MODELING HUMAN EXPERIENCES (by Michael Hall -- Neuro-Semantics)

Dr. Hall, Why modeling an experience?

And can we call it "magical"?

And can we "stop" something we don't like (of the experience)?

And what about creation of systemic change (of the experience)?

And What about replication (of the experience)?

Some really great answers in the following post...

When it comes to the heart of Neuro-Semantics and NLP— studying subjective human experiences and modeling those experiences, a first question that often arises is why.  Why model an experience?  And the answer is really simple.  It is to understand how it works.  That’s because when you understanding the how of now you are often handed powerful leverage points of change or replication.  That is, knowing how an experience works—if that experience is not helpful, useful, beneficial, ecological, etc.—you can change it.  And mostly you can change it by noting how it works, when, where, with whom, etc. and sometimes the tiniest alteration of a key variable will facilitate a systemic change.

In NLP, we often describe this using a dangerous word to describe this kind of change, “magical.”  That’s because the change that happens seems incredible, fantastic, and seemingly “magical.”  A good example is facilitating a change in a person’s “internal critic.”  

Simple ask a group of people:

“Who here has an internal critic?”  “Who here has an internal voice that criticizes you, attacks you, insults, you, says ugly things to you and that makes you feel bad?”

What I find incredible is not that there are people like that, and who will raise their hands, “Yes, I have an internal critic like that!”  What I find mind-blowing is that anyone ever treats themselves that way!  My thought is, “Why would you talk that way to yourself?”  But the fact is, a large percentage of people everywhere in the world identifies with this experience and feel helpless to change it.  Of course, the helplessness rises from using a very ineffective method of trying to change it.  What do most people do?  They tell themselves to stop!

Ah yes, the “command negation.”  And by issuing a command to themselves, “Now I’m going to stop telling myself that I’m an idiot!”  “Don’t ever say again that ‘I’ll never get it!  I must be stupid!’” Of course, this does not work.  Of course it makes things worse.  Whatever you command yourself to not do, you have to represent and think about.

Using the NLP Communication Model, instead of using an ineffective change method like that, we first seek to understand the how of now.  We ask exploration questions about the experience so that we can model the experience itself.  So we ask the modeling question: “How do you do that?”  And at first, most people don’t even know how to answer that question.  “What do you mean, ‘how’ do I do that?  I just tell myself that I’m going to make a fool of myself because I’m not prepared.  That’s all.”

Now what modeling enables you to do is to listen for structure or process.  In that statement, I hear the person tell me the content words, “I’m going to make a fool of myself because I’m not prepared.”  Okay, so that’s what you say to yourself.  How do you say it?  What tone of voice?  Repeat the words using the tone that you use in your mind so I can hear the tone.  Okay, now where is that voice— in your head?  Behind you?  In front of you?  To one side or another?  Panoramic?  What is the volume?  After getting the answers to such process questions, then I begin to play around with the experience and alter the quality of the various variables and invite the person to notice the effect.  Common ways of doing this in NLP are:

∙           Lower the voice and notice how low you make the volume before it doesn’t feel bad.

∙           Change the tone so it sounds like Elvis Presley singing, “You’re a hound dog.”

∙           Make the tone very sexy and try very hard to feel bad.

∙           Put the voice into your little finger and hear it coming from there.

Typically such alterations create systemic change.  The experience of being berated by your internal critic completely changes.  Changing one of the qualities of how you do something, changes the whole experience.  It becomes different and sometimes so different that it becomes something else.  It might become humor, ridiculousness, playfulness, non-sense, etc.  That changes things in a much more elegant and easy way.

What about replication?  What if you have an experience that’s a great experience and you want to experience it for yourself?  This is the case with modeling experts— modeling someone who can do something that’s extraordinary, wonderful, and empowering.  In this case, we do the same thing.  We embrace the experience, frame it so as to punctuate it and set it aside in our minds and the mind of the expert and then begin to discover how do you do that?

Now most of the time the expert cannot answer the question.  And there’s a good reason, he or she does not know how.  The skill is so habitual and so ingrained into personality and behavior that it is no longer in conscious awareness.  This, in fact, is a description of a competent skill.  The skill occurs in the right context without the person needing to “work himself up for it” or for “her to orient herself to the context.”  It just happens.  It happens outside-of-conscious-awareness.

