing safety, feeling safe, protection, in those with the
avoidance meta-program and words of excitement in the approachers.
Contexts of Origin: This meta-program will have an interplay of some neurological tendencies and
learning and experiences. The more sensitive and easily stimulated or aroused one’s nervous system,
the more our awareness of dangers and threats (Stress Coping meta-program, #22). Because we grow
up modeling those nearest to us, this meta-program reflects how we have learned to handle changes
and risks.
Self-Analysis:
__ Avoid Risk and Adventure — Approach to Embrace Risk and Adventure Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#47. Decision:
Cautious — Bold
Description: When it comes to making decisions, some people seem to take forever. They weigh
every facet of every pro and con and cautiously, even fearfully, go back and forth in indecision,
unable to decide. Eventually, circumstances force them to decide. Others are so quick about making
decisions that you wonder if they ever weigh any of the advantages or disadvantages. They are
decisive, and bold, and when taken to an extreme, are impulsive. How do you handle decision
making? Where are you in the spectrum?
Elicitation:
C When you think about making a decision, what are your first thoughts and feelings?
C Do you like making decisions or do you find them distressful, even painful?
C When you’re in a critical circumstance, how do you handle decisions?
C Do you find the process of making decisions an easy or difficult thing?
C How cautious or bold are you in making decisions?
Cautious Balance Bold
Identification:
1) Cautious Perceiving: Those who are cautious about decision making find it unpleasant, difficult,
and even painful. The weighing of the advantages and disadvantages for each facet of the possible
decisions sends them back and forth. Because the cautious don’t want to make a bad decision; they
fear the consequences of choosing wrong, so they hesitate and procrastinate. Often they let things get
to a crisis so when they do decide, it is under pressure and more emotional strain, only reconfirming
their dislike of decision making. 2) Bold Perceiving: Those who are bold about decision making are
self-assured, confident (sometimes confident to a fault), and don’t give it much thought. Often they are
the ones who think quickly and act quickly. This doesn’t make their decisions any wiser and they are
the ones who most often end up making rash decisions that they later regret. Those who wisely do so
know their values, criteria, situation, market, and context very well and then trust their intuitions.
3) Balance between Bold and Cautious: Others are neither bold not cautious. They are thoughtfully
pragmatic. They are neither excited about deciding per se, nor fearful of it. They look upon decisions
as an entirely pragmatic matter of weighing the pros and cons.
Languaging: The context here is that of weighing pros and cons and coming to a decision. In that
context, notice the amount of tentative qualifiers in the person’s language (may, might, could, seems,
appears, etc.). These indicate the cautious approach and will be useful in pacing.
Contexts of Orient: This nature part of this meta-program will arise from a person’s natural tendency
in stress to respond passively (cautious) or aggressively (Stress Coping, bold, #22). The quicker a
person’s mental processing, the more likely that person will be bold in this meta-program (Speed,
#18). The nurture part depends on the person’s self-confidence of skills in the area regarding the
decision (Self-Confidence, #50) and in the person’s Motivation Direction metaprogram (toward or
away from, #35).
Self-Analysis:
__ Cautious — Bold — Balanced Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
Summary
C It is our nature to be choosers. Without “instincts” to inform us about what to do or how to live, we
experience an existential gap of awareness and choice. This is the human dilemma and glory. How
we learn to use this ultimate human freedom, however, is a matter of our learning history,
experiences, early conditioning, and ongoing development of awareness and resourcefulness.
C Everyday we all make hundreds of choices and decisions about how to think-and-feel and how to
act as we move through life.
Should I approach or avoid this or that?
Do I want options or a clear and specific procedure for advancing?
How can I make this event, thought, or person fit into my reality? Or, how can I enjoy this experience
and observe it more fully? Do I have to go to work or do I get to?
Must I act kindly and thoughtfully, or shall I so choose? What facets of life shall I give my primary
interest to? Shall I set some goals for what I want today?
How shall I set this or that goal and "make it happen?" What should I focus on when I buy this
product? Shall I own and claim responsibility or would I prefer to reject such?
Should I trust people or treat people with caution?
C In each of these choices our intentions work in the background of our mind governing and driving
our attentions. In this way our intentions color the lens that we wear as we perceive things. Yet each
of these perceptions are meta-programs which arise from our meta-states and texture our everyday
experiences.
The matching / mis-matching meta-program (Relationship Comparison, #4) is also critical. This
sorts for sameness / difference and governs our focus in reading.
C When you read, do you do so with a view on checking to see if it matches
what you already know?
C Or perhaps you sort for differences?
C Do you look for what differs from what you already know?
At a meta-processing level, the matching style compares for similarities. The mismatching style
searches for differences. These thinking styles are cognitive patternsthat operate at a level meta to
the content information—the story. At that meta-level, they govern how we read, what we pay
attention to, and the kinds of thinking processes that we apply to our reading.
Chapter 9
THE SEMANTIC META-PROGRAMS
Higher Meta-Programs
If meta-programs are higher level constructs which operate as our perceptual lens, and if they are
created by meta-stating them into that function, can we meta-state our meta-programs to create even
higher level meta-programs? Can we create meta-programs of meta-programs?
C Can we create a procedure about our options to keep our options open
about our procedures?
C Can we mismatch our mismatching to create a higher level of matching? C Can we match our
mismatching to validate it and sequence it for the
places where it would offer a powerful resource?
C Can we be timid about our exuberance (timidly exuberant) and exuberant about our timidity
(exuberantly timid)?
By now we don’t think that the answer, “Yes, to all of these questions!”, will surprise you. We can
indeed meta-state one meta-program with another. Practically this highlights that meta-programs are
not only nominalizations, but that each meta-program is also a multi-ordinal term. Multi-ordinal; do
you know what that means? It points to the terms that we use in everyday language which are reflexive
in nature. That is, if you can apply a term to itself, and it still makes sense, then that term can be used
at multiple levels and we can count them off (as with ordinal numbers) and at each level the meaning
of the term will differ. The same term will mean different things at each level.
For example, love is a multi-ordinal term. Can you love love? Yes, of course, any teenager can tell
you that. It’s called infatuation. We can love the state of being in love. If infatuation is the love of
love, then can welove the love of love? Again, yes. We might call the love of love of love—
romanticism.
This reflexivity also applies to the meta-program perceptual filters. If we can have options about our
options, and procedures about our procedures, if we can match our matching, than these terms and
their referent experiences are multiordinal in nature. As we apply a meta-program to itself, the metaprogram takes on new meanings at every level. This also highlights that meta-programs do not only
occur at one level, but at higher meta-levels as well. Some occur at a level meta to the meta-programs
themselves.
Having now explored more than three dozen meta-programs in the previous three chapters, we have
made our exploration within three categories or classifications—cognitive, emotive, and conative. By
exploring these first-level meta-programs we are now ready for the higher level meta-programs that
move us up the levels of frames to those that involve complex concepts which influence the way we
perceive things.
These higher meta-programs create perceptual lens that govern what and how we pay attention to
things just as do the first level meta-programs. So what’s the difference? The difference is that these
meta-programs are more semantically loaded. Semantically loaded means that we construct these
higher meta-programs with layers of beliefs, values, decisions, intentions, expectations, etc. When we
do this, they make up our Matrix of frames.
This now leads us to introduce yet another new distinction for the field of NLP. We can distinguish
between meta-programs one level up regarding how we think, process information, sort, attend, etc.
and those that occur at two or more levels up. We will now describe this distinction more fully which
we introduced in chapter one. With this extension of the Meta-Programs model, we can now answer
numerous other questions about meta-programs.
C How do "values" relate to the meta-programs? Are meta-programs
values?
C How do "beliefs" fit into meta-programs and with meta-programs? Are meta-programs beliefs?
C How do meta-programs relate to the meta-level of identity? Are they part of who we are?
C Where do we put the Kantian categories (e.g., time, space, causation, etc.) with regard to human
perception?
C How do other higher level concepts and meanings relate to metaprograms?
This chapter explores the higher meta-programs—those that are meta to all of the previous metaprograms. These meta-programs exist above and beyond the first level meta-programs that govern
thinking, emoting, and choosing. These deal with higher level semantic meanings, with beliefs, with
maps about concepts. Relating these to the Matrix Model, the first nine deal with the Self Matrix, the
next ones with the Time Matrix, and the last two with the World Matrix.*1
The Semantic Meta-Programs
When we began we used the computer metaphor about information processing as analogous in some
ways to our own neurological information processing. First, there is the neurological inputting of
billions of stimuli in the environment as processed by the human nervous system and brain processes.
All that we are aware of occurs on the screen of our consciousness. We then output things in the form
of emotions, behaviors, gestures, and skills. This metaphor suggests two separate dimensions of
consciousness and perception, namely, its forms and its expressions.
First, consider the end result of meta-program distinctions in the forms which our thoughts and
perceptions take. How does our processing manifest itself as it focuses attention and perception on
the screen of consciousness (Column 4 in Figure 9:1)? It does this by formatting our perception
according to the metaprograms (global—specific; matching— mismatching; VAK, etc.). This means
that every thought and perception has a meta-program code. By the time we express our perception
we have already sorted it out in terms of matching and mismatching, global and specific, etc. Thought
always shows up in some metaprogram configuration. It can do no other. That we usually lack
consciousness of it only speaks about how it operates at a level meta to our consciousness.
Second, consider the source from which the meta-program distinctions arise. As the meta-program
focuses, shapes, forms, and formats ongoing dyna mic neurological information processing—it does
so according to various conditions, constraints, and categories. In other words, the meta-programs, as
our “operating system” for encoding how we think-feel-perceive, arise from previously formatted
categories. Think of the meta-programs themselves as an expression of a dynamic mental-emotional
process wherein we engage in focusing, attending, thinking, and information processing. Think of this
stream of cognizing and attending as having a style, format, form (as articulated in the metaprograms),
prior conditions, and constraints from which each arise. This separates the meta-programs into those
prior to the dynamism of "mind" that perception—the
pr oces s of
This means that every thought and perception has a meta-program code. Thought always shows up in
some meta-program configuration.
attends and perceives. It also separates those that format the attending afterward as it shows up on
"the screen of consciousness."
Those that attend afterward comprise the majority of the meta-programs as detailed in the previous
chapters (Column 4). Those that describe the prior formatting of perception consist of those
conceptual, and semantic categories that constrain consciousness (Column 1). It does this before it
begins to operate—constrains it to operate according to its conditions. This consists of those metaprograms that concern such categories as "time," "self," "values" etc.
Figure 9:1
PRIOR TO...6 ATTENDING/PERCEIVING FORMAT RESULT
Conditions out of which attending comes:
Categories
Constraints
Belief Systems The process of consciousness in focusing, noticing, sorting,
processing, perceiving, etc.
The dynamic processes of mental consciousness
Frames, framing
Matrix of frames Semantic meta
programs
The Meaning Matrix Meta-stating
Consciousness working behind
the scenes to format thinking
Form of thought
match/mismatch options/ procedures global/ specific.
Our meta-program codes
"THOUGHT"
The content details of our movies.
What shows up on the screen of
consciousness.
The end product thinking
Let’s now turn this model upright so that the first columns become the highest vertical levels. This
gives us two meta-levels to the primary level of consciousness about things in the world "out there,”
the things beyond our skin. To recognize the recursiveness of consciousness, we have built into this
model the recognition that thought-and-emotion always and inevitably reflects back onto itself (the
arrows going up and back down, see Figure 9:2). As the metaprograms governing our thoughts
habituate, they solidify as a mental-emotional "form" of perception.
Doing this allows a new format to arise. We now have above our primary state processing and
experiencing a meta-program that formats and governs our mindbody state, over which yet another
level occurs, the meta meta-programs. The place of "values" arises here because as we "give a form
of thought" (some metaprogram format such as global, matching, visual, etc.) to our experience and do
so repeatedly— this in itself values the form as useful, significant, and real. It is this "valuing" (or
evaluating) process that results in what we nominalize as a "value."
Figure 9:2
Why Distinguish Meta-Programs1
and Meta Meta-Programs2-n?
By distinguishing the levels of meta-programs we specify a distinction that exists between the levels
at which these "sorting programs" or perceptual lenses operate. What do we gain by this? What is the
significance of doing this? There are many benefits.
First, the levels of meta meta-programs have a more pervasive impact on the entire perceptual system
than the first level meta-programs. That’s because higher “logical levels” always drive, modulate,
organize, and form the lower levels.2 So working at these levels will be the place where we can do
more pervasive change and where we will find the higher frames involving values, "time," "self," and
other key conceptual or semantic frames.
Second, the meta-programs via habituation create and generate the levels of meta meta-programs.
This provides insight into why any given person will value and believe in their meta-programs and
how it locks their meta-program system in place. This means that when we believe in our perceptual
style, that frame of mind habituates that meta-program to a higher “logical level” so that our way of
seeing things is exalted as part of our belief matrix about reality. We then metastate this belief with
more meta-levels until we coalesce it as our map of how to perceive and it gets so much “into our
eyes” that it becomes our neuro-semantic reality. This warns about the importance of running
"ecology checks" and both time-and-space index3 the meta-programs least we empower them through
habituation and continual meta-stating that turns them into values and identity structures.
#48. Self-Experience:
Mind, Emotions, Choices, Body, DisIdentified, Spirit
#49. Self-Instruction:
Compliant — Strong-Will
#50. Self-Confidence:
Low — High
#51. Self-Esteem:
Conditional — Unconditional #52. Self-Integrity:
Conflicted — Integrated
#53. Responsibility:
Under— Responsible— Over #54. Ego Strength:
Weak — Strong
#55. Morality:
Weak, Strong, Overly strong superego
#56. Self-Monitoring:
Low — High
#57. Time Zones:
Past, Present, Future
#58. Time Experience:
In time — Through Time
#59. Quality of life:
Be — Do — Have
#60. Values:
What one deems important
Third, this distinguishes the realm of neuro-linguistics (at the first level metaprograms) and the realm
that we have chosen to call neuro-semantics (all of the meta meta-programs levels). The metaprograms that we have explored in the past three chapters have concerned how we code, pattern, and
format our perceptions. The meta meta-programs involve another layer or level that applies high
level concepts to the fabric of our consciousness itself.
The "Self" Semantic Constructions
Central to our processing of information are several semantic concepts which foundationally define
and determine how we experience and perceive reality. Among these semantic frames are: our sense
of self as a person, our sense of "self" in terms of our efficacy, confidence, skill, and our selfdefinition that we create via our experiences, etc.
None of us ever leave home without our “self” frames. These are the frames which formulate our
higher meta-programs. Because we take these metaconstructions with us everywhere we go and use
them as perceptual filters, they significantly color the world we live in. This enables us to use almost
every experience, conversation, and interaction to both express our “self” and be influenced as a
“self.” Developmentally, the semantics of self are so central and primary that we have designated this
as the first content matrix in the Matrix Model.1 What follows are many different facets of the
mappings that we make about our self.
#48. Self-Experience:
Mind, Emotion, Will, Body, Role/ Position, Spirit, Dis-Identified
Description: This higher meta-program deals with how we experience ourselves in terms of our selfidentity. We differ in our concept of "self" and the factors that we use and factor into our selfdefinition. How do you define yourself? What facets of yourself play a central role in the self out of
which you come—and the self that you use at the meta-meta level?
We can take any one of these facets of self, or a combination of them, or none of them, and
conceptually define ourselves in terms of them. Korzybski said that when we identify with something,
we set up an identification and treat that thing or process as equal to or the same as our label.
Korzybski (1933).
Elicitation:
C What experiences do you identify with and use to create some of your self-definition?
C As you think about your thoughts, emotions, will, body, roles, and positions that you experience in
life, which of these facets seems the most important, real, or valid?
C Do you think of yourself primarily as a thinker, as an emotional person, or a chooser? Do you see
yourself in terms of your physical looks or body, in terms of your roles and positions, or in some
other fashion?
C How do you define yourself?
Mind Body Emotions Will Roles Dis-Identified
Identification:
1) Thinking: The more we use our thinking and cognitive powers and the more they successfully
enable us to cope with life and master specific areas of it, the more likely we are to identify as a
thinker.
2) Feelings: The more we step into an experience and associate with it, the more likely we will use
the feelings of that experience to define ourselves. We will then probably identify ourselves as a
“feeler.”
3) Choosing: The more we sort for choice as our main power, the primary factor in our
consciousness, the more likely we identify ourselves as a “chooser.” This sets us up for the strongwill filter of the Self-Instruction meta-program (#49).
4) Etc. We could even define ourselves primarily by our jobs, roles, experiences, degrees,
relationships, body, health, ill-health, disease, political party, religious beliefs, ethic group, etc.
Languaging: Listen for the facet of experience that seems to play the largest role in a person’s selfdefinition. Does the person identify him or herself with that facet? To what degree and to what extent?
Does that self-definition control the person?
Contexts of Origin: As a high-level concept about one's self-definition, this metaprogram develops
from the first level meta-programs. The place where we experience pleasure and/or pain is also the
place where we create our constructs. The languaging we receive from significant people also plays a
critical role. What did others say that entered into the formulation? How well did the person screen it
out or identify with it? With whom did a person identify or dis-identify?
Self-Analysis:
__ Mind/ Emotion/ Will/ Body/ Role/ Position/ Spirit / Dis-identification Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#49. Self-Instruction:
Compliant — Strong-Will
Description: This meta-program relates to how we experience ourselves when face-to-face with
someone telling us something, giving us instructions, or even with the principle of being told
something. How do you experience such? Do you easily comply or do you naturally resist? How do
you perceive and experience compliance or non-compliance to rules? How do you relate and respond
when someone provides you information? How do you respond when someone gives you mandates,
orders, or instructions? Do you have a natural tendency to comply, to question, or to resist? Imagine a
continuum with extremes of complying and resisting. This gives us a meta-program relating to our
style of "being told" something. Dobson (1970) Hall (1987, 1990).
Elicitation:
C Can you be told something? Can someone tell you what to do? C How do you think and feel when
you receive instructions? C How well can you give yourself orders and carry them out without a lot
of internal resistance?
C Do you think of yourself as compliant, that you easily go along with the choices of others?
Compliant Balanced Strong-Willed Easily Complies and submits to orders Resists orders, rules, commands
Identification:
1) Compliant: A compliant person responds immediately and automatically by complying in a
pliable, receptive, open, and sometimes, in a sensitive way. The compliant person will experience
much kinder/gentler emotions, even in contexts where someone truly imposes their will upon them.
Complying doesn’t carry much semantic significance, it only means going along, following the rules,
being a team player, being “a good boy,” etc.
2) Strong-willed: Those who are strong-willed have a difficult time "being told” things. When
someone uses any kind of communication that tells (i.e., orders, instructs, informs, lectures, gives
advices, etc.), the strong-willed will have an almost immediate and automatic response to resist that
information. They do not like "being told." For the strong-willed, telling is semantically loaded.
Various beliefs interfere with the reception of information. A strong-willed person typically reads
"telling" as "control," "manipulation," "memory of a trauma of some intrusive person," "insult," etc.
The strong-willed will experience lots of emotions of "resistance"—primarily dislike and aversion.
They will "feel" putupon, forced, controlled, manipulated, etc.
Identify these patterns by simply noticing whether, and to what extent, a person bristles in a context
where someone tells, orders, demands, or forces. In this "temperamental" factor, people fall along a
continuum between extremely compliant to extremely strong-willed. Most of us lie somewhere in the
middle.
Reg Reynolds, a Neuro-Semantic trainer and Meta-Coach noticed this compliance versus noncompliance filter.
“While in Australia, several of the South Africans mentioned how
‘obedient’ the Australians were to the rules, especially compared to them.
We noted how they would patiently wait at traffic lights for the Green
Man before crossing, even when there was little traffic. And at the
training in Sydney, there was the time when one of us pulled up a chair
to put up some flip charts and one of the staff berated us because it was
unsafe and against the rules.”
Reg noted that “most of us South Africans would not even hesitate to break these rules.” That’s when
a discussion broke out about whether this could be a contributing factor for the high crime rate in
South Africa. Perhaps when people live in a country suffering from large problems (crime, AIDS,
unemployment, etc.) compliance with minor issues becomes much less important.
Languaging: Linguistic markers for the strong-willed by temperament: "Why do I have to?" "I hate it
when people tell me what to do." "I have a problem with authority figures." "I'm not going to jump
through your hoops." Linguistic markers for the compliant: "Sure." "Whatever you say." "How high do
you want me to jump?" To pace and communicate with a strong-willed person, avoid all direct frontal
telling styles. Set it in mind to not tell that person anything. Instead, replace telling with suggesting,
hinting, prodding, planting idea seeds, and playfully teasing. Use indirect and covert communication
skills. On the other hand, to pace and communicate a compliant person, just express your thoughts
directly and straight-forwardly.
Contexts of Origin: Those strong-willed by temperament will typically have an innate disposition
toward not "being told." The likelihood is high that they experience and define their “self” in terms of
choice and will. To preclude their choice feels like a violation of their sense of self. Those strongwilled by trauma experience boundary intrusions once too much, reach a threshold, and make a
decision to "not be told." Those strong-willed by belief have simply made up their mind about this or
that subject and have "closed the store."
Self-Analysis:
__ Compliant / Strong-willed / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: __________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
__ Strong-willed by: __ Temper __ Trauma __ Belief
#50. Self-Confidence: Low — High
Description: Self-confidence refers to our sense of competence regarding our feelings of capacity,
ability, experience, and our pride that we can do certain things with skill and ability. We have faith
(fidence) with (con) ourselves. This makes self-confidence conditional; the confidence is relative to
our skills and competence. Feeling confident, without the skills to back it up, creates a hollow
foolishness. Healthy self-confidence arises from our experiences (positive and negative), training,
beliefs, relationships, etc. In this, self-confidence differs radically from self-esteem. Self-confidence
relates to what we can do, to our actions, skills, and behaviors. Self-confidence relates to human
doing and behavior. The concept of self-esteem (Self-Esteem, #51) relates to what we are as human
beings, to being and being-ness.
At the heart of self-confidence is our faith in what we can do, in our abilities and skills. It refers to
more of an emotional and experiential factor of self, whereas self-esteem refers to our mental
appraisal of rating our self as a person or human being. Self-confidence addresses our strengths and
weaknesses, what we can and cannot do. Hall (2000 Meta-States, Dragon Slaying).
Elicitation:
C Make a list of the things that you can do well, and that you know, without a doubt, you can do well
and may even take pride in your ability to do them skillfully. How many are you able to list?
C How confident do you feel about these skills on your list?
C How have you generalized from these specific self-confidences to your overall sense of selfconfidence?
C What is it like for you to acknowledge the lack of self-confidence in a given area or skill?
C When you have the competence of a given skill, are you able to access and accept those feelings of
confidence?
Low Confidence in skills and self High
Identification:
1) Low self-confidence: Those who filter things pessimistically (Scenario Type, Pessimistic metaprogram, #6) may not "count" many, if not most, of their competencies. Instead they may discount their
skills, talents, and aptitudes. In low self-confidence, a person may focus only on the things that he or
she cannot do well and feel low confidence about almost everything. Those who seek to achieve their
goals via the perfectionistic style (Goal Striving meta-program, Perfectionism, #40) can also create
an overall sense of low self-confidence. 2) High self-confidence: Everybody who lives a fairly
normal life will have lots of things that he or she can do with confidence, from the simple things like
making one's bed, cooking a meal, going to work, dressing, to the more complex, playing an
instrument, doing complicated math, fixing an automobile, typing, programming a computer, etc. To
experience high self-confidence, we have to let things count and feel good about what we can do. We
can acknowledge such in the presence of others.
Those with a healthy dose of self-confidence express their confidence in how they walk, talk, and
hold themselves. This leads to self-efficacy which is the ability to trust oneself to learn and figure out,
other things that we have yet to learn. Selfefficacy refers to our sense of effectiveness in using our
basic response-powers (thinking, emoting, speaking, and actions) as we deal with the world. Those
who over-do the self-confidencing may exaggerate it to the point of foolishness so that they present
themselves as a know-it-all.
Languaging: Those lacking self-confidence will feel unsure, indecisive, and confused. They will talk
about their doubts, questions, and "not knowing."
Contexts of Origin: Our feelings of trust in our skills develop from experiences in life. Taking on too
much too quickly can undermine the developmental process of learning and feeling good about
developing skills. Too much criticism, and too harsh of criticism too early, can also knock the spirit
and motivation out of a person. Modeling by significant persons about how to self-validate one's
skills also positively affects this meta-program.
Self-Analysis:
__ Low Self-Confidence / High Self-Confidence / Balance Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Self-Confidences in what:
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#51. Self-Esteem:
Low conditional — High Unconditional
Description: One of our most basic awareness deals with our sense of self. Our images, concepts,
ideas, verbalizations, and definitions of our self pinpoints the core area from which we think,
process, and perceive. Because this abstract concept of self occurs above our usual awareness, it
operates outside of awareness, making it more difficult to access.
When we confuse, mix and fail to distinguish between these conceptual facets of "self," we create
identity confusions that unnecessarily complicate our sense of self. Hall (1991, 1995, 1996), Nathanel
Brandon (1969).
Elicitation:
C Do you think of your value as a person as conditional or unconditional? C When you esteem
yourself as valuable, worthwhile, having dignity, etc.,
do you based it upon something you do, have, or possess, or do you base it upon a given (i.e., your
inherent humanity, made in God's image and likeness, etc.)?
C How solid or weak is your personal sense of your innate worth and dignity?
C How easily can you say, “I am lovable, I am precious.”?
Low High Conditional Unconditional
Identification:
1) Unconditional: Self-esteem refers to our sense ofworth (i.e., esteem, appraisal of value, dignity)
and how we view ourselves as human beings. This esteem falls along a continuum between extremely
worthless to extremely valuable, from low to high self-esteem. One may make this evaluation or
appraisal of value based on conditional factors or upon unconditional factors. In either case, one's
esteeming or not-esteeming of one's being or personhood arises from one's belief about human beings,
human worth, and one’s own personal worth.
2) Conditional: When we believe that we have to earn the right to be worthy, have dignity, and
esteem ourselves highly, we make self-esteem conditional upon various factors. Because selfconfidence is conditional on our skills and abilities, we can easily confuse self-confidence and selfesteem and put self-esteem on a conditional foundation.
When we suffer from low self-esteem and try to build our mental self-appraisal as a person upon the
foundation of our competencies—we link our self-esteeming to temporal conditions. This puts us on a
treadmill of achievement, and reflects the belief, "I will become okay as a person or human being if I
achieve enough, accomplish enough, etc. or when I do."
The problem of thinking that we have to become a “somebody” is that it posits human worth and
dignity conditionally upon external things. This leaves us unable to ever feel confident. With that
construction, we may lose the right within ourselves to esteem ourselves of value and dignity, which
then sets us up for states of self-contempt and/or egotism, as well as the idea that people, as human
beings, must earn the right to treat oneself as valuable and inherently worthwhile. All of this confuses
person with behavior. By contrast, to posit our self-value as a given enables us to think-and-feel in a
self-forgetful and unpretentious way. It creates a healthy center of value and dignity from which to
live and act.
Language: Listen for statements of conditionality or unconditionality, for gauging words of degree in
one’s sense of worth and dignity (low self-esteem). Listen for how a person thinks-feels about his or
her self as a person and as a doer (human being/ human doing). Do you hear conditional factors?
Does the esteem of the self go up and down? To pace, appeal to the person’s inherent and innate self
value and dignity to reinforce the person who operates from unconditional selfesteem. Appeal to the
factor/s that will expand and provide a richer and more resourceful experience.
When environmental circumstances prevent us from reaching and fulfilling all of the conditions for
highly esteeming ourselves, the cognitive problems of emotionalizing and personalizing are likely to
arise. Then we fall into thinking patterns of emotionalizing and personalizing, which weakens one’s
sense of personal value and boundaries. We are then likely to interpret the words, behaviors and
actions of others as insulting, or taking away our value and lovability.
Contexts of Origin: This semantic meta-program arises from the cultures in which we grow up. The
languaging that we receive from parents plays an especially crucial role in the experience of
conditional or unconditional self-valuing. Almost everybody receives an unmeasurable amount of
conditional self-worthing via their experiences in school, sports, life with peers, etc. Almost any hurt
or trauma experience can undermine our ability to esteem our self of unconditional value, worth,
dignity, lovability, etc.
Self-Analysis:
Conditional Self-Esteeming / Unconditional Self-Esteeming Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
(if conditional)
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#52. Self-Integrity: Conflicted Incongruity — Harmonious Integration
Description: How do we evaluate our ability to live up to our values? How do we think about our
ideals, and especially our ideal self, and then evaluate how well, or how poorly, we live up to those
ideals? This awareness generates within us a sense of self-integration, or its lack. This involves
feeling conflicted and incongruous with our highest self. Erickson (1959, 1968), Maslow (1954).
Cattell (1989) says that this factor in personality works "co-extensively with Erickson's sense of
identity" and that it
"... grows out of the recognition that one's attachment, values, and beliefs tend to endure over time. It
observes how well one is living up to personal ideals. Failing to live up to personal ideals results in
selfdegradation, shame, or anxiety." (p. 278)
Elicitation:
C How well or how poorly do you live up to your ideals?
C How well do you actualize your ideal self?
C Do you feel integrated, congruous, and doing well in living true to your
values and visions?
C Do you feel torn, conflicted, un-integrated, or incongruous?
Conflicted Incongruity Harmonious Integration
Identification:
1) Self-Integrity: Those who experience the comparison between their ideals and ideal self with
their actual experiences as congruous and fitting will feel that they have self-integrity. This provides a
strong senseof self-acceptance and centering. It enables us to even more effectively devote mental and
emotional energies for actualizing one's values and visions.
2) Inwardly torn and conflicted: Those who lack that sense of congruence feel inwardly torn and at
odds with themselves. This frequently leads to the expenditure of lots of internal energy conflicting
and fighting with oneself, negative emotions, and/or negative judgments of insult toward ourselves.
Languaging: Congruity shows up in personality and language when all of a person's talk and
behavior fits his or her values. The person speaks, sounds like, looks like, and behaves as though
having a good, solid grasp on his or herself, his or her values, and the ability to handle the problems
of reality (Ego-Strength metaprogram, #54), etc. The conflicted and incongruous shows up in all kinds
of forms of incongruity—they say one thing and live another.
Contexts of Origin: This meta-program derives less of its presence to the past and more to ongoing
and current experiences. The more "dysfunctional" early life experiences, the more difficulty one may
have in even recognizing and knowing the meaning of self-integrity and self-actualization.
Self-Analysis:
__ Incongruency / Congruency Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: __________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#53. Responsibility Sort: Over-Responsible/ Responsible / Under-Responsible
Description: Responsibility as a concept involves numerous facets. Literally referring to the ability
or power to respond (response-ability), it involves the specific powers of response: thinking, feeling,
speaking, and acting. In this we all areresponse-able only for ourselves. Yet whether we accept and
act responsibly depends on our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about this concept of responsibility.
This meta-program also depends on our experiences around this subject. If our experiences regarding
our responses have involved lots of pain, blame, accusations, and severe punishments for actual or
imagined mistakes, we might be tempted to associate pain or unpleasantry with “responsibility” and
feel an aversion to it. Because people think about, sort for, and perceive "responsibility" in different
ways, our lens about this operates as a meta meta-program.
At the center of our most basic human powers is our ability to respond. Conceptually, we can divide
this ability to respond into two areas: responsibility for ourselves—for our thinking, emoting,
speaking and behaving, and responsibility to others. As such, the first describes accountability,
while the second describes relationship.
In the first, we own and accept ourselves as accountablefor our responses. This describes our circle
of response or our power zone (the zone where we truly have the ability to take action and do
something). The second describes how we relate to others regarding how we speak to and treat them,
in terms of our responses to them. This describes our circle of influence with others. This provides an
operatonalized definition of two concepts:responsibility foris accountability for ourselves and
responsibility to is relationship to others.
Those who love, desire, and want responsibility, move toward it, and view actions, speech,
emotions, etc. in terms of feeling responsible for things. Others dislike it, do not want it, and find the
concept aversive. They may have experienced a lot of pain associated with the idea of responsibility
due to interactions with various people, especially those in any role of authority. So they move away
from it, either by ignoring it, or by thinking of the opposite—how others have responsibility for
things, even their own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Hall (1989), Beattie (1987).
Elicitation:
C When you think about having and owning responsibility for something in a work situation or
personal relationship, what thoughts, memories, and emotions come to you?
C Has someone ever held you responsible for something that went wrong that felt very negative to
you?
C What positive experiences can you remember about someone holding you responsible for
something and/or validate you as response-able?
Under-responsibility Heathy Responsibility Over-responsibility
Identification:
1) Under-responsibility: Those who fail to respond appropriately for their own thinking, emoting,
speaking, and behaving typically rely on others to take care of them. During the dependency of infancy
and childhood, this appropriately reflects our reality. In adulthood, infantile dependency continues in
those who fail to accept their own response-ability for themselves.
When we perceive people and events through the meta-program lens of under- responsibility, we
think of ourselves as dependent and needy. Being needy, we feel like victims of the responses of
others, and so we easily turn to blaming and demanding as ways of coping. When over-done, we
assume a state of entitlement and perceive others, friends, lovers, government, etc. as responsible for
our happiness, employment, resourcefulness, etc. This makesfor reactivity, passivity, victim thinking,
and co-dependency.
2) Over-responsibility: Those who assume too much responsibility take on caretaking roles. They
often excel at problem solving, sympathizing, caring, and wanting to make things better. Over-done
they become co-dependent to those relinquishing his or her responsibilities. More frequently than not,
they fail to distinguish between response-ability for their arena of response and responseability to
other people.
When we perceive things through the meta-program lens of over-responsibility we aggress beyond
our circle of response into the power zone of others. When overdone, this comes across as intrusive.
It sends the message, “I don’t trust you to be responsible.” Ironically, over-responsibility to our
children invites them to become under-responsible. These patterns work together to create codependency patterns where the under and over responsible people fit together like hand-andglove.
