NLP Connections - the ultimate NLP resource on the internet - and the largest NLP forum!

This is an unfinished article intended for some people I'm training, coaching or supervising. Many of them are NLPless, so I thought it would be great to get some feedback from you guys.
I would greatly appreciate your general or (better) specific feedback, comments, observations, questions, challenges, suggestions, etc. etc.

Be it from your churning gut-reaction or your kind heart, what ever you offer, cutting or kind, will be welcome.

go well

M
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fundamental Filters
These are what, in NLP[1], are labelled Meta-programs[2]: programs that create, control or influence the way we process data as we consider, decide or act in and on the world. These general and pervasive patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving, will influence what we focus on, the meaning we ascribe to what’s going on and the choices we make about acting or reacting to events.

I call them Fundamental Filters partly because I believe they can underpin and override almost every other emotional, psychological, intellectual, intrapersonal and interpersonal filter e.g. Political persuasion, religious indoctrination, childhood memories, sense of self, beliefs about the future, delightful or fearful speculations about death and afterwards, and many, many more. And partly because I imagine them almost as basic building blocks of personality, which I think of as the current result of innumerable accidents of time and space.




Our actions and reactions will impact on others according to their meta-programs or fundamental filters. Consciously or otherwise, we will register and be influenced by countless signs and signals. These might be

• Visual (a wagging finger, a smile or frown, a person ‘invading our space’, a shrug, a back turned, a hand offered, a fist clenched)
• Auditory (a voice raised, a baby’s laughter, neighbours arguing or playing music too loud too late, a kitten purring, an interruption, a cutting remark, a round of applause, a child weeping), or
• Kinaesthetic (a reassuring hug, a kiss, a clip round the ear, a pat on the back, a cosy cuddle, a massage, a sunny day, a spring shower); each and every one of them might turn us on or off, wind us up or bring us down, hold us back or move us forward, raise or dampen our spirits, make us feel important or impotent.
• Olfactory (the scent, perfume or aroma that a person gives off, the awfulness of B.O., the smell of fresh coffee in the morning, or fresh flowers given and accepted as a gesture of love. Axle grease, chalk, country air, baby-talc, grandpa’s pipesmoke, etc)
• Gustatory (the taste of Horlicks at bedtime, or toothpaste in the morning. A lover’s kiss, sour milk, red wine, roast dinners, cheese on toast, sea air, bile, beer, bangers and mash, etc)

We might not be able to control of what happens to us – credit crunch, traffic, weather, whatever – but we certainly have some choice about what we do as and after it has happened! What we make of that choice will depend on how we interpret and filter each event and experience.
Trite, trite again!
Although it might seem trite to say that we all process and ‘filter’ the world differently, it is also a truism that many people think and act as if there is only one way – the right way – their way!
There are countless filters, including memories, dreams and reflections, religious conviction, political bias, sexual orientation. Other filters include dreams and disappointments, meanness or generosity of spirit, (mis)interpretations, values and beliefs, old wives’ (or husbands’) tales, cultural norms, racial and sexual stereotypes, habits, fears, desires, real or perceived status, self esteem, myths and legends – and, of course, our changing moods.
The way we process data i.e. filter information tends to be habitual and repetitive, which means that, generally speaking, we can anticipate or predict how others (and we) are likely to act or react. Recognising how we (and others) are ‘filtering’ the world can be useful if we want to be more effective when seeking to motivate, influence or inspire people.
Working on the premise that different filters are not necessarily better or worse, just different, can help us to remain patient, considerate, and – who knows? - even compassionate in the face of attitudes and behaviours that we find antipathetic. That does not mean we have to accept or tolerate what we choose to find inappropriate or unacceptable, but if we can be curious, responsive, assertive, focused and thoughtful, rather than confrontational, reactive, aggressive, furious or truculent, we might find common ground for some of our journey, or go our separate ways understanding just enough not to carry the other person’s differences like a burdensome thing.

