6.8 Dimensions of Communication
Ray Birdwhistell said that only 7% of communication arises from the words used, while a full 93% of what we communicate arises from voice tonality and body signals.
In an article entitled, “Kinetics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication”, Ray Birdwhistell said that only 7% of communication arises from the words used, while a full 93% of what we communicate arises from voice tonality and body signals. He further said that 38% of effective communication arises from voice tonality (tonality includes tone, speed, quality, volume, etc), while the other 55% of communication involves physiological factors.7 This refers to communication that comes through posture, gestures, facial expression and breathing.
Have you ever given someone a gift and their verbal response indicated that they loved the gift (they said so), but on another level, their non-verbal communications (their voice tonality and physiology) “told” you that they didn’t really love the gift? Which communication did you believe? More than likely, you sided with their non-verbal signals. When a person says “yes” with their mouth while their head shakes side-to-side, we experience incongruity. So what do we believe? What do we decide? A great many people go with the unconscious signal of the head-shaking “no.”
These findings inform us as to why most people believe the non-verbal communication over the verbal. Non-verbal communication, more often than not, functions unconsciously—outside of our conscious awareness. The person talking lacks awareness of their unconscious signals. Yet our unconscious mind often picks up on these unconscious communication signals.
I (MH) have a little different take on this. C.E. “Buzz” Johnson (1994) explored this research about the parts of meaning that come from the different communication media (words, tonality, body gestures) which he called “The 7%, 38%, 55% Myth.” Tracing back the source to Albert Mehrabian’s (1971) works, “Silent Messages” and “Nonverbal Communications,” he quoted Mehrabian as saying, these numbers “have to do only with what he calls the resolution of inconsistent messages… incongruencies.” Mehrabian further added, “there are very few things that can be communicated non-verbally.”
He explained that the original research sought to identify the “attitude” (the person’s emotion behind their words) carried in the tonal component and tested this using single words, Johnson argued that we must handle with great care the implications of that research. Johnson (1994) further noted,
“If you’ve ever played charades, you know that words and language are by far the most effective way of expressing complex and abstract ideas.”
Now he certainly did not argue against the existence and power of the nonverbal channels of communication. Of course not. Yet,
“Words and language are probably the primary motivation factors for human beings and they can be enhanced by proper congruent totality and body language” (p.36).
Bandler and Grinder (1975) argued that given these different facets of communication, neither operate as more or less important than the other per se, but can in a given context. Accordingly, we should take them all as para-messages—on an equal footing—and search out what each signal or message means, especially if they differ.
Similarly, much of my (BB) training in communication has focused on the area of verbal communication. The NLP model slightly shifts this emphasis onto the total communication process which includes the non-verbal communication messages as well. What does this mean practically? It means that to communicate effectively, my unconscious communication must congruently reflect my verbal communication. We call this incredibly powerful factor “congruency.” If I want people to believe my communications, then what I say verbally must congruently match my tone of voice, physiology, posture, breathing, etc.
Gestures and voice tonality speak volumes while words speak pages.
The 7%, 38%, 55% findings suggests why many people (if not most) always believe the how of a person’s communications up against what they actually say. How often have you noticed someone’s eyes, voice, facial expressions and gestures communicate congruently that they really did like a gift? Didn’t that communicate most powerfully to you? Such represents the importance of recognizing and working with all of the communication dimensions!
So, as you undoubtedly have guessed, congruency plays an extremely important role in the area of building rapport and trust in your communication. In the area of communication and relationship building, we must send out our messages congruently. This means that what we say (auditory) and what we express via feelings (kinesthetic) must match what others see (visual) in us as we communicate to them. Gestures and voice tonality speak volumes while words speak pages.
[Let us note one disclaimer at this point. The behavioral equivalent for one person for “trust,” “honesty,” “sincerity,” “conviction,” etc., will often differ from what another person attributes as the behavioral equivalent. Thus, to some people, when a speaker “raises their voice” that means (equates to) excitement, enthusiasm, conviction. To others, it means “being obnoxious, insecure, unsure, etc.” Similarly, when a person folds their arms across the chest some people will read that as meaning “defensive, closed, rigid,” while others will read it as meaning “getting calm, attempting to listen, relaxed.” This means that we also need to know and take into account the behavioral meaning equivalent of non-verbals for any given audience. The stories of cross-cultural mis-readings can provide both amusing entertainment and tragic misunderstandings.]
6.9 Thought Questions To Assist Your Learning:
How would the NLP “Communication Guideline” alter or affect your communication style?
Recall and list (without looking if possible) the three Qualities of Exceptional Communicators.