3) Healthy Responsibility. The healthy balance is to appropriately assume the ability to respond for
ourselves and to others. Then we can look to, and use, appropriate context markers to let us know
when to give and when to receive. To own our own response-powers is to create the foundation for
being centered in ourselves and developing an internal Authority Source (#23). It is a crucial step for
developing a high self-confidence that emerges in self-efficacy (SelfConfidence, #50). It then leads to
being active (Somatic Response, #27), open to moving toward our goals (Motivation Direction, #35),
and emotionally alive.
Languaging: Over-responsible peoplecare too much and so get into care-taking and co-dependency
relations. When they talk about the problems and hurts of others, they step into the state and take on
the emotions that belong to others. They may not be able to listen or watch the news without feeling
responsible for what’s happening, and therefore “guilty” for not doing something (actually a pseudoguilt because they have not actually done anything wrong). When they feel a need in others, they
assume responsibility for them, which paradoxically further weakens the other person. The underresponsible want this kind of care, they define it as “love," they accuse and blame if it doesn't come,
and they do not know the feeling of true independence or inter-dependency.
Contexts of Origin: We are not response-able at birth at all. This develops through the years as we
mature. We all start out unable to respond and are totally dependent upon our caretakers. Here family,
cultural, and racial style plays an important part, as do the values we garner from these sources as
well as religion, politics, school, etc. Trauma can send us either way in how we run our brain about
responsibility. We can play the victim and refuse all responsibility, or we can play the great rescuer,
care-taker, and adopt a messianic complex to save the world.
One form of dysfunctional parenting involves training children to take care of and feel responsible for
the emotions of the parents. If the child buys it, he or she will grow up and adopt two toxic beliefs. 1)
My worth lies in my ability to perform for others and please them. 2) I will only get someone to love
me if I take care of them and become responsible for them.
Self-Analysis:
__ Under-responsible / Responsible / Over-responsible Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#54. Ego Strength:
Unstably weak — Stably Strong
Description: Ego-strength refers to the strength of our mind to face reality for whatever is. Egostrength enables us to do this without caving in, going in a fight or flight response (Stress Coping,
#22), and being able to use our basic orientation toward external reality. Because we are born
without an ego (sense of self), and so no ego-strength, this strength of mind develops over the years
through education and experience.
Freud originally defined the "ego" as a set of cognitive and perceptual functions that serve adaptive
purposes as we learn to cope with our environments. The ego moves out into voluntary movement at
its command for the task of preservation and effectiveness. Cattell (1989) writes,
"The ego is a problem-solving structure that mediates between needs and the environment . . . it
recognizes tension that signifies existence and the strength of an inner need . . ." (p. 40)
Intelligence, the ability to make accurate discriminations, lies at the heart of "ego strength." It is with
the development of our understanding about life, people, ourselves, and the world that we develop the
strength of our sense of self to face things, cope, and even master the challenges thrown our way. As
the ability to face the ups-and-downs of every day life, ego-strength speaks of our inner resources,
sense of power, self-efficacy, self-confidence, and inner locus of control (Authority Source metaprogram, #23).
Along a continuum of the strength or energy of one’s "ego" to identify reality for what it is, address it,
cope with it and find a way to effectively respond to it, we can measure the degree of that strength. On
one end we may have almost no ability to look reality in the face, accept it on its own terms, and
expend energy to deal with it. On the other end we may have lots of ability to face and address
reality. At the high end, we can “face the facts” of life as we find them, without falling apart. We can
do so without wasting time in feeling angry, upset, frustrated, depressed, or whining. Cattell (1989).
Elicitation:
C When you think about some difficulty arising in everyday life, a disappointment, problem,
frustration that will block your progress, etc., what usually comes to your mind?
C How do you feel about such events?
C How do you typically respond to internal needs or external hardships?
C Where do your mind-and-emotions go when you face a problem?
Unstable ego-strength Stable ego-strength Low — weak, easily stressed High — strong, high stress tolerance
Identification:
1) Unstable Ego-Strength: This describes how we all responded during infancy and childhood; the
childish coping style of throwing tantrums, raging when frustrated, and an intolerance of delays, etc.
We easily and quickly felt frustrated by the tiniest little annoyance and so became unstable in the face
of difficulties. In unstable ego-strength, we can perceive almost anything as a "difficulty," we worry
and fret about it, feel insecure, unstable, emotionally distressed, etc.
2) Stable Ego-Strength: This is the ability to take a more philosophical attitude toward life and
progress toward any worthwhile goal, knowing that this will involve expecting and accepting
problems, road-blocks, problems to solve, etc. In the face of such undesired occurrences, they stay
calm, cool, unruffled, and objective. They immediately go into problem-solving mode in a matter-offact way, without wasting a lot of time fuming and fretting. Ellis (1975) writes, "The world has great
difficulties and injustices, but you don't have to whine or make yourself furious about them."
Languaging: Expect to find lots of associated negative emotions in those who operate from low egostrength. They will delay and procrastinate, hate and guilt, and contempt themselves, others, life, etc.
They will feel panicky, act impulsively and reactively, and quickly alternate in their moods. Expect to
hear and see more objectivity, flexibility, and a problem-solving orientation in those who operate
from a highly developed ego-strength. They work patiently, with endurance, and avoid all of the
melodramatic drama characteristic of the other side of the continuum. They acknowledge the problem
without undue delay and confront it with a sense of mastery and pleasure.
Contexts of Origin. Physiological determinants for this meta-program concern neurological wellbeing and normal brain development as one moves through the Piagetian cognitive development
stages. Those who do not become developmentally delayed or retarded live their lives at the concrete
thinking stage, or earlier and so experience little "ego strength." Brain lesions, cancers, and damage
can put any of us back into that place. Learning factors that contribute to low ego-strength instability
include the lack of good role models, deficiencies in education, and the lack of good support group,
etc. Good ego strength arises through learning, discipline, skill development, support systems, etc.
Trauma, especially chronic or acute trauma situations (e.g. war, rape, molestation, sexual abuse, etc.)
can so overwhelm a person's coping skills and reality testing abilities, that one can experience much
instability in terms of ego strength.
Self-Analysis:
__ Unstable / Stable
Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: ______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#55. Morality: Weak — Strong — Overly-strong Super-Ego
Description: This meta-program deals with how we sort for morality and ethical concepts. Some
continually sort for and perceive moral issues everywhere. Others seem to operate as if there’s no
such thing as morality or ethics. Freud defined the super-ego as the internalized set of rules that
enables us to evaluate behaviors and actions in terms of "right" and "wrong.” How do we frame an
activity that helps and enhances or that hurts and sabotages ourselves or another?
What is ethical or moral fits the mores that any culture has come to value as promoting the common
good. Here is another seemingly innate, and therefore a priori, category in the "mind"—our
inescapable awareness, choice, and ability to evaluate behavior in terms of ethics and morality. This
kind of "knowing" is related to knowing about the quality of our actions (Quality of Life, #59), their
effects (Time Zones, future meta-program, #57) and the consequences they have on others (Attention
meta-program, others, #24). Do we behave in a "good" or "bad" way in terms of the societal rules
and spiritual beliefs that govern our culture. These meta-programs concern the "spiritual,"
"conscience," morality, etc.
The affinity toward guilt, innocence, righteousness, worthiness, etc. describes this meta metaprogram. Some people sort for guilt, wrongness, badness, shame, and worthlessness in nearly every
action; others seem to never perceive that any action could be wrong. Along a continuum we can plot
an anti-social lack of conscience to guilt-proneness or conscientiousness. Kohlberg (1980).
Elicitation:
C What do you think about misbehaviors that hurt and violate others? C What do you think or feel
when you discover that you acted
inappropriately and violated some legitimate value that you hold or that your culture holds?
C When you think about messing up, doing something embarrassing, stupid, socially inept, etc., what
thoughts-and-feelings flood your consciousness?
C How conscientious are you of following the rules and conforming to what’s right?
Unconscientious Conscientious Low sense of morality and ethics High sense and awareness
Identification:
1) Unconscientious: Those who have a poorly developed super-ego do not recognize or sort for
actions that could be wrong and induce guilt—the violation of a true moral standard. So they
disregard obligations, rules, ethics, morals, etc. They live self-indulgently, narcisstically,
disrespectfully, choosing whatever they find expedient for their immediate goals without
consideration of others or regard to the consequences of their actions on others. Others can't depend
on their moral consciousness to do "the right thing." Over-done this leads to the criminal mind lacking
any "conscience," what we call sociopathic.
The unconscientious can lie, cheat, misbehave, undermine moral standards, etc. and do so without any
"pangs of conscience." They seem to have little to no internal guidance system about morals or their
influence on others. They develop a "personality" style that we think of as amoral or antisocial. Once
they have constructed a way of thinking-feeling and acting ("personality") designated as the
"antisocial personality" (DSM IV,Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), they seem callous in hurting
others, lacking any sense of empathy for the distresses of others, seem almost unable to learn from
their own mistakes, lacking appropriate fear about consequences, and may develop beliefs that
validate their right to take advantage of, or even hurt, others. (“It’s a jungle out there, so do to others
before they do to you.”)
2) Conscientious: Those who have a well-developed super-ego sort for the rightness or wrongness
of events, especially those that truly fulfill or violate moral standards. This internalized moral
consciousness makes them responsible (Responsibility meta-program, #53) and personally
disciplined. Out of their strong sense of duty, they will be moralistic, and they will be unresponsive
to the lure of immediate pleasures to do wrong. When over-done, their conscientiousness can create a
guilt-proneness so that any mistake or expression of fallibility evokes within them feelings of
badness, wretchedness, condemnation, etc.
Languaging: The conscientious will talk about doing "the right thing," the "responsible act," of doing
what they say, etc. They may have a strong sense of spirituality or religion and believe that right
actions play an important role in the universe. They think and talk about consequences and effects on
others. Those who over-do this may adapt a "self-righteous" style, sometimes in a fanatical and rigid
way, develop a distorted view of self, and fail to see their own fallibilities. These are the people
who become fanatics. Others who over-do it develop obsessive-compulsiveness in their focus on
orderliness, cleanliness, etc.
Contexts of Origin: This high level construct is almost entirely dependent upon the contexts of
culture, politics, religion, family, etc. Some neurological studies suggest genetic deficiency in those
who later develop sociopathic ways of thinking-feeling and living indicating a predisposition to such.
Pain and pleasure conditioning factors in early childhood surrounding the moral training of
recognition of the rights of others, respect for human life and property, development of empathy, etc.
obviously play a crucial role. The stereotype of the Obsessive-Compulsive cleaner that arose from
the field of psychoanalysis suggests someone who may have felt “dirty” via some form of sexual
abuse.
Self-Analysis:
__ Weak super ego (Unconscientious) Strong super-ego
Contexts:
/ Strong super-ego Conscientious / Overly
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level
__ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#56. Self-Monitoring:
Low External — High Internal
Description: In his Multiple Intelligences model, Howard Gardner originally identified7
intelligencesamong them isintra-personal intelligence.4 This speaks about the ability and awareness
to know oneself, to turn inward and to recognize when one is experiencing emotions, desires, wants,
impulses, etc. It takes intrapersonal intelligence just to recognize one’s thoughts, to “go inside” and
apply ideas, principles, and concepts to oneself. All of this implies the ability to monitor oneself, to
take one’s psychological pulse so to speak. As we differ in our ability to perceive ourselves in this
way, we can view self-monitoring as a meta-program operating as one of our a perceptual filters.
How well do we monitor ourselves?
If we considering self-monitoring as a perceptual filter on a continuum from low to high we can then
gauge the degree of self-monitoring. If our perception is low, we will be more externally focused, if
high then more internally focused. Gardner (2004).
Elicitation:
C What are you feeling right now? What are you thinking? C What mental-and-emotional patterns are
your strengths? C What are some of your weaknesses that you want to deal with? C How much do you
monitor yourself as you feel stressed or relaxed, selfconscious or self-forgetful, angry, fearful, joyful,
social, sexual, etc.?
Low self-monitory, external High, internal
Identification:
1) Low external:People who are low on self-monitoring will have difficulty telling you what they
think or how they feel. Typically when they say, “I don’t know,” they really do not because they have
not taken the time to turn inward to discover their internal states. On the extreme, some may not even
know how to turn inside to discover their thoughts and so may need counseling or coaching to assist
them in developing that skill. Because their attention to turned outward rather than inward, they will
probably be more skilled socially, may be more extroverted in recharging their batteries
(Rejuvenation meta-program, #26), and may prefer people and activities (Preference, #39)
2) High internal: People who are high on self-monitoring more easily know their own thinking,
emotions, needs, impulses, choices, and inner world. Turning inward is easy for them. They will be
more highly attuned to themselves. If they are mostly at peace inside their inner world, they will more
typically be able to understand and empathize with others and be able to manage and control their
impulses, needs, and desires. If, however, they are inwardly conflicted, their experience can be one
of painful self-awareness that they feel they can’t get away from.
Language: As you identify the amount of language that a person uses, which presupposes selfmonitoring and inter-personal awareness, begin by matching your awareness words for internal or
external and then lead to the other side of the continuum depending on the subject and the purpose of
your communications.
Contexts of Origin:
Self-Analysis:
__ Low Self-Monitoring, External — High Self-Monitoring, Internal
Contexts: __ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#57. Time Zones:
Past, Present, Future
Description: Centuries ago, philosopher Immanuel Kant (1787) described time is an a priori
category of the human mind, something innate and not invented by us. If “time” is ana priori category
then it exists in us innately, something we are born with. It is that close to us. So no wonder Kant
thought it was innate. Yet in actuality, it is invented. Time is a construct we create by representing
events and then comparing those events in our mind. So what we actually represent and compare is
not “time,” but events. Yet because this construct is something very close to our sense of self and
reality, we live our lives and draw our conclusions from the events that we experience. In the Matrix
model, we have put time as one of the core content matrices.3
It is by comparing and measuring events against each other that we construct the concept of “time.”
This makes time another one of our meta-awarenesses. How we processtimedetermines how we
understand time as a concept at various metalevels, how we experience it at the primary level as
events and rhythms, and how we respond to it. The characteristics that we represent about our
understandings of this concept include such qualities as: direction, duration, orientation, continuity,
etc.
Therefore as something out in the world, “time” does not exist. What does exist “out there” in the
world are events—happenings, actions, and behaviors. Inside our minds are our representations and
concepts about those events. We invent what we call “time,” and our sense of time, as we compare
events. From events, we represent a sequence of activities—things that have happened, that are
happening, and that will happen. In this way we create the concept of time. As we now distinguish
between events that have already occurred, those now occurring, and those that will occur, a sense of
time emerges in us. This gives us the ability to recognize the temporal dimension. In most, but not all
cultures people sort for three central time zones.
tenses as well, in the temporal tenses
These also show up in the linguistic of the past, present, and future. Conceptually, a fourth kind of
"time" occurs—the atemporal. James and Woodsmall (1988). Bodenhamer & Hall (1997a).
Elicitation:
C Where do you put most of your attention—on the past, present, or future? C If you were to divide
“time” into a circle, how much of your mental and
emotional life do you live in the past, the present, and the future? Is it 30%, 40%, and 30%?
C How do you have your time-line coded in terms of past, present, and future?
C If you closed your eyes and pointed to where the past seems to be, where do you point?
C Where is the future? Where is now?
C Do you have any of the "time" zones represented as right in front of you?
Past Present Future
Identification:
1) Past. People who live a lot of time in the past time zone think about what they have experienced
and what those experiences or events mean to them. They use a lot of past references and past tenses
in their language. History carries a lot of weight for them as does tradition. These people correspond
to the "feelers" in the Myers-Briggs instrument. Yapko (1992) suggests that “past temporal
orientation,” which is thinking of things in relation to the past, is a key to understanding depression.
Clients who become unduly embittered about the past will inevitably become passive about the future
because they believe that some historical event has imprisoned them.
Regardless of your actual or chronological age, how old do you feel? Those who think and act as if
they were old typically give more attention to their past than their future. The most resourceful use of
the past is to learn from it in preparation for the future.
2) Present. Those who live in today, in the now, have a more present-tense orientation in the way
they talk and reference things. They are the ones who are seizing the day. When overdone, the person
may live in the now to such an extent that he or she fails to think consequentially of future results or
goals. This person corresponds to the Myers-Briggs category of "sensor." Jung labeled them
"sensors" because they use their senses in the present moment. Actually, today is the only time we
have. This makes coming back to the now critical. What matters today? What can I do now that will
enrich the quality of my life and set me in the direction that fits my values and visions?
3) Future. Those who live in the future conceptually focus on what is yet to happen, on their dreams,
visions, and hopes. Future tenses and references centrally govern their perceptions. When overdone
they project themselves and their consciousness so much into the future, and fail to make plans for
today for that desired future. These correspond to the Myers-Briggs "intuitors" inasmuch as they
forever attempt to intuit about tomorrow and the future.
4) Atemporal. Temporal refers to time and so atemporal describes those who live outside of a "time"
consciousness. Sometimes they correspond to the MyersBriggs "thinkers."
Language: Speak to the "time" tense that predominates in the person's language patterns. Our emoting
about time depends entirely upon whether we have our movie representations of events past, present,
or future coded so that we are inside them or if we have stepped outside of the movie to watch it. It
also depends on the specific meanings (positive or negative) that we give to “time.”
If we get stuck in the future "time" zone, or overly worry about future events, we can fall into the
cognitive distortion of “prophesying the future.” Like mindreading, this cognitive distortion involves
jumping to conclusions about life, others, fate, the universe, God, etc. We speak about what will
happen in the future—without any qualification, without tempering it in any way, in an all-ornothing
way.
Contexts of Origin: "Time" represents another high level construct that grows according to how we
think and feel about past events, current happenings, and possible future events. Cultural, racial,
religious, and family definitions about "time," about which "time" zone one should live in, and has
permission to live in also affects this. Trauma typically keeps most people locked into the "past"
trying to finish an event that they didn't like the way it finished.
Self-Analysis:
__ Past / Present / Future / Atemporal Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#58. Time Experience: In-Time Random — Through-Time Sequential
Description: How we code our sense of historical "time" and its duration from event to event over a
period of "time" creates our representational image or icon of it. This typically takes the form of a
time-line of some sort. Other configurations for representing time include: circles, photo albums,
boomerangs, etc. The line is typical for people of most cultures.
This line metaphor leads us to either perceive our time-line as moving through us (through our body),
so that we actually feel caught up in it. This describes the intime style and leads to experiencing
"time" in an associated way (we have stepped into it, Movie Position, #20). This means experiencing
time as an eternal now, ever-present, all around us, and ourselves as forever participating in it.
If the time-line does not go through our body, but stays apart from us, so that we live out-of-time, then
we have a through-time style. If we code our time-line as outside of us, and at some distance, then
we have a more objective, clear, metaposition to "time." This would better be called theout-oftimestyle because when we arein time at the primary level, we are not aware of the comparison of
events. We are fully engaged with only one event. When we step out and notice events, we are out-oftime. We step into a meta-position to time. These facets of our representation processing reflect how
we encode and store memories.
From these ways of processing time, the past, present, and future, we develop a style for how we
access our memories of the past. Two overall patterns prevail: those who use a random accessing
style and those who use a sequential accessing style. Bodenhamer and Hall (1997 Time-Lining).
Elicitation:
C Take a moment to relax, to feel inwardly calm, and allow yourself to recall a memory of something
that occurred sometime in your past That’s right. Think of some small and simple activity like
brushing your teeth or going to work, something that you have doneregularly for years and years. Now
as you think about that . . . Think about doing that activity say 20 years ago, then 10, then 5, last year,
then today . . . Just be with those thoughts and memories whether they are pictures, sounds, or
sensations. . . . Good. Now imagine that same set of actions occurring next week, next year, then off
into your future, to 2 years from now, 5 years, 10 years. That’s right. Good. Now open your eyes and
step out of that state and shake it off. Good. Now, here’s a question for you, if you were to step back
or step above where you put the past, present, and future, where are those places in space for you?
Point to the direction of your past. Now to your future.
C How do you measure your sense of time past, present, and future?
C How do you tell the difference between events that have already occurred, those now occurring,
and those that will occur?
In-time
Primary time: Lost in “Time” Random, Eternal moment Through-time
Meta time: Out of “Time” Sequential
Identification: 1) Through or Out-of-Time are those who use a Through-Time or the Out-ofTime
pattern do so from left to right, or up to down so that we sequence time along a continuum so that we
can discern steps or stages along a pathway. This line may extend a long or a short way. It is
sequential and continuous so that the person has an awareness of time's duration. They typically have
their memories encoded in a way that allows them to observe the movie from outside. Time for them
seems linear in that it has length. This corresponds to the Myers-Briggs "judger" inasmuch as we
judge or evaluate time as we organize and sequence it.
In the Through-Time style we typically experience a sequential perception about events and “time.”
We will like structures, rules, protocols, clocks that keep time, and procedures. We will approach
thinking, deciding, buying, etc. in a systematic manner and appreciate a well-established presentation
sequence. Through-Time encourages sequential accessing. This results when we code our memories
in a linear way so that we can connect them and put them in an order. The more we do this, the more
we will not move from one memory to another randomly, but sequentially. We may view the events
on our time-line like the cross-ties on a railroad track. Sequential storage makes it more difficult to
access memories, we may have to start somewhere else and then move linearly until we get to a
memory.
2) In-Time: People who use the In-Time way of storing time typically put their pasts behind them and
their future in front of them. Whether their time-line extends from front to back, or up to down, the line
will go through their body so that they will be in the line. They will typically encode their memories
by stepping inside the movies and associating into it and so will not have much awareness of the
duration of events. When we arein-time we will more easily get caught up in "the eternal now," so
that we will not know time (chronological "time"). This style corresponds to the Myers-Briggs
"perceiver."
In the In-Time style we more likely sort things out randomly. We often go off on tangents and have
less regard for time constraints. By sorting randomly we enjoy bouncing creative brainstorming, etc.
interrupting and asking off-the-wall, and out-of-sequence questions. In-Time encourages random
accessing. We will randomly accesses memories, easily jump from one memory to another. Our
memories will be stored in an unconnected way so that we can quickly and directly jump across
boundaries of time, subject matter, and people. In the random access style, we organize memories by
comparing different events that occurred at different times jumping back and forth inside the
memories.
ideas around, making new connections and insights,
We will frequently seem tangential, all over the place,
Languaging: Listen for sequential kind of words, terms, and phrases in those who use Through-Time.
Listen for randomness, chaos, and tangential terms in those who liveIn-Time. Because they are more
able to step out of time and experiences the Through-Time processors will express themselves more
objectively. Their emotions will be more appropriate to the event and experiencing it from the inside
rather than being caught-up in the event. In-Time processors will come across with more associated
and primary emotions as well as inappropriate emoting. If this becomes a problem, assist the person
to learn sequential accessing,
"Imagine your past as a photo album and that you can now flip back through the pages of your history
and just allow your unconscious mind to surprise you as your past history unfolds one memory at a
time."
Contexts of Origin: These programs arise to a great extent from our cultural experiences in
community. Generally, we think of In-Time as an expression of Eastern consciousness and ThroughTime as an expression of Western consciousness. In more recent history, the West has been
characterized more and more by assembly lines, schedules, day-timers, etc. The meta-programs of
options and procedures (Operational Style, #36) significantly contributes to this, so does right and
left hemisphere dominance, and stepping in and stepping out of experiences (Movie Position, #20).
Self-Analysis:
__ In Time / Through Time / Both __ Random Accessing / Sequential Accessing Contexts:
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation
__ Other: ________________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#59. Quality of life: Be — Do — Have
Description: What’s your perspective about life and about living and experiencing a high quality of
life? Do you have the sense (belief, perception) that life is about being, doing, or having or some
combination of these? How do you perceive life and its quality in terms of being, doing, and having?
To see the quality of life in terms of any of these ideas generates different lifestyles, choices,
emotions, and focus. These three perspectives create different lifestyles and values.
Elicitation:
C To what extent do you think of yourself in terms of what you do, what you have, or what you
experience in your being?
C What is the quality of your performance?
C What is the quality of your possession?
C What is the quality of your experience?
C Which is more important to you: being, doing, or having?
C Are your goals mostly goals about being, doing, or having?
Doing Having Being
Identification:
1) Doing is a very active focus and perspective. This meta-program describes those who are very
performance and achievement oriented (Dominance, #29). For them, life is about doing. The doing
meta-program makes a person task oriented, can lead to great self-confidence (Self-Confidence, #50)
in what one can do, and to the active meta-program (Somatic Response, #27).
2) Having is the focus of possession, owning, and claiming as one’s own possession. Here the values
of wealth, possessions, status, riches, etc. are highly valued as what’s most important. The danger in
defining life in terms of having is that we may posit our value and esteem as a person upon it (SelfEsteem metaprogram, conditional, #51).
3) Being is a much more internal focus as we turn our focus on the value of experiencing in and of
itself. This corresponds with the Unconditional SelfEsteem meta-program where we recognize the
worth and value of our beingness as a given (Self-Esteem, #51). The perspective of being as the
critical factor in the quality of life encourages both E.Q. and S.Q. (emotional and spiritual
intelligence) and an appreciation of meditation, not doing, etc.
Language: Listen for the key words (doing, having, and being) and their synonyms.
Who are you? I am a software engineer (performance). I am a
homeowner (possession), I am a happy person (being). (Contributed by
Richard Matthew)
Contexts of Origin: What and how we learn what’s important in life forms this meta meta-program.
The contexts of early family and school life often set our frames for evaluating how to evaluate the
importance and meaning of the quality of life.
Self-Analysis:
__ Have Contexts: — Be — Do — Balanced
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _______________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
#60. Values: What we Deem Important
Description: The word value is a nominalization. Given that, what is the verb that hides within? It is
the process of valuing. Our “values” arise from our thoughts, ideas, understandings, and emotions
about what we treat and view as important (e.g., significant and meaningful). It is via our valuation
thoughts and emotions that we appraise things, people, experiences, qualities, ideas, etc. as important
in living up to the standards or criteria that we want and ideas we believe in.
Yet what are “values?” Are values meta-programs? Are they beliefs, representations, understandings,
etc.? Values asabstractions of importancearise at a meta-level when we think thoughts of "value,
importance, and significance," about other thoughts or experiences. In other words, we apply a state
of value to our representations of a person, place, thing, event, idea, etc. and this meta-stating
energizes and intensifies those representations. At that point we experience metastates of
appreciation, joy, concern, love, desire, etc. about these nominalized abstractions (i.e., our values).
This means that a domain of some of the most powerful meta-states is the domain that we commonly
call “values.”
Figure 9:3
In the process of appraising something and giving it a "value" we are believing in the importance and
significance of that value. We are giving ourselves to the value, trusting in it, andacting on it. These
verbs in italics actually describe what we do when we value something or someone. Consequently,
our beliefs-aboutvalues organize our life and structure it with meaning. Structurally, a value contains
at least a two-level phenomenon. At the primary level, we encode our thoughts in some meta-program
format (global or specific, one of the representational systems, match or mismatch, etc.). Then above
and beyond that meta-program format, we have a thought of importance and significance about it.
What does all of this mean for meta-programs? As a frame by implication, it means that we value
every meta-program that we use regularly and habitually. Value is built into usage and continuance.
Does a person think globally? Then expect that person to perceive global thinking as valuable. Does a
person mismatch? Bet on that person valuing the ability to sort for differences. Does a person
primarily move away from dis-values? Anticipate discovering that they actually have many reasons
and motivations for engaging in such thinking. Within our meta-programs themselves we can detect
many of our values, especially our driver meta-programs. James and Woodsmall (1988). Andreas and
Andreas (1987), Hall (2000).
Elicitation:
C What’s important to you?
C What do you think is the most significant thing about X? (e.g., a job,
relationship, idea, etc.)
C What do you invest your time, energy, and money in? C What are the things you act on every day?
Low Value High Value
Identification:
Maslow (1950) created a hierarchical list of emotional values that play a critical role in our drives,
urges, and motivation: survival, security, love and affection, belonging, self-esteem and regard, and
self-actualization. These do not exhaust the possible list of motivating values that we may adopt in
life. Many other nominalized abstractions serve as values: power, control, achievement, affiliation,
transcendence, ease, pleasure, romance, sex, knowledge, religion, harmony, challenge, etc. Whatever
we believe holds significance, we transform into a value: politics, physical fitness, confrontation,
non-confrontation, children, volunteering, reading, etc.
Languaging: To listen carefully to the nominalizations of abstract values that people believe and
value alerts us to their values. To do this, plant the question in your mind, "What motivating value us
revealed in these words?" Listen for the value words and those that imply values, listen for
semantically loaded words. Ask yourself,
C What do I sense, from these words and expressions, holds value for this
person?
C What values seem most central?
C What values does this person seem to go toward?
C What values does he or she move away from?
To pace and communicate with a person with influence, appeal to the person's values. People cannot
but respond to their own values. Laborde (1989) describes a person's value words as "the correct
passwords to [the other's] reality." Values carry a lot of emotional impact and work as anchors for
inducing us into the states we value. Look for people to emotionally step into their movies when they
speak about their truest values.
Contexts of Origin: Generally we learn to value whatever brings us pleasure and protects us from
harm or pain. We also learn to valueanything that fits with and supports any meta-program that we
have already installed. Every meta-program reflects a value. Global thinkers value the big picture,
detail thinkers value specifics, etc. We adopt many values also due to the family, cultural, religious,
political, and racial contexts within which we live—unless we dis-identify with it.
Self-Analysis:
Power Dignity Control Feeling good Independence Connection __ Toward Values / Away From Values — Means Values / End Values
Contexts:
Summary C We do not only have meta-programs by which we perceive things, we also have
programs meta to those perceptual filters. These higher metaprograms are the semantic states or
frames that set various concept frames for the mental-emotional matrix of frames.
__ Work/Career
__ Relationships
__ Sports
__ High/ Medium/ Low level Make a List of one's hierarchy of values: __ Intimates
__ Hobbies/Recreation __ Other: _____________ __ Driver MP: Yes/ No
Control
Love
Actualization Achieving
Competence Affiliation Peace
Sex
Status
Equality Safety
Understanding Romance
Optimism
Intelligence
People cannot but respond to their own values. Values carry a lot of emotional impact and work as
anchors for inducing us into the states we value.
C Among the highest meta-programs are those belief and value frames around the way we
semantically have mapped our understandings about Self, Others, Time, and Value.
End Notes:
1. These matrices are detailed in the book, The Matrix Model (2002).
2. For more about “Logical levelsm: seeMeta-States(2000), NLP: Going Meta (2004).
3. To time-space index we check the coordinates of when and where an event occurred. Since
Einstein, the elementalism of “time” and “space” as separate elements has given way to the modern
recognition that every event occurs at some place in some time and that we cannot separate “time”
from “space” or “space” from “time.” Einstein’s formulation was that of the time-space continuum
within which all events occur.
4. There are now 8½ Intelligences in the Multiple Intelligence model by Howard Gardner. Multiple
Intelligences, Frames of Mind. His 8 ½ intelligences is in Changing Minds (2003).
PART III:
UTILIZING
META-PROGRAMS
Design Engineering Experience
Using Meta-Programs
"By human engineering I mean the science and art of directing the energies and capacities of human beings
to the advancement of human weal. (p. 1)
Production is essentially a task for engineers;
it essentially depends upon the discovery and the application of natural laws, including the laws of human nature.
Human engineering will embody the theory and practice— the science and art—of all engineering branches united by a common aim—
the understanding and welfare of mankind. (pp. 6-7) The task of engineering science is not only to know, but to know how.” (p. 11)
Korzybski (1921)
Chapter 10
CONTEXT AND META-PROGRAMS
Context Determines Reality
“Just one cognitive ability distinguished star performers from average: pattern recognition, the bigpicture thinking that allows leaders to pick out the meaningful trends from the welter of information
about them and to think strategically far into the future.” Daniel Goleman
Emotional Intelligence
Is context important for meta-programs? You bet it is. If we have emphasized anything throughout
these pages, it is the critical importance of context. One way that we have underscored the
importance of context is with the checklist after every meta-program. There we invited you to
identifythe contexts where you use that meta-program. We did that on purpose and without any
explanation of why. Now comes the explanation. This chapter explores the concept of context to
provide the theoretical frameworks regarding how and why context plays such a crucial role in the
experience and structuring of our meta-programs.
In the current fields of cognitive psychology, cognitive linguistics, and the neurosciences it is
axiomatic that all "thinking” occurs within contexts. Here we are using the term “thinking” holistically
to designate all forms and expressions of awareness including perceiving, emoting, somatizing,
valuing, believing, etc. What we think is the content; it is the story and the details of the story that we
play on the theater of our mind. Yet how do we format that story? The answer to that is context—the
internal mental contexts that we call meta-programs. It only takes a few moments of reflection to
realize that thinking and meaning always occur in contexts for us to more fully appreciate the critical
importance of context. While the fact that thinking always occurs in a context may seem blindingly
obvious, it is not. After all, try to imagine a thought without a thinker. The first context of any thought
is the mind-body system of the thinker. Try to imagine thinking occurring apart from any and all
contexts of time, space, culture, environment, people, physiological state, relationship, intention, etc.
Doesn’t this put the idea of contextless thinking out of its misery? There are no “pure” or
disembodied thoughts floating around looking for a body to inhabit. It doesn’t work that way. We can
now focus on a set of more important questions such as:
C How does context affect thinking and perceiving?
C What contexts initiate different kinds of thinking and perceiving? C How do contexts of contexts
affect thinking and perceiving?
Context Invites the Origin of our Meta-Programs
If we think in either-or terms, we generate the unanswerable chicken and egg question about which
came first. But if we think in terms of recursive loops in an interconnected system of thought-andexperience-and-thought (Nature metaprogram, #8), then we can easily recognize that the contexts of
life can, and do, invite us to think-and-feel in certain ways. It is from those contexts that we develop
our perceptual thinking systems for running our brains. That is, we can use our meta-programs to run
our meta-programs with choice and intentionality. Then we can choose the thinking-contexts, our
meta-level concepts, and semantic psycho-logics and access them at will.
Given this, no wonder significant emotional experiences of both pain and pleasure typically play a
powerful role in the development of our meta-programs. Given that, we can now ask,
C Inwhat context did you first learn to run your brain and learn to perceive
the world as you do?
