Meta model – generalization patterns
Next up in our whistle-stop tour of NLP, and still very much within the meta model, is what we know as ‘generalization patterns’ or ‘universal quantifiers’. Again, you will spot what’s going on here from everyday conversations. I will give plenty of examples so you don’t even need to think about the terminology; just allow yourself to notice how many you already know once they are pointed out to you. But this is how Bandler and Grinder describe generalization patterns and the reason why we should be aware of them:
‘Generalization is the process by which elements or pieces of a person’s model become detached from their original experience and come to represent the entire category of which the experience is an example. Our ability to generalize is essential to coping with the world… The same process of generalization may lead a human being to establish a rule such as, “Don’t express any feelings.”’10
When using universal quantifiers, you are effectively saying, ‘There are no exceptions and therefore there are no choices either.’ And of course, we already know that this is almost never the case, but sometimes it can be useful to frame things like this as in, for example, ‘You will always find a way if you persevere.’ But most of the time, we will be challenging these universal quantifiers, to unpick the scope for change that you didn’t even know was there.
The biggest problem with this kind of language pattern is that it creates limitations for us. We don’t even look for a solution because we assume there isn’t one. We can severely limit ourselves, especially when it comes to the scope of the language we use in our minds.
Language matters. Think about it this way: at a very simple level, let’s suppose we didn’t have a word for something. How do we know how to treat it? Then let’s say that we have a very limited scope for expression – let’s say we only have the words happy and sad – does that mean that we can only operate in those parameters?
Writing this reminds me of a time I was invited to dinner in Abu Dhabi with some eminent literary people, not my natural habitat at all, and as I sat listening (in the most intelligent manner I could muster between yawns… it was the jetlag, honest!) to conversations about books I’d not even heard of, let alone my preference for which language they translated into best, my little brain went whirling off to try to find some common ground on which I could actually contribute to the conversation.
What happened next, though, was quite remarkable. I didn’t consciously realize I was using my NLP knowledge, but when you join the dots you’ll see what happened. I pieced together the different parts of the conversation and got to thinking, ‘If the same book is translated into a different language, how is it that someone can have a preference for one over the other? Surely you would just prefer the one written in your native tongue?’
When I put that to the group, they all (and at great length) explained that this was not the case as some languages are far more full and descriptive than others, so when a book is translated from an expressive language like English or French to a less flexible language like Arabic, many of the subtleties and distinctions will be missed as the language just doesn’t have the scope and breadth of expression. The opposite is also true and translations between languages may also add more description and enrich the text with a greater depth of emotion and feeling. I had taken for granted how deep and descriptive the English language really is; just like the Inuit people have many different words for snow, in Scotland, we have just as many for rain.
So, if it’s the case that the flexibility and scope of the language affects the experience of reading the book, is it also true of the people who speak the language and their experience of the world around them? So if you have limited scope for distinction and lots of generalizations, is it not therefore just as likely that you will be missing out on lots of choices? You see my point?
Universal quantifiers to look out for are words such as ‘all’, ‘every’, ‘never’, ‘always’.
When you hear these words, the person (or yourself) is clearly showing you their beliefs. Pay attention when you use them, particularly if it’s to do with a problem you’ve had for a while. How often do you hear yourself say things like…
I’m sure some of these are all too familiar to you, just as they are to most people the world over, regardless of their native language. This is simply because we do all like to generalize and simplify how we process the world to make sense of it. But just as before, it is not in what’s said that we find the useful distinctions; it’s in what’s not. It is always far more powerful to see something new than to see something old yet again.
Try some of these ‘recovery’ or ‘uncovering’ questions and see how much more detail and choice you can add with just a few well-chosen words.
I’m sure you get the idea of how this works. Now we’re going to move on to one of my personal favourite patterns and show you just how quickly you can change the way you feel about something by using even just one single word. Before we do this, though, I want you to pay particular attention to your feelings.
Let’s play with some modal operators and find out.
The term ‘modal operators’ might sound a bit odd but it simply refers to ‘your mode of operating’. Modal operators are just words like ‘must’, ‘should’, ‘can’t’, ‘have to’, ‘mustn’t’, ‘can’, ‘will’ and, in fact, ‘just’ itself, and all indicate possibility or necessity. There is a big difference between doing something because you feel you have to or you should or because you want to. Just changing that one word makes a world of difference in how you feel about it, doesn’t it?
How often do we feel as if we have to do certain things and have no choice? At those times, we tend to use words such as ‘should’, ‘must’, ‘have to’, ‘need to’, ‘ought to’. Operators of implied necessity most often create stress states that are self-imposed and almost always disenabling in some way. But a further problem presents itself with the use of implied necessity modal operators. We very seldom really question whether we actually have to do certain activities or feel a certain way; we just sort of assume that we should and so we act from a place of limited or no choice when the reality can be very different.
Most of the time, we don’t stop and examine the real consequences of not doing those things. Instead, we just carry on with the sense of being hard done by. This is probably most obvious when you hear other people use these words in a context you wouldn’t.
As with all meta model patterns we are going to work with, there are some very simple recovery questions that enrich the experience and add so much more choice than if we just accept the statement at face value as an absolute.
