THE ART OF THINKING THROUGH YOUR EXPERIENCES

If there is a tendency to jump to stupid conclusions when you suffer an undesired experience, then part of the cure is the art of thinking through your experience. In that way, you can take the time and trouble to fully consider what the experience was and what meaning you can give it. I mentioned this in the last post. I also mentioned the Meta-Model as a way to gather more precise and specific information. From that I received several questions about how to do that. So here goes.

What do the questions of the Meta-Model actually do? They enable you to index the details and the context of an experience. This means that you extensionalize the words that a person uses in describing an experience so that you get empirical, sensory-based information about it. You index the time, the place, the person or persons, the context, and the processes involved. For example, imagine that someone says the following: “Relationships are hard. They are especially hard if there’s any conflict because then there will be bitter feelings and lots of anger, and people just don’t handle anger well at all. It’s better to just keep your mouth shut and not bring up anything that creates conflict. Then at least, you can get along.”

What is the experience being referred to here? Relationships. But whose relationship? Don’t know. So ask, “When you say ‘relationships,’ who are you talking about?” If you get, “Well, you know, relationships in general,” then again, keep indexing the referent. “Is there someone that you find it hard to relate to? Yes? Who?” That indexes the person.

Now index the time and place. “When did you find it hard to relate to Salina? What was the situation?” This helps to index the context. Now you can find out if this is typical or if it is unusual. Even if it is typical, you might want to ask about an exception, “Have you ever related to her in a way that you found easy rather than hard?”

Next, find out about the context. “What was going on that, for you, felt hard and that led you to think you ought not bring up something that might lead to a conflict?” Was it a conversation about money, scheduling, planning, options on where to go or what to eat, differences in how to approach a problem, or what? If there’s one or more contexts that the person finds hard, what is he or she actually doing that makes it hard? What did you expect? Were your expectations realistic or unrealistic?

We can also index skills. Give that “relationships” entails relating, communicating, understanding, seeking to understand, caring, exploring, accepting, etc., we might ask, “What are

your skills for effectively relating to Salena?” “What skills are missing that you might want to use?” “What are some of her skills?” “How do you generally go about talking about differences so that you are not ‘conflicting,’ but just seeking to understand each other?” “What conflict resolution skills might you need?”

You could index each person’s states. “By the way, what state do you get into when you think there’s a conflict or differences?” “Is that the best state for you at that point?” “What state does the other person get into?” “Do you help each other to bring out the best in each other or do you hinder by triggering the other person to become more defensive?”

All of this is what is meant by thinking through an experience. In the end you discover the difference between the many facets of what occurs and the meanings that you give to each of those occurrences. In and of themselves, experiences have no meaning. You, as the meaning- maker are the one who attributes meaning. So if an experience is personally difficult or painful —the likelihood is that it is your meanings which make it so. Your meanings are the primary culprit. Change them, and the experience changes.