C In what inter-personal contexts did you first learn to use your nervous system/brain to create your
first mental maps about the world?
C How healthy or unhealthy, how respectful or disrespectful, how validating or how toxic, how
empowering or limiting, etc. do you now evaluate those first contexts?
Bateson and associates (1972) noted that schizophrenics typically grow up in a schizophrenic
environments where there are many andconstant double messages. It is the environment, and
especially a critical interpersonal context, that invites the schizophrenic response. To get the
messages, "I love you, you stupid, worthless bastard! Why do you bother me?" and to be in a
dependent context where you are forbidden to rise above the mixed messages to question them—it is
that context that puts one in a situation where a schizophrenic response makes perfect sense, even a
sane one, given that crazy environment.
Within that context, the person receives dis-confirming messages about their own perspectives, and
they feel that they cannot step outside of the frame (that is, go meta) to meta-comment about the
"crazymaking." That person would then have a powerful context within which to learn to run his or
her brain schizophrenically.
It would all make sense. The person does not have "bad," "corrupted," "weird," or "flawed" psychologics to think or feel such. His or her psycho-logics would work perfectly fine given the mental
contexts initiated by those relationships.
The sad thing for such individuals is that they wake up every day and keep repeating the unsane
sequence. Every day they remain trapped inside the same double-bind, no-win situation of those
interpersonal and thinking contexts. The problem is that it is inside that system that they are seeking to
make sense of things and to find a way out. If their thinking-and-emoting and behaving begin to
operate in a systematic and regular way, it will develop a life of its own in its attempt to make sense
of things. Because it is their “reality,” it feels real and what those of us on the outside call “normal”
will not seem real.
Later when they leave that original environment, those perceptual filters will probably not work very
well. It will undoubtedly sabotage the person’s sense of well-being as well as their ability to function
in the world outside that environment. It may make their internal thoughts-and-feelings a living hell,
yet it works “logically” according to their psycho-logics.
All of this highlights another incredibly significant point. As framers we naturally internalize the
contexts of our lives as we move through experiences. Not only does the schizophrenic internalize his
or her early family contexts so that those contexts of our experiences and relationships and then
operate as the structuring formats of consciousness, we all do this. We make our mental maps about
life, others, the world, self, etc. in the contexts and then internalize those contexts as our inner frames
of reference. It’s in this way that we create our meta-programs.
Tracking Outside Contexts Inside
C How does it work?
C How do we bring an external context inside our mind-body system and set
it up as a mental context or meta-program?
What may sound complex is actually a very simple process. Bereft of innate programs or instincts for
understanding ourselves or the world and having the freedom of mind to represent what we
experience and imagine, what we repeatedly represent becomes our frame-of-reference. That’s why
we ask the reference question of each other so often. We ask it every time we do not immediately
recognize the mental context that someone is using and operating from:
C What are you referring to?
C What are you talking about?
If we don’t ask about a person’s reference point, we can become be totally lost as to what the other
person is actually thinking, feeling, and saying. It is inWhat we repeatedly represent our representational ability, our
abilitybecomes our frame-of-reference. to make movies in our mind of events,
experiences, places, times, and people that allow us to carry our references with us. As we do, and
do so, time and time again, the repetition transforms that event or feeling into our internal frame-ofreference or frame for short.
With some additional practice and repetition, our habitual ideas and representations become our
frame of mind about that thing. In this way we are able to track something on the outside, bring it
inside, and set it up as our internal reference point or frame. In this way that we keep the past alive
and take the old video-tapes of those long past events with us wherever we go.
We track the outside inside by recording it as a movie, then meta-stating that movie with beliefs about
it being significant in some way. Then we meta-state it with fear, anger, joy, pleasure, or any of a
thousand emotions. Then we metastate it with metaphors, evaluations, understandings, decisions, and
scores of other meta-levels to make it even more meaningful to us. In the end we create a
fullydeveloped in-the-eye and in-the-body meta-program—a meta-program thatcolors the way we see
and experience the world.
Exploring Contexts for Your Meta-Programs
If our meta-programs are initiated in external contexts that we bring in and make our internal mental
contexts and then carry them with us wherever we go as our internal frames of reference, we are the
ones who create our meta-programs. We also are the ones who can design new and better ones. To do
so we begin with awareness—with non-judgmental awareness to notice and perceive our
metaprograms as just that, old meta-states that have become our meta-programs. On a blank sheet of
paper identify ten contexts that you consider formative or significant which have influenced your
current life. What are the ten most significant events that you’ve been through?
C What contexts of learning have you grown up with?
C How has your contextual thinking played a role in creating the psychologics of your current meta-
programs?
C What inter-personal contexts have you experienced, endured, grown up inside, and coped with?
C To what extent have you internalized any "toxic" contexts? C Have you “left home” physically and
externally, but have that early home
context so internalized that you now take it with you everywhere you go?
As you use your biography, you will discover the critical formative contexts. Ideally write out a
biography of the events, situations, and experiences that you have been through. If you don’t write
your story, then sketch out that story on a time-line letting the critical events emerge. Then share with
a friend, therapist, or coach.
Taking the time to calmly and non-judgmentally reflect on such events invites you to quiet yourself, go
inside, and simply return those original events in your memory. As you do so, go gently and with
curiosity as you explore. As you go inside and bring up that library of references and your old mentaland-emotional video-tapes of memories and experiences, just notice what’s there. You are more than
whatever happened to you. What you went through is just “what you went through,” and is not
occurring today. All that’s left is your memory, your internally recorded videos of it. Because the past
is past, it is gone. You only have it today in this moment by remembering it. And today what’s most
important is what you’re doing with it—how you are reading it, interpreting it, believing it, etc.
Noticing, detecting, and witnessing these internal contexts today now gives us a clearer understanding
about what we are in reference to, the contexts to which we have constructed various meanings,
significances, and associations. No wonder they play such a formative role in generating our metaprograms!
As you elicit your own library of references and tell your story, do so to a trusted friend, a tape
recorder, a therapist, or a journal. It’s highly recommend that you get the story down in written form
in some way or another. Why? So that you can then return to it repeatedly from a different frame of
mind and rework it, remap it, and transform your use of it. Then you can examine it from second
position (as an observer watching yourself) rather than from first position. You can examine it as a
"text" or narrative. Then, as you step-back from it you can more objectively examine the metaprograms that it presupposes.
A Context for Burn-Out
As a personal story, Bob grew up as a middle child and lived in a financial state of poverty up in the
mountains of North Carolina. Because my father had to work long and hard hours so that we could
survive, I got very little attention, much less than I wanted from my dad. In that context, I learned early
that if I excelled in performance, dad would give me a dollar for an "A," which really impressed me,
"That's a lot of money for a poor mountain boy!" As the years passed I also learned that as I hired
myself out to local farmers that hard work brought lots of reward, financial as well as the reward of
compliments and verbal validation. Though younger than the other boys in the community, I soon
made as much money as they did simply because in terms of work, I put out more than they.
Looking back on those experiences, I can now see clearly the meta-programs that I created and
developed. First, I moved through time with a judger orientation and always evaluating myself and
others in terms of "how much work I produced" (the Judger, Toward, and Through Time metaprograms). I moved through life trying to make the world adapt to me, rather than adapting to it. This
developed the value of receiving attention (and love) through work, productivity, effectiveness, etc.
(Self-Esteem meta-program, conditional, #51).
Later when I moved into the ministry and pastorate, I began to preach grace, but lived as if I would be
saved by works. I continued to work extremely hard to get attention and love. Nor could I say "No" to
requests, not even to ridiculous ones. Why not? Because at some unconscious level, I believed or
sensed that people would not love me if I did. Apparently, I took my "hard driving Type-A judging
style" with me everywhere I went. No wonder then that by the age of 46 I was suffering from burnout.
Since that time my own meta-programs have changed tremendously as a recent retesting score on the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has confirmed. I have moved from a high level "Judger" (49 points in
1990) to a low level score (15 points in 1997).
Contexts yet to come — Imagining New Contexts
Since what remains of “the past” is not real, and no longer happening, it only has power to affect us to
the extent that we believe it is “real,” and give it power over us. We can now run our own brains
regarding “the past.” It’s not the event that controls us today, it is our interpretative frame about
those events. Therefore it is in identifying those interpretative frames, and the meanings that we have
given to them that empowers us to step out of them and into a new freedom. We can now construct
new meanings, and even new contexts, for ourselves. C What context have you never experienced . . .
yet?
C What context have you not yet experienced, but if you had—and had
fully experienced, it would have created a whole new way of thinkingand-feeling within you?
C Suppose you had grown up in another century, in another culture, in another social class, in another
race, how would those contexts create new mental contexts for you?
C Suppose you had received all of the loving and nurturing you wanted?
Suppose you had received unconditional self-esteeming from parents, teachers, and others? Just
suppose . . .
If we inescapably internalize contexts, then we do not stop doing so at the age of six or eighteen or
whenever you left home. To this day we are continuing to internalize contexts. Given this human
capacity, we can nurture our mind-bodyemotions system today on delightful, wonderful, and resourceladen contexts in our imagination. Now, does that give you any ideas?
In doing so, we can design engineer the kind of formative contexts that will empower us to
internalize new contexts for new meta-programs. Design engineer this positive and enhancing thinking
context by modeling someone that you have read about (perhaps the biography of some creative
genius who you highly admire) or fully imagine it.
Another powerful transformational tool for redesigning your thinking contexts (i.e., meta-programs) is
storytelling. When we tell our personal, family, cultural, and racial stories, we talk about the
formative contexts that have molded and formed us. The stories of human community formulate both
what and how to perceive. They provide both primary and meta-level values and sorting patterns. C
Given this role of stories, shared stories, and real and mythical stories,
how have you been storied?
C Who storied you? What stories did they tell you?
C How empowering have you found those stories?
C What story could you enter into, tell yourself and others, and use as a
thinking context that would give you a whole new lease on life?*1
Contexts that Define Reality
In the field of Neuro-Linguistics we describe context as a frame (as in frame-ofreference). Yeager
(1985) puts it most succinctly:
"Thinking occurs within a context, purpose or frame of reference that is unique to the individual. If
you don't know the context of another's thinking, many things can seem illogical. . . . When you think
of what you want for dinner you think in terms of the context of where (location), with whom or when
(time) or even in terms of good nutrition (biochemistry). These are all contextual factors. Yet the
definition of a context is typically subjective. . . .
Some people think of time mostly in the past tense. Others think in the present tense . . . This
characteristic is a learned preference and it ‘frames' the range of behaviors . . . possible within that
subjective context. In this sense, a context is a set of limits that defines what is and, reciprocally,
defines what is not at issue.
Context is a stabilizing reference point that locates where you are or are not in your subjective world.
If an individual habitually thinks in terms of precedent (the past tense), it will be difficult for the
person to imagine ‘possibilities’ (future tense) if history isn't 'imagined' into the 'changed future.'"
(pages 23-24, italics added)
Yeager's description underscores that every meta-program functions as a thinking context. What is
the significance of this? It means that our meta-programs (i.e., perceptual filters, thinking styles, or
focus of attention sorts), operatehigher than our primary level thinking, creates and sets the contexts
of frames for our thinking. It is within them that we engage in thinking and perceiving. That, in turn,
means that the quality, direction, focus, and nature of our thinking and perceiving depends to a great
extent upon the operating meta-programs as our mental frames or contexts.
This leads to some of most important questions to ask ourselves or any person with whom we
communicate:
C Within what context are you doing your thinking and perceiving? C Within what frame-of-reference
do you typically think and perceive? C As you think about things right now, are you using a global or
specific
frame?
C Are you using a matching or a mis-matching frame?
C Are you using a past, present, or future frame?
C Are you using an options or procedure frame?
C Are you using a counting or discounting frame?
C And so on with another fifty or more meta-programs.
Why are these highly important questions? Because if we do not know our own or another’s frame-ofreference for thinking, perceiving, and paying attention, we will not understand the meanings,
emotions, or responses generated inside that system. We will not know or understand our own or
another person's stabilizing reference point. Human thinking always, inevitably, and inescapably
always occurs within some frame. It is inside that frame, that all of our mental-andemotional thinking,
emoting, and behaving originates and makes sense. It all operates in a perfectly logical sense to that
frame and to that frame system or matrix.
If it doesn’t seem logical, it is illogical to other frames. Whenever we begin to think-and-feel that
someone's way of thinking is wrong, crazy, or illogical, it is because we are coming from a different
frame of reference, from a different model of the world. The conflict that we experience at such times
is the conflict of frames.
To deal with this, Korzybski hyphenated the word "psycho-logical" (e.g., psychologics, psychologist, psycho-logicians, etc.). Most find this a very strange use of the word when they first hear it.
Yet hyphenating psycho-logics highlights and brings attention to what we are truly dealing with when
we deal with human beings (including ourselves). Korzybski did this originally to underscore that the
logics that occur within any given psyche (neuro-psychic organism) operates logically within that
context. Yeager (1985), again, describes this by saying that in NLP "subjectivity is unavoidable
which makes it reality" (p. 17). Our meta-programs not only comprise our context thinking, but also
our psycho-logics. Do you now know your psycho-logics? Do you know, or do you know how to
recognize the psycho-logics of those with whom you do business, relate, have fun, etc.? When you
find and identify their meta-programs, you have a very solid clue to their context thinking and psychologics. The next step? To pace and work with those psycho-logics.
Human thinking always, inevitably, and inescapably always occurs within some frame. It is inside
that frame, that all of our mental-and-emotional thinking, emoting, and behaving originates and makes
sense. It all operates in a perfectly logical sense to that frame and to that frame system or matrix.
Our Mental Contexts are our Meta-Programs
Suppose you are thinking about a project at work and a meeting that you will have with some
colleagues about it. If we imagine that as the content, do we know what you’re thinking?
C Are you seeing images and pictures of yourself, others, the work
environment, or the meeting room?
C Are you hearing a sound track of voices as the team works on the projects?
C Are you inside the movie experiencing it or outside watching?
C Are you zooming into specific details or stepping back to get the big picture?
C Are you noticing the empirical facts or are you thinking about what it means to you?
C Are you noticing what fits and matches your goals or are you paying attention to what doesn’t
match?
C Are you joyfully counting what you and the others are doing or discounting your skills,
contributions, and the good things of the team and the project?
Meta-Programs as Role Inductions
Personality "role theory” describes these same processes. How we experience ourselves, others, our
thoughts and emotions, how we express ourselves, the skills and resources available to us, or not
available to us, depends on the roles that we have learned to play (or not learned to play). In social
psychology (e.g. sociology and anthropology), the function of various role inductions in culture serve
as the "context markers" that cue a person (e.g., anchor a person) to shift metaprograms. Such role
inductions occur as rituals and ceremonies, special places and events, belief systems, social
institutions, etc.
The context thinking we engage in via our meta-programs simply describes how we think, attend, and
sort information in relation to our environment and does so in terms of the roles that each invites us
to play. This means that as we identify more fully the internal contexts that we bring with us, and
apply to our experiences, we gain greater awareness of how our meta-programs induces us into
various roles.
For example, when we use the context of global thinking, we will naturally play more of an architect
or of an artist. When we use the context of detail thinking, we naturally step into playing the role of an
accountant, technician, or engineer. The thinking context we apply or bring to bear on things
contributes to, or creates, the ability and skills of those roles as well as induces us into those roles.
This means that there will be lots of roles that we cannot play, that we cannot try out, that we cannot
experiment with until we increase the flexibility of certain meta-programs. It means that when we
model someone excellent in certain contexts and roles, there will be specific meta-programs that
carry or drive that expertise. What roles would you like to play? Entrepreneur? Good, then do you
know which meta-programs you will have to be able to access and use to step into that role? Do you
have the flexibility within the necessary maps? Examine your driver meta-programs in terms of this.
C Do you use the judging meta-program more than perceiving? C What role does that meta-program
invite you to play? The critic? C How well does this serve you in the times and places where you use
that
meta-program?
C Do you move through life using the extrovert meta-program so that you recharge your battery with
other people?
C What roles does that enable you to play?
C Do you like playing these roles?
C What roles does it prevent you from playing?
C What roles can you not play?
C What roles do you not play very well?
C What roles would you like to use to experience more effectiveness in this or that facet of life?
C What meta-programs would assist you to do precisely that?
Summary
C Meaning always occurs and arises fromcontexts—personal and internal or offered by a culture or
environment. Without recognizing those contexts, we cannot understand the meanings or emotions that
we experience.
C To understand and figure out another person, we have to develop an understanding of the contexts
that continue to govern that person’s thinking and feeling, the contexts that he or she has built inside
their consciousness, and the contexts in which they live. In other words, their matrix of frames.
C To work with a person (even ourselves) once we take context into consideration, then we can
develop a working understanding of which contexts we need to address and transform in order to
transform ourselves.
End Notes:
1. This comes from the field of Narrative Therapy. See the chapter on narrative conversation in
Coaching Conversations (2004).
Chapter 11
EXPANDING META-PROGRAMS
The Art of Learning to Become a different kind of Person
“. . . no human quality is beyond change.” Kagan
(quoted in Emotional Intelligence, p. 223)
The NLP and Neuro-Semantic models pre-eminently highlight the plasticity of human nature and
consciousness. While we have "programs" and even metaprograms within our mind-body-emotion
system, these programs are not written in stone. This means that there’s nothing preventing us from
changing them, altering them, and transforming them. We can, in fact, alter them. Altering our metaprograms not only occurs in the normal process of growing up, but as we become more skilled and
empowered in running our own brain, it becomes a most natural and organic thing—to change any and
all ideas, beliefs, concepts, and meta-programs that no longer enhance our lives.
In this chapter we will make explicit the processes by which we can consciously, intentionally, and
effectively transform the way we think-and-feel. Doing so transforms the very structures of what we
call "personality." In this, we always have options regarding the meta-programs as the perceptual
filters that we use to govern how we think and process information and create our responses. We
always have options if we know how to think about those options. Of course, without knowing how
to even think about options, alternative meta-programs, different thinking patterns and thinking
context, different psycho-logics—without them we have no sense of choice and so feel stuck.
Does our biology fix our emotional destiny or can even an intimately shy child grow into a more
confident adult?
“The clearest answer to this question comes from the work of Jerome
Kagan, the eminent developmental psychologist at Harvard University. Kagan posits that there are at
least four temperamental types—timid, bold, upbeat, and melancholy—and that each is due to a
different pattern of brain activity. . . . Kagan’s work concentrates on one of these patterns, the
dimension of temperament that runs from boldness to timidity.” (Goleman, 1997, p. 215)
When interviewed, Kagan told Daniel Goleman,
“Those children who had become less timid by kindergarten seem to have had parents who put gentle
pressure on them to be more outgoing. Although this temperamental trait seems slightly harder than
others to change—probably because of its physiological basis—no human quality is beyond change.”
(Ibid, p. 223)
“The great plasticity of the brain in childhood means that experiences during those years can have a
lasting impact on the sculpting of neural pathways for the rest of life. . . . As behavioral geneticists
observe, genes alone do not determine behavior; our environment, especially what we experience and
learn as we grow, shapes how a temperamental predisposition expresses itself as life unfolds.” (Ibid,
p. 221, 224)
Changing Beliefs
Change in human personality is an especially interesting phenomenon precisely because how we
think about it affects it. Our ease, skill, and competence in change depends to a great extent on our
beliefs regarding change. In other words, what we understand and believe about our mind and about
change sets the frame for our how our mind and the change process works for us.1
C What do you believe about human personality, temperament, and traits? C How genetic, innate, and
permanent are they in your understanding? C How much flexibility do we have with our way of
thinking, feeling, and
expressing ourselves?
Oddly enough, in emphasizing that “pre-selection is more important than training” in hiring, which
certainly is reasonable, Wyatt and Marilyn Woodsmall (1998) then seem to jump to a conclusion that
we deem unreasonable since they have apparently assumed a position of non-change.
“It is naive and unrealistic to believe that people will be anything else than what they are. People can
be trained to develop job skills, but they cannot be trained to develop People Patterns [their 1998
term for metaprograms] that are not part of their personality in the first place. . . . People are what
they are. . . . People may be able to adapt or accommodate, but this is always done at the price of
stress and unhappiness.” (pp. 352-353, italics added)
I italicized the “is” verbs used in this quote, the “is” of identity (be, are, “people are what they are”).
As a semantically loaded verb, “is” assumes that there is a static trait inside of us. As such it
contradicts the dynamic process nature of reality and imposes a primitive Aristotelian perceptive that
was true for the third century B.C. (Nature meta-program, #8).
In making this absolute declaration that “people are what they are,” the authors step outside of the
NLP model of process, change, and systems thinking into the old typology that actually discourages
ongoing growth and develop and a culture of change. By contrast, our focus throughout this book is
that “personality” has a structure—a dynamic structure which is made up of representations, states,
language, meta-states, meta-programs, and our matrix of frames. This dynamic structure is something
wedo. It is something we do by learning, communicating, and relating.
Change in human personality is an especially interesting
phenomenon precisely because how we think about it affects it.
If we do personality, then personality is not a thing, nor is it something that we are, it is rather the
gestalt that we experience. It is not what we are in a static and unchanging way, it is what we
continually create and recreate everyday. So can we change our meta-programs? You bet we can. In
this chapter we offer several processes or patterns to do so. For more about the process of change see
the newest development in Neuro-Semantics, the Axes of Change model. We designed it from four
key meta-programs after modeling how self-actualizing people change.2
Determining What Meta-Programs To Alter
As we begin, let’s face the most obvious question, namely, “Why would anyone want to change a
meta-program anyway?” The primary reason is, a given metaprogram simply doesn't work very well
in a given context. When we discover that the perceptual lens that we are wearing is not enhancing
our lives or empowering us as persons, it’s time to change that meta-program in that context.
For example, what if our meta-programs do not support the experience of creativity? Some meta-
programs work exceptionally well for being creative while others prevent and even interfere with
creativity. So what are the information processing meta-programs that significantly influence
creativity? For openers, the most creative people perceive things in terms of options rather than
procedures, differencesrather than sameness, and using the internal authority reference rather than
external.
Creativity arises as we put on the perceptual glasses of looking for and valuing alternatives or
options. Because it tunes us to generating new and different ideas, we are more likely to be creative
when we sort for what’s different, for what doesn't fit, and for the out-of-the-ordinary. With those
lenses, we step into a way of seeing the world that orients us to a greater probability of creating
something new. Similar with the meta-program of operating from the Authority Source (#23) of inner
referent rather than external referent. When we operate from an inner locus of control, we are able to
contribute and support a creative way of living, thinking-emoting, and responding precisely because
we know within what we like, value, appreciate, dream, etc.
External referencing puts us into an orientation where we care too much for pleasing others, getting
approval, conforming to external values, not-conflicting by presenting something too different or
weird, and fulfilling the criteria of others. These are great meta-programs for learning and complying
to a developed system, for customer service, for rapport building, etc. By way of contrast,
usingInternal referencing enables us to bring forth new and wild ideas and imaginations that occur
within without worrying about what others think or whether others will like or approve. Our vision
and excitement carries us forward rather than the accolades from the approval of others.
The meta-programs we use make all the difference in the world. After all, the world is seen, felt, and
experienced according to our perceptual glasses. In every field there are meta-programs that assist in
experiencing certain skills and capacities and those that work against such. This means that ultimately
it is our ability to flexibly choose and shift meta-programs that facilitates the unleashing of our
potentials and the cultivating of our greatest effectiveness, productivity, success, and enjoyment.
Knowing and profiling which meta-programs we need to take our skills and experience to the next
level is one thing, being able to actually shift meta-programs is another.
Meta-Programs Change Pattern (#1) One way we can alter, expand, and/or change a meta-program
is to "consciously decide to do so" (Robbins, 1986). Simply making the decision, then noticing the
metapr ogr a ms you’r e using a nd consciously choosing to use another meta-program is a possibility.
Of course, the problem with this is that meta-programs mostly operate outside-of-conscious
awareness. Most of us never give much thought to howwe think, to our thinking patterns as such, or to
the meta-structures of our frames. We generally do not respond to our maps as our mental contexts
because they are outside of our awareness and we simply do not detect them. No wonder we are
poorly equipped and educated regarding how to change them. Yet this doesn’t mean we cannot. It is
only a description of our typical condition.
Ultimately it is our ability to flexibly choose and shift meta-programs that facilitates the unleashing
our
potentials and the cultivating our greatest effectiveness, productivity, success, and enjoyment.
This means that we must first recognize our perceptual patterns and structures and use that awareness
as an opportunity for new choices. Since a meta-program informs our brain about both what to notice
and what to delete—if we move toward values, then we delete awareness about what we move away
from. If we sort for the details, we delete the big picture. By directing our awareness to what we
normally delete is one way that we can shift focus and change the operating systems of our metaprograms.
When we facilitate a meta-program expansion in ourselves or another, we are working on bringing a
particular distinction into awareness so that in a given context or across a broad ranch of contexts,
that context becomes our frame. When I change from a meta-program in a particular context, for
example, doing Attending Others (Attention, #24) when at a party, social, training, or working with a
client rather than Attending Self, the new distinction calls upon me to step into second position. This
changes my state to one of interest, concern, and care about others and it also changes my
intentionality.
The following pattern is the one that we have used time and time again in coaching someone through
expanding (or changing) a meta-program. In the previous editions of Figuring Out People I spoke
about “changing” meta-programs, actually the focus is on expanding them so you have more choice.
The Pattern (#1):
1) Identify the meta-program you want to change or adapt.
What meta-program is currently governing your perceiving, sorting, processing, and attending that you
want more choice or resourcefulness with?
Where and when, specifically, does this meta-program not serve you well?
In what contexts is it not useful?
2) Access your reason for changing it.
How does it undermines your effectiveness in those contexts? Why do you want to change this metaprogram? What are you missing because of this meta-program?
3) Describe fully the preferred meta-program.
What meta-program would you prefer to use in perceiving and paying attention?
When, where, and how would you like this meta-program in governing how you see the world?
What is it like? How fully can you describe it?
Do you know anyone who uses this perceptual style?
What is that person’s experience like? How fully can you describe it?
4) Experiment with it as you try it out.
Are you willing to imaginatively adopt the new meta-program and pretend to use it in perceiving and
attending things?
How does it feel or work in some contexts where you think it would serve you better?
Does it, at first, seem a little "weird" and strange to you? Are you willing to accept this unfamiliarity
as you perceive things with this filter?
Are you willing to accept whatever discomfort arises with it? Do you know someone who uses this
meta-program? If so then explore with that person how he or she experiences things and do so until
you can take second position to it. When you can, then step into that position fully so that you can see
the world out of that person’s meta-program eyes, hearing what he or she hears, self-talking as he or
she engages in self-dialogue, and feeling what that person feels. How is that?
5) Run an ecology check on this meta-program.
What is it like when you now step back from this experiment? What do you find as you go meta to a
higher level and consider what this meta-program will do to you and for you in terms of perception,
valuing, believing, behaving, etc.?
What kind of a person would it make you?
What effect would it have on various aspects of your life?
6) Give yourself permission to install it for a period of time.
Would you like to try out this meta-program for a period of time? Would you be willing to install it by
granting oneself permission to use it for a period of time?
If you go inside and give yourself permission, are you fully aligned with that?
How many more times do you need to give yourself permission so that it fully settles?
Does any part of you object to it?
If yes, then take the objective into account and build a more elegant permission with it.
If no, then future pace and commission your executive mind to utilize it effectively.
For example, suppose you typically reference others as your metaprogram and you give yourself
permission to shift toselfreferencing. Yet when you do, an internal voice that sounds like your
mother’s voice in tone and tempo says, “It’s selfish to think about yourself. Don’t be so selfish, you
will lose all of your friends.” This voice objects on two accounts: selfishness and disapproval that
leads to loneliness. Take these objections into account and rephrase your permission:
“I give myself permission to see the world referencing centrally from myself—my values, beliefs,
wants, etc., knowing that my values include loving, caring, and respecting others and that this will
keep me balanced by considering the effect of my choices on others.”
7) Future pace the new meta-program.
What happens when you now practice, in your imagination, using this meta-program?
How much future pacing do you need to do until it begins to feel comfortable and familiar?
Do you like this?
Does it empower you and enhance the quality of your life? Does it expand some of your skills and
abilities?
Expanding and Changing Meta-Programs In and with Time (#2) If meta-programs refer to our
strategies for filtering the information that we input via our senses, and we learned these strategies
over time given certain events, then today we can re-evaluate and update any of these strategies that
seems maladjusted, inappropriate, or just sluggish. Doesn’t that make sense? In our minds, we can revisit the events in which we set the original meta-program distinction and change it.
How is it that time (or more accurately, events in time) so powerfully influences our metaprograms?3 As events come and go over a period of months or years, these ever-changing events
create new learning contexts—contexts within which we learn to pay attention to, sort for, and
perceive in different ways. So when we do pseudo-time orientation using various time-line patterns,
we use a meta-level structure that alters our thinking contexts.
The process of “going inside” and accessing our sense of time and floating back on our time-line to
some past event is inherently an hypnotic process. Sincetime is a meta-awareness of events, we
generally become more receptive and highly suggestible when we return in our imagination to
remember the original event or events.
1) Identify the location of your time-line.
Where is your past? Where is your future?
As you think about something small and simple that you do regularly, think about doing it yesterday,
last month, last year, and five years ago. Now consider doing that same activity tomorrow, next
month, next year, and five years from now.
If you now step back and think about the past and future, where in space around your body do they
seem to be?
2) Identify when you first began using the meta-program.
Do you know when or where you were when you began using the particular meta-program that you
now want to change?
If you did, when would it be? Would it have been during infancy, childhood, as a teenager, or a young
adult?
When you experience the meta-program, how does that feel inside your body?
If you were to double your use of that meta-program, then double that again and continue to do so until
you really feel it exaggerated, how does it now feel? Where do you feel it in your body?
Let’s now anchor these feelings [set anchor] and use this anchor as we float back in time to other
times and events where you experienced this. And lets go all the way back to the first time, or one of
the first times, when you really sorted and perceived in this way. Now snapshot this experience and
float above that memory.
3) Access a more resourceful and enhancing meta-program for that context. What meta-program
choice would have made a better or more resourceful choice in that situation?
As you describe it now amplify your representations until you can feel this state as a way of
perceiving. Nod when it is strong enough to anchor . . . Good.
Now holding this feeling, drop down quickly into the event and do so with the new state and
perceptual lens . . . good, there you go. And begin to see things with those eyes and let things begin to
change and transform to fit that meta-program.
4) Bring the new meta-program up through history to the present. When you’re ready, bring that
new meta-program up through all of your history and as you do, let it continue to change your
memories. What is that like?
When you have completed that gently move up through time and come back to this present moment.
How much has that changed your personal history with that perceptual filter?
What other resource do you need in order to solidify this or make it better?
Robert Dilts (1990) similarly suggests using the meta-position to invite someone to a meta-level using
the person’s time-line to alter a meta-program. The metaposition gives us the place where we can
access resources and transfer those resources back into the person’s memories to alter the thinking
context. The metaposition provides a space different from the problem space. In this space we can
run the Movie Rewind pattern, shift the cinematic features (“sub-modalities”) of our mental movies,
build enhancing identity beliefs, Reimprint, Change Personal History, meta-state higher resources,
run the Decision Destroyer pattern, using various Reframing patterns, Anchor and Collapse
Anchors, etc., processes designed to alter meta-programs.4 All of these patterns enable us to change
metaprograms.
"In a way, the re-imprinting context provides you with a means to change meta-program patterns and
sorting styles. For instance, you can easily influence a person to bein timeor through time, away from
or toward or sort by the present to the past or the past to the future, or the present to the future.
You can have the person sort by self, by others, or context." (Dilts, p. 137)
Ex[amdomg / Changing Meta-Programs by Anchoring New Responses (#3) What is the process
for transforming "the mindless use of the polarity response?" Yeager (1985) does so in the context of
"installing a compulsion" and learning to utilize the presupposition that, “It is better to have more
choices rather than fewer.”
"All individuals are polarity responders in some contexts. That is, polarity responders will notice
what is wrong (according to personal experience and ideals) before noticing what is right in their
perceptions of reality. Problems will occur with inflexible polarity responses in anyone if the
response is compulsive instead of appropriate." (p. 33)
First, he suggests that we regress and recover our natural curiosity and positive expectations.
How? By thinking about some of your many exciting firsts: your first
rollercoaster ride, your first ride on an airplane, our visit to a zoo, etc.
Float back on your time-line and recapture, by stepping back into that
movie and fully associate into it with the positive and fun experience that
you had then. As you do, now anchor this fully and then imagine all of
the things that you could look out on in life at with eyes of excitement,
fun, interest, curiosity, etc. As you do, future pace this as you move out
into tomorrow and then next week, next month, and into your future.
Second, re-contextualize the polarity response by explaining its real usefulness as a protective
behavior for contexts of true danger.
If a school bully pushes other kids around, then polarizing to that
behavior may serve one well. A meta-level awareness might be, "Oh, I
have learned to typically respond by noticing differences so much that I
always look for the opposite pole of things . . ." Sometimes this can
provide sufficient insight and awareness that one will reclaim his or her
choice and control. Now where would I find this response useful? Where
would I not?
Third, access a state of choice.
Perhaps look around the room and begin to notice all the things that you can notice. You can direct
your consciousness to the colors, the lines and forms, the textures, light, furniture, sounds, smells, etc.
As the growing awareness that you have so many choices about what to attend, anchor this "sense of
choice" feeling. Repeat with several other references and keep strengthening the anchor until it can
immediately put you into that state.
Fourth, amplify the person's sense of choice until that feeling gets bigger, brighter, more intense.
Do this until the person develop a compulsion to choose. He or she has
to choose and to make the best and most enhancing choice possible. Then
future pace this new choosiness.
Expanding / Changing Meta-Programs with Sliding Anchors (#4) As you noticed, most metaprograms involve a continuum with the primary choices on each of the poles of that continuum. This is
true of sensors and intuitors (Epistemological, #2), global and specific (Scale, #3), matching and
mismatching (Relationship Comparison, #4), counting and discounting (Information Staging, #5),
pessimistic and optimistic (Scenario Type, #6), and so on. Given this we can use a sliding anchor by
setting up a continuum on a person’s arm and anchoring the two polar states on it.
