THIS CHAPTER EXAMINES SOME OF THE FACTORS that result in the deletion and distortion of the information absorbed by our brain at a conscious level, and how we also delete and distort information when we communicate to others.
Richard Bandler and John Grinder are the cofounders of Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP)3, a methodology to understand patterns of human behavior.
Robert Dilts describes NLP as encompassing the three most influential components involved in producing human experience: neurology, language and programming. The neurological system regulates how our bodies function, language determines how we interact and communicate with other people, and our programming determines the kinds of models of the world we create. In other words, NLP describes the fundamental dynamics between mind (neuro), language (linguistic) and how their interplay affects our body and behavior (programming).
Bandler and Grinder state that we interact with our world using our five senses: visual (images), auditory (sounds), kinesthetic (touch and internal feelings) and, to a lesser extent, gustatory (tastes) and olfactory (smells). The entirety of our experience is represented (re-presented) to our brain in sensorial terms, and we rely on our senses again to recall this experience.
For example, when we are at a barbecue with friends, we see ourselves and our friends, we hear the laughter of our friends, we feel the warmth of the sun on our back, we smell the meat cooking and we taste the delicious food. When we recall the memory of this event and retell this experience to others, we rely on our senses to do so as well.
We know that our five senses are the channels through which we absorb information and re-present our experiences to our brain, and that the information that we absorb is influenced by our uniquely created filters. We now need to look briefly at the factors that influence the amount and type of information that we absorb, and how the emotions that surface for us when we are absorbing information can influence how we interpret that information as well.
The deletion and distortion of the information we absorb is influenced by:
1. The amount of information that is absorbed by our conscious mind
2. The type of information that is absorbed and processed by our conscious mind
3. The emotions that surface for us when we are processing and interpreting incoming information
Our senses re-present to our brain 11 million bits of information per second from our environment for processing, but our conscious mind is only able to process approximately 40 bits per second.
The fact is that every single second, millions of bits of information flood in through our senses. But our consciousness processes only perhaps 40 bits per second — at most. Millions and millions of bits are condensed to a conscious experience that contains practically no information at all. Every single second, every one of us discards millions of bits in order to arrive at the special state known as consciousness.
— Torr Norretranders, The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness
Down to Size, Penguin Press, 1999
In his book, Norretranders quotes Professor Manfred Zimmermann from the Institute of Physiology at Heidelberg University:
We can therefore conclude that the maximal information flow of the process of conscious sensory perception is about 40 bits per second — many orders of magnitude below that taken in by receptors (nerve endings). Our perception, then, would appear to be limited to a minute part of the abundance of information available as sensory input.
Having looked at the limited amount of information that our brain or conscious mind absorbs, we will now look at how our unique paradigm and perspective influences the type of information or data we absorb.
As described in Chapter 1, the type of information we absorb is limited to that which matches our paradigm. The filters through which we absorb and interpret our world are uniquely customized by us and are based on the beliefs and values we developed during our formation, how these were modeled to us by the significant people in our lives, our culture and educational experiences, and any other experiences that helped create our perspective.
While our paradigm and perspective may influence us to only focus on the things we wish to focus on, the problem is that when we specifically focus on one thing, we can easily overlook something else. This was demonstrated in an experiment called the Selective Attention Test undertaken by Simons and Chabris in 1999.4
The experiment5 involved several people standing in a circle and passing a ball to each other. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players wearing white T-shirts passed the ball. In the middle of this exercise, a person dressed as a very large gorilla walked into the center of the circle, turned to the camera, pounded their chest and walked away. The experiment showed that more than 50 percent of viewers were so focused on counting the number of ball passes that they completely missed the gorilla. From my own experience during the delivery of mediation or conflict training, I would put the percentage at more than 50 percent. In one case that I observed, only 5 participants in a group of 39 noticed the gorilla, and only a small percentage got the correct answer to the question of how many times the players in the white T-shirts passed the ball.
Simons and Chabris also carried out an experiment called the Door Study.6 This demonstrated that we sometimes fail to detect large changes to objects and scenes because our mind tends to fixate on the first image we see.
In this study, a researcher asked a stranger in the street for directions. Two workers who were part of the experiment walked down the street holding a door and carried it between the two people who were conversing. As the door passed between them, both the researcher and the stranger found their vision of each other being momentarily interrupted. During this interruption, the researcher was replaced by one of the workers carrying the door. In follow-up research questions, many of the people who had taken part in the experiment had not noticed the change, and if they had noticed, did not seem to be concerned that they were suddenly talking to a different person.
Biased Assimilation is when we focus only on what we want to see or hear because it affirms our perspective and paradigm. However, we also tend to see and hear only that on which we are focused, as evidenced in the Selective Attentional Blindness study experiment, so this becomes a never-ending cycle of distorted and deleted information intake.
In “Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence,” Charles G. Lord, Lee Ross and Mark R. Lepper of Stanford University state that:
People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a biased manner. They are apt to accept “confirming” evidence at face value while subjecting “disconfirming” evidence to critical evaluation, and, thus draw undue support for their initial positions from mixed or random empirical findings.
