COMMUNICATING WITH NLP

NLP most essentially is “a communication model.” This is what lies at the heart of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. For anyone still trying to figure out a way to explain NLP, or to tell someone what it is, there is an easy answer. Simply say, “NLP is a communication model.”

What’s the evidence for this? Lots! For beginners, the first NLP model was The Meta-Model of Language. And the first two books were titled: The Structure of Magic: A Book about Language and Therapy. This underscores another basic NLP concept, a concept that has to do with communication. And in NLP, we have several of the NLP presuppositions that deal with communication.

You cannot not communicate. The meaning of your communication is the response you get regardless of your intention. When you communicate, there is no failure, only feedback (only responses).

The Language of Communication A foundational idea about communication in NLP is that the language of communication involves not only words, but visual images, auditory sounds, kinesthetic sensations along with data from the other sensations. These are called “the representational systems” and language is called “the meta- representational system.” These were the first variables that the developers focused on, and because they were trying to figure out “the magic” in the language patterns of Perls and then Satir, they worked out the “linguistic distinctions” and the “questions” by which a person could enable a speaker to be more precise. Later they focused on the non-linguistic variables, what it typically mis- labeled “body language.” (See The Structure of Magic, Volumes I and II)

You Cannot Not Communicate. This statement highlights that when a person is in the presence of another person, even when he is not speaking, he is still communicating. That’s because even silence communicates. What you do not say, which is expected to be said, communicates. Communication involves the “messages” to each other and these consist of words, gestures, movements, all sorts of things. Even when you attempt to not send a message—that in itself is "a message."

NLP realized from the beginning that a great portion of communication occurs via non-verbal channels. We communicate by both what we say and how we say something. You communicate via your tone, volume, facial expressions, breathing, posture, etc. These are para-messages along with the content of your words. Yet because they can be put in a meta-relationship to each other, when that happens, they become meta-messages. Saying, “I love you” sarcastically or with your fingers crossed can communicate the opposite in spite of the words.

Further, where we speak and communicate governs the meaning of our messages. If you say, "I love

you!" will mean something different when said at home to a child or a parent, at a party to a friend, at a gathering of employees, on holiday to a lover, etc.

The meaning of your communication is the response you get, regardless of your intention. This statement was the NLP premise that first captivated my attention and got me involved in NLP. When I first read it in the book, Frogs into Princes (1978), the statement stopped me in my tracks. For the longest time I sat silent at the table where I was reading. I was reflecting. From the outside, someone could have thought that I was asleep or in deep trance, but inside my mind was working a thousand-miles-an-hour going over all of the ramifications of that statement. And there are many.

Until I read that statement, I had not even questioned the common assumption that meaning is inside of words, that words mean, therefore any confusion about meaning probably is due to the person’s lack of understanding, comprehension, intelligence, bias, etc.! My working assumption was that when you say words, you communicate the meaning that’s inside the words. “I say what I mean and mean what I say, and if someone doesn’t get it, they are not paying attention or are incompetent or something!”

But this statement, The meaning of your communication is the response you get, changed everything. It framed meaning as an interaction between two people concerning what someone says (and how he says it) with what the other person hears (and how one interprets the words). Suddenly I saw communicating as much more systemic, interactive, and relative. In fact, given this premise, then I never know what I have communicated. And I won’t know until I check with the other person to find out what she heard, how he interpreted it, and what it meant to that other person.

The meaning of your communication is the response you get suddenly enabled me to understand the word “communication” itself. It is a communion that is shared and co-created (co-communion). No wonder people have such a hard time understanding each other and really getting each other. Talking is not the same thing as communicating. The exchange of information that occurs when two or more people are talking is most ideally a dialogue (the passing of meaning back-and-forth and through each other (dia- through; logos- meaning).

Communication inevitably and inescapably involves a system of feedback responses from sender and receiver. The response I get from the other person tells me the meaning of my words and non-verbal expressions to him. The meaning communicated then does not depend solely with me, it is an interaction between saying and hearing. The effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of my communication depends on checking on what the other heard, adjusting my messages, checking again, and continuing until the feedback loops of message-sent and message-heard correspond.

All this is basic to NLP and makes NLP critically important in our everyday communications. Even if a person just takes this one piece, it would completely revolutionalize her life. It would defuse “taking insult” from words. It would completely remake how we argue for our point of view. It would improve the quality of our communication ten-fold (1000% percent). It would make leaders more effectively,. It would stop all mis-communications.

Want more? See The Structure of Magic (1975, 1976), and Communication Magic (2001).