When you use this pattern, begin by using the first two steps of the Meta-Program Change pattern (#1)
to specify the meta-program that you want to change and which you already have set as your default
meta-program. As you identify and elicit it, anchor that meta-program state on the arm as one of the
polar ends.
Next you will use step three to elicit and anchor the opposite meta-program on the other side of the
continuum. That’s when we introduce the phenomenon of a sliding anchor. Unlike a mere touch
anchor, we here anchor or trigger not a digital response, but a set of analogue responses along a
continuum. One way to do that is to simply move your finger along the arm (yours or a client’s) to
indicate a line or continuum. Test it by saying, “When you think about being confident, suppose we
moved it up [begin sliding the finger] so that you felt more and more confident . . . Do you like that?
Does that feel good?” When we use a sliding anchor we communicate to neurology the idea that
moving the finger means “having more and more intensity of the meta-program” or “less and less of
the meta-program” when moving in the opposite direction.
1) Identify your current meta-program and set a touch anchor.
What is your current meta-program [anchor A]? What is it like when it is really strong and powerful
and when it serves you well?
What state are you in as you access this meta-program?
When have you been in this state fully?
What evoked most completely in you?
2) Elicit and anchor the polar opposite meta-program.
In what context have you ever experienced this meta-program [anchor B]?
Do you know anyone who easily and effectively use this meta-program? What do you imagine it’s like
for him or her?
How would that person think, feel, value, talk, act, gesture, etc. when in this meta-program state?
What would amplify this experience? How much can you do that now? What beliefs, values, and
decisions would support it?
3) Contrast the two polar states of the meta-program continuum. As you think of context Y, you
naturally default to this meta-program state [fire A], do you not?
And in context X, you naturally default to this meta-program state (fire B), do you not?
So now while you think of context Y, notice what happens when you are invited to feel this [fire B] . .
. it will probably be a bit weird, but just let that be as you give the meta-program of B a chance. What
if you were perceiving B in this context? How would that change things? Do you like this? Does it
enhance things for you?
4) Confirm and solidify.
As you continue to feel this [fire and hold B], you may feel a sense of needing or wanting to move in
the direction of the old meta-program [fire A], and you know you have that choice, and you know that
you can stay here [B] as well, can you not? Or you could move a little toward A [slide anchor] or
even a little more, or back closer to this new meta-program. Will the executive part of your mind take
responsibility to begin to allow you to experience more and more choice and flexibility for this in the
next few days?
Therapeutically Expanding / Changing Meta-Programs (#5)
Many, if not most meta-programs that are drivers, and with which we have little or no flexibility,
developed originally during some significant experience of pain or pleasure. They occurred in a
moment of crisis or strong emotion wherein we made a decision for seeing the world in a certain
way. Perhaps we decided to “always match and never differ” due to some unwinable conflict we
experienced and so we chose sameness as our meta-program (Relationship Comparison, #4). Perhaps
we concluded, “Nothing ever works out the way you want it to.” and choose pessimism as our metaprogram (Scenario Type, #6). Perhaps you experienced someone who really knows how to encourage
and affirm and so you decided, “Others can rejuvenate my spirits in ways that I never could alone,”
and chose the extrovert meta-program (Rejuvenation, #26).
Meta-programs are frequently called into being during the developmental imprint period of early
childhood when we have an imprint type of experience, and we then conclude, “I’m that kind of
person.” In this way we meta-state ourselves with the meta-program state and make it part of our
identity. In this, any belief, decision, understanding, identity, etc. that limits us in some way or in
some context—when we identify with it, it can become a limiting meta-program.
If a person operates by the meta-program intuiting or sensing, there is typically a correlation to the
level of specificity or abstraction in the person’s language. Theintuitormeta-program means
processes information globally while thesensor meta-program processes data in more specific
details. Here the linguistic distinctions of the Meta-Model give insight and choices about how to
move up and down the scale from specificity to abstraction (see the scale in Chapter 6 in the Scale
meta-program, #3). This skill gives us more flexibility in choosing which level (global / specifics) to
use in any given context.
Does a person operate rigidly in his or her emotional state as stepping in and associating in a movie,
or stepping out and just observing it (Movie Position, #20)? These meta-program choices frequently
point to some unresolved traumatic experience. That’s because when we go through an extremely
painful experience, we can get stuck in either the inside or outside mode. What to do? This is where
running the Movie Rewind pattern (e.g., the visual-kinesthetic phobia cure pattern), theDecision
Destroyer pattern, various meta-stating processes, etc. can facilitate reclaiming the flexibility about
stepping in and out of various representations. This leads to more choice about when to experience
and feel from a first person perspective and when to step aside from it and just observe it more
neutrally.2
Earlier we mentioned the unique relationship between Judging andThrough-Time and Perceiving
and In-Time. Changing these meta-programs simply involves changing one from processing "time"
from theThrough-Timestyle to theIn-Time format, or vice versa. It’s important to take care when
doing this, however, since this can have very powerful change effects, you may have to get used to it.
If you change your formatting of this distinction, and you still do not like it after a period of time, you
can always change it back.
Changing the Motivation Direction meta-program of toward and away from alters how we structure
ourselves in moving toward our positive values and beliefs and away from our negative values.
Since we move away from and/or toward our highest values which naturally make up a major part of
our personality, changing this inevitably creates major life re-orientations. We can change this
metaprogram using most NLP and Neuro-Semantic patterns because toward and away from values are
within every choice and frame that we set.
By contrast, internal and external (Authority Source, #23) typically takes more investment of time and
energy to transform the authority source frame metaprogram. Why is this? Because these are
developed during some of our earliest developmental stages and so are more deeply integrated into
our Self and Other matrices. Begin here by getting leverage in terms of the importance and value of
making the change. Step out to check the ecology of giving your authority to things outside of yourself.
Develop your self-confidence, add new empowering beliefs, perhaps use trance to facilitate the
transformation process by creating a compelling movie that exemplifies this new meta-program.
Regarding the Convincer Representation(#19) and theConvincer Demonstration (#34) metaprograms, these typically arise from many early life experiences and decisions. From repeated
experiences we generate our style of being convinced and what we count as sufficient for being
convinced. How do we change these? Use time-lining to blow-out an old limiting decision, the Movie
Rewind to neutralize strong negative emotions, meta-stating patterns to re-texture the way you
experience persuasion, etc.
To transform the Relationship meta-program from either matching to mismatching (Relationship
Comparison, #4), James and Woodsmall (1988) suggest that the person who sorts for sameness or
differences probably does so from an associated position having fully stepped into a memory or
movie and it is this that prevents one from having the flexibility to shift to the other side of the
continuum.
Test this for yourself by using the following thought experiment. Make an associated picture of
something. See and hear what you have seen and heard and step into that movie, matching (or mismatching) while inside. Now attempt to bring up another picture for comparison. Most people find
this impossible to very difficult to do. Why? Because as long as we are in an absolute position of
being inside or associated within a movie, it is nearly impossible to bring in opposite picture at the
same time. So shifting from Sameness to Sameness with Exception involves first facilitating the
ability to step out of the current movie, create a representation of Mis-matching, that is, sorting for
Differences, and to then step into the Difference movie.
The Axes of Change for Expanding / Changing Meta-Programs (#6) Finally, we can use the Axes
of Change as a model and process for expanding meta-programs. This model enables us to address
and deal with the four most critical factors in change: motivation, decision, creation, and integration.
After all, we have to have sufficientmotivational energyto change, we make a decision to change, we
have to create a new game plan regarding what the change will involve and be like, and then we have
to practice the change, reinforce what works well, monitor it, test it out, and keep refining it so that
we sustain the change so it solidifies as our way of operating.
To achieve this, the Axes of Change model is designed to address these four mechanisms of change.
This arose as I researched the field of change and modeled how high achievers continue to make
significant changes. From that we mapped out these change distinctions using four meta-programs:
C Formotivation the Motivation Direction meta-program, #35:Towardand
Away From . This axis enables us to explore what a person wants and doesn’t want, what a person
wants to approach and to avoid. Working with these meta-programs both awakens vision and
challenges current reality.
C For decision the Somatic Response meta-program, #27: Reflective and Active. This axis enables us
to reflectively probe the current frames of mind in his or her matrix of meaning to facilitate weighing
the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages of a change, and then to provide enough
provocation to get the person to threshold and make the decision to “just do it.” Working with these
meta-programs both probes and provokes for a decision.
C For creation the Authority Source meta-program, #23: Internal and External. This axis enables us
to reference all of the internal frames, beliefs, values, understandings, strategies, how-to knowledge,
etc. to construct the new inner game and to then begin to actualize the implementation of it so that it
becomes a person’s outer game. Working with these meta-programs enables us to work as co-creator
and actualizer with our client
C For solidifcation the Relationship Comparison meta-program, #4: Matching and Mis-matching.
This axis enables us to zoom in on the actual behaviors that are similar to, and match, the person’s
inner creation and to validate and confirm them, reinforcing what’s successful. We can then focus on
what’s not quite up to par as we look for differences that we can then test and refine. These metaprograms enable us to positive reinforce change and test it for robustness.
The Axis of Change is a model of change specifically for self-actualizing change rather than
therapeutic change. We designed it for change-embracers (Risk Taking, embracer, #46), for those
seeking transformation at the level of the metaneeds rather than the lower needs, although it would
also work with thoseaversive to change.5 One last thing, because we designed the Axis of Change for
the context of coaching, the following pattern provides a series of questions for a “coaching
conversation” to facilitate a person changing a specific meta-program in a particular context.
1) Elicit sufficient motivation for the change.
Toward—
What meta-program do you want to change? Change it to what? How would you describe the new
perceptual filter that you want to take on?
What would this new meta-program allow you to do, feel, or experience? How would it benefit your
life?
Away From—
What would you no longer have to put up with?
What unpleasant or negative consequences would you no longer have to endure?
How much do you want this new meta-program?
To what extent have you had enough of the old meta-program?
2) Access a clear and intelligent decision regarding what you want.
Probing and reflecting—
What are the strongest reasons for not changing?
What are the most compelling reasons to change?
How many pros and cons do you have on each side?
If you gave an emotional weight to each advantage and disadvantage from 0 to 10 and then counted up
all of the advantages and disadvantages, which side carries the most weight for you?
What are the belief and value frames that currently motivated the old meta-program?
What beliefs, values, understandings, intentions, etc. that motivate changing to the new meta-program?
How long have you been trying to decide about this change?
Provoking and thresholding to a decision point—
How much longer do you want to go back and forth in indecision about this?
Perhaps you need five more years of the negative consequences before you’re ready to act!
Are you really man enough (woman enough) to say yes to this change? Do you really have the courage
and commitment to make this happen?
3) Fully describe the new inner game that you’ll implement and your action plan.
Co-creating and imaginatively inventing—
What’s the strategy and game plan of the new meta-program? When, where, how, in what way, why,
etc.?
Do you know anyone who operates with this meta-program in a similar context?
How do they do it?
What else would make this perceptual filter richer and more compelling for you?
Have you ever viewed things in this way in another context? What was that like?
Who do you need to become in order to try on this new choice? What would be the most empowering
belief that would support this?
Actualizing and externally implementing —
What’s your first action step? Your second? Third?
When will you begin? Where? What will cue you?
What’s one thing that you can begin to do today that will initiate this change?
When you imagine beginning this, what’s it like in your body, your breathe, your eyes?
If you were to stand up and walk with this change, what’s that like?
4) Solidify the change through reinforcing and testing.
Reinforcing and celebrating small changes by matching— How did it go yesterday? Last week?
What was the best thing in beginning to implement the change? How did you recognize when or where
to shift to the new game plan? How well did you recognize the external cues?
How did you celebrate that in yourself?
What else can you do to celebrate that?
Testing and refining the changes by mis-matching—
What did you learn from taking these first steps?
What refinements can you make in your game plan that will make it even better?
What didn’t go as well as you wanted it to?
What additional resources do you need in order to continue making this change real?
Summary
C What created our first meta-programs? The stabilizing reference points were the experiences that
we brought inside and used as our frames of reference. As we tracked our experiences inside, we
created frames of reference and then frames of mind. In this way we created our personal psychologics made up of our belief and value frames. All of these frames pattern our way of thinking,
perceiving, and attending to things—our meta-programs.
C Given that welearn our meta-programs, we can choose tore-learn them. We still have choice about
them. Even discovering and knowing our meta-programs enables us to step back and choose which
ones to use in various contexts.
C First we need to develop an understanding of our patterns. Then we can design our style of
attending and perceiving to choose which metaprograms we want to use in specific contexts. As we
give ourselves permission to shift focus, consciously pay attention to what we usually delete, if we do
this faithfully for a few days or weeks, the new pattern will drop out of conscious awareness and
become our newly designed meta-progra
End Notes:
1. Does it seem like a radical idea that we create our own particular kind and style of mind and then
use the very mind we’ve invented to process information? It does seem strange, yet this is the “catch
22" of human thinking, that it is our own thinking (and meta-stating) that creates the very psychologics of our mind that then sees and experiences the world the way we do. See Mind-Lines (2002)
and The Matrix Model (2003) for more about this neuro-semantic reality.
2. See Meta-Coaching, Volume I, Coaching Change (2004) for an entire presentation on the Axes of
Change model. There is a single chapter on it in Coaching Conversations (2004).
3. For more about time-lining patterns, seeTime Line Therapy(1988), and Time-Lining (1997).
4. These are some of the basic NLP patterns, for these and 77 of the most central NLP patterns,
seeThe Sourcebook of Magic, Volume I. Also for the Practitioner and Master Practitioner course, see
User’s Manual of the Brain, Volumes I and II.
5. People change depending on their level of “need.” This was one of the most revolutionary finds
and facets of Abraham Maslow’s research and model of human needs. In his hierarchy of needs
model (Motivation and Personality, 1954), he posited a basic divide between the lower and the
higher needs. That which unites the lower needs is the experience of deficiency while what unites the
higher needs is the phenomenon of growth or expressiveness. Regarding the lower needs, satisfaction
extinguishes the drive. By way of contrast, satisfaction amplifies the higher needs.
In the lower needs, the satisfaction we seek extinguishes the drive so that the drive goes away and we
return to equilibrium. In the higher needs, satisfaction expands the drive expands so that we want and
desire more. No only does the drive not go away, but the drive expands and gratification creates even
more disequilibrium. Given the radical differences between the lower and the higher needs, we
experience change in very different ways at each level. Not only that, but the change mechanisms at
each dimension differ. These differences establish two populations, one who need fixing and healing
and the establishment of ego-strength, and one who need disequilibrium to challenge ego-strength.
Therapeutic change models typically include two phenomena that we avoided in the Axes of Change
model—resistance and relapse. For more about this see, Coaching Change (Meta-Coaching, Vol. I).
Chapter 12
META-PROGRAMS FOR PROFILING
"Shifting our focus from the way we are to the way we function
installs the ability to think more flexibly about human nature." L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
"Increasingly states have outlawed the use of paper and pencil instruments in hiring and classifying
employees. My wife works for a major insurance company in personnel. Her company has not, for
years, permitted the use of such instruments in interviewing potential employees. What can a manager
or personnel director do? With such rules, the use of meta-programs becomes even more valuable. In
ten to fifteen minutes a person competent using these meta-programs can elicit the key meta-programs
driving a person's way of perceiving and functioning."
Bob Bodenhamer, D.Min.
Robbins (1986) asserts that "Putting the right person in the right job remains one of the biggest
problems in American business" (p. 229). He’s right. Linking up the right person with the right job is
a significant need in businesses today around the world. Jim Collins in Good to Great identifies
getting the right people on the bus and the wrong people off the bus as one of the key five factors that
distinguish the truly great companies.
C How can we use meta-programs to profile those who are the best
candidates for a job or position?
C How can meta-programs streamline our ability to create great matches between person and job?
The answer is that once we can detect and discern the ways that a person functions mentally,
emotionally, behaviorally, semantically, and inter-personally and the ideal meta-programs for a job,
we can then work to find a great match. This isn’t a question of right or wrong as it is about finding
the most appropriate match for a position. It is a question of “goodness of fit.” It’s a matter of
enabling people to find work that fits their internal processing and perceiving. When we find the right
fit, people are happier, more satisfied, less stressors, more able to give their best, and much more
productive. Doing what goes against our natural or default meta-programs create the stress of
cognitive dissonance. In that case, we can change our meta-program (chapter 11) or find a better fit
(chapter 12). Finding a good fit between our meta-programs and work is a win/win for companies,
teams, and individuals.
This means profiling. It means profiling both person and job. Such profiling provides us a more
profound and accurate understanding of our best skills and where we most naturally fit. It enables us
to hire the right people, to choose the best applicant, to organize the best performing teams, and to
even recognize those with whom we work and love best.
Meta-Program Profiling
Because meta-programs as our perceptual filters function as the structure or "software" or frames
behind our everyday operations, meta-programs govern what we select to attend and what we delete.
And because they operate at a level above the details or story, they have little to do with content.
They rather deal with structural processes. They give and create our sense of the quality of our
experiences inasmuch as they consist of the very patterns that determine our interests and how we
attend those interests. These operational systems as our meta-frames give a sense of continuity to our
experiences and so construct the framework that we call “personality.”
As categories that describe internal patterns and patterning, meta-programs change over time and
from context to context. We use these meta-processing patterns according to our emotional state at any
given time. In this, they are almost always state-dependent filters. We call them forth or evoke them
depending on our mental and/or emotional state. How we use the same metaprogram will differ
according to our emotional state and the amount of stress. The big picture of gestalt thinking will have
a very different effect (emotionally and behaviorally) when in an unresourceful state compared to a
resourceful one.
Having developed and/or expanded our understanding of the meta-programs, we now need to develop
the skills and efficiency for using them to figure out ourselves and others. To facilitate this, we have
put a Meta-Program Sorting Grid in Appendix C and a Profiling Grid in Appendix D so you can use
it as a format for using meta-programs. As a sorting grid, you can cue yourself about what
metaprogram a person uses in a given context.
As you learn each of the meta-programs, we recommend that you participate in doing an extensive
self analysis of your own operational styles in various contexts. We have also created a MetaProgram Profiling Summary to provide another meta-program template in Appendix F. Feel free to
copy and replicate any of these charts as you learn the meta-programs and use them in your work.
That’s
what they are here for.
By using these charts and sorting grids with yourself, then those that you know well, eventually you
will use these meta-programs as a part of your thinking so that you won't have to refer to them at all.
You will begin to recognize these meta-level sorting patterns conversationally in your everyday talk.
When you have mastered them at that level, you will have developed a mastery of this domain that
will increase your ability to understand people, your communication skills, and your ability to
influence others gracefully.
Predictability about Human Responses
As a meta-map about people, meta-programs help us to develop more awareness and accuracy in
predicting how people will respond in a given situation. As we learn to detect meta-programs we
will increase our "people literacy." Then you will have unpleasant surprises less often. Won’t that be
nice? The following process, based upon the meta-programs and models in this book, provide a way
to increase your own predictability skills in anticipating responses.
1) Specify the contexts.
What context are you interested in?
What are the driver meta-programs and the key meta-programs that the person uses in that context?
What meta-programs are presupposed and even demanded by the context? [We always and inevitably
live in some context, and those contexts often determine which meta-programs we access and use.]
Which meta-programs used in this context create the person’s proficiencies and/or limitations?
2) Identify person’s driver meta-programs.
The key to predicting lies in knowing a person’s driver meta-programs in a given area as well as all
of the most influence meta-programs. What are the person’s key meta-programs? [List 1 to 5 of the
drivers.] How do you know that they are drivers? What informs you of such? Have you listed all of
the driver meta-programs?
What other meta-programs play a significant part in the functioning of that person in the given context?
What beliefs drive the person’s driver meta-programs?
What understandings? Intentions? History? Etc.
3) List the person's hierarchy of values.
As noted in the meta meta-programs, values operate as some of our highest semantic perceptual
filters. So identifying a person’s values expands our awareness of a person’s model of the world or
Matrix. This lets us know the world the person comes from.
What does this person value?
What does he or she consider highly important and significant? Where does the person invest his or
her time? Money? Energy?
4) Identify the person’s expectations.
What does the person expect in a job?
What are the rules in the person’s mind about hiring, wages, bonuses, etc.?
How will the person handle stress, conflict, orders, time-pressures, etc.? Identify the styles of
responding, functioning, "being," etc. that typically characterize the person you are profiling. Do that
by summarizing your analysis using the linguistic stem, "I can expect X to..."
"I can expect X (this person) to..."
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Context Meta-Programs Values Intentions Drivers – Strong – Weak
_____________ _______________ __________ _________ _____________ _______________
__________ _________ _____________ _______________ __________ _________
_____________ _______________ __________ _________ _____________ _______________
__________ _________ _____________ _______________ __________ _________
_____________ _______________ __________ _________ _____________ _______________
__________ _________ _____________ _______________ __________ _________
_____________ _______________ __________ _________ _____________ _______________
__________ _________ _____________ _______________ __________ _________
_____________ _______________ __________ _________ _____________ _______________
__________ _________ _____________ _______________ __________ _________
_____________ _______________ __________ _________
States Meanings Expectations
_______________ _______________ ______________________ _______________
_______________ ______________________ _______________ _______________
______________________ _______________ _______________ ______________________
_______________ _______________ ______________________ _______________
_______________ ______________________ _______________ _______________
______________________ _______________ _______________ ______________________
_______________ _______________ ______________________ _______________
_______________ ______________________ _______________ _______________
______________________ _______________ _______________ ______________________
_______________ _______________ ______________________ _______________
_______________ ______________________
After you write a list of responses and behaviors that would be in character given the context you are
interested in, estimate a probability. To what extent or degree would you venture a guess about the
likelihood or profitability of that prediction? Would it be 10%, 50%, 80% or what? Then, over the
next weekor month closely observe what happens so that you can then compare the actual responses
from the ones you predicted. That will allow you to reflect on the actual cues that were there and to
refine your prediction skills.
C How did you do?
C What did you accurately guess?
C What did you miss?
C What did you fail to take into consideration?
C What factors blinded you to cues that were present? C What did you learn?
C What will you notice and include in your calculations next time? C Were there any interferences?
C Was there anything in you that sabotaged your predictions?
Figuring Out Who to Hire
Let’s now consider the context of work, engagement, a project, or participation in a group or
performance team. What meta-programs do you need, or does someone else need, in order to
complete the task or to do it with a high level proficiency? As a practical way to figure out who to
hire, assign a particular task, manage, etc., we have designed the following schemabased upon metaprograms.
1) First identify the context.
What is the context?
What is the time, place, people, and environment of the context? What factors play an important part
of this context?
[As specifically as possible, describe precisely the context within which a person will work.]
2) Identify the distinctions of success and limitations.
What qualities are critical to the success of this task or job? What ways of thinking, feeling, speaking,
behaving, relating, etc. absolutely distinguish and qualify the situation?
Which ones play a strong supporting role although not essential? What maps would undermine with
this task?
What beliefs would support this task?
3) Check the job requirements against the person's meta-programs. What are the candidate’s
driving meta-programs?
What kind of a fit does the candidate have in this job given his or her meta-program?
Which meta-programs will contribute to sabotaging the fit or make for a poor fit?
What are the probabilities of a good fit?
What’s the basis for your evaluation?
What are the probabilities of a poor fit?
What meta-programs of the candidate need to change?
Context: ___________________________________________
___________________________________________ `
___________________________________________
Success Distinctions
Circle the meta-programs that play a critical role in the success of the task or performance under consideration:
Mental Processing:
1) Representing: VAK — Ad
2) Sensor — Intuitor
3) Global — Specific
4) Matching — Mis-matching
5) Counting — Discounting
6) Optimist — Pessimist
7) Either-Or — Continuum
8) Static — Process
9) Focus: Screening — Non-screening ___________________ _________ ________
10) Origins (why) — Solution (how) ___________________ _________ ________
11) Verbal — Non-verbal ___________________ _________ ________
12) Permeable — Impermeable ___________________ _________ ________
13) Causation: Linear, Causeless, Complex _______________ _________ ________ Personal, Magical, Correlation
__________________ _________ ________
14) Closure — Non-closure ___________________ _________ ________
15) Quantitative — Qualitative ___________________ _________ ________
16) Focused — Diffused ___________________ _________ ________
17) Conformist — Non-conformist ___________________ _________ ________
18) Speed: Slow, Medium, Fast ___________________ _________ ________
Person's Meta-Programs
Put a check along a continuum from Non-existent to Average to Driver Is there flexibility? Is there a good fit?
___________________ _________ ________ ___________________ _________ ________ ___________________
_________ ________ ___________________ _________ ________ ___________________ _________ ________
___________________ _________ ________ ___________________ _________ ________ ___________________
_________ ________
Emotional Filters:
19) Convincer Representation ___________________ _________ ________
20) Movie position: Inside — Outside ___________________ _________ ________
21) Desurgency — Surgency ___________________ _________ ________
22) Passive— Assertive — Aggressive ___________________ _________ ________
23) Authority: Internal — External ___________________ _________ ________
24) Attention: Self — Other ___________________ _________ ________
25) Em. Containment–- Spreading ___________________ _________ ________
26) Extrovert — Introvert ___________________ _________ ________
27) Active — Reflective ___________________ _________ ________
28) Shrewd-Artful/ Genuine-Artless ___________________ _________ ________
29) Power, Achievement, Affiliation ___________________ _________ ________
30) Work: Independent, Team Player, Manager ____________ _________ ________
31) Change: Closed — Open ___________________ _________ ________
32) Attitude: Serious — Playful ___________________ _________ ________
33) Persistence: Impatient — Patient ___________________ _________ ________ 35) Motivation Dir.: Toward — Away From
________________ ________ ________
36) Orientation Style: Options — Procedures ________________ ________ ________
37) Adaptation: Judger — Perceiver ________________ ________ ________
38) Necessity, Desire, Possibility ________________ ________ ________
39) People, Place, Things, Activity, Information ______________ ________ ________
40) Goal: Skepticism, Optimizing, Perfection ________________ ________ ________
41) Buying: Cost, Quality, Time ________________ ________ ________
42) Social Convincer: Distrusting — Trusting ________________ ________ ________
43) Interactive: Competitive — Cooperative ________________ _________ ________
44) Context: High (Inferential) — Low (Direct) ______________ _________ ________
45) Management: Control, Delegate, Collaborative ____________ ________ _________
46) Risk: Adversive — Embracer ________________ _______ _________
47) Decision: Cautious — Bold ________________ ________ _________ Semantic Perceptual Filtering:
48) Self: Mind, Body, Emotions, Roles ________________ ________ ________
49) Self-Instruction: Compliant — Strong-will ______________ _________ ________
50) Self-Confidence: Low — High _______________ _________ ________
51) SE: Unconditional — Conditional _______________ _________ ________
52) Self-Integrity: Conflicted — Integrated _______________ _________ _______
53) Responsibility: Under, Balanced, Over _______________ ________ ________
54) Ego-Strength: Weak (unstable)
Strong (Stable) ________________ _______ ________
55) Morality: Weak, Strong, Overly _______________ _________ ________
56) Monitoring: Low external — high Internal _______________ _________ _______
57) Time Zones: Past, Present, Future ________________ ________ ________
58) In-Time Random — Through-Time Sequential ____________ ________ ______
59) Quality: Be, Do, Have ________________ ________ _______
60) List of Values _ ______________ ________ _______
Choosing Filters
34) Convincer Demonstration: number, time ________________ ________ ________
Design Engineering Job Descriptions
Suppose you operate a business that involves people who deal with customers and the public, either
in person at the front desk or via the phone. You would probably need someone with the following
meta-programs and who can— C Meet deadlines (the Through Time and Sequential meta-programs,
#58). C Able to work as a team member with others (Work Style, team, #30). C Match what people
say to create rapport (Relationship Comparison,
sameness, #4).
C Create a positive and optimistic work environment: optimism (Scenario
Type, #6), and Preference meta-program for people (#39). C Trusts people from the start: Trusting
meta-program (Social Convincer,
#42).
C Able to step aside to deal with things in an objective and non-emotional
way (Movie Position, step out, #20).
C Attend to people: Other Reference Attention meta-program (#24). C Follow rules and procedures
(Self-Instruction, compliance, #49).
Or, suppose you run a business and need someone in accounting. Then you probably need a person
who can shift to the following meta-programs: C Attention to details (Scale, #3).
C Attend to differences (Relationship Comparison, #4).
C Externally referenced to rules of accounting (Authority Source, #23). C Other-Referent in that
context (Attention, #24).
C Step out to be objective (Movie Position, #20).
C Follow procedures (Operational Style, #36).
C Prefer information (Preference, #39).
C Perhaps distrusts others in that context (Social Convincer, #42). C Operating from a strong
superego (Morality, #55).
In the design engineering we are suggesting here, first start with figuring out the traits, qualities, and
skills that we want or need in any employee. Interview several people who are excellent at that skill.
Find the best practices in your business or field and model the meta-programs that govern those high
quality performances. Once you have this information, begin looking for the particular individuals
who have those perceptual and processing styles as their default metaprograms. Specifying the metaprograms of success for a given task gives you an additional language of precision when writing a
job description or advertisement. If you don’t know, you can interview and model from those who are
most successful at a task and identify the common meta-programs of those with expertise or have a
person skilled in that kind of modeling do so.
Profiling to get Leverage
After we have figured out a person’s meta-programs, the next task is to use that information regarding
that person’s processes to more effectively communicate and relate. This highlights the strategic
thinking skill of inquiring and discovering leverage points. We did that in the previous exercises as
we have sought to understand the natural leverage places in a person's functioning. In so doing, we
looked at how the person has developed their own leverage points and incorporated them into their
personality.
C What style of thinking, emoting, choosing, acting, conceptualizing
leverages this person's characteristic way of functioning in the world? C What meta-programs
leverage my way of operating?
For instance, do Details (Scale, #4) primarily leverage this person’s way of being in the world? Can
you inevitably count on Other referencing (Attention, #24) having the most pervasive influence in a
person’s thinking-and-feeling? What about optimistic and global thinking (Scale, #4)? Once you
identify the person’s driver meta-programs—you generally have a powerful leverage point. Why?
Because when you play to or invite change in that driver meta-program, the person’s entire mindbody system may change. Yet to go even further in strategic thinking, we can ask:
C What meta-program primarily drives this behavior, response, or
experience which, if we shifted it, would cause everything else to shift as well?
C What meta-program shift will have the most pervasive impact for this person?
Yeager (1985) describes this way of thinking as profiling a person's adaptability. "To make a dent in
day-to-day life events, a practitioner needs to profile the person's changeability or adaptability in
terms of the change-causing tools at hand." (p. 108)
Then what? Then we can invite the person to try on the opposite end of that metaprogram continuum.
A therapist, trusted friend, coach, or manager might do this directly and overtly. After pacing the
driving meta-program, the therapist might use the as if frame to invite the person to imagine fully and
completely what life would look, sound, and feel like if the person used the other end of a
metaprogram continuum. Doing this in trance will further amplify and strengthen the process. To do it
conversationally or covertly, we might use a story, relate a dramatic account from a movie, or tell
about the opposite meta-program using a narrative about ourselves.
How to Elegantly Confront Someone Using Meta-Programs
As we all know, people greatly differ in their ability and skill at receiving unpleasant information.
Yet in the everyday experiences of work, relationship, recreation, family, etc., situations inevitably
arise wherein we need to bring something up to someone that they may not like, not find positive and
dis-confirm what they have been doing. We typically put the communicating of such unpleasantries in
the categories of "confrontation," criticism, rebuke, reproof, "setting someone straight," or feedback.
Confrontation literally means encountering and communicating with someone "face to face" ("con”
with, “front” or “frons” forehead, face). Yet for most of us the idea of bringing up something
unpleasant is anchored to some strong unpleasant states. Is that true for you?
Suppose that an employee regularly turns in sub-standard work. Suppose a coworker doesn't carry his
or her load as part of a team. Suppose a spouse, friend, or child continually fails to come through with
a responsibility he or she has agreed to. How can we bring this up in the best possible way so that the
person can hear the message as information, even valuable information? How can we design engineer
a communication that will fit with the person’s meta-programs?
Overall we will want to pace his or her meta-programs so the person can process and, at least,
understand the content of what we say. Yet before we so pace the operational system of their metaprograms and and thinking patterns, we need to invite them to hear the information without
personalizing. This brings up the semantic meta meta-programs about self-definition, ego-strength,
and self-esteem.
1) Self-Esteeming Check.
C Does the person operate from conditional or unconditional Self-Esteem (#51)?
C How likely will the person personalize the comment and treat it as if a criticism of his or her
person?
C If unconditional, you will have no problem in going ahead and talking about some behavior or
problem. The person will probably not personalize and make it a statement about his or her inner self
as a human being. Speak directly, in a kind and gentle way, about the area of difficulty.
If the person’s self-esteem is conditional, identifythe conditions upon which he or she bases personal
value. Does it have to do with the area that you want to address? If no, then begin your
communications by clearly letting the person know that what you have to say has nothing to do with
them as a person, just some behavior that you would like to see improve or change. Communicate
clearly and empathically the difference between personand behavior as you begin.
If the subject that you want to broach with them involves one of the very conditions which that person
uses to esteem him or herself, proceed with extreme care. Begin by giving lots of validation and
affirmation of the person as “a somebody,” as a person of innate worth and value. Why? Because if
they use this area to validate and affirm their very sense of self as a person, then when you call it into
question—you call them into question. And to do that will more than likely, your communications will
feel like a personal attack to them and will send them into a state of fight/flight.
Do you want to avoid dealing with a passive or aggressive person (Stress Coping, #22)? Then don't
give them any reason for sending a message of "danger" or "threat" to their brain about their self. Do
the esteeming of their self that they won't or don’t know how to. Use lots of affirmations and
validations. Then check with them to see if they want to hear your concern.
