The User's Manual for the Brain Volume I

by Bob G Bodenhamer

  To challenge mind reading, ask, “How specifically do you know how I feel (think, intend, etc.)?” In response to this question, the speaker will then offer more of their internal world-model (Deep Structure). The question will allow the speaker to question assumptions and recover the source of the information.

  Examples:

  I know he doesn’t care.

  She knows better.

  I’m sure you’re aware…

  I can tell you don’t like me.

  He isn’t interested.

  You think…

  You’re upset.

  I know that you are wondering.

  9.3.0.18 3. Cause-Effect

  The over-used accusation, “You make me mad!” illustrates a cause-effect statement. This sentence implies that you directly make or cause me to feel mad as if I have no choice in the process. However you create this effect—when you do, I must feel this way. It seems to imply that you have a kind of psychic power over me. Words that indicate the presence of cause-effect statements include: make, if then, as you…, then, because, and almost any present tense verb. One of my students, John Burton, says “the word ‘because’ is the most influential mind changer than any other word.” “Because…?”

  To challenge such statements, ask, “How specifically do I cause you to feel bad?” “By what process do I ‘make’ you have these feelings, thoughts, or responses?” “Do you have no choice whatever in how you respond to this stimulus?” Such responses invite the speaker to expand and enhance their map about cause-and-effect in human relationships. It empowers the speaker to take responsibility for their own feelings, thoughts, and responses. It facilitates the speaker to adopt a more pro-active response by exploring their choices.

  One of the larger-level purposes of therapy involves empowering a client to recognize their response-able powers and to own their responses as their own. Clients generally feel that they suffer the effects of the causes of others. Effective counseling leads them to realize how they also stand ‘at cause.’ So we lead them to take control of their own lives and responses as they claim their own powers: the power to think, feel, speak, and behave.

  Examples:

  I’m late because of you.

  When you believe in me, I can do it.

  You make me feel __________.

  I would do it, but I’m mad.

  I feel badly that I hurt him.

  Just asking that question you begin to understand.

  You will begin to relax as you learn the Meta-model.

  Since you’re reading this sentence, you can think of several more examples.

  Because __________.

  As you progress in your knowledge of NLP, you will learn the importance of getting a statement into the form of a Cause-Effect for reframing. In order to do this, you simply ask a person this question, “How is that a problem for you?” This will direct the person you are communicating with to describe the problem in Cause-Effect terms. We cover this completely in our book Mind-Lines: Lines for Changing Minds. Such questioning “gets on the other person’s ‘map’” quickly. It prepares the person for processing the reframes you will direct towards them. And, it also serves as an excellent information-gathering tool. For instance, a client seems quite agitated. Obviously the client has allowed some external event to agitate them. I ask, “How is that a problem to you?” The client will give me more information as to the specifics of their problem. One client spoke about her husband’s irritating mannerisms. I inquired, “How are his mannerisms a problem for you?” She said, “He pisses me off.” Now I had her set up for a reframe. I immediately replied, “What would happen if you pissed on your belief that he can piss you off without your permission?” Well, you can read about that in Mind-Lines. It just seems that when you reverse Cause-Effect you find the solution. The point—no one can make you have any thought-feelings that you choose not to have.

  When we live at “Cause-Effect” we box ourselves in:

  Figure 8:1 Living at Cause-Effect

  When we challenge our Cause-Effect(s) (and others) we dissociate ourselves (and others) from our box(es) and give ourselves permission to ask, “Does this type thinking serve me (you)?”

  Figure 8:2 Dissociating from Cause-Effect

  Before moving from Cause-Effect, we would like to make one more important point. That point is how the question “Why?” often involves Cause-Effect ill-formedness. Dennis and Jennifer Chong in their thought-provoking book, Don’t Ask Why: A Book About The Structure Of Blame, Bad Communication And Miscommunication, point out that often when we ask the question “Why?” we are in fact looking for reasons and explanations. They conclude that, “Once you have the reason or explanation, you have the cause. You know what made you do it. The questions ‘Why?’ therefore seeks the elucidation of the relationship between two classes of variables or things: the class of variables that are the cause and the class of variables that are the effects” (p. 81). Thus, asking “Why?”, rather than looking for solutions to the problem, will often deepen the problem by eliciting reasons and justification.

  Imagine someone in your life whose behavior does not match your expectations. This works well with children. Now, note when you asked them, “Why did you do that?” if they don’t have a justifiable reason their unconscious mind will create one. So, have you assisted them out of their box or have you in fact anchored them deeper into their box? Asking the why of justification tends to deepen the problem rather than solving the problem as the person looks for and finds reasons and justifications for their behavior. Instead of asking “Why?” try asking, “What is your purpose in doing this behavior?” This question tends to dissociate them from the problem—gets them out of their box. (We will cover this type of questioning when we get to Milton Model hypnotic language patterns in Chapter Ten.) Once the person gives you their purpose in performing their behavior, you can say something like, “Well, the behavior you are doing will not get the response you want from me. But, doing (X) is more likely to get it. You have the choice to behave as you so choose. But, I will choose my response to your behavior.”