Similarly, parties engaging in mediation enter the process with their narrative firmly in place. Prior to mediation, they are more likely to have only listened to people or information that confirmed their narrative and position.
This bias refers to the fact that it is psychologically uncomfortable for most people to consider data that contradicts their viewpoint. This is covered in more detail in Chapter 14.
People can be of the view that their opinions, beliefs and values are normal and typical of other people. They assume that others also think the same way they do and, as a result, only look for the type of information that confirms their view.
People tend to minimize the value of a statement or action by another party due to concerns about the credibility or competence of the source.
This bias refers to a person’s tendency to be antagonistic to an enemy and assume negative intent toward that person, even in the absence of any evidence. This affects the type of information that they absorb.
Having looked at the limited amount of information our brain takes in, and at how our unique perspective and paradigm influences the type of information or data we absorb, we will now look at how the emotions that surface for us while we interpret that incoming information also affect the information we absorb.
The amount and type of information we take in is further influenced by the emotions we feel while we absorb this information. During an event, if the social stimuli experienced by a person are negative and create fear, then biological hardwiring, governed by memories of past negative stimuli, will activate a threat response in the brain. It is important to note again that the memories stored by our brain are merely memories of our perceptions or subjective realities.
Jeremy Lack8 maintains that our perceptions are influenced by our emotions and therefore subjective. If we are lacking in emotional self-awareness or emotional intelligence, then the emotional memories of our perceptions will influence the interpretation of information presented to us, and this may result in our becoming illogical in our thinking.
In conclusion, there is a staggering amount of information available to us that we do not process at a conscious level. This highlights the need for a mediator to ask strategic, incisive and effective questions during mediation discussions, to create clarity of thinking and ensure that deeper information is uncovered.
The NLP model of communication is a useful tool for understanding how we process incoming information through our uniquely created filters. NLP theory7 shows that, consciously or unconsciously, we delete, distort and generalize our experiences in line with our paradigm. In NLP terminology, our paradigm is referred to as our world map. We perform these mental manipulations to ensure that our world map remains intact and matches our created paradigm, reinterpreting information so that it becomes distorted and generalized and editing or deleting information that is not in line with our paradigm.
We perform these deletions, distortions and generalizations of sensory information via subjective, customized filters. The result is that the information we present to our brains at the end of this process can vary greatly from the information that was initially available to us.
This concept of deletion, distortion and generalization of incoming information is explored using the NLP Meta Model, described in detail in the following table.
The NLP Meta Model — Deletions, Distortions and Generalizations
Deletions |
Deletions occur when we only pay attention to certain aspects of the information presented to us through our senses. We absorb the information that affirms our paradigm and filter out any information that we either do not think is relevant or did not see in the first place. The deletion process is often unconscious and can result in important information not being known to the parties in conflict or not voiced in a mediation process. |
Distortions |
Distortions happen when we change our experience of something by unconsciously altering the way in which we absorb information and relay it to others. We may blow something completely out of proportion or else diminish it; we may also alter the sequence of events or make assumptions about them and jump to conclusions. We may even think that we can mind read and assume someone else’s state, but all of this is only based on our own biased and selective assumptions, and not on our ability to mind read! |
For example, when someone says,” I know exactly why she did that!” If our perceptions are based on the information we absorb, and if we have already deleted or distorted some of that information, then our experience will only be based on the remaining information absorbed. This will result in even further distortion of the information we process at a conscious level. An example of how this happens can be found in Chapter 10. |
Generalizations |
Generalizations occur when we take a specific experience, draw universal assumptions about it, then apply it as true to everything outside the context of that specific experience. For example, we can have an opinion of one person and then apply it to a whole category or race of people: “You can never trust anyone from that race — they are all criminals.” |
When generalizing, we use words such as everyone, all, no one, never and always. Generalizing gives us a way of predicting the world based on what we have experienced previously. We then expect that our future will fit into this previous pattern and only look for information that confirms our expectations. |
If we did not delete, distort and generalize the information absorbed into our brain, our neurology would not be able to cope with the information overload. However, the result is that the information that we do absorb is not an accurate reflection of what happened. With such limited information from which to draw conclusions, no two people will have the same response or reaction, despite having been exposed to the same stimuli.
We need something that prevents our brain from over-loading and keeps us sane. Luckily there is a part of our brain located between the conscious mind and the unconscious mind that filters out much of this information. This small filter is called the Reticular Activating System, and it helps to keep us sane by looking for information in the outside world that matches the beliefs already stored in the unconscious mind.
— Train Your Brain, Dana Wilde, Balboa Press, 2013
Our uniquely customized paradigm becomes our reference point about who we are, what our status is, what we are certain about, what we think is right or wrong, how things were in the past, how things should be in the future, how we make decisions, what makes us comfortable, what we consider to be fair and what will influence what we communicate to others. Any interpretations or assumptions that we make may be based on the incomplete and distorted information that we process at a conscious level, and these assumptions are influenced by our own uniquely customized paradigm. While we can share experiences, our understanding, perspective, interpretation and assumptions of an experience are subjective, and therefore different to those who may have shared that experience with us.
