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!

Yes - cheers

Giulio and Carol, I am glad you found this thread useful.

Vivek.

I've known at least 3 people in private practice(2 whom have been in practice for over 15 years) doing "1 on 1" NLP changework with individuals and none of them use metaprograms directly or indirectly with their clients.

I think that meta-programs place a better role in business. I have a friend who is a business consultant and uses meta-programs a lot and swears by them. If my memory serves me well, meta-programs are one of our filters that are at the most unconscious, so therefore can be a great tool for finding out what makes a person really tick and to find out whether their the right person for the right situation in a business context. I can't remember where I read that meta-programs are a great way of finding out more about a person than the person already knows themselves. Is that correct?

I personally don't use meta-programs in a one2one coaching context as I believe that there's plenty of other great tools that benefit the client. However, in the past I have used a couple like the direction filter and relationship filter.

Maybe I should backtrack and investigate them more.

Martin

If my memory serves me well, meta-programs are one of our filters that are at the most unconscious, so therefore can be a great tool for finding out what makes a person really tick and to find out whether their the right person for the right situation in a business context.

In a business context, for recruitment etc, I have heard about the usage of LAB profile, which, I think, are based on meta-program distinctions. And you are right, because they are the most unconscious, utilising them, can be very helpful. But again, that depends on what situation and why you want to use them. Also, I think giving yourself time to practise identifying meta-programs during every-day communication can help you develop unconscious competence , so that we won't have to consciously think of what meta-programs are operating during change-work etc. Guess, I am kind of forming my own conclusions by now!

Vivek.

Martin Rayner wrote:

I personally don't use meta-programs in a one2one coaching context as I believe that there's plenty of other great tools that benefit the client. However, in the past I have used a couple like the direction filter and relationship filter.

Based on this, I'm wondering what is your definition of meta programs?

I had a question about LAB but I've decided to pull it and do my own research first.

Cheers

Steve_W wrote:

I had a question about LAB but I've decided to pull it and do my own research first.

Cheers

Here's my thoughts anyway.

A the risk of getting my arse kicked again for doing it wrong, I suppose the question could be – at what point does a ‘useful generalisation’ become ‘putting people in a box’?

You are right about the book many parts of it make me cringe now but it is still possible to get something from it whilst glossing over other parts I think. I understood that it could be particularly effective when used as part of working out how people make decisions.

Now I don’t do therapy so every one is still safe but I used the model to help me make sense of how my step son was behaving and it helped enormously. Getting him to do what we wanted was a nightmare when he was young as he only seemed to want to do what he considered to be right, significantly more so than my other two boys. It was a difficult time for both of us but communication became much more effective once I started to put some of the principles in to use especially using the Internal/External indicator. Similarly with my wife who is very comfortable, in many different contexts when following procedures, to use the terminology. Again working through decisions together became easier. There was a nice piece of feed back that my wife told me about much later. He had said to her that whilst he didn’t always agree with what I asked him to do he always respected the way I went about it. I had never told my wife what I was doing.

I agree with you and Chris in how it could be used in certain circumstances but us novices have to do the best we can sometimes and try to learn from it. After all NLP is still about results isn't it?

John

We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing,
while others judge us by what we have already done

chris_morris wrote:

Based on this, I'm wondering what is your definition of meta programs?

Good question Chris, because I sometimes question whether we are all learning different styles in certain subjects.

My definition:

A selection of questions (Basic meta-programs and complex meta-programs) that can find out more information about a client than the client already knows themselves. Meta-programs are one of our filters that are at the most unconscious.

I was taught meta-programs from an American Trainer who runs trainings in Sydney, Australia (don’t know if I can mention names). I would be interested to know your definition or others!

Martin

Yeah, my definition would be quite different. Meta programs are the programs that determine how, when and what strategy runs. They're programs that drive programs, if you like. (Hence 'meta'.) They're dynamic - changeable in time and context - and they interact both sequentially and simultaneously. (Hence they're not 'personality types'.)

Richard Bandler came up with this idea (based on discussions with Leslie Cameron-Bandler I think) so while I agree that anyone is free to label anything they like as "meta programs" (since it's not a protected term), I think there are correct and incorrect definitions of meta programs as the term applies to NLP. Maybe Eric or someone who was around in the early days can say more.