Notice when you spot others using and misusing modal operators and try a few simple questions to see what happens next. The best way, as with all this stuff, is to play with it in the real world. NLP is a practical subject reverse-engineered from what happens naturally anyway, so have a play and see how you get on and what you discover when you ask…
States of necessity drive us to meet deadlines for sure. I might very well stay up all night to finish this chapter and meet my self-imposed deadline, but there is no real need to do so. Nothing will happen if I do, and nothing will happen if I don’t. The only possible use I could have for this modal operator is to impose a motivator of fear on the proceedings and I’m not sure how that’s going to help anyone.
But, of course, that is exactly what many people do to help them focus all their resources to reach important goals. Many find it motivating, but it will only really ever be in an away from ‘pain’ sense, in the sense that there is an implied threat of something bad happening if you don’t and so to avoid that pain, you force yourself to do the task, not for the benefit it will bring you, but for the avoidance of pain if you don’t. Effective it may be, but stressful, it definitely is. There is a big difference between, ‘I’d like to make extra money this month’ and ‘I have to make extra money this month’. Or what? Says who?
Necessity-type thinking diverts us away from other much more important and useful outcomes by creating a kind of tunnel vision. You will often hear people talking about being focused on their goals, but if you take a slightly different perspective on this, you will see that being focused on your goals as you see them and, more particularly, your perceived route to achieving them, automatically and by its very definition rules out all the other options.
Now, add into the mix that you know our perceived choices are always passed through the filter of our personal experience and then subject to deletions, distortions and generalizations, and you will see that just thinking it is the right or best way to do something gives you very little guarantee that it actually is. Surely it would be much better to stay open to the best way and to new opportunities as they present themselves rather than be blinkered on the other way at all costs.
In my experience in looking after some of the world’s most successful people, a goal can never be as powerful as an inspiring idea.
One is outside in and the other is inside out. It’s a bit like want to versus should. Just try those yourself right now. Which is more powerful and motivating, a want to or a should? Well, in my experience, people never need a pep talk or a motivational seminar to do something that they actually want to do in the first place. But with should, they try to find tools and ways (NLP included) to get themselves to do things that they think they should do but don’t really want to.
If you want your life to change quickly, don’t set any more goals. Instead, focus on doing things that make you feel inspired and when you are inspired, go and do that instead. That’s after all what you want to do. I have never met anyone who needs motivating to collect their lottery winnings – coincidence? I think not.
‘People are always gonna try to tell you how to run your life; great, listen to them but follow your heart and you’ll last forever…’ I think this quote was the first piece of self-help advice I ever read and one that has served me well. It did not come from some guru in a book either; it was in the notes for Lita Ford’s album Lita, which was one of my favourite albums at the time.
I did not meta model it back then, but if I had it would have gone something like this. ‘People [which people?] are always [really always?] gonna try to tell you [who?] how to run your life [all of my life, in every aspect?]; great [is that really great, says who?], listen to them [everything ‘they’ say, always?] but follow your heart [where? How do I do that?] and you’ll last forever…’
We can pick anything apart with the meta model but please don’t, words can be wise even if they are not semantically complete and how we interpret them can be very good as well as very limiting; that choice is always (yes, always) yours.
OK, more meta…
We often talk about things as though they are impossible to achieve or do. Our unconscious accepts these as therefore automatically real limitations. These are words such as ‘can’t’, or ‘impossible’.
And as you might expect by now, there are some really rather obvious ways to cheat your way to uncovering more useful information and enriching the person and your own map of the world. The information is there; it has just been generalized and with these questions we are, in effect, just zooming in to gain more detail. Try out these simple recovery questions to get your zoom fired up for all the detail and distinctions you’ll ever need.
And then my personal favourite,
Simple, I know, but you will be amazed at what comes up.
With me so far? Good. Well, the next is perhaps the trickiest of patterns to get your head around in the abstract so again I will make it as easy as possible with a few real-life examples.
Again, don’t worry about the fancy title. Complex equivalences involve constructing beliefs out of generalizations and linking two experiences together for no real reason other than we think that way. However, it can feel very, very real and restrictive until you shine the spotlight of a few recovery words on it.
For example, someone may believe that another person’s not making eye contact means they have something to hide or that they don’t like them. I did a huge NLP event recently and in the audience was a guy who had actively gone out of his way to avoid a co-worker for four years because, on his first day at the job, this other person had not made eye contact with him as they passed in the corridor. My guy instantly formed the assumption and then belief that there was a problem between them. Nothing had actually happened to prove it other than he had enough evidence for himself so he never questioned it… right up until the guy in question got in the lift with him and said, ‘We’ve never really spoken; I wondered if you didn’t like me for some reason. I hope that’s not the case because I can’t think why.’ Sometimes it is a pretty weak link, but it makes sense to the person at the time even if it doesn’t to anyone else, not even the person involved.
Uncovering the things we’ve made equal can be incredibly liberating.
So, that’s the pattern; let’s get straight to the quick recovery questions.
Again, the best place to practise these is in the real world. Go and play!
I wonder how much and how quickly your life could change if you didn’t just jump to those kinds of conclusions. Just because you think it and even if it ‘makes sense’ does not mean it’s true… This is something to think about, and yet another way to experience a small change making a big difference.