That’s where a modeler comes in.  The modeler asks how questions and gives menu lists of possibilities and evokes the expert to do the skill or imagine doing the skill and calibrates to what the person does that re-establishes the expertise.  It is in this way that we can detail the steps of the strategy that have become streamlined.  And when you know that, you can replicate it.  You can use the step-by-step process to try it on and see how it works within you or use it with others.

Why model?  To change strategies that you’re an expert at (or someone else is) and also to replicate new strategies that someone is an expert at.  If you want to know what NLP is about, it is this.  Yes, NLP is also a Communication Model — that’s what the originators created by modeling three communicators (Perls, Satir, Erickson) and that Communication Model is also a tool for modeling.  But, more about that next time.

L.  Michael Hall, Ph. D.

Neuro-Semantics homepage

Everyone as best as he can...

Have Joy!
Giannicola 

MODELING INTUITION (by Michael Hall -- Neuro-Semantics)

“I believe in intuitions and inspirations... I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am” After this Albert Einstein's quotation we can read the latest Michael Hall's brilliant post...

For many people, intuition is a wonderful, mysterious, and near-magical phenomena.  Yet, what is intuition?  What do we refer to when we use this term?  And how do we use our intuition in our work as we coaches, consultants, trainers, therapists work with people?

NLP began by modeling the intuition of three world-class communicators.  You will find this statement and this language in the early books of NLP, especially The Structure of Magic, Volumes I and II (1975, 1976).  Richard and John modeled the intuition that Virginia had about people, communicating with them, deciding on what to do as an intervention.  They did the same with Fritz Perls and Milton Erickson.  What resulted from their modeling?  NLP.  That is, the models of NLP and the patterns derived from those models.  And more specifically:

            The Meta-Model of Language in therapy: asking the questions of specificity.

            The Strategy Model using representation systems and the TOTE process.

The Representational Model of how people think, encode “thoughts,” and manifest via neurology.

The Milton Model of Language for inviting a person to go inside (“downtime”) and access resourceful states.

Modeling Virginia’s Intuitions

In the original NLP books, The Structure of Magic, Bandler and Grinder talked about the intuitions of Perls and Virginia and said that what they modeled were their intuitions.  That how they worked with people, how they chose what to say or do, were the result of their whole lifetime of experiences which had now become habitual and automatic.  They noted, “Virginia took a lifetime to learn her intuitions.”  Yet we do not have to replicate her life experiences, today we can model those intuitions to make explicit what she does “by intuition.”  And doing that, we can then transfer her intuitions to ourselves and others.  And that’s what NLP is about (or should be about).

Intuition comes from Latin and refers to “in-knowing”—to what a person “knows” “inside.”  And where do people get that inside knowledge?  They were not born with it.  Nobody is born “knowing” anything.  Unlike the animals who “know” what to eat, how to build a nest, who is a predator, etc., we humans are born without content information instincts.  Our “instincts” are without content information and because of this gap— we have tremendous room inside for learning— and learning we do!  We learn everything.  Yes, we have dispositions and latent “talents” that can be developed.  Yet without learning, the dispositions and talents do not develop.  You may have a disposition for mathematics, or linguistics, or visual-spatial distinctions, or many other things, yet if you are not exposed to such areas and given a chance to develop, the “talent” will lie dormant.  It will not develop.

Intuitions are learned.  Whatever intuition you have about anything, you learned that intuition.  You were exposed to an area of learning and you developed it, consciously or unconsciously.  How you made it an “in-knowing” is through exposure, experience, repetition, and learning.  You now have an intuition about how to drive a car because of your original exposure to driving and to your experience of driving.  Today your learning (in-knowing) is your intuitive sense of driving and is unconscious unless you teach driver’s education.  The conscious learnings, understandings, concepts, etc. have “dropped out of conscious awareness into your unconscious awareness.”  Now you “know” how to do things and don’t know how you know.  You just know— we call that “intuition.”

Intuitions are also subject to the errors and inaccuracy that all learnings are subject to.  And given that, then intuitions are not infallible.  They are not god-like.  They are fallible, human, and subject to all of the fallibilities that all other learnings are— to cognitive distortions, to fallacious thinking patterns, to biases, prejudices, etc.  Your intuitions can be very, very wrong and mis-lead you.  This suggests that we should never blindly trust our intuitions.  Just as you would not blindly or absolutely trust your thinking, believing, understanding, perceiving — it is not wise to do so with your intuitions.