Emotional Intelligence
Knowing ourownfilters – what we hear, see, feel, imagine, think – as well as our bedrock assumptions and other limiting or liberating beliefs, could help us to be more confident and connected, which can reduce disagreement and dissonance.
If we have enough insight and maturity to be aware of and take responsibility for modifying our own less effective habits, we will be less reactive and more responsive and thus reduce the likelihood of pushing other people’s buttons.

Being less driven by emotion and adrenalin will strengthen the key components of Emotional Intelligence, enabling us to influence and inspire others more effectively because we are less often ‘at the effect of’ - and better able to be the cause of – what’s going on in the situation or relationship. Nothing and no-one will ever be effective on every occasion or make the right impression on everyone. Some people, for whatever reasons, and because of their filters, will have a wizened spirit or a lack of imagination. Believing themselves to be smarter, wiser, stronger, better, they “ain’t gonna learn nothing from no-one” who challenges the beliefs and values to which they cling so tenaciously.
If we constantly find ourselves ‘at the effect of’ other people’s dysfunctional patterns, and think, feel and act as if we have no choice about our own thoughts, feelings and behaviours, then we are probably as dysfunctional as they are!

Cognitive Dissonance[3]
Some people, for example, continue to smoke because they’re not letting interfering busy-bodies dictate to them! “I enjoy smoking [hacking, phlegmy cough] and it does no harm to me (or my baby or children)”.
This kind of denial is often driven by ‘cognitive dissonance’. Presented with metaphors, assumptions, paradigms or statements that clash with our own beliefs and values, many, probably most, of us will argue against the different perspective rather than accept, let alone welcome, the opportunity to re-evaluate, maybe modify our beliefs. There is nothing wrong with arguing our case or defending our own world-view against different maps and models of reality. However, if our voices are raised as we drift toward contempt, ridicule, anger, frustration, and tetchiness, a squabble can easily escalate into a battle. The moody person or persons, in that specific context at least, reveal a lack of self-awareness, making self-management doubtful. Not being able to manage[4] our own physical, psychological or emotional state makes awareness of or empathy for others virtually impossible. Either or both parties could be unwilling or, literally, unable to conduct themselves in an intelligent, rational, mature way, demonstrating instead the many sins and symptoms of inadequate emotional intelligence.

Influencing with Integrity[5]?
If you want to influence and motivate others, to be a person whose ideas and aspirations are treated with respect and consideration; if you’d like to manage others with their willing cooperation and enthusiastic engagement; if you want to supervise, coach or counsel in a bespoke way, it will definitely be of benefit to understand how the interplay between fundamental filters and cognitive dissonance can help or hinder their (and your) roles and reactions.

Many so-called ‘personality clashes’ result from one, or usually both Clashers being in the “you’ve got power; I haven’t” corner i.e. both experience themselves to be the impotent Victim and the other to be the bully!
Either or both might try to hide their basic insecurities, inadequacies and timidity by acting tough, or by faking compliance whilst plotting revenge. Such clashes are often based on little more than a mismatch on one or two Fundamental Filters. Understanding this helps to preclude, reduce or eradicate a lot of the futile, petty, nit-picking squabbles that characterise so many transactions, supervision sessions, relationships, team-meetings, marriages and other arenas that necessitate clear and critical thinking and decision making. Even if our passion leads to heated debate, we do not need to descend into another verbal or physical boxing-clever match where each tries to knock the other person’s ideas out of the ring by volume or force of will (Right! That’s it! NOW the gloves are coming off!). To make oneself feel big by trying to cut other people down to size is a sure indication of lack. To ‘win’ at the expense of other people or of the quality of life is a pyrrhic, and, to be frank, infantile and stupid ‘victory’.

Either/or - Both/and.
It is a ludicrous though useful distortion, full of deletions and generalisations, to imagine each pair of filters positioned at opposite ends of a spectrum. We might be anywhere along the line, moving back and forth moment by moment, depending on a myriad factors in any given time and place. There will be something of potential value at either extreme or any where between. Bear that in mind when you are at loggerheads with another person. You’re all glorious Generalisations; s/he’s all nit-picky specifics. She’s getting on your nerves because s/he keeps “Yes, butting”; you’re driving hir crazy because you’re obviously a dreamer who doesn’t pay attention to the all important details! It gets problematic when we get stuck at any stage, or engage in battle because we only see either/or and lack the wisdom or humility to allow or explore the possibility, or accept the validity, of both/and.