"I have something that I would like to talk to you about and I want to do this to offer what I think. And,
of course, I may have this wrong. I offer it in hope that it will improve your effectiveness. It has
nothing to do with you as a person, just some behavior. Could we talk about that?"
Begin by thinking strategically. "Where do I stand with this person and where does this person stand
with me?" Then you can accessthe resources you will need to apply to the situation so the person can
access a state of safety and security and so be able to listen. Avoid the assumption that if you have
something to spit out—the other should have the fortitude to hear. That is not a productive assumption
and will win you no friends.
Aim to facilitate the kind of resourceful inter-personal state that will allow the person to feel safe, not
attacked, validated, not insulted, or put-down. Otherwise, you will probably get a response that you
don't want. If that happens, you then have two problems on your hands, the one you that initiated the
confrontation and the person now feeling and acting defensive.
2) Invite the step back skill.1
Strategically, if you know that most people do not take any form or kind of unpleasant information
very well, but will typically label it as criticism, insult, bitching, complaining, put-down,
confrontation, etc., then plan before you engage the person to assist him or her to encode and
represent what you have to say by stepping back and just observing it. Use your words in the past
tense. Gesture to a place away from the person—where he or she stores past images and sounds
(images that they just observe). Or better yet, gesture to where they put images and sounds indicating
that they have stepped out of the movie (Movie Position, #20). Avoid using the word "you." “You”
invites personalizing and typically feels like an attack to most people. Also avoid any form of
exaggeration, "You always mess things up . . ." "You never get here on time . . ."
Use more impersonal forms. You may start out personal, then shift to the more impersonal,
"When I think about you, Carl, as a worker . . . I usually run a video-tape
up on the screen of my mind and I see that worker . . . (gesture as if up
on a screen) . . . and sometimes things do go well for him . . . and, of
course, as a supervisor, I just wonder what I can do to assist him in
becoming more effective . . ."
3) Access the person's highest intentions and values for improving. Typically most of us believe
that for someone to confront us with something negative that a person has to earn the right to criticize
us. Do you? Do you believe that if you truly know that a person really loves you, and cares about you,
and has your best interests at heart—you can take a critique from that person but not from someone
who does not care or does not really know you? Who will you receive a critique from? This
underscores the importance of aligning with the positive intentions and values of the one we wish to
reprimand. To step into this place strategically consider:
C What positive value could this reprimand have for this person? C How could my rebuke or
delivering of this unpleasant information serve
any positive value for this person?
C Conversely, what away from value will this person strongly avoid?
Asking ourselves these questions enable us to use an important NLP principle: “Behind every
behavior is a positive intention.” We can then look behind what the person is doing or has done to the
possible positive intentions driving him or her. Identifying these positive values and validating them
creates a sense of safety and rapport as it invites the person to truly hear and receive. Appealing to
the person’s values in this way offers a way to pace his or her reality, enter into the person’s world,
and assist in becoming more effective, productive, happier, etc.
Using Meta-Programs in Couple’s Therapy
The following illustrates a therapeutic use of meta-program distinctions. Using meta-programs
provides a therapist a way to understand the processes at work in a person's life without needing to
confuse the person with the label. Identifying the driver meta-programs provides the therapist an
understanding of how to pace and lead, how to avoid evoking a resistant state, and how to view the
processes as usually over-done or under-done virtues. This case study comes from some of Bob’s
work with individuals and families.
I saw Richard and Sara in therapy intermittently over a couple of years to deal with problems
regarding marital conflict. At one point Sara brought in their daughter Beth of 17 who was highly
distraught and full of anger.
Her consternation was over her relationship with her father. She felt great fear of him due to his
jealousy and roughness. She said that he never praised her and that if they played a game and she
won, he would become extremely angry.
Richard admitted this problem with his anger. Through some questioning and interventions, I
discovered that Richard’s jealousy towards Beth began with his marriage to her mother. Sara gave
birth to Beth outside of marriage, then she later married Richard. That happened when Beth was three
years old.
Prior to her marriage to Richard, Sara had forged an extremely tight bond, one that continued after the
marriage. Yet the attention Sara gave to Beth triggered Richard to feel jealous of Sara which went on
for ten years. During all this time Richard kept it in and never expressed it. I first worked with Beth,
but soon began to suspect Richard's jealousy toward her. Then, when I checked with Richard, he
acknowledge that he did feel slighted when Sara spent time with Beth.
At that point I shifted my attention to Richard and asked Richard to step in and fully associate into his
jealousy and anger. As he did, he exclaimed with some sarcasm, "She is not God's gift to all
mankind!" With this attitude, I was not surprised that Sara struggled to maintain a loving relationship
with him, while trying to nurture her daughter. how he defined the problem. having not received the
nurturing that she wanted from her dad and Sara overcompensating by giving her even more attention,
which in turn intensified Richard's sense of jealousy and anger which then intensified the
overcompensating, etc. It was a true systemic mess.
With all of this I worked with Richard to change Eventually he came to see the problem as Beth What
meta-programs played a role in all of this? Richard operated primarily as an associated aggressor
seeking conditional worth based on getting "respect." C #4. The Relationship Comparison metaprogram of mis-matcher:
Richard displayed intense emotion from not only this experience, but also from growing up with a
younger brother whom he perceived as receiving all the love and attention in the family. "My younger
brother got all the dates and phone calls from the girls." This issue now replayed in his anger toward
Beth about the amount of time she spent on the phone with her boyfriend.
C #20. The Movie Position of being inside and associated. Richard had an intense kinesthetic
response to the phone calls and other experiences which re-anchored the jealousy and anger that he
previously felt towards his little "perfect" brother. He also recalled painful memories very
associatedly.
C #22. The Stress Coping meta-program of aggressive. "I was passive with my brother but as an
adult I determined to be aggressive.” When he felt stress in the marriage, he would "go at" things hot
and heavy, which, in turn, creates hurt feelings and a destructive pattern.
C #35. The Motivation Direction meta-program of toward. He strongly moved toward his values,
especially the value of respect. Yet behind these feelings he had dated emotions of anger and jealousy
of his younger brother. He also had stacked memories of more jealousy and anger towards both Beth
and Sara. All of this gave him a strong Away From style—away from disrespect.
C #52. The Self-Integrity meta-program ofincongruent. His unconscious experiences of pain
internally put him in conflict with himself. He said he loved Beth and Sara, yet his tonality and
physiology displayed rage. This communication confused them.
C #49. The temper to instruction in the Self-Instruction meta-program of strong-will. Because
Richard read lots of communications through his filter of disrespect, almost any information given
him would trigger his gestalts of anger, jealousy, and rage. To such he would respond with a strong
willedness. And, as he "cannot be told" anything, wife and daughter stopped even trying!
C #52. The Self-Esteem meta-program ofconditionalandlow. Emotional starvation in childhood has
led him to value himself conditionally, based on getting lots of respect every day.
Sara operated primarily as an associated passive (Stress Coping, #22) in an overresponsible way
(Responsibility, #53) who moves way from conflict (Motivation Direction, #35). Beth operated
primarily as an associated passive, with little egostrength (Ego Strength, #54), moving away from
anger and conflict (Motivation Direction, #35). Stop for a minute and think about how you would
design engineer a therapeutic response to Richard given this information.
What did Bob do? Bob considered Richard's four drivers: strong-willed to "being told," associated
in his movies, mismatching, and away from disrespect while toward respect. Therefore, given the
strength of Richard feeling disrespected, Bob began and continued throughout to provide Richard
with lots of validations of his strengths, his dignity as a person, etc. He listened thoroughly, reflected
what he understood and asked for feedback, looked at him while he talked, etc.
Next Bob helped Richard to access a meta-position (Movie Position, #20) to his difficulties in the
relationship so as to assist him from collapsing into negative feelings. Doing this, he also avoided
direct "telling," and merely made suggestions and sometimes even elicited Richard's mis-matching by
telling him that he had an idea, but that it probably would not work in his case. This invited Richard
to consider how he could make it work.
The Fear of Manipulation
Given all that we’ve said about changing meta-programs and profiling people, several questions
inevitably arise, questions that surface the subject of the ethics of all of this.
C Isn’t all of this manipulation?
C Isn’t using meta-programs in this way manipulative?
C Won’t this approach only make us more manipulative?
The short answer is, “Yes, and we sure hope so!” Of course, by "manipulative" we mean that it will
enable your ability to handle yourself and others more effectively and respectfully. Whether you
will take these skills and treat people with less respect as you try to "wrap them around your little
finger" so that you can get something from them without giving something in return—ultimately
depends on your own ethics, morality, and understanding of human dynamics. Of course, doing so
will not work in the long run.
Psychological understanding helps most people to respond in a more real, authentic, and humane way.
Since it takes us beyond our own masks and roles it enables us to identify what lies behind the coverups. Rollo May (1989) expressed our perceptions on this best when he wrote:
"The more penetrating your insights into the workings of the human personality, the more you will be
convinced of the uselessness of trying to fool others."
Jay Arthur (2002) identified the three Disney states inany high performance team: the dreamers,
realists, and critics. In looking at each of these states or roles, he described the meta-programs that
profile each (p. 96).
C Dreamers are those who invent the future. Their meta-program
configuration involves: towards (Motivation Direction, 35), options (Operational Style, #36),
difference (Relationship Comparison, #4) as well as visual (Representation, #1), global (Scale, #3),
and futureoriented (Time Zones, #57). In terms of the Axes of Change, this is the co-creator’s role.
C Realists are those who bring the dream into reality and actualize it in everyday life. Their metaprogram confirmation involves: mostly towards (Motivational Direction, #35), internal (Authority
Source, #23), procedures (Operational Style, #36), active (Somatic Response, #27), as well as
details (Scale, #3) and rooted in the present (Time Zones, #57). This is the Actualizer and
Reinforcer’s roles in the Axes of Change.
C Critics or testers are those who discern problems and difficulties, who use skepticism and
questioning to detect potential problems. Their metaprogram configuration involves: away from
(Motivation Direction, #35), difference (Relationship Comparison, #4), internal (Authority Source,
#23), detail (Scale, #3), and both past and future oriented (Time Zones, #57). This is the Tester’s role
in the Axes of Change.
Summary
C One of the central keys to effective and professional communicating is the ability to make the
crucial and needed distinctions about how we and others process information. How do I process
information? How does this or that person process this information? What do each of us pay attention
to? How close or far are our meta-programs and how can we use meta-program awareness to get on
the same channel?
C We no longer need feel angry at another's meta-programs. We can just notice them and working
with that sorting and perceptual style. We can now gauge and calibrate to the people around us and
with whom we communicate. We can note their patterns for perceiving the world and pace their
operational system and then, if valuable, lead to a new and different sorting program.
End Notes:
1. For more on theStep Back Skill seeThe Matrix Model and Coaching Conversations. The step back
skill is a practical way to think about the more abstract idea of “going meta.”
Chapter 13
READING META-PROGRAMS ON THE OUTSIDE
"Excuse me,
but your Meta-programs are showing!"
C Is it possible to see meta-programs on the outside? C What are the behavioral cues for metaprograms? C What are the indicators of meta-programs linguistically? C Do eye accessing patterns
apply to meta-programs?
Bandler and Grinder initiated NLP with the startling realization that if we notice eye accessing cues,
we will see patterns that relate to the sensory representational systems (chapter one). Later others in
NLP explored eye accessing cues for reading “sub-modalities” on the outside and then exploring
whether the same would apply to meta-programs.1 We took our cue from this approach and began
looking for the external cues, signs, and indicators of key meta-programs. We then expanded it to
include the entire list of 60 meta-programs. This represents virgin territory. Yet because so little
attention and research has been devoted to this area, we offer the following only as suggestive of the
possibilities.
We derive the idea of reading meta-programs on the outside from the understanding that given the way
our neuro-physiology works, we have a tendency to externalize our internal maps. That is, the things
we map in our mind, along with how we represent and frame them find expression in our gestures,
eye movements, shifts in breathing, posture, energy levels, etc. We speak of this as our holographic
brain meaning that our mapping involves creating a threedimension hologram using our body, “muscle
memory” and expressions in space.
In NLP this is certainly true in the way we map and encode our concept of “time.” Typically we have
a sense of storing time by location. We also locate “time” in three-dimensional space around our
body. Where do we put past events, current events, and future events? Is the past behind us, to our
left, right, below, or in front of us? By incorporating an external configuration like space, location,
direction, before and behind, lines, paths, steps, filing cabinets, etc. we can use any of these
representations internally as a template or a format for sorting things out, classifying, categorizing,
and making distinctions fits the discoveries of Lakoff (1987), and Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999).
These cognitive linguists have shown how we use concrete realities as internal metaphors for thinking
itself.
C Can we read meta-programs on the outside?
C What does it look like when a person uses matching or mis-matching? C What does a person look
or sound like when he uses global or specific? C How does a person move or gesture when
organizationally using the
options or procedure style?
C Is there a shift in voice tone or volume?
C How does it feel inside you when you shift back and forth between these
choices?
C How does it feel in your body to move along any meta-program continuum?
Our recommendation is that you try each and every meta-program on in terms of the state and
experience it evokes for you, then exaggerate that the state and metastate of that meta-program so that
you develop inner intimate acquaintance with it.
For example, consider the Scale meta-program. Below in Figure 13:1 we have written that for the
general or global filter, a person may be moving head and upper body back and using larger gestures.
For the specific or detail filter, a person may move head and upper body closer and make smaller or
more refined hands gestures. How do you personally experience these meta-programs? Take a
moment to think about what meta-programs are and why it’s important to learn and use them. Now
respond by speaking aloud as you creatively imagine someone. As you do, exaggerate your responses
and notice what you are doing. Now think about the details of the Representational meta-program and
imagine describing that to someone. Now as you do so, notice your state, gestures, movements, etc.
Reading Meta-Programs By Detecting States and Meta-States In an earlier chapter (chapter
four), we noted the close, although not identical, relationship betweenmeta-programs andmetastates. While they are close, they are not the same. This means we can sometimes use one to detect
the other. From meta-states we can detect meta-programs and from meta-programs we can figure out
the meta-states that evoked the meta-programs in the first place. Both of these processes are similar in
that meta-programs result when we repeatedly meta-stated our perception with some way of thinking,
some thinking pattern, value, or understanding.
While similar in their meta-structures, in that they different ways of looking at the same subjective
experience, they represent different phenomena. To clearly distinguish them, think of meta-programs
as the more habituated structure, the structures that arise frommeta-stating a way of looking at
things. In other words the more dynamic process is meta-stating and meta-programs are the more
stable configuration. In meta-stating we are applying one mental-and-emotional state to another one
and setting up meta-relationships between thoughts and feelings.
This makes meta-programs a patterning process about perception and thinking patterns, whereas
meta-states are the more fluid patterning of creating various meta-relationships between states. They
are dynamic states-about-dynamic-states. We meta-state ourselves or another when we bring a state
of thought-emotion or some physiology of that state (e.g., anger, fear, joy, comfort, love, compassion,
fun, etc.) and apply it to another state. Doing this generates a complex and layered form of
subjectivity. From it arises such things as fears-about-fear, anger-about-fear, guilt-about-anger, joyabout-depression, depression-about-joy, worry about our anger of our sadness, etc.
All of this begins with a primary "state"—a holistic mind-body-emotion experience. These neurolinguistic states are always about something, something “outside” ourselves. Perhaps we think-andfeel angry about the way John treats us. In every state, we experience a form of reactivity or
responsiveness to something. A meta-state not only takes this further, but it also changes the direction
from outside to inside, the aboutness changes. A meta-state describes our reactions-to-our-reactions.
I feel glad about my ability to feel afraid because it gives me important messages. I fear my anger lest
it gets out of control and I hurt myself or others. I guilt about experiencing too strong of an emotion. I
joy in my learning and appreciate my joy about my learning.
In meta-states we stop referencing our thoughts-and-feelings to the world or to something outside our
skin and shift to referencing our thoughts-and-feelings to and about our internal world, to of our
subjective states. That’s what makes them meta-states. In primary states, our consciousness goes out
to represent and give meaning to the world. In meta-states, our consciousness reflects back onto itself
and its features (the specific thoughts, feelings, and kinesthetic sensations we experience). It is by
stepping back from our primary states, and going meta to them, that we access a meta-state. This
moves us to a higher or meta position, into the realm of more complex abstractions (beliefs, concepts,
generalizations, etc.).
While meta-programs do not necessarily refer to, or comprise, states, they certainly can. In this, every
meta-program reveals a meta-state. Suppose for instance, that a person uses a particular style of
thinking-emoting nearly all the time and in most contexts. In this case we say the perception is a
driver metaprogram. So if we use the global meta-program for our perceiving, it drives the way we
see the world. It influences nearly all of our information processing and reveals that we are operating
from a global state.
C What does that look or sound like?
C How does that express itself in a person’s body and movements? C Does he lean back and look up?
C Does she look upward in visual access or defocus her eyes?
If the meta-program of procedure is our adaptive style for handling activities and it govern our
perceptions, that meta-program corresponds expresses, and amplifies the procedure state we are in.
Driver meta-programs (and those we over-use) describe our mind-body states (or more accurately,
meta-states). It is in this way that meta-programs reveal meta-states.
C What does this state look and sound like?
C How does the person gesture procedure?
C Does her hands move in short choppy motions?
C How does his hands move when gesturing options?
Certain mechanisms are involved in this. Our processing and perceiving style or meta-program
involves an internal structure formed by applying the meta-program information to oneself. Every
meta-program affects us by how it sets frames for our experiences. With the meta-program framing
we are continuously re-inducing ourselves into a corresponding state. This meta-program framing is a
dynamic and interactive system, it sets up a self-organizing attractor.
The framing occurs at multiple meta-levels. You have probably already noticed this in working with
meta-programs, have you not? When we find a global person, that person not only processes
information globally and so thinks deductively (rather than inductively), but also values that kind of
thinking. The person believes in that style and would argue against "watching the pennies in order to
take care of the dollars." Similarly, the person who filters by procedures not only perceives and looks
for "step-by-step processes," but also values such and believes in the importance of such. To ask him
to shift to options would probably violate some of his beliefs and values. It would interrupt and
contradict some of her most frequently experienced "states." It would rattle her matrix of frames—her
understanding of the word, memories, imaginations, and strategies for coping with life.
To the extent that we over-value and/or over-use a particular meta-program, we increasingly develop
the tendency to view things through that filter. Suppose we over-value the meta-program of details.
Suppose that filter drives our thinking and that we have no flexibility of consciousness to shift to a
global perspective. Or what if we use this mindset as part of our self-definition, "I am a detail
person!" Then we become locked into the detail matrix and that matrix would have a life of its own—
protecting itself, as it were, from change.
Or, we might suppose we over-value and over-use either the meta-program of matching or mismatching. This would then temper and affect most of our primary states making us and our states,
rigidly structured. When we reflexively apply our thinking-feeling about a prior state—we will be
predisposed to use this meta-program. In this way, a meta-program not only reflects a meta-state but a
self-organizing attractor in our mind-body-emotion system. We will then move through the world
creating lots of self-similarity in all of our states: self-matching, joy-matching, love-matching,
anxiety-matching, etc.
Inasmuch as thoughts as internal representations operate neuro-linguistically to induce us into mindbody states, when we frequently use a meta-program, it will habituate. That habituation will, in turn,
set up its internal meta-state to selfreplicate and self-organize. How is that valuable or important?
What can we do with this awareness? How does it relate to changing meta-programs, reading metaprograms, or profiling meta-programs?
The significance lies in recognizing how meta-programs work in our mind-bodyemotion system and
being able to see them as dynamic energies at work in our perceiving. Thinking systemically about
meta-programs, after we say or do some thing that offers a stimulus to someone, and then step back to
observe the energies activated in the person. These responses then suggest meta-frames, meta-states,
and meta-programs. This is what we mean by “following the energy.” C Where does the person go in
thinking, emoting, or body? C What are the frames by implication in a response?
C What has to be true within that person to create that response?
When we follow the energy, and it keeps activating the same implied frames, we can take it as part of
the dynamics thinking, feeling, perceiving system—that is, meta-program.
All of this brings us back to the importance of recognizing how a person pays attention and what that
implies about his or her perceptions. When we can detect this, we are then able to match that pattern.
In this way we can make our communications maximally impactful. If we match the person's thinking
and perceiving patterns, it will have an inherent sense of familiarity.
Figure 13:1
Meta-Programs: External Indications
Cognitive Processing-perception, thinking, valuing, believing, etc.
1) Representation Eyes accessing patterns: up for visual, level for auditory, down. VAK Ad for kinesthetic. Visual, auditory and
kinesthetic predicates.
2) Epistemological: Eyes scanning immediate environment for Sensor. Sensors — Intuitors Eyes defocused, glazed look for Intuitors.
3) Scale:
Global Specific Hands gesturing big or small, close or far.
Head/ upper body moving close for Detail, back for Global.
4) Relationship
Matching/Mismatching Sameness/ Difference Hands gesturing together and coming close for Same. Hands gesturing apart, distance, at
odd angles for Difference.
5) Background / Foreground:
Counting — Discounting Hands “tossing away” for Discounting. Making “putting down” gesture, usually with left hand and palm facing
up.
Hands gesturing straight down for Counting: index finger for “counting” in the air.
6) Direction:
Best — Worst Pessimist: Head shaking no, eyes in Kin. position, down to right. Optimist: Head shaking yes, face smiling, body moving
forward.
7) Classification Scale:
Black-White – Continuum Optimists/Pessimists
Hands gesturing either "this or that," digital-like chopping of air. Hands gesturing lots of in between choices, steps, stages. Eyes up in
visual access a lot imaging possibilities for Optimists. Eyes often down to the left in kinesthetic access for Pessimists.
8) Nature:
Static — Process Static: Hands held as though holding an invisible football.
Process: hand clipping air (palm facing body) indicating forward movement on a continuum.
9) Focus:
Screeners/Non-Screeners Eye focusing in on imagined subject for Screeners, warmer hands. Easily startled for Non-screeners, colder
hands.
10) Philosophical:
Why — How
Origins — Solutions Why: accessing Ad . Body more quiet, contemplative. How: Involving more VAK accessing, moving more in body,
hands, etc.
11) Communication:
Verbal — Non-Verbal Language use, stiff or limited expression of body. Gestures, tones, rhythm.
12) Durability:
Permeable/Impermeable Focusing of eye and stillness of body for Durable and Impermeable. Back and forth, moving, for Permeable.
13) Causation:
Causeless, Linear Multiple, Personal, Magical, Correlation
14) Completion:
Closure — Non-Closure Hands gesture as the closing of a box, door, etc. for closure or lack thereof.
15) Kind:
Quantitative / Qualitative Hands and index finger “counting” in the air, hands gesturing. Qualitative:
16) Stream of Consciousness: Focused — Diffused 17) Conventional: Clothes, hair, fitting the culture. Conformist — Non-conformist
Not corresponding.
Eyes dilated, focused in one direction. Eyes darting all around.
18) Speed: Speed of speaking as well as whole body movements. Slow — Medium — Fast
Emotional Meta-Programs
19) Convincer Representation Looks, Sounds, Feels Right Makes Sense
Eye accessing cues for sensory systems.
20) Movie Position:
Associated/ Dissociated Feeling — Thinking Inside — Outside
Associated: body more activated, moving, agitated, "emotional" Eyes in K. access.
Dissociated: body more still, calm, moving back. Eyes in Ad access
21) Exubrance:
Desurgency/ Surgency Body moves more energetically with quick movements for Surgency. Bouncing on toes.
Desurgency: quiet by comparison, calm.
22) Stress Coping
Passivity — Aggression Assertive
Body moves forward with quick movements. Body moves away and back for Passivity.
23) Authority:
Internal — External Internals first look down or de-focuses eyes as if inside, then out Externals stay in uptime mode, looking without,
eyes sometimes scanning.
24) Attention:
Self — Other Self: look down or de-focuses eyes as if inside. Actual pointing to self. Palm on chest or patting chest.
Other: eyes looking out, scanning environment, others.
Pointing to a real or imagined others.
25) Em. Containment: Uni-directional — Multi-directional Uni-directional: more relaxed, calm
Multi-directional: more aggitated, movement
26) Rejuvenation: Extrovert,
Introvert, Balance In context of stress, feeling down -- similar to Stress Coping, #22. Introvert: quiet when thinking by oneself.
Extrovert: more “involved” with people.
27) Somatic Response: Active/ Reflective/
Inactive
Active: Lots of movements, quick movements, sitting on edge of chair. knee bouncing, nodding of head.
Reflective: sitting back in chair, shakes head side to side.
28) Social Presentation: Shrewd – Artful — Geniune – Artless Shrewd: more in Uptime mode, looking, checking out people, scanning.
Artless: more in Downtime mode.
29) Dominance: Power: in Blamer mode, proactive, “authoritative” tonality. Power, Affiliation, Affiliation: Leveler, Placator, Computer
mode. Achievement Acheivement: Proactive, eyes in Vc.
30) Work Style:
Independent, Team Player, Manager
Independent: Ad eye pattern, In-Time. Similar to Self (#24). Team: V and K eye patterns, Uptime. Similar to Other (#24) Manager:
combination of all eye patterns and comfortable utilizing such.
31) Change Adaptor: Closed — Open Late — Early Open, Early: Close, Late:
32) Attitude: Playful: smiles. Serious — Playful Serious: scrowl on face, or blank expression.
33) Persistence: Patient: facial muscles relaxed, few hand movements, movements smooth
Impatient — Patient and slow, eyes focused on speaker.
Impatient: tension in facial muscles, eyes darting about and not focusing on speaker.
Choosing Meta-Programs
34) Convincer Demonstration: Number — Time
35) Motivation Direction: Toward — Away From Approach— Avoidance Toward: Head and body moving toward, eyes in Vc (seeing
goal). Away From: head and body moving back, facial expressions of tension as if "avoidance."
36) Organizational Style:
Options — Procedures Procedures: hands gesturing as if sequencing things in space. Options: hands gesturing as if numbering off
numerous choices.
37) Adaptation:
Judging — Perceiving Judging: hands, body gesturing a "comparing" motion, "this or that" Perceiving: hands gesturing with smooth
movements just "floating" through
38) Modal Operandi:
Impossibility, Necessity Desire, Possibility
Necessity: tightness in voice, raised volume.
Possibility: hands gesturing as if numbering off numerous. choices
Desire:
39) Preference
People, Place, Things, Activity, Information Systems
Place: hands gesturing as to point to a place.
Information: hands gesturing to head or brain.
People: kinesthetic predicates, using personal pronouns, proper nouns. Information: Ad eye patterns, non-specific predicates, reeling off
“facts.” Activity: lot of gesturing, kinesthetic predicates.
Systems: use plural personal pronouns.
Things: Towards meta-program, head and body moving forward
40) Goals Striving:
Skepticism, Optimizing Perfection
Perfectionists: in sensory awareness, uptime.
Skeptic: in Downtime access.
Optimist: alternates between Uptime & Down, feels comfortable doing so.
41) Buying:
Cost, Quality Time
Cost: Ad, In-Time. Quality: Ad, In-Time. Time: Judger.
42) Social Convincer: Distrusting: gestures to indicate distance, boundaries, tension. Distrusting — Trusting Trusting: relaxed in face and
muscles, hands reaching out, touching.
43) Interactive:
Competit./ Cooperative Polarity: more movement, aggitation
44) Directness:
High inferential — Low direct
High Context: Low Context:
45) Management:
Control, Delegate, self. Control: in uptime, eyes watching, “authoritarian” tonality, gestures toward
Collaborative Delegate: alternate between uptime and downtime, gestures toward others. Collaborative: more relaxed tonality, looking at
others, gestures both to self and others.
46) Risk Taking:
Aversive — Embracer Aversive: inward focus, cautious, uncertain tonality, heading shaking sideto-side in “no” position.
Embracer: outward focus, certainty in tonality.
47) Decision: Cautious: small gestures, arms held close to body, knees together. Cautious — Bold Bold: large and expansive gestures,
legs spread or cross with ankle on knee (for males).
Semantic Meta-Programs relating to Self, Time, Values
48) Self-Experience
Body, Mind, Emotions, Roles
Body: K eye patterns Mind: Ad eye patterns Emotion: K eye patterns
49) Self-Instruction
Compliant — Strong-Will Strong-will: tense, rigid, holding self. Jaw set. Compliant: relaxed, calm. Placator’s mode.
50) Self-Confidence
Low — High Confidence: Voice volume and tone strong, more definite, large gestures. Low: voice volume weaker, less clear
articulation, eyes looking down, small gestures.
51) Self-Esteem Conditional — Unconditional Conditional: Lowers head, bows head, talks in less audible voice. Unconditional: Holds
head up, maintains eye contact without staring.
52) Self-Integrity:
Conflicted, Incongruous Harmonious Congruent Conflicted: facets of output (words, tone, gestures) not fitting Congruous: relaxed, firm
yet compassionate tonality. Incongruent: these non-verbal behaviors not fitting, out of sync.
53) Responsibility:
Over-Responsible Over-Resp: sometimes bent down at shoulders as if carrying a load.
Under-Responsible Under-Resp: accusing & blaming, using index finger to point.
54) Ego-Strength:
Stable — Unstable Stable: Leveler (direct eye contact), “convincing” tonality, relaxed facial muscles, easy smiling.
Unstable: In Blamer at times, uncertain tonality, frequently looks down, index finger pointing and shaking when talking, raising of voice.
55) Morality:
Superego: Weak — Strong Weak: Placator, defensive posture, uncertain. Strong: Leveler, good posture, certainty in tonality.
56) Self-Monitoring: Low external — High Internal Low: in uptime, anxiously scanning environment. High: able to close eyes, relax,
spend time just thinking.
57) Time Zones: Past, Present, Future
Gesturing to where code "past" "present" and "future" typically past to the left of a right-handed person, with "future" to the right. Listen
for predicates of time.
58) Time Experience: In-Time —
Through-Time In-Time: More movement, agitation
Random: gesturing more wandering as if "all over" without a pattern Through-Time: Less movement, agitation, etc.
Sequential: gesturing with hands in chopping way as if
sequencing space
59) Quality of Life: Be, Do, Have
60) Values:
Be: Leveler, relaxed, “strong” and compassionate tonality. Doing: active, using hands as though making or shaping something. Having:
gesturing with hand on chest as if to say “mine.” Stored "down right" as in "important" or up as "high value" Voice tone: matter of fact or
high as in "important
Describes as nominalizations.
Applying this to Corporate "Persons"
Does this apply to groups, teams, companies, and corporations? Yes, of course! As individuals
develop perceptual styles and realities, so do corporate organizations and businesses. They develop
patterns of perceiving "reality" and processing information that uniquely distinguish them. These
patterns of perception describe, to speak metaphorically, "the channel" on which a person or a
company communicates. When we don’t know the pattern, we are in the dark in terms of our
communicational attempts. Then we can easily miss the pattern that will work with this person or
company. To be able to "read" the person’s or company’s meta-program (to pick it up in language,
gesture, eye accessing cues, etc.) enables us to more quickly switch to the same channel and speak
their language.
Companies, like individuals, develop their own "personality," mood, and response style—the place
from which we come our state of consciousness. When we recognize that a person operates from a
particular state, we can take that into account in our communicating. It is essential if we want to
increase our effectiveness and influence.
This also has great significance for self-management—the management of our thoughts, emotions,
moods, and behaviors. Without taking state and metaprograms into account, we are without
awareness, understanding, or skill in managing our own states and blind to the experiences and reality
of others.
Summary
C For those who have eyes to see—we can learn to detect many metaprograms from the outside.
Doing so necessitates that we attune our sensory awareness, develop the ability to be in uptime,
understand metaprograms, and practice calibrating.
C This means calibrating the cues that each person uniquely produces in his or her patterns. To learn
this, begin with yourself. Once you have made yourself fully aquainted with your own meta-programs,
begin to notice the non-verbal cues that you give off as you show people everyday your metaprograms.
End Notes:
1. Eric Robbie (1987, 1988).
Chapter 14
CLUSTERING META-PROGRAMS AND THE MATRIX
In the beginning we create our meta-programs through meta-stating. All we have to do is take one
thought-feeling-body state and apply it to our way of thinkingfeeling about something. Doing this
repeatedly for months and years creates the habituation of the meta-state. In this way a given thinkingfeeling perception becomes our thinking style. This meta-stating evidentually coalesces into our
neurology as our perceptual filters. Our meta-programs then color our world and texture the way we
see and perceive things.
The meta-program distinctions are distinctions we foreground and background. That is, we take a
distinction, like options or procedures, and we foreground one or the other as a meta-distinction that
we use to frame our thinking and perceiving. We then meta-state ourselves regarding that metaprogram, valuing it, believing it, deciding for it, etc. We continue this validating and confirming the
metaprogram with these higher frames until the meta-program coalesces into our neurology and “gets
into our eyes.” It then becomes our perceptual lens or glasses. When that happens, a certain way of
seeing makes certain things stand out in our perception as we background the opposite distinction so
that we do not see or use it. We delete it from our attention and even awareness.
In this chapter we want to pull together the meta-states/meta-program structures, relate them to the
Matrix model, and offer a way to cluster the meta-programs. This reverses what we have done
throughout this book. Until now we have been pulling things apart. We have pulled apart our mindbody-emotion system to distinguish 60 meta-programs—60 distinctions that we can make regarding
perception. Yet perception is holistic working as a single process. It is time now for synthesis, for
putting back together our mind-body-emotion system. We will do that by using the unifying Matrix
model and by the process of clustering.
Clustering
As you studied and explored the meta-programs in the previous chapters you may have noticed
similarities between different the meta-programs. Did you? Many people do. Perhaps you noticed one
of the following and wondered about these questions.
C Do those who use the global meta-program distinction inevitably prefer
options. Is this a coincidence or is there a pattern and relationship between these distinctions?
C Do those who prefer the detail meta-program distinction also prefer procedures. Is there a pattern
here? Do they go together? Are they more likely to go together?
C To what extent can we cluster meta-programs?
C Are there family similarities between meta-programs that would allow us to cluster them together?
C If a person has one meta-program, is there a more than likely probability that he or she will have
another meta-program as well?