  The Chongs illustrate this “out-of-the-box” thinking with the following example of the nine dot square:

  Figure 8:3 Outside-of-the-Box Thinking

  Now, as you look at the nine dots, connect all nine dots using only four straight lines. Also, do not lift your pen off the paper nor re-trace over a line you have already drawn.

  Figure 8:4 The Solution

  To solve the problem, one must step outside the boundaries and limits of the square. Cause-Effect thinking locks us inside the box. Challenging our Cause-Effect thinking requires that we step outside our limiting belief boxes and ask, “Does this type thinking serve me?” If not, change it. After all, your thinking consists primarily of thoughts.

  We contend (contrary to some in NLP) that asking some forms of “Why?” can serve us. I (MH) address this in Chapter Three of my book Neuro-Linguistic Programming – Going Meta: Advanced Modeling Using Meta-levels. You may also find this chapter on our (http://www.neurosemantics.com) website. Here I list the various forms of “Why?”

  The Why of Causation/Source

  “Why do you act (feel, think) that way?”

  The Why of Explanation

  “Why do you judge yourself so harshly?”

  The Why of Teleology/Outcome (final effects, desired outcomes)

  “Why do you do that?” (That is, “What do you seek to accomplish in doing that? For what purpose?”)

  The Why of Value/Importance (values, frames of references, beliefs)

  “Why do you do that?” (That is, “What value does this hold for you?”)

  “Why do you find this important and significant?”

  In that chapter I (MH) conclude:

  The inhibition of the why? question has also created a general aversion to exploration of past “causes.” With some NLPers that I have known, this has seemed to create a state of intolerance about listening or pacing a person
’s Problem State. They have taken the why? inhibition so literally and seriously (not exactly “the spirit of NLP”!), that they become distraught when they even begin to work with someone’s story that involves very much historical content. They want to rush forward to giving out solutions with interventions of cure before they even begin to pace the person’s model of the world.

  By way of contrast we do see a more balanced approach in some of the Time-Lines processes and especially the Re-Imprinting Process of Robert Dilts. These NLP patterns certainly take a more balanced and thoughtful approach to “past” sources of difficulties and pains (that is, past beliefs, decisions, experiences, etc.). It even uses the TDS process for tracking down earlier occurrences of mapping problems around “self,” worth, dignity, purpose, destiny, etc.

  In this section on Cause-Effect, we just wish to warn you about the dangers of asking the why of reason/justification.

  9.3.0.19 4. Complex Equivalence

  We generate a complex equivalence whenever we use a part of an experience (an aspect of the external behavior) to become equivalent to the whole of its meaning (our internal state). Thus when we become aware of the external cue, we then assume the meaning of the whole experience. “You did not tell me that you love me this morning; you just don’t love me anymore.” Here a person has equated certain external behaviors (saying words that express love to someone) and an internal state (feeling loved). The construction of complex equivalences utilize words of equation: is, that means, equals, etc. A person makes one external phenomenon identical with another internal phenomenon.

  We therefore take experiences that occur on different logical levels and confuse those levels so that we conceptually make some External Behavior (EB) equal to some Internal State (IS).

  We challenge a complex equivalence by asking about the equation, “How specifically does my not telling you that I love you (EB) mean that I don’t love you anymore (IS)?” “Have I ever failed to tell you that I loved you and yet you knew that I truly did love you?” Such questioning enables the speaker to identify the complex equivalent belief and recover additional material deleted and distorted. “When I saw Joe’s face turn red (EB), I knew he was angry (IS).” This Complex Equivalence (CEq.) leads to Mind-Reading (M-R). “When you raised your voice (EB), it means you are angry” leads to a Cause-Effect (C-E).

  In a Complex Equivalence we have mentally created a relationship between a word or words and some experience which those words name. Lewis and Pucelik (1982) explain:

  “For every word learned, everyone has a somewhat different internal experience. These specific experiences associated with words are called complex equivalents. Usually, the subtleties between people’s understanding of words are irrelevant. However, there are words that sometime lead to misunderstanding between people. Words like love, relationship, partnership, fear, power, trust, respect, and any expressions linked with a person’s perception of himself and the environment are critical to the process of communication…” (p. 27).

  As I have mentioned that we sometimes find it most helpful to get a person’s statement into the form of a Cause-Effect, we also recommend getting their statement into the form of a Complex-Equivalence. Remember, a Complex-Equivalence by definition defines the meaning we place to our Internal Representation. So, when someone makes a statement that “This means ________ to me” they have in essence defined the first level meaning they have placed onto their Internal Representation.