This fact provides a significant challenge to modeling.  When modeling the intuitions of an expert, we have to be cautious about the intuitions that we are modeling.  We could model an error in the expert’s knowledge (in-knowing).  So we have to test what we are modeling and have to test whether we are modeling an actual knowledge that is accurate and useful.

How do we model an expert’s intuition?  This is where the NLP models for modeling offer some very powerful tools.  We model intuition by reverse engineering.  First we look at the excellence.  In the case of Perls and Satir, the ability to communicate in a therapy context with clients and via the therapeutic context to enable a client to change his or her mental models (maps) of the world so that they have more understanding and choice in how to respond to the challenges that they experience in the world.  Then we ask, What is the expert actually doing?  Here we get a sensory-based (empirical) description of how they are talking, gesturing, relating, etc.

From there we follow the sequence of actions (behavioral and linguistic) from beginning of the conversation to the end.  This gives us a “strategy” —a strategic set of actions.  As we interview the expert we can get the inside information about the distinctions the person is making about what to do, when to do it, how to do it with the person, and why (which gives us their thinking, believing, assumptions, etc.) for their decisions and choice points.  (See NLP: Volume I, 1980, Robert Dilts).

But we’re not done yet.  Next we go meta.  That is, we look for where the expert reflexively thought-and-felt something else about their previous thought-or-feeling and so layered their thinking with one or more additional frames.  Human “strategies” do not work in a simple linear  way.  As we are processing through anything, we have frames of meaning in the back of our mind that govern our experiencing, and we also are constantly stepping back to reflect on our experience.  (See NLP Going Meta, 2005).

Once we have a “model” —a set of internal and external steps for how the expert produces the excellence, we can test it by trying it out ourselves.  Does it work?  To what extent can we replicate the expertise?  To what extent do we fail to replicate it?  These questions drive us back to revisit the interview and to ask more interviewing questions to find out the distinctions we are missing.  Doing this recursively over a period of time enables us to finally create a workable, actionable, and transferable model of the expert.  And if we do that repeatedly with other experts in the same field, and create a synthesis of the best of each, we can generate a more expansive and rich model for a given expertise.

We model intuitions.  So this is one use of the term intuition in NLP and Neuro-Semantics.  There are yet other meanings and we will look at those in the next posts.

 L.  Michael Hall, Ph.D.

Neuro-Semantics homepage

Everyone as best as he can...

Have Joy!
Giannicola 

MODELING: THE MAGIC OF “HOW” (by Michael Hall -- Neuro-Semantics)

Stone the flamin' crows Dr. Hall!!!

Amazing post on Modeling...

In last week’s post, I highlighted the power of focusing on the how of detailing out what is happening in the now.  For me, this was the most exciting thing when I first discovered NLP Modeling.  By asking questions and by closely observing people, a person could identify how any given person is currently, at this moment, creating his or her sense of reality.  And if we can do that, then we can figure out how that reality came into existence, operates, and can be altered.  Incredible!

Now in NLP Modeling, Wyatt Woodsmall (1990) was the person who first differentiated two dimensions or levels of modeling.  He labeled them Modeling I and Modeling II.  I think that this distinction provides a valuable way to think about the range of the modeling that we can do.

Modeling I refers to pattern detection and transference.  This kind of modeling detects a pattern of behavior that shows up in certain skills, abilities, and expertise.  By explicating the patterns of behavior in the skill or skills—the what that an expert actually does to achieve a result, this modeling focuses on reproducing the products of the expert.  This kind of modeling focuses on learning the sets of distinctions, procedures, and processes which enable a person to reach a desired outcome.

Modeling II refers to modeling the first modeling (Modeling I).  As such, it focuses on the how of an expert—how does the expert actually create and perform the expertise.  It doesn’t focus on the what is produced (that’s the first modeling), it focuses on the background competencies.  Now we focus on the processes which are necessary to generate the patterns that form the content of Modeling I.  In this modeling, we especially pay attention to the beliefs and values that outframe the expert.  Here we attend to the meta-programs, the contexts and frames, the meta-states, etc., all of the higher frames.

I like this distinction because, as Woodsmall points out, the field of NLP itself resulted from Modeling I, but not Modeling II.  Let me explain.  NLP emerged from the joint venture of John Grinder and Richard Bandler as they studied the language patterns of Fritz Perls and Virginia Satir.  First Richard used his gift of mimicking Perls’ and Satir’s speech, tonal, and language patterns.  Though untrained in psychology and psychotherapy, by simply reproducing the “magical” effects of these communication experts, he found that he could get many of the same results as the experts.  Incredible!  How was this possible?