The Matrix Model
What is the Matrix? It is how the world shows up for us. It is how we internally sense and experience
the world “out there.” The Matrix is the birthplace (“womb,” matrix) where our mind-body-emotion
life is conceived and delivered. It is the place of our frames, and frames within frames. In the Matrix
all of our mental, emotional, and personal frames which we have absorbed and created that defines
for is reality, life, self, and everything else comes together. The matrix is the result of our mapping
from experiences, it is “the world pulled down over our eyes” as we conceive of it—our own unique
model of the world. The Matrix is self-created by our meta-stating. Sure, we absorb much of it from
parents, teachers, culture, media, books, etc., especially early in life. Yet we are the ones absorbing it
and validating those frames and we are the ones who also can recreate it.
The Matrix Model uses this map/territory distinction and these ideas about our invented reality to
formulate a systemic model for unifying all of the patterns and models in NLP and Neuro-Semantics.
It arose from the Meta-States and Frame Games models and uniquely combines the best from the
cognitive-behavioral sciences and developmental psychology to distinguish eight sub-matrices. As a
result, we were able to build a model that included both content and process, story and structure. In
designing the Matrix model we used Cognitive-Behavioral psychology to detail the three process
matrices of Meaning, Intention, and State and we used Developmental or Lifespan psychology to
detail the five content matrices of Self, Other, Power, Time, and World.
The Matrix is a set of frames embedded within frames that make up our total model of the world, it is
our inner mapping of things. As a model, the Matrix model offers a multi-level and multi-dimensional
approach for understanding how we as human meaning-makers function. It identifies the system
dynamics and processes (feedback and feed forward loops, meta-level self-organizing frames,
emergence, etc.) by which we create our sense of reality. These matrices of frames embedded within
frames make up the essence of our personality, attitudes, and perceptions. These govern who we are
and what we are about. They are built around our mind-body-emotion or neuro-linguistic states and
create our higher neuro-semantic states.
The Grounding Matrix:
CCCC State – the foundational matrix that grounds all frames
The Process Matrices:
C Meaning
CCCC Intention, Purpose, Value
The Content Matrices built around special
Concepts:
Structurally, there are eight matrices, three process matrices and five content ones. Yet we only
number seven of them and leave the state matrix unnumbered because everything comes back to and is
grounded in state.1
The Matrix Model
In terms of NLP and Neuro-Semantics, the Matrix model serves as an overarching framework for all
of the models, distinctions, and patterns in these fields. The model enables us to keep track of things,
know what to do when with who and why. In this, we use the structuring of the Matrix to sort things
out and to know where to go when working with ourselves or another. The Matrix model enables us
to organize a large field of information, distinctions, and patterns so that we can work with it as we
provide coaching for a person wanting to develop more expertise in a given area. We use the Matrix
model as a template for gathering and sorting information.
The 7+1 Matrices of our Neuro-Semantic System
As a tool for exploring the higher levels of our mind, our reflexive consciousness, and our
experiences, we use the Matrix to detect, explore, and work with the higher frames that govern the
way we think and perceive (Meta-Programs), the attitudes we adopt and carry with us as our frames
of mind (Meta-States), the language that we use to map our understandings of reality (Meta-Model)
and the cinematic features that we use to encode or represent our mental movies (MetaModalities or
“sub-modalities”). In this the Matrix classifications and dynamics give us a map so we can move
around and follow someone’s energy. The following Matrix questions provides a brief summary at
how we can explore and detect a Matrix.
Process matrices:
1) Meaning/ Spirit Matrix:
2) Intention Matrix:
— State Matrix: What does it mean?
What is its significance?
What do I want? What’s important? What’s my outcome? What’s the purpose? What state are you in?
How are you feeling? How intense is the state?
What triggered the state?
How do you do that?
What do you call this?
What state do you have to be in to do this? How do you get yourself into this state
Content matrices:
3) Self / Identity Matrix: Who am I? What am I like? What’s my nature?
4) Power Matrix What should I do? What can I do? How should I do it? Can I do something?
5) Others/ Relationship Matrix:: Who are others? What are they like? Are they friendly?
6) Time Matrix: Is “time” a friend or enemy?
Do I live in the past, present or the future?
7) World Matrix: What is life, what exists? What is real? What is out there?
Clustering Meta-Programs into the Matrix
C How can we use the Matrix and cluster various meta-programs? C Which meta-programs can we
assume will attract and correspond to other
meta-programs?
Recognizing the inter-relationships between the meta-programs we offer the following clustering of
meta-programs. What follows is 17 clusters of metaprograms. In some of the clustering, there is an
immediate and direct relationship between the meta-programs, in some others the clustering is lest
direct and immediate. We have put these 17 clusters in the matrices of the Matrix model.
The State Matrix:
1) Direction Cluster
#22 Stress Coping: Passive / Aggressive Assertive
#35 Motivation Direction: Toward Values
Away From Values
2) Emotion Cluster #20 Movie State: Inside, feeling
Outside, thinking
#21 Exuberance: Surgency Desurgency
#25 Em. Containment: #53 Responsibility: Multi-Directional Uni-Directional
Balanced Under-Responsible Over-Responsible Healthy Respons.
Irresponsible
3) Process Cluster
#8 Nature: #39 Preference: #13 Causation: #37 Adaptation: Static People, Systems Multi-Causal
Process Information, Things Linear, Magical Perceiving,
Observing Controlling Shaping
#27 Somatic: Active
Reflective Inactive Reactive
The Meaning Matrix: 4) Representation Cluster #1 Representation: Visual
#19 Convincer Rep: Looks Right
#12 Durability:
Permeable Images Auditory
Kinesthetic Language Sounds Right Impermeable Images Feels Right
Makes Sense
5) Scale:
#3 Scale #36 Operational
Global Options
#38 M.O. #14 Completion #37 Adaptation #2 Epistemological
Possibility Closure Perceiving Sensor
General Procedures Desire Non-Closure Judging Intuitor Detail Necessity
Specific Impossibility
6) Causation Cluster
#2 Epistemological #3 Scake Sensor Global Intuitor Specific
#15 Inform. Kind: #4 Relationship: #7 Classif. #9 Focus: Quantitative Matching
Qualitative Mismatching
Either-Or Screening
Continuum Non-Screening
The Intention Matrix:
7) Orientation Cluster
#10 Philosophical #3 Scale #57 Time Zones Why, Origins Global—General How, Solutions
Specific—Details Past, Present,
Future
#38 Modus Operandi Necessity, Impossibility Possibility, Desire
8) Values Cluster
#60 Values #41 Buying List values Cost, Time,
Quality
#29 Dominance Power
Achievement Affiliation
#39 Preference
People, Things, Activities, Time, Places, Information
The Self Matrix:
9) Congruence Cluster #52 Integrity Congruent Incongruent
#28 Social Present. Shrewdly Artful Genuinely Artless
#54 Ego Strength Stable
Unstable
10) Sense of Self Cluster #48 Experience #40 Instruction #51 Esteem #43 Interaction #23 Authority #24 Attention Mind,
Emotions,
Choices, Roles,
Compliant Unconditional
Strong-Willed Conditional
Body, Spirit
Cooperative
Competitive
Internal Self External Other
The Power Matrix:
11) Resource Cluster #6 Scenario Type Optimistic
Pessimistic
#40 Goal Striving Perfectionism Optimizing Skepticism
#38 Modus Operandi Necessity Possibility Impossibility
13) Capabilities Cluster
#29 Dominance #43 Interactive #6 Scenario Type #51 Self-Esteem Power
Achievement Affiliation
The Time Matrix: 13) Sense of Time Cluster #58 Time experience Through (Out of) Time In-Time
Competition Cooperation Scarcity
Abundance Unconditional Conditional
#16 Somatic Response Active
Reflective
Inactive,
Balance
#58 Time Access Sequential Random
#57 Time Zones Past
Present
Future
The Others Matrix:
14) Focus on People Cluster #39 Preference
People
Activity
Information Systems
Time
Things
# 3 0 Wo rk Style Presentation
Team Player
Management
Independent
#26 Rejuvenation # 2 8 S o c i a l
Extrovert Shrewd/Artful Introvert Genuine/ Artless
15) Trust Cluster
#34 Convinc. Dem. #42 Social Convinc. #28 Social Present. #50 Confidence #43 Interactive
Always Trust Trust Trust via Repetition Distrust Genuinely Artless Shrewdly Artful Skills,
Low— High Competencies Cooperative Competitive
16) Communication Cluster
#11 Communication #15 Inform. Kind Digital Words Quantitative Analogue Non-Verbal Qualitative
#26 Rejuvenation Extrovert
Introvert
Ambivert
The World Matrix: 17) The Work Cluster #30 Work Style
Bureaucrat Manager
Team Player
Independent
#29 Dominance Power
Achievement Affiliation
#39 Preference #55 Morality People, Place,
Things, Activity Knowledge, Time Weak Super-ego Strong super-ego Overly Strong
META-PROGRAM CLUSTERS IN THE MATRIX
Summary
• Here we identify conceptual themes like direction, emotion, processing, representation, etc., we
have been able to cluster metaprograms into groups. Noticing similarities in this way gives us more
ways of thinking and classifying meta-programs, more ways to use them in working with clients and
customers.
• Because the Matrix Model provides a unifying framework for all of the processes, models and
patterns in NLP and NeuroSemantics, we have used it as a framework for the clustering of metaprograms.
End Notes:
1. Why seven? Because seven is a more magical number than eight and it sells so much better! Yet
best of all, within these seven categories we are able to include all of the models, patterns, and
distinctions within the fields of NLP and Neuro-Semantics and so provides a unifying framework.
Finale
WHAT COLOR ARE YOUR GLASSES?
If you’ve read all the way through this book, then by now you undoubtedly realize and appreciate the
richness of the Meta-Programs model. Given that, you can now use the following questions as
suggestive of the richness and power that lies in using them in your everyday life. Realizing that you
wear colored glasses everywhere you go, with everyone you meet, and with everything you do, what
color are your glasses?
C What is the tint and hue of your glasses?
C And if our perceptual lens are susceptible to change, refinement, and
enrichment, what changes would you like to make so that the way you see the world truly empowers
you as a person and enriches your life?
C What glasses would you like to design and have available so that you can easily and truly say to
every person you meet, “Ah, yes, I see what you mean!”?
C What glasses would you like to put on so that whenever things don’t go your way, you can
immediately see possibilities and opportunities for learning and action that keeps you motivated and
empowered?
C What prescription lens would you need to have available so that the way you seelife and people
and events enables you to enjoy yourself and give lots of pleasures to others?
C What lens will enable you to see and develop your talents, turning them into skills that you can then
passionately give yourself to?
C How broad is the range of your choices of glasses for perceiving?
C What color are your learning glasses?
C What color are your loving glasses?
C What color are your implementation glasses?
Appendix A
QUESTIONS FOR ELICITING META-PROGRAMS
The Mental Meta-Programs:
1) When you think about something or learn something new, which sensory channel do you prefer—visual, auditory, or kinesthetic? Or do
you prefer words and language over the senses?
2) When you listen to a speech or conversation, do you tend to hear the specific data given or do you intuit what the speaker must mean
and/or intend? Do you want to hear proof and evidence since you take more interest in your intuitions about it? Which do you find more
important —the actual or the possible? Upon what basis do you make most of your decisions —the practical or abstract possibilities?
Representation Style __Visual __Auditory __Kinesthetic __Language
Epistemology: __Sensor
__Intuitor
What source of knowledge do you consider authoritative and most reliable? From where would you gather reliable information that you
can trust? When you decide that you need to do something where do you get the information to do it from? __Experiencing
__Modeling __Conceptualizing __Authorizing
3) When you pick up a book or think about attending a workshop, what do you pay attention to first—the big picture, book cover, or
specific details about its value?
If we decided to work together on a project, would you first want to know what we generally will do or would you prefer to hear about a
lot of the specifics?
Scale: __Global __Specific
4) How do you perceive things when you first attempt to understand something new to you? Do you look first for similarities and match
up the new with what you already know? Or do you first check out the differences? Or do you first do one pattern and then immediately
do
the other?
Relationship Comparison:
__Matching Sameness __Mismatching Differences Matching with some Difference
Mismatching with some Sameness
5) What’s your basic perceptual style when something good happens—do you count it or discount it? Do you acknowledge it and
celebrate it or think about how it could have been better?
Information Staging: __ Counting __ Discounting
6) When you look at a problem, do you tend first to consider the worst case scenario or the best? The problems and difficulties Direction:
__Optimist
or the opportunities and positive challenges? __Pessimist
7) When you think about things or make decisions, do you tend to operate in black-and-white categories or does your mind go to the steps
and stages that lie in between? Which do you value most?
Classification Scale: __Black-White __Continuum
Nature: 8) When you think about reality, do you tend to think about it as something permanent and solid made up of things or do you think
of it as a dance of electrons, fluid,
ever-changing, made up of processes?
__Aristotelian – Static
__Non-Aristotelian – Process
9) When you think about the kind of places where you can study or read, can you do this everywhere or do you find that some places
seem too noisy or have too many of some other stimuli? Describe your favorite environment for concentrating on something? How
distractible do you find yourself generally in life?
Focus: __Screening __Non-Screening
10) When you think about a subject (whether a problem or not), do you first think about causation, source, and origins (why), or do you
think about use, function, direction, destiny (how)?
11) When you think about communicating with somebody, what do you tend to give more importance to—what they say or how they say
it? When you communicate, do
you pay more attention to the words and phrases that you use or to your tone, tempo, volume, eye contact, etc.? When you hear someone
say something that seems incongruent with how they express it, and you don't know which message to go with, which do you tend to
favor as the more 'real' message?
Philosophical: __Origins/ Why __Solutions/ How
Communication: __Verbal / Digital __Non-Verbal / Analogue
12) As you begin to think about some of your mental constructs, your ideas of success and failure, of love and forgiveness, of
relationships and work, of your personal qualities, do you find the representations of what you know permanent or unstable? How can
you tell? Think about something that you know without a doubt—about yourself. Now think of something that you know but with doubts
and questions.
Durability __Permeable __Impermeable
13) What causes things? When something happens, good or bad, to you or a member of the family, what do you attribute it to? Luck,
preparation, prayer, lots of things, etc.?
Causation: __ Causeless __ Personal Complex Causal __ External __ Magical __ Correlation
14) If, in the process of studying something, you had to break off your study and leave it, would this settle well or feel very disconcerting?
When someone begins a story but doesn't complete it, how do you feel about that? When you get involved in a project, do you find
yourself more interested in the beginning, middle, or end of the project? What part of a project do you enjoy most?
Completion: __Closure __Non-Closure
15) How would you evaluate your work as of today? How would you evaluate things in your relationship? How do you know the quality
of your work? Upon what basis do you say that?
16) How do you generally experience your flow of thoughts and emotions? Is it clear, focused, and concentrated or is it more diffused,
scattered, and even “all over the place?”
Information Kind: __Quantitative __Qualitative
Stream of Consciousness: __ Focused __ Diffused
17) How important is fitting in with others to you? How much of your mental time do you spend thinking about being accepted by others?
Conventional: __ Conformist
__Non-Conformist
18) Are you a quick thinker and speaker? Do you typically jump to conclusions when you listen or read? Are you more of a slow and
deliberate thinking who weighs things carefully?
Speed: __ Slow __ Medium __ Quick
The Emotional Meta-Programs:
19) What leads you to accept the believability of a thing? Convincer Representation: Something about it looks right, sound right, makes
__Looks Right sense, feels right to you? __Sounds Right
__Feels Right __Makes Sense
20) As you think about an event in a work situation that once gave Movie Position: you trouble. What experience surrounding work
would you __Associated feeling say has given you the most pleasure or delight? How do Stepping in you normally feel while at work?
When you make a decision, __Dissociated thinking do you rely more on reason and logic or personal values or something else?
21) When you think about a situation at work or in your personal affairs that seem risky or involving the public's eye, __Desurgency,
Timid, Controlled what thoughts-and-feelings immediately come to mind? __Surgency, Bold, Charismatic Stepping out
Exuberance:
22) When you feel threatened, or challenged, by some stress,
do you immediately respond, on the emotional level, by wanting to get away from it or to go at it? Invite the person to tell you
about several specific instances when he or she faced a high stress situation. Do you detect a "go at" or "go away from" response to it?
Stress Coping: __Passivity __Aggressive __ Assertive
23) When you have to make up your mind about something, do you tend to look inside to decide or outside?
Authority: __ Internal __ External
24) Where do you put most of your attention as you move through the world, on yourself or on others?
Attention: __Self-Reference
__Other-Reference
25) When you think about a time when you experienced an Emotional Containment: emotional state (positive or negative), does that bleed
over __Uni-directional and affect some or all of your other emotional states, or does __Multi-directional it stay pretty focused so that it
relates to its object?
26) When you feel the need to recharge your batteries, do you Rejuvenation: prefer to do it alone or with others? __Extrovert
__Ambivert
__Introvert
27) When you come into a new situation, do you usually act Somatic Response: quickly after sizing it up or do you do a detailed study of
__ Reactive all the consequences before acting? __ Active
__ Reflective __ Inactive
28) When you think about going out into a social group or out Social Presentation: in public, how do you generally handle yourself? Do
you really __ Shrewdly Artful care about your social image and want to avoid any negative _Diplomatic impact on others so that they
recognize your tact, politeness, social _ Artless Genuinely graces, etc.? Or do you not really care about any of that and Rough just want
"to be yourself," natural, forthright, direct, transparent,
etc.?
29) Evaluate your motives in interacting with others in Dominance: terms of your motivational preferences between Power (dominance,
__ Power competition, politics), Affiliation (relationship, courtesy, __ Affiliation cooperation) and Achievement (results, goals, objectives)
and __ Achievement using 100 points as your scale, distribute those hundred points
among these three styles of handling "power.
30) (A) Do you know what you need in order to feel and Work Style: function more successfully at work? __Independence (B) Do you
know what someone else needs in order to feel and __Team Player function more successfully? __Manager (C) Do you find it easy or
not to tell a person that? __ Bureaucrat
31) How open or closed are you to change? Do you like or hate change? Change Adaptor: When things change, do you naturally want to
resist or embrace it? __ Closed, late adaptor Open, early adaptor
32) What is your basic attitude or disposition to life, playful or serious? Would others at work, home, business, sports, say that you are
mostly serious or playful?
Attitude: __ Serious __ Playful
33) How patient or impatient are you when the pressure is on? When time pressures or other stresses rise, do you hold the course or
become reactive and impatient?
Persistence: __ Impatient, Reckless __ Patient, Persistent
The Deciding Meta-Programs:
34) How many times does it take you before you feel convinced Convincer Demonstration: enough about a purchase to act on it and buy
it?
What length of time do you usually wait before purchasing something significant?
35) What do you want in a job (relationship, car, etc.)? What do you want to do with your life?
__ Number of Times __ Length of Time
Motivation Direction __Toward, Approach __Away From, Avoidance
36) Why did you choose your car? (or job, town, etc.). Organization Style: __Options __Procedures
37) Do you like to live life spontaneously as the spirit moves Adaptation: you or according to a plan? Regarding doing a project together,
__Judging, Controlling would you prefer we first outline and plan it out in an orderly __Perceiving, Releasing fashion or would you prefer
to just begin to move into it and
flexibly adjust to things as we go?
38) How did you get up this morning? What did you say to Modus Operandi: yourself just before you got up? __Necessity __Possibility
__Impossibility __ Desire 39) What would you find as really important in how you choose Preference: to spend your next two week
vacation? What kinds of things, __People people, activities, etc. would you want present for you to evaluate __Place it as really great?
Tell me about your favorite restaurant. __Things __Activity __Information __ Systems
40) Tell me about a goal that you have set and how did Goal Striving: You go about making it come true? If you sat a goal today to
__Skepticism accomplish something of significance, how would you begin to __Optimizing work on it? __Perfection
41) What do you tend to primarily concern yourself with–the Buying: price, time, or quality, or some combination of two of __Cost these
when you consider making a purchase? __Time
__Quality
42) When you think about meeting someone new, do you Social Convincer: immediately have a sense of trust and openness to the
person, __Distrusting or thoughts and feelings of distrust, doubt, questions, __Trusting jealousy, insecurity, etc.?
44) How direct or indirect are you in your communications? Directness: Do you often imply things or listen in terms of what you infer
from__ Inferential, High Context others? __ Direct, Low Context
43) When you come into a situation, how do you usually Interactive: respond? Is it with a sense of cooperation or competition?
__Competitive How competitive are you? What would others say about you? __Cooperative Do you respond with a sense that you want
others to win or to lose?
45) What is your style of managing or directing others? Management: Do you like to control, delegate, or seek collaboration from the
group? __ Control What’s your preference? What do you feel most natural doing? __ Delegate
__ Collaborative
46) How much of a risk-taker are you? What is your basic attitude and response to risks in life?
47) How decisive or indecisive are you. Do you make decisions on the spot in a self-assured way, or are you more cautious and
indecisive?__ Indecisive, Cautious __ Decisive, Bold
The Semantic Meta-Programs
48) How do you experience yourself in terms of your mind, emotions, body, roles?
Self-Experience: __Mind __Emotions __Body __Roles __ Disidentified
49) Can someone “tell” you or order you to do something? How do you think and feel when you receive 'instructions?'" "How well can
you “tell” or order yourself to do something and you carry it out without a lot of internal resistance about it?
Self Instruction: __Strong-Will __Complaint __ Balance
50) As you think about some of the things that you can do well and that you know, without a doubt, you can do well and may even take
pride in your ability to do them well, make a list of those items. How confident do you feel about your skill in doing these things?
Risk Taking: __ Fearful, Adversive __ Excitement, Embracer
Decision:
Self-Confidence: __High Confidence __Low Confidence
51) Do you think of your value as a person as conditional or unconditional? When you esteem yourself as valuable, worthwhile, having
dignity, etc. do you do it based upon something or view it as a given?
52) When you think about how well or how poorly you live up to your ideals and in actualizing your ideal self, do you feel pretty
__Conflicted, Incongruent integrated, congruous, doing a good job in living true to your values __Integrated, Congruent and visions or do
you feel torn, conflicted, un-integrated, incongruous?
Self-Esteem: __Unconditional __Conditional
Self-Integrity:
53) When you think about having and owning responsibility for something in a work situation or personal relationship, what thoughts and
emotions occur to you? Has someone ever held you responsible for something that went wrong that felt very __Under-Responsibility
negative to you? What positive experiences can you remember
about someone holding you responsible for something?
54) When you think about some difficulty arising in everyday life, a disappointment, problem, frustrating difficulty that will block your
progress, etc., what usually comes to mind? How do you typically respond to internal needs or external hardships?
Responsibility: __Over-Responsibility Balance, Dependable
55) How conscientious are you? When something goes wrong that you were involved in, do you start examining yourself, what you did,
what you can do to make amends? How easily __ Strong super-ego (Balance) can you admit an error and face up to it? How sensitive is
your conscience?
Ego Strength Sort __Unstable, Weak __Stable, Strong
Morality/ Consciousness: __ Overly strong super-ego
__ Weak Super-ego
56) How well do you know yourself? How often do you monitor yourself, your emotions, states, thoughts, beliefs, etc.?
Self-Monitoring: __ Low, External __ High, Internal
57) Where do you put most of your attention—on the past, present, or future? Or, have you developed an atemporal attitude so that you
don't attend to “time” at all?
Time Tenses __Past __Present __Future
58) Do you represent “time” as coming into you and intersected with your body, or outside of yourself and body?
Do you represent 'time' as coming into you and intersected with your body, or outside of yourself and body?
Time Experience __In Time
__Through Time __Random __Sequential
59) What is the central focus of your life, on what you do, what you have, or your sense of being? If you put doing, being, and having into
a circle, how much percentage would you put on each focus?
Quality of Life: __ Being __ Doing
__ Having
60) As you think about this X (a thing, person, event, experience, etc.) what do you evaluate as valuable, important, or significant about
this?
Value:
List Values
Appendix B
META-PROGRAMS AND SATIR CATEGORIES
In a mind-body-emotional state there are two dimensions—intention and attention, together they
make up “will,” fundamental components of our mindbody states. A state also involves numerous
meta-levels (meta-states) which set its form or pattern and so structures what it displays in our
behaviors. We not only "think" by what we notice and input and represent as a mental movie, we then
frame it at many levels. We incorporate these messages in our body. That is, we somatize our thoughts
into feelings, intuitions, skills, and output them in language and actions.
In this, our attention is focused mostly on the things we input and output. We input data as feedback
information to ourselves. With this feedback we build up our internal world with our inner movies
and all our frames. Then we feed that information forward through out mind-body system so that we
somatize the ideas in our body. From there, we feed them forward into the outer world in terms of our
talk, gestures, and behaviors.
In the first edition of Figuring Out People, I created a category of meta-programs the “response”
programs. In that class I put a number of the meta-programs indicating a favorite or preferred way of
responding. In this second edition, I have put these in the category of the emotional meta-programs.
Why this change? Because while we obviously pay attention to and sort for our social context, the
way we communicate and respond are not so much meta-programs as the results or behaviors of
meta-programs.
There is a recursiveness as noted in the first edition. True enough, we do notice and perceive the way
we output in our talking and communicating, our somatizing, acting, behaving, gesturing, and social
interacting. Further, consciousness and mind does not occur solely in the head, but also in our body.
Bateson (1972, 1976), Jerome Bruner (1990), and other theorists emphasize that "mind" is located not
only inside the skull of an individual, but also systemically in the immediate physical and cultural
environment. Thinking of "mind" as transcending the brain of course offers a radically different
perspective.
When Bateson (1972) asked about "mind" and "self" he illustrated with the walking stick of a blind
man.
". . . ask anybody about the localization and boundaries of the self . . . consider a blind man with a
stick. Where does the blind man's self begin?
At the tip of the stick? halfway up the stick? is a pathway along which differences are transmitted
under transformation, so that to draw a delimiting line across this pathway is to cut off a part of the
systemic circuit which determines the blind man's locomotion. Similarly, his sense organs are
transducers or pathways for information, as also are his axons, etc. From a systems-theoretic point of
view, it is a misleading metaphor to say that what travels in an axon is an 'impulse.' It would be more
correct to say that what travels is a difference, or a transform of a difference."
The total self-corrective unit which processes information, or, as I say, 'thinks' and 'acts' and
'decides,' is a system whose boundaries do not at all coincide with the boundaries either of the body
or of what is popularly called the 'self' or 'consciousness'; and it is important to notice that there are
multiple differences between the thinking system and the 'self' as popularly conceived . . . The
network is not bounded by the skin but includes all external pathways along which information can
travel." (pp. 318-319)
At the handle of the stick? Or at some point
These questions are nonsense, because the stick
I mentioned this aspect of "mind" as a cultural construct in my doctoral dissertation (1996) suggesting
that it leads us to think about our "self" and our consciousness in a very different way. Normally, we
think of the "self" and "mind" as inside our heads rather than as part of the walking stick or as part of
our cultural constructs. Notice Bruner’s (1990) comments:
"It is man's participation in culture and the realization of his mental powers through culture that make
it impossible to construct a human psychology on the basis of the individual alone. . . . Clyde
Kluckhohn used to insist, human beings do not terminate at their own skins; they are expressions of a
culture. To treat the world as an indifferent flow of information to be processed by individuals each
on his or her own terms is to lose sight of how individuals are formed and how they function. Or to
quote Gertz again, 'there is no such thing as a human nature independent of culture.'" (12)
Our mind-body-emotion operating systems of our meta-programs do not occur in a vacuum, but in a
socio-political, spiritual, and personal context. Given that our self-reflexive consciousness is always
reflecting back onto its own thoughts-andemotions, and actions—our interactive responses in the
world can be viewed as part of what makes up a large element of "mind." As a more expansive model
for understanding "mind," we classified some meta-programs as the response metaprograms in the
first edition. One that we eliminated from the list of metaprograms entirely is the Satir Categories or
communication stances. We include this because we mentioned this list of communication styles in the
text several times.
The Satir Communication Stances of
Blamer, Placater, Distracter, Computer, Leveler
Description: Because communication involves both content and style, family systems therapist
Virginia Satir distinguished five styles of communicating. These basic modes of communicating
involve four that are typically ineffective and non-productive although on occasion we may put them
to good use. She called this styles placating, blaming, computing, and distracting and designated the
healthy mode leveling.
Elicitation:
C How do you typically communicate?
C What stance or mode do you adopt when talking, inquiring, listening,
working through conflicts, asserting your desires?
C To what extend do you placate, blame, compute, distract, or level?
Identification:
1) Placating refers to soothing, pleasing, pacifying, and making concessions. When a person has to
please, he behaves as if addicted to the approval of others.
Emotionally, placators feel frightened that others will get angry, go away, or reject them. So they talk
in an ingratiating way, trying always to please, forever apologizing, and never disagreeing. Verbally
their words aim to agree and please. The placating posture seems to say, "I'm helpless and
worthless." Placators wiggle, fidget, lean. Like cocker spaniel puppies, they desperately want to
please.
To try the placating stance on, think-and-feel as if you are a worthless nothing. Act like a "Yes Man."
Talk as though you can do nothing for yourself and as if you must always get approval. Tell yourself,
"I'm lucky just to be allowed to eat." "I owe everybody gratitude." "I feel totally responsible for
everything that goes wrong." "I could have stopped the rain if I only used my brains, but I don't have
any." Agree with all criticism made about you. Act in the most syrupy, martyrish, bootlicking way that
you can.
Imagine yourself down on one knee, wobbling a bit, putting out your hand in a begging fashion, with
head up so your neck hurts and eyes begin to strain so in no time at all you'll get a headache. Talking
from this position your voice will sound whiny and squeaky. You won't have enough air to keep a
rich, full voice. Then say, "Oh, you know me, I don't care." "Whatever anybody else wants is fine
with me." "What do I want to do? I don't know. What would you like to do?"
2) Blaming refers to finding fault, dictating, and bossing. The blamer acts superior and sends out the
message, "If it weren't for you, everything would be all right." Blamers feel that nobody cares about
them. Internally, blamers feel tightness in muscles and organs which indicate rising blood pressure. A
blamer's voice is usually hard, tight, shrill, and loud.
To try on the blamer stance, adopt a loud and tyrannical voice; cut everything and everyone down;
point with your finger accusingly. never do this, you always do that, why don't you. answer and treat
any answer as unimportant. Take more interest in throwing your weight around rather than finding out
about anything.
Start sentences with, "You Don't even bother about an
Blamers breathe in little tight spurts, holding their breath often. This makes the throat muscles tight. A
first-rate blamer has eyes that bulge, neck muscles and nostrils that stand out; they get red in the face,
and their voice gets hoarse. Stand with one hand on your hip, the other arm extended with index finger
pointed straight out. Screw up your face, curl your lip, flare your nostrils, call names and criticize.
Then say, "You never consider my feelings." "Nobody around here ever pays any attention to me."
"Do you always have to put yourself first." "Why can't you think about anybody but yourself?"
Blamers use lots of parental words: never, nothing, nobody, everything, none.
3) Computing means to taking a detached attitude toward your emotions. The computer focuses on
responding in a very correct and reasonable way that shows no semblance of feelings. He responds
calmly, coolly, and as collected as Mr. Spock of Star Trek, the ideal model of computing. In
computing, the body feels dry and cool; the voice sounds monotone, and the words will be abstract.
Typically people get into this stance out of fear of their feelings.
To try on the computer stance, use the longest words possible (after one paragraph no one continues
to listen anyway). Imagine your spine as a long heavy steel rod. Keep everything as motionless as
possible. Let your voice go dead, have no feeling from the cranium down. "There's undoubtedly a
simple solution to the problem." "It's obvious that the situation is being exaggerated." "Clearly the
advantages of this activity have been made manifest." "Preferences of this kind are rather common in
this area."
The stepping back into an observing state of the computer mode offers a valuable stance for defusing
someone when you need objectivity rather than awareness of your emotions. Play anthropologist or
scientist and use a lot of big vague words. To the indirect criticism, "Some people really don't know
when to stop talking," respond in full computer mode, "That is undoubtedly an interesting idea and
certainly true of some people."
4) Distracting means responding in an unpredictable way that always alters and interrupts others and
oneself. The distracter will cycle rapidly among the other patterns and constantly shifts modes.
Whatever the distracter does or says has no relevance to what anyone else says or does. His internal
feeling will involve dizziness and panic. The voice often takes on a singsong style, one out of tune
with the words and which goes up and down without reason. It focuses nowhere. The distracter will
alternate between blaming, placating, and leveling and will then move into irrelevance. This makes
for the relational pattern of "crazymaking" (common to "borderline" cases).
To try on this distracting stance, think of yourself as a kind of lopsided top, constantly spinning, but
going nowhere. Keep busy moving your mouth, body, arms, and legs. Ignore questions, or come back
on a different subject. Start picking lint off the other's garment. Put your knees together in an
exaggerated, knock-kneed fashion. This will bring your buttocks out and makes it easy for you to
hunch your shoulders.
5) Leveling means communicating and relating in an assertive way so that one's words and actions
straightforwardly, directly, and forthrightly expresses one's true and honest state. A genuine leveling
response communicates messages congruently so that one's words matches one's facial expressions,
body posture, and voice tone. This makes relationships non-threatening, more caring, and capable of
true intimacy.
Language: Except for leveling, these patterns reveal a mismatch between the way the person feels on
the inside and the way he expresses it in language and behavior. As a guideline, two persons using the
same Satir stance will go nowhere in their communications. So, except for the leveling mode, do not
match the Satir mode coming at you. When you match a Satir mode it will intensify it. For an
extensive use of these stances, see The Structure of Magic, Vol. II where Bandler and Grinder relate
them to representational systems and the meta-model.
Contexts of Origin: These communicating stances develop from our social imprinting by significant
persons and the pain and/or pleasure attached to them. Appendix C
META-PROGRAMS DRIVER GRID
Use the following grid to identify someone’s meta-programs. As a way of highlighting the most
influential and the driving meta-programs in a given context, put a check mark (/) by the ones that are
influential and an asterisk (*) by any meta-program that is a driver.