  Therefore, we can take any statement a person gives us in whatever form and ask them, “What does that mean to you?” and we will chunk down on their statement towards the first level meaning they have given to their Internal Representations. If you believe they haven’t chunked down specific enough, just repeat, “And, what does that mean to you?” This will direct the person to describe more in detail the meaning of their statement. And, similar to the Cause-Effect question, “How is that a problem to you?” it prepares them for a reframe. You can say, “Well, I know you believe it means this, but could you consider the possibility that he may mean __________ to you?” Now, of course, I have gotten ahead of myself. I just wanted to introduce you to the importance of the Meta-model. (See Mind-Lines: Lines for Changing Minds.)

  Examples:

  Joe’s face is red. That must mean he is angry.

  Being here means you will change.

  Going to bed early means you will be alert.

  You know the answer, so you are competent.

  Sitting in this room, you are learning many things.

  As you master these skills, you will be a better communicator.

  Keeping your eyes open like that means you’ll go into trance.

  And closing your eyes means you’ll go even deeper.

  That means…

  9.3.0.20 5. Presuppositions

  By the term presupposition, we refer to the conceptual and linguistic assumptions that have to exist in order for a statement to make sense. By definition, we do not state our presuppositions—they operate rather as the supporting foundation or context of a given statement. In presuppositions we find the person’s beliefs about life, the world, self, others, God, etc. And we all operate from specific presuppositions. So when we learn to listen for presuppositions we can hear a lot about the person’s model of the world. Presuppositions function similar to Mind-Reads. They just leave out the “I know.” Any non-sensory-specific language will contain presuppositions.

  Presuppositions in language work covertly, indirectly, and unconsciously as we have to accept them and their assumptions in order to make sense of the communication. A presupposition can operate positively as with the fundamental Christian belief that God loves every person. And some presuppositions can impose limitations on us. Many presuppositions that limit us begin with “why” questions. We can also learn to listen for such terms as: since, when, if, etc.

  The sentence: “Why don’t you work harder?” presupposes that the recipient does not work hard enough. “If you only knew, you would understand my pain” presupposes the recipient does not understand the speaker’s pain.

  To challenge a presupposition, inquire about the assumptions in the statement. “What leads you to believe that I don’t work hard enough? Hard enough according to what standard? “What leads you to believe that I don’t know your pain?” “How specifically do you assume I need to work harder?” Or, “How would you like me to specifically understand your pain?” What presuppositions lie in this? “You have learned a lot about presuppositions.” “How excited do you now feel having learned about the Meta-model and its powerful questions?” “When do you think you would best like to study and practice learning the Meta-model to become even more proficient?”

  Examples:

  We have talked about presuppositions.

  You are learning about the Meta-model and the powerful questions the

  Meta-model gives us.

  If you would study and practice, you would learn the Meta-model.

  You can do this even better.

  You are changing all the time.

  How else do you go into trance?

  You’re seeing things differently now.

  You’ll be able to learn even more tomorrow.

  You realize you have more resources than ever before.

  You can easily move in the direction of your past memories.

  Most of the examples of this pattern will be written here by you.

  You are learning many things.

  9.4 Generalizations

  9.4.0.21 6. Universal Quantifiers

  A universal quantifier refers to the set of words that make a universal generalization. They imply a state of absoluteness—of “allness.” In this generalization we make one category represent a whole group. Thus we move from “Dad abused me at seven years of age,” to “Men always abuse.” This statement generalizes from a particular to the whole class. Generalizations have no reference point. They are intentionally vague.

  Universal quantifiers consi
st of such words as: all, never, every, always and none. Such words do not leave room for any exceptions. By definition they express a limited mindset. The Meta-model challenge to a universal quantifier involves simply repeating the word back to the person in the form of a question. To “All men are abusers” we could respond: “All?” Another challenge involves asking if the speaker has ever met a man who did not abuse. This challenge brings out the absurdity of the universal quantifier.

  Examples:

  All Christians are hypocrites.

  Every politician is a liar.

  Everyone on welfare is lazy.

  Nobody’s perfect.

  Everything is wonderful.

  We are all in trance now.

  There is always tomorrow.

  Everybody knows this part is easy.

  One can never know all there is to know.

  All of the people doing this process are learning many new things.

  And all the things, all the things…

  9.4.0.22 7. Modal Operators

  This linguistic distinction refers to our mode whereby we operate in the world. Do we operate from a mental world of laws (should, must, have to); do we operate from a world of opportunities (possible, possible to, can); do we operate from a world of obligations (ought, should); or empowerment (dare, want to, desire to), etc.? In other words these modal operator terms define the boundaries of our model of the world and our style of operation. This suggests, as do all of the Meta-model distinctions, that we can actually learn to hear people’s belief systems in their talk! NLP assumes that our language reveals and prescribes the quality and limits of our belief systems.