WHEN WHAT YOU SAY IS JUST WRONG

[I began a series back in March and April on Cleaning Up Language and then did not finish it. In fact, it slipped my mind— until a Neurons reader asked me about it. So with that jolt to my memory and intention, here is the next one.]

When someone is not being very clear or precise, the NLP tool par excellence to use is The Meta- Model of Language. This was the very first model created by the co-founders of NLP and was formulated into the great sleepers— The Structure of Magic Volumes I and II. I cleaned up at the behest of Richard Bandler in 1997 to commensurate the 25th anniversary of NLP. Today the expanded and refined NLP Communication model is now in the book, Communication Magic (2001, Crown House Publications).

Sometimes we call the Meta-Model— The Precision Model because that is what it is best for— eliciting precision from a speaker. That occurs by asking questions about the way the person has formulated his or her statements. What is the Meta-Model? It is a set of linguistic distinctions and a set of precision-eliciting questions.

But sometimes the problem is not that the speaker is vague, imprecise, confused, or engaged in fluffy or hypnotic language. Sometimes the problem is that the speaker is using language in erroneous ways. Sometimes a person uses language that is simply erroneous. What the person says doesn’t just lack precision, it is wrong.

Sometimes the language is so contaminated with erroneous ideas and false-to-fact assumptions, that there’s a contamination in the words and the ideas. I’m not talking about what some people would call “bad” words or curse words. I’m talking about something much, much worse and much more subtle in terms of its power to corrupt. This is a contamination that refers to something far more sinister and much more toxic. I’m speaking about—

1) the erroneous and pseudo-language that we inherit in language

2) our interpretative filters which can contaminate how we then explain something

3) the metaphors that we live by which mis-direct and contaminate thinking.

Erroneous Language Some language is just wrong. It is simply false. As a mental map it is fallacious in that it does not fit or correspond to the structure (form) of the territory outside of our skin. So as a map it will not enable us to go and experience that part of the territory. Sometimes this contaminated language is just a word, sometimes it is a phrase. Korzybski called some of these words pseudo-words. I quoted him extensively in Communication Magic (2001):

Pseudo-words: Just because we can make a verbal noise or spell out marks on paper which look like or sound like words, this does not necessarily make them true words. Korzybski designated such pseudo-words as noises (in the auditory channel) and as spell-marks (in the visual channel).

Before a noise or a spell-mark can exist as a symbol, something must exist. When it does, the symbol can symbolize that existing thing, process, or concept. In language and "knowledge" we have two kinds of existence: physical existence and logical existence. Thus unicorns do not exist in the external world of unaided nature. They do not belong to zoology. When we apply the word “unicorn” to the field of zoology, we employ a pseudo-word. If, however, we employ the word with reference to mythology or human fancy, the word there has a referent and so functions meaningfully as a symbol (pp. 81-82).

What’s the difference between a true word and a pseudo-word? A true word or symbol symbolizes something that exists. You can point to it. You can refer to it. A false word functions merely as a noise and does not refer to any actual thing or process. Obviously, if a person does not make this differentiation, that person will lack a vital skill for clear communication, thinking, and reasoning. Korzbyski noted that if we use noises as if they were words, we create all sorts of problems for ourselves and others.

"One of the obvious origins of human disagreement lies in the use of noises for words" (p. 82).

Actually, this a form of fraud! Korzybski made this pronouncement because it literally involves "the use of false representations." He illustrated this with the word "heat" (Science and Sanity, p. 107). He noted that grammatically we classify “heat” as a substantive (actually a nominalization). Yet physicists labored for centuries looking for some "substance" which would correspond to the substantive "heat." They never found it. It does not exist. Today we know that no such thing as "heat" exists. So what exists? Manifestations of "energy" (processes) and interactions between processes that create or release thermo-dynamic energy. So we use a verb or adverb (thermo- dynamic) to more accurately represents the referent. Today we recognize that no such "substance" as "heat" exists, so we talk about the process of "thermo-dynamics" as two objects or processes interact.

Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) has highlighted common pseudo-words of unsanity that torment lots of people and send them to a pit of emotional hell. These include: "awful," "horrible," "terrible," etc. What do these words refer to? Answer: Nothing. They function only as emotional amplification words. People use them to exaggerate an unpleasant and undesirable situation. When Albert Ellis was alive, I heard him many times challenge this philosophical nonsense. He would ask a client to explain why they said something was "awful" or "terrible" rather than just undesirable.

“What do you mean other than that you intensely dislike that and feel a strong aversion to it?” “Why is this experience ‘awful,’ ‘terrible,’ or a ‘catastrophe?’ I know that you don’t like it and that you wish you didn’t have to deal with it. I can see how unpleasant and distressful it feels, but why is it ‘awful?’”

Interpretative Filters The filters could be a wide range of processes from our meta-programs, values, explanatory styles that we have learned, cognitive biases that are mostly built into our neurology–brain. I usually start the confrontation with a description of their language patterns. Take, as an example, the word “you”

when a person is actually speaking about oneself. This is the generalized you. Yet the person does not mean “you.” The person means “me.” Yet the speaker has not said so. “‘You just always have to feel bad when they reject you...’”

When I hear that kind of language in the context of coaching, I always highlight it by feeding it back to the person so the person can hear his or her words and take responsibility.

“I have to feel bad? Me? ... You are talking about me?”

That typically elicits a “No, I’m talking about me.”

“Whew! [wiping my brow] and so you have to feel bad? So there’s a rule? You have a rule that requires and demands that you have to feel bad?”

“No, I just do.”

“Okay, good. You just do. And you do because you believe what? What has to be true for you in your mental map so that you just feel bad to the trigger of someone rejecting you?”

I will keep at this meta-modeling to create a greater sense of the precision of the person’s use of language and to straighten out the distortion that comes from using the generalized-you and making it an universal rule. And yes, oftentimes the person will experience this interaction as confrontative, even “debating.” Yet the purpose is to provide a way to clean up one’s language from a false map.