Mental Processing:
1) Representing: VAK — Ad ___________________
2) Sensor — Intuitor ___________________
3) Global — Specific details ___________________
4) Matching — Mis-matching ___________________
5) Counting — Discounting ___________________
6) Optimist (best) — Pessimist (worst)
___________________
7) Black-White — Continuum ___________________
8) Static — Process ___________________
9) Focus: Screening — Non-screening ___________________
10) Origins (why) — Solution (how) ___________________
11) Verbal — Non-verbal ___________________
12) Permeable — Impermeable ___________________
13) Causation: Linear, causeless, Complex, ___________________ Personal, Magical, Correlation ___________________
14) Closure — Non-closure ___________________
15) Quantitative — Qualitative ___________________
16) Focused — Diffused ___________________
17) Conformist — Non-conformist __________________
18) Speed: slow, medium, fast ___________________
Emotional Filters:
19) Convincer Representation ___________________
20) Movie position: inside — outside ___________________
21) Desurgency — Surgency ___________________
22) Passive— Assertive — Aggressive __________________
23) Authority: Internal — External ___________________
24) Attention: Self — Other ___________________
25) Em. Containment: Uni- — Multiple
26) Extrovert — Ambivert — Introvert
31) Change: Closed — Open ___________________
32) Attitude: Serious — Playful ___________________
33) Persistence: Impatient — Patient ___________________
___________________
27) Active — Reflective — Inactive ___________________
28) Shrewd-Artful/ Genuine-Artless ___________________
29) Power, Achievement, Affiliation ___________________
30) Work: Independent, Team Player, Manager ___________________
Choosing Filters
34) Convincer Demonstration: number, time ___________________
35) Motivation: Toward — Away From ___________________
36) Organization Style: Options — Procedures ___________________
37) Adaptation: Judger — Perceiver ___________________
38) Impossibility, Necessity, Desire, Possibility ___________________
39) People, Place, Things, Activity, Information ___________________
40) Goal: Skepticism, Optimizing, Perfection ___________________
41) Buying: Cost, Quality, Time ___________________
42) Social Convincer: Distrusting — Trusting ___________________
43) Competitive — Cooperative ___________________
44) Context: High (Inferential) — Low (Direct) ___________________
45) Management: Control, Delegate, Collaborative _________________
46) Risk: Adversive — Embracer ___________________
47) Decision: Cautious — Bold ___________________
Semantic Filtering:
48) Self: Mind, Body, Emotions,. Roles, ___________________
49) Instruction: Compliant — Strong-will ___________________
50) Confidence: Low — High ___________________
51) Unconditional — Conditional ___________________
52) Integrity: Conflicted — Integrated ___________________
53) Responsibility: Under, Balanced, Over ___________________
54) Ego-Strength: Weak (unstable)—Strong (Stable) __________________
55) Morality: Weak, Strong, Overly ___________________
56) Monitoring: Low external — high Internal ___________________
57) Time Zones: Past, Present, Future ___________________
58) In-Time Random — Through-Time Sequential ___________________
59) Quality: Be, Do, Have ___________________
60) List of Values ___________________
Appendix D
META-PROGRAMS PROFILING GRID
To profile someone for a job, task, or experience, the following fifteen questions offers a quick and
focused approach to eliciting meta-programs.
1) Motivation Direction (#35):
C What do you want? What outcome do you really want? C What do you want in a car (relationship,
home)? C What’s important to you about achieving this?
2) Modal Operators (#38):
C Why did you choose to go into your line of work? C What motivates you to exercise regularly (if
you do)? C Why don’t you exercise (if you don’t)?
___ Toward
___ Away From
___ Possibility ___ Desire ___ Necessity ___ Impossibility
3) Preference (#39):
C What do you prefer to work with: things, people, ___ Things information, systems, or activities?
___ People
C What’s first on your mind when you plan a holiday or vacation? ___ Places
C When it comes to dining out, what do you focus on first ___ Information or most? ___ Systems
Activities
4) Scale (#3):
C If we were going to do a project together, what would you want to know first, ___ Global the
details or the overall purpose?
C What do you consider first in deciding about a job, the specifics or the overall design? ___
Specifics
5) Relationship Comparison (#4):
C What is the relationship between your current job and ___ Difference what you did last year?
C What is the relationship between where you live now and ___ Same your previous home?
C When you start something new (job, book, study, relationship), do you notice the similarities or the
differences first?
6) Authority Source (#23):
C How do you know when you’ve done a good job? C What convinces you that you have succeeded
at a goal?
7) Attention (#24):
C In relationships do you find yourself primarily attending to your needs or others? ___ Self
C If there’s a conflict of interest, do you focus on your ___ Other needs or those of others? ___ I
know
C How easy or hard is it to attend to others? ___ They say so To attend to self? ___ Others say so
___ Internal __ External
8) Convincer Representation (#19):
C How do you know that someone else has done a good job? ___ See C How do you know when you
ought to act on an opportunity? ___ Hear
___ Feel 9) Convincer Demonstration (#34):
C How often does someone have to demonstrate
competence to convince you?
C How long does it take for you to know that a big ticket item is right for you?
___ No. of times ___ Consistently
___ Automatically
10) Somatic (#27):
C When you come into a new situation, do you typically size it up and act quickly
or do you study things in detail and then take action?
C How do you typically respond when something needs to be done?
___ Active ___ Reflective ___ Inactive
11) Work Style (#30):
C 1) Do you know what you need to increase your chances for success on a job?
2) Do you know what someone else needs to function more successfully?
3) Do you know how to effective communicate that to them? Is that easy or hard for you?
4) Do you have a sense or vision of what else is possible in the future?
C When were you the happiest in a work situation? C When you describe a great single event at work,
what stands out for you?
12) Rejuvenation (#26):
C How do you get yourself back in a positive mood when you’ve been down?
C What things do you do to “recharge your batteries” ___ Independence
___ Dependent
___ Team Player ___ Manager
___ Bureaucrat
___ Extrovert when you’ve given a lot of yourself?
C How do you re-motivate yourself after a challenging or upsetting experience?
13) Stress Coping (#22):
C What creates stress for you in a job or relationship? C What pushes your buttons and evokes you to
become reactive or defensive?
C How do you feel and act when distressed, upset, or threatened? ___ Introvert
___ Balance
___ Aggressive __ Passive
14) Time Zone (#57):
C How much of your mental and emotional time do you ____ Past live in the past, present, and future?
___ Present
C What percentages would you ascribe to these three areas ___ Future if we divide them into a
circle?
15) Time Experience (#58):
C How easy or difficult is it for you to get lost in the moment? ___ In Time C Do you just know what
time it is even without
C checking a watch or clock? ___ Through (Out of) Time
16) Operational Style (#36)
C Why did you choose your current job? Your car? Your home? __Options C Do you prefer inventing things as you go or following a
well-developed plan? __Procedures
Appendix E
META-PROGRAM PROFILING SUMMARY
In the following, put a circle around the meta-program that you prefer. Put the number that you
experience it from 0 to 10. If it is a driver meta-program, circle and put an asterisk (*).
THE COGNITIVE OR THINKING META-PROGRAMS: #1. Representational:
Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic, Language __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#2. Epistemological:
Sensors—Intuitors;
Experiencing, Modeling, Conceptualizing __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#3. Scale:
General Global — Detail Specifics __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#4. Relationship Comparison: Matching — Mismatching __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#5. Information Staging:
Counting — Discounting __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#6. Scenario Type:
Pessimist — Optimist;
Worst — Best Case; Scarcity —Abundance __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#7. Classification Scale:
Black-and-white — Continuum __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#8. Nature:
Static — Process; __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
Aristotelian — Non-Aristotelian #9. Focus:
Screening — Non-screening __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#10. Philosophical:
Why (Origins) — How (Solution) __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#11. Communication Channel: Verbal — Non-Verbal __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#12. Durability Sort:
Permeable — Impermeable __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#13. Causation:
Causeless, Linear, Complex, Personal,
External, Magical, Correlational __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program #14. Completion:
Closure — Non-Closure __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#15. Information Kind:
Quantitative — Qualitative __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#16. Stream of Consciousness: Focus — Diffused __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#17. Conventional:
Conformist — Non-Conformist __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#18. Speed:
Deliberate and Slow __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
Witty and Quick
THE EMOTIONAL META-PROGRAMS:
#19. Convincer Representation:
Looks, Sounds, or Feels Right — Makes Sense __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#20. Movie Position:
Associated feelings — Dissociated thinking;
Step in — Step out
__ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver MetaProgram
#21. Exuberance:
Desurgency — Surgency __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#22. Stress Coping:
Passive, Assertive, Aggression __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#23. Authority Source: Internal — External __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#24. Attention:
Self — Other __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#25. Emotional Containment:
Uni-directional — Multi-directional __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#26. Rejuvenation:
Introvert — Balance — Extrovert __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#27. Somatic:
Reflective, Active, Inactive __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#28. Social Presentation:
Shrewdly artful — Artlessly genuine __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#29. Dominance:
Power, Achievement, Affiliation __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#30. Work Style:
Independent, Team player, Manager, Bureaucrat __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#31. Change Adaptor:
Closed — Open;
Late—Medium— Early Adaptors __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#32. Attitude:
Serious — Playful __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#33. Persistence:
Impatient — Patient; Reckless — Persistent __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
THE CHOOSING META-PROGRAMS #34. Convincer Demonstration:
Number of times
Length of time
__ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#35. Motivation Direction:
Toward — Away From; Approach — Avoidance #36. Operational Style:
Options — Procedures __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#37. Adaptation:
Judging — Perceiving __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#38. Modus Operandi:
Necessity, Possibility, Desire,
Possibility, Impossibility __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#39. Preference:
People, Place, Things, Activity, Information __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#40. Goal Striving:
Skeptic, Optimization, Perfectionism __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#41. Buying:
Cost, Quality, Time __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#42. Social Convincer:
Distrusting — Trusting __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#43. Interactive:
Competitive — Cooperative
Win/Lose — Win/Win __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#44. Directness:
Inferential — Direct
High — Low Context __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#45. Management:
Control, Delegate, Collaborative __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#46. Risk Taking:
Fearful — Excitement; Aversive — Embracer __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#47. Decision Making: Cautious — Bold __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
THE SEMANTIC META-PROGRAMS #48. Self-Experience:
Mind, Emotions, Choices, Body,
Dis-Identified, Spirit
__ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#49. Self-Instruction:
Compliant — Strong-Will __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#50. Self-Confidence:
Low — High
Conditioned on what skills? __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#51. Self-Esteem:
Conditional — Unconditional __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#52. Self-Integrity:
Conflicted incongruity —
Harmonous integrated __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#53. Responsibility:
Under-Responsible— Healthy Responsibility
Over Responsible __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#54. Ego Strength:
Unstably Weak — Stable and Strong __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#55. Morality:
Weak, Strong, Overly strong
super-ego
__ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#56. Self-Monitoring:
Low — High;
internal — External __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __ Driver Meta-Program
#57. Time Zones:
Past, Present, Future __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 __
Driver Meta-Program
#58. Time Experience:
In-Time Random —
Through-Time Sequential __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 Driver Meta-Program
#59. Quality of life:
Be — Do — Have __ Degree of Intensity: 0 to 10 Driver Meta-Program
#60. Values:
What one deems important
Appendix F
THE META-DETECTIVE GAME
The Meta-Detective Game was developed in 2002 and went into production as a board game, the
onlyMeta-Program board game in the world, in 2004. The following offers a description of the
Game and the Rules of the Game. You can purchase the Game through Neuro-Semantic Publications,
Crown House Publications, and other NLP training centers.
Welcome to the Meta-Detective Game!
Are you ready to learn to detect meta-programs in yourself and others? The design of this board game
is so that you have lots of fun learning, detecting, and working with meta-programs. So are you ready
for some fun? The design is also to allow you to recognize and work with the distinctions known as
meta-programs by detecting them in others and by using them in yourself as you play the game.
As you open up the Meta-Detective Game, you will find the following items: C The Meta-Detective
Game: The Rules of the Game
C The Meta-Detective Board
C The Meta-Program Cards (there are 138 of them)
C The Activity Cards
C A packet of dice and 6 little pieces to move on the board until you reach MetaLand!
THE RULES OF THE GAME
1) GAME SET UP:
1) With 2 or more players, set out the Meta-Detective Board Game, along with the set of MetaProgram Cards and Activity Cards.
2) Role the dice to decide who goes first— high number goes first.
2) THE META-PROGRAM CARDS:
1) As you begin, decide how many of the meta-program cards you want to play with and then sort out
those cards from the deck so that you can useonly those that you pick.
2) If you already know the meta-programs, skip this step. If meta-programs are new to you, then begin
by reading or refreshing yourself about the meta-program cards that you select. Start with say 5 of
them. Then select out those cards and use those and only those as cards for the stack from which you
will draw.
3) When beginning the game, each player draws a number of cards (2 for beginners, 3 to 5 for
medium play, and 7 for advanced play).
4) If you draw two Cards of the same meta-program, put one into the stack and draw another Card.
5) Let say you begin by drawing only 2 cards, you will throw the dice, and then draw the Activity
Card as determined by the color of the spot you land on. You can use or present the meta-programs
that you drew one by one or as a package. When the others guess the meta-program, put it down—they
get a point for that, as do you. Then go to the next. If they are not getting it, move to another card.
6) As you add more Meta-Programs, add more cards until you can play with the entire deck of cards.
7) When you put the Activity Cards out on the table, turn them upside down and fan them open. When
you land on a color, pick an Activity Card that corresponds to that color.
8) Create a place for two stacks of cards. The Drawing Cards will be the first stack, the Discarded
Cardswill be the second stack. When all of the Drawing Cards are gone, then shuffle the Discarded
Cards and put them out as Drawing Cards.
3) THE ACTIVITY CARDS:
1) These are the set of color-coded cards that ask you as the player to engage in some activity.
Activities are divided between Beginning and Advanced Playing.
2) When playing, your aim is to communicate the meta-programs that you have drawn, but do not do
so by specifically mentioning the meta-program or using any language which is too obvious.
Beginning Level Activities:
Making a Request:
Using the cards, make a request of the person to your left as if you have the meta-programs you drew.
Asking for a Date:
Ask the person to your right for a date assuming that he or she has the metaprograms you drew.
Planning a Trip:
Pretend you are planning a trip and operate from the meta-programs you drew, then do your planning
by talking out loud.
Advanced Level Activities:
In each of the following activities, present the activitywithout saying the meta-program or obvious
cue words of it. Present each meta-program one at a time. Set the card down when it is guessed. You
have 4 minutes to finish.
Acting: Dramatically act out a scene of your choosing to exemplify the cards you have.
Selling: Interview for a job with the participant to your right as if the meta-programs you drew
govern your way thinking and presenting yourself in the interview. Don’t mention the meta-programs.
Writing:
Speak aloud a love letter to an imaginary person who has the meta-programs of your cards.
Relationship:
Plan a holiday with the person to your right using the meta-programs.
Coaching:
Coach an executive about time management who has these meta-programs.
Speaking/ Training:
Stand up and give a presentation using these meta-programs assume they are yours.
Profiling/ Modeling:
Be a modeler or profiler who has these meta-programs and interview the person to your left.
4) MOVING ON THE BOARD AND SCORING POINTS:
How to Score Points:
1) There is a time limit for each play. Once the Cards have been drawn and checked for two of the
same meta-program, the “time” begins. The person must perform the given activity within 4 minutes.
Set your watches! Get a whistle and blow when time is up.
2) The most points are usually made when it is a person’s turn. He or she then will engage in the
activity to speak or act out a meta-program. For each one that is identified, the player gets 1 point.
3) Each person who first guesses the player’s meta-program accurately also gets 1 point.
4) The player has 1 point taken away for every meta-program card drawn that is not guessed within
the 4 minutes.
How to move spaces on the board:
1) Rolling the dice. When it is your turn, you role the dice and then move your figure that many spaces
on the Meta-Detective Board Game.
2) When your turn is over, then you move forward on the board one space for each point you
received. After the player moves one space for each point then every other player who earned a point
in that play also moves forward one space for each point.
3) Scoring: 1 point = 1 space.
4) Only the player can lose points when it is his or her turn, a player may have to go back one space
for every negative point.
Trouble-shooting determining Points:
1) If a player mentions the meta-program by name, that player loses a point.
2) If a player gives a clue that’s too obvious such as using a synonym to the meta-program, e.g. saying
“I have a big picture of what I want in this job.” The players will vote on if the clue was “too
obvious” or not. If it is, no one will get a point.
5) ACTION:
The action of demonstrating and reading meta-programs begins whenever a player has drawn both the
Meta-Program Cards and one of the Action Cards.
6) THE ENDING OF THE GAME:
The game ends when the first participant crosses the finish line and reaches Meta-Land.
TEAMS PLAY-OFF:
In NLP and Neuro-Semantic trainings (Master Practitioner), we have had a play-off at the end. Each
team selects their best player for the Play Offs. Each player can have his or her Team there as
coaches both when guessing meta-programs and when performing them in the activity.
There should be some extra blue cards in the deck. These are to write new or different meta-
programs. You can also invent other Activity Cards to customize your play.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arthur, Jay. (2002). How to motivate everyone. Denver, CO: LifeStar Publishing.
Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1975). The structure of magic, Volume I: A book about
language and therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1976). The structure of magic, Volume II. Palo Alto, CA:
Science & Behavior Books.
Bourland, David D. Jr. and Johnston, Paul Dennithorne. (1991). To be or not: An e-prime anthology.
San Francisco, CA: International Society for General Semantics.
Bourland, David. D. Jr., Johnston, Paul Dennithorne; and Klein, Jeremy. (1994). More e-prime: To
be or not II. Concord, CA: International Society for General Semantics.
Brandon, Nathanel (1969). The psychology of self-esteem.NY: Bantam Books.
Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1979). Frogs into princes: Neurolinguistic programming.
Moab, UT: Real People Press.
Briggs, Katharine C., Myers, Isabel Briggs. (1943/ 1987). Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Bandler, Richard and Grinder, John. (1982). Reframing: Neuro-linguistic programming and the
transformation of meaning. UT: Real People Press. Brunner, Jerome. (1990). Acts of meaning.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bandler, Richard. (1985). Magic in action. Moab, UT: Real People Press. Cade, Brian; and
O'Hanlon William H. (1992). A brief guide to brief therapy. NY: W.W. Norton and Company.
Bandler, Richard. (1985). Using your brain for a change: Neuro-linguistic programming. UT: Real
People Press.
Bateson, Gregory. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam.
Bateson, Gregory. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballatine. Capra, Fritjof. (1996).
The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books,
Doubleday.
Cattell, Heather Kirkett (1989). The 1 6 PF: Pe rso n a l i t y i n d epth. Champaign, IL: In st i t ut e
for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Beattie, Melody (1987). Codependent no more. NY: Harper & Row.
Bodenhamer, Bobby G.; L. Michael Hall (1997a). Time-lining: Advanced patterns in "Time"
Processes. CA: Meta-Publications.
Charvet, R. Shelle. (1995). Words that change minds: Mastering the language of influence.
Debuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Collins, Jim. Good to great: Why some companies make the leap, and others don’t. New York:
HarperBusiness
Dawson, Roger. (1992). Secrets of power persuasion. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grinder, Michael. (1989). Righting the educational conveyor belt. OR: Metamorphous Press. Inc.
Dilts, Robert (1990). Changing belief systems with NLP. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.
Hall, Edward. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/ Doubleday.
Dilts, Robert B., Epstein, Todd, Dilts, Robert W. (1991). Tools for dreamers: Strategies for
creativity and the structure of innovation. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.
Dobson, James. (1970). Dare to Discipline. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publ.
Ellis, Albert and Harper, Robert A. (1976). A new guide to rational living. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hall, Edward. (1983). The dance of life. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/ Doubleday.
Hall, Edward; Hall, Mildred Reed. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, Maine:
Intercultural Press.
Hall, Michael (1987). Monograph: "Fight/Flight Patterns In Human P a t t e r n s o f C o m m u n i
c a t i n g , Responding," Grand Jct. CO: NeuroSemantic Publications.
Erickson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected Paper. Psychological Issue Monograph
Series, I (No. 1). NY: International Universities Press.
Hall, L. Michael. (1996). The spirit of NLP: The process, meaning and c ri t e ri a f o r ma st e ri n
g N LP. Carmarthen, Wales, U.K.: AngloAmerican Book Company Ltd.
Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. NY: W.W. Norton.
Gardner, Howard. (2004). Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other
people’s minds. Boston, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.
Hall, Michael L. (1996d).Languaging: The linguistics
C l i ft on , CO:
of psychotherapy. Neur o-Sem a n t i c Publications.
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. (1999). System thinking: Managing chaos and c o m p l e x i t y , W o b u r
n , M A : Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hall, Michael. (2000). Meta-states: Managing the higher levels of your mind’s reflexivity. Clifton,
CO: NeuroSemantic Publications.
Goleman, Daniel. (1997). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York:
Bantam Books. Hall, Michael. (2000).Dragon slaying: Dragons to princes. Clifton, CO: NeuroSemantic Publications.
Goleman, Daniel. (2002). Working with Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
Hall, Michael L. (1997). Becoming a ferocious presenter. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic
Publications.
Hall, Michael. (2001). NLP: Going meta—Advance modeling using metalevels. Clifton, CO: NeuroSemantic
Publications. Kagan, Jerome. (1994). Galen’s
prophecy. New York: Basic Books. Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bob G. (2005). Sub-Modalities:
Going Meta. Formerly, The structure of Excellence. C l i ft on , CO: Neur o-Sem a n t i c
Publications.
Hall, L. Michael. (2000). p e r s o n a l m a s t e r y : techniques for accessing your higher levels of
consciousness. Wales, UK: Crown House Publications.
Secrets of
A d v a n c e d Kohlbert, L. A. (1980). The meaning a n d m e a s u r e m e n t o f m o r a l
development. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Hall, L. Michael. (2001). Games slim and fit people play. Clifton, CO: Neuro-Semantic
Publications.
Kolb, David A. (1981). Learning Style Inventory. Boston: McBer & Company Training Resources
Group.
Hall, L. Michael; Bodenhamer, Bob. (2001). Games for mastering fear. Cl i ft on , CO: Neur o- S e
m a n t i c Publications.
H a l l , L . M i c h a e l . ( 2 0 0 1 ) . Communication Magic. Wales, UK: Crown House
Publications.
Korzybski, Alfred. (1933). Science and sanity: An introduction to nonAristotelian systems and
general semantics, (5th. ed.. 1994). Lakeville, CN: International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing
Co.
Huxley, Aldous. (1954). The doors of perception and heaven and hell. NY: Harper & Row,
Publishers.
Kosko, Bart. (1993). Fuzzy thinking: The new science of fuzzy logic. New York: Flamingo,
HarperCollins Publishers.
Jacobson, Sid. (1996). Solution states: A course in solving problems in business with the power of
NLP. Bancyfelin, Carmarthen, Wales: England. Anglo-American Book Company.
James, Tad; Woodsmall, Wyatt. (1988). Time line therapy and the basis of personality. Cupertino,
CA: Meta Publications.
James, William (1890). Principles of psychology: Volume I. NY: Holt.
Johnson, C.E. (1994). The 7%, 38%, 55% Myth. Anchor Point Magazine. SaltLake City: UT: Anchor
Point Associates.
Laborde, Genie Z. (1984). Influencing with integrity. Palo Alto, CA: Syntony Publishing Co.
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
J u n g , C a r l . ( 1 9 2 3 / 1 9 7 1 ) . Psychological types. MA: Princeton University Press.
Kohlbert, L. A. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M.L. Hoffman &
L.W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 1). NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark. (1980).Metaphors we live by.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark.
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought.
Metaphors we live by. New York: Basic Books.
Lewis, Bryon A., Pucelik, R. Frank. (1982). Magic demystified: A pragmatic guide to
communication and change. Portland, OR: Metamorphous Press, Inc.
Lloyd, Carl. (1989). Unpublished dissertation, "The Impact of RoleExpectation Cognitions Upon
TestTaking. University of Texas at Arlington.
Maslow, Abraham H. (1954/1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
McClelland, D., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A., & Lowell, E.L. (1953). The achievement motive. NY:
AppletonCentury-Crofts.
(p. 31-36).
O'Connor, Joseph; McDermott, Ian (1995). "Patterns of Influence: Review Arti cl e. " NLP World:
The Intercultural Journal on the Theory and Practice of NLP. Orzens, Switzerland. pages 75-80.
O'Connor, Joseph; Seymour, John (1990). Introducing neuro-linguistic programming: The new
psychology of personal excellence. Great Britain: Mandala.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams and imitiation in childhood. NY: W. W. Norton.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. NY: Basic Books.
McConnell, James V. (1977). Understanding human behavior. (2nd. edition). NY: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Reese, Edward; Bagley, Dan, III. (1988). Beyond selling: How to maximize your personal
influence. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.
Mehrabian, Albert (1976). Public places and private spaces. NY: Basic Books, Inc.
Robbie, Eric. (1988). "Meta Program Detecton." Unpublished Handout.
May, Rolla. (1989). The art of counseling. NY: Gardner Press.
Miller, George. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity
to process information. Psychological review, 63, 81-97.
Robbie, Eric. (1987). "Sub-Modality Eye Accessing Cues." Journal of NLP International. Vol. 1,
N. 1. (January, 1987). pages 15-24. Jacksonville, FL. NLP International.
Robbins, Anthony. (1986). Unlimited power: The new science of personal acheivement. NY: Simon
and Schuster.
Minninger, Joan. (1988). Make your mind work for you. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
Rodgers, Everett M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Fourth edition0. New York: The Free Press.
Munshaw, Joe; Zink, Nelson. (1997). "What's A Map?" Anchor Point 11: #5 Rooney, Gene; Savage,
John S. (1989). Neurological sorts and belief systems.
Reyn ol dsbur g , O H: L . E . A . D. Consultants, Inc. Unpublished manual.
Yapko, Michael. (1992). Hypnosis and the treatment of depressions. New York: Bruinner/Mazel.
Satir, Virginia. (1972). Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books, Inc.
Schultz, D. (1990). Theories of personality. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Selye, Hans. (1976). The stress of life. New York: McGraw Hill. Co.
Seligman, Martin, E.P. (1975). He l p l e ssn e ss : On d e p re ssi o n , development, and death. San
Francisco: Freeman.
Seligman, Martin E.P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Slavik, D.J. (2003). “Keeping your eyes on the prize: Outcome versus process focused social
comparisons a n d c o u n t erfactual t h i n k i n g , ” Dissertation, Fayettesville, AR.
Taylor, Robert M., Johnson, Roswell H . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . T a y l o r - J o h n s o n temperament analysis.
Los Angeles, CA: Psychological Publications, Inc.
Woodsmall, Wyatt L. (1988). Metaprograms. Vienna, VA: Advanced Behavioral Modeling.
Unpublished manual.
Woodsmall, Wyatt L.; Woodsmall, Marilyne. (1998). People pattern power: The nine keys to
business success. VA: Arlington, International Research Institute.
Yeager, Joseph. (1985). Thinking about thinking with NLP. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Accessing Cues: The ways we tune our bodies by breathing, posture, gesture and eye movements to
think in certain ways.
As-If Frame: Using a pretend or possibility frame to imagine that some event is real or actually
happened. Thinking "as if" for creative problemsolving by mentally going beyond apparent obstacles
to desired solutions. identity, etc. as true. A thought that has been confirmed in some way and treated
as real. Beliefs are at a higher “logical level” to thoughts, a gestalt that results from confirming a
thought. Beliefs guide us in perceiving and interpreting reality.
Calibration: Tuning in to another's state via reading non-verbal signals previously observed and
calibrated to the person’s style of expression.
Analogue: A variable that can occur at various degrees between certain limits, like a dimmer switch
for a light. An analogue “sub-modality” may vary as from light to dark, while a digital cinematic
feature operates “on” or “off,” either a snapshot or a movie.
Chunk and Chunking: Terms from computer science about the size of information. When we chunk
up, we induce. Induction leads to higher abstractions. When we chunk down we deduce. Deduction
moves down to detail more specific examples or cases.
Anchoring. An NLP process derived from Pavlovian classical conditioning. In Pavlov's study, the
bell became the stimulus or anchor for cuing the dogs to salivate as the meat powder had. When we
link or connect a stimulus (external or internal) to a response, the sight, sound, sensation, smell, or
word triggers a response or state.
Association: When we imagine being inside of an experience, movie, representation, we are
associating into it. We are mentally seeing, hearing, and feeling from inside as we step into the
experience and associate into it.
Complex Equivalence: A linguistic distinction wherein someone equates two statements as if they are
the same thing, e.g. “He doesn't love me because he’s late.”
Congruence: A state of being internally and externally aligned. What we say corresponds with what
we do. Non-verbal signals and verbal statements match to create a state of fitness and internal
harmony, the lack of inner conflict.
Conscious: Present moment awareness, awares of 7+/-2 chunks of information. Auditory: The sense of
hearing, a basic
sensory representation system.
Behavior: Any activity we engage in, micro like thinking, or macro like external actions.
Beliefs: When we believe, we hold a generalization meaning, self, about ca usa lity, others,
behaviors, Content:The specifics and details of an event, the what, and why of the story, contrasts to
process or structure.
Context: The setting, frame, or process in which events occur and provides meaning for content.
Cues: Information that provides clues to another's subjective structures, i.e., eye accessing cues,
predicates, breathing, body posture, gestures, voice tone and tonality, etc.
experience fits with our overall set of relationships and its effect on our health, business, values, etc.
Deletion: Leaving out characteristics in a description, the missing portion of an exper i en ce i n l i n
gui st i cs or representations.
Elicitation: Evoking a state by word, behavior, gesture, or any stimuli. Gathering information by
direct observation of non-verbal signals or by asking meta-model questions.
Digital: Displaying information as numbers or numerically, as digits that stand for distinct meanings,
e.g., off or on, either a light switch is turned on or off. A digital cinematic feature presents the choice
between on or off: a “sub-modality” shift from coded as in color or in black-and-white.
Empowerment: Process of adding vitality, energy, and new powerful resources to a person; vitality at
the neurological level, change of habits.
Eye Accessing Cues: Movements of the eyes in certain directions which indicate visual, auditory or
kinesthetic thinking (processing).
Dissociation: The process of stepping outof a thought, representation, mental movie, or state to see
and hear things from outside as a spectator. Association and dissociation are relative terms,
whenever we step out of one state, we are always stepping into another state. Epistemology: The
study of how we know what we know. NLP, as an epistemology, is based upon the cognitive
distinction “the map is not the territory.”
Distortion: The modeling process of altering representation of something in neurology or linguistics
to create limitations or resources.
First Position: Perceiving the world from your own point of view, associated, one of the perceptual
positions.
Downtime: Moving from a state of sensory awareness, to going "down" inside to see, hear, and feel
thoughts and memories. A light trance state with attention focused inward.
Dragon: A dragon state in the MetaStates model is an unresourceful state in which our energies are
turned against ourselves. See Dragon Slaying (2000).
Frame: Context, environment, metalevel, a way of perceiving something (as in Outcome Frame, "As
If" Frame, Backtrack Frame, etc.).
Future Pace: Process of mentally practicing (rehearsing) an event before it happens. One of the key
processes for ensuring the permanency of an outcome, a frequent and key ingredient in most NLP
interventions.
Ecology: The dynamic balance of elements in a system that produce health and well-being in larger
contexts and relationships. In asking “the ecology question” we ask about how a belief, state,
decision, or Generalization: Process by which one specific experience comes to represent a whole
class of experiences, one of the three modeling processes.
Genius: A highly focused state of engagement wherein the world goes away, time, self, and others go
away, and one is completely present to some engagement, in “flow,” “in the zone,” and having full
access to one’s resources. See Secrets of Personal Mastery (1999).
Gestalt: A German term for something that is “more than the sum of the parts.” A gestalt state arises
when new emergent properties combine.
meta-level drives and modulates the levels or layers below it.
Loops: A circle, cycle, a story, metaphor or representation that goes back to its own beginning, so
that it loops back (feeds back) onto itself. An open loop: a story left unfinished. A closed loop:
finishing a story. In strategies, looping refers to going through a set of procedures that have no way
out, no exit.
Incongruence: An inner state of conflict between beliefs, emotions, meanings, hopes, dreams, fears,
etc., the lack of total commitment to an outcome expressed in incongruent messages, signals, lack of
alignment or matching between word and behavior.
Installation: Incorporating a new mental strategy in our mind-body system so it operates
automatically. Installation is often achieved through anchoring, reframing, control questions, etc.
metaphors, parables,
future pacing, quality
Internal Representations: All of the sights, sounds, sensations, smells, and tastes that play out on the
theater of our mind as our snapshots and movies.
Kinesthetic: Sensations, feelings, tactile sensations on surface of skin, proprioceptive sensations
inside the body, includes vestibular system.
Leading: Pacing and leading describes t h e e s s e n c e o f e x c e l l e n t communication. Someone
follows our lead as we change our behaviors once we have rapport.
Meta: Greek for “above, beyond, and about.” A meta-thought is a higher level thought, a higher
“logical level.”
Meta-Model: A model with 20 linguistic distinctions that identifies language patterns that obscure
meaning in a communication via distortion, deletion, and generalization for each distinction there are
questions to challenge and clarify imprecise language. When we do this, we reconnect words to
sensory experience. Meta-modeling brings a person out of trance. Developed by Richard Bandler and
John Grinder (1975).
“Logical Levels” (Types): These two nominalizations describe how we layer level upon level of
thoughts-andfeelings so that the higher level is about another and so classifies or types the lower as a
member of that class. A Map: A model of the world, an unique representation of the world built in
each person's brain by abstracting from exper i en ces, com pr i sed of a neurological and a linguistic
map. Our internal representations that encode our movie is one level of mapping, the frames about
that is yet a higher level.
Matching: Adopting facets of another's outputs (i.e., behavior, words, etc.) to create or enhance
rapport.