Which criteria of Well-Formed Outcomes do you already do very well? How did you learn to do this?
Which criteria of Well-Formed Outcomes do you need to learn and develop?
What impressed you about all the “complexities” that contribute to the Complexity of Communication?
6.9.0.1 Notes – Chapter 5
7 Ray L. Birdwhistell, Kinetics and Context: Essays on Body-Motion Communication. Allen Lane, 1971. (Originally published, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970).
7
Framing For Resourcefulness
7.1 What you can expect to learn in this chapter:
How meaning completely depends upon Frames
A number of empowering frames in NLP
How to shift frames (reframe) to transform meaning
How to use the Pretend Frame
How to use the Dissociative Frame
The dissociative frame of reference provides many resources for the person who knows when and how to use it. First we will study some of the primary frames of reference as presented in NLP. Then we will apply it to the process of learning to effectively handle feedback (commonly called “criticism”) and finally we will apply it to phobias and traumas. As a way of viewing things—stepping out of a picture, remembered experience, or even an ongoing current experience—and take a second position (Chapter Three) empowers us to cope with things without going into state. Choosing when to do this, to what degree and when to stop doing this provides us with a flexibility of consciousness of much value.
In NLP the process of framing refers to putting things in different contexts (frames of reference), thus giving them different meanings.
7.2 Part I—Using Different Frames Of Reference
In NLP the process of framing refers to the putting of things in different contexts (frames of reference) in order to give them different meanings. Some of these frames appear implicitly in other sections of this training manual.
7.2.0.2 Frames Found In The Well-Formed Outcome Model
You first read of the Outcome Frame in the early part of our training dealing with the Well-Formed Outcome model (Chapter Five).
That model also contained the Ecology Frame. You will remember that ecology deals wi
th the way your actions fit into the wider systems of family, friends and co-workers.
The Evidence Frame also appeared in the Well-Formed Outcome model. This frame concerns itself with clear and specific details. In the Evidence Frame you ask, “What will I see, hear and feel when I obtain my outcome?” The Evidence Frame’s usefulness reveals itself not only in the Well-Formed Outcome Model but also in most areas the NLP Practitioner works in.
In this chapter we shall explore numerous frames and provide patterns for using these frames. To shift to a different frame typically will reframe one’s perspective and therefore one’s meaning. And when we do this, our very world changes. This transformation of meaning alters our neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic “reality” so that we see things differently, feel different emotions, act and speak in different ways, etc.
7.2.0.3 Backtrack Frame
In the Backtrack Frame you mirror their words.
The Backtrack Frame offers a simple but most effective model. The frame utilizes the skills you have learned from building rapport through matching, mirroring, pacing and leading. Using this frame you recapitulate the information you have up to that point by using the other person’s key words and tonalities in the backtrack. Most summary statements distort the other person’s words. However, in the Backtrack Frame you mirror their words. Therefore, using the Backtrack Frame really helps in maintaining rapport. This frame demonstrates its helpfulness in meetings, especially when you need to update new people and in the checking of agreement and understanding of all the participants. The frame gives you time to think about what you’re going to do or say next.
7.2.0.4 Backtracking Exercise
Let “B” think of something they would like to accomplish. As “B” tells “A” about the outcome, “A” asks of “B” questions that will elicit from “B” high quality sensory-based information.
As “B” answers “A’s” questions, “A” silently identifies the process words or predicates that “B” uses. “A” may wish to take notes of the statements and/or predicates.
Then “A” backtracks by saying, “Now let me make sure I heard you correctly, you said …” For the first several responses, “A” accurately matches the process words “B” used. Then let “A” begin to deliberately mismatch some of the responses.
“C” stands behind “A” with hands on “A’s” shoulders (thumbs on “A’s” back). When “A” matches “B’s” responses according to “C’s” memory, “C” squeezes their right thumb into “A’s” back. When “A” mismatches “B”, “C” squeezes their left thumb into “A’s” back. “A” and “C” should pay close attention to “B’s” responses to the mismatches. There will probably occur some incongruence in “B’s” response. See if a mismatch effectively causes incongruence. A mismatch usually works about the same as a slap in the face!
Continue for a total of 7 – 8 minutes each round, stopping only for only very brief conferences when “A” and “C” disagree about a match or mismatch.
Stretch: Try to match “B’s” predicate sequencing, e.g., “I’ve been telling myself for some time that I could look at things differently.” Reply, “So you’ve been saying to yourself that a different outlook may be necessary.” (10 minutes each)
7.2.0.5 “As If” Frame
The “As If” frame assists in problem solving by pretending that something
has already happened which enables the exploration of possibilities.