Two people can see the same thing, disagree, and yet both be right. It’s not logical; it’s psychological.
— Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People9
Figure: 2.1. Differing Perceptions
CREDIT: O’SULLIVAN SOLUTIONS
After an experience or situation, we are left with our perception of what happened. This perception is what we re-present to ourselves, what we react to or act on and what we re-present to others, both consciously and unconsciously.
When we communicate to another person, we make assumptions about what they already know or do not know, and about how they will perceive what is being said. Therefore, when we communicate to them, we consciously or unconsciously delete, distort or generalize the information we impart. When others communicate with us, they also delete, distort or generalize the information they impart to us.
NLP suggests that we delete, generalize and distort our experiences when we transform them into internal representations (re-presenting the experiences in the brain). Then our choice of words to describe those experiences deletes, generalizes and distorts it all over again.
— Joseph O’Connor, NLP Workbook: A Practical Guide to Achieving the Results You Want10
The process by which we limit and distort our representation of our world to ourselves is the same as that by which we limit and distort our communication of our world to others.
For example, if we must decide whether to rent a small, cheap apartment or a large, expensive one, and we really want the larger apartment, we may only see the negatives in the smaller apartment option and the positives in the larger option. Moreover, when we start looking for advice, we may only ask our wealthier friends and may frame our questions in a way that will give us the response we want:
“There is a wonderful large apartment in the city that I am thinking of renting and it would really suit me, and there is also a smaller, cheaper one there too, what do you think I should do?”
Figure: 2.2. NLP — Sensory Experience to Spoken Words
CREDIT: O’SULLIVAN SOLUTIONS
In NLP Workbook, Joseph O’Connor11 states that we use two levels of language:
1. Surface Structure Language
2. Deep Structure Language
These are the things that we say to ourselves and to other people. The surface structure of our language cannot contain everything that is in the deep structure so we delete, distort and generalize some aspects of our communication, both to others and to ourselves.
Example of surface structure language:
He never takes me to dinner anymore like all other men do with their wives! This is not fair and I want it to change.
If we were to look below the surface structure language level for underlying needs and interests, we would hear a very different narrative.
Example of deep structure language:
He never takes me to dinner anymore and this must mean that he has stopped loving me, so that must mean that I must be unlovable.
This latter narrative can be the underlying meaning of what we say. It comprises everything we know about an experience. But we either do not express it when we communicate with another person, or do not know it consciously.12
During mediation, the parties usually present a surface level of communication before the mediator starts asking questions to uncover their deeper levels of concern and underlying interests. While a party’s presenting issues and positions are conscious, the many unseen layers of needs and interests below the surface can be either conscious or unconscious. Much of our information or data processing, including what we delete, distort and generalize, is accomplished outside our conscious awareness, and most of the brain’s activity takes place outside our direct conscious control.
How we communicate to ourselves and to others indicates how vital it is that a mediator seeks to clarify existing information and bring new information into a mediation process to minimize the effects of information deletion, distortion and generalization. Questions need to focus on the deep structure language level so that underlying interests and needs are uncovered. This is what will create understanding between the parties. Chapter 16 includes a type of S4 question called Underlying Interests and comprehensively demonstrates how to reach the deeper-structure language levels or underlying interests of parties in conflict.
Between what I think, what I wish to say, what I think I am saying, what I actually say, and what you wish to hear, what you actually hear, and what you understand.... There are 10 reasons why we may have difficulty communicating, but let’s try anyway.
— Bernard Werber13
The questions asked of a party in mediation should lead them to readjust their subjective reality and perspective. The assumption is that if subjective realities shape behavior, then readjusting them might lead to a paradigm shift in a party’s thinking and therefore a readjustment of their behaviors. A mediator needs to support parties to think about their thinking as this is what influences their subjective realities and their actions and reactions.
In her book NLP at Work,14 Sue Knight explains what is needed to support people to think clearly:
Once you have experienced something, it becomes a memory. When you react to a memory you are reacting to the way you store that memory. Supporting a party to think clearly and to make distinctions in their thinking helps them to change the way they are storing that memory so that they can start to feel the way they would like to feel.
When parties shift their thinking, their changed perspectives will result in changed behavior. The role of the mediator is to explore the unique perception or paradigm of each of the parties. A mediator needs to be mindful, present and skillful in understanding the experience of others. Then they need to work with those experiences, rather than with their own interpretations of a party’s experience.
A shift in thinking and paradigm is achieved by asking questions that:
1. Bring clarity to the parties’ thinking
2. Uncover unknown information
3. Focus and explore the parties’ thinking
4. Broaden and expand the parties’ thinking
5. Create new insights
This is what S4: Shift Thinking questions do. So, ask lots and lots of S4 questions!