Meta-Programs: The mental and perceptual filters for paying attention to information. These
perceptual filters govern our attention as our frames of mind or thinking patterns. As a model, MetaPrograms is a domain about how we perceptually filter information. Meta-States: Any state about a
state, applying one state of mind-body (fear, anger, joy, learning) to another state to set it as a higher
“logical level.” A model of self-reflexive consciousness. Developed 1994 by Hall.
Mis-matching: Offering patterns of behavior to breaking rapport for the purpose of r e d i r e c t i n g
, i n t e r r u p t i n g , or terminating a meeting or conversation, mis-matching as a meta-programs.
different another,
Modal Operators: A linguistic distinction in the Meta-Model that indicate the "mode" by which a
person "operates," hence, ourmodus operandi, These include the mode of necessity, impossibility,
desire, possibility, etc. We utilize for motivation the predicates—can, can't, possible, impossible,
have to, must, etc.
Model: A description of how something works, a generalized, deleted, and distorted copy of an
original, a template for how to think or act. A complete model has a theory, set of variables,
guidelines for using them, and patterns or technologies for using it.
N o mi n a l i z a t i o n : A distinction in the describing a hypnotic pattern of trance, a process or
verb turned into an (abstract) noun, a process frozen in time by a static noun by the naming
(nominalizing) of the process.
Outcome: A specific, sensory-based, and compelling goal. The well-formed outcome pattern
provides a step-by-step process for creating an outcome that’s well structured.
Modeling: A process of observing and replicating the successful actions and behaviors of others.
Modeling involves identifying the variables make up an experience, discerning the sequence of
internal representations and behaviors, and presenting as a way to accelerate learning an expertise.
Model of the world: A map of reality, a unique representation of the world via abstraction from our
experiences, the total of one's personal operating principles.
Pacing: Matching a person’s output channels to create rapport, joining an other’s model of the world
by saying what fits with and matches his or her language, beliefs, values, current experience, etc.
Parts: Short for the full phrase, “a part o f on e ’ s t h i n k i n g , fe e l i n g , remembering, intending,
etc.” “Parts” are not self-contained entities, but typically disowned functions which seem to take on a
life of their own via lack of ownership.
Multi-Ordinal: A nominalization that can refer to itself. We can love love, we can fear fear, we can
feel anger at anger. At each level the word means something different. The question is: “At what level
are you using this term?” Korzybski (1933).
Multiple Description: The process of describing the same thing from different viewpoints, typically
the three perceptual positions.
Neuro-Linguistic Programming: The study of excellence, a model of how people structure their
experience, how we become “programmed” in our thinking, emoting, and behaving in our neurology
by the various languages we use to process and code information.
l i n gui st i c Meta-Model
Perceptual Filters: Any idea, experience, belief, value, metaprogram, decision, memory or language
that shapes and colors the way we see or experience the world.
Representation System: The sensory systems of visual, auditory, kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory
—the VAK which makes up our mental movies.
Perceptual Position: A point of view or perspective. First position: associated within one’s own
eyes. Second position: seeing from the listener’s perspective. Third position: seeing from a metaposition outside self and other, neural observer. Fourth position: seeing from the viewpoint of the
group, system, or organization. Fifth position: simultaneous and systemically incorporating all four
perceptual positions, the “God,” or universe viewpoint.
Predicates: What we assert or predicate about a subject, sensory based words indicating a particular
representation system.
Preferred System: The representation system that a person typically uses most in thinking and
organizing experience.
Requisite Variety: Flexibility in thinking, emoting, speaking, behaving; the person with the most
flexibility of behavior controls the action.
Resources: A source for thinking, feeling, choosing, behaving which enhances things or empowers us
as persons, a means that helps us to achieve an outcome.
Resourceful State: A mind-body state that enables us to feel and perform at our best.
Satir Categories: The five body postures and language styles indicating specific ways of
communicating: leveler, blamer, placater, computer and distracter, developed by Virginia Satir in
Family Systems Therapy.
Presuppositions: Assumptions, ideas we take for granted that allow a communication to make sense.
Reframing: Presenting a reference so that it looks different, presenting an event or idea from a
different point of view or frame so it takes on a different meaning. and matching, a state of second
position.
Rapport: A sense of connection with another, a feeling of mutuality, a sense of trust, created by
pacing, mirroring
empathy,
frame-ofnew or
Representation: A presentation to ourselves in our mind of what we have already seen, an idea,
thought, sensorybased or evaluative based bit of information.
Second Position: Perceiving the world from another's point of view, in tune with another's sense of
reality.
Sensory Acuity: Awareness of the outside world, of the senses, making finer distinctions about the
sensory information we get from the world.
S e n s o r y - B a s e d D e s c r i p t i o n : Information directly observable and verifiable by the
senses, see-hear-feel language that we can test empirically, in contrast to evaluative descriptions.
“Sleight of Mouth” Patterns: The reframing patterns that allow a person to transform meaning
conversationally. Similar to “sleight of hand” patterns, we shift to a more enhancing “frameofreference that the listener doesn’t notice. Re-modeled as Mind-Lines by Hall and Bodenhamer
(1997).
State: Short for a state of mind-bodyemotion, the sum total of all neurological and physical processes
within individual at any moment in time, a holistic phenomenon of mindbody-emotions, mood.
Strategy: A sequencing of thinkingbehaving to obtain an outcome or create an experience, the
structure of subjectivity ordered in a linear model of the T.O.T.E.
“Sub-Modality:” The cinematic features and distinctions in each representation system which gives
us the qualities of the representations. term in the Meta-Model for words that code things with
"allness" (every, all, never, none, etc.), a distinction that admits no exceptions.
Unsanity: A term used by Korzybski to describe the stage of poor adjustment between sanity (well
adjusted to the territory) a n d i n sa n i t y (t otal maladjusted to reality). A “lack of consciousness of
abstracting, confusion of orders of abstractions resulting from identification. . . practically universally
operating in every one of us” (p. 105).
Unspecified Nouns: Nouns that do not specify to whom or to what they refer.
Synesthesia: When there is an automatic link from one representation system to another, a V-K
synesthesia involves seeing6feeling without a moment of consciousness to think about it, an automatic
program.
Third position: Perceiving things from the viewpoint of an observer, a metaposition for observing
self and other.
Time-Line: A metaphor describing how we represent and store our sights, sounds and sensations of
memories and imagines, a way of coding and processing the construct "time."
T.O.T.E. A flow-chart model developed by George Miller and associates (Galanter and Pribram) to
explain the sequential processes that generate a response. TestOperateTestExit updated the Stimulus
—> Response model of behaviorism, NLP extended by systems.
Unconscious: conscious awareness, our experience of our minor representation system. adding
representation
Everything not in
Universal Quantifiers: A linguistic
Unspecified Verbs: Verbs that have the adverb deleted, delete specifics of the action.
Uptime: The state where our attention and senses are directed outward to immediate environment, all
sensory channels open and alert.
VAK: A short-hand for the sensory representation systems of Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic. The
last one (K) includes smells (Olfactory) and tastes (Gustatory).
Values: The ideas, feelings, and experience that we deem as important in a given context. The
nominalization “value,” from the verb and process of believing and valuing something.
Visual: Seeing, imagining, the representation systems of sight.
Visualization: The process of seeing images in your mind.
Well-Formedness: The criteria that enable us to specific an outcome in ways that make it achievable
and verifiable, powerful tool for negotiating win/win solutions.
INDEX
ABCs of emotions: 61
Abduction: 105, 106
Attitude: 181-182
Business: 176-177, 195-196, 215-216, Hiring: 290-300, 310
Buying: 207-209
Buying: 207-209
283 (ch. 11)
Axes of change: 280-283 Leverage: 293-294
Cognition: 95
Communication: 89-90, 213-214 Descriptive: 91
See Meta-Model
See Neuro-Semantics
See “Language” at end of e a c h M e t a - P r o g r a m description
Confrontation: 294-297
Content: 51, 54, 62
Convincer: 148-149, 188-190, 210–211 Contexts: 257-266 (ch. 10), 287 Creativity: 270-271, 300
Deductive – Inductive: 104-108 Differences: 49, 57
DSM-IV: 16, 150, 242
Meta-Model:
Descriptions: 35, 41-42, 47
Nominalizations: 35-36, 38, 47, 68,
193, 221
Identification: to be verbs: 41, 47,
122, 268
Modus Operandi: 199-202
Meta-Programs
Changing: 77, 267-282 (ch.11) Contexts: 85, 87, 257-266 (ch.10) Contexts: 85, 87, 257-266 (ch.10)
38, 62, 65
Driver: 34, 75, 89, 287, 304, 333 External cues of: 300-309 (ch.13) Formatting: 81-82
History: 81-82
Learning: 84-93
Learning: 84-93
225, 303
Linguistic Markers: 91
Lists of: 93-94, 96, 147, 187, 226, 305-309, 315-320
Meta-Domains: 9, 26
Morality of: 86
Morality of: 86
337, 338-341
337, 338-341
(Ch.9)
Source: 42-44, 69-75
Meta-Detective Game: 90, 341-344 Value of: 4, 12, 14, 30-31, 75
Emotions: 61, 92, 145-146, 150-152, 153, 184, 145-185 (ch. 7)
Fight/Flight Syndrome: 155-158 Goals: 205-207\
Habituate: 39, 41, 59, 72, 87, 260, 305, 311
LAB Profile: 31
Language: see Meta-Model Logical Levels: 21, 28, 40, 43 Locus of Control: 158-160
Manipulation: 299-300 Meaning: 60-61
Meta: 8,21, 30
Meta-States:
Description: 21, 26, 42-43
Primary Stats: 42
Source of Meta-Programs: 69-70, 302-305
Canopy of consciousness: 72, 75 Frames by implication: 73
Dragon Stages: 47, 76
Myers-Briggs: 4, 31, 37, 81, 87, 103, 246, 247, 249, 262
Modeling: 17, 58, 77
Modeling: 17, 58, 77
Needs: 283
NLP:
Communication Model: 17
Description: 17
Disney Strategy: 299
Eye Access Cues: 97
Representational Systems: 18, 19, 20, 55-56, 96-99, 147-148
Meta-Representation System: 21 Sub-Modalities: 21-24
Mental Movies: 20, 21, 25, 26 Movie Rewind pattern: 26, 278
Snapshotting: 56
Neuro-Semantics:
Description: 60–61
Description: 60–61
321 (ch.14)
Multi-Ordinality: 220-221
Reflexivity: 43, 70
Psycho-Logics: 41,47, 60, 258, 263 Semantically Loaded: 221
Self-Organizing System: 302-304 Self-Confident: 230-231 Self-Efficacy: 231
Self-Integrity; 234-235 Ego-Strength: 339-341 Super-Ego: 240-242
States: 26, 90
State dependency: 25
Step Back skill: 295
Stress: 154-157
Temperament: 15
Thinking Patterns:
Discounting: 113-114
Discounting: 113-114
206
Either-Or/ Continuum: 118-119
Aristotelian/ Systemic: 120-121
Awfulizing: 151
Emotionalizing: 151
Should-ing: 200
Perfectionism: 205
Questions: 88, 313, 321-326 Time: 244-249, 273-274, 300-301 Therapy: 276-278, 296-298
Pacing: 88
Patience/ persistence: 181-182 Patterns: 52-53, 62, 86
Values: 251
Will: 185-187
See Conation
Personality:Personality: 68, 72
Introvert/ Extrovert: 165-167 Sensor / Intuitor:
Judger / Perceiver: 196-198
Strong-willed/ Compliant: 228-229
People
Authur, Jay: 80, 106, 193, 228, 299 Andreas and Andreas: 131
Pessimism: 76, 115-116
Process: 51, 54, 62
Profiling: 283-299 (ch.12), 334-336,
337-340
Bagley, Dan: 62
Bailye, Rodger: 4, 14, 31, 80
Bateson, Greogory: 18, 24, 28, 30, 40, 104, 257, 327-328
Reading: 33, 51-55, 63-64 Reading People: 17, 50 Responsibility: 235-237 Relationships: 48-49, 60
Risk: 215-216
Satir Categories: 328-332 Self: 226-244
Self-Esteem: 232-233, 294 Bandler, Richard: 18, 31, 35, 69, 96, 126-127, 300
Bandler, Leslie-Cameron: 31
Beike, Denise: 113
Bruner, Jerome: 327, 328
Bodenhamer, Bob: 33, 34, 123, 260, 283
Cade, Brian: 129
Cattell, Heather: 35, 39, 152-153, 170, 234, 258
Charvet, Shelle Rose: 37
Collins, Jim: 284
Dawson, Roger: 169
Dilts, Robert: 76, 274
Ellis, Albert, 145, 239
Erickson, Milton: 145, 239
Erickson, Eric: 210
Galan, Jerome: 153
Gardner, Howard: 9, 242
Gambardella, Pascal: 105, 120 Glasser, William: 125, 185
Goleman, Daniel: 8, 30, 48, 67, 144, 256, 267
Grinder, John: 4, 18, 35, 96, 126-127, 300
O’Hanlon, William: 129
Reece, Ed: 62
Reynolds, Reg: 184, 229
Robbins, Anthony: 4, 269, 283 Rodgers, Everett: 178
Satir, Virginia: 328, 330 Schultz, D.: 129
Seligman, Martin: 116, 198 Simons, Richard: 14
Steward, Ross: 80
Slavik, Deirdre: 113
Woodsmall, Wyatt: 4-6, 31, 36, 37, 80, 102, 109, 112, 167, 268, 279
Yapko, M.: 245
Yeager, Joseph: 106, 172, 262, 263, 275, 293
Hall, Edward: 212-213
Hall, Edward: 212-213
144, 283
Hoffer, Eric: 180
Huxley, Aldous: 197
Kagan: 268
Kant, Immanuel: 244
Korzybski, Alfred: 10, 16, 58, 145, 255, 263
James, William: 41, 137, 151 James, Tad: 80, 102, 167, 278 Jacobson, Sid: 81
Johnson, Mark: 301
Lakoff, George: 32, 300 Lloyd, Carl: 37, 38, 40, 86 Laborde, Genie: 98
Maslow, Abraham: 283
May, Rollo: 185, 297
McClelland, David: 172
McConnell, James: 160
McDermott, Ian: 37, 79
Mehrabrian, Albert: 122, 123, 124 Miller, George: 58
O’Connor, Joseph: 37, 79
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
Neuro-Semantics® of Colorado / International Society of Neuro-Semantics P.O. Box 8
Clifton, Colorado 81520 USA
(970) 523-7877
www.neurosemantics.com
As a visionary leader in the field of Neuro-Semantics, Michael is an entrepreneur and modeler of
psychological excellence. He also trains internationally inbetween projects. His doctorate is in the
Cognitive-Behavioral sciences from Union Institute University. For 20 years he worked as a
psychotherapist and licensed professional counselor (LPC) in the state of Colorado. He began
studying NLP in1986, then trained with Richard Bandler, and wrote several books for him. Later
when studying and modeling resilience, he developed the Meta-States model (1994). He then began
traveling nationally and then internationally, co-created the ISNS (the International Society of NeuroSemantics)with Dr. Bob Bodenhamer in 1996.
As a prolific writer, Michael has written more than 40 books, many best sellers in the field of NLP.
Michael first applied NLP to coaching in 1991, but it wasn’t until 2001 that he began to apply NeuroSemantics to coaching and then, together with Michelle Duval, co-created Meta-Coach Training
System and established the international the Meta-Coach Foundation (MCF).
ISNS
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF NEURO-SEMANTICS®
L. Michael Hall and Bobby G., Bodenhamer trademarked both Meta-Statesand NeuroSemantics in
1996 and began the first Institute of Neuro-Semantics. It is now the International Society in 40
countries with over 1000 Trainers and Meta-Coaches.
www.neurosemantics.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Pascal Gambardella for his extensive review and suggestions throughout the Revised Text and
diagrams.
For Neuro-Semanticists Anne McKinnon and Peter Price (Australia), Reg Reynolds and Lori Lea
(South Africa), Vicky McCreary and Scott Pochron (United States) for proofreading the manuscript
and offering invaluable suggestions.
Books by L. Michael Hall
NLP Books
The Spirit of NLP: The Process, Meaning & Criteria for Mastering NLP (1996) Becoming More
Ferocious as a Presenter (1996).
Patterns For "Renewing the Mind" (w. Dr. Bodenhamer) (1997).
Time-Lining: Advance Time-Line Processes (w. Dr. Bodenhamer) (1997). NLP: Going Meta—
Advance Modeling Using Meta-Levels (2001).
Figuring Out People: Design Engineering with Meta-Programs (w. Dr. Bodenhamer) (1997).
Source Book of Magic (Volume I) (w. B. Belnap) (2004).
Communication Magic (2000) (Originally, The Secrets of Magic, 1998). Sub-Modalities Going Meta:
Unmasking their Meta-Levels (w/ Bodenhamer, 2004). Instant Relaxation (1999, Lederer & Hall).
User’s Manual of the Brain: Practitioner Course. Volume I (2001).
User’s Manual of the Brain: Master Practitioner Course, Volume II (2002). MovieMind: Directing the
Cinemas of the Mind (2002).
Neuro-Semantic Books:
Meta-States: Self-Reflexiveness in Human States of Consciousness (1995/2000) Dragon Slaying:
Dragons to Princes (1996, 2000)
Mind-Lines: Lines For Changing Minds (w. Dr. Bodenharmer) (1997/ 2002 4thedition) Meta-State
Magic (2001). From the Meta-State Journal, (1997-1999) The Structure of Personality: Personality
Ordering and Disordering Using NLP and Neuro-Semantics (Hall , Bodenhamer, Bolstad, Harmblett,
2001).
The Secrets of Personal Mastery 2000).
The Matrix Model (2002/ 2nd edition 2003).
Sourcebook of Magic, Volume II, Neuro-Semantic Patterns (2003).
Frame Games Books
Winning the Inner Game (2007) (updating the original “Frame Games” book (2000) Games Slim
People Play (2001)
Games for Mastering Fear (2001, with Bodenhamer)
Games Business Experts Play (2001)
Games Great Lovers Play (2004)
Spiral Books:
Languaging: The Linguistics of Psychotherapy (1996) The Bateson Report (2002).
Make it So! (2002).
Propulsion Systems (2003)
Meta-Coaching Series:
Volume I: Change, Volume I (w/ Duval, 2004) Volume II: Coaching Conversation (with Duval, 2004)
Volume III: Unleashed: Guide to Self-Actualization (2007) Volume IV: Self-Actualization
Psychology (2008) Volume V: Achieving Peak Performance (2009) Volume VI: Unleashing
Leadership (2009)
Bobby G. Bodenhamer, D.Min.
1516 Cecelia Dr.
Gastonia, NC 28054
(704) 864-3585
Dr. Bodenhamer first trained for the ministry, earned a doctorate in Ministry, and served several
churches as pastor. He began NLP training in 1990, studying with Dr. Tad James and receiving
Master Practitioner and Trainer Certifications. Since then, he has taught and certified NLP trainings at
Gaston College.
Beginning in 1996, Dr. Bodenhamer began studying the Meta-States model and then teamed up with
Michael to begin co-authoring several books. Since that he has turned out many works as he and
Michael have applied the NLP and MetaStates Models to various facets of human experience.
In 1996 also, Dr. Bodenhamer with Michael co-founded the Society of NeuroSemantics. This has
taken his work to a new level, taken him into International Trainings, and set in motion many Institutes
of Neuro-Semantics around the world.
Books: Patterns For "Renewing the Mind" (w. Hall, 1997)
Time-Lining: Advance Time-Line Processes (w. Hall, 1997) Figuring Out People: Design
Engineering With Meta-Programs (w. Hall, 1997)
Mind Lines: Lines For Changing Minds (w. Hall, 1997, 2000 3rdedition) The Structure of Excellence:
Unmasking the Meta-Levels of Submodalities (w. Hall, 1999)
The User’s Manual of the Brain (1999, w. Hall)
Hypnotic Language (2000, w. Burton)
The Structure of Personality: Modeling “Personality” Using NLP and Neuro-Semantics. (Hall ,
Bodenhamer, Bolstad, Harmblett, 2001) Games for Mastering Fears (2001, with Hall)
Mastering Blocking and Stuttering (2004).
www.runyourownbrain.com www.neurosemantics.com
Books:
1) Meta-States: Mastering the Higher States of Mind (1995, 2000) A meta-state refers to thinking-
or-feeling something about some other mind-body state. For example, when we could feel curious in
our questioning, or respectful, or disdaining or suspicious. Each state about the questioning state
qualifies and textures it. This gives us the structure of an “attitude.”
This book is an academic presentation of the Meta-States model as a model of how awareness and
mind-body-emotion stateswork in reflecting back onto themselves. The exploration of reflexivity
grew out of modeling resilience and gave birth to a cognitive-behavioral model of thinking-andemoting states that has significant implications for Emotional Intelligence and self-management skills.
2) Dragon Slaying: Dragons to Princes (1996, 2000)
This book offers a practical application of using Meta-States in the context of therapy. The book
presents Meta-States in a more down-toearth way and deals with the problem of “dragon states” —
when we turn our thoughts and emotions against ourselves and go into spins around negative
emotional states, especially those of fear, anger, and judgment. The book describes an easy way to
“slay” or tame those dragons.
3) The Spirit of NLP: The Process, Meaning & Criteria for Mastering NLP (1996, 2004)
NLP is a field about “running your own brain.” Based on communication theory and linguistics, it’s
about how to take charge of one’s self, emotions, states, and behaviors in order to move toward more
excellence and mastery. NLP training has different levels, Practitioner level and Master Practitioner.
This book presents the Master Practitioner training course as Richard Bandler taught it in the late
1980s. It presents his attitude and how he presented it. The emphasis is on “Going for it,” being
ferocious, and developing a propulsion system of motivation. NLP background necessary to
understand this book.
4) Languaging: The Linguistics of Psychotherapy (1996)
The heart of this books was taken from Dr. Hall’s dissertation at Union Institute University
(Cincinnati) that examined four psychotherapies using the formulations of General Semantics. The
idea that therapy is language and that the languaging skills, frames, and styles of therapists is what
does the “therapy” or healing is explored within Reality Therapy, Rational-Emotive Therapy, NLP,
and Logo-Therapy.
5) Becoming More Ferocious as a Presenter (1996)
Written originally as the “notes” at Richard Bandler’s 1990 Trainer’s Training, then re-written
numerous times to create this book, this is a document of the attitude and spirit of Bandler at the end
of the 1980s and of the field of NLP in terms of Trainer’s Training. The focus is on becoming more
passionate or ferocious as a Trainer. NLP background is needed to fully appreciate this book.
6) Patterns For "Renewing the Mind" (w. Dr. Bodenhamer) (1997, 2005) The sub-title of this book
is “NLP for Christian Counseling and Consulting.” It is the NLP Practitioner level materials as
related to the Judeo-Christian premises and beliefs. Designed primarily for counselors, pastors, and
others in leadership who want to use the NLP model for more effective tools in creating
transformations of mind-body states.
7) Time-Lining: Advance Time-Line Processes (w. Dr. Bodenhamer) (1997) This book takes the
subject of Time-Lines in NLP to the next level from the classic work, Time-Line Therapy. Both
Woodsmall and James write Prefaces for this work. “Time” is explored in other fields, mostly
General Semantics, but also Narrative Therapy, and using Meta-States to create multiple kinds and
levels of “time.” Many new patterns for time management, effectiveness, dealing with the emotions of
time like patience and expectations, etc. are included.
8) NLP: Going Meta — Advance Modeling Using Meta-Levels (1997/2001) At the heart of NLP is a
discipline called “modeling.” This research methodology identifies the structure of an experience,
breaks it down into component pieces, and then offers patterns, strategies, and models for replicating
it. This book is an advanced NLP book that assumes understanding of the Strategy Model of NLP, the
TOTE model of Cognitive Psychology and the meta-levels of Meta-States. This is a book on
modeling and introduces the idea of fluid levels (logical levels or psycho-logical levels) based on
Korzybski, Bateson, and Dilts. The design is to offer modeling tools for finding and replicating
excellence.
9) Figuring Out People: Design Engineering With Meta-Programs (w. Dr.
Bodenhamer) (1997, 2005)
There are 4 meta-domains in NLP, Meta-Programs is the second of those meta-domains. It came into
existence when Leslie Cameron-Bandler found that some NLP patterns didn’t work with some
people. From that wonderful “failure,” she and Richard discovered the meta-filters that color our
very perception of the world. These perceptual filters were named, Meta-Programs and this book is
a virtual encyclopedia of 60 meta-programs with information about how to use them for profiling,
reading people, and how to use them for more effective communication.
10) A Sourcebook of Magic (w. B. Belnap) (1997, 2004)
This first volume is a Source Book of the core patterns in NLP, 77 of the most basic patterns that
create the magic of transformation in people’s lives. It’s designed to offer in one volume an easy
access to the patterns that created the NLP Revolution in the 1970s and 1980s.
11) Mind-Lines: Lines For Changing Minds (w. Dr. Bodenharmer) (1997,
2005)
This book is about conversational elegance and reframing. Meaning is a function of the frames we use
to put around and to understand things, to put another frame around an idea, experience, or person
reframes it which then changes the meaning and alters our responses. The most effective
communicators and elegant persuaders know how to conversationally reframe, to utter lines that will
change minds and lives. This book teaches one how to do that.
12) Communication Magic (2000). Formerly The Secrets of Magic (1998) NLP began with the first
meta-domain known as the Meta-Model. This was created from observing the communication skills
of Virginia Satir, Fritz Perls, and Milton Erickson, three world-renown communicators and
therapists. The Meta-Model is made up of 21 language distinctions that enable us to work magic in
the minds and hearts of people—including our own. This book surveys the history of the Meta-Model
and updates it with new distinctions.
13) Meta-State Magic (2002)
This work was derived from the writings of Dr. Hall in the Meta-State Journal (1997-1999). It is a
collection of many Meta-State patterns with extensive descriptions about the patterns.
14) Sub-Modalities Going Meta (Hall and Bodenhamer, (1999, 2005) Dr. Hall discovered that the
domain of “sub-modalities” were not really “sub” in 1999 and collaborated with Dr. Bodenhamer in
this paradigm challenging and shifting model. The book reveals that the cinematic features of our
inner mental movies are actually meta-level frames, metamodalities. This leads to 6 new sub-models
or patterns from the MetaYes pattern that has become foundational in Neuro-Semantics. A must ready
for every NLP trained person.
15) Instant Relaxation (Lederer & Hall, 2000)
Inasmuch as NLP is all about states, state awareness, and state management, this small book offers a
way to quickly access the resourceful state of relaxation and use it for de-stressing, remaining clam
and clear in crises, and take charge of one’s states. The book relies upon Yoga practices and
integrates it with NLP. Debra Lederer, a Yoga instructor and NLP Master Practitioner brings years of
health coaching into this very practical book.
16) The Structure of Personality: Modeling “Personality Using NLP and Neuro
Semantics (Hall , Bodenhamer, Bolstad, Harmblett, 2001)
With the power of Neuro-Semantics and NLP, there aremultiple tools for bringing about change so
pervasive and transformative, that it changes even “personality.” Dr. Hall leads out in this book demystifying “personality” and challenging the DSM-IV classifications of personality as a thing.
Instead, from the view of NLP and NS, personality is what we “do.” This massive volume looks at 14
personality disordering processes from the cognitive-behavioral point of view and provides both
analysis and therapeutic interventions for these painful experiences.
17) The Secrets of Personal Mastery (2000)
This book is based upon the Meta-States model and especially upon the introductory training,
Accessing Personal Genius. Couched in the language of business and mastery of a field, the secrets of
the meta-levels of mind will take you on a journey for how to use one’s mind-bodyemotion states for
personal mastery and excellence.
18 Frame Games: Persuasion Elegance (2000)
Where there is a Game, there are over-arching frames that set up the rules of that game. And where
there are frames (frames of mind, frames of meaning), there will be Games— mental, emotional,
behavioral, and relational games. Frame Games provides a new way to think about experience,
thought, feeling, and human responses in terms of the frames and games that we create and experience.
A user-friendly version of Meta-States, Frame Games introduces the reader to the Matrix of Frames
that he and she was born in and which continues to govern everything we experience.
19) Games Fit and Slim People Play (2001)
Frame Games (2000) as a book and training has given birth to many expressions and applications.
The games we play in eating and exercising, of gaining and losing weight, of staying fit or failing to
are among the most common of these games. Some people have taken the book Games Fit and Slim
People Play and have lost 75 pounds. If you don’t like the games your playing, change the frames.
20) Games for Mastering Fear (with Bodenhamer, 2001)
There are some games of fear that people play that only make life fearful, anxious, dreadful, full of
anxiety and dread. Yet they all make sense. The frames of mind and meaning create such games.
Transformation comes about through identify the frames and games, and changing the rules of such
games. And that’s easier done than most people imagine.
21) Games Business Experts Play (2001)
Modeling business experts, Dr. Hall found that they play a different set of games than those who are
not so successful in business. They also come from a different set of mental frames. Theseframe
games make for their success. Now you can learn the rules of such games and try them on to increase
your success in finances, career, customer service, thinking like an entrepreneur, etc.
22) The Matrix Model (2002/ 2003)
You were born in a matrix of frames of meaning just like the rest of us. Waking up to our matrix and
learning to get free from it so that we can choose, really choose our frames of mind and therefore way
of life is what mastering our matrices is all about. The Matrix model unites all of the individual
domains and models of NLP and provides an over-arching framework for Neuro-Semantics as a
model. This is a revolutionary book and model. Take the red pill and discover the 7 matrices of your
mind.
23) User’s Manual of the Brain: Practitioner course, Volume I (1999). This is a massive volume
that presents the key components to the Practitioner course of NLP. Written primarily by Dr.
Bodenhamer, this book will take you through step-by-step and exercise by exercise the critical factors
for running your own brain and taking ownership of it. You’ll learn the use of states, language, time,
strategies, hypnosis, and much more.
24) User’s Manual of the Brain: Master Practitioner Course, Volume II (2002) Another massive
volume on the field of NLP, this one on the four metadomains and how to put them together in a
systemic way. Chapters cover Meta-Model, Meta-Programs, Meta-States, and Meta-Modalities
(formerly, “sub-modalities”). There are several chapters on thinking systemically and getting the
attitude that brings one into mastery of the field.
25) MovieMind (2002)
An easy to read introduction to NLP and Neuro-Semantics that plays off of the metaphor of making an
inner mental movie as how we think and that therefore controls our inner space and leads to our
feelings, actions, and relationships. MovieMind is about how to run your own brain without any of the
jargon of NLP. A great introduction to the field.
26) The Bateson Report (2002)
Only for those who are not faint-hearted. An analysis of the ideas and models of Gregory Bateson,
one of the geniuses of the 20th century. The Bateson Report summarizes articles and writings of Dr.
Hall as he has tapped into the wisdom of Bateson for ideas about schizophrenia, modeling, metalevels, “logical levels,” and much more.
27) Make it So! (2002)
A document that focuses in on one thing— the art of taking learnings and knowledge and implementing
them so fully into life, heart, behavior that they become ours. This is about closing the Knowing-
Doing Gap. It’s about blowing out excuses, and using 30 key Neuro-Semantic patterns for enable
people to walk their talk and to develop high level congruency with what they believe.
28) Sourcebook of Magic, Volume II, Neuro-Semantic Patterns (2003) A second volume to the first
book of 77 patterns. This one has 144 and they are almost all Neuro-Semantic patterns based upon
Meta-States.
29) Games Great Lovers Play (2003)
Another in the Games series —this one on relationships and especially the love relationship. How do
those who love and love greatly think and feel and act? What games do they play? What are the rules
of those games? How do they take charge of their games? How do they stay in love and grow in love?
How do they conflict in a way that supports their relationship rather than undermine it? How do they
discover the language of love of their partner and learn to speak it? All this and more is in this book.
30) Propulsion Systems (2003)
When we are pulled into our future by a great vision of possibilities and we are simultaneous pushed
forward by the pain and distress of all we will miss if we don’t move forward, we have a motivation
system that goes far beyond the mere carrot and stick. We have a propulsion system. We have a
system of motivation that will keep us moving and that will enable us to live our passion.
31) Coaching Conversations (with Michelle Duval, 2003)
We coach by asking questions—great and awesome questions that activate the best in a client, get to
the heart of the matter, and that empowers a client to move to the next level of development. This
book explores such questions and presents hundreds of them and then demonstrates 14 types of
coaching conversations to give a feel of the power and magic in such dialogue.
32) Meta-Coaching, Vol. I. Coaching Change (with Duval, 2004) In the first of several volumes in
the Meta-Coach Training system. Coaching Change introduces the key ideas in Meta-Coaching as
well as the Axes of Change, the only generative and self-actualizing and nontherapeutic change model
in the field of coaching. The Axes of Change models how self-actualizing people or changeembracers change. Based on four meta-programs, it details 9 coaching roles, states and skills.
TRAININGS
NLP TRAININGS
Meta-NLP Practitioner: An intensive 7-day training in the essential NLP skills. Meta-Masters NLP
Practitioner: An intensive 14-Day Training in mastering the three of the meta-domains of NLP:
Language (Meta-Model), Perception (MetaPrograms) and States and Levels (Meta-States).
Basic Meta-State Trainings
1) Accessing Personal Genius (The 3 day Basic). Introduction to Meta-States as an advanced NLP
model.
1) Secrets of Personal Mastery: Awakening Your Inner Executive. 2) Frame Games: Persuasion
Elegance.
Meta-States Gateway Trainings
1) Wealth Creation: Mastering Your Wealth Matrix
2) Selling Excellence
3) Mind-Lines: Lines for Changing Minds.
4) Accelerated Learning Using NLP & Meta-States
5) Defusing Hotheads and other Cranky People.
6) Instant Relaxation.
7) Games for Mastering Fear.
8) Games For Mastering Stuttering and Blocking
9) Games Business Experts Play.
10) Games Slim and Fit People Play.
11) Mastery Games.
12) Resilience Training,.
Advanced Neuro-Semantic Trainings
1) Advanced Modeling Using Meta-Levels.
2) Advanced Flexibility Training.
3) Neuro-Semantic and NLP Trainers Training.
4) Meta-Coaching Certification Training. — www.meta-coaching.org