In searching for that answer, John used Transformational Grammar and his unique skills in that field to pull apart the “surface” structures for the purpose of identifying the “deep” structures.  Both of them wanted to discover how this worked.  Frank Pucelik also was a part of all of that, and he created the context and the original group in which all of the discoveries took place.

From the theory of Transformational Grammar, the assumptions of the Cognitive Psychology (Noam Chomsky, George Miller, George Kelly, Alfred Korzybski, Gregory Bateson), and the coping of Perls and Satir, they specified what “the therapeutic wizards” actually did which had the transformative effect upon clients.  That was the original NLP modeling.

This adventure in modeling then gave birth to The Structure of Magic (1975/ 1976) which gave us the first NLP Model.  This was originally called The Meta-Model of Language in Therapy.   Today we just call it, The Meta-Model.  This is a model about the language behavior of Perls and Satir, that is, how they used words in doing change work with clients.  And that then became the central technology of NLP for modeling.

The amazing thing is that with that first model, they were able to model a great deal of the governing structure of a person’s experience.  That enabled them to peek into a person’s model of the world just by listening to the features that linguistically mark out how the person has created his or her map.  While this is not all that’s needed for modeling, it certainly gives us a set of linguistic tools for figuring out how a piece of subjective experience works.  It answers the how questions:

            How does a person depress himself?

            How does a person take “criticism” effective and use it for learning?

            How does another person look out at an audience and freak out?

The Meta-Model gave the original co-developers of NLP numerous tools for both understanding and replicating the person’s original modeling.  Soon thereafter, as they modeled Milton Erickson, they began adding all kinds of non-verbal and non-linguistic distinctions to their model, enriching the modeling process even further.   As NLP started with Modeling I and not Modeling II, the early NLP thinkers and trainers did not have access to the higher level of modeling until some time later.  Nor did they seem aware of it for some time.  Eventually this realization arose as people began asking some basic modeling questions:

What strategy did Perls use in working with clients?

            What strategy enabled Satir to do her “magic” with families?

What strategy describes Erickson’s calibration skills and use of hypnotic language patterns?

How did any one of those wizards make decisions about what to use when?

Even to this day, we do not know.  We know what they produced, but not howthey produced such.  We have the results from their magic, but not the formula that identifies the states and meta-states, the beliefs and higher frames of mind that enabled them to operate as “wizards” in the first place.   Woodsmall (1990) writes:

“In short, if NLP is the by-product of modeling Erickson, Perls, and Satir, then why are we never taught how they did anything?   All we are taught is what they did.  This means that we can imitate the powerful patterns that they used, but we don’t know how they generated and performed them to start with.  From this it is evident that the part of NLP that is the by-product of modeling is a by-product of Modeling I, but not of Modeling II.” (p. 3)

As the product of Modeling I, all that we originally received in NLP was theresult of modeling.  We received the patterns and procedures which the modelers found in Perls, Satir, and Erickson, i.e., reframing, swishing, anchoring, collapsing anchors, etc.  We received the NLP patterns. Bandler and Grinder gave us a legacy of dramatic processes that enable people to change.

Only later was it that Bandler, Grinder, DeLozier, Bandler-Cameron, Dilts, and Gordon begin to wonder about the modeling itself that they started to explore the modeling processes, assumptions, patterns, etc. about modeling.  From that came the commission from Richard and John for Robert Dilts to write the second modeling book, NLP: Volume I.  That volume made Modeling II available.

They also left their theory about change, mind, neurology, language, etc.  Of course, they did not call it “a theory.”  In fact, they pulled off a big “Sleight of Mouth” pattern as they told us that they had no theory, just a description of what worked.  “It’s a model, not a theory.”  With that mind-line, they distracted our attention and offered “the NLP Presuppositions,” telling us that they were not true, could not be proven, but seemed like really nice “lies” that would take us to more resourceful places.  So we just memorized them, only half aware (if that), that within the NLP Presuppositions they had hidden away the theory of neuro-linguistic programming.

L.  Michael Hall, Ph.D.

Neuro-Semantics homepage

Everyone as best as he can...