The “As If” frame assists in problem solving by pretending that something has already happened which enables the exploration of possibilities. Some NLP trainers refer to the “As If” frame as the “Pretend Frame.” Pretend that you have moved six months or a year into a successful future. Then, look back and ask yourself, “What steps did I take that led me to this successful outcome?” From this future perspective you may discover new and important information that previously you did not have available to you in the immediate present. We often live too close to the problem and that sometimes hinders our seeing the total picture. This frame assists us in seeing the problem from a future perspective.
The “As If” frame works with groups or committees. Suppose a key person has not shown up for the meeting. Using this frame just ask, “If they had come, what would they do?” If you have a person present who knows the absentee well, this person may very well provide some valuable information.
Interestingly, the “As If” frame works not only with time switch as given in the example above, but also with person, information and function switches. The following examples demonstrate lead-in statements for each switch:
7.2.0.6 Types of “As If” Frames
Time Switch: Pretend that you have moved six months or a year into a successful future. Then, look back and ask yourself, “What steps did I take that led me to this successful outcome?”
Person Switch: “If you could become anyone you wanted to become, who or what would you become and how would they handle this problem?”
Information Switch: “Let’s just suppose that you had all the information you needed, then what do you suppose…?”
Function Switch: “Just pretend that you could change any part of the situation…”
The “As If” frame provides a valuable communication tool when dealing with people who resist change. Pretending as a rule does not create as threatening an environment as when we face real change. Since the frame tends to remove the threatening aspects of change, people’s minds become open to new choices.
7.2.0.7 “As If” Frame Exercise
“B” selects something they find themselves stuck in and desire to move forward.
“B” imagines moving into the future and looking back on how they easily handled the stuck state. “A” assists “B” by using lead-in statements such as: Let’s suppose that…”; “Let’s pretend that…”; “If you began to imagine that…”; “When you act as if…” Or, “A” may say something like this, “Now notice yourself handling the problem that used to bother you, and see and hear yourself effectively coping with the problem using new behaviors.”
“A” directs “B” in running a movie of themselves performing as they desire with the new resources they have discovered.
“A” asks “B” if the movie appears satisfactory to them. Re-associate them into the problem and have them run a movie of it. “A” then asks “B”, “Are you satisfied in dealing with this situation by using these new behaviors?” This “ecology check” determines if the person as a whole has total agreement with the change.
If “B” answers “no”, “A” recycles them to number 1 and continues. If “B” answer “yes”, proceed with the following steps.
Do a Break State.
Test. “A” asks “B”, “Think of the stuck state one more time.” Typically, as “B” begins to think of the stuck state, they will automatically move to the dissociated state of seeing themselves successfully solving the problem as in step number 2.
The goal of this exercise provides “B” with some new choices rather than getting stuck in limited choices or no choices.
7.2.0.8 The “Agreement” Frame Pattern
To achieve an agreement frame, both must move to a higher logical level that encompasses all of the concerns, perceptions, and frames of reference.
When two people in conflict lack agreement about something, they will continually butt heads. Often disagreements will arise because they are looking at a situation from different points of view, and do so in categorical ways. To achieve an agreement frame, both must move to a higher logical level that encompasses all of the concerns, perceptions, and frames of reference. This pattern enables us to facilitate the process whereby people or groups in conflict can reach quality agreements with each other. Remember, you never solve a problem at the level of the problem. You must chunk higher to agreement.
7.2.0.9 The Agreement Frame Pattern
Identify the current frames. Ask each person for a specific description of their outco
me. “What do you want specifically?” “What values, beliefs, and criteria drive this goal?” “What do you evaluate about this as really important?” (These questions not only gather important information, but also pace each person so that each feels heard and understood. It also begins to construct meta-or higher level outcomes for an agreement frame.)
Identify common elements. Find a common element at a higher level that brings the two parties into agreement. Chunk up to a higher positive intent that both can agree on. “Jack wants a blue chair and, Jill, you want a red one. It seems that, at least, you both agree on purchasing a chair, right?” By pacing the higher-level want, it moves the parties there.
Identify a higher level category. If you get a no, then move the parties up to the next category. In the example, you might use “furniture.” “Do you both agree that you want to purchase some piece of furniture?” Continue until you find some level (category) of agreement. “So you could both agree on an expenditure for the house, right?”
Utilize the parties’ meta-outcomes to formulate the larger level agreement frame. “By purchasing X, what will that do for you, Jack?” “And if you purchase Y, what will that do for you, Jill?” “When you get that outcome, what does that do for you?” Continue this until the parties agree to the other person’s higher level intent. “So you both want a comfortable and attractive home?”
The User's Manual for the Brain Volume I Page 15