You decide!
At decision time, or when committing to action, we might have to make a clear distinction between either this or that (or both). However, in the process of discussion, exploration, mediating, conflict resolution, negotiation, brain-storming, counselling, teaching, supervising, etc., there is usually much to be gained by eliciting high-value information to understand better what compels any of us to move toward or away from, to focus on the big picture or dwell on the details, to seek the familiar or yearn for the novel, to long for the past or try to distort the present in an attempt to shape the future. It is at times like this that Crafty Listening can be of tremendous help!

A few Filters:
Sympathy (give/take) Mastery (win/lose)
Big picture / Detail
General / Specific
Necessity / Possibility
Self / Other
Similarities / Differences
Towards / Away
Solutions / Problems
Past / Future
Internal / External
Self / Oothers
Either-or / Both-and

WORDS THAT CHANGE MINDS[6]is a fantastic book based on the Language and Behaviour [LAB] Profile – a relatively easy to learn tool that enables us to understand and predict from someone's language in everyday conversation, how s/he will behave in a given situation. You can then, if you so choose, and hopefully with integrity, adapt your language for specific people and groups to encourage, motivate and inspire people.

If you ever get an opportunity to attend anything run by Shelle Rose Charvet, take it!

Taking advice

The research behind this model suggests that 40% of people in a work context use their own internal standards to decide the best course of action; 40% will take advice from others and the rest will decide depending on the context. Interesting, certainly, and it gets useful when you can predict, or at least anticipate how people are likely to filter.
If you’d like to look deeper, this workshop might be of interest and will be of benefit to you.

[1] Neuro Linguistic Programming: all experience is neurological (we experience the world through our senses). The linguistic is the unique ‘language’ of our brain – internal images, self-talk, interpretation of feelings, memories, positive or negative hallucination about the future, etc. And the programming results from the process and conclusions involved in making sense of sensation i.e. the body/min/spirit patterns and paradigms that we run as we constantly re-present our neurological experiences.

[2] I have also heard them referred to as Processing Preferences

[3]Leon Festinger's 1956 book, When Prophecy Fails.

[4] Not to be confused with self-medication!

[5]Influencing with Integrity Blog

[6]WORDS THAT CHANGE MINDS: MASTERING THE LANGUAGE OF INFLUENCE Shelle Rose Charvet (published by Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque, IA, 1997, 2nd edition, ISBN 0-7872-3479-6).

Ok I wrote some gut responses, and re-reading they come across pretty harsh, especially when you relate it to somethign you have written yourself. So I hope you find this useful rather than just slamming.

If you dont, feel free to pick on my spelling/typing throughout this post as both a re dreadful.

My first response is to clean up the description of the stimuli in the various Sensory Systems - Visual, Auditory etc. and use SMD terms instead of "examples" - by keeping it specific to the Modality you avoid crossover where someone experiences one of your examples under a different modality than the one you have assigned.

Visual is simply anything you can SEE color, shape, size, brightness, ect
Auditory anything you can HEAR Tone, pitch, timbre, vollume etc
Kino Any physical sensation, Heat, cold, wet, dry, pressure, weight etc

using phrases like "invading your space" under Visual to me is confusing as it is quite a Kino expression.


>>>>>>>>Some people, for whatever reasons, and because of their filters, will have a wizened spirit or a lack of imagination. Believing themselves to be smarter, wiser, stronger, better, they “ain’t gonna learn nothing from no-one” who challenges the beliefs and values to which they cling so tenaciously<<<<<<<

I personally don't like this bit talking about how your filters limit and influence your perspective and then going on to declare other people as having "wizened spirits" or "lack of imagination" presumabaly because their filters don't match your own when it is equally correct to see you filters are not set up to deal with the expression of their world view... especially in an article about Emotional Intelligence.