Have Joy!
Giannicola 

THE META-COGNITION OF THE FOUR META-MODELS OF NLP (Michael Hall)

Given the expansive effectiveness of meta-cognition (somewhere else...), does it surprise you that there are four meta-cognition models that comprise the core of NLP?  What this means practically is that one way to describe NLP is to describe the four meta-models that make up the heart and soul of NLP.

So what are the four meta-models of NLP? What may make this a bit confusion is that yes, one of these meta-models is called “The Meta-Model.” That is actually the first one and why it got the name that it did. The full name is “the Meta-Model of Language in therapy.” And that’s because it arose from the linguistic distinctions that John Grinder identified in the patterning replication that Richard BandlerFritz Perl made from ’s use of language and Virginia Satir’s use of language.

But, as noted, that’s just the first of four meta-models. It is strange that many NLP Trainers do not know the four meta-models. Not too long ago I spoke to a NLP Trainers group and mentioned “the four meta-models.” “Four?” It was as if I had revealed some secret knowledge hidden in the mountains of Santa Cruz and only accessible to a few special people!

Now as a meta-discipline itself, NLP is a field about how all things human work, especially any aspect of the human experience that has a cognitive-behavioral structure to it. This structure doesn’t have to be in a person’s conscious awareness, it can and in fact usually is in a person’s cognitive-behavioral unconscious awareness. This is because Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Neuro-Semantics are most fundamentally about how we humans structure things. And because we structure things with language, representations, perceptions, and self-reflexive states, NLP has four meta-models by which we can model things.

These four meta-models provide a redundant system of descriptions. This explains why the models seem different, they approach the mind-body-system of experiences in different ways. So even though they refer to the same thing, each one gives us another avenue of approach. Each provides another systematic structure and description of the processes of an experience. The four NLP meta-models are:

1) The Meta-Model of Language: The NLP Communication Model.

2) The Sub-Modality or Cinematic Features Model.

3) The Meta-States Model of self-reflexive consciousness.

4) The Meta-Programs of perceptual lens and points of view.

1) The Meta-Model of Language

The first, the Meta-Model of Language, is a model that identifies the form of how we mentally map our experiences in language. Via this model you can unpack the linguistics governing a person’s mental mapping and as you do, it provides a way for you to create linguistic precision. How does language work? By enabling us to use sensory-based words to create an inner picture for our mind, and then to make higher level evaluations.

This first meta-model of NLP is a model about the linguistics which serve as a code for your thinking. And where did it come from? From Transformational Grammar (TG) which Bandler and Grinder used it to sort out and create a model of the communication patterns of Fritz Perls, Virginia Satir, and Milton Erickson.

To use this model, listen to words and language expressions, ask questions that invite the speaker to provide more specific answers, and thereby evoke a more thorough and precise mapping about the original experience. The questions that challenge the linguistic expressions transform the evaluative language back to sensory-based words so that we can make a mental movie in our mind and understand what the speaker is referring to and hence meaning. See The Structure of Magic, Volumes I and II; also, Communication Magic.

2) The “Sub-Modalities” or Cinematic Features Model

Classic NLP did not, and still does not, realize that this is a meta-model. Why not?  Because someone labeled the distinctions as “sub” and that got connected to the name. If we were to accurately label the model, it would be Meta-Modalities. This meta-model refers to the cinematic features that provide a code for the mental movies that you create in your mind. It refers to how you frame the cinema in your mind in terms of the qualities of your sights, sounds, and sensations. So whether you make a movie close or far, bright or dim, loud or quiet, whether you step into it or just observe it, whether you add circus music to it, or the music from Jaws, these features or distinctions enable you to edit your movies.

The symbols in this model stand for semantic evaluations. Perhaps “close, three-dimensional, and in color” stand for something being “real” or “compelling.”  That’s why the cinematic features (sub-modalities) are governed semantically.  In and of themselves, they mean nothing. Yet inside of every person, they stand for some significance or meaning.

As you frame the cinema in your mind, you code the sights, sounds, and sensations with various features, cinematic features. These features or distinctions enable you to take an editor’s position or perspective to your own mental movies. You can then use “close” or “far” to stand for and mean some semantic frame (real, unreal; compelling, less compelling).

To recognize your sub-modalities and work with these cinematic features in how you code your representations, you have to step back or “go meta.” You have to gain a broader perspective and ask questions that are meta to or higher than the representations. Is that picture close or far? Is that image bright or dim?  Is that sound quiet or loud? To answer such meta-questions, you have to stop being a subject of the movie, step out of it, and as you transcend that experience, notice the code as it currently is. That’s why these are not really “sub” but operate as a meta-level to your representations. See Insiders Guide to Sub-Modalities; also Sub-Modalities Going Meta.

