Hi,

How important it is to identify/use meta-program distinctions during change-work, normal communication as well as persuasion? I think change-workers don't always use meta-program distinctions. When does it become imperative to use them? Could you share any personal accounts wherein you had used meta-programs in the contexts mentioned?

Thanks in advance.

Vivek.

Nice question.

Just laying down a marker since I have forgotten how to subscribe to a thread.

John

Life is a process, we are a process, the universe is a process

Hi Vivek,

Vivek Venugopal wrote:

Hi,

I think change-workers don't always use meta-program distinctions. When does it become imperative to use them? Could you share any personal accounts wherein you had used meta-programs in the contexts mentioned?

I think that you pose an interesting question. Meta-programs are I think vital in change work and other contexts. If nothing else, I think it is important to notice what patterns might be at play simply in the context of building rapport effectively. By that I mean noticing and matching as required how another person sorts information and ascribes meaning to it.

I see the use of the movement towards/ away from as pretty intrinsic to the well formed outcome procedure which I think underpins just about everything we do. Other meta programs, when utilised can also have a dramatic effect, such as association/disassociation to timelines, and the nature of internal experiences, intensities of kinaesthetics etc.

However just because a pattern is noticed and utilised in a session does not necessarily mean that the habits of a previous lifetime will be changed. But in doing so, at least the Client has their awareness raised in terms of what they have been doing and have the chance to make different choices with the application of a bit of consciousness after that.

It will be interesting to see what others have to say on this matter.

MH

Thanks for your input, Malcomb. Yes, I too think that utilising meta-programs can be a powerful approach. However, I don't see them being used that frequently. I don't mean they should be used in most of the cases; it's just that I feel there are certain contexts where using them would be more prudent. I have come across lots of change-work cases in which the practitioners can get the work done without thinking about meta-programs at all, like, for example, simple phobias etc, where you can just use the phobia cure pattern, and you get what you (or the client) are looking for. So, I am looking for accounts from other members who may had experiences with clients or just normal communication, using meta-programs effectively.

Vivek.

I think meta programs is a useful model for describing how people navigate their way through strategies and decision points, but I don't think it's always necessary to be especially conscious of them, or to consciously identify them / consciously use them.

(When you say, "How important it is to identify/use meta-program distinctions?", I'm assuming an implied, "How important it is to consciously identify/use meta-program distinctions?")

If someone says, "I don't want X" you don't need to consciously, mentally note "away from" to ask, "What do you want instead?"

In fact, I think if you're trying to map the process out too consciously, you may be in danger of being too much inside your own head and not enough outside with the client.

If I reflect on what I do, I am rarely conscious 'in words' of the meta programs I'm working with, but I do tend to have a wordless knowing of the meta programs I'm working with and how to 'dance' with them. If that makes sense.

Let me put it another way. I think it's a good model and well worth being good at knowing what meta programs you're working with, but I don't necessarily think you should go inside your own head and make a conscious effort of it.

I'm reminded of a Michael Breen story about the difference between preparation and performing. (The preparation exercises you do are what you rest on when you perform, they're not necessarily what you do.)

Does that help in any way? Make sense?

Cheers

Yes, you do make sense. I don't mean that we should go inside our heads to get a sense of what meta-programs are functioning, or that meta-programs should be used in most of the issues. As with any other skill, using meta program distinctions would, over time, become part of one's unconscious competence. I believe that meta-program identification can be helpful to get through certain challenges during communication or change-work. For example, suppose your client is oriented more towards internal reference rather than external, it could be a challenge to help him/her, as the client may not readily agree with what change process you are wanting to do or how it will be helpful to him/her etc. Identifying the particular meta-program in this case and then modifying your communication so that what you say makes more sense to the client, could be an effective approach. I am just thinking aloud.Others here may have more down-to-earth experiences/examples to share.

Vivek.

I've heard from a few sources that Richard Bandler stopped teaching meta programs in any depth because he couldn't get people to understand what he was trying to say. People kept trying to turn the distinctions into a technique.

Anyway, my quick answer (as the train is pulling into the station) would be similar to Steve's - it's very useful to know how people are thinking, and the distinctions made in the meta programs model are an easy and useful way to keep track of a few things*. Meta programs are what determine how, when and what strategy runs. I don't know what you mean by "use them" but I would agree with Steve again and suggest you go with the flow - allow what you notice to inform you when working with people and especially strategies but don't get into these knee-jerk "metamonster"-type conversations. Just because someone is having a problem, it doesn't follow that the solution is to do the opposite of everything they do. They're doing lots of things and most of them work great. So don't change an "away-from" choice point to a "towards" choice point just because you noticed a meta program distinction. That could needlessly destabalise a strategy that worked great. What you should really do (yes, should ) is build a model of where they're at so far, run simulations to see what it would be useful to change, and then change just that, elegantly and neatly.

* There are also some other useful metaprograms that Gabe Guerrero and Eric Robbie have added and ocassionally teach. (I'll leave it to them to publish them publicly if they want to.)

The other thing to quickly add is that people don't "have" meta programs. They weren't intended to be personality types or something like that. Think of them similar to rep systems. They're dynamic. We aren't "away from" people any more than we are "visual" people - it's just that at some times and in some contexts we may move away from certain things or we might focus primarily on the visual modality. Keep track in real time. Never make the mistake of putting people in boxes.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Chris.

Vivek.

Awesome thread Vivek....thanks!