Over all I found the article hard to read with lots of long rambling sentaences and lots and lots of nominalisations... I kept trancing out and had to go over it several times to try to find out waht you were saying. Some writers use this effect deliberately, and it is more suitable for some audiences than others, so perhaps you are aware of this potential effect.

I undertsand that the article is not finished yet but what is the purpose of the article, what is it intended to acheive, as mostly after reading it I'm left going Huh?

Mog,
As I have to catch a train, I will reflect on your observations in more depth later. For now, just three comments.

First and foremost, thank you for taking the time and energy; I appreciate it and certainly find it useful because it has made me reflect.

with regard to
It is not quite a Kino to me, partly because we can/do see and feel space simultaneously, and partly because I believe that (many) people who are processing visually like have a little more distance (e.g. from another person) in order to get more into their visual field.

If that other person is processing Kinesthetically, s/he might prefer somewhat less space in order to feel closer (literally and metaphorically).

As each adjusts hir position, albeit infinitesimally, the one who is processing [primarily] kinesthetically might feel that the other is aloof or distant, whilst the one who is processing [primarily] visually might see the other as getting too close for Komfort.

We do, it is and I am!

thank you again. go well

coolies.... glad I wan't just coming across as nasty and that the feedback has been in anyway useful.

Mog wrote:

Ok I wrote some gut responses,

Not quite straight from the heart, eh?

Quote:

and re-reading they come across pretty harsh, especially when you relate it to somethign you have written yourself. So I hope you find this useful rather than just slamming.

Had you not re-read and re-evaluated your responses, I am not sure that I would have read them as either harsh or slamming. I try to look for the useful in any feedback - (even if it’s intended as harsh and slamming!). And even if I didn’t find your comments useful, I would be disinclined to retaliate by picking on your

Quote:

… spelling/typing throughout this post as both a re dreadful.

Quote:

My first response is to clean up the description of the stimuli in the various Sensory Systems - Visual, Auditory etc. and use SMD terms instead of "examples" - by keeping it specific to the Modality you avoid crossover

I am not convinced that we avoid ‘crossover’ by keeping to sensory specific predicates. Indeed, if that were the case, there would be no need to learn how to match predicates to facilitate e.g. pacing and leading.

Also, I really like crossovers precisely because all sorts of interesting things can happen when

Quote:

someone experiences one of your examples under a different modality than the one you have assigned.

Visual is simply anything you can SEE color, shape, size, brightness, ect
Auditory anything you can HEAR Tone, pitch, timbre, vollume etc
Kino Any physical sensation, Heat, cold, wet, dry, pressure, weight etc

Quote:

using phrases like "invading your space" under Visual to me is confusing as it is quite a Kino expression.

I like and encourage confusion, and actively seek to generate it in (some of) the people with whom I work. I know that many people feel very uncomfortable with confusion. They believe their map IS the territory and are discombobulated by cognitive dissonance (a clash between certainty, possible discovery {even if they struggle against it or have to work at it} and a potentially richer map). When I check out my assumption that their problem is not with confusion but with their discomfort, my assumption proves to be correct very much more often than not. Mostly I check out my assumption by asking questions and/or interrupting their {spoken} narrative, which is usually 'evidence' to justify the paradigms and/or excuse the thoughts and feelings that keep them running on habit and denying responsibility for their 50% of the ongoing problems they complain about.
When my pattern interrupt is effective, the other person is likely to experience some distress or discomfort. At this point I might get them to focus on, connect with and listen to their {scripted / programmed} relationship with basic human emotions: / / / .
Then I endeavour / coach / empower them to upgrade their emotional literacy and increase their emotional intelligence.

[quote]>>>>>>>>Some people, for whatever reasons, and because of their filters, will have a wizened spirit or a lack of imagination. Believing themselves to be smarter, wiser, stronger, better, they “ain’t gonna learn nothing from no-one” who challenges the beliefs and values to which they cling so tenaciously<<<<<<< [/quote]

Quote:

I personally don't like this bit talking about how your filters limit and influence your perspective

I subscribe {at present} to the notion that meta-programs (can) influence our perspectives either by limiting our horizons or liberating us from emotional, psychological, cultural and social constraints, I would be very interested to know and would find it helpful to know what specifically you don’t like about this bit (e.g. is it style or substance, content or form, or…?)

Quote:

and then going on to declare other people as having "wizened spirits" or "lack of imagination"

SOME other people, and I too, can be constrained by a lack of imagination to such an extent that they (I) feel trapped by their (my) patterns and paradigms, by their negative self-talk, by their self-doubts … etc. It is often the case, I have found, that helping people to modify their fundamental filters (meta-programs) often results in increased self-worth, a broader perspective, a deeper sense of connection, more compassion, a willingness to recognise the validity of other people’s maps (even though they (I) might still beg to differ)

Quote:

presumabaly because their filters don't match your own

An erroneous presumption; It would suggest a profound lack of imagination to assume that other people have anything at all simply because they think or process the world differently. There are, of course, many people who seriously lack the imagination required for a conscious awareness of 'mind in others', and without that awareness, it it virtually impossible for them to experience true empathy. (they often express sympathy, tho, but that's usually because they think other people experience pain or pleasure exactly as they do!)

Quote:

when it is equally correct to see your filters are not set up to deal with the expression of their world view...

I am not sure how it is correct – and would be interested in your thoughts on this, Mog.

Quote:

especially in an article about Emotional Intelligence.

This is not an article about EI, although I think awareness of and elegance with metaprogams can increase EI.

Quote:

Over all I found the article hard to read

Given the reasons you’ve articulated here, I accept that it was hard for you to read; I know all too well that I am not every one’s goblet of fire! (What’s that they say about one’s man’s mate being another man’s passion?)

Quote:

with lots of long rambling sentaences

Mea culpa! Mea Culpa!!

[quote] and lots and lots of nominalisations...
True! True! or, to put that another way. Truth! Truth!

Quote:

I kept trancing out and had to go over it several times to try to find out waht you were saying.

And I can understand that would make my writing less easy (not to say more difficult) than might be preferable.

Quote:

I undertsand that the article is not finished yet

And, to reiterate, this discussion is very helpful!

Quote:

but what is the purpose of the article,

To inform some folk (teachers, drug advisors, parent mentors, managers, teams, adoption professionals, parents, team leaders, hypnotherapists, entrepreneurs, etc) that I train, coach or supervise

Quote:

what is it intended to acheive,

It is intended to support my face-to-face work by provoking thought, and challenging limiting beliefs and bed-rock assumptions. To generate confusion, to invite debate, argument and discussion, to raise self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management. And expand horizons, to increase confidence by adding to their repertoire of skills. Also, hopefully, to stimulate, motivate and inspire more learning even if

Quote:

… after reading it

so that they and I hope you (and I)

Go well

Hey,

I wonder how context and state depending filters fit the description "fundamental"

Have fun

Bart

...Validation...

Good question, Bart ... Fundamental Filters usually works well (enough) for people, on first hearing it, to 'get it', which does not always seem to be the case when talking to the NLPless about 'meta-programs' (although perhaps that's due to my poor communication skills?). Also, lest they offend the Gods, I emphasise that 'meta-programs' is the proper terminology!

It also makes it simpler for people to to share the idea with other NLPless persons, but I base that on what they tell me, so I could be wrong.

Also:

Quote:

I imagine them almost as basic building blocks of personality,

I might have let my imagination run amok!

go well

Coolies - glad you wouldn't have seen them as harsh... so hard to anticipate how people will respond to text based responses.

If you like and encourage confusion most of my comments will not be especially relevant as my main issue was finding the article confusing and finding ways to lessen that effect, however as it a deliberate tool you are using then you are weilding it well and to your own pourpose.

In a training or coaching session, I have to face to face contact with people, in which case I am (usually) able to help them navigate the discomfort and feel/think differently about confusion.

If I submit this for printed publication, I will probably explain more and strive toward greater clarity. Thank you

go well
M