3) Meta-States Mode of Self-Reflexive Consciousness

The Meta-States Model looks at the same structures, not primarily in terms of linguistics or cinematic features, but in terms of thinking-and-feeling states. A possibility state or a necessity state, for example, will typically show up linguistically as a modal operator of possibility (can, get to, want to) and/or a modal operator of necessity (have to, must). The Meta-Model describes it linguistically, the Meta-States model describes it in terms of state.

Because we never just think, we reflectively think about our thinking, we feel about our feeling. This self-reflexivity creates our meta-states as our states-about-states and all of the layering we do. Reflecting back onto our own states and experiences, layers levels of experiences (what we call “logical levels”) to create each person’s unique psycho-logics. This means that we are not logical creatures, we are psycho-logical beings. Our meanings make sense to us—on the inside.

Nor does our reflexivity ever end. Whatever you think or feel, you can step back and have another thought or feeling about that. This creates the layers of meanings as beliefs, understandings, decisions, memories, imaginations, permissions, anticipations, identities, and so on. It is what makes our minds complex and not simple. And as we continue to reflexively apply a next thought or feeling to ourselves, we keep building more frames within our frame structure or matrix. This makes up the rich layeredness of our mind or our neuro-semantic system. See Meta-States (2008), Secrets of Personal Mastery (1997), and Winning the Inner Game (2007).

4) The Meta-Programs of Perceptual Lens

The Meta-Programs model is one of thinking patterns, thinking styles, or perceptual lens. This model refers to how you see or perceive things. Is the cup half empty or half full? Do you see it pessimistically or optimistically? Whichever style of thinking/perceiving characterizes you, then your language will differ, as will your states, as will the ways you encode your inner mental movies.

A global thinker will sort for the big picture and meta-state or frame most things from the global thinking-and-feeling state. Someone who sorts for “necessity” will regularly apply a state of compulsion to other thought-and-feeling states.  Habituation of your internal processing gives rise to your meta-programs and then governs your everyday states, language, and perceptual filters. As your meta-programs show up in language, the Meta-Model offers a description. And as you access a particular state and use it repeatedly, your meta-state becomes your meta-program. That’s why a meta-program is a coalesced meta-state.

From your meta-states, you create the meta-programs that govern your perceptions. You generalize from the states that you most regularly and commonly access and as you do you habituate that way of thinking and feeling until it becomes your basic style of perceiving. You meta-state global thinking or detail thinking until it coalesces into your neurology and becomes your perceptual lens or meta-program. You meta-state sameness thinking or difference thinking until it becomes your meta-program style.

A driving perceptual style is a meta-program that you have layered with even more meta-states—states of value, belief in, identification with, etc. So if a person who thinks globally and sorts for the big picture begins to frame most things from that global state and then begins to highly value it, identify with it, believe in it, they person may create a driving meta-program of global thinking. Similarly the person thinks in terms of “necessity” and brings that state of mind and emotion to more and more of his or her experiences and then believes in it, values it, identifies with it, will more than likely apply that state of compulsion to every other state. This will eventuate in the driving meta-program of necessity.

Habituation of internal processing gives rise to meta-programs—to a person’s structured ways of perceiving. They then govern that person’s everyday thinking-and-feeling as his or her perceptual filters. To the extent they show up in language, you can detect them using the Meta-Model. For example, people have favored modals that describe their basic modus operandi (modal operators) for operating: necessity, impossibility, possibility, desire, etc. They originated as meta-level thoughts or feelings, they were first meta-states. As they coalesced, they got into one’s neurology, one’s eyes, one’s muscles and become the person’s meta-programs. See Figuring Out People (2007), also Words that Change Minds.

All together these four models provide four different lenses for observing your meaning-making processes.

Language: Linguistics and the VAK sensory systems.

            Cinematic Features: The qualities and distinctions with which we code our mental movies.

            States: Mind-body states from which you operate.

            Perception: Filters for your lens for seeing and perceiving, for sorting, paying attention, and thinking.

Now you know what for some is a big secret—the four meta-models of NLP which provide an extensive meta-cognitive perspective on experience. Now you have four possible ways to describe experience.

NEUROSEMANTICS homepage

L.  Michael Hall, Ph.D.

(June 27, 2011)