THE GREAT DISTINCTION

The great distinction is the difference between a problem and its symptoms. They are not the same. One is the cause, the other is the result. As a result of some cause, a symptom is a sign of that hidden cause. It is literally what ‘happens’ (Greek: sumpton) with (sym-) something else (literally, sym-ptom). Hence, “a characteristic, sign, or indication of something else.”

An amazing thing about problem solving is that many people confuse problem and symptom. Why is this? One reason is because symptoms are almost always problematic. They give us all sorts of problems, pains, distresses, etc. Given that, it’s really easy for a person to take a symptom and call it a problem which thereby creates a confusion as well as the lack of precision. This is one of the challenges which is built into language itself.

But calling something a ‘problem’ does not make it a problem. And while it may make sense that we do experience symptoms as ‘problems,’ that’s an accommodative use of the term, not a precise one. Just as we often call external events as a ‘problem,’ and call the consequences as a ‘problem,’ so we call symptoms a ‘problem.’ Here the term ‘problem’ is generalized and used vaguely with the result—of generating a lot of fuzzy thinking. The solution in The Five-Minute Manager training is to distinguish the true problem from the problem-confusions (external conditions, symptoms, contexts, consequences, and contributing factors).

The next step is then to ask precision questions about symptoms. This is a symptom of what? At what level? Maintained by what kind of thinking? Is it a symptom of a direct thought, a belief, an assumption, etc.? All of this, as described by Hernán Vilaró, “nudges us upward into the meta-levels.”

I took his nudge upward into the meta-levels by deciding to divide the meta-levels into three areas or classifications. These give us some large level categories of the meta-levels for the creation of problems and symptoms.

1) Direct thinking: representing, editing, languaging. The thought directly and immediately leads to a symptom. Think a sense of loss, feel sad. Think ‘that’s a violation of my values,’ feel anger. Think ‘that’s a threat,’ feel fear. Here as you think, so you feel. And because thinking and feeling are close in time and space, it’s easy to identify the source of the symptom.

>

2) Layered thinking: thinking-about-your-thoughts, the meta-stating process of state about state which can lead to at least 16 different kinds of interfaces [see the Interface page in the APG manual or in the book, Meta-States]. This creates complexity in both thinking and feeling. When you feel disgusted about your anger, what do you feel? Anger, disgust or what? When you are afraid of your embarrssment, what do you feel? This is just the first layer, that is, one thought upon one thought. When you layer several upon a single thought, you are likely to create gestalt states (as you learned in APG about Meta-States).

>

3) Assumptive thinking: at this level, the thinking which is creating the symptoms is outside-of-consciousness and because of that, much more difficult to identify and address. Here we operate by assumptions and presuppositions that we do not question and do not test with critical thinking. At this level, because we operate assumptively, we simply assume “this is the way reality is,” and feel fated by those assumptive beliefs.

By distinguishing symptoms from problems, we can use the kind of symptom as an indicator of the level of the problem. At each level there will be a different kind of distorted thinking which is creating the problem—the mental block which is stopping or interfering with us achieving our goal or finding a solution.

This also has a tremendous impact on our problem-solving. It means that anyone who is well-trained in cognitive psychology (e.g., NLP) regarding thinking, believing, and languaging should be able to solve first level problems and symptoms. That’s our objective for managers in The Five Minute Manager training.

For problems at the ‘layered thinking’ level, it will generally require someone having more training in NLP, Meta-States, and in the Coaching methodology (e.g., Meta-Coaching, Modules I, II, and III). Here someone knowing the Mind-Lines Model will thrive as a good problem-solver. Here someone who has studied the structure of ‘meaning’ (semantics) will also thrive and be able to deal with the more complex symptoms.

For problems at the ‘assumptive thinking’ level, a person needs a fuller understanding of human psychology and a good bit of experience as a professional therapist. That’s because problems and symptoms at this level are incredibly subtle as they hide outside-of-conscious awareness and requires the ability to call them forth which means managing all of the defense systems that grow up with them.

Ah, symptoms! Symptoms are tricky little things that so often masquerade as ‘the problem,’ and can even disappear from sight to become our blind spots. Symptoms can even masquerade as ‘the solution’ offering us various secondary gains thereby tricking us to think that we need the symptom, it’s our friend. But they are not.

Symptoms, they are not all the same. And because of the levels of meaning that we construct in our mind, symptoms differ according to those levels. And the bottom line: symptoms are but symptoms of a problem, and not the problem. So, how